CONDITIONS FOR INCORPORATION OF SINGAPORE IN MALAYSIA AS CONTAINED IN PAPER COMMAND 33 OF 1961 (Representations for alterations)

Mr David Marshall asked the Prime Minister whether, in the context of the terms for incorporation of the Borneo territories in Malaysia, the Singapore Government has made or will consider making representations for any alteration in the conditions for the incorporation of Singapore contained in Paper Command 33 of 1961.

The Prime Minister: Sir, the Singapore Government consider it unwise and against the interests of the people of Singapore in any way to depart from the published terms and conditions for merger contained in the White Paper and amplified or amended by the formal exchanges of letters between the Prime Minister of the Federation and myself. These terms had been publicly debated and voted upon by the people. Any departure from these terms will make it necessary to have the whole matter redebated and re-endorsed.

Members will know that there have been some strong feelings and some strong statements about these financial arrangements between Singapore and the Federal Government after Malaysia. Whilst it may be preferable for the Federal Government to have Singapore on par with the Borneo territories in respect of finance, we do not consider it either practical or advantageous to us to depart from our agreed terms in which we shall collect all the taxes, including Federal taxes in Singapore, and the present machinery will be retained for that purpose. We shall then make a contribution for Federal services in Singapore and for our fair share of Pan-Malaysian services like Defence and Foreign Affairs. There are at present some delicate discussions on the formula for the payment of such Federal services.

For the benefit of the Member for Anson, who I trust is one of the more interested Members of this Assembly on constitutional matters, I would like to draw his attention to the relevant parts of the White Paper in paragraph 17 and the exchange of letters. There he will see that paragraph 17 of the White Paper says:

`In view of the larger measure of local autonomy and the consequent large expenditure on Singapore services and development' ---

and development, Mr Speaker, Sir:

`--- the financial relations between the Federal Government and the States set out in the Federal Constitution will not he applicable in their entirety to Singapore..The present machinery for the collection of taxes in Singapore will be retained.

The proceeds of the national taxes will be used to pay the cost of Government and Public Services in Singapore and the Contribution to the Federal Government for Federal services. The details of the apportionment' ---

that is, apportionment between contributions and what we keep:

`--- will be worked out by the Joint Working Party.'

In the exchange of letters we stated:

`Finally, we have agreed that Singapore would keep more than three-quarters of her revenue for the discharge of her responsibilities on education and labour, social welfare, health and all the other matters set out as state or concurrent responsibilities in the schedule annexed to our memorandum, and be entitled to 15 seats in the Central Parliament of the new Federation.'

Sir, I do not know whether the Member for Anson, when drafting this question, was alluding to the 40 seats which have been awarded to Borneo and Sarawak -

Mr David Marshall: Inter alia.

The Prime Minister: Perhaps he was. We welcome this generous brotherly approach to unity in Malaysia. However, we think it to be inappropriate for Singapore to have arrangements in which for several years to come the 40 Members of Parliament from Sarawak and Sabah will be elected not on a universal franchise but on a collegiate system suitable to Borneo and her long-houses. We have none here. It would, in fact, mean that 30 out of the 40 of these members from the Borneo territories would be in part nominated as chiefs or otherwise leaders of their communities, various long-houses and rivers and so on, tribal territorial chiefs and so on and so forth. I am quite sure the Member for Anson, who has travelled in these then foreign lands, is conversant with the tribal customs and mores of the people there and he will appreciate that the Federation Prime Minister did the right thing in taking such a generous attitude. However, I must assure him that I think the people of Singapore would not take kindly to any suggestion that the various clans should foregather and elect various representative; or that we should have Hokkiens, Teochews, the Huay Kuans, the Jewish synagogue elected members and so on. I think, having been accustomed to the one man one vote from the base upwards, it is better that we stay that way. And in any case, I have the feeling that if we multiply ourselves by three from 15 to 45, we may end up by having even less say in the centre if this system were applied to Singapore.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, I have no doubt the Prime Minister finds himself amusing in misconstruing the question I sought to ask. May I repeat it a little more clearly? It is this: we have from time to time received news, seeping through the newspapers, of conditions applying to merger both of Borneo and Sarawak and conditions extremely favourable to those territories in respect of the powers that they have, inter alia indicating that they will have 40 representatives in the Central Parliament, thereby having a very strong voice in the Central Parliament quite apart from the representation that Brunei would have, of which we do not have details yet, which would add to about three to four times per capita representation that Singapore would have in the Central Parliament irrespective of the manner in which they are elected, reducing Singapore and its people to insignificance in the Federal Parliament. In that context, does his Government consider that - not looking at Singapore in isolation hut looking at it in the context of the whole of Malaysia - it would be appropriate to ask for justice - for fair play for Singapore from the Federal Government?

The Prime Minister: That is exactly what we are doing, Mr Speaker, Sir. We are insisting - not only asking - on fair play. I think the city of Singapore that has thrived for over 100 years under solemnity of the contract will appreciate the point that a contract having been made has to be honoured. In this case, for the reasons I have enumerated, we feel - regardless of what the Member for Anson feels - that the people of Singapore are with us in this, that it is more important we control our finances and retain more than three-quarters of our revenue and pay our contribution to the centre and have 15 seats as agreed than to reopen any of those items, running the risk thereby of reopening the financial arrangements which have already been agreed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, everybody knows that if you sell rubber short and the price goes up, then you lose money; and vice versa. Singapore understands this. If you go to Change Alley and buy an imitation Parker 61 for $5 and the day after that the market is flooded with more imitation Parker 61s and the price goes down to $1, you cannot go hack to the shop and ask for your money back. Similarly in this case, we have come to this agreement in which we feel we bought a genuine Parker 61 for a sum of money and we are keeping more than three-quarters of our revenue, and I mean keep. I do not mean that this Assembly will remain a truncated appendix of some Central Parliament. We shall have the power of dispensation. The Member for Anson will, after 31st of August, have the power to have his say on the expenditure of a vast sum of money every year - more than $500 million. Of that, an estimated $70 million may go to the centre for Federal services, police, posts, telecommunications and so on. It may be more: it may be less. We will have to work it out. If he wants the Borneo terms in which these powers are delegated for the time being -d elegated, which is a different thing from ours as of right - then it is a different proposition. Then I would say the whole of these merger arrangements are scrapped; we start afresh; we redebate afresh; the Barisan runs around afresh -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Prime Minister and all Ministers should realise that this is not the time for debate. The Prime Minister, by those statements, is now inviting a debate and a debate is not permitted during Question Time. Any other supplementary questions? No? Mr David Marshall.