MALAYSIA AGREEMENT

Debate resumed.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I was saying. Sir, in the four years of P.A.P. rule you, as well as the staff of this Assembly, have seen the abuse of parliamentary -

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Queenstown must not by any means whatsoever involve the Speaker or the staff in this debate or any other debate.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I have no intention of doing so, Sir. This is only in passing.

Mr Speaker: I cannot accept the statement just made. That is why I say, leave out the staff, leave out the Speaker.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Outside this Assembly, Sir, the people have seen the direct effects of the death of parliamentary democracy in Singapore. There is fear of P.A.P. repression and ruthlessness all over the island. There is fear of the secret police and P.A.P. informers. Singapore, in fact, is a police State. But very soon all of us will be relieved of this P.A.P. arrogance, haughtiness and over-hearing attitude. The P.A.P. recently mobilised the whole of the Government machinery and the State of Singapore into giving the Prime Minister a hero's reception on his return from London. P.A.P. branches were ordered to scrap all available men for an airport reception. But as usual the hulk of the reception and audience for the Prime Minister came not from the masses but from the Work Brigade boys and from the community centres. School children were ordered to line the route as in all the constituency tours of the Prime Minister. And because there was a delay in the plane's arrival on that day, the school children had to stand waiting by the roadside for three hours. All in order to give the Prime Minister the opportunity to deceive the outside world with his so-called popularity.

I received a letter the other day, Sir, from a school child in a school in Siglap and he complained that he was asked, in fact directed, to stand at a certain place and to wave his flag when the Prime Minister come along on Sunday and he asked that such fact be made known to the public in Singapore. This is only one example. Sir,I do not intend to waste the time of the House quoting letters and complaints from people all the time, all over the place. Of course, Sir, this billing of the Prime Minister as the star of this P.A.P. Gilbert and Sullivan opera was meant to cover up the public resentment against the P.A.P. sell-out in London, and as part of a huge P.A.P. conspiracy to turn things upside down and black into white, a traitor of Singapore was crowned the champion of the interest of the people of Singapore. Indeed, Sir, it would be difficult to find a more ridiculous and absurd situation in P.A.P. topsy-turvy land.

Sir, the Prime Minister has talked a lot about citizenship. He has said that he is proud of Singapore citizenship. I agree with that statement. But very unfortunately he has turned the good first-class Singapore citizenship into an inferior second-class citizenship. Since 1961, Sir, we have pointed out, both inside and outside this Assembly, the sell-out arrangements in the White Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961. The White Paper does not give us genuine Federation citizenship. Neither does it give the people of Malaya, that is, Singapore and the Federation, a common political life. Singapore citizens will become second-class citizen. In an effort to deceive the people, the name "Federation national" was changed into "Malaysia citizenship (Singapore)". But as we have pointed out, this is only a change in nomenclature. There is no change in content. The Singapore citizen is politically confined to Singapore. The Malaysian citizenship (Singapore) is good only for the island of Singapore. Whereas Malaysian citizens from Sarawak and Sabah will be able to go to the Federation to vote and stand for election, the Malaysian citizen (Singapore) will still not be able to go to the Federation to vote or stand for election. This at once, Sir, shows the difference between the citizenship of Singapore and the citizenship of the Borneo territories. The Prime Minister says that the only value of Singapore citizenship lies in its right to have housing and educational facilities which are not given to citizens in other parts of Malaysia. This is a very irresponsible way of talking about citizenship. It only shows how far the Prime Minister has degenerated in his political bankruptcy. There again, Singapore does not have anything like proportional representation. With a population of 1.7 million, Singapore will get only 15 seats, whereas Sarawak with a population one-half that of Singapore will get 24 seats, and Sabah with a population only one-quarter that of Singapore will get 16 seats. We have pointed out that with the inadequate representations in the Central Parliament, Singapore will not be able to safeguard its vital interests, especially when the Federation will have overall financial control over Singapore, and there was no talk at that time in 1961, and subsequently too, even of a common market. The whole of the White Paper, therefore, is completely to the disadvantage of Singapore. All one sided as admitted by the Prime Minister himself only three months ago. All this talk of autonomy in labour and education becomes nonsense when control of internal security will allow the Federation to interfere in the running of these two departments in Singapore as and when the Federation politicians feel so inclined. The White Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961 was passed in the Legislative Assembly after a walk-out of the Barisan Sosialis, the United People's Party and the Workers' Party Assemblymen. This White Paper was subsequently put to the people in a undemocratic and dishonest referendum. Through the use of threats and intimidation the P.A.P. coerced the people into voting for this White Paper. The P.A.P. has always claimed that since the White Paper had been passed in the Legislative Assembly and later voted for in the sham referendum, so it represents the will of the people. We, on the contrary, have always maintained that the P.A.P. referendum never did and never could reflect the will and desire of the people freely expressed. But since the P.A.P. always prefer to stick to the so-called legality of that matter and say that the White Paper has the support of the people because it has been passed in the Legislative Assembly and has been "approved" by the people in the sham referendum, let us now examine the London Agreement on this basis and see how far the Malaysian terms, or P.A.P. merger terms, signed in London are at variance with the White Paper that has been passed in the Legislative Assembly and "approved" by the people in the sham referendum. The P.A.P. has repeatedly emphasised in its bold, tough posturing that, in the financial talks at one stage, everything has already been agreed to in the White Paper and in the exchange of letters between him and the Prime Minister of the Federation. "If there was anything to be altered in the terms of merger, it would have to be renegotiated, redebated and reendorsed." That was what the Prime Minister himself said not so very long ago.

Let us first see what the Malaysian citizenship (Singapore) means in this Malaysia Agreement signed in London on 9th July, 1963. May I refer to Cmd. Paper 22 of 1963, clause 23, sub-clause (3), at page 20, which reads:

`Citizenship of Singapore shall not be severable from citizenship of the Federation, but a Singapore citizen by the loss of either shall lose the other also (subject to the provision made by this Part for the enrolment of a Singapore citizen as a citizen who is not a Singapore citizen).'

What does this mean, Sir? This means. in fact, that deprivation of Malaysia citizenship (Singapore), that is, Singapore citizenship, automatically means deprivation of Singapore citizenship. Clause 64 of the Singapore Constitution, on page 153, the clause talking of "Termination of citizenship of Malaysia" reads:

`Where a person who is a citizen of Singapore has renounced his citizenship of Malaysia or been deprived of his citizenship of Malaysia by the Government of the Federation such person shall be deemed to have renounced or been deprived of his citizenship of Singapore under this Constitution and such person shall cease to be a citizen of Singapore.'

Sir, the citizen of Singapore, with such valuable rights according to the Prime. Minister a little while back, after becoming a Malaysia citizen (Singapore) now automatically loses his own Singapore citizenship once he loses his second-class Malaysia citizenship (Singapore). It is a ridiculous situation. In other words, our citizenship that has been won as a result of many years of anti-colonial struggle and sacrifice can now be lost through a stroke of the pen of some politicians miles away from Singapore. Our citizenship now becomes entirely dependent on the whims and fancies of politicians in the Federation. The Singapore citizen is controlled, kicked about like a football by people outside Singapore. The Malaysia citizen (Singapore) is, in fact, the Federal national on which we debated at length in the merger debate in 1961. We have pointed out that the Federal national has duties but no rights. For example, he has duties to be taxed and to be called up as a soldier. His only right as a Federal national or Malaysia citizenship (Singapore) is the right to hold a Federal passport, and nothing else. This second-class citizenship is not a gain. On the contrary, it brings with it the extremely grave danger of loss of our own Singapore citizenship. Without the present merger arrangements, the Singapore citizen needs fear no one outside Singapore. Now if he should displease the Federation politicians who are in power, he might well lose his own citizenship. Is it not an ironical and absurd situation - to become a Malaysian citizen (Singapore), a pore citizen gains nothing? On the contrary, he stands to lose. This is now clearly stated in the proposed Federal Constitution.

May I refer you, Sir, to clause 27 (7) on page 23. which reads:

`A certificate of naturalisation as a Singapore citizen shall not be granted without the occurrence of the government of Singapore.'

This sounds as if the Singapore Government has certain powers. But it, in fact, means that the Singapore Government has already lost its power to grant naturalisation certificates to its twin citizens. The power now has been given to the Federation and the Singapore Government can only concur with the decision of the Federation Government Even the registration of citizens must have the concurrence of the Federation Government. This can be seen in clause57 of the Singapore Constitution at page 150. At the bottom of that page, it reads that such registration can only be registered with the concurrence of the Government of the Federation as a citizen of Singapore. This is a loss of power of the Singapore Government. In fact, it means a loss o, the basic rights of Singapore citizens to pressure their own Government for more democracy and freedom. The citizens of Singapore until today are still ruled by the United Kingdom Government, thousands of miles away, a Government in which the people of Singapore are not represented. Now Singapore citizens are similarly ruled by a Government far away in Kuala Lumpur, a Government in which the people of Singapore do not have adequate representation and influence. And the people who try to increase this representation and influence run the grave risk of losing their citizenship in Singapore. Therefore, the Government in Kuala Lumpur is no different from the imperial Government in London, so far as the people of Singapore are concerned.

We have repeatedly pointed out. Sir, that the P.A.P. merger proposals will only make Singapore a colony of the Federation. This is clear proof of what we have said.

May I refer you, Sir, to page 23, clause 28 (1) and (2) ? Here it lays down that in the granting of Federation citizenship to Singapore citizens and non-Singapore citizens, the Federation Government does not confer any advantage on the Singapore citizen as against the foreigner. In other words, the status of a Singapore citizen is no better than that of a foreigner. For example, Sir, if you, a Singapore citizen, and another non-citizen both apply for Federation citizenship and both applications are treated in the same way, then it in fact means that being a citizen has given you no advantage whatsoever, both are treated exactly alike. Singapore citizens, therefore, are treated like foreigners and are no better than foreigners in the present merger arrangements.

May I again refer you, Sir, to clause 56 in page 150? There it lays down a large number of conditions, (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), which a person has to fulfil before he can become a citizen of Singapore. We want to point out that this is mere eyewash and nothing else. It gives a false impression to the people that with all these conditions it is just as difficult to become a Singapore citizen as it is to become a Federal citizen. But, and the rub is here, who would bother to change a citizenship that is of h4gher value for a citizenship that is of lower value? Nobody would care to change his own first-class citizenship for a second-class citizenship. Therefore, although these conditions are written down in the Constitution, they are there merely to give a false impression to the people concerning the value of this second-class citizenship.

Let me go back again to page 22, clause 26, paragraph (d). Here it lays down the language qualification in citizenship by registration, it says Malay, English, "or any native language in current use in Sarawak". For example. Iban can be used as one o, the languages if they want to accept it as a language to test a person who wants to qualify for citizenship. Sir, my complaint is this: there are many languages in common use in Singapore and in the Federation itself, e.g. Tamil, Chinese, and other languages. But they are not recognised as suitable for use in such language tests. This shows most clearly the unfair and unjust discrimination against Chinese and Tamil. Moreover, there is no such thing as the waiving of the language barrier for the first year as in the original Constitution. This shows the discrimination that has been practised against the people of Singapore.

Section 4 of the Singapore Citizenship Ordinance admits the principle of jus Soli, i.e. every person born in Singapore becomes a citizen of Singapore by birth. Sir, this is our basic inherent right and this principle is recognised in almost all civilised countries of the world. Yet clause 54 (2) (c), at page 150, says:

`A person shall not be a citizen of Singapore by virtue of clause (1) of this Article if at the time of his birth -

(c) neither of his parents was a citizen of Singapore and neither of them was a permanent resident in the Federation:'.

In other words, Sir, a person born of parents who are not permanent residents in Singapore will lose his right of citizenship by birth. Am I reading it correctly?

Mr Rajaratnam: Do you not know?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: If we have not got it correctly, surely they can explain to us. If that reading is correct, then it means that in future babies born of non-citizens in Singapore will no longer become citizens of Singapore.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon): Nonsense!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: If the Minister will care to explain, I am quite ready to give way.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: You cannot understand what you are reading.

Mr Speaker: Order. [Interruption] Dr Lee, please continue.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Minister has all the able civil servants here ready to help.

Mr Speaker: There is a proviso laid down.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Proviso?

`Provided that paragraph (c) of this clause shall not apply to any person if, as a result of the application of that paragraph, he would not be a citizen of any country.'.

That is no consolation to anybody. Sir. The fact remains that this right of jus soli is now being taken away from the people of Singapore. The Federation Government put in this amendment in January or February last year and it caused an uproar.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: On a point of clarification.

Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker. Sir, clause 54 (1) in page 149 says:

`Subject to the provisions of this Article, every person horn in the State after the coming into operation of this Constitution shall be a citizen of Singapore by birth.'.

How can the principle of jus soli be taken away when every person born in Singapore after the coming into operation of this Constitution will be a Singapore citizen by operation of law?

Mr Speaker: The Member for Queenstown is referring to sub-clause (2) (c). That was the reference. Will the Member for Queenstown carry on? There will be a reply, I take it, some time.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, obviously the Minister does not know himself -[Laughter]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Ong Chang Sam (Choa Chu Kang): Shame!

Mr Speaker: Order. Please continue.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: We do not have the benefit of civil servants who are well versed in law. But we read what we can see and our interpretation is such. If is wrong. I hope the Minister will explain.

Sir, this taking away the right of jus so1i is a real step backwards. I hope the P.A.P. will rectify this before they get out from government.

Let me refer you. Sir, to section 8 (3) of the Singapore Citizenship Ordinance. It lays down that a woman may be registered as a citizen of Singapore if she is properly married, according to law, to a Singapore citizen. But in Cmd. Paper 22 of 1963, page 151, clause 57 (2), lays down two further conditions for citizenship registration in Singapore:

`(a) that she has resided continuously in the State for a period of not less than two years immediately preceding the date of the application: and

(b) that she is of good character.'

Sir, these are most unreasonable conditions, especially the condition of this "good character". What is a good character and what is a bad character? Front the way the Federation politicians look at things, any person who opposes the ruling Party in the Federation can be deemed to be a person of bad character. Well, the Prime Minister, who sells Singapore down the river to the Federation, might consider himself a person of good character. But with the increasing acrimony in the open feud between the P.A.P. and the M.C.A., it might well be that, if Khaw Kai Boh, for example, should become the Internal Security Minister -

Mr Rajaratnam: God help you!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - the Prime Minister himself will not be considered a person of good character. And then what happens? The Prime Minister himself will lose his citizenship because he is no more a person of good character. [Laughter] It may well be. Why should this kind of conditions be put down? We consider all this very unreasonable.

Then. Sir, in page 153, clause 65, which deals with deprivation of citizenship and the cancellation of the enrolment of any child of that person. This, to our thinking, is another unjust and unreasonable provision. It has been a universal principle, accepted in all civilized countries, that the sins of the father should not be visited on his child. But this provision wants us to uphold something diametrically opposed to this universal principle. I remember, Sir, this provision was added as an amendment to the Federal Constitution early in 1962. Now we are asked to have the same amendment in our Singapore constitution. This is a shame and it is a most unfair, unreasonable, unjust, illogical provision that has been accepted by the P.A.P. Government. We say all these provisions are unjust. The PAP, now talks of logic and cold reason. Fair and just? Are these provisions fair and just to the people of Singapore?

Let me summarise all these new blessings of Malaysia for the Singapore citizen:

1. The Singapore citizen can now lose his citizenship if he is deprived of his new second-class Malaysian Citizenship (Singapore).

2. Singapore loses its power to grant naturalisation certificates.

3. Singapore loses its power to grant registration certificates.

7.43 p.m.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr John Mammen) in the Chair]

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 4. A person born in Singapore loses his basic right of citizenship by birth.

5. The child of a Singapore citizen can lose his or her citizenship if the parent's citizenship is cancelled.

6. Definition of "good character" of a person in Singapore now depends on the whims and fancies of politicians in the Federation, that is, outside Singapore.

7. The wife of a Singapore citizen needs further residential qualification to become a citizen of Singapore.

What can we see from all these amendments? We see in them proof of what we have repeatedly said time and time again. We have seen in them clear proof that the Singapore citizen has been converted from a first-class citizen into a second-class citizen with the P.A.P. merger. Singapore citizens become Malaysian Citizens (Singapore). Sarawak citizens and Sabah citizens also become Malaysian citizens, just like all the Federation of Malaya citizens. But Sabah and Sarawak citizens have no chop on them as Singapore citizens have. Whereas Sarawak and Sabah citizens have the same rights and privileges as Federation Malaysian citizens, Singapore citizens will be isolated and not given these equal rights. Sabah and Sarawak citizens can go to the Federation to vote and to stand for election. The Singapore citizens are denied these rights. Why should this be so? Where is equality? Where is the Malaysian citizen being saved for Singapore? it is clear proof that the Singapore citizens, are second-class citizens. The law makes it difficult still for people to obtain Singapore citizenship. But the P.A.P. merger has now made it very easy to lose it. You gain nothing, but you lose a lot. I must point out that these new citizenship laws for the State of Singapore were not debated on in the merger debate. They are all new additions and the Prime Minister has no right, no mandate, from this House to change them.

The White Paper and the later exchange of letters state that Singapore citizens will become Malaysian Citizens (Singapore). But the White Paper states - may I refer you, Sir, to the White Paper'? The White Paper states on page 4, section 14:

`All Singapore citizens will keep their citizenship...'.

And in the last line of the first paragraph, it says:

`Singapore citizens will continue to enjoy their State rights and privileges within Singapore.'

This is in the White Paper debated and "endorsed" by the people in the sham P.A.P. referendum. Now, we see that the Singapore citizen will not be able to keep his citizenship. Neither will be continue to enjoy his State rights and privileges within Singapore, if at any time he displeases the bosses in the Federation. The Singapore citizen, therefore, is now sold hook, line and sinker. What right has the P.A.P. to change all these provisions? The people of Singapore have thought all along that they would continue to enjoy their citizenship rights and privileges. The P.A.P. repeatedly said this during the 1961 merger debate, during the Chinese Chamber of Commerce forum, and later during the referendum campaign. Why has the P.A.P. not told the people of Singapore all this before? Why did the Prime Minister say one thing and now agree to another? Is it not a sell-out through and through'! Has he not become the traitor? Is he not the traitor? Of course, he is. Selling out all our rights. Let the P.A.P. inform the people of Singapore why the Prime Minister signed away all those rights of Singapore in this manner. Now it is truly a sell-out, signed in London. All Singapore citizens are in great danger of losing their citizenship rights if at any time Federation politicians feel like exercising their rights. For this, we must thank the P.A.P. and the Prime Minister, the traitor.

I wish, Sir, to refer to another subject. I wish to refer to the question of the powers of the State. May I refer you to page 29, clause 39, sub-clause (1), which deals with emergency Jaws? It reads:

`In Article 150 of the Constitution (which makes special provision for legislation in the event of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong being satisfied of the existence of a grave emergency whereby the security or economic life of the Federation or of any part thereof is threatened, whether ...'

And now these are the important words, Sir:

`... by war or external aggression or internal disturbance) there shall be omitted in clause (1) the words "whether by war or external aggression or by internal disturbance"'.

What does this clause mean? It means that when there is no war or external aggression or internal disturbance, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Federation Government or the U.M.N.O. Alliance can, at any time, according to the whims and fancies of the Federation politicians, proclaim an emergency and impose a dictatorship over the whole Federation. It means that at any time the politicians who are now in power, when they feel so inclined, can use the State powers to suppress all political opponents. It means that even in time of peace when there is no external aggression and when there is no internal disturbance, the Federation Government can subject the lives of the people to wartime emergency restrictions.

Sir, these are very important powers. They should not be lightly given, because these powers mean, in fact, that, the very limited freedoms that we haw won through such hardships, sacrifice and unremitting struggles all through the years -

Mr Rajaratnam: What sacrifice have you made?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - can, with one stroke of the pen, he taken away and military and Fascist rule imposed on the people. Do we want to have such a state of affairs? The power to use these Emergency-Law provisions lies with the ruling Party, and the people are in no position to prevent misuse or abuse of such powers. At any time, emergency restrictions can take away the basic freedoms of the people, of association and assembly, free speech and publication. May I ask what safeguards then have we of the limited democracy that we have today - the limited democracy that has been won after all these years of hard struggle? This is an outrageous provision. We can understand the British and a reactionary ruling Party wanting such a provision, because it enables a colonial and a reactionary government to ride roughshod over all opposition, but for the P.A.P., that has claimed to be at one time a socialist Party, to agree to such a provision is incredible. Why? How can the Prime Minister still claim that he has the interests of the people at heart? By actively promoting such a Malaysian Agreement, he now shows to all the people of Singapore that he is truly a hundred per cent out-and-out colonial stooge. How does he hope to fight for a more equal and just society by agreeing to such a provision? Overnight, all anti-colonial stalwarts and socialists can be put into prison and a military dictatorship imposed. Sir, this provision must be removed.

May I refer you to page 27, clause 35, sub-clause (1) of the Malayan constitution Documents? It refers to "appropriate supplement to List II". Before we talk of this, let me refer you to the Federal Constitution. Article 76, subsection (4) on page 60 allows the Federation Parliament to legislate for the State in certain, cases. Article 91, subsection (5), on page 70 relates to control of Parliament over State lands, mining, agriculture and forestry through the National Land Council. Article 95, subsection (1) on page 73 of the Malayan Constitution Documents relates to the inspection of State activities by any Federation officer. And Article 92 relates to powers given for the National Development Plan. All these relate to financial control contained in Articles 108, 109 and 111.

Then Article 75 deals with the inconsistencies between the Federation and State laws. It says:

`If any State law is inconsistent with the Federal law, the Federal law shall prevail and the State law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.'

Now, let me refer you back again to clause 35, sub-clause (1) of Cmd. 22 of 1963. There it says "appropriate supplements". What are the appropriate supplements? Do they refer to labour and education? In actual fact, in Part II of the List II.B. Education, Labour, Medicine and Health are listed as State lists.

Sir, remembering all this, let me now refer you to clause 42, sub-clause (1) on page 30. This is important, because once you know all the previous powers of the National Development Council, then you can understand how this new clause works. Clause 42 sub-clause (1) allows Singapore and the three Borneo States powers to exercise their State rights, but sub-clause (2) reads:

`This Article shall cease to have effect in the case of Singapore if Parliament with the concurrence of the Governor so provides.'

In other words, what power has been given in sub-clause (1) now gets taken away in sub-clause (2) so far as Singapore is concerned. And therefore Article 76 in the Constitution will apply in toto to Singapore. Article 76 says:

`Parliament may make laws with respect to any matter enumerated in the State List.'

Through this Article, the Federation Government can nullify whatever autonomies there are in labour and education in Singapore. If the Federation Government can use these Articles to act, then, of course, the autonomies will be only autonomies in name, and this is exactly what we have said long, long ago. It merely proves that the autonomy is a false one, because at any time if the Federation Government chooses to exercise its powers, the autonomy can be interfered with and restricted in all sorts of ways.

Clause 43, sub-clause (1) on page 30 allows the Federation Parliament to have control over the State in agriculture and forestry. I see that the Prime Minister has an amendment on this very clause itself. But sub-clause (5) of clause 43 allows the Federation to sidestep the Singapore Legislative Assembly in matters of land, etc, in the case of Sabah, it is different. Sub-clause(5) (a) reads:

`Clause (2) shall cease to apply as regards Article 91, to Singapore if Parliament so provides with the concurrence of the Governor.'.

In other words, as long as the Governor approves, any law which the Government in the Federation decides on, need not have the concurrence of the State Legislative Assembly. It means that although Singapore is supposed to have autonomy in education and labour, and although Singapore has its State powers over land, forestry, agriculture and other matters of local government - and such departments are listed in List 11, that is, the State List, of the Ninth Schedule - there are now provisions to ensure that the Central Parliament can nullify the State powers of Singapore whenever the Central Parliament so desires. The State Governments of other States shall not be required to follow the policy formulated by the National Land Council or any other National Council for local government; and the Central Parliament must have the concurrence of the State Legislative Assembly in all projects that affect departments in List II, that is, the State List. But, and this is a very important `but', Sir, in the case of Singapore, it is going to be different. The Central Parliament can, at any time, sidestep the State Legislative Assembly. The Central Parliament need only have the concurrence of the Governor of Singapore. What happens to the powers of the State Legislative Assembly? The Singapore State Government is supposed to be in charge of all State departments as put down in List II of the Ninth Schedule. And in the case of Singapore, they are education, medicine and health, labour and social security, factories, electricity, itinerant hawkers.

But the Central Parliament, through the National Land Council, can easily interfere with the development projects of education and labour. It may well even be that the building of a new school will not be allowed. Now, all sorts of preposterous situations can arise, and the Federation can easily control any expansion of the Education Department and education services in Singapore. The Federation already controls the Education Department of Singapore through internal security. Now there is further indirect control in clause 42 and clause 45 of the proposed Federation Constitution. Where then is the autonomy in labour and education for Singapore? As far as we can see, it is autonomy only in name, and it is only autonomy so long as the Federation Government does not want to interfere. If at any time the Federation Government decides to interfere, then the autonomy goes. These new provisions make the partnership arrangement into a complete merger arrangement without the compensatory granting of citizenship rights and proportional representation to the State of Singapore, and under those circumstances it becomes most unfair and most unjust to the people of Singapore.

May I refer you, Sir, again to Cmd. 22 of 1963, pages 41 and 42? I refer to clause 60 sub-clauses (1), (2) and (4). All of them refer to restrictions on the right to form association conferred by other clauses, and they may even be imposed by any law relating to labour and education. Clause 60 (1) already talks of restrictions on the right of free movement throughout the Federation, It can only mean that there will be no unification of the labour movement in the area, and it can only mean that student travel, cultural exchange, will be restricted.

The Prime Minister talks of reciprocal powers, hut that has no meaning when we refer to the Prime Minister's slogan for merger. He used to say, "National unity through merger." With this restriction, how can he talk of national unity when people in one part of the Federation cannot go to another part of the same Federation! The rights gained through all the years of hard struggle - the rights and freedoms of speech and publication, association and assembly - will be immediately interfered with Clause 60 (4) empowers Parliament to pass legislation to restrict association of workers and students. We can see from this that there is no autonomy for workers and unions and civic Organisations.

Now one more, may I refer to page 47, clause 69 (1) (a) and (c)? Here it says:

`No amendment shall be made to the Constitution without the concurrence of the Governor if the amendment is such as t affect the operation of the Constitution in relation to Singapore as regards any of the following matters -

(a) citizenship of Singapore, and the restriction to citizens of Singapore of the right to be a member of either House of Parliament for or from Singapore, or to be a member of the Legislative Assembly of Singapore, or to vote at elections in Singapore;'.

According to the Prime Minister, this clause is supposed to safeguard all the rights of the Malaysian citizens (Singapore) after the coming into being of Malaysia. This, to our reading, means the possible interference of the rights of Singapore citizens, but since the Prime Minister has moved an amendment to this clause I will refer to it again later on.

Sir, from all that I have enumerated, we can see that the provisions that have been provided for us in this proposed Constitution are completely to the disadvantage of Singapore. There is no true autonomy in education and labour Federal Parliament can control all activities of the State of Singapore. We arc particularly against the granting of emergency powers to the Government when there is no external aggression and when there is no civil disturbance. This in fact allows the Government to have a military take-over for a fascist dictatorship. This is entirely contrary to the interests of the people, whether of Singapore or of the Federation. And we will always fight against such undemocratic provisions.

Sir, let me now refer to the recent financial talks and arrangements that have been arrived at in London. We already see how the White Paper has been mutilated on the question of citizenship. We have also seen how the P.A.P. has deceived the people of Singapore at every stage of the financial negotiations. In order that we may more clearly see the P.A.P. sell-out, let us refer to what the P.A.P. had originally said. The P.A.P. had told the people of Singapore during the merger debate and subsequently during a forum sponsored by the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and then during the Referendum campaign, the following aspects in the sphere of finance. On finance, the P.A.P. said, "Singapore will pay only for Federal services in Singapore." The Minister for Finance explained, "Singapore will only be paying to defray the cost of maintaining certain departments of the Singapore Government which will be administered by the Central Government after merger. These departments are the Police, the Post Office and Telecommunications, Civil Aviation, Prisons, Audit Office and the Singapore Defence Forces." The Prime Minister said the same thing again only a little while ago. The Minister for Finance gave the explanation at the Chinese Chamber of Commerce forum. He said in 1962 that the Annually Recurrent Expenditure of these six departments mentioned amounted to only $62 million and the Development Estimates over the four years was estimated at $35 million, namely, it would only be $8 million annually. He further said, "In addition, Singapore will only be making a contribution for the maintenance of pan-Malayan (not Malaysian) Defence Force. The Foreign Office of the Malayan Government and certain other State institutions such as the Central Legislature, the Head of State and so on. This expenditure will be shared by all States including the Borneo territories after merger." The Minister for Finance estimated that Singapore's contribution for these services would be around $8 million a year, which is about 2 per cent of our annual expenditure. Following this, the Minister for Finance explained and stressed that Singapore's real additional expenditure would be around $8 million a year, and since the contribution is for specific purposes, it is not related to possible deficits in the Central Government's budget. Accordingly, the contribution will not be increased by the Central Government even if it incurred a deficit," and, according to the Minister for Finance, "the actual amount Singapore would pay to the Federation would be only $62 million plus $8 million plus $8 million equals $78 million, and Singapore would be paying to the Federation for Federal services in Singapore one lump sum of $78 million." That was what the Minister for Finance said in reply to a question in the forum sponsored by the Chinese Chamber of Commerce in early 1962. This is what the P.A.P. has told the people of Singapore. "About 20 per cent only of Singapore's revenue will be given to the Federation which will be spent on services provided for Singapore by the Central Government, and the amount given in one lump sum comes to only $78 million." We have seen what has happened. Has the P.A.P. kept its promise made to the people during the merger debate and subsequently, that it would only be $78 million? All these are words solemnly said by P.A.P. Ministers, but they are all forgotten. We all know that we are now asked to pay a sum which is double that amount.

The P.A.P. had been exposed in all its twists and turns on the question of citizenship during the merger debate. Let us now see how the P.A.P. similarly twists and turns in its last shameful act of sell-out of the interests of the people of Singapore. As late as 6th April, 1963, the Prime Minister is reported to have said - and it is in the Straits Times, front page headline - "Merger Cash Deal. Singapore will keep all her revenue including tax collections after merger but she will have to pay the Federation a yearly lump sum for Federation services." This is only three and a half months ago - one lump sum for Federation services and Singapore will keep all her revenue including tax collections. Then on the 13th April, it was the Straits Times, back page, column 4, paragraph 4. During the so-called merger crisis, (headlines again) the Prime Minister even put the sum to be paid for Federation services in Singapore as low as $50 to $60 million a year. That is what he told the people of Singapore and he further stated that the annual revenue of Singapore is $400 million and he would agree to share with the rest of the Malayan territories only if, only if. Singapore's revenue was more than $500 million and above annually. Now, this is what the Prime Minister said. He would agree only if Singapore's revenue was more than $500 million and above annually. But we have seen what he has given away when the revenue is much, much less than $500 million. On that occasion, Sir, he listed four factors for the working out of a financial arrangement with the Federation, the four factors being (1) the number of seats Singapore has in the Central Parliament: (2) the area to be defended; (3) the population ratio of the area to be defended; and (4) the prosperity index including common market arrangements. Now. Paper Misc. 4 of 1963, Section 22 lists only three factors. This type of talk at that time sounded pretty tough and no wonder the newspapers were misled into describing such talk with words like "impasse", "deadlock" and whatnot, hut of course such tough talks have turned out to be a mere sham. The Prime Minister, as always, was merely posturing because facts have already shown that we are not going to pay just $60 million, as said by the Prime Minister on the 13th April, but two and half times to three times that amount, that is, more than $150 million. What then are those four factors listed by the Prime Minister as reported in the Straits Times on the 13th April, 1963? We can see that (1) the number of seats Singapore has in the Central Parliament has not increased. It still remains at 15 seats; (2) the area of Singapore has not increased in size and remains 224 square miles. In fact, I would say that it has shrunk in size. I will explain that later; (3) the population has possibly increased by a fraction since 3� months ago, but not much more than that; and (4) the prosperity index according to what we can see in the P.A.P. common market arrangements is not going to work to the advantage of Singapore. I will go further into this -

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Mammen): Order. I suspend this sitting until half-past nine.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 8.30 p.m. until 9.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 9.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Question again proposed.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I was speaking about the four factors which the Prime Minister listed in the working-out of a financial arrangement with the Federation, and we find that although he listed those four factors, namely, the number of seats, the area to be defended, the population ratio and the prosperity index, there is, in fact, no increase in the number of seats, no increase in the size of Singapore - in fact, there is a decrease - there is no big increase in the population of Singapore and yet the Prime Minister has given away millions and millions of dollars of the wealth of Singapore. Under those circumstances, we must ask, why has the P.A.P. to increase the amount of Singapore's contribution to the Federation? What type of logic is this? Is this not the sell-out logic of the P.A.P.? Sir, on 15th April, 1963, the front page of the Straits Times listed "We stand Pat" and that meant that the Prime Minister was putting up a very firm stand, in fact, a very unexpectedly firm stand. He said on that occasion, on the back page of the Straits Times of 15th April, that taxation and representation are closely related. "Since we keep most of our taxes we, therefore, reduce our representation of the Central Parliament by several seats." What do these words mean? Firstly, Sir, they confirm what the Barisan Sosialis has been saying all along, namely, that Singapore does not have proportional representation and that she has had a raw deal in the P.A.P. merger proposals. Secondly, they show that the Prime Minister himself realises that there must be no taxation without representation. Now, he knowingly, consciously, voluntarily and willingly signed away millions and millions of dollars of the people's money without adequate and compensatory representation. Sir, simple logic tells us that if more money is given away, naturally the number of Central Parliament seats for Singapore must be increased. If giving away $78 million could get for Singapore only 15 seats, surely giving away 2� times that amount should entitle us to 2� times 15, or round about 37 seats in the Central Parliament. Since the number of seats remains at 15, is this not clear evidence therefore of a P.A.P. sell-out? Is this not proof, right from the horse's mouth of the Prime Minister, that he has given away money without adequate representation? Of course, money earned by the sweat and toil of the people of Singapore, as was so often stressed by the Prime Minister on his constituency tours, is regarded by the P.A.P. as of minor and secondary importance. The Minister for Finance has said, "What is a few millions between friends?" What he really means, in fact, Sir, is what is a few millions of the people's money between the P.A.P. Ministers and their friends? Is it not a nice way of saying things? The people's money between the P.A.P. Ministers and their friends! We can see concrete examples of this P.A.P. philosophy in the step-by-step P.A.P. surrender to the Federation in the financial cost. In the negotiations with the Federation, the P.A.P. is willing to change from payment in one lump sum and payment only for Federal services in Singapore to payment by percentage to the Federation and payment for Pan-Malayan services. This is a big jump, Sir. Why this change?

While, on the one hand, giving the impression to the people of Singapore that he was fighting to retain every cent of the money for Singapore, he agreed, on the other hand, to give more money away to the Federation. If this is not pure deception, then there must be something radically wrong with the heads of the P.A.P. Ministers.

Until 25th May, 1963, the Prime Minister had been deceiving the people with talks of surpluses which he claimed are the result of a prudent and good government. We say, Sir, it is nothing of that sort. The early surpluses in Singapore were the result of downright inefficient and incompetent government. The P.A.P. Government has been too busy playing politics. It did not have the time to use the money of the people of Singapore and voted for in this Legislative Assembly on construction projects to help the people of Singapore. Surplus means, in actual fact, under-expenditure and under-use and, therefore, it means inefficient and bad government.

But to come back, Sir, to the question we were discussing. The Prime Minister was telling the people that the Federation had wanted half of Singapore's surplus, but, of course, this is a surplus of another character. This is a surplus, not the result of under-expenditure of the P.A.P. Government over the last three years - $88 million in 1960, $125 million in 1961 and $93 million in 1962, making a total surplus of $304 million in three years; negligence of $304 million in three years - but the estimated result of an estimated increase in revenue in the years ahead. Let us follow the development of events. May I refer to Paper Misc. 4 of 1963? On page 45, Document III tells us that the Federation on 5th of April, 1963, proposed for the purpose of determining the apportionment that (1) any surplus of Federal revenue after meeting Federal services in Singapore will be used to meet the shortfall of Singapore revenue; (2) to meet central Federal expenditure such as defence, internal security, external affairs, Parliament, etc.; and (3) any balance will be apportioned 50/50 between the two Governments.

And it goes on to explain that having determined the amounts from the Federation revenue that will go to the Federation Government and to the State Government, the ratio of the amounts should be used as the ratio for future apportionment. Since all calculations are based on the 1961 revenue and expenditure, and since the ratio calculated on the 1961 Federal revenue is 60 per cent Federal and 40 per cent State, so apportionment will be Federation 60 per cent and State 40 per cent in all Federal revenue.

Sir, this is a very revealing Document and it shows how the Federation Government has been trying to soak Singapore all the way. And indeed the Prime Minister made use of this fact to create the impression that he was fighting for the interests of Singapore. He went from constituency to constituency telling the people how he was resisting the demands of the Federation Government, and all the time he talked of "surpluses" by which he sought to give the impression to the people of Singapore that the Federation was asking for surpluses that had come about as a result of underspending by the politics-playing P.A.P. Government in 1960, 1961 and 1962. And this game of Lee Kuan Yew-hero-playing-and-creating went on until 25th May, 1963, when in a letter to the Straits Times Mr Abdullah Bin Ayub, Deputy Controller of Supply in the Federation, revealed that the negotiations were, in fact, on the percentage payment of Singapore Federal taxes to the Federation. He said that once the percentage payment has been fixed, each Government would be responsible for its own budget and the question of deficit or surplus does not arise. Sir, this was a great blow to the P.A.P. This letter, in fact, says that the Prime Minister had not been telling the people the truth, because all the time it should have been a percentage but he was talking and telling the people that it was a matter of surpluses. After this Federation broadside, the P.A.P. had to completely shut up on the question of surplus. The Prime Minister, therefore, had to turn to new pastures in order to exploit the situation. The payment on a percentage basis was soon confirmed on 30th May, 1963, when both Governments agreed in principle to set up a Common Market. This, so far as we can see, is a great retreat for Singapore, because a percentage payment brings with it a built-in increase year by year. This is most clearly explained by no other than Mr Jek Yuen Thong, the Political Secretary to the Prime Minister himself. In a letter to the Straits Times of 27th May, 1963, Mr Jek Yuen Thong pointed out that the built-in increase lies in three directions: (1) by natural increase in consumption and so increasing revenue; (2) by spread of the number of taxes over a wider range of commodities as times goes on; and (3) by increasing in actual level of taxation over which the Central Government has legislative authority. We see, therefore, that this percentage payment is a great disadvantage to Singapore, however you may look at it. It means, in fact, an added extra burden on the people of Singapore which increases year by year.

The Prime Minister himself realised this. He also said there was a difference between 25 per cent of $400 million and 25 per cent of $500 million. He said this on 2nd June, 1963. In his visit to the Punggol Constituency on 3rd June, 1963, he pointed out that one per cent would mean $3 million after Malaysia, $5 million after 5 years, and $8 million after 10 years. Considering the fact that he knows how to calculate in this fashion, he should also have known what the giving away of extra millions of dollars means to the people. One would have thought that he would indeed have looked after the revenue of Singapore and sought all means to reduce the percentage payment to the Federation. If this had been done, he would indeed have been able to claim that he had fought for the interests of the people of Singapore. Facts unfortunately prove otherwise.

If the Prime Minister had got the backing of the people, he would have the full confidence and the strength of the people behind him, and he would have been able to put up a really tough fight. But, unfortunately, as is evident to all the people in Singapore, he does not enjoy the backing of the people, and, consequently, he does not have the confidence and strength of the people behind him. Therefore, he could not have put up any real fight. He knows that he is already a discredited politician on his way out. He had gone on bended knees to the Tunku and it is unlikely, in the circumstances, that he would be able to get the Federation to reduce the figure of percentage payment to the Federation. On the contrary, and not unexpectedly, the Prime Minister had to increase the percentage figure all the time.

But in spite of all this, events apparently came to a head over the Federation demand of the $50 million grant from Singapore and the so-called Common Market terms. Some of the facts were first revealed at the last sitting of the House on 10th June, 1963. The newspapers called it drama, and drama followed drama until a Federation ultimatum of Malaysia - "With or Without Singapore" - as reported in the Straits Times on 21st June, 1963, was handed to the Singapore Government. We all can still remember the tense moments of the deadlock in the financial talks. The P.A.P. on its side had played its hand well and through full use of the Government propaganda machinery had tried to create the impression that the Prime Minister was fighting a stubborn rearguard action every inch of the way. He gave Press interviews, spoke over T.V. informing the people that Singapore must have the Common Market terms written into the Constitution. He also said that Singapore is too poor to play Santa Claus with $50 million. What a heroic posture for the Prime Minister! If only he was really and truly fighting for the interests of the people of Singapore - if only, I say. But, of course, this was only a posture.

Events have proved that the Prime Minister was merely putting up a front, an act, a performance to spotlight his return from London in a Gilbert and Sullivan traitor-turned-hero farce. After he had been summoned by his imperial master to London, he again staged a prepared comic opera in the London stage. There was news of how he had fought, and tonight he was telling us how he fought. He was reported to have negotiated right through the night and he was even reported to have used anti-Communist methods against Tun Razak and Tan Siew Sin. To use anti-Communist methods - I do not know what he meant. But from what the Prime Minister himself has revealed in this Chamber tonight, we knew he was eating sandwiches and he was drinking whisky and brandy. And then there was news of how very near it became a complete breakdown before there was final accord. And to some people, Sir - only some people - it appeared that Lee Kuan Yew was really fighting for their interests. Those who do not know of the contortionist agility of Lee Kuan Yew and company for twists and turns might have thought that he was really lighting every inch of the way. But when the bare essentials of these financial terms were made known to us in Singapore at that time, it was a great shock o all. All were shocked and amazed that the Prime Minister should have accepted terms which are so patently disadvantageous to Singapore and entirely advantageous to the Federation.

Before going to London, the Prime Minister had already told the people in Singapore that the Federation demanded 40 per cent of Singapore's national revenue. He informed the people in T.V. broadcasts that - and he repeated the same thing again tonight - according to Singapore's calculations, payment to the Federation should amount to only 34 per cent of Singapore's national revenue. But - and we can see the difference between the Federation Government and the Singapore Government on this - while the Federation demand had remained at 40 per cent - no change whatsoever - the P.A.P. had already given way and increased the payment from 34 per cent to 37 per cent. This, Sir, is now revealed in Document VII on page 55 of Paper Misc. 4 of 1963. You will see in paragraph 3, it says:

`Siew Sin is asking for 40% of our national taxes whereas our calculations show only 34.3% is due to him, but we are prepared to split the difference and settle at 37%.' This letter was written on 11th June. We know that this 37 per cent was subsequently further raised to 39 per cent, and then in London the Prime Minister went one step further and increased the 39 per cent to 40 per cent - the 40 per cent originally demanded of Singapore by the Federation. We can see from this alone how the P.A.P. has been surrendering the rights of the people of Singapore step by step to the Federation.

The Prime Minister has said that he was pressured both by the United Kingdom and the Federation Governments. But then what else can a stooge do but carry out the instructions of his imperial master? Did he fight back? Did he say that the interests of the people are paramount? No. He just surrendered. Only a matter of percentage, according to the P.A.P. Ministers. And yet this evening, the Prime Minister himself tells us that not even half a point has been given away. From what we can see 34 per cent to 40 per cent is 6 points - not half a point; many points. One point means a lot of money too. I will come to that later. Sir.

The deal in London, therefore, and I quote the words of the Prime Minister himself, is all one-sided to the advantage of the Federation Government and fair and just only to the Federation Government. When the Prime Minister talks of fairness and justice, he never thinks of the Singapore people. It is not fair and just to Singapore. It is fair and just all right to the Federation.

Working on an annual national revenue of $310 million - and this was quoted by Mr Tan Siew Sin when he came back from London - one per cent works out to $3.1 million, and 40 per cent works out to $124 million. But, of course, to the Prime Minister the percentage is not important, and this is what he said in a letter to the Tunku on 22nd June - Document IX on page 63. In his letter to the Tunku, the Prime Minister said the percentage is not important - I stress, is not important. I do not know what is important to him. One per cent, as far as we know, is $3.1 million. If we work all our lives, we will never get one-tenth of that amount of money. But to the Prime Minister, the percentage of the money of the people earned through their sweat and toil, as so often stressed by the Prime Minister, is not important. The only thing important is the P.A.P.; that is all.

After seeing how the P.A.P. has sold out the rights of the people of Singapore step by step, we can now see the difference between the White Paper and the present Malaysia Agreement in London on this one item alone. What was originally a lump sum payment to the Federation of only $78 million per year for Federal services in Singapore - and which was stated by the Prime Minister himself to be as low as only $60 million recently - has now become a payment of 40 per cent of Singapore's national revenue amounting to $124 million per year and for Pan-Malaysian defence - no more a matter of Malayan defence, but now of Pan-Malaysian defence. This amount increases year by year, and this is but the beginning, because, as we shall see, there is more to pay for Singapore. We know that although the Prime Minister says, on the one hand, that Singapore cannot afford to give a $50 million grant to the Borneo territories, yet, on the other hand, he is in fact giving more than that amount away in the $150 million loan to the Federation. $100 million of which is interest free for the first five years. anti this interest-free period can be extended for another live years. It means, of course, that Singapore is giving away an interest-free loan of $100 million to the Federation for 10 years, because if it can be extended, then, of course, it will be extended. The power does not rest with the Singapore Government. The Federation Government has the power. And any agreement which says that it can be extended in fact means that it will be extended. Therefore, the interest-free period, in fact, is ten years and not five years, as has been explained by the Prime Minister. Simple interest on $100 million at five and a half per cent would amount to $55 million in ten years, i.e. $5.5 million a year. The compound interest will amount to much more than that. It is, therefore, a loss of $55 million in ten years and this becomes a double loss of $100 million if Singapore has to borrow money and pay the same or higher interest on the loan borrowed.

I might at this point remind you, Sir, of the $45 million World Bank loan given to the Singapore Government for the power station project. In that loan given to Singapore by the World Bank, all the most humiliating terms are exacted from the Singapore Government. Singapore has to buy all the materials through the World Bank; Singapore has to employ a super engineer who will probably, as far as I understand, earn a salary of $6,000 a year, and Singapore has again to employ supplementary personnel to help this super engineer, again through the World Bank, and, on top of that, has to assure payment of an interest of at least eight per cent; at the same time mortgaging all the Municipal properties of Singapore to the World Bank for a mere pittance of $45 million. All our Singapore Municipal properties, worth much more than that, millions of dollars, all mortgaged to the World Bank. Why do we have to borrow all that money when Singapore has $400 million in the kitty? We have asked this question many times. The Singapore Government - the P.A.P. - has not been able to answer that question. We hope they might provide an answer and we will see what they have to say.

Sir, let me come back to this $150 million loan to the Federation. This is a completely new item and is not found anywhere in the White Paper. But, as I was saying, what is most puzzling and completely inexplicable to the people of Singapore is that, on the one hand, the P.A.P. has to borrow $45 million for the power station project from the World Bank on such humiliating terms, and even to borrow another $70 million for the Johore River project, probably on the same terms; on the other hand, the P.A.P. can loan $150 million of the people of Singapore's money to the Federation, $100 million of which is interest free. If it is found necessary that Singapore has to borrow, then elementary logic tells us that Singapore cannot afford to lend. So what type of reason and logic says that although we have to borrow, we still can afford to lend? Is this the logic of the Finance Minister who says, "What is a few millions between friends?", or is it the logic of the Prime Minister who says, "The percentage is not important."?

Sir, there are many people who openly say that this loan is an eyewash. They say, it is not a loan. The word "loan" is only an euphemism for the words "outright gift". The Member for Anson has pointed out that when the time comes for repayment of the loan, Singapore will not be in a position to demand such a repayment. The loan, is, therefore, in effect, a gift, a tribute from a vassal to his overlord. The vassal, in the person of the Prime Minister of Singapore, has to pay a tribute to his overlord, the Prime Minister of the Federation, for helping the Prime Minister of Singapore to crush his political opponents.

The Prime Minister claims that he has not given away $150 million in an outright grant. But has the Prime Minister really saved the money as he has claimed? To us, money is only meant for use for development to raise the living standards of the people. Money invested abroad is of no use to all of us in Singapore. Put to proper use, however, the $150 million loan is worth more than the $150 million outright grant. This is confirmed by the World Bank and by no other person than the Prime Minister himself in his letter to the Tunku on 22nd June. 1963.

May I refer you, Sir, to Paper Misc. 4 of 1963, Document IX, page 63? In the fourth paragraph, the last sentence reads:

`And loans from Singapore for North Borneo and Sarawak's development up to $150 million will give a greater impetus on their economic growth.'

He was referring to why he did not want to give the $50 million grant. But, in comparison, he says the $150 million loan will give a greater impetus on their economic growth. This is an open admission that he has given away, in fact, more to the Federation than the $50 million which he said he was trying to save. So how has the P.A.P. saved any money for the people of Singapore? He is merely pretending to refuse payment. He is only saying, "No", with one hand, when in fact he gives more generously away with the other hand. The Prime Minister knows how to say that the $150 million can be used to build 13 blocks of Selegie House and can be used also to metal all the roads and to light up all the rural areas in Singapore. So, why does he not keep back the $150 million for development in Singapore? Why is it that Singapore has to loan the money to others, when Singapore itself needs to borrow more and more money for its own development? Since 1963, five loans, totalling nearly $250 million in all, have been floated in Singapore. This was revealed by the Finance Minister only last week. Why float loans for the development of Singapore on the one hand and yet loan money away for the development o other territories on the other hand? Is this not absurd?

Already the P.A.P. has invested our money abroad to help develop other already developed countries. Can the P.A.P. explain why a poorly developed country, like Singapore, must use its own money to help develop more advanced countries, like Australia, Canada, England? Why? Is this the logic the P.A.P. has talked about? Is it logical to give money away when the people of Singapore need the money themselves? Is this not the logic of traitors? And does the Prime Minister know what the $110 million lost in the interest-free loan mean to the people of Singapore? I will just quote a few examples.

For example, Singapore can easily use the money to buy over the Singapore Traction Company. This will immediately stop further exploitation of the people of Singapore by foreign monopoly capital. It will stop all remittances of profits from Singapore to areas outside Singapore. Why does he not do that? it does not even cost $10 million. Why give away $110 million in interest-free loans?

Then, to quote another example, with this $110 million we can allow 100,000 families to stay rent free in $20 per month housing units for six years.

Then, another example: free secondary education for 300,000 students at $4 per month for eight years. Yes, the $110 million can be used for quite a lot of things besides building Selegie House, metalling roads, installing lights. We can reduce the rents in the Housing Board flats in Singapore. We can give free education to our students. We can give more scholarships. Oh, so many things. If we were to think of our taxi-drivers, trishaw-riders, hawkers and market stall-holders, we could give them free licences for hundreds of years. For hundreds of years, they will not have to pay licences. In the case of the Harbour Board, for example, with that money, Singapore can easily give $100 increase per worker per month to the 10.000 workers in the Singapore Harbour Board for ten years. The P.A.P. does not have to wait until now, after 4 years of non-recognition, before promising to pay $2 million to the S.H.B. workers and call it a so-called Malaysian bonus - that has not even been given yet. So you can see, Sir, what the P.A.P. Government has been doing to Singapore.

At every stage the P,A.P. has surrendered to the Federation the basic interests of the people of Singapore. Let me now touch on the question of financial control. At one stage of the financial talks, the Prime Minister took a strong stand on the matter of control of Singapore's finances. On this, the Prime Minister said on 7th March, 1963, that Singapore must keep all her revenue. And he explained that "the word `keep' does not mean get back from Kuala Lumpur." He further stressed as follows:

`How can Singapore, as agreed in the White Paper, pay a contribution for Federal services, if she does not collect and keep it in the first instance?'

When I first read that, it sounded very logical to me, and I was wondering what the Prime Minister was up to. Undoubtedly, those words had given the impression to the people of Singapore that the Prime Minister was going to stand firm on this question. Being a lawyer, he knew what he was talking about. On 23rd March, 1963, he went even one stage further to stress that "Singapore must collect, keep and pay." Therefore, on the question of who is to control the machinery for the collection of revenue in Singapore, as was posed by Mr Tan Siew Sin, our own Prime Minister here tells the people that it is Singapore that must have control of the money collected in Singapore. Of course, later on, as is typical of P.A.P.'s twists and turns, the Minister for Finance said in the Straits Times on 17th April, 1963, that "who controls the revenue of Singapore is not so important." By this, already the Minister for Finance admits that the Federation has control of the revenue of Singapore. But this did not prevent the Prime Minister from saying something completely the opposite. In an interview televised over the B.B.C. Panorama on 6th May, 1963, he stated categorically:

`We have got to collect the revenue to be able to spend it in the way we want.'

These are very firm words, Sir. And when he was asked the question: "So control over finance will be a minimum condition for your going into the Federation?". The Prime Minister said, "Oh, yes, absolutely basic." That is what he said, "Absolutely basic. Control over finance will be a minimum condition for going into the Federation, and that is absolutely basic." What has happened to this "absolutely basic" control over finance in Singapore? As far as we can see, it was not even a puff of smoke. It was gone with the wind even before it came into existence. This financial control was only a fiction conjured up by the Prime Minister to allow him to deceive the people. It served him as a false front in his horse trading with the Federation. Are we not now controlled in toto by the Federation? Are we not going into the Federation bound hand and foot? Or is this another example of P.A.P. logic and cold reason? From the absolutely basic and minimum condition for going into the Federation, as laid down by no other person than the Prime Minister himself, he is now willing to act only as the Federation's revenue collector. This is a complete P.A.P. surrender to the Federation's ultimatum of 20th June, 1963. To save face, the P.A.P., in the Singapore paragraph-to-paragraph reply to the Federation Government's proposals, may I refer you, Sir, to Paper Misc. 4 of 1963, page 65:

`The Singapore Government agrees in principle with the proposal to delegate authority in respect of the collection of Customs and Excise duty and Income Tax to the Singapore Government in accordance with Article 80 (4)....'.

He agrees to it straightaway, although all along the P.A.P. has been saying that control over finance is absolutely basic and that this is the minimum condition for going into the Federation. But if we were to go further down, the P.A.P. also says:

`However, this delegation of authority should be stated in the Constitution that such delegation of authority shall not be revocable except by mutual agreement.'

I do not know about "shall not be revocable". Let us see what the Federation reply is to that. It is contained in paragraph 5 of Annex J on page 75 of Paper Misc. 4 of 1963 which reads:

`Subject to the provisions of the Annex to this Agreement, executive authority in respect of the collection in Singapore of customs duties and excise and income tax shall be delegated to the Singapore Government.'

Yes, "delegated to the Singapore Government". Correct:

`The Federal Government may revoke this authority [that is the point, Sir] if the Singapore Government fails to comply with any direction properly given to it by the Federal Government for the collection or protection of these taxes or shows itself unwilling or unable to discharge these functions efficiently.'

There you are. It even goes further to say:

`This authority may extend to customs duties and other charges collected in Singapore on goods exported from or to be imported into Malaysia outside Singapore.'

That is to say, Sir, Singapore can collect the revenue only at the pleasure of the Federation Government. If at any time the Federation Government feels so inclined, it can take over the collection of all Federal revenue itself. The Singapore Government collects only if the Federation allows it to collect. That is all. Absolute control, therefore, is in the hands of the Federation, and Singapore is now only the office-boy or rent-collector of the Federation. What of the brave words of the Prime Minister when he said, "We must collect and keep and pay."? Is the P.A.P. logic to talk tough and surrender abjectly? Is this P.A.P. logic not the logic of stooges and slaves'?

Sir, these are the main items which are manifestly disadvantageous to Singapore. The only consolation to Singapore for the loss of control of its own revenue is an agreement that all Federal taxes collected in Singapore will be paid into a separate fund and this fund would be divided annually between the two Governments in the proportion of 60 per cent to Singapore and 40 per cent to the Federation. This is mentioned in page 57 in Document VIII dated 20th June, 1963, in a letter from the Federation Prime Minister to the Prime Minister of Singapore. Paragraph 3 (a) reads:

`All taxes collected in Singapore, other than those specified below, will be paid into a separate fund and the fund would be divided annually between the two Governments, or more frequently by agreement between the two Governments in the proportion of 60% to the Singapore Government and 40% to the Federal Government.'

This is meant, in fact, to save face for the P.A.P. on its stand on the question of financial control where the P.A.P. has completely given in. There are also comparatively minor items like profits from the Currency Board and the Federation and Borneo contributions to Singapore for common services in Singapore. These are referred to in pages 19 and 20 of the same Paper. Paragraph 51, on page 19, talks of the Federation and Borneo in respect of the payment to Singapore for common services; and paragraph 52, on page 20, talks of the profits of the Currency Board which amount to $10 million a year. Singapore, therefore, has in fact now waived its claim to monies from both these sources which amount to more than $12� million.

Page 49, Sir, at the bottom - Apportionment Percentages. No. 3 says: "...currency profits of $10 million." Therefore, the P.A.P. has gone yet one step further and it is now ready to pay for a share of even Pan-Malaysia expenditure. The final arrangements will come into operation on the 1st September, 1963. The promise of a review on the 1st January, 1965, and subsequently every two years will not be able to safeguard Singapore's interests, as hoped for by the Prime Minister. He will not be able to safeguard them because the independent assessor will always place the interests of the Federation first and those of the State second. It is a natural course of events. It is bound to be so. So the assessor, however independent, will not be able to safeguard the interests of Singapore. In every way, therefore, Singapore will be at a disadvantage. All the lifeblood of Singapore will be subject to Federation overall control, and it is quite obvious that the people of Singapore has the worse of the bargain in every respect.

Let me first summarise the results of the financial merger talks:

(1) What was supposed to be a lump sum payment for Federal services in Singapore in 1961 has now become a percentage payment for Pan-Malaysian services in 1963.

(2) What was calculated by the P.A.P. Government as payment to the Federation of 34 per cent of Singapore's national revenue has now become a payment of 40 per cent.

(3) What was originally a lump sum payment of only $78 million per year now becomes a percentage payment amounting to $124 million which increases year by year.

(4) The P.A.P. says Singapore cannot afford to give a grant of $150 million, but finally the P.A.P. gives a loan of $150 million, $100 million of which is interest free. The $150 million is worth more than the $50 million grant in development planning.

(5) From a bold stand of "must collect, and keep and pay", the P.A.P. is now willing to be only the office boy and rent-collector of the Federation.

(6) The P.A.P. says categorically that the free port status after merger would remain. Now the free port status will be confined to Blakang Mati after 12 years.

(7) With the free port status reduced to the size of Blakang Mati - I think I have got the summary ahead of time. I will keep this little back, and I will come back to it again. Let me first deal with this common market and the free port status.

After having been exposed that it has surrendered to the Federation on every issue, the P.A.P. plays up the common market as a special prize that the P.A.P. has got for the people of Singapore. The P.A.P. claims that the interests of the people of Singapore have been safe-guarded and that the common market terms are all written into the Constitution. The P.A.P. claims that with the common market Singapore will prosper, the jobless will get jobs, and all the problems of Singapore will be solved and everyone will be happy. Is this true? What are the facts? A first glance tells us that the common market which the P.A.P. has got for Singapore is the most unusual and uncommon common market, and it practically writes "finis" to the entrepot trade in Singapore, the lifeblood of our people for the last 150 years. From the very beginning we have pointed out that the P.A.P. merger terms did not even provide for a common market between Singapore and the Federation. The P.A.P. had not been able to answer this during the time of the merger debate in 1961. Repeated questions inside the Assembly later merely extracted from the P.A.P. Ministers equivocal answers which were neither here nor there. The Prime Minister raised the Common Market terms only because of our constant criticism. Only on 13th April, 1963, was this question of the Common Market revealed to the public for th.3 first time. The Federation Finance Minister confirmed that this was an entirely new item, never discussed before in the financial merger talks between the Federation and Singapore Governments. This only proves that what the P.A.P. chooses to consider as the most important comes only as an after-thought as a result of our criticism. However, this Common Market question soon became an item of major importance in the financial talks.

On 30th May, 1963, it was reported that both Governments had agreed in principle on the Common Market, and on the following day the Prime Minister announced with a guilty conscience that "this is not the end of the free port status in Singapore." What are the facts? Let us see what Annex J of the Malaysia Agreement says. Section 1 (1) reads:

`The Federal Government, .... shall progressively establish a common market in Malaysia....'.

And it is envisaged that the Common Market will be fully established at the end of 12 years. By the end of that period, the free port status of Singapore will have disappeared. At present the whole of Singapore is a free port, i.e. all 224 square miles of Singapore is a free port. What does the free port status of Singapore mean? It means, as explained by the Finance Minister a couple of years back, that apart from revenue duties on tobacco, liquor and petroleum, goods can be imported into Singapore without any import duties, and these have benefited Singapore in two ways. First, the people of Singapore are able to buy more goods cheaply; for instance, there is no duty on textiles, shoes, foodstuffs, and so on. The prices of such goods will be cheaper in Singapore as compared with the Federation of Malaya where there are import duties. The second benefit is to our traders. Much of our imports are re-exported to the neighbouring territories, e.g. the Federation, Sumatra, Sarawak, Borneo. Without the import duties our merchants can buy cheaply and sell to these territories cheaply. This is how our entrepot trade prospers. It therefore follows that when any import duty is levied in Singapore, the free port status is affected. Similarly, import duties can be levied on all sorts of consumer goods, e.g. toothbrush, toothpaste, shoes, polish, pencils, and so on. A free port status means a cheap cost of living for the people. Now in 12 years or less all the cheap living will become things of the past.

Section 4 (2) reads:

`Revenue duties in force in Singapore on 1st July, 1963, and the corresponding duties in force in the Federation of Malaya shalt be harmonised as soon as practicable.'.

In other words, Sir, revenue duties on petrol, liquor, and tobacco will be harmonised. The price of petrol is the same on both sides of the Causeway today. But the prices of diesel oil, alcohol and tobacco are higher in the Federation than in Singapore today. This, therefore, means that the prices of diesel oil, alcohol, and tobacco will be raised, and cost more for the man in the street in Singapore. The taxi-driver, the bus traveller, will have to spend more money in order to go about their daily work. The earnings of taxi-drivers will correspondingly decrease. Where a man could afford three pints of beer before -

An hon. Member: Like the Prime Minister.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Yes, like the Prime Minister, will be able to afford only two pints. A smoker will have to spend more on his daily smokes and he will have correspondingly less money for house-keeping. This is what will happen when Singapore loses its free port status. Is this what we want? Where else had the P.A.P. said about the free port status in 1961 and 1962? It is laid down in the White Paper (first paragraph of section 17) that "the free port status of Singapore ... will not be changed without the concurrence of both the Federal and the Singapore Governments." In the Merger and Your Future leaflet put out by the P.A.P., which is a Ministry of Culture publication No. 1/62 printed by the Government Printing Office, Singapore, it says here under the heading "Your Right and Benefits Before and After Merger", the item is "Free Port Status for Singapore" and under the column "Before Merger" it says "Yes", and under the column "After Merger", it also says "Yes". Therefore, there should be no change so far as the free port status of Singapore is concerned.

Then in another Merger and Your Rights leaflet, also from the Ministry of Culture, No. 5/62, it says here on the back page:

`Business Opportunities: Singapore retains her free port status after merger.'

In a forum sponsored by the Chinese Chamber of Commerce on the 13th January, 1962, a question was asked, "If after merger the Central Government of the new Federation by levying taxes affect the free port status of Singapore, what measures can the Government adopt to face the situation?" A very simple question. The question was, "If after merger the Central Government of the new Federation by levying taxes affect the free port status of Singapore, what measures can the Government adopt to face the situation?" And the Minister for Finance answered, "The Central Government cannot do this without the agreement of the Singapore Government, of course. The situation envisaged by the questioner does not therefore arise." What a wonderful way of answering a question. The logical interpretation and implication of this answer is that the P.A.P. Government would not agree to any measures that would affect the free port status of Singapore. Anybody reading an answer like this must come to the conclusion that the Singapore Government would not change the free port status of Singapore.

As I have pointed out, the P.A.P. further confirmed this with stout assurances that the present free port status will remain after merger. Thus we can see that the P.A.P. have repeatedly given assurances that the free port status of Singapore will remain. But what is happening now? According to the Malaysia Agreement signed in London, Singapore will not continue to be a free port. And by the end of 12 years, if the agreement is really put into effect, the only free port we will have in the domain of Singapore will be confined to the island of Blakang Mati. A free port status of 224 square miles of Singapore will be reduced to 658 acres of Blakang Mati. 658 acres, does it come to any square mile?

There is also this referendum leaflet given out by the Government of Singapore - again it is a Ministry of Culture publication, No. 8/62. And concerning free port, it says:

`What does Alternative A mean? It means Singapore will continue to be a free port.'

That is what it says here in this leaflet. Is this not deception? Has the P.A.P. not deceived the people? Surely, the people did not - even assuming that they really did vote for Alternative A - vote for what is now in the Malaysia Agreement. Then we might ask: What will happen to our free port trade? The tourist trade flourishes only in a free port. If the free port status is reduced to the Island of Blakang Mati, then the tourist trade will have to be confined to Blakang Mati.

11.00 p.m.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr John Mammen) in the Chair]

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Rueff Report in page 78, paragraph 196, estimates that the tourist trade in Singapore can amount to anything like $100 million a year. It says here in the last sentence:

`It is impossible to estimate the value of these transactions; but, on the basis of the indications obtained from the trade, it is likely that the unrecorded transactions taken as a whole may be as high as M$100 million.'

Another $100 million gone down the drain. Then what of the small traders and shop-keepers who depend on this tourist trade? It does look as if the traders in High Street, South Bridge Road, Change Alley and even Raffles Square will have to look for new sources of income. They may even have to close down. Those gainfully employed may find themselves without jobs in the not too distant future. All thanks to the P.A.P.

Clause 4 sub-clause (3) of the Malaysia Constitution says that until 31st December, 1968, that is five years from now, no new revenue duty can be imposed without the consent of the Singapore Government. But in the second five-year period, that is, from the 1st January, 1969, to 31st December, 1975, Singapore can refuse to agree to heavier duties only (and this is a very important thing) on payment of compensation on non-imposition of such duties in Singapore. After the 31st of December, 1975, that is after 12 years, the Singapore Government cannot withhold consent to imposition of whatever duty the Federation may wish to impose. In other words, duties will be imposed on consumer goods after five years at any time the Federation Government chooses to do so. If the duties are not paid for directly by the individual consumer or the trader, then the duties will have to be paid for indirectly from Government revenue, which, after all, is also collected from the people of Singapore. Therefore, either way, the people of Singapore will have to pay.

Then what of the protective duties? Protective duties already imposed are not very many in number. Well-known examples are protective duties on soap and paint. But there are protective duties on many items of goods in the Federation. For example, medicines, tyres, batteries - you can name any number of items. Those who have travelled from Singapore to the Federation will know how much it costs them in ordinary day-to-day goods. We get cheaper medicine, for example, in Singapore. Once you go into the Federation, you have to pay, and pay through your nose too. It is, I think, a 20 to 30 per cent increase in price and naturally therefore the cost of living of the people will correspondingly go up with the imposition of these new protective duties. Of course, this will not affect those who are in the front row of the PAP. Government - they are well off enough. All of them have new cars. But to those who already find it difficult to make both ends meet, this extra duty on consumer goods will mean an extra burden and greater hardship. Is this what we want? Moreover, any increase in price on goods and products in every-day use will have its effect on other connected goods, thus creating a vicious circle leading to increased cost of living all round.

We see, therefore, that after Malaysia is pushed through the free port status of Singapore will very rapidly diminish. The free port of Singapore will be shrunk in size from the whole island of Singapore, 224 square miles, to the size of the island of Blakang Mati, which is only 658 acres, about half a mile from Singapore. In order that the poor people may get a cheaper living - if they still want that cheaper living - they will have to go to Blakang Mati and stay there. Otherwise they will not get a cheaper living. If a person from the Singapore mainland goes to Blakang Mati to buy cheaper goods, he will have to pay duties on those same goods on return to Singapore. That is what it means. Everybody's cost of living will increase.

As I say, the P.A.P. Front benches do not have to worry; they have enough money. There are not many people who have so much money. The Prime Minister says he will build bonded warehouses in the Harbour Board area and in Telok Ayer Basin. But how practical is this proposition? Already Singapore businessmen are complaining that this will hinder the trade of Singapore. Building warehouses in Blakang Mati itself would mean additional costs in storage and transport from the Singapore mainland to Blakang Mati and back again from Blakang Mati to Singapore. As pointed out on the 10th of July in the Straits Times, there is also the fear that banks would not guarantee the goods once bonded warehouses are introduced.

Sir, a large portion of the goods for the entrepot trade is kept in warehouses owned by the banks, which also provide the credit facilities for the traders. Entrepot traders fear that having bonded warehouses would mean taking the goods away from the banks, leaving them nothing for security on the credit. So how will the P.A.P. overcome this difficulty? Does the P.A.P. itself intend to provide the credit facilities and so take over the role of banks in Singapore? If that is so, then the people must be informed about this. P.A.P. philantrophy with other people's money is now well known. So let the P.A.P. inform the people what it intends to do. Building a large number of bonded warehouses and charging very cheap rentals will not be able to solve all the problems. First of all, there is not enough space in the Harbour Board area. And how many bonded warehouses are they going to keep? People who normally go to High Street will not be able to go to bonded warehouses to buy things. And the tourist trade in Singapore will suffer greatly.

Of course, the P.A.P. says that there is a Tariff Advisory Board. This Board is meant to advise on the establishment and maintenance of a common external tariff, but appointments to this Tariff Advisory Board shall be made by the Federation Government, and that is the rub. Singapore will be able to nominate only one of three Deputy Chairmen for the first five years, not after that. The whole Board, in fact, will be so weighed on the side of the Federation that in any clash of interests between the Federation and Singapore, as there certainly will be, Singapore interests cannot but suffer. Thus, even in the matter of the Tariff Advisory Board the advantages are entirely on the side of the Federation. This is not going to help Singapore. How will this help to promote Singapore industrialisation when Federation interests will always come first and Singapore State interests will always come second?

In addition to protective duties on goods imported, their Government can also impose a special production tax on producers in a low tariff state and an export duty on primary products. This production tax on producers in a low tariff state and export duty on primary products are, of course, meant to protect Federation industries against Singapore industries. An example of production tax was given in our Barisan statement on the 13th of July, 1963. If the production cost of a pair of shoes in the Federation is, say, $1.50 and in Singapore only $1.00, then a production tax of 50 cents will be imposed on Singapore shoes in order to protect the shoe industries in the Federation. That is what production tax means. Everything produced cheaply here will have a production tax added on to it in order to give the industries in the Federation a chance to compete evenly and equally. Of course, all this can only work to the disadvantage of the Singapore industries.

Another example is the production costs, and so the selling price of eggs. If eggs sell at 10 cents in the Federation and only 9 cents in Singapore, for example, then a duty of 1 cent will be imposed on each Singapore egg in order to level up the price of eggs to 10 cents in both Singapore and the Federation. This, in fact, puts Singapore products at a great disadvantage since the extra cost of transport - this is a new item - will mean that Singapore eggs will sell at a dearer price than that of Federation eggs in the Federation and outside Singapore. In both instances, it can mean only a rise in the cost of living for the people.

In addition, clause 3 (2) of Annex J allows the Federation Government to impose or vary protective duties on Singapore at any time, even without prior reference to the Tariff Advisory Board. You may have a Board, but they do not have to consult the Board. Whether they do it that way or not is another matter, but the powers are there. They can do it. When new protective duties are imposed in the Federation, clause 3 (3) allows the Singapore Government to delay the imposition of the tax, but not reject it, and that only for a period of up to 12 months, not after that. After the 12-month period, the new protective duties will be imposed on Singapore, however the people of Singapore may object and protest. There is nothing we can do about it. If the Federation Government decides to impose these taxes on Singapore after the 12-month period, that is all there is to it. We may protest but we shall have to cough up. And in addition, during the 12 months, when Singapore can delay the imposition of these duties, the Singapore Government cannot grant any pioneer certificate to any industry which may be affected by the proposed protective duties. How then can Singapore promote her industries? If industries can be set up, they will be only industries that play a secondary role to Federation industries.

It is quite clear that such terms of the uncommon Common Market which the P.A.P. has obtained for Singapore are not going to help our people at all. Quite to the contrary, all the benefits and advantages are going to be on the Federation side. Singapore will receive only the crumbs. The whole of the financial control is in Federation hands. Even the issue of pioneer certificates will have to be approved by the Federation Government. This is found in the Annex to Annex J. In the event that Singapore wishes to establish an industry that can compete with a similar existing industry in the Federation, then the pioneer certificates issued by the Singapore Government will not be approved. Even if the industry is not yet established but the Federation wishes to establish such an industry, a pioneer certificate issued by the Singapore Government will also not be approved. How then do we hope to promote industrialisation in Singapore?

In the Annex to Annex J, the Federation Government has powers to fix the rate of tax on the value of goods for duty or for excise purposes.

The Federation Government has powers also to make all regulations in relation to Customs and Excise. The Federation Government, in fact, has direct access to all documents and records of the Customs and Excise Department, and can issue directions to the Singapore Government to ensure collection and protection of Federation Customs duties and Excise. Thus, Singapore is merely to be the collector and office boy of the Federation. So what is all this talk about Common Market giving the people of Singapore benefits? What we have is only a very doubtful advantage. On the contrary, the disadvantages are certain and plain to see. We have repeatedly told the P.A.P. that without equal political rights the interests of the people of Singapore cannot be adequately protected and safeguarded. This bears out what we have repeatedly said, both inside and outside the House. So much for the Common Market which is going to deprive Singapore of the free port status and does not safeguard or protect her industries.

Let me now briefly summarise the results of the financial merger talks.

1. What was supposed to have been a lump payment for Federal services in Singapore in 1961 has now become a percentage payment for Pan-Malaysian services in 1963.

2. What was calculated by the P.A.P. Government as payment to the Federation at 34 per cent of Singapore's national revenue has now become a payment of 40 per cent.

3. What was originally a lump sum payment of only $78 million per year now becomes a percentage payment amounting to $124 million which increases year by year.

4. The P.A.P. says that Singapore cannot afford to give a grant of S50 million, but finally the Prime Minister gives away a loan of $150 million, - $100 million of which is interest free. The $150 million loan is worth more than the $50 million grant in development value.

(5) From the bold stand of "must collect and keep and pay", the Prime Minister now is willing to be only the office boy or rent-collector of the Federation.

(6) The P.A.P. said categorically that the free port status after merger would remain. Now the free port status will remain and be confined only to Blakang Mati after 12 years.

(7) With the free port status reduced to the size of Blakang Mati, the free port trade in Singapore will suffer with the grave danger of loss of employment, and increased cost of living for large sections of our people.

(8) The Common Market terms are weighted entirely on the side of the Federation and will not promote, safe-guard and protect Singapore industries.

(9) The harmonisation of taxes will mean a rise in price of consumer goods with a corresponding rise in the cost of living for the people of Singapore.

Now, let me come to the question of land and the 50 per cent labour that the P.A.P. Government brags so much about, and let us see what they really mean. In addition to the payment to the Federation of 40 per cent of the national revenue of Singapore, and the loan of $150 million ($100 million of which is interest free), the Singapore Government has also agreed to pay for the (lay-to-day running and development of departments like Broadcasting, T.V., and others. Clause 7 of Annex J -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You never stop talking.

The Prime Minister entered the Chamber.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I have been waiting for you, Mr Prime Minister.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Mammen): Order.

The Prime Minister: You heard wrong; it was the Finance Minister.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You want a glass of tea?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Clause 7 of Annex J reads as follows:

`The Singapore Government shall pay to the Federal Government the cost of capital development of Federal projects in Singapore other than projects for defence and internal security. The two Governments shall agree together on projects to be covered by this paragraph which do not provide predominantly local services.

These include, inter alia, Airport development scheme and the round-the-world Commonwealth Cable scheme all of which will involve a total expenditure of more than $20 million.'

Let me refer you to page 66, paragraph 4 of Paper Misc. 4. It is too long, and I do not wish to read it out but it says that $20 million will have to be paid for the airport development scheme and the Commonwealth Cable scheme. In addition, it says:

`.... the Singapore Government agrees to bear the cost of future development expenditure in Singapore .... up to $3 million [per year].'

The recurrent expenditure for Broadcasting, Airport, Defence, etc, comes to approximately $36 million per year. If we add these figures of $3 million -

The Prime Minister: On a point of order, Sir,Is the Member aware that he is, in fact, misquoting all these figures? Is he aware that all these figures are relevant to the percentage?

Mr Deputy Speaker: It is not a point of order. It is a matter of interpretation. The Prime Minister will be able to clarify when he winds up the debate on this motion. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I am quite willing to let him clarify, if he could.

The Prime Minister: Sir, may I ask the Member a question on a point of elucidation?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Unless he wants me to -

The Prime Minister: Surely -

Mr Deputy Speaker: Is the Member giving way?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: No, Sir.

The Prime Minister: There you are!

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You asked him to clarify.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: And even explain. If he explains too, then it is all right.

The Prime Minister: Yes. I would like to know from the hon. Member whether, in his opinion, because of merger and Malaysia we should stop the airport development, the round-the-world Commonwealth Cable, stop building police barracks, stop every-thing which are Federal projects, stop building any post office in Singapore after Malaysia'? Is he suggesting that we ought to do that?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: He is not explaining at all. I am saying that he has given that money away and he has agreed to give that money away. That is the point.

The Prime Minister: A lot of drivel.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: In addition, the Singapore Government agrees to bear the cost. Sir, if we bear the cost of future development expenditure in Singapore up to $3 million a year, that is, the recurrent expenditure -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Capital.

The Prime Minister: Capital expenditure.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - Broadcasting, Airport, and Defence, comes to approximately $36 million a year.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, on a point of elucidation.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: All right.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Can the Member distinguish between "current expenditure" and "capital expenditure"? These are elementary factors in calculations. Does he know the difference, and, if so, what is the difference?

Mr Deputy Speaker: It is not on a point of elucidation. The Finance Minister is embarking on a debate on capital expenditure. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Minister for Finance is barking up the wrong tree all the time.

The Prime Minister: On a point of order, Sir. Is it in order for the Member to pretend to be deaf and put on a earphone?

Mr Deputy Speaker: It is not a point of order at all. May I remind the Government Benches that it is best that we give a silent hearing to the Member for Queenstown?

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Sir, on a point of order. The point of order is that the Opposition has accorded the Prime Minister due respect and silence when he spoke for three hours. May I request that the same consideration be given to the Opposition?

Mr Deputy Speaker: I have already indicated to the Government Benches that a silent hearing should be given to the Opposition.

The Prime Minister: He is again on the Barisan side; funny man!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: As I say, Sir, if we add these figures of $3 million and $36 million to the $124 million calculated from the 40 per cent Federal revenue, we see that the Singapore Government has to pay the Federation every year $124 million plus $3 million plus $36 million, and that gives us a figure of $163 million.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Total rubbish!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: This excludes the $150 million loan plus interest on that loan. Why such payment?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of order, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: It is a point of order. The debate is now proceeding into detailed calculations of amounts due for various items of contribution. Sir, is it necessary for the Member for Queenstown to inflict all this drivel upon the House? Would it not be better if he distributes to hon. Members of the House a written statement showing how he arrives at the figure?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. [Interruption] Order. It is not a point of order at all. I think the Member for Queenstown has every right to speak in this Chamber. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: You see, Sir, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance come back after a drinking bout. Look at their faces!

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. [Interruption] Order. I have made my ruling, and I ask the Member for Queenstown to proceed on the motion. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I ask, Sir, why such payment?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Why such what?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: You see, Sir, some people are a bit deaf.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You are talking rubbish.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: This money is, of course, meant for the expansion of the armed forces. May I refer you, Sir, to Document II of Paper Misc. 4 of 1963? There it tells us that there is an estimated increase of as much as $200 million in expenditure on the armed forces annually.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Document II?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Document II of Paper Misc. 4 of 1963. It is paragraph 7 on page 12. An annual expenditure of $240 million has rightly been called a staggering increase - I use the correct words, I think. It says here, "staggering increase". Not only will this wasteful expenditure on the armed forces, as stated here, eat into the surplus and reduce the economic development, but it will also result in the imposition of increased taxes. This is the extra burden which the people of Singapore have been asked to pay. Malaysia is, therefore, only going to mean heavier expenditure on the armed forces. Such armed expansion cannot benefit the people. It will only profit the foreign monopoly capitalists and the arms industries.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: They are getting their arms free.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance went to London not to fight for the interests of the people of Singapore. They went instead to sell out the rights of the people of Singapore. There is not a single item which the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance have not almost completely given away in the negotiations with the Federation. Of course, the P.A.P. tries to cover up this sell-out. On the one hand, it denies political opponents the right and freedom of speech and assembly to expose them. On the other hand, the Prime Minister uses the whole State propaganda machinery to magnify out of all proportion the sops and the soothers he received from the United Kingdom to help him save face for signing the sell-out agreement in London.

If we compare the ultimatum of the 22nd June, 1963, from the Federation to the Singapore Government, as set out in Document VIII in Paper Misc. 4 of 1963, and the conditions demanded by the Federation Government therein, with the final agreement as set out in Annex J signed in London, we will see then that the Singapore Government has given in to all the conditions and demands of the Federation, and more.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Rubbish! Substantiate that.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: (1) The Common Market terms in Annex J have already explained this. It takes away the free port status of Singapore without adequate safeguards for Singapore. Neither will Singapore industries be adequately protected.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Rubbish.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: (2) The Federation has control over the whole financial machinery. The powers reserved to the Federation Government in Customs and Excise and Income Tax as set out in the annexure to Document VIII are all categorically stated in Part I and Part II of the Annex to Annex J, exactly the same.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Rubbish.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Singapore Government is only delegated power to be the tax collector of the Federation. Rubbish again?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Yes, you are talking nonsense. Why do you not sit down and go home?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The P.A.P. Government asked that this delegation of power be irrevocable. The Federation refused to accede to this request and the Federation has reserved power to withdraw even this delegated tax collecting power at any time.

An hon. Member: Shame!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Also nonsense?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Absolute rubbish. Have you not read the whole documents?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Document VIII. All Federal taxes collected in Singapore are divided between the two Governments in the proportion of 60 per cent Singapore and 40 per cent Federation. The revenue is merely first paid into a separate fund. That is all. Is this again nonsense? The income tax attributable to the Federation but collected in Singapore is handed in toto to the Federation Government.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: That is being done now. Do you not know that?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Is this again nonsense?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: It is being done now. The yield belongs to them.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The income tax attributable to Singapore but collected in the Federation is divided 60 per cent Singapore and 40 per cent Federation. Is this also done now?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Cannot you understand that?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: (3) Even tax attributable to Singapore and collected by an agent in the United Kingdom is divided 60 per cent Singapore and 40 per cent Federation. Is this nonsense and is also being done now?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: We are not in Malaysia yet. Cannot you understand that?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The provisions in clauses 5 and 6 of Annex J in common language, mean that, what is the Federation's is the Federation and what is Singapore's is also the Federation's. This is the philosophy of the P.A.P. It amounts to what is yours is mine, and what is mine is also mine. You lose everything.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You would give them 100 per cent income tax in your complete merger.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: (4) The Singapore Government also pays for Federal development projects in Singapore other than defence and internal security. This is seen in clause 7 of Annex J.

(5) Again according to the ultimatum, the demand of the $50 million grant. This has now been changed to a loan of $150 million, $100 million of which is interest free. That is the only item in the Federation ultimatum of June 22nd which has been changed. But as we have already explained, this $150 million loan in development is, in fact, worth more than the $50 million grant. This is confirmed not only by the World Bank but also by businessmen in Singapore, and even by the Prime Minister himself, as I quoted a little while back.

(6) Provide for a review as laid down in clause 8 of Annex J. Nothing much there. It is exactly the same. The final agreement is exactly as in the Federation ultimatum.

Therefore, we can see that although the P.A.P. put up a sham front before going to London, it has ultimately surrendered to every one of the Federation's demands as set out in the ultimatum of 22nd June, 1963. Every one of them! In fact, there was no necessity for the P.A.P. team to go to London at all. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance might just as well have remained in Singapore and signed on the dotted line within the 48 hours stipulated in the Federation ultimatum. They need not have wasted all our money. They should not have used the people's money for travels, especially now that the P.A.P. pretends to express such concern for the welfare of the people. But, of course, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance have other plans in mind. The stage had been set for the comedy and farce of turning a glaring sell-out into a triumph, and an out-and-out traitor into a so-called hero. The whole Government propaganda machinery had been geared to pave the way for crumbs from the table to be magnified out of all proportion to wonderful P.A.P. cakes. Let us see how the P.A.P. propaganda machine works. On the 8th July, 1963 -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Thank God this is your last speech [and proceeded to leave the Chamber].

Dr Lee Siew Choh: He dare not even listen to me. He runs.

Dr Goh Keng Swee (at the Bar): You talk so much rubbish that no one is going to listen to you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Mammen): Order. May I remind the Hon, the Minister for Finance that if he wishes to interject or to make a point of clarification, he should do so in this Chamber?

Some hon. Members: Shame!

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: On the 8th of July the Prime Minister wrote to the Federation listing certain points that required confirmation from the Federation Prime Minister. En this letter there are altogether eight points - firstly, secondly, thirdly, fourthly, fifthly, sixthly, seventhly, eighthly, and lastly.

Mr Rajaratnam: Like you.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: There are so many points, and vivid testimonies to the extent of this confirmation can be seen in a six-line reply from Tun Razak who only confirmed one of the eight points raised by the Prime Minister of Singapore. The eight points are written in hundreds, even thousands of words. The Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation replied:

`Dear Prime Minister,

In the event of the Government of the Federation introducing -'.

Mr Deputy Speaker: What Paper is that?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I am referring. Sir, to the second letter in Paper Misc. 5 of 1963, which is a reply to the Prime Minister of Singapore's letter of 8th July sent from Park Lane Hotel. Well, he had a chance to stay in Park Lane Hotel anyway - for the last time maybe. And he received only a six-line reply from the Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation. The reply reads as follows: `Dear Prime Minister, In the event of the Government of the Federation introducing legislation under Article 9 (3) of the Constitution of Malaysia imposing restrictions as between Singapore and the States of Malaya on the right conferred by Article 9 (2), I agree that such restrictions should be reciprocal. Yours Sincerely. (Signed)'.

Sir, I do not want to waste the time of the House by reading to you what are firstly, secondly, thirdly, and so on. Anybody can buy this Paper and read the eight points listed by the Prime Minister of Singapore. The only answer was a six-line letter which, in fact, says yes to (1), no to (2), no to (3), (4) no, (5) no, (6) no, (7) no, (8) no, and lastly no. This is a real slap in the face of the P.A.P., a real slap in the face of the Prime Minister of Singapore. There is not even any mention of the other seven points. This only means that the Federation Prime Minister has not agreed to the other points raised by the Prime Minister of Singapore at the last minute. The Federation does not give in so easily as the P.A.P.

The Prime Minister tries to play up on the 1,300 acres of land that he is supposed to have got back from the War Department of the U.K. Government. He wanted to create a picture of himself as a great anti-colonialist, a real anti-colonial hero. He said that he could have made Duncan Sandys kneel on his bended knees. That is what he said, "to get Duncan Sandys to kneel on his bended knees". He does not realise - foolish man - that he was being made use of by the British all the time. But, of course, everybody knows that the laugh is on the P.A.P. stooge. May I refer you,

Sir, to the letter of 8th July, 1963, from Duncan Sandys of the Colonial Office to the Prime Minister of Singapore? I will summarise the letter. Duncan Sandys clarified the situation as follows: (1) Blakang Mati will not be released until August 1966, i.e. three years from now; not immediately but 1966, and by that time I do not know what will happen.

An hon. Member: P.A.P. buried.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The P.A.P. will definitely be buried, of course. This is Blakang Mati!

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the letter dated 8th of July?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Yes, 8th July, 1963.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Will the Member please give the page number? Is it Paper Misc. 5?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: It is too long a letter for me to read. It is Paper Misc. 5 of 1963. The pages are not numbered, but starting from the cover it would be page 13.

Mr Deputy Speaker: There are two letters dated 8th July. The Member is referring to the second letter of that date.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Yes, that is corect. I have already summarised that letter. It says that (1) Blakang Mati will not be released until 1966, which is three years from now. And (2) land in the Naval Base too will not be released. The U.K. Government would only have no objection to the wish of the Prime Minister that the Crown land now occupied by the British Military Forces in Malaya under the Defence Agreement be covered by a 30-year lease at a nominal rent of $1 per site. $1 per site, Mr Deputy Speaker, and on a 30-year lease. From this alone we can see that the Prime Minister of Singapore has got really nothing very much in this land deal. Long before the 30 years are out, the Naval Base should have been liquidated and the land handed back to the people of Singapore and Malaya. Similarly, Blakang Mati, which Singapore hopes to use as a free zone in the Common Market arrangements, will be released only after 1966, a long time from now. What happens to the Common Market before then? From now, that is, from the 1st of September. 1963, to 1966, where is the "Free Zone" going to be? In P.A.P. land? Then what of the other lands that Singapore is supposed to have got back from the United Kingdom? The letter of 8th July from Duncan Sandys tells us that the land in Fort Canning will be handed over to the Government of Singapore if and when the British Service authorities no longer need the area. "If and when" - and that too only on condition that an alternative site is provided for outside the City area plus compensation at current value paid for the buildings therein. Where then are the 1,300 acres? The lands that can be made available without condition to the Singapore Government are sites in Changi and Pulau Brani. The total area is only 176 acres. The large areas in Sembawang and Pulau Blakang Mati will be made available only on fixed conditions. Is this claim of the return of land not a sham?

You can refer, Sir, to the annex of the letter from Duncan Sandys to the Prime Minister of Singapore. It is all stated very clearly here. So why is the P.A.P. trying to bluff the people of Singapore?

The P.A.P. claims that it has obtained from the U.K. Government $10 million as payment for illegal occupation of Singapore land. But let us be clear what the money has been given for. It is not for rent or compensation for the land occupied by the military forces. Any rent payable is only a nominal rent of $1 per site. Mr Deputy Speaker, $1 per site. That is very cheap. Of course, as I say, the P.A.P. can only be tough and can only take tough action against people who have no guns, no arms, to fight back. But when it is a matter of the British Government, the P.A.P. shrink themselves into a shell. They dare not fight. They talk tough to the people. Why not talk tough to the British Government? Instead they kneel down before the British Government. But they want to tell the people of Singapore that they got Duncan Sandys on bended knees. Who would ever believe a thing like that?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Lee Khoon Choy): Better have tea with Lord Selkirk!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Only licence money collected from farmers cultivating land, now illegally occupied by the British Military Forces, will be made payable to the Singapore Government. That amount cannot be very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. The $10 million which the U.K. Government will make available to Singapore is only meant, as specifically mentioned in the letter, for, and I quote - it is a letter on the 8th of July. It is a very short letter: very concise and to the point -

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Mammen): Order. Mr Yong.