MALAYSIA AGREEMENT

2.43 p.m.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's recommendation that this motion be proceeded with. I beg to move the motion standing in my name.

As the House will have noticed, my motion has been phrased in several parts:

In pursuance of the resolution of this House taken on the 10th June, 1963 that there should be an early settlement fair and just to both sides on the basis of the terms of the White Paper (Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961) and mindful of the long and arduous battle for merger, this House

WELCOMES the successful outcome in the final agreement reached in London on 9th July, 1963 which agreement contains the terms in the said White Paper with amendments made on a quid pro quo basis, Singapore getting a Malaysia Common Market written into the Constitution in return for a percentage of Singapore's revenue of national taxes instead of an annual lump sum as contribution for Federal services in Singapore, and -

This is of some importance, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I would like to underline these words -

TAKING COGNIZANCE of the exchange of memoranda on the financial arrangements as in Misc. 4 of 1963 which sets out the basis on which the Singapore and Federation Governments arrived at their respective percentages and the component parts thereof, and -

I would also like to underline these words -

SUBJECT to the fulfilment of the conditions set out in the exchange of letters between the Singapore Government and the Federation Government and the Singapore Government and the British Government contained in Paper Misc. 5 of 1963, this House

ADOPTS the constitutional provisions and amendments contained in Paper Cmd. 22 of 1963.

I would like to underline first. Mr Speaker, Sir, that this adoption is subject to the fulfilment of the conditions set out in the exchange of letters. As Members may be aware, some of the conditions and terms agreed to between the British Government and ourselves and the Federation Government and ourselves are - the British Government with regard to Service lands and $10 million for the Second Infantry Regiment, and, from our point of view, for reclamation of land in place of land retained by the British Government for the bases; and in the case of the Federation Government the other items set out.

First, may I apologise, Mr Speaker, Sir, for the somewhat lack of melody in my voice, hut I can assure the House that I will try my best to be audible, to be simple and be straightforward, because what is required now is some straight talking.

Sir, I do not know if Members have received copies of our proposed amendments -

Mr Speaker: There is a paper intituled "Malaysia Agreement Paper Cmd. 22 of 1963 Corrigenda", and a letter dated 25th July, 1963, from the Prime Minister of Singapore to the Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. Are those the two documents?

The Prime Minister: That is so.

Mr Speaker: They are with the Clerk and can be distributed.

The Prime Minister: Yes. Have they been distributed, Mr Speaker, Sir? Would they?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Copies of the documents distributed to hon. Members.

Mr Speaker: I am not quite certain how the Prime Minister proposes that this Corrigenda should get into Paper Cmd. 22 of 1963. Subject to what the Prime Minister has to say, perhaps it might be convenient if this Corrigenda be marked as Paper Cmd. 23 of 1963, and later on, at the end of the motion, there could be added a reference to the further amendments as contained in Paper Cmd. 23 of 1963.

The Prime Minister: Thank you very much for this proposal, Mr Speaker, Sir. I so agree that it be named Paper Cmd. 23 of 1963.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Prime Minister again. I understand there is already a Paper Cmd. 23. This should be Paper Cmd. 24.

The Prime Minister: So be it.

Mr Speaker: Mr Prime Minister, please continue.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, this debate, which will end on Thursday evening, marks the end of an era. That era began in 1945 when the British troops returned to Malaya and, by a unilateral act of the British Government, Singapore was severed from the mainland. The struggle went on inside and outside official bodies, the then Legislative Council both here and in the Federation, until 1948 when the M.C.P. launched its armed revolt.

It reached a turning point in the year 1957, August 31st, when the British decided to grant Malaya independence, but not Singapore. Singapore, it seems, was ordained to remain forever in semi-tutelage with internal self-government but with supreme authority in matters of defence, foreign affairs and, for that matter, internal security in the hands of the British Raj.

I do not wish to detail an account of the years 1945 to 1948 or, even more unpleasant, the years 1948 to 1957. Suffice it to say that this unilateral division of the country was never accepted by the peoples either of the Federation of Malaya or of Singapore. In Singapore, for the purposes of this debate, the last few chapters began with 1955, when the first semi-elected Assembly assumed office with elected Ministers working with British officials in charge of Home Affairs and Finance. Year by year we went back to London with more or less greater or lesser results. And for us, the last chapter to merger really began with 1959. Then for the first time power, other than defence, foreign affairs, and internal security which were shared with Malaya and the British, was bestowed on a completely elected Government.

Sir, the history of Singapore and indeed the history of South-East Asia may well have been different had we decided any other way. In 1959 we were quite convinced, even before we assumed office, that there was no other way. The nexus between Singapore and the Federation was so complete that to perform dissection would have taxed the skill of the greatest political surgeons who ever existed, and certainly there were none either in Malaya or in Singapore or, for that matter, in Britain. Singapore, it was generally recognised, was dependent on Malaya for many things. 40 per cent of its entrepot trade, nearly three-quarters of its water supply. And it was believed that with a friendly Government in the Federation, Singapore could be kept indefinitely a military base in semi independence. In 1956, the Member for Anson, to whom history has given a few lessons - or he has chosen not to learn from them - led an All-Party delegation. It failed, partly because he did not understand the circumstances in which Singapore was placed and the determination of the then British Government that it should remain in semi-tutelage.

I urged the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, a very able and forceful character, who decided to give independence to Malaya, that he should, despite the advice of his officials, tie up Singapore with the Federation, for there was too much at stake. As it was, the talks failed. We returned, and the British, in a completely empirical manner, true to their traditions, played for time and played their hand out for the last few years, from 1956 to 1959. We went back each year, in 1957, to reach agreement in principle; in 1958, to sort out the constitutional details. By then, the Secretary of State for the Colonies had accepted the fact that if Malaya was lost to the Communists, then Singapore could not be held. Indeed there was every danger that the Communists would be more successful in finally capturing this area if the territories were kept apart than if the territories were kept together. But it took another two years - from 1959 to 1961 - before the British were convinced of the next step of the argument: that if Singapore was not in Malaya, then Singapore and Malaya would ultimately be lost to the Communists. The British had hoped that the Government that would come into office in Singapore would be satisfied with what the former Chief Minister (the Member for Anson) described as "the sensation of power", the Prime Minister, the Ministers of the Government, and even one Infantry Regiment to do it honours. But real power resided with them. They expected an elected Government, i.e. us, to keep their bases viable. In order to do that, the anti colonial struggle must be muted and the Communist menace crushed from time to time as it manifested itself. And indefinitely we went on as a semi-colony.

It took a full two years before we brought the British Government round to the view that our conclusion was correct. If played that way, both Singapore and Malaya would be lost. Slowly the unpleasant and brutal facts were placed before the Federation Government. What had been publicly known was that Malaya was vital to Singapore, but what we did not emphasise, lest we offend our friends across the Causeway, was that Singapore was vital to their survival. Quietly over the golf course, sometimes even across the poker table, and sometimes over a meal, a friendly discussion always came. It had one theme song: merger is inevitable, either by consent or by force of one territory over the other. Let me say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the possibility of Singapore overwhelming the Federation is not a possibility to be altogether dismissed. Being what we were, having regard to the susceptibilities of our friends in the Federation, the line was put over softly, gently, and politely. Finally a note was struck in the hearts of the Federation Ministers. On the 17th of May, the Tunku came down to announce that he had decided that there should be a closer political and economic association of the Federation of Malaya, Singapore, and the three Borneo territories.

The rest of that is recent history. Suffice it to say, on 3rd June I responded. On 10th June, my colleague the Deputy Prime Minister stated terms which were basic and fundamental to a successful merger, terms on which merger could be achieved between the Federation and Singapore. Autonomy in many matters, including Labour and Education.

Then the real fight began. For the first time, after shouting and denouncing the British for all these years since 1945, the Malayan Communist Party did a right-about-turn. They denounced merger and Malaysia as a piece of neo-colonialism. Sir, I do not know whether they really believed in it. Perhaps they have shouted it for so long that they have bemused themselves into believing that it is true. But today I will tell part of the story. I cannot tell the whole story because sometimes recent history should be allowed to pass without comment for time to mellow judgment. I know enough and I can disclose enough of recent history to prove that it is not a colonialist plot. It took a lot of persuasion and argument to bring the Tunku around to merger. And he only wanted merger with Malaysia. Sir, I do not blame him. Being what he is - anxious to preserve what he thinks are the valuable traits in the Federation, a stable rural population that provides security and ensures the continuance of the Alliance Party in power - he was reluctant to embark on a project the result of which he could not foresee. Without the Borneo territories, the Chinese would outnumber the Malays and, with it, the logical consequences of its effects on the balance of power.

Sir, the British encouraged the Tunku to believe that eventually he could get the Borneo territories because it was a good idea and generally it was a good thing. You will remember, Mr Speaker, Sir, in November/December 1961 there was a little bit of argument as to the future of the defence bases in Singapore. The argument was presented as a problem of defence bases. But, in truth, it was the reluctance of the British to give up their territories in Borneo. That was a backwater - silent, calm, placid - and their rule could have endured for another decade or more. The Governor of Singapore - a gentleman of no mean talent - felt that he had served his penance in Singapore, as Chief Secretary and then as Governor when he had to govern through the then Chief Minister. He governed. He was not anxious to upset North Borneo and its peoples; neither was the Governor of Sarawak. But I give this compliment to the British, as I give to an adversary whom I respect, a compliment not to be lightly dismissed. Competent, capable, with a great deal of knowledge of the ways of men, like an electronic computer with an immense amount of data fed in, data of over 400 years of governing and manipulating human beings.

For two years they tried to manipulate us into doing what they thought was the role of the Singapore Government - keep the bases viable, break the Communists up from time to time, and carry on. For two years we resisted. Then one day they decided that it just could not go on. And the fight began. The greatest ignominy that had befallen the Communists was the fact that a Scottish feudalist

• in their terminology, I do not call him a feudalist as I think he is extremely competent in his own way as a representative of an Empire, persuaded a group of highly suspicious and security conscious Communist-front operators to come out into the open, and the fight began. The Communists were playing hide and seek - for the Government, against the Government, sometimes for so long as it is for the benefit of the people, as they say, sometimes against. The Tunku was not contemplating merger or even Malaysia for that matter. What he wanted was a clean-cut decision, then he would take over security for both Singapore and the Borneo territories. And he wanted no more than security. It is partly because of these historic beginnings that we had such an immense amount of trouble subsequently.

After Anson, we had that motion of confidence in this House one night, and the break was final and irrevocable. Then we talked business with the Tunku. There was no pre-arranged or pre-conceived plan as they thought. They were bemused and deluded. The British arranged in the midst of the Anson by-election to bring their Governors over for unnecessary consultations to arouse their suspicions, put them in a state of fright. They panicked and broke away. They came out from the bushes and made a bid for power, an action they will always regret. Their policy was the united front. If they cannot unite with nationalists who are democratic socialists, who on earth could they unite with? So they have found themselves in an ignominious alliance with the Liberal-Socialists, the United Democratic Party -

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): The Member for Anson.

The Prime Minister: The Member for Anson. They even tried to inveigle the Member for Hong Lim. But there was no more cover. It was a bit of nylon for a fig leaf and when the rains came, it was most embarrassing. All this was a tortuous process, and what was required was absolute and utter determination and the nerve to see it through. Even right now, it needs nerve to see it through to the 31st of August. Not me, just one man, because one man cannot see this through. It needed sufficient resolution in the whole group of men. I am proud that it has been the privilege of my colleagues and myself to have played a part in this. We settled the terms. Because the Tunku was fearful of labour troubles, general unrest, instability in Singapore and possible bankruptcy, he was anxious to have as little as possible to do with us as he could. But he knew he could not afford to give away security. What he wanted was the police, army and foreign affairs. The rest we can run ourselves -

An hon. Member: Prisons.

The Prime Minister: Yes, prisons. I beg your pardon. Thank you. My colleague has just reminded me. The three of us - the Minister for Culture, the Minister for Finance and I - brought the wrath of the Communists on us because we went up there, played golf, talked over dinner and lunch. They hated us more than the others because we forged this thing. We put in civil aviation and telecommunications because we think it makes nonsense of a federation for us to have to make a trunk call every time we want to go to Johore.

Then the White Paper was agreed, the basis of which was that we should have 15 seats in Parliament. This is a few seats less than what we would be entitled to in a complete merger. In return for this, we ran our own State. Mind you, at that time, Mr Speaker, Sir, the general impression was that we were bankrupt because there were strikes, banners, protests, marches and a whole host of other things which made Singapore appear, on the surface, financially an unattractive proposition. But all that time when we were drafting that White Paper together, the Finance Minister knew that he had a surplus each year, calculated and designed, meant for development - a surplus of over $100 million.

Then came the Cobbold Commission because the Tunku stood firm that he would not go ahead without Borneo. So through the months of argument, debate, the open encounter, which ended with the referendum.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the moment we settled that, new problems began. For then some very unwise politicians in the M.C.A. in Kuala Lumpur thought that since all was agreed now, was passed, then they could not only eat their cake, but also have it. So you see in Paper Misc. 4 of 1963 a curious exchange of memoranda. Sir, they have to be published because at the end of 1964 a review must take place. In our computations, even at its inflated best, even with confrontation and the Army and Navy and Air Force doubled and internal security for Singapore no longer the responsibility of the British, but four battalions must be raised locally, we do not believe that money can be spent, nor indeed will be spent. Because to get $1.80 from us, the Federation Government has to spend $8.20. So I do not think they will spend it. Knowing the Finance Minister and his colleagues, I do not think they will spend $8.20 just in order to do us in by $1.80. That is the ultimate figure we have arrived at.

Now, you will see in Document I, the first proposal by the Federation side. Meanwhile the officials had been meeting. We met the Ministers for the first time on the presentation of the paper dated 21st of March, Document I. There was the proposal. I am sorry to have to go into this, but it is necessary to place this on the record. The Member for Cairnhill says this is all a lot of eye-wash. These documents speak for themselves. There was a proposal that they should collect our money, contrary to the terms of the White Paper. They wanted to collect because by then they had discovered that, far from being bankrupt, we were a prosperous State and, therefore, if they collected and doled and paid for our expenses, they would collect a surplus of $110 million each year.

In Document II is our counter. We said we were prepared briefly to give them a share of Singapore's prosperity, provided the Federation ensured that Singapore prospered. And it could only prosper if it had a Common Market on terms which would allow over a period of time an adjustment of Singapore's economy. Any sudden cataclysmic change would have been disastrous. That paper was rejected by the Federation side in Document III. The only concession they made was they were still to collect, but they would keep only half the surplus. Not unnaturally, my colleagues and I were not greatly impressed or grateful for such a suggestion. Then the long wrangle - part of it on the golf course, part of it in the conference room, part of it over the luncheon table. Finally we got down to calculations, and Documents IV and V are projections of revenue and expenditure for 1964, based on actuals for 1961 and on provisional actuals for 1962.

In Document VI, on 10th of June, I made a statement to this House. I was convinced, and so were my colleagues, that merger was inevitable. But I was not convinced that the success of the new Federation was inevitable, and it was our duty to ensure that in so far as is humanly possible it should have a good start. To plunder Singapore, which Document I would have done, would have been a bad start. I would not have put my money on it if we had agreed to Document I. Because then over the years, as the people realised the financial implications of the terms on which we were absorbed by the Federation, bitterness would rancour in their hearts; and without a successful Singapore, Malaysia could not succeed.

Document VII, Mr Speaker, Sir, is what is known in the newspapers as "the ultimatum". I saw in the newspapers the Member for Cairnhill waiting patiently outside while the ultimatum was being considered inside the Cabinet room. I do not know whether he was for Singapore. But even if he was, I wondered whether that was the way to fight for Singapore.

Sir, this is an extremely complex situation. If you fight too harshly and too hard, then you bring about bitterness that is bound to endure into Malaysia, and make the sense of unity and purpose and amity between the peoples less likely. If you yield and give way, then you will be raped and plundered, and that makes Malaysia a certain failure. So between the two extremes, a balance has to be struck. I do not want to deal in detail with the financial arrangements. My colleague, the Minister for Finance, who bore the brunt of the detailed work and the argument with his counterpart in the Federation, will do so. If I know him, he will do so competently.

Document VIII was our reply. It is not easy, Mr Speaker, Sir, - no, Document IX, I am sorry, the point-by-point reply. Document VIII was the ultimatum. Document IX was the reply. On the 22nd of June, on a Saturday, we sent a letter.

If Malaysia was a neo-colonialist plot, all this would have been unnecessary. The British had the power constitutionally and in actual fact to bring this about. But I think they were wise in not exercising that power. They allowed free and open negotiations leading to a voluntary and satisfactory conclusion. If Malaysia was a neo-colonialist plot, today Brunei would be in Malaysia. For the Sultan exists and survives by leave and licence of the British Army. But they are also sufficiently wise and prudent to understand that the ruler has the support of the large bulk of his people, sufficient for even Azahari to treat him with some respect to leave well alone. But I am quite sure too that the gradual process of attrition, the wearing-down process of argument day in day out will finally ensure that fair and just terms are agreed and endorsed by the peoples of Malaya and Brunei. I am not unhopeful of the future. I have read what has been said in the papers, and sometimes I think it is wiser not to say some of these things. But nevertheless, I think the Sultan was deeply hurt by many things that happened in Kuala Lumpur. I think also some of the Federation Ministers, in their state of anxiety, were unnecessarily severe in their expressions to the Sultan. I am also convinced that this electronic computor which has learnt how to handle chieftains, revolutionaries and revolts and mutinies over 400 years, even though getting a bit old and not quite as good as it used to be, will bring its whole force to bear on this little sultanate and eventually Malaysia will triumph by reason, by argument, by logic, and not by force. I can pay no better tribute to them than the fact that in the last round they really beat us in London. Sir, we had them, as the expression goes, by the neck. We had settled with the -

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): By the throat!

The Prime Minister: Sorry. By the throat. We had settled with the Federation. We had not settled with the British. We had put in our claims. All W.D. lands with no title to be returned forthwith to Singapore. Consternation, Mr Speaker, Sir. Meanwhile the Secretary of State had joined forces with the Federation to coerce us into getting us to cough up for Borneo. Finally, $100 million, interest free for 5 years. Originally, it was almost a hundred per cent labour, Mr Speaker, Sir. All labour which cannot be found in Borneo must be taken from Singapore. The Tunku intervened. But before that, the moment it looked like settling, we presented the claims. Then the British said they would cough up the lands. But only part of it. So we said $20 million must be paid as compensation for lands which are retained. I am quite sure that if only we had waited another 24 to 48 hours we would have got the money. But for various reasons the Tunku believed that 8th July was a lucky day by the stars. The British knew this and they worked on him because they could not work on us and get us to give way. We lost because the Tunku said we must sign on that night and so the signing began at quarter to twelve on the 8th of July. I think it ended about 12.10 in the morning of the 9th of July. And we had to give up. From $15 million we agreed to $10 million. Was this a neo-colonialist plot?

The basic factors were there, and the moment the U.K. Commission here drew the Communists out into the open, their days were doomed. They allowed the fight to go on. In the last resort the gun would have to be used, but they left it alone. Very wisely too. They made a decision in 1957, when the Member for Cairnhill was the Chief Minister, and again in 1958 - he did not make the decision; the Governor did - that the P.A.P. shall go on. The then Director of Special Branch, when he saw the way the elections were going in 1959, decided to hop it.

Mr Rajah: What does that mean?

The Prime Minister: That means scoot! If they had their way, they would have done the stupid thing, as they always do, Mr Speaker, Sir. They never calculate. They always play poker, as I often do with the Member for Cairnhill and with the Tunku, just to pass the time of day in order to get one or two odd points in. I always lose. I never win. I am no good at bluffing. It is true, Mr Speaker, Sir. The game of bluff is one which I find a very unprofitable and a very hazardous thing to do. I am telling him right here and now. There are no cards closed; five cards in hand: changing - pretending to change two, keeping three. None of that. My cards are on the table. It is within the power of the Opposition to block this. If it does so, Malaysia is postponed: there will be general elections. But I am confident, because the bits and pieces on the chess-board have been calculated. Even if he wanted to, U.M.N.O. cannot do it. They cannot go against the signature of their own Tunku. And this is what the bundle of documents handed in means. The Tunku has agreed, and unless they want to disavow their own parent organisation, they must vote for it. Therefore, it will go through. And I speak this knowing the bits and pieces on the chess-board, as we always try carefully to calculate the possible moves and counter-moves.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at last we have reached almost the end. Another 30 days. Midnight of 30th. One second past midnight, I hand over security, police, prisons, Army. I will no longer have an Infantry Regiment to salute me. They will only line up outside this Assembly by leave and licence of the Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaysia. But as against that, I will no longer have to look and care for the safety of the Members opposite. So it is not such a bad exchange. We are going to keep 72 to 73 per cent of our revenue.

The calculation varies according to the projection. It is between 72 and 73 per cent. Of course, even before the agreement was signed, they denounced it. They have always denounced it. The noose is around their throats and they know it. And those whose hearts are guilty must be unhappy at nights. And that is as it should be. They have 30 days left. All I want is peace, quiet, tranquillity for the next 30 days. And I mean it. Whilst I am in charge, it is my duty to see that law and order is maintained. If anybody breaks it, he meets the consequences of the law. It is quite simple. There are the courts. We go in accordance with established practice. The Member for Thomson complains bitterly. He got the Member for Cairn-hill to side with him. As I have said, he does not know which side he is on, except that I know he is always on his own side.

Mr Rajaratnam: The wrong side.

The Prime Minister: In this case, I think he is on the wrong side, as my colleague has said, because if he has been going around, he will know that there is a great deal of feeling about this. A blunt unthinking act.

Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, the broad agreement - the financial terms which for two weeks really occupied so much of our time and tested our nerves. We are giving 27 per cent of our total revenue, or 40 per cent of national taxes, not giving it away free. All the police officers will be paid by the Federation. We have 5,000 officers as against the Federation's 20,000, i.e. 25 per cent is in Singapore, to be paid for. Prisons - we have got two. We are now going to build a new one and knock down the old one. I have said it will not be my responsibility, but I am quite prepared to forward any memoranda on the shape and size of the windows for sunshine and whether the bedsheet should be on the left-hand side or the right-hand side of the wall. The people who have tried to ruin the country ought to be grateful that no worse fate is in store for them. Prisons, Telecoms, Post Offices, Civil Aviation, the Courts and Judiciary -

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Meteorological offices.

The Prime Minister: Even the Meteorological office.

An hon. Member: Make rain this time!

The Prime Minister: We will make rain. Do not worry. Singapore always forges ahead, Mr Speaker, Sir, despite everything. We innovate. We started T.V. We started rain-making. We will start a lot of other things. That is in the nature of things.

Sir, in return for this we have a Common Market. I expected this to be received at least by right minded men who are not Communists with rapturous applause and praise for the Tunku, if not for me, at least for generosity of the Tunku and his Deputy. But the Member for Anson has again gone off the beam. I read in the newspapers that he has denounced it as a sell-out: that we in four years have done more damage than the British did in over a hundred years.

Mr Rajaratnam: Than the Japanese.

The Prime Minister: Than the Japanese. I do not know whether he knows that this is the end of an era. It will not be unfair to put it in this way: that as things get tougher - and things will get tougher because, as I have said, we are not showered by congratulations as we come into being (very far from it) - we have to be on the lookout for enemy agents. I mean "enemy" in the proper sense of the word, in war. And those who aid and abet the enemy will go down with him, and we will suffer none in our midst. This, I am sure, reflects in a very mild way the views of the two Ministers I met last week - the Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation and his close colleague, the Minister for Internal Security. I saw them with regard to the matters in the letter which I have tabled in this Assembly. I also discussed a few other things about the transitional provisions on the 31st August. I can tell them and the Members on the other side that although we have our quarrels with the M.C.A., we have none with either the Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation or his colleague, the Minister for Internal Security. That is because we did a lot of calculation. I can tell them that knowing them for what they are, they are not likely to shirk the responsibility to use their strength - and they have strength, Mr Speaker; the Opposition to Malaysia should believe me when I say that they have strength; do not believe that all these little upheavals in Penang and Taiping are going to upset Malaysia. No. They have real basic ground strength, and they have no hesitation in using that strength to see that Malaysia remains secure, prosperous, and progressive. We are with them on that.

Sir, the Member for Anson has criticised the Common Market. I will leave the details to my colleague, the Minister for Finance. All I would say is this: eight wise men, learned in these matters, came from the World Bank. They are men who drafted or helped to draft some of them, the Treaty of Rome, on which the prosperity of the European Economic Community was based. The report has been published. Annex J of Paper Cmd. 22 of 1963 sets out all the main terms of this Common Market. I quite believe the Member for Anson is an intelligent man. In fact, the then Colonial Secretary in 1956 said, in a rather patronising way, that he was quite an intelligent fellow. But the trouble with him is that he is too clever. I am prepared to put my reputation on this matter on the side of eight learned experts, practical men of the world, whose business is high finance and economics as against the judgment of the Member for Anson. I am quite happy and satisfied to test public opinion by the expressions of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, whose President has welcomed it, and who is, in fact, in the midst of setting up a few factories, and very wisely too - why not, and miss the opportunity? - the Indian Chamber of Commerce, the British Singapore Chamber of Commerce. These are men of commerce and trade is their lifeline, and they say, "This is good." Five years of complete free port status while we industrialise product by product. For the next seven years, we gradually harmonise. And we can refuse to put on any tariff but pay them a percentage of the taxes which they would have got had we put a tariff on. In other words, we have 12 years in all. If we cannot succeed in 12 years, then I say, we do not deserve to succeed; we really will perish. And it will be because of the evil machinations of men opposite, and their smiles will be wiped off their faces when the moment of brutal truth dawns on them.

This is literally the end of this era, Mr Speaker, Sir - three more days (today, tomorrow, and the day after), then we adjourn sine die. When we meet again, it will be under the new Constitution. We shall probably miss some old friends and some old enemies, and maybe the country would be the better for it. I make no bones about it. We have fought and put our lives in our hands, and our necks on the chopping block. For two years we have fought them. And I will fight them for another 30 days, and never flinch from it. I beseech the Member for Queenstown not to misjudge the situation. Twice he has already made an error of judgment, now leading to a lot of inconvenience - flying out counsel - to himself and his colleagues. I would much rather that they led more quiet and peaceful lives. They nearly started one in the Harbour Board with 100-odd hard core chaps. I say, the Fire Brigade is ready. Let us have no arson before the 31st of August. After 31st August if they want to take on the Malaysian Army, Navy, Air Force, together with the P.K.I. on their side, it is up to them. Good luck to them. I have not the slightest doubt of the outcome and if they are in doubt, they should have their heads examined.

Sir, repent? I say no. I should not say this because I would like them to sleep well of nights.

Sir, merger always has been a historical necessity and those who oppose it will, in Marxist phraseology, be buried by history. My colleagues and I on this side have read enough of Karl Marx to understand their thinking. Buried by history, Sir, is a phrase which means you are a fool. I mean "you" metaphorically. You went against the current and inevitable process. My colleague says it is not too late. Well, good luck to them. Maybe if they change, go to church and pray, or kneel down, count their heads, there is still time.

As I have said, the battle really began in 1945, 18 years ago. But for the last four years, the dramatis personoe have been - (1) the British (2) the Communists (3) the Federation Government (4) the Singapore Government. Four principal actors. Not all ad idem, Mr Speaker, Sir. From time to time, each finds his interests affected and shifts his position. I will give you a simple illustration. In London when the British wanted us to cough up for Borneo, they were with the Federation side squeezing us to make us pay; they suggested a free loan of $150 million, free of interest for 10 years. I was so astounded by the suggestion, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I bit my lip. I calculated and I said that was $80 million. I got the shock of my life. So the matter was dropped. We were kept awake at nights. Mind you, so were the British team. But they sustained themselves with pots of - I saw some hot milk being boiled, while they offered us whisky and soda, which I thought was a very friendly and hospitable way of doing business - abstemious on their part, hospitable to those who were their guests. They only gave up one night or rather one morning. I think it was Thursday morning before the Monday we signed, when they sent a representative and banged on our Committee Room. We said we were in session and in popped the Deputy U.K. Commissioner. He found us sitting down with a typewriter box stacked with sandwiches and all other necessary condiments and sustenance for the battle. Then they gave up. Because he knew we could go on well into breakfast time and it would still be $103 million, five years free of interest, labour from Singapore. Then they gave up.

But the moment we put the claims on the British, an immense transformation took place. The Federation Ministers, three of them, suddenly became our allies. They became our great friends and supported us in the claim to get the land back and get a lot of money. Because, not unnaturally, the more money we got, the more money we were likely to give them. These were the strains and stresses between the four principal parties.

Now, Sir, as a good Marxist, if I were the Member for Queenstown, I would exploit these contradictions. There was a contradiction between the Members on the Front bench opposite and us over the 15 seats. He could have exploited it to his advantage. He threw it away. He will never know what a ghastly error it was. Here we were all for Malaysia. We were all for a non-Communist - they wanted an anti-Communist, we want a non-Communist Malaysia - never mind. Anyway, no Communist. But for various reasons, we wanted 15 seats before Malaysia. They had a chance to prove to the world that the people of Singapore, if ever they believed in it, were against Malaysia. They say the referendum was rigged. Here was the chance of a contradiction to be exploited, but it was thrown away. Alas, what poor Marxists they were!

Well, Sir, what happens after? I have given a fair resume of what has taken place. Of course, there were some side characters - clowns, court jesters, general retinue. The Member for Anson played his part, a useful sounding board. From time to time he comes in like one of these Punch and Judy shows. Suddenly the lion roars, dashes across the stage, vanishes. The Member for Cairnhi1l, the faithful follower and retinue, defended by the Alliance, who said he was only taking orders as is his duty if he wants to survive. Then there was Dr Faust - Dr Lee, the Member for Queenstown. He was Dr Faust. He went to Medical College and he never read this book. I went to Raffles College and I read a little book called "Dr Faust". A man. Marlow, wrote this book. He said Faust sold his soul to the devil. He bought time and had a wonderful time in the `process; he did everything he wanted. What a glorious time - the leader of the masses. What did he say over T.V.? Eighty-thousand people, he said, turned up at his May Day rally last year and this year 40,000 - braggadocio. This year we counted there were 12,000. Last year we counted there were 30,000. But nevertheless, tumultuous applause; systematic applause, Sir, the rhythmic clap is a wonderful thing; it is a thrill that only those who have been on the platform with the microphone can understand; the sensation of power - ecstasy. "But the time has come," says Mephistopheles. "Your time is up." And so it will be. Thursday night, the end of an era - as you leave the Chamber, if you do not mind, Sir, after you have left the Chamber, for old friends' sake, Should Old Acquaintance Be Forgot - Auld Lang Syne. We meet again under a new flag. The British Union Jack is down. No nonsense about all this neo-colonialism. Everybody who says that the Federation Parliament is a neo-colonialist one, will be dealt with in a summary manner, and quite rightly so.

There have been others. The Member for Hong Lim and his famous resolutions. He plays a curious role, Mr Speaker, Sir. He is like a vulture waiting for our friends in the Barisan to disappear. The Barisan has got a flag dashing into battle with slogans on it. He has the same flag with the same slogans. He is hoping that when that flag is burnt up, the followers will take the lead from his flag, and so he inherits the 25 per cent blank votes. But he is clever enough not to get too close. If he is too close, then when the fire is opened, he might get killed. So he leaves a respectable distance between the Barisan flag and himself. I would say that he could be Mephistopheles if he were born in a different age, because he had the kind of approach for it. I was reading the papers. He was exhorting us to massacre the Opposition. "Ah, ah, here is another swipe coming." Waiting for it, he says. "If only these chaps will disappear." No leaders left. He has the same slogans. Whatever they say, he says one day afterwards. One day afterwards, he comes out with the same slogans. Sometimes he makes a mistake, but he quickly retracts because he is wise enough to see he does not get into trouble.

"Three cheers for Azahari," said the Barisan. One day later, the Member for Hong Lim said, "Three cheers for Azahari." One week later, he said, "Down with Azahari because he is anti-Chinese." And by the time Azahari got to Jakarta, he said, "Down with the whole Brunei revolt." He was in favour of Singapore helping to keep down the Brunei rebels. He is a vulture of no mean intelligence hut rather superficial. He also never calculated beyond the brink. What happens after the abyss? I say, quite frankly, in the new era, those who wobbled along the brink will find it a bit gusty and windy. It is better to come hack safely to land, abjure all these things, denounce Communism and adventurism. They have denounced the Member for Hong Lim as an opportunist in their publication. I have it here with me. The word they use is "opportunist" in the Plebeian. I say that the biggest opportunists were the 13 of them.

An hon. Member: Fourteen.

The Prime Minister: Yes, 14 of them. They thought they were going to win. I am not interested, Mr Speaker, Sir, in who wins or loses. I am determined to see that Singapore survives as a coherent, sensible and happy society. I have a stake in this, Mr Speaker, Sir. I do not sell the Tunku De Havilland aeroplanes or try to build airports. I am not in the contracting business. But I have a family here rooted, unable to run away, and I am determined to see that Singapore remains a happy and sensible place where nobody is slitting each other's throats, shouting mass slogans and ending up in chaos and anarchy. There will be a new play when we next meet. After this Session, we will prorogue. There will be a recess, a new Constitution, and new dramatis personae. But we will be deluding ourselves if we believe that the Communists have been disposed of just by merger and Malaysia. We will be deluding ourselves if we believe that by scrubbing out the Barisan or knocking out a few of the front leaders the ground position will be resolved. The ground position has improved not because the Barisan has been scrubbed out but because they have been left there to make mistakes and to expose themselves for the lot of political adventurers and opportunists that they were - anti the people. Finally, that is what they came to. They who talked of the masses ran away from the masses that night in Hong Lim.

Sir, whatever our shortcomings - I do not make any pretence; we have quite a number - there is no anaemia amongst my colleagues. We do not suffer from leukemia. We have enough red corpuscles to see the country through. Yes, we lost Hong Lim two years ago. We will go back and fight again. They booed us at the referendum. They got booed back. They booed us at Jalan Besar. They were booed back, and they nearly ran away too. But that night at Hong Lim one week ago, was poetic justice. All I did, Mr Speaker, Sir, was to draw the attention of the crowd to the fact that here were people who were moaning the fact that the country was going into a haven of security and prosperity. And they got so frightened that they switched off the lights, ran down the stairs and scooted. [Interruption in Mandarin] The camera does not lie. They are always afraid of the camera. They go round like bandits tying handkerchiefs and covering up their noses. Why? Are these really heroes of the revolution? Did Lenin do these things, stay in his Party headquarters and send pregnant women into battle? Really, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not bothered and concerned with the front leaders, but I am bothered and concerned with the gentlemen that I have met whom the police cannot find, and they are men of no mean calibre. Yes, I concede that we have never made the error of under-estimating our opponents' capacity for harm, and they have enormous capacity for harm. With a small group of people, they can mount an enormous offensive.

At the last rally in Shenton Way for the referendum, they were really good, Mr Speaker, Sir. I can only think of the Catholic Church as equally well versed in these things - the expertise. I was watching the Coronation on television in Europe as it took place by Teistar linkup, and Pope Paul was `crowned not inside St. Peter's but outside in the Square with 500,000 people watching. It was a really massive demonstration and an emotional experience not likely to be forgotten by those who took part, and on television for the world. I am quite sure they must have studied some of these things. I happened to be in St. Peter's when the first Pope appeared on television and it was quite a fascinating experience. I have said this before, without irreverance, that I admired and respected the technique. The Pope came out in his palanquin shouldered by chaps with scabbards and hats and so on with due pomp and panoply. As he came down the aisle, I heard shouts of "Viva il Papa" and the crowd underneath shouted "Viva il Papa" and nuns and other devotees went into an ecstasy. Then I looked up at the pillars and at each pillar on the aisle was a set of choir boys. They knew how to do it. They triggered it off with "Viva il Papa" and there was a ground reaction of "Viva ii Papa". It was very good, Mr Speaker, Sir. When 1 saw that Coronation, I said, now that was the way to install a Government - not this silly business. We tried to do that in the City Hall but it was not quite as good. Next time, we will do better. We live and learn. Oh yes, we always learn. Never make the error of believing that we are obtuse, obstinate and obdurate. When we make mistakes, we admit them and we learn from them. The old Ministers used to be sworn in inside Government House - a little private cosy party - and then they drank sherry with each other. But the Pope was there. There were 500,000 people in St. Peter's Square packed like sardines and everybody who took part in it would remember it to his dying day.

And they tried to do something like that in Shenton Way. We watched it. We sent chaps to watch. Five hundred chaps will suddenly walk off and then walk round the block and come back the other side. So you get a feeling that lots of fellows are coming to the meeting. In fact, they are the same chaps - the same 30,000 fellows. That was what they had there - the maximum. But they were good - the clapping and the cheering. They were trained and they made a lot of noise for 30,000 chaps. But then the ballot boxes were opened that night, the Member for Nee Soon - he has lost interest now in life generally or lie is fed up with all politics and quite rightly so. If I were him, I would be fed up with politics. [Interruption] Yes, his survival instinct is the best of them all. He is the most intelligent chap of the lot. That is why he cannot be bothered with all this. Why should he? This is all leading to an impasse, a confrontasi from which there is no retreat. And he does not want to be in it.

But let us never forget that the battle goes on. We will be deluding ourselves. And I want to stress this because sometimes in jest one says things which are taken seriously. I do not believe you can resolve these things by just chopping off a few heads. It cannot be done that way. It can be done - we have demonstrated that it is possible - by two concurrent weapons. One is economic and social progress, an expanding economy, a rising standard of living and rising expectations. We turned the tide, Mr Speaker, Sir, when we built houses, homes, schools, clinics and community centres. There was the tangible evidence of a better life. That is the first arm and that was why we were determined that we should keep our money to provide amenities to the people even if it meant no merger. But it would have brought merger anyway because there was too much at stake. Even if for the moment, let us say it was postponed for six months or for one year, it would have come hack because the basic factors have not changed.

The other arm is the open argument. They lost out on the open argument. They were telling lies to the people that they were sold out on citizenship. The Member for Anson, who was with them, suddenly right about turned and bit them and said, "Oh, miraculous." Now he has decided that he has no chance to cash in on the pro-merger support. So he goes hack to anti-merger. What he lacks is a little bit of ballast in him, otherwise he would not be doing these things. He is like a straw in the wind. He is a bit erratic. As I have said, in that one year when he was Chief Minister, never was so much humbug enacted by so erratic a Chief Minister in so short a time. I have to crib Churchill for that. I think that was what I meant. [Interruption] No, Sir. I will not be so unkind as to say that. One makes up one's mind where one stands. Everybody recognises after a while; it may take sonic tune. People thought we did sell out Singapore and so on. They were spreading the lie to the people. They thought that with their cadres on the ground and signing all these petitions and organising and, according to them, 98 per cent of Kreta Ayer was against merger. So they said. When the ballot boxes were opened, they got the shock of their lives because Kreta Ayer had the least of the blank votes. What was it - three per cent, four per cent? Three or four per cent. They were clever people. They were not like our Alliance friends. Our Alliance friends were waddling around not knowing what it was all about. But they had 14 chaps. They knew that we wanted to know where their support was. They did not know which constituency was on which table; but we had to have 51 tables for 51 constituencies. I concede when my opponent intelligently beats my plan. They knew that if we wanted to know the result we must count table by table. And so into the ballot boxes they threw in the ballot paper and the polling card which showed the constituency. It was very clever. A submarine device; an anti-submarine mine. The next time they go there, they will find that we will also put in polling cards of many constituencies all into the same boxes. They will then have to think out another way.

But the men behind them are intelligent. They never did this. I wanted to do this the intelligent way because I know the battle goes on. So I said, "Fifteen seats, fight it." No power is attached to the 15 seats. This is important. But the men behind are intelligent. They never did this. For with the 15 seats we could have proved to the world that the people of Singapore were for Malaysia definitely beyond any doubt. We could also have found out how much their support has been whittled down in the one year. Yes. And if anything goes wrong, it does not matter because it is a controlled experiment. It is only 15 seats. No power. 15 in 159 seats. There was a long-stop. The wicket-keeper, long-stop. But I am thinking of obtuse gentlemen now. A forced 51 seats before March next year. They probably thought they could get an advantage, an edge over us. We had also taken that into account. Hence the back of the envelope says "delegation of powers to detain secret society gangsters." That is one of the amendments in Paper Cmd. 24. There will be no gangsters running around at election time. They have also learnt. We live and learn. If chaps switch sides, the next time they will go out of this Chamber. Why not? Anybody who comes into this Chamber on the basis of his Party's symbol, when he backs out from the Party, he leaves. Yes. We must be prepared to live, learn and innovate. And I say we will do it. What is more, if we are intelligent, we will succeed.

Sir, before I go into the constitutional provisions - I will take probably 45 minutes to draw Members' attention to the important parts - I would like to place on record my appreciation and that of my Government for the dedication of a band of officials who were not only able but who also worked very hard. They went beyond the normal bounds of duty. They fought for what was right for Singapore to do the right thing by the Government they serve. I would like to say to them that their effort was appreciated. It made a big difference because it saved me from having to read every single document from cover to cover. I have to peruse them. But it does help if we know that some sharp intellects have been through them, marked up the parts which looked dubious or spurious and left me to decide.

Our problem, over the years, as the enemy underground increases in intelligence and experience, is to find more and more people of ability on our side, because ultimately this battle can only be won if there are enough men of integrity and ability to run the democratic system. Two things are fundamental. If there is no integrity the whole thing is a humbug. If it is self interest, then it will go down in corruption, decadence and disarray. If there is integrity, piety and goodness but without the ability to give it the drive and the dynamism that it requires, then it cannot go very far. That is our problem, both in the public service and in public life generally. And as we secure stability in Malaysia, it is more likely that we will draw men out. More and more are taking on duties and responsibilities beyond their professional lines, as members of public boards and statutory corporations. More and more will be convinced that they have a duty and a role to society if they want the good things that they know and the good features of this system to endure.

Sir, now may I run through very rapidly the important provisions? I have not the slightest doubt that they will be attacked by Members on the other side. I am not the slightest bit concerned because they are honourable terms. They can be defended and justified at any time and every time.

Sir, first, if they will turn to what is the most important section - page 73 of Paper Cmd. 22. There in Part II, Members will see our local autonomy: Education, Medicine, Labour and social security, Pensions, Factories. Concurrent List - List IIIB. These are all under the control of the State Government. I think I would like to draw the attention of Members to item 20 at page 74:

`Until the end of August, 1968, and thereafter until Parliament with the concurrence of the State government .... elections to the Legislative Assembly.'

And so all this humbug that the Singapore Government cannot be trusted to conduct the elections will now cease. This is what the Tunku signed and agreed upon.

Sir, there is one section for which an amendment will still have to come. There will still be several amendments. One is the authority for prosecution by the State Advocate-General. That will be made by an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code. We are not quite sure yet how best to do it. The parliamentary draftsmen in Kuala Lumpur and our State Advocate-General are in consultation.

Then, if I may run quickly - page 98 of the Federal Constitution. Article 131 provides for appeals from the Supreme Court to the Federal Court. Then at page 35, Article 50 of Command 22 of 1963: Audit. Then pages 213 to 231, minor amendments to the customs, excise and income tax laws under the financial agreement. Members know that this was a vital matter in issue. Who collects'? This is a matter of very great importance. I am happy to report that we have resolved it. We will collect and the power is delegated to us irrevocably, and the only way in which it can be revoked is if the Singapore Government is unable, unwilling or incapable of collecting, and whether it is or is not, it is a matter which can be tested in the courts. That is provided for in the Annex, page 230; paragraph 10. "Disputes as to interpretation or application of this Agreement." In other words, it is a justiciable issue, not one which is for the Finance Minister of the Federation to decide.

Broadcasting and Television - page 232. Members will see that we are in charge of the staff, administration and the day-to-day programmes. We will have, as we expand, the right to have more radio frequencies and channels for transmissions of television programmes. Any over-all policy will be of pan-Malaysian application unless, for some reason of national interest or of national importance, it should be applicable in the rest of Malaysia but not in Kuala Lumpur. In other words, what was agreed in the White Paper is now enshrined.

Page 137, Article 8: Cabinet to exercise general control, direction of government.

Page 19, Article 23: Citizenship. I do not know what the Member for Anson is complaining about. He said that it was miraculous in August last year when we all became Malaysian citizens. Now he says it is second-class citizenship because we are not allowed to vote in the Federation. I just do not understand it, Mr Speaker, Sir. He knew that there is no change in the position. It was as stated. What is enshrined here was what was stated in the exchange of letters in July and August last year. I may add that the voting disability is reciprocal. They cannot come here. We cannot go there.

Common Market and Tariff Board, page 34: Article 48 (c). The constitution of this Tariff Board and rules cannot be altered without our concurrence. Sir, I want to make this point. All these State responsibilities - religious freedom, education, labour, Tariff Board - I think there is some misunderstanding, particularly with the Church, and I had to make a statement on freedom of religion. No government can bind all governments for all time. It is not in the book of law to do that. What we can do is to hind ourselves. If some future State Government gives the concurrence to the Federation to alter this, then these things can be altered. They are alterable with consent. It may well be that 50 years from now, when we become more homogeneous, more united, I think in the long run perhaps quite a lot of these other items should go to the centre. But it must be done on a quid pro quo basis. If more goes to the centre, then as we put in more money to the centre to discharge its responsibilities in the centre, so we should send more representative to the centre. But the point I would like to make is this. All these State privileges which are safeguarded are safeguarded to this extent: that the Constitution cannot be changed without the consent of the Singapore Government. I think lawyers understand this. But I would like to stress it for the purpose of the lay reader, particularly to the newspapers and other mass media, that a future State Government which is not committed to this policy can change it.

I draw your attention also to page 26, section 32, "Liaison as to citizenship". They have to inform us of naturalisation, and I think they must be on a concurrent basis. They are going to naturalise as Singapore citizens and other citizens - sections 31 and 32.

Then on pages 38 and 39, the Singapore branch of the Public Services Commission, section 55 (1) to (8) . Mr Speaker, Sir, you will find the Constitutional safeguards in page 47, section 69, the most important paragraph of which reads:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution without the concurrence of the Governor [Governor' here means the Yang di-Pertuan Negara] if the amendment is such as to affect the operation of the Constitution in relation to Singapore as regards any of the following matters -',

and one of them is religion in the State. In other words, there can be no legislation. As I have stated publicly, I am not a supporter of immorality, but my Government does not intend to introduce any legislation regarding khalwat (I think it means "found in close proximity under suspicious circumstances"), and other offences connected with the Muslim law, and so on.

Then page 30 - there is now an amendment which will be included in page 30, for delegated power to the Singapore Government to detain for secret society activities. The C.P.I.B. - I think this is a very important section - is contained in the first of the letters in Paper Misc. 5, at page 2:

`Sixthly, it is agreed that because of the interest of the Singapore Government in the prevention of corruption, the organization of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau and the powers of the State Advocate-General in relation to the prevention of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Ordinance. 1959, will not be altered without the consent of the Singapore Government.'.

Sir, I have tried to get that point into the Constitution, but I am afraid time was so pressing on the 8th of July that we had to leave it only in this exchange of letters. I would like to point out that where there is a response in reply to an exchange of letters, then that goes into the Constitution. For the others, they are covered in my letter of the 22nd of July where there is just an agreement. But it is open to a subsequent Government in the Federation - I do not think the present Government will go back on its words - if it is a non-Alliance Government, to go back on it if it desires, because the C.P.I.B. will not be enshrined in the Constitution. But the fact that it continues and will continue with civilian investigators will be a very powerful deterrent to keep in check the excessive use or any abuse of power of officials in all departments of the State. If I may mention particularly those departments who think that because the Central Government is far away - like Police and Immigration which will pass into the hands of the Central Government - 260 miles away, therefore, they might get away with it. Therefore, it is useful that we should have these powers to prosecute locally through the State Advocate-General and civilian investigators.

Elections is at page 63, section 95. There you will see, Mr Speaker, Sir, provision made for the Singapore Government to conduct the first elections. These 15 elected representatives will go on beyond the general elections which will be held in the Federation after Malaysia Day. Our intention then was that elections should be held before Malaysia Day and then the 15 elected would take their places in the Federal Parliament, and when the Federal Parliament dissolves, as it must under the Constitution in the middle of 1964, these representatives will remain Members for the life of the second term; in other words, for the first Parliament elected throughout Malaysia. However, our plans are somewhat altered now in view of the decision taken by the Opposition, and I think we shall have 51 Members here before our representatives will appear in the Federal Parliament. There may have to be some interim provision for a token representation by representatives. I do not propose to have the 15 elected from this House. It may well be that we might send two or three Ministers to represent Singapore until the elections for the 15 representatives take place, which I hope will be done not so very long after Malaysia now.

Sir, the fundamental liberties are all enshrined in the Federal Constitution - for easy reference, the second edition of the Federal Constitution (Articles 5 to 13) can be found in pages 28-32. And it is subject to section 60 of Paper Cmd. 22 at page 4l-2, which says that so long as we have autonomy in Labour and Education, there will be power through Education and Labour laws to prevent double enjoyment. Sir, I made this quite clear in my statement to this House which was published in the financial arrangements, Paper Misc. 4 of 1963, when I stated that this provision had been agreed to. I think it is Document VI, at page 50 of Paper - sorry, Mr Speaker, Sir, it has not been flagged but I will give the reference later and I do not think I should take the time of the House. I made it quite clear then. I will give the reference at a later date, and I think it is also in Hansard. You may remember, Sir, that there cannot be double enjoyment. It is as much in our interests as in the Federation's interest, because if either side introduces free secondary education - let me put it in a neutral way - ahead of the other, then there is bound to be a drip of students from one territory to the other seeking that free education. And since tax is paid by one territory - it is only paid by the residents of that territory - then the enjoyment of the rights of free education should only be limited to people of that territory. By way of example, if we give free secondary education, then we would want to have the right to prevent students from other territories coming into our schools and vice versa.

Similarly in the first phase of factories in Jurong, we may, not unnaturally - and I do not want to over-emphasise this point because we want to be flexible about it - want to have the right to ensure that only Singapore citizens are employed in the factories. And similarly if a steel mill were put up in Johore next to an iron mine, they may - not that they will - require as part of the terms that only citizens of Johore are employed. And so on.

Free port status, Mr Speaker, Sir, page 226, sets out the Common Market arrangements and the gradual erosion of the free port over a period of 12 years, right up to 1975.

The franchise of Singapore citizens is set out in page 26, Article 31. The reciprocity is there - citizens and nobody else vote here, and Malaysian citizens who are not Singapore citizens cannot vote here. We will have to decide later on on the basis of reciprocity, the residence period required before a man decides to be one or the other.

Financial Arrangements - Annex J. Financial Review - page 229, paragraph 8. I think that is a matter of some importance:

`The arrangements specified in paragraphs 6 and 7 above shall remain in operation until31st December, 1964. The two Governments shall then review these arrangements and shall decide upon any amendments to be made to them in respect of the two year period commencing 1st January, 1965. There shall be a similar review in respect of each subsequent period of two years. In default of agreement between the two Governments, any issue in dispute shall be referred to an independent assessor appointed jointly by the two Governments. In default of agreement between the two Governments on the choice of an assessor, the Lord President of the Federal Court, after considering the views of both governments, shall appoint an assessor from among persons recommended by the Inter-national Bank for Reconstruction and Development as being persons enjoying an international reputation in finance. The recommendations of the assessor shall be binding on both governments. Such reviews shall have regard to all relevant factors.'.

Hence, the importance of Paper Misc. 4, for, in our contention, as you will see from the papers that we have put up, even on the basis of their full Defence expenditure being, in fact, extended, which we doubt and I do not think they will do it just to spite us, because, as I have said, they have to spend $8.20 to $8.30 to our $1.70 to $1.80 for which they have to spend the rest of their $10 from their own pockets, and they have to take into account donations made by the British or other friendly governments to us for Defence. I would like to restate or state again our position. Our view is that on their figures, we say it is 34.3 per cent of national taxes or 23 per cent of the total revenue of Singapore. We have agreed to 40 per cent because of the importance of the 8th of July and because we wanted to make a concession in view of the fact that the Common Market was agreed to be in the Constitution. But after 31st December, 1964, there will be a review and what is important is this: that although we may be only a State Government, if in the review we do not agree, then an independent assessor has to be appointed. And if we do not agree on the assessor, then it must come from a panel of persons put forward by the World Bank. So there can be no question of bias in these matters.

I would like to stress this particular point for the information of Members because one of the points made by the Opposition is that we have given away a lot of money which is quite untrue. Three-quarters of what we have given away will be spent in Singapore itself, which we are now spending in Singapore - Police, Prisons, S.I.R., Telecommunications, Civil Aviation, Meteorological Office, and the extra one-quarter is for internal security and defence expenditure which we now have to incur because we are part of the Federation. We also pay part of foreign affairs which we do not have now, and part of Parliament, the 15 seats which will be warmed in the Central Parliament; somebody has to pay for the leather being worn out.

Freedom of movement, I mentioned this yesterday, Mr Speaker, Sir. This is another important provision at page 42, section 60 (1) . You will find that in sub-section (3), we are adding in this amendment now:

`any such restriction shall apply reciprocally to the States of Malaya and the State of Singapore'.

It should really be in "the States of Malaysia". I think the draftsman has forgotten this. It should be the States of Malaysia. We may not wish to take any person from Malaya and I have already mentioned a few of the gentlemen who used to give us a lot of trouble. There are two types - political undesirables and secret society elements. We have the right to request that such a person shall not enter our State, just as the Federation will have - I saw in the newspaper today someone mentioned "Sheik Azahari". It was not Sheik Azahari I had in mind. What I had in mind was Said Zahari, the former editor of Utusan Melayu, who is a Singapore citizen. He came back to Singapore and he found the Federation causeway blocked against him and he never went back. Well, in the same way, we have quite a number of gentlemen, Mr Speaker, Sir, who do not add much to the prosperity of Singapore and, who, in fact, increase the general police expenditure, the C.I.D. expenditure of Singapore. They can well be looked after by the State from where they came.

House of Representatives, 15 seats, page 13, Article 9. Judicial and Legal Service, page 37, Article 54 (3); appointment of judges, page 17, Article 17. Then, languages. In this Assembly (page 46) it will continue as it is, which is the point Members on the other side from Barisan Sosialis ought to remember. If the country had chosen Alternative B, complete merger, they would all be disqualified even from this Assembly because many of them cannot speak English or Malay, even after four years of free tuition.

Sir, the definition of "Malays" will now include Malays born in Singapore, and that is included in page 77, right at the bottom - Article 160 (interpretation). It means really that all the special privileges which a Malay can get in Malaya will now be available to the Malays born in Singapore. I would like to make the point that in Singapore the position remains as it is. In other words, there is no ratio for licences or other profits, Government patronage and jobs in the civil service on the basis of race. We believe in the principle of open competition that has been accepted by the Federation and it will continue after Malaysia.

Muslim religion, page 137, section 6. The Agong will be the Head of the Muslim religion.

Naturalisation to be with the concurrence of the Singapore Government, page 23, section 27 (7) .

Then Permanent Secretaries and State Advocate-General to continue as they are, page 139, Articles 18 and 19.

Now, police officers, page 56. Sir, may I pause with police officers? There is a certain amount of disquiet. I have had to discuss this matter with the Deputy Prime Minister in the Federation and the Minister for Internal Security because there is some unhappiness at the contemplation of the police here losing their present salary scales on promotion. What it provides therefore is that no person shall lose anything after Malaysia. Sir, I am advised - and Members will have seen my letter to Tun Razak and Dr Ismail, and they have agreed to confirm this in a letter - that nobody will lose. The problem is, what happens on promotion? Grade for grade, the Federation pay is slightly less than ours. According to some officers, it is appreciably less. My officials, my Permanent Secretary and the State Advocate-General, advise me that section 85 (2) (a) "shall be employed on terms and conditions not less favourable than those applicable to him immediately before Malaysia Day" means that his promotion prospects also cannot be reduced.

Sir, I do not want to press this matter too hard on these matters which have been agreed, but I would like to point out that what may happen will be that if the Police Force insists on that and gets an interpretation of this Section by the Federal Court, very few promotions or new designations may be created. One problem would be, supposing the establishment were reduced for each of the grades and then new grades are created, something, something Pegawais instead of A.S.P., is put on the Federation post. Therefore, my point is that it is not profitable to pursue the legal argument to the end. They may well win the legal argument. I can see the merit of the argument. But it is much better to go on the substance of the case. We are paying to the Federation the full sum of money we are paying the police; that is included. We are paying a sum of money with projections on the basis of present salary scales. That is the important point, Mr Speaker, Sir. Projections on present salary scales. In other words, if they cut down salaries on promotion, then our contribution to the Federation will go down. If they do that, then we must press for it on the review on 1st January, 1965. I cannot hind the future government, but for myself I will be trying to press that very hard and take the savings from that and give allowance to officers serving in Singapore. We are doing that, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the case of the Judges. In fact, we are doing more than that in the case of the Judges. There will be a Bill put through on a Certificate of Urgency to settle the Judges' salaries and that of the State Advocate-General. You will find it in my letter to Tun Razak. They will go on to the Federation Judges' basic, which is higher than ours. But for the present officers, that will mean they will lose in the allowance from $400 to $120. So the State will make up the difference of $280, and other perks will be carried on the State Budget. In other words, the Judges will get the benefit. We are paying the Federation the full sum of money which they will have to pay our Judges; that is included in the 40 per cent. And on review, that will also be taken into account. They will have to pay the Judges. The lawyers will appear on the State budget, I think. We will carry over and above that the sum of $280 to make tip for the fact that they should not lose the allowance. It is, on the whole, a fair and reasonable solution to what is after all a difficult establishment problem.

I would like once again to make the position clear to the Police Force - and this applies also to the Army - that nobody will lose anything; and I would say they have a very strong case to take the total gross take-home pay, even on promotion, as what they have today, because we are paying for it. I think the argument is invincible. There is no gain-saying the fact that since we pay for it, we ought to get it. The standard of living in Singapore is high, and that is that. I think it is unconscionable for the Central Government to make the State Government pay what it is now paying and then to reduce the salary and keep the balance. I am quite sure that is not the intention of the Federation Government. I would like to give the police officers the assurance of my Government that we shall try and resolve this in a way which will be conducive to a unified Malaysian Police Force. There are problems of a Malaysian Police Force, because if the Malayan and the Borneo police were to come up to our level, then their budgets will really go up very high, because their scales, particularly those in Borneo, are much lower than ours. But then their cost of living is lower than ours -

Mr Speaker: Order. If the Prime Minister is going on -

The Prime Minister: No. May I just finish the constitutional point, and then I will wind up? Because I have only got another 10 points to make.

Police Force Commission, page 105, Article 140 of the Federal Constitution, second edition; not of this.

The present machinery for the collection of taxes to continue, page 228, section 5, Tax Collection, and it cannot be altered without our agreement. That is section 10. The authority is irrevocable unless the State Government shows it is unwilling or unable to discharge this function sufficiently. I do not think anybody can accuse the Singapore Income Tax Department or the Singapore Customs and Excise of being either incompetent or unwilling -

Mr Rajah: Too willing!

The Prime Minister: "Too willing" says a Member of the Grand Alliance.

Pensions liability, page 147, Article78.

And then page 46, Article 68. I would like to read this one. Sir, this is a matter of some importance to draw the attention of Members to. These are points which would have been lost in a complete merger:

`Nothing in clause (2) of Article 8 or clause (1) of Article 12 shall prohibit or invalidate any provision of State law in Singapore for the advancement of Malays;'.

This is in order to allow us even after Malaysia to give Malays free education, right from school to university. The Federation Government is unable to do this because their Constitution prohibits them from discriminating in education between races. But as against that is the clause that there shall be no reservation for Malays in accordance with Article 153 of positions in the public service to be filled by recruitment in Singapore or of permits or licences for the operation of any trade or business in Singapore; in other words, free competition into the public service.

I would like to stress this point, "to be filled by recruitment in Singapore" includes posts in the Federal service recruited in Singapore. In other words, the Police Commissioner for instance, recruiting policemen in Singapore will not be bound by any four to one ratio. They are posts to be recruited in Singapore and there is no question of a four to one ratio being applied.

Mr Rajah: Even in the Federal service?

The Prime Minister: Even in the Federal service. If the post is recruited in Singapore, even in the Federal service there will be no restriction. Let us assume, for instance, the Director of Telecommunications, recruiting several technical assistants; then the Director of Telecommunications, Singapore, recruiting in Singapore will recruit regardless of race. In other words, opportunities on the basis of free competition, with the special position of Malays in education, Malay settlements. If they want business licences, then I am afraid they will have to go to Johore or some other State, because that has been agreed with the Federation Government that that shall be so.

The State Advocate-General - page 139 of Paper Command 22 of 1963, Article 18 to 19. Secondment or voluntary transfer - page 167, Article 102. Sir, the point here is that the position of any person who is seconded to the general public service or the Judicial and Legal Service of the Federation, as the case may be, is safeguarded here. He can, if he likes, opt to go into the Federal service or remain on secondment as he wishes.

Then, in page 144 - I read in the newspaper something about some Opposition Parties thinking it is not a good idea, but I would like to point out that this has been agreed - section 30 (2) (b) (this is the State Constitution) reads:

`(2) The seat of a Member of the Legislative Assembly shall become vacant -

(b) if he ceases to be a member of or is expelled or resigns from the political party for which he stood in the election;'.

In other words, any person winning an election on a Party symbol, if he quits the Party or is sacked, loses his seat. I think that is as it should be, to provide stable governments between elections. For five years between elections, there is no more musical chairs in this Assembly. The Member for Queenstown does not like the P.A.P. He won the elections on the P.A.P. ticket. He will have to go back to the electorate of Queenstown and fight on his own symbol. That has been agreed with the Federation of Malaya. Members will have noticed that in my letter to Tun Razak and also on the envelope signed by the Tunku.

The Yang di-Pertuan Negara - page 135, Article 1, a Yang di-Pertuan Negara to be appointed Head of State by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong acting in his discretion. In page 137, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara shall appoint the Prime Minister and, on his advice, appoint the other Ministers. The Yang di-Pertuan Negara to assent to laws - page 147, Article 42. The Yang di-Pertuan Negara to exercise the prerogative of mercy - that is in the Federal Constitution, Second Edition, page 50. Article 42.

And here perhaps it is a convenient time to adjourn, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: I suspend the sitting and will take this Chair again at 5.35 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.05 p.m. until 5.35 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.35 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Question again proposed.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of citizenship, you will remember that I reported to the House that I had agreed that there should be no double enjoyment, and I thought it was in the Miscellaneous Papers. I was mistaken. Mr Speaker, Sir,It is in Hansard, Vol. 20, No. 2, Friday. 5th of April, column 25. "Progress Report of Constitutional provisions for Singapore in Federation of Malaysia in accordance with White Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961". It reads as follows:

`Another point is the spelling out of State autonomy with the consequential provision that Malaysian citizens who are also Singapore citizens cannot have double enjoyment of both State autonomy in matters like education and labour and at the same time have full enjoyment of education and labour rights in the other State.'

The section which I am quite sure the Member for Anson is going to raise a hue and cry about is a reciprocal section. In other words, it does not mean that we will exercise these rights, but it does mean that if either the Federation of Malaya or Singapore has free secondary or - let us say for the sake of argument - free university education, we could stop students from the other side coming over. Similarly with the factories, we could, if we wanted to, restrict the factories to employment of only Singapore citizens. This is the constitutional position. I do not think in the long run that it is conducive to a united federation to do this. We have done this, because the Borneo territories have sought to keep our labour out for the time being. H is a concession we have to make to them, because there is a genuine fear in Sabah and Sarawak that they will be overwhelmed by more energetic and more sophisticated technicians, merchants and bankers, and so they have put in this provision. Therefore we have also put in this provision purely as a reciprocal safeguard and ultimately I think as a bargaining counter. If they put their fences down, we will put our fences down. To give a simple illustration, there is no university in Borneo and they will either have to go abroad on Colombo Plan scholarships or seek admission to the University of Singapore which is nearer than the University of Malaya in K.L. We accept them in the Polytechnic, the University and all the technical schools as a rule. Even the Nanyang University has Borneo and Sarawak students and we would like to continue that practice. But constitutionally speaking, as long as they have a fence up against our workers going there; in other words, so long as there is a certain amount of exclusiveness on their side and, for that matter, on the Federation side, so we must have the right to exclude if we wish. I emphasise that in the long run, these barriers must go. As the Federation grows in unity, particularly under the threat of external pressures, it is inevitable that we will all grow closer to one another, because our problems are the same. We share a common fate, and the chances are. if one part of the Federation goes under, so will the others. But I would like to make this point. It has often been referred to by the Barisan Sosialis Members and also the Member for Anson has taken up the cry of second-class citizens. I say in Malaysia, far from being second-class citizens, I would be proud to be a Singapore citizen. And it is a privilege to be a Singapore citizen, because you have public housing which you do not have in other parts of Malaysia to the same extent, you have educational facilities which you have not got anywhere else in Malaysia, and the possibility, if our rate of growth is maintained, of free secondary education for everybody - not just for Malays - by the third year, by any Government which comes into office. The money is there, the expansion is there; and the right to social welfare benefits - unemployment benefits. These are privileges accorded only to Singapore citizens of Malaysia, not to Malaysian citizens who are not Singapore citizens. As against that, of course, there are the prohibitions that we cannot vote in the Federation nor can they vote here.

I was attracted, Mr Speaker, by an argument put forward at the Prime Ministers' Conference in September last year, and whilst we all make our bargaining positions as strong as possible, we have at the same time to look at the future where our destinies converge. And one Prime Minister - a very able speaker - said he was against Britain joining the Common Market. He was from one of those European dominions. He said that if Britain joined Europe then it was sheer humbug to say - well, he did not actually use the word "humbug", but he said it would be a pure pretence to say that it would not really become slowly part of the political structure and eventually the military structure of Europe. Its already military structure had become an economic and political union. He said in his experience -he has got experience of federal constitutions and as a student of history - "A federation goes one of two ways: either the force is centrifugal or centripetal. In other words, either the bits and pieces break up or they come closer and closer together. I cannot envisage Malaysia splitting up. It must come closer and closer together. It must be centripetal.

Nevertheless we should have every bargaining counter. Charity is a desirable characteristic but, in these circumstances, it is a luxury for us. We like to be generous to the rest of Malaysia and you will see from the exchange of letters that we offered two per cent of our national taxes, both Income Tax and Excise, as a component part of the prosperity index for Common Market. It is not an amount to be despised - two per cent, three per cent - it is $6,000,000 now; it will grow to $12,000,000 in five years' time and $20,000,000 in ten years' time. In the Constitution is written out, in so far as human ingenuity can provide in legal documents, all the safeguards and all the bargaining counters. We had quite an ingenious team on our side, Mr Speaker, Sir, with sharp intellects. We had the smallest team in London, two Ministers, against the Federation's six: even Sarawak came with a delegation of seven. Seven chaps, seven honourable gentlemen signed the document. North Borneo - six. But there were only two of us. And our officials were only five, plus my personal secretary who acted as secretary and stenographer. But I would say there was no point, not even half a point, which we unwittingly threw away. If we gave away a point, it was because there was some concession, some generosity of approach on the other side. I would not like to pretend that it has been otherwise. It would be dishonest because the letters clearly show, and I am afraid the attitude of certain gentlemen in Kuala Lumpur in high places continues to show, a degree of aloofness and lack of understanding of our problems.

You cannot govern Singapore on the basis that it is a small State and that you can squat on it. This is the vital heart of a throbbing region, a region in the midst of flux and turmoil and revolution. This is the centre - a big market-place, and now with the Common Market, the industrial base. Nothing can take away our natural harbour, our airport, the Jurong complex.

I do not know if Members have read hard-headed businessmen's appraisal of Singapore after Malaysia. Share prices, land prices, land values bear it out. The Member for Farrer Park will know. There is no gainsaying this. And we are prepared to share all this with Malaysia provided gradually over the years, as we throw more into the common pool, so our voice in national matters must increase. That is, the gradual process. On certain matters, like education, it will be difficult - for 50 years, maybe even more - to quite fit in with the Federation pattern or, for that matters, with the Borneo pattern. It is one of those things that have happened in history. The British made a decision in 1945 to separate us without knowing the immeasurable consequences of that act which led to a whole series of events which culminated in riots, strikes, civil disobedience, and only ended - I mean, really we turned the tide on education when the boycott failed. Sometime before that we convinced the Chinese that nobody was going to kill Chinese education, let alone this Government. The Member for Queenstown has a son in an English school, whilst the Parliamentary Secretary for Education has his children in a Chinese school. How could it be? There is no answer to that. There can be none. And so I say, far from being ashamed of being a Singapore citizen, it is a prize to be gained in Malaysia, one which we will not lightly give away.

Sir, on the financial arrangements, I want to make three points. First, about the entrep�t trade. There will be a lot more talk of selling away the birth-right of Singapore and all the rest of it, particularly from the Member for Anson - he has already shot that line; it will be difficult for him to retract. Apart from eight competent expert minds from the World Bank, having been brought to bear on the matter, I would like to add this: that our own team in the Economic Development Board - for we do not embark on something on the basis of a guess, a leap into the dark. That is not the way we do things. It has been carefully worked out. Two-thirds of our entrep�t trade is on primary products, like rubber, copra, pepper, coffee. And the principal markets for these products lie outside Malaysia.

If Members will look at the exchange of documents, there is one signed by the Finance Minister of the Federation. It is on the fourth page - letter from the Finance Minister. The third letter. "Common Market."

`The Federal Government undertakes not to impose export duties in Singapore in respect of primary products, other than minerals including oil produced in Singapore.'

In other words, on our present statistics. two-thirds of our entrep�t trade is unaffected - rubber, copra, pepper, coffee. They will go on as usual. No need for bonded warehousing and the rest of it. Bonded warehousing comes in in the case of tyres, by way of example, if and when tyres are manufactured. Tyres are now n1anufactured in Kuala Lumpur. I have not the slightest doubt that Dunlops will apply for protection in the Common Market. Sir, this is another point that I would like to make. We may be one-fourteenth of Malaysia, but we have 40 per cent of the purchasing power of the total as against 60 per cent in Malaya. Purchasing power. Any advertiser of consumer goods can confirm that. It is borne out by the statistics, the sales - radio sets, transistors, nearly 100 per cent of T.V., apart from Johore not paying for licences hut getting free entertainment from Singapore. I would say we have a strong bargaining position, and we intend to exercise it. Let us say tyres are included. Once a commodity is protected, then it can be manufactured anywhere in Malaysia. The protection is not for a particular factory, but for a particular commodity, and `or that reason Bridgestone is opening up in Jurong. That is as it should be. If, in fact, the proximity of rubber estates to Dunlop factory makes a difference in cost as against taking rubber from South Johore to Jurong, then Dunlops will beat Bridgestone. If it is not, then in the end Bridgestone will sell probably in South Malaya. Singapore and Borneo, because it is cheaper to export tyres from here to Borneo than from Kuala Lumpur by rail - Klang to Kuala Lumpur, down to Singapore by ship, handling charges, freight charges, and so on. This is a point worth remembering.

Next, Customs, Excise and Income Tax will remain State Departments. In other words, we ourselves can ensure that there will be as little inconvenience as possible caused to the commercial community. This is covered in Article 5 of Annex G. Sir, if one will look at the financial arrangements, one will see In the ultimatum at page 61 - I do not think it was an ultimatum, Mr Speaker. Sir; it was somebody in the Finance Ministry who lost his temper and decided to write a tough letter, requesting a reply within 48 hours - "Powers to be reserved to the Federal Government: The power to prohibit imports and exports of any class of goods;". Sir, we could not agree to that because it means putting our lifeblood, our trade, into the hands of a Federal Finance Minister who may not be as sensitive to Singapore economy as we are. For instance, they banned South African goods. I do not approve of South Africa and apartheid. But it is very difficult when a ship comes in - you are a big port - and, say, part of the cargo is South African and so you will not work the cargo, for political reasons, to show sympathy for the struggle of the African people. That has been done in the Federation. We share that sympathy, but we are sufficiently aware of the realities, the practical difficulties, n which it will involve us. Therefore, we are not a party to that. That means we will go on as we are. That is a point worth remembering, Mr Speaker, Sir. Also Chinese textiles have been banned in the Federation for various reasons. I do not think we want to get committed to these policies. We are a big trading area. We trade in the world's goods, with the rest of the world. And that way, is the best way for all of us. And now this power cannot be exercised. If one were to look at Annex G, Members will see that it is only with the consent of the Singapore Government that this power can be exercised. So when the Member for Cairnhill says it is all bogus, he must have been unaware of these difficulties. He is probably either not in the inner conclave of the Alliance in Kuala Lumpur, or perhaps he was just shooting an election line. There were serious differences which - very fortunately patient, prolonged - sometimes tortuous, sometimes bitter - but always determined negotiations - provided a conclusion in the end, a successful solution.

Then the other point is this: unlike the Federation, the law on foreign banks - owned by foreign nations - will not apply. Banking is concurrent. Prohibition in the Federation on the Bank of Indonesia, Bank Negara, and the Bank of China - will not apply in Singapore. We will continue as we are.

Sir, I would like to take this opportunity at this last sitting of the Assembly, with these powers - as I have said, when we meet again, I will have discharged my responsibilities, I hope, completely and successfully, without a blot on my copybook. No riots, no revolution, no arson. 30 days to go - actually 29 because the 31st August is no longer our responsibility, but nevertheless we will always do our best to ensure - and the Singapore Government has valuable experience in these matters - to give advice if it is sought by the Minister responsible in the Federation. We would not like to shirk our responsibilities because if through insensitivity or other reasons some wrong policy were instituted, then we in Singapore and Malaysia would all suffer.

I would like to compare the end of our first term of office with that of the last Government led by the Member for Anson and the Member for Cairnhill. I hear the Member for Cairnhill is raring for blood, coming in for the kill, finishing off the P.A.P. Government. Sir, whether he does or whether he does not, whether we are returned in the next elections to be held sometime before the end of the year, even though we have the right to go on till March next year, I give an undertaking that we will have elections before that, as I think the Member for Cairnhill wants it. That was one of the reasons why he postponed the 15 seats in order that there will be accommodation made, so there will be a better chance for the Alliance.

My colleagues and I have been accused of arrogance, ineptitude, stupidities. Sir, whatever our faults, we leave the country at the end of our first term of office in a healthier state than we came into office. The last days of the last Government was a pathetic sight. I have read of the last days of Nanking before the Kuomintang fled - papers strewn on the office floor, Ministers packing away gold bars, secretaries packing away valuable furniture to fly out to Canton, then to Taiwan, and there was an atmosphere of decay. This was a newspaperman's account of what took place in Nanking. And in the last year, particularly the last few months, that was the state of the country and the Government and the officers. Morale had collapsed. It was a Government that was only interested in its own survival. When we took over, Mr Speaker, Sir, I had no office; no provision had been made for an office. That is a fact. It was agreed already before the Chief Minister went out of office that he would vacate his office and give it hack to the Assembly, and I took office without an office having been prepared. The then Chief Minister never expected to be returned; so he did not bother about it. Why worry about the stationery and the office? But I say, Sir, whoever takes over from us, we will give a full inventory.

Yes, we are proud men, because we are proud to do the decent thing by the country. We have brought it to security and we have brought it into harbour. Whatever happens, the ship is safe and sound, and the Members on the other side, particularly the three Members in U.M.N.O., know that. Whoever assumes office after the elections will find $400 million in the kitty which was not there, will find development plans which will carry on: it has a momentum that will carry on into the first three years of the next Government. The United Nations team on urban re-development is enthusiastic over our prospects - the finances, the revenue and the possibilities of rebuilding. Plans are afoot to knock down Outram Prison in spite of the difficulties about the Pulau Senang riots; and they will proceed.

We came in and found things at a standstill. The former Financial Secretary was an expatriate. He had decided that the time had come for him to retire and he left. There were no plans in hand for anything: there was very little money left in the kitty either. Amongst other things, if ever, if it is the will of the people, so be it; let some other government take over if it can do better; but it will find every office in every Ministry ticking. In my Ministry, Sir, it will find that there are two typists who know how to do Japanese flower arrangements - a very important factor. It shows that somebody cares. Flowers are being grown in the Botanic Gardens; a car comes down on its way to pick me to office and picks up the flowers. Somebody in the office gets a $10 allowance to put the flowers and arrange them nicely.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Oh, I did not know about it.

The Prime Minister: Yes, the Finance Minister does not know it, Sir,It is out of the miscellaneous -

An hon. Member: What about the aquarium?

The Prime Minister: And an aquarium.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Yes, yes, an aquarium.

The Prime Minister: Very good. It is not mine, Mr Speaker, Sir. It belongs to Singapore. And I am proud that whoever takes over from me has an aquarium where you cannot see the corner. That is true. We have one of the best aquariums in this part of the world and - I do not know what you call a man who looks after it, who is a specialist in aquariums.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: An aquarist.

The Prime Minister: An aquarist? I do not know. I have to look up the dictionary. He has done what is called a panoramic tank. At a certain angle, a parabolic curve is so arranged that no fish can hide behind a corner, and yet you do not see the corner. You have never had the privilege of having seen them -

Mr Speaker: Order. I suppose that does relate to the Malaysia Agreement!

The Prime Minister: That, Mr Speaker, Sir, is part and parcel of whoever runs Singapore under the new Constitution. He will inherit that -something that ticks. We have been asked, and I, in particular, have been asked, what is my personal ambition? I have twice answered this question in the last few days, and I was intrigued to see the Member for Choa Chu Kang trying to cause trouble with the Tunku. He is very good in this, Mr Speaker, Sir,It is all set out: The Three Kingdoms is a very good book to read - over 1,000 tales in which every human situation imaginable and conceivable is recited and recorded. Treachery, cowardice, bravery, love, hatred, trickery, roguery, rascality, are recounted in the analects - over 1,000 of them - and this comes under "How to cause trouble among people who are against you, cause them to fight each other." Somebody asked me - I cannot remember now - whether I would be the Prime Minister of Malaysia, and I said, Mr Speaker, Sir, we are realistic enough to acknowledge that in the foreseeable future there can be no P.A.P. Prime Minister of Malaysia. The Member for Choa Chu Kang still wants to try. They say among the P.A.P. members, the cadres, when they meet, "Ah, do not worry; in 10 or 15 years' time the Tunku will be out. I will take over. I will be the Prime Minister of Malaysia." Sir, I do not know about what will happen in 10 or 15 years' time. I hope we will be a united people and a still prosperous and developing society, and I would be ashamed of myself if I did not make a contribution in that society. I would say that he is a fool who believes that he can govern Ma1aysia without the support of the Malays. I can envisage the P.A.P. in a Government of Malaysia at some date in the future working in conjunction with Malay leaders, but I cannot imagine a Singapore P.A.P. spreading out only into the towns and capturing the majority of seats and controlling the destiny of Malaysia. That is not possible, and I will explain why, Mr Speaker, Sir. Whatever the Tunku may be to the Communists - although he is, in many ways, straightforward and he prefers the simple approach - he is a realist and understands the mechanics of power. That is why when he met my two other colleagues and we discussed the White Paper, he said, "Look, I want the Police, Army and "Prisons." [Interruption] This is not a laughing matter. Mr Speaker, Sir. He understands the mechanics of power and, brought up in the shadow of the throne of Kedah, he knows how to govern, which was something the Member for Anson never knew. The Member was chased from pillar to post; he changed his mind every five seconds. When the Tunku says, "No", it will take a long time to get him to say, "Yes", as it took us. In 1955, we wanted merger; we waited until 1963 before we got merger. He meant "No" for a very long time. It was only because of the inevitability of it, the awful alternative of no merger leading to what he himself said North versus South, that we got merger by consent: otherwise we would have merger by force; it must be.

So we have an army and the Police, and what is more an Administration. In Singapore, it will be a completely free for all administration. But we must be realistic enough to realise that no Malayan Government can ever carry its people, if it abandons anywhere in the immediate future a four to one policy on the key jobs. In other words, even if by a fluke, by some chance, a wrong distribution of seats, one Party won the majority of seats in the Parliament, do they think they will govern the country? The Administration is solid; the Army is solid, the Police is solid. There is the Agong - symbol of the monarch. It has happened the whole world over, Mr Speaker, Sir. Ayub Khan moved in from Field Marshal; he was General, then he became Field Marshal, and he is now President. General Ne Win, President. Nasser, now President, was a colonel: somewhere in some military college there may be a young Nasser. But I hope that that is not the future of Malaysia. I say it will be the stupidity of the Chinese Communists in Malaya who will make that happen, if ever it happens.

If we have our way, we will bring the people together more by exhortation and example than by force, because force is not possible in this situation, by persuasion, example, exhortation and co-operation, and that is what we are out to do. At the same time, we understand our strength. No Party in Malaysia after the first 10 years when a new generation grows up and all are Malaysian citizens - not now, now half are immigrants who do not have citizenship in Malaya, and some in Borneo too have not got citizenship; but nearly all in Singapore have - in 10 years' time the proportion, the distribution is such, the racial components are such that no Party can govern by relying on only one race. The Chinese cannot govern just by Chinese votes. And I say it is so with the Malays and with the Indians. There are about 41 per cent Chinese, 44 per cent Malays, Dyaks, Dusuns and Muruts. 10 per cent Indians and so on. Therefore, there must be a partnership, or we will perish. We will slit each other's throats. This is cold logic. If there is to be a partnership, it must be on the basis of equality. I cannot just find a Malay stooge and dub him as a Malay leader and say, Here you are, I appoint you Prime Minister." I then shake him by the hand and create him as a Malay leader. This is not possible. And vice versa, Mr Speaker, Sir,In other words, you cannot have a tame Chinaman and say he represents the Chinese and shake him by the hand and say, "Here you are, your leader." That is not the way the Chinese are - just like the Malays. By definition, a leader means he leads; he fights for the nation and for the section of the community that he represents.

In my case, it has been my privilege to tight for the just rights of Singapore in Malaysia. Therefore, we have a role to play in Malaysia, not to take over, hut to co-operate. We understand the mechanics of power too. We are also sufficiently acquainted with the respective power positions and the ploy of men in power. As long as the Tunku is there, he will he the leader of Malaysia, and to everybody's advantage, because whatever one can say of him, he is not a communalist, which is a very great thing in this country. If he were, and he tried to stymie or obstruct the activities of four million Chinese in Malaysia out of ten million, then he would go down the drain, just like a few other countries have. Riots took place recently in some countries. They burned Chinese lorries and shops; now they cannot get the vegetables from the country to the town; the price of vegetables has gone up in the town, and the chaps in the country have suffered because they cannot sell the vegetables. There is a great deal to keep the people together. Whoever follows him must find like-minded persons to work with.

In the long run, the next generation will be brought up in the same schools and under the same conditions. Then race will cease to matter as we speak one common language; we begin to feel one. It may not be in my lifetime, but I hope it will be in the one that follows me. But in my lifetime and that of my colleagues, whatever happens, we are not running away from here. We have no gold mines stashed away, or bullion stacked into suitcases ready to climb into an aeroplane. If the country perishes, so will we. But what we are determined to see is that it does not perish, either through wickedness by those who manipulate the Barisan Sosialis, or through stupidity and greed, like some who try to loot and no doubt will try to loot Singapore.

There are lots of pickings in Singapore. I am told that an estimate of three million lottery tickets can be sold every month. Just think of it, Mr Speaker, Sir! I mean you and I tied to our emoluments on the vote and here they can print lottery tickets. Through printing the tickets, you make money. They estimate they can sell three million tickets in Singapore alone; they have been watching the Turf Club. Through selling tickets, you make money. When chaps win prizes, they feel happy; they give you a percentage; so definitely all round, you win. There are other things too which they tried to convert and put into the centre: licences - the lifeblood of Singapore - free trade, tenders and they did not get it. They tried to. They sent a document, Mr Speaker, Sir. They will not get it. And I say the people of Singapore will have the sense to reject them. If they choose to elect a Government that will do these things, then I say we have all lost because that is the first step towards chaos, anarchy, a military dictatorship followed by the Communists when all breaks down. It is our duty to keep it that way. In other words, what my colleague said on Sunday when we went to Siglap together, there are two things required of anyone who wants to inherit the right to spend this $400 million stashed away for the country to carry out the building plans, the industrial projects in Jurong, nearly completed, harbour, rail road, water and power. Absolute and utter integrity that can stand the closest scrutiny at any time., And the other is determination to see that right is done. I do not know whether this same Assembly will meet again. Mr Speaker, Sir,I am not in a position to tell my opponents these things, but I hope in the next Assembly we will find a Government worthy of an industrious and able people.

Question proposed.

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, for over three hours we have been listening to the usual blustering, humbug and posturing of a man on his way out, [Interruption] of a man going down but still wanting to put up a bold front, telling of his brilliance, how he calculates this thing, how clever he is and how he anticipates making every move over the chess-board. For more than half an hour, he was praising and defending the British colonial Government, telling us how Malaysia is not neo-colonialist. He knows how to talk. He talks about the electronic machine, the electronic computer. Yes, he talks of his own brilliance, forgetting all the time that the British colonial Government with hundreds of years' experience behind them is the real electronic computer in the whole business of Malaysia.

The Prime Minister even went so far as to say that he had the British by the throat or by the neck. I remember reading in the newspapers that he said he almost got Mr Sandys down on his bended knees, or something to that effect. Yet what happened? Getting the British to go down on their bended knees, and yet he gives $150 million away! How does he work it out? This is a new type of logic, P.A.P. logic, to which we are now getting quite used to.

He talks of his calculations, but all the time he forgets that it is British, the master mind, that is really directing operations behind the scenes. If only he will look at himself in the mirror, he will realise that he was merely being pushed around by the British without himself knowing it. No wonder he pays tribute to the British, because he knows in actual fact that it is the British who are behind the whole scheme. But the British have been doing things so very subtly that the P.A.P. stooges are, in fact, more eager promoting Malaysia than the British themselves. Of course, the P.A.P., thinking only of their own selfish selves, began to link their own personal fortunes with the success or failure of Malaysia.

In this Assembly, Sir, the P.A.P. always put up a bold front when they are only 25 -

The Prime Minister: Thirty-eight.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Prime Minister still talks as if he is the master of the whole situation. But I think he regrets not having been present the other night, and I am sure he must have had some hot words with his Deputy who came out boldly to say that elections would be held before the end of the year, because we see in the newspapers that the Prime Minister, during his constituency tours, has been trying to condition the minds of the people to the fact that after all elections might be in March. Why can they not say categorically, since the Deputy Prime Minister, as Leader of the House, has said in this very House, that general elections will be held before the end of the year?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: On a point of clarification.

Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I think, Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will remember, I said that general elections would be held after Malaysia.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Yes, Sir, after Malaysia, but also before the end of the year. Of course, that is the whole idea. They want to put up a bold front but they also want to cling to power. They are afraid. Their power is like ivy now; they cannot cling to it any more; it is slippery. Their days are numbered. You can see their faces, all longish. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. It is very difficult for me to ask the Government Benches to keep quiet if the Member for Queenstown excites their revelry or laughter.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Well, we in the Barisan Sosialis have been exciting them all the time. They cannot see us having the mass support. When the Prime Minister goes round and shouts merdeka, two or three hands go up. Even nowadays on television, whenever the Prime Minister shouts merdeka, they make sure that the public will not see the two or three hands going up. They are afraid. The Prime Minister was telling us about "Viva il Papa".

Dr Goh Keng Swee: What? I do not know what he is saying. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I do not know what that is.

Mr Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Member for Queenstown could now address all his remarks to the Speaker and the Speaker promises not to laugh.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: And today the Prime Minister has admitted that in spite of the rigorous schooling and rigorous tutoring, somehow or other all the Work Brigade boys and some from the community centres do not as promptly put up their hands when the Prime Minister shouts Merdeka. Of course, everybody knows that the Prime Minister, when he speaks in any of these rallies, makes sure that there is already a crowd, though that crowd is there not to listen to him but to see a show. Either there is a variety show or a wayang, and in between scenes Lee Kuan Yew comes out to perform. That is what actually happens. The people just cannot help but listen to him under those circumstances, not that they really want to listen to him.

In the Prime Minister's posturing - he said he did not know how to bluff and even said that he was astounded when the proposal came from whoever it was that they should cough out $150 million, he even said he bit his lip. Well, I do not know. If he had really bitten his lip, I am a doctor. But what did he do? Just biting his lips. Did he fight back? Did he roll up his sleeves and say, "Come on."? No, Sir, he sat in his room eating sandwiches.

Mr Speaker: Order. Earlier on the Member for Queenstown started off by saying the Prime Minister was posturing. May I suggest that he is now posturing before this Assembly?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Anyway, Sir, while he talks of biting his lips, being astounded, he was also merely taking sandwiches, taking whisky. He tells us all this and then he ultimately surrendered. Why? He quotes Dr Faust, but I think he quoted wrongly. He should have quoted Machiavelli, the Prince. The Minister for Finance is very good at quoting the Prince. He recommended that book to quite a number of people, and I also have read it. I am daily learning of how the P.A.P. always puts on a bold front, stuff themselves with cotton wool -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Where?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - wherever it may be. You see, Sir, the P.A.P. today is in a very difficult position. In 1959 because of their good posturing, because they managed to shout anti-colonial slogans, they had the support of the masses. After they had climbed into power they started to play the game of tight-rope walking by playing on their line of so-called indispensability. They know they had the support of the masses and they wanted to tell the Left, "Look boys, I am the only chap who can prevent you from being napped and therefore you jolly well help me." But that type of bluff did not carry weight. The P.A.P. was exposed and the support has been taken away from them. They are every day being exposed and now they are completely naked in every way. Today knowing that they do not have' the support of the Left, they still want to walk along a tight rope. How? This time, instead of playing on the Left, they play on the British. They tell the British "Look, the P.A.P. Ministers are the only people who can look after the Communists." They tell the whole world they are better fighters against the Communists then the ex-S.P.A. Government. They say that if the British want to contain the Communists, they must keep the P.A.P. in power. And knowing that the Federation Government and the British have this phobia, they keep playing this phobia on their minds. Every time they bring out this bogey. Anything that they have done badly or wrongly, they put the blame on the Communists. If they want to take some drastic action against their political opponents, again they label them as Communists. Under those circumstances, Sir, the British will not be able not to support them. They say, "Well, since you are going against the Communists, we will therefore give you a chance to carry on." The P.A.P., realising all this, can therefore afford to act tough. Because they have the British behind them, they therefore dare to take tough action. If they did not have the British behind them, they would have crumpled up. They would not dare do a thing. See what is happening to this lands affair. The Prime Minister says it is a wonderful gain and a prize for the people of Singapore. Is that true? The letters reveal that that is not the case. I will come to that later on in my speech.

The whole policy of the P.A.P. has been based on the calculation - no - miscalculation of the fact that they are indispensable. They always play one force against another and thereby hope to keep themselves in office and enjoy all the facilities that go with that office.

Sir, there is this bit about Malaysia not being neo-colonialism. I will touch more on that a little later, but all of us know that Article 6 in the Malaysia Agreement is the essence of Malaysia. If there was no Article 6, there would be no Malaysia. Malaysia after all is only the political aspect of the British Far East Unified Command which covers exactly the same five areas in Malaysia. If they say that it is not neo-colonialism, all they have to do is to ask the British to walk out. They will then see whether or not there is Malaysia. The British will not only fight back but will also help crush and knock the P.A.P. out. Realising this, of course, the P.A.P. wants to play the game for the British. Incidentally, even the United States is now coming out openly in support of Malaysia and has even threatened, as I see in the papers, to withdraw financial aid to Indonesia if Indonesia does not stop the confrontation against Malaysia.

Sir, the P.A.P. always likes to use the Communist bogey to frighten the people. They know that we in the Barisan Sosialis are their main opponents. They hope by linking and identifying the Barisan Sosialis with the Communists, they can use that as an excuse to knock out the Barisan Sosialis. But as the Prime Minister himself too realises, they cannot knock out the Barisan Sosialis. They may gaol some of us, because today they have State power in their hands, but they will not be able to take away the real strength of the Barisan Sosialis, because we are a Party, unlike the P.A.P., that is really rooted in the masses. Ask the P.A.P. to hold a rally anywhere and we hold a rally anywhere. We do not have to hire buses to cart people there. The people will come and listen to us. If the P.A.P. were to hold a similar rally, they would not be able to have a couple of hundred people unless they gave instructions and specific directions to the Work Brigade boys to be there waiting to give a clap whenever the Prime Minister appeared.

The Prime Minister keeps on talking about open confrontation. I do not know what he means by open confrontation. Today Indonesia is also having open confrontation.

An hon. Member: You support it?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: While, on the one hand, they talk of open confrontation, on the other hand, they deny us a chance to confront them. Now, as you know, we have asked for permits to hold rallies on three Sundays and each time the permits have been refused. Why are they afraid? If they want open confrontation, why do they have to guillotine debates for example? Why do they not really confront?

Talking of the referendum, it is clear proof that they dare not have open confrontation with us. If they really want to depend on the open argument to convince people, they do not have to arrest their political opponents. All this clearly proves that although the P.A.P. talk of open confrontation, they themselves are very much afraid of it.

They talk of being buried by history. Yes, it will not be very long before they will be buried. Their days are numbered. The writing is on the wall.

An hon. Member: Then start counting!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The whole strategy of the P.A.P. in all that they have been doing for the last couple of years consists in just fighting for survival. Whenever any straw appears, they just grasp at the straw and hope that this straw will keep them afloat. And therefore they use all their ingenuity and devote all their energy towards the grasping at straws. The Prime Minister has admitted that the referendum counting was done in such a way as to allow the P.A.P. to know their strength in particular division. We mentioned this many, many times before. Now, we hear them openly admitting that what we said is true.

Similarly on the Federal elections. We also pointed out that the whole idea behind the Federal elections was to allow the P.A.P. to find safe seats. We have an open admission now from the Prime Minister about this fact. They call it the controlled experiment. Of course, it would be very well controlled by the P.A.P. and I think that is why perhaps the other Members of the Opposition are also opposed to this type of legal rigging of elections.

Today, I am very glad that the Prime Minister has admitted very, very many things that we had said in 1961. We had said, for example, that he had to go up and persuade the Tunku, and he went up to tell the Tunku stories. He has also confirmed that it is the P.A.P. that offered civil aviation, telecoms and all things, confirming in every detail of what we said about the sell-out of the P.A.P. - a sell-out of the interests of the people of Singapore by the P.A.P. At that time we pointed out that the P.A.P. wanted this merger as a diversion, in order to divert the attention of the people from the P.A.P.'s incompetence and moral bankruptcy. Now realising that the British electronic computer is at work, the P.A.P. should forget all talk of their own brilliance, of their own cleverness, and consult the people of Singapore in whatever they do. Sir, the present Malaysia Agreement is the direct result of P.A.P. haughtiness and arrogance in the way they go about things. They fail to realise that although the British did not openly suggest the Malaysia Plan, the British had in fact arranged things in such a way that it is the P.A.P. that had to go along peddling selling the plan all over the world, helping to promote British interests.

I mentioned a little while back that Article V1 is the essence of the whole Malaysia Agreement. This Article VI also explains how the people of Singapore will be asked to pay a lot of money towards armed expansion and towards defence, not of the people of the five regions but of British vested interests in the region. They do not shout anti-colonial slogans nowadays. In fact, the Prime Minister equates the importance of Singapore, so far as the people of Singapore are concerned, to the importance of the base. The base is important only to the British. But to the Prime Minister, that is the most important aspect of Singapore.

Only the other day the Deputy Prime Minister said that the main function of the Singapore Airport is to serve the British as a jumping-board to suppress the national liberation movement in Brunei.

In the few hours of talking by the Prime Minister he, in fact said very little. All his talking was directed at propaganda to help defend his weak position. In fact, I remember when the Prime Minister came back from London he sounded very apologetic in his T.V. speech. He just could not stand up to the occasion which was prepared for him by the P.A.P. propaganda machinery in Singapore. They wanted to bill him as a hero, but he knew that he was not a hero, and therefore in everything that he said on that day he sounded very poor. He could not put his points across.

These are the few preliminary remarks which I want to make before I go into my main speech. But before I really go on, Sir, I wish to protest at the way in which the P.A.P. Government has treated this whole debate. The Prime Minister offered his apologies to the House yesterday, but I do not think that was any consolation for us who have to debate this very important motion. As the Prime Minister himself has admitted, the motion before the House is a very important one. It refers to documents which run into hundreds of pages. If we are to debate these documents fully, it is only right and proper that we in the Opposition be given adequate time to study them. Then we would be the better able to contribute our hit towards the debate.

The subject material for debate today conies from three official papers issued by the Government. Two of these documents were made available to us only on the late evening of Friday, 26th July, 1963. I received Misc. Papers 4 and 5 of 1963 at home well past 9.30 p.m. that night. Since then I have managed to run through these two papers. But the third one, the Malaysia Agreement, which runs into 232 pages, was only sent to Opposition Members on Sunday afternoon, 27th July, 1963. I received my copy at home at 12.35 p.m. on Sunday. Under those circumstances, Sir, there is not enough time for us to run through these bulky documents. In fact, there is no time to do anything else other than to merely read through them. This late delivery of the important documents to us is, of course, meant to delay us or deny us the time and the opportunity to study them carefully and minutely. I wish to protest and say that this is a highly irresponsible way of doing things. The adjournment of the debate to today does allow us in the Opposition more time to study these important documents, but this is done not because the P.A.P. has any consideration for us in the Opposition. It is my guess, Sir, that because of the late hours the Prime Minister keeps and the frantic electioneering campaign he is now conducting, in his tours, he himself has not found time to prepare his own speech in this House. So the postponement yesterday was not to allow us time to read the documents but to allow himself time to prepare what he wanted to say. He could very easily have got the documents ready for us many days before Sunday. The London Agreement was signed on the 9th of July. It is how the 30th. The documents could have been made available to us long, long ago. But, of course, that did not suit the Government. So the documents were handed to us late and it was in fact meant to deny us, the Opposition, a chance to study them carefully. Our position is very clear. Whatever it is we fight back. We shall always do our best under all circumstances - whether it be one day, two days or three days in which to debate. And we shall do everything possible to expose the P.A.P. and show the dangers to the people of Singapore in the present sell-out Malaysia Agreement.

Sir, before I say anything further. I might also say a few words about the Press in. Singapore. We know the local Press is under heavy pressure from the P.A.P. Government. But the Press has also its responsibility to the general public. This is an important debate before the House. We understand the papers have to give a lot of space to the P.A.P. documents and to what the Ministers have to say, but the views of the Opposition are just as important and should therefore be given adequate coverage in the newspapers. This does not mean that we are asking publicity for ourselves, but in view of the importance of this debate, the newspapers, if they still want to claim that they are independent newspapers, must shoulder their responsibility and place all the facts and all aspects of the issue at stake before the people. It is only when all the facts and aspects of the issue have been placed before the people that they will be able to decide for themselves on the matter. The people have a right to have all the facts placed before them. I ask the newspapers not to forget their duty and responsibility to the general public. This is especially so today when the P.A.P. is doing its best to shut out Opposition news and to deny to the Opposition the basic rights of assembly and free speech as well as the right and opportunity to have direct contact with the masses in mass rallies. The P.A.P. fears exposure. It talks of open confrontation but is scared stiff to have it. Anyway, the time is not too distant when the P.A.P. will be no more. Sir, in these four years of P.A.P. rule -

7.02 p.m.

Mr Speaker: Order. A business motion.