MALAYSIA AGREEMENT

Order read for resumption of debate on Question (30th July, 1963).

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

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

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

SUBJECT to the fulfilment of the conditions set out in the exchange of letters between the Singapore Government and the Federation Government and the Singapore Government and the British Government contained in Paper Misc. 5 of 1963, this House ADOPTS the constitutional provisions and amendments contained in Paper Cmd. 22 of 1963.". -(The Prime Minister).

Question again proposed.

2.35 p.m.

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, when the House rose last night, I was talking about the P.A.P. propaganda play-up on the supposed 1,300 acres of land that the Prime Minister of Singapore is supposed to have got back for Singapore from the British War Department. I was telling the House how he even said that if he had only stood his ground for another 24 or 48 hours he would have got Duncan Sandys down on his bended knees before the great anti-colonial P.A.P. hero. But the letter from Mr Duncan Sandys clearly states the position. Blakang Mati with its 658 acres will not be released until 1966 and the Sembawang land will not be released at all. Even Fort Canning will be released only if and when - these are very important words, Sir, "if and when" - the British do not want it and only after adequate compensation from the Government of Singapore has been paid. The Prime Minister claims he has obtained from the U.K. Government $10 million as payment for illegal occupation of Singapore land. But let us be very clear what the money is for. It is not for rent or compensation of the land occupied by the military forces. Any rent payable is only a nominal sum of $1 per site. The Singapore Government under the P.A.P. can be extraordinarily generous to the colonial Government - their colonial masters - but not to the people. And 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, Sir, cannot amount to very much. The $10 million which the U.K. Government will make available to Singapore is only meant "for raising, equipping and accommodating the Second Battalion of the Singapore Infantry Regiment up to 31st August, 1963, when Singapore's financial responsibility ceases." Therefore, we hear right from the horse's mouth that the money is only for raising the Second Battalion, which we all know is to be used by the colonial Government for the suppression of the hopes and aspirations of the people in the region. P.A.P. propaganda has created the impression that the money is payment for compensation of land now occupied by the British military forces. But this is not so. The Prime Minister may say anything in his own letter to Mr Duncan Sandys, but the fact remains that the $10 million given by the U.K. Government is given only for the raising of the military forces. We hope the P.A.P. Government will have enough guts to tell the people all this. Tell them the truth. Do not hide. Anyway, however much the P.A.P. may want to hide, we will expose them. It is time that the P.A.P. realise that they cannot deceive the people all the time.

At this point, we may ask, if the military forces really are in illegal occupation of Singapore land, why does the P.A.P. not use its police and courts to evict the British forces from occupation? The brave P.A.P. has done this often enough but only against poor, defence-less men and women who cannot fight back against the police and the troops. Would the P.A.P. dare to take action against the British forces?

Sir, in the matter of the loan of $150 million for the development of the Borneo territories, the Prime Minister tries a face-saving device by asking that 50 per cent of the labourers who will be used for such development should be supplied from Singapore. He claims that these terms are written on the back of an envelope and allegedly signed by the Tunku. He claims that 50 per cent of labour, including even contractors, must come from Singapore in the use of the $150 million loan. Here we see the absurd position of the P.A.P. On the one hand, the Prime Minister said that he had "insisted" that the so-called common market terms be written into the Constitution and that nothing else would be good enough. He repeatedly said during his constituency tours that the M.C.A. in the Federation is trying to soak the people of Singapore and that, because of that, the common market arrangement must be written into the Constitution. Yet, on the other hand, the Prime Minister tells us that something scribbled, rather illegibly at that, on the back of an envelope is as good a bond in the conduct of affairs of State. Is this not evidence of the Gilbert and Sullivan cuckoo-land of Lee Kuan Yew and his Ministers?

Sir, there is today published in the Nanyang Siang Pau a letter with the scribbled envelope in photostat for all to see. We can see a few words scribbled and clown below some more scribbling with big crosses all over the place. In a statement, it says that the Tunku's signature on the back of that envelope means only acceptance of the points for discussion and that the envelope cannot be treated as an official document. They even complained that the action of the Prime Minister of Singapore in raising this matter for open discussion is just a little hit too much. I wonder if you can see all this, Sir, from your place -

Mr Speaker: Order. Could the hon. Member say whose opinion he is quoting? Is it an authoritative opinion?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: It is from the Federation Government. Sir,I will give you the translation of the headlines. "Tunku and Lee Kuan Yew - negotiations in England. Loan -" I think your interpreter may do it better than I can. Can I just read these words out in Chinese so that he can -

Mr Speaker: Order. I have already ruled that if the hon. Member wishes for a passage to be translated by the Simultaneous Interpreters from Mandarin into English, he ought to supply them with a copy in advance. Otherwise, he must do his best and translate that passage himself.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: It says, Sir, the Tunku and Lee Kuan Yew -negotiations in England, and the signature about the loan is not an official document. The Federation Government does not recognise open discussion. Those are the headlines, Sir,If I translate the whole statement, it will take too long, so I will leave it at that.

So we see the ridiculousness and the absurdity of the Singapore P.A.P. Government claiming all these lots of things. Last night, I remember I pointed out that the Prime Minister also claimed 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 - many, many points in his letter to Tun Razak. Tun Razak merely answered with a six-line letter to his hundreds and hundreds of words, indirectly, giving a slap in the face to the Prime Minister of Singapore. This is what has happened. Such being the case, it is no wonder that there is such a strong protest from Mr Donald Stephens, Chief Minister-designate of Sabah, and also from the Sarawak politicians about this 50 per cent labour. Mr Donald Stephens and the politicians in Sarawak are not slow in quoting the constitution on their State powers over immigration. On the other hand, Sir, search as we might, we cannot find anywhere in the Constitution this 50 per cent labour provision which the Prime Minister of Singapore wants us to accept. It is no wonder that we see the ridiculous situation in which we find the Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation, Tun Razak, having to write on the 18th of July to the Prime Minister that there was no use to reply further to his letters, and was therefore returning all those letters to him.

May I refer you, Sir, to Paper Misc. 5 of 1963, the last letter but one, dated 18th July? It is only a few lines and it is worth reading, Sir. It reads: `Dear Prime Minister, You will remember that shortly before the signing of the formal agreement for the establishment of Malaysia in London on 8th July. 1963, you forwarded a number of claims on behalf of the Singapore Government in the form of letters. As a result of the discussions between Tunku and yourself and the understanding reached between you it was agreed that there was no need to reply further to these letters. I am, therefore, returning them to you herewith. Yours sincerely, (Sgd.) TUN ABDUL RAZAK BIN HUSSAIN AL-HAJ'.

If this is not a slap in the face, what is? Has the Prime Minister still face to tell us that he has got this and that for the people of Singapore? The whole trouble is that although he receives slaps and kicks from the Federation Ministers, the P.A.P. dare not answer back. In fact, they are depending on the Federation Ministers for their survival today. I will come to that later, Sir.

All these letters returned and not even a reply or mention of the claim put forward by the Prime Minister of Singapore. It is pathetic that the Prime Minister has to swallow his pride with words, "I am happy to leave it at that" when he never got what he wanted to set. I refer you to the last letter of the same Paper, the last sentence of the second paragraph. He says:

`I am happy to leave it at that.'

Because he cannot have anything else -

Mr Speaker: Order. I hate interrupting the hon. Member, but I do not think he should just take a sentence out of context. I think the whole letter should be read.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I will, Sir. The letters reads:

`I have your letter of 18th July.

I do not think we can ignore the letter containing the eight points because the note which the Tunku signed said that the last part of this letter about the Inter-Governmental Committee was to be cancelled. This will make no sense unless the letter is in fact published. As for the other points, you have agreed to them, although they will not be enshrined in the Constitution. I am happy to leave it at that.'

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): That is better.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: `The other two letters have been superseded by this signed note and can be ignored.

I enclose copy of the letter which I wrote to the Tunku enclosing a photostat copy of the note which he signed on the night of 8th July.'

From this, Sir, you can see that although the Prime Minister of Singapore lays so much stress on getting the terms of the Common Market enshrined, as he says, in the Constitution, yet now he is happy to leave it at that. Of course, the P.A.P. cannot get anything out of the Federation. What else can he do? He must of course leave it at that.

This incident, however, reveals the desperate situation in which the Prime Minister found himself in London. He was pressured right and left and had to sign away the rights of the people of Singapore in order that he might still have a hope of saving himself.

This incident also reveals another aspect of politics in Malaya. That the Prime Minister of the Federation could make such arrangements that binds a State without prior consultation with the State concerned, that is, if the Prime Minister of Singapore's allegation was true, shows how readily the Central Government ignores the wishes of the people of the various states of the proposed Malaysia. This is an example of great power chauvinism which will always place the interests of the Federation above the interests of other smaller States. However, to come back.

This 50 per cent labour and contractors' claim of the P.A.P., if true, would, of course, be able to benefit Singapore a bit, just a little, and only a little. Only artisans and skilled workers will have the chance and they are not many in number in Singapore. But it is pertinent to ask, Sir, if indeed the $150 million loan was used for economic development, which we doubt, and so provide jobs for the people of Singapore, why then has the P.A.P. Government not used the same money in Singapore itself? Why have jobs to be provided for in Borneo, 1,000 miles away, and not here in Singapore itself? Would it not be possible then to use not 50 per cent labour, but 100 per cent labour from Singapore and really give thousands of jobs to our tens of thousands of unemployed? What is the answer to this? The P.A.P. will not be able to answer -

Dr Goh Keng Swee shook his head.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: He shakes his head, Sir. He cannot answer -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Point of clarification.

Mr Speaker: Point of clarification.

Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, the four to five times the amount of the loan in Singapore today is for sheer capital development projects.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I do not know what explanation that is. I asked a simple question, Sir. I said if the money was really going to be used for development and for the employment of men in Singapore, why cannot the development projects be started in Singapore itself? Why have 50 per cent labour to be sent to Borneo when we can jolly well have 100 per cent labour provided in Singapore itself?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Point of clarification.

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: He does not understand. Can I make it so simple that a seven-year-old child can understand? $150 million spread over five years is $30 million a year. Would the Member for Queenstown agree to this? That is correct - $30 million a year. We are spending in Singapore on the various capital projects of the Government, of the Housing Board, of the Harbour Board and of the Public Utilities Board and so on, somewhere within five or six times that amount. So the answer is, we are spending more money than the money that we are lending to Borneo and Sarawak.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Unfortunately, the Minister for Finance has not answered my question.

Mr Speaker: Order. Let us get on with the debate. We are not in Committee. We are in the Assembly. I am sure the Minister for Finance in his time will answer all questions raised.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, this is very important, because unemployment is daily growing more and more acute in Singapore as a result of P.A.P. incompetence. Forty thousand young men and women leave school every year. Where are the jobs for them? Why does the P.A.P. not use the $150 million to help our own young men and women? Why loan to Borneo? And why on such terms? Singapore borrows from the World Bank on terms which the people call humiliating but which the P.A.P. considers very fair. The World Bank, in giving a loan of only $45 million to Singapore, requires that the Singapore Government enact a special law in order to enable the World Bank to exact those humiliating terms from Singapore. What is worse, all our Municipal property worth many times the $45 million is mortgaged for that small puny loan. So what happens? If Singapore has to loan $150 million, surely some form of terms as imposed by the World Bank should he considered if the P.A.P. Government considers those terms fair and just. I might ask, Sir, if the P.A.P. Finance Minister realises what the interest of the $150 million will mean to the people of Singapore. We already know, Sir, on 5� per cent interest, the $100 million of the $150 million loan will fetch $55 million in ten years. But if Singapore has to borrow money - let us assume that it is only on 5� per cent; in fact, it is more - in order to use that very same money to lend interest free to another country, then in fact the loss incurred by the Singapore Government would be twice $55 million. It becomes $110 million in ten years.

Mr Speaker: I seem to recollect that the hon. Member did give these figures yesterday. I do not wish to stop the hon. Member because this is a debate of some importance. But may I remind him that he has now been speaking for five hours and if he can try to avoid repetition, we might be able to carry on with this debate more expeditiously.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: No, Sir. I have no intention of repeating anything. But this is a new point which has just occurred to me on seeing the Finance Minister in front of me.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think my recollection is quite correct. I think these figures were given yesterday. If I am wrong, I apologise. But if I am right, that is repetition.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: It would be repetition, Sir, only in regard to $110 million, as I was saying. But there is another aspect of it, Sir. The other aspect is this, It means to the people of Singapore this. There are 600,000 citizens in Singapore today. Try and divide $110 million by 600,000 citizens. If the Minister for Finance's arithmetic is good enough, he will find that it works out to $200 per citizen. That is the amount of money that each citizen will lose as a result of P.A.P. generosity with the people's money. Sir, this $200 means money from every one of us.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Go back to primary school.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, we have seen how the P.A.P. has step by step surrendered the rights of the people of Singapore to the Federation. In so doing, the P.A.P. has sold Singapore completely down the drain, lock, stock and barrel The terms as laid down in the White Paper are unequal and unjust enough. But the terms in the Malaysia Agreement signed in London on the 9th July, 1963, are even more so. The Prime Minister himself knows this. That is why he said he signed because of the Tunku, hoping to use the Tunku's name as a shield against all criticism. And he also said over T.V. that he signed because he was asked to show face to Tan Siew Sin. "Oh, never mind," he said. He sounded very apologetic over T.V. Never mind with the people's money? I remember how when he similarly gave a T.V. show in his address to the Singapore Harbour Board workers. He related the story of how the Manager of the Singapore Harbour Board consulted him about a certain worker, and he said - it came very clearly over the radio and T.V.

• "Sack him. The Manager consulted me and I said, `Sack him'." How very strong and powerful. "Sack him," he said. But not with the people's money. Not with the Tunku. He would not dare. The P.A.P. never really consider the interests of the people of Singapore. He does not give any thought to the interests of the people of Singapore. If he had done so, he would not have signed away the rights of the people of Singapore in this easy manner. Just to give face to this person or that person. However pretty a face may be, I am sure it is not worth so many millions of dollars.

The Prime Minister had also boasted at one stage that he was not the Sultan of Brunei. Of course, different meanings can be read into those words; it depends on whether it is meant to be derogatory or otherwise. We have seen today that the Sultan of Brunei at least has the guts to say No. He has shown that he has more guts than our Prime Minister. He has enough guts to stand up for his rights and the rights of Brunei, in spite of all the pressure from the British. Has Lee Kuan Yew similarly withstood the pressure from the British and the Federation? He has not. Why has he not? The reasons are not far to seek. Lee Kuan Yew and company -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think Mr Lee Kuan Yew should be referred to in this Assembly as the Prime Minister.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Prime Minister and his Ministers could not fight back and had not the guts to fight back because they do not have the support of the people; and because they do not have the support of the people, they do not have the strength of the support of the people behind them. If the P.A.P. Ministers had, the result of the whole merger negotiations would have been entirely different. The British and the Federation negotiated on the strength of their guns and their jets. The P.A.P. has no such strength. It does not even have an audience for a P.A.P. mass rally, except when P.A.P. Ministers use Government pressure on certain people and when the Work Brigade boys are specially directed to attend these so-called rallies. The photos in newspapers that show a crowd listening to the Prime Minister speaking are all taken at wayangs and variety shows where in between items and scenes the Prime Minister comes out -

An hon. Member: To perform.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Yes. He comes out to perform. That is the exact word. "Perform". He has a prepared audience all ready for him. But now we see the Prime Minister begging the Tunku for the combining of forces - that is one of the phrases I picked out from the exchange of letters - to fight his phantom enemy, the Communist bogey. How can there be a combination of forces when the Prime Minister himself is not a force and he does not represent a force?

Sir, at this point, let me say something about the political force. A political force must represent a political movement that is really representative of the people. It must be deeply rooted in at least a section of the people whose interests it represents. It must be able to exercise influence over the people, lead them and mobilise them to action, so that the political aims and ideals may be realised.

Today superficially the P.A.P. appears to be a "force". It is still the Government. Yes. It can still use the Government machinery for its party purposes. Yes. It can still pass laws in the Assembly, that is, so long as those laws correspond with the interests of a section of the Opposition in this Assembly. It can still monopolise the use of the radio and television. Yes. And it can still nut pressure on the Singapore newspapers. Yes. It can still use the Police Force on its political opponents. Yes. It can still make use of the civil service to help the Party work. Yes. It can use the courts to prosecute and persecute political opponents. Yes. It can even bring up fictitious and frivolous charges of breach of privilege of the House against political opponents. It can pressure people into "welcoming" the Prime Minister. It can order school students to line the streets. It can intimidate and bribe certain people into supporting the Government. But all power and strength comes from the control over the State machinery, and the P.A.P. has this power because of its control over the State machinery. Bu: iii terms of the real meaning of a political force, i.e. whether or not it represents the people, the P.A.P. is not a political force. The Prime Minister may bluster and posture, beat his chest, heat his drum, shout and talk tough, but he and the P.A.P. Ministers themselves know that the P.A.P. is not a force. It does not even dare hold a mass rally, as I have said. We could count the number of people who attended the P.A.P. mass rallies during the referendum campaign.

The P.A.P. came to power by posing itself as a left-wing Party representing the interests of the workers of Singapore. It was largely due to the support of the workers of Singapore that the P.A.P. came to control the State machinery. But this posturing of P.A.P. Ministers was soon exposed and the P.A.P. has completely betrayed the people who brought it into power. But so long as the system of one-man-one-Vote exists and still operates, however inadequately, those who put the P.A.P. into power can similarly take away that power from the P.A.P. political opportunists. It is just a question of time. That is why the Prime Minister condemned this one-man-one-vote system in his talk to the civil servants last year. That system still works however inadequately today, and it will become the undoing of the P.A.P. And in spite of the P.A.P. Ministers' love for power, they will not be able to prevent this power from being taken away from them. Knowing this, the P.A.P. Ministers have nightly been sleeping with Machiavelli to scheme out plans to keep themselves in power. Hence the undemocratic clause 29: hence the dishonest and undemocratic Referendum: hence the amendments to the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance; hence the Singapore (Elections to the Federal House of Representatives) Bill. Both these Bills have now been defeated.

But despite all the Prime Minister's blustering about going back to meet the people, the P.A.P. Ministers are still doing their best to cling on to power for as long as possible, because they know that the moment they lose control of the State machinery, they will not be able to use the power of the State represented by the police, troops, the courts, the prisons; and this is very important, Sir, the power of deprivation of citizenship and the power of banishment. When that time comes, the P.A.P. Ministers will sink into oblivion, buried by history - according to the words of the Prime Minister. It will be the end of an era - again the words of the Prime Minister - the P.A.P. era of arrogance, bully, and Fascist dictatorship.

The P.A.P., as I have said, is not a political force. The Ministers know it and they are making full use of all the opportunities to travel about and to live in grandeur while the going is still good, so to speak. The moment general elections take place, the P.A.P. Ministers will be habis. The Ministers will have to look for new jobs, and the Back-benchers will have to find new moorings. That will be the end of the P.A.P.

Sir, in terms of real political strength, the Alliance is today stronger than the P.A.P. The Alliance has consistently represented the reactionary forces in Singapore and in the Federation, whereas the P.A.P. Ministers are only opportunists who came to power on the Left-wing support of the workers, and who for the last two years have been clinging on to power on Right-wing support. You will remember, Sir, last night the Prime Minister talked very glibly of the four forces; naming the British Government, the Federation Government, the Singapore Government, and the Communists as the four forces. I do not know, Sir, but I think he must have been talking through his hat because that is mere wishful thinking. There are only two forces as far as we can see in this country or anywhere. They are the forces of the colonialists and imperialists and the forces of the people, not the P.A.P. Today it is the reactionary forces which are making use of the P.A.P. and not the other way round. The P.A.P. thought of itself as being indispensable to the Left at one time. That has been proved false. Similarly the P.A.P. wants to tell the British who are the real force behind the Malaysia scheme, that the P.A.P. is indispensable in the fight against the Communist bogey. But however much the British may want to protect the P.A.P. for just a little while perhaps, we have already seen in this House that the moment the reactionaries have done with the P.A.P. -

The Minister for Culture (Mr Rajaratnam): To join you.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - they will leave the P.A.P. to fend for itself, and will be doing everything they can indirectly to bring the P.A.P. down.

We have repeatedly said that the P.A.P. Government today is a Government only on sufferance. Without the reactionary prop, the P.A.P. will tumble just like a house built with a pack of cards. The P.A.P. has no solid foundation, no reinforced concrete, no piling in its foundations, and it is going to fall, and will certainly fall, very soon. A matter of one or two months maybe, and that is all the Ministers can hope for. The reactionary forces have made use of the P.A.P. The Prime Minister thinks he can calculate but he forgets all the time - to use his own words - the electronic computer which has 300 years of experience of colonial domination and exploitation behind it. This electronic computer is all the time directing affairs quietly and unobtrusively behind the scenes, manipulating the stooges and the puppets without even letting these stooges and puppets realise that they have been manipulated. The electronic computer encourages the feeling of egoism and opportunism of self-centred politicians, so that they begin to have the illusion that what they were made to do and what they were in fact directed to do were creations of their own. Thus it is that the Prime Minister thinks that Malaysia is his own creation. There is a saying, Sir, that those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.

Mr Rajaratnam: You are.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: It seems to me that the P.A.P. Ministers must be completely mad with nuts loose here and there beneath their skulls for them to harbour such illusions that they themselves had suggested Malaysia. But the ridiculous position of the P.A.P. today is this: although the P.A.P. Ministers have done everything possible to please the Federation, they are nevertheless not trusted by the Federation. The Federation prefers to entrust its interests to their own friends in the S.P.A. at one time and the Alliance now in Singapore. And however much the P.A.P. may try to split the Alliance, one component from another component, the M.C.A. from the U.M.N.O. by denigrating the M.C.A. and the ex-S.P.A. and praising to the skies the U.M.N.O. and especially the Tunku, Tun Razak and Dr Ismail, the P.A.P. will not be able to succeed in gaining the favour of the Federation. If anything is left behind after the big feast, the crumbs will be left to the P.A.P. Ministers. The P.A.P. Ministers will only be able to get the crumbs from the table, but unfortunately for them even these crumbs may not be given to them, who are waiting around the table with open mouths, like dogs for food from their master. The Federation knows the true character of the P.A.P. Ministers because opportunists are opportunists. If the P.A.P. opportunists can betray the Left-wing movement and the workers who put them into power, so these same opportunists can one day similarly betray the Right-wing and the reactionaries if the P.A.P. Ministers find it necessary to do so in order to cling to office.

The P.A.P. is in a dilemma because of its own opportunism. On the one hand, it is rejected by the working class movement of Singapore, and indeed of the whole Malaysia region. We saw how the P.A.P. was expelled by the Conference of Socialist Parties in January 1962 in Kuala Lumpur. On the other hand, the P.A.P. is not trusted by the reactionaries and communal forces in the region although made use of by them. That is the tragedy of the P.A.P. It does not represent the interests of any particular section of the people. Today, the P.A.P. may accelerate promotions, give medals to the civil servants and praise them. But other than for a small number, the P.A.P. will not be able to get their support. The P.A.P. remains a force only because of its temporary - that is a very important word - temporary - control of the State machinery. The P.A.P. is legally in power, but it has already been morally discredited and rejected by the people. Their position is not unlike the position of the Lim Yew Hock Government just before the 1959 elections.

Therefore, knowing the situation, the P.A.P. Ministers use Machiavellian methods and hope to survive in an unsettled and unstable political situation and they survive by their skill in brinkmanship by playing one political force against another. But. Sir, opportunistic politics cannot last. History is not created by the so-called genius or brilliance of a few leaders. Opportunist leaders do not represent the people. They are on the stage for a while and they disappear. Opportunists do not represent the hopes and aspirations of the people. From this, we can understand why the P.A.P. is cracking its so-called cleverness and brilliance to twist and turn and to distort. But one falsehood after another of the P.A.P. has been exposed. Their citizenship bluff was exposed. They have to change the name "Federal National" into the words "Malaysian Citizenship (Singapore)". It is becoming more and more clear today to the people of Singapore that Malaysian Citizenship (Singapore) is not the same as Federation Citizenship. In fact, a Singapore citizen not only gets second-class citizenship in the P.A.P. merger deal, but he also stands in grave danger of losing his original Singapore citizenship altogether. This is one aspect of the great sell-out of the P.A.P. In the P.A.P. merger proposals we do not have a common citizenship. I have amply proved this last night. The Federation, Sabah and Sarawak citizens are in one group. The Singapore citizen stands isolated in another group. Then where is the common citizenship? Where is the national unity? But, of course, the P.A.P. Ministers are very clever bluffers and they even bluffed the Member for Anson. But anyway, we can take heart that this P.A.P. bluffing will be gone forever very soon.

The Prime Minister says we share a common fate with the Federation. Yes. I think we will. But in the present context, only insofar as our fate will be tied to the fate of the Federation if the unjust merger is pushed through. But we shall not share a common political life. The citizenship provisions and the restrictions on the freedom of travel will see to that. We shall share a common fate in the respect that we in Singapore will not be in a position to decide our own future.

Sir, we are part of Afro-Asia. We stand for neutrality and anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism. But the Federation policy, for example, is tied to the chariot wheel of Western colonialism and imperialism. Yet because of the merger and Malaysia, we become tied hand and foot, at least temporarily, and we cannot decide our own future as regards foreign policy.

Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis are entirely different from the P.A.P. We stand on the side of the workers, the exploited and down-trodden. We represent their interests. They are part of the force that will decide the future of mankind. We have not misjudged any situation as the Prime Minister has said. The Prime Minister gives himself too much credit. This is of course because he is arrogant as usual and imagines himself to be more clever, more brilliant, than the rest of mankind. We, on the other hand, practise humility and we recognise our limitations. We recognise also that forever we shall be students of politics. We are learning every day. But we also see the situation very clearly. We see the future very clearly. We know what is coming. We see the march of history. We see history progressively going forward from slavery to feudalism, from feudalism to capitalism, and from capitalism to socialism. This is inevitable. The Prime Minister does not know how to use the word "inevitable", Sir. This is inevitable. History has proved it. Malaysia is not inevitable. That Malaysia's "inevitability" is all propaganda. The P.A.P. says this to take away the will and the fighting spirit of the people. The P.A.P. hopes to use this word "inevitable" to take away the fighting strength and resistance of the people against neo-colonialist Malaysia. But Malaysia's downfall is inevitable; just as the fall of colonialism and imperialism is inevitable; just as the triumph of socialism is inevitable; and just as the realisation of the hopes and aspirations of the people is inevitable: just as the victory of the people over all reactionary forces represented in a small way today in Singapore by the P.A.P. is inevitable. That is the meaning of the word "inevitable". The P.A.P. has been using the word wrongly.

The P.A.P. talks of chopping off of heads. But history is not decided by the chopping off of heads. Millions of people have sacrificed their lives in the past and millions of people will sacrifice their lives in the future. But history marches forward. The march may be slower at times and may be faster at times. But history marches forward and advances, and no force on earth, much less the puny little P.A.P. infantile opportunistic force, can stop such advance. Today, the national liberation movement is steadily advancing and growing in strength the world over. We have seen heads chopped off and put on spike poles in Angola. When I was in London, I saw special pictures of how the Portuguese colonialists and imperialists have chopped off the heads of the freedom fighters in order to frighten the people. But today in Angola the lighting is still going on, and more and more of the people in Africa are backing the people in Angola helping them to drive out the Portuguese imperialists. Chopping off heads will not stop history. We have seen more unbelievable atrocities in other colonial countries, but history advances and socialism must inevitably triumph.

We have, therefore, not misjudged the situation. It is opportunists like the Prime Minister and his other Ministers who have misjudged the situation, because they falsely imagine that a couple of individuals can thwart the march of history. We have absolute confidence in the future, and we know that we will win, whatever the P.A.P. may try to do. The future lies with the people. Let the P.A.P. Ministers themselves not misjudge the situation.

Understanding the predicament the P.A.P. is in, we also understand why the P.A.P. acts in the manner it does. As I have said, the P.A.P. has not the mass support. It knows it has sold the rights of the people of Singapore. But for its own survival, it needs to cover the sell-out somehow, with hope of gaining the support of the people. Hence the frantic preparation of the P.A.P. propaganda machinery to give the traitor a hero's welcome and to build up the Prime Minister as a fighter for the interests of the people. But this farce is now completely exposed. All Singapore knows that the P.A.P. is going down as a result of the sell-out. I will not speak very much longer, Sir.

Today Malaysia exerts an oppressive shadow over the whole of South-East Asia. Pro-Malaysia salesmen shout deceptive slogans of prosperity, happiness, national unity, independence, stability and national security through Malaysia. But we have seen very clearly before our eyes that instead of prosperity we have promises of extra burdens and extra taxes. We have to give thousands of millions of dollars away. The Johore Causeway will remain a barrier to freedom of travel and also to trade, if, at any time, the Federation decides to levy production taxes and extra duties on goods produced in Singapore. Instead of happiness, there is repression and widespread bitterness and sorrow over the land. No greater issue divides the people of our land today than the issue of Malaysia. Instead of national unity, there is now national disunity. Instead of independence we get neo-colonialism. Instead of stability and national security, there is strife and tension, and today's summit meeting in Manila will decide whether or not there will be further threats to peace in South-East Asia. At present Malaysia can be born only on the support of British might. But without the support of the people, such military imposition on the people will not make Malaysia work. Malaysia cannot succeed, therefore. Like the West Indies Federation and the Central African Federation, Malaysia must inevitably fail. Pro-Malaysia salesmen hope to make people believe that Malaysia is formed to fight Communism. They say that only the Communists oppose Malaysia. This is, of course, the pet excuse used by the colonialists and their stooges for every aggressive action of theirs against staunch anti-colonialist political opponents. And to justify their Fascist and repressive actions against those who oppose Malaysia, and especially those of us in the Barisan Sosialis, the British colonialists and their P.A.P. stooges have invoked the Communist bogey. But curiously enough, those who oppose Malaysia most fiercely and have even resorted to armed struggle against Malaysia are the Malays in Brunei. And no one has ever called them Communists. From this alone, we can see how ridiculous and absurd the P.A.P. charges are. But, of course, the P.A.P. Ministers are experts at telling falsehoods. I remember Senator Tan of the Federation saying this of the Prime Minister: that "he is capable of saying anything as long as it serves his purpose. Nothing is too low for him," i.e. our Prime Minister. However, to come back.

Malaysia is a neo-colonialist plot designed to protect British military, political, and economic interests in the region. It is also designed to frustrate the hopes and aspirations of the people for self-determination, democracy, and freedom. It does not represent the spontaneous desire of the people in the region for a union. It is a plan imposed from above on the people and intended to make the whole of South-East Asia a strategic bloc in the service of Western colonial domination and exploitation. Malaysia is only the political aspect of the British Far East Unified Command which covers exactly the same area of Malaysia. In fact, Malaysia will only be an extension of the working room of SEATO. Malaysia, therefore, in fact, is a part of the SEATO bloc. In this connection, Sir, I must refer you to Article VI of the Malaysia Agreement, page 2 of Paper Cmd. 22 of 1963. This Article is the essence of Malaysia. Let me read it out, Sir.

`The Agreement on External Defence and Mutual Assistance between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the Federation of Malaya on 12th October, 1957, and its annexes shall apply to all territories of Malaysia, and any reference in that Agreement to the Federation of Malaya shall be deemed to apply to Malaysia, subject to the proviso that the Government of Malaysia will afford to the Government of the United Kingdom the right to continue to maintain the bases and other facilities at present occupied by their Service authorities within the State of Singapore and will permit the Government of the United Kingdom to make such use of these bases and facilities as that Government may consider necessary for the purpose of assisting in the defence of Malaysia, and for Commonwealth defence and for the preservation of peace in South-East Asia. The application of the said Agreement shall be subject to the provisions of Annex F to this Agreement (relating primarily to Service lands in Singapore).'

Sir, this is the essence of the Malaysia Agreement. If this Article VI was not in this Agreement, there would be no Malaysia. That is important. And for the Prime Minister to say that he does not know the meaning of "neo-colonialism", I would suggest that he go back to school and learn politics all over again. This Agreement was signed in London on the 9th July, and this Article extends the Anglo-Malayan Defence Treaty to the whole Malaysia region. It gives the U.K. Government the right -mind you, Sir, the right to imperialists thousands of miles away - to maintain bases and other facilities in the five territories for so-called U.K. defence for which the British Far East Unified Command was specially created. If we want to understand Malaysia, Sir, we must look at it from this perspective. Then immediately we can understand why all the neutral countries in Afro-Asia are opposed to Malaysia. And we will immediately understand why Indonesia is opposed to Malaysia. We will also understand why Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Canada, Italy, France, and, of course, the United States, support Malaysia. Then we understand everything. All the pieces in the jig-saw puzzle fit into place and the whole picture is presented right before you. However, within the proposed Malaysia region itself, opposition to Malaysia has already resulted in the Brunei uprising and guerilla warfare over all Borneo. The Government of the Federation will have to expand very greatly their armed forces, and that is why Singapore will have to pay so much annually to the Federation. That is why Singapore is compelled to loan - a very nice word euphemistically - to "loan" $150 million to the Federation not so much for the development of the Borneo territories as for the expansion of defence - I think it should be offence - capital expenditure. It should not be defence, in fact. For their own selfish interests today, the P.A.P. Ministers have signed the Malaysia Agreement which seeks to push Singapore into the Federation bound hand and foot. We have opposed this all along but the P.A.P. claims that it has a mandate from the people. The P.A.P. claims that the White Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961 has been passed in this Assembly, and that it has later been endorsed by the people in the sham referendum. Of course, this is not really true. The P.A.P. has the so-called mandate only by the most undemocratic and dishonest means. But even if what the P.A.P. has claimed was true, that claim cannot hold true any longer today. The P.A.P. has legal authority to negotiate on behalf of Singapore only within the limits clearly defined in the White Paper. Any variation and any departure from this White Paper and from the explanations and assurances given by the P.A.P. Ministers therefore cannot be valid. It becomes ultra vires in many ways of speaking.

I have already pointed out the many variations and departures from Cmd. Paper 33 of 1961 in this Malaysia Agreement. The P.A.P. has no moral right and even legal right to vary and depart so very far from the White Paper. Any wide variation and departure especially involving totally new principles must first have a mandate from this House. We had a debate on the progress of the financial talks last month following a statement from the Prime Minister. But the P.A.P. did not have a mandate from this House to vary and depart from the White Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961. Now since there are wide variations and departures from the White Paper and since the P.A.P. did not have a mandate from the House to vary and depart from the White Paper, therefore, it must be condemned for signing such an Agreement.

If these variations and departures had been advantageous to the people of Singapore, it would have been easier to accept such variations and departures. But these variations and departures are completely to the disadvantage of the people of Singapore. In fact, more and more of our powers have been taken away and all the provisions in the proposed Constitution merely seek to further enslave the people of Singapore. All the safeguards, for example, for the protection of citizenship acquired by the people not born in Singapore are now gone and Singapore citizens can lose their own original Singapore citizenship if at any time the Federation politicians decide to cancel the so-called automatic Malaysian citizenship (Singapore).

Then emergency powers are given to the Federation to impose wartime emergency regulations and restrictions on Singapore even when all is peace and quiet and when there is no war, no external aggression and no internal disturbance in Singapore. Then the people of Singapore have been squeezed and soaked. Singapore has to pay more than $150 million annually to the Federation in order that Singapore may serve the Federation. A $150 million loan is given almost completely interest free to the Federation, and more likely than not the $150 million will also be gone with the wind. In return, Singapore has obtained a common market in which almost all the advantages are on the Federation side. Singapore industries will not have the protection and safeguards for expansion. In fact, the common market in which the Prime Minister has such great faith will not encourage and promote local industries. It will merely facilitate exploitation of Singapore by foreign capital through the benefits of pioneer status, the exploitation of comparatively cheap local labour, and the escape of heavy taxes in the countries of the foreign monopoly capitalists. This is the neo-colonialism which the P.A.P. does not seem able to understand. But what is worse, the free port status of Singapore will be almost completely lost in 12 years from now. This can only mean loss of trade, especially the tourist trade, with increased cost of living for the people and even loss of employment for the thousands now gainfully employed. The exchange of letters between the Singapore Government and the Federation Government and the Singapore Government and the British Government contained in Misc. 5 of 1963 clearly states the position. The P.A.P. Government cannot bluff the people that its own claims have become part of the agreement when they in fact have not been agreed to by the Federation and the British Governments. The Malaysia Agreement is therefore completely unacceptable to this House and to the people of Singapore. En fact, the whole Agreement is a sell-out of all the rights and interests of the people of Singapore. The Agreement must therefore be repudiated and torn up.

The constitutional future of Singapore affects each and every one of us in the country. The people of the country must have their basic rights of self-determination to decide their own constitutional future. The 31st of August, 1963, is the date that has been set aside by the powers-that-be for the incorporation of Singapore into the proposed Malaysia. The P.A.P. conducted a sham referendum which did not, and could not, reflect the will and desire of the people freely expressed. The people of Singapore must therefore be given the opportunity to truly and genuinely decide on their own future before the date set down for the inauguration of Malaysia.

The P.A.P. Government has been defeated on three occasions in the past few days and the Leader of the House has already solemnly said that there will soon he a general election. It is clear that the P.A.P. cannot conduct a fair and democratic election. The sham referendum is proof of that. The recent defeat of both the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill and the Singapore (Elections to the Federal House of Representatives) Bill further prove that all Opposition Parties cannot trust the P.A.P. to conduct a fair election. The general election must therefore be conducted and supervised by a neutral body. We suggest that such a neutral body be the United Nations.

As a precondition to the general election, of course, all political detainees must be unconditionally released and all political activities in Singapore normalised. The basic rights and freedoms of speech and publication, association and assembly must be restored. Once the people have elected their new representatives, these newly elected representatives of the people can then hold fresh constitutional talks with the United Kingdom Government. That, Sir, is the way to allow the people of Singapore a chance to decide on their own future. We ask the House to let the people decide.

A few last words before I close. We want to warn the P.A.P., the Alliance and the British that the arrests on 2nd February cannot and will not help the reactionaries and the colonialists. As I have already pointed out, history advances, history marches forward. No force can prevent or block this march forward of history. Arrests now or at any future time will not be able to help the P.A.P. Government to cling to office any longer. Many of the Assemblymen of the Barisan Sosialis will be prosecuted in the court by the P.A.P. Government.

Mr Speaker: Order. There can be no reference to that case in this Assembly. It is sub judice.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I have no intention of referring to the actual court -

Mr Speaker: Order. There can be no mention of the case.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Whatever it be, the P.A.P. must realise that they are now a Government only on sufference. They must not usurp the power of the people. The power must be returned to the people, and the people must decide their own future. The people's future cannot be left to a few individuals although they may think that they are super brilliant people. At any stage of history, the people must decide. Let the P.A.P. Ministers and also P.A.P. Back-Benchers remember this.

Sir, I beg to move my amendment* appearing on the Order Paper.

Mr Speaker: The original Question was as appears in item 2 of the Order Paper. Since which an amendment has been moved,

• to leave out from "1961)" in line 4 to the end and insert -

"this House noting that the agreement made between the People's Action Party Government, the United Kingdom Government and the Federation of Malaya Government in London on 9th July, 1963, is at variance with Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961,

(i) condemns the Government for signing such an agreement;

(ii) demands that the Government immediately repudiate the said agreement; and

(iii) urges that a general election be held fairly conducted under the supervision of the United Nations in order that the people may elect their new representatives for fresh constitutional talks with the United Kingdom Government.".

The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

As hon. Members do know, there is going to be a guillotine on this motion and I propose to permit the leading speakers of the Opposition sections to speak first - a speaker from the Alliance, a speaker from the U.P.P. and the independent Members, and thereafter the Government side will be given an opportunity of replying.

4.18 p.m.

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): Mr Speaker, Sir, listening to the Member for Queenstown, he took the Floor yesterday at 5.30 p.m. and maintained it up till midnight, which is, excluding the dinner break, I think 5� hours. And this afternoon from 2.30 to 4.15 p.m., which is a little under two hours, which makes it 7� hours -

Mr Speaker: Order. The arithmetic from this side is 6� hours.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am obliged for the arithmetic - 6� hours. I think he has fallen short of his past performance, which I think exceeded that by one hour. But anyway, listening to the Member for Queenstown - and I have listened to him very carefully when I have been in the Chamber - I was reminded of the statement the Hon, the Prime Minister made just before he set off to London for the constitutional talks. I hope I am not misquoting him, but if I remember correctly, he said, "I shall out-talk them; I shall out-squat them." Now, I think the Member for Queenstown has out-talked the Prime Minister in the length of time spoken. Does that make the Member for Queenstown the victor? I hardly think so, Mr Speaker.

Now, coming back to the motion before the House. Before I deal with the merits of the motion, I wish to make one matter very clear indeed to the House as a whole, Mr Speaker, Sir, more particularly to the Government as the Government seem to be in some danger of getting their own party interests mixed up with what, in my view, are national interests. Sir, my Party, the Alliance, and I personally have wholeheartedly been behind the People's Action Party in the matter of Malaysia. We have been so wholeheartedly behind the Government in this - and I recollect, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I appeared on the same platform as the Prime Minister did, much to the disgust of some Members of my own Party. I was almost on the mat for it. It was by the skin of my teeth that I escaped censure proceedings. I escaped it on the basis that this was a national matter. We from the Alliance and the P.A.P. spoke the same language in terms of effect, the words might have been different. But in terms of effect, we spoke the same language. There was no divergence of views on this. Therefore, I really cannot understand why the P.A.P. Government, after Malaysia has almost been reached, agreements concluded and we are on the verge of Malaysia, should accuse the Alliance Party now of being against Malaysia. Surely, no one in his right senses in Singapore, no one in his right senses in the Federation, no one in his right senses in the three Bornean territories can ever think that we in the Alliance can ever be against Malaysia. Are the P.A.P. Government out of their senses? Or are they trying to make political capital out of this?

I give full credit to the Prime Minister for having brought the ship of Malaysia safely through. Full credit, 100 marks - I said it then, I say it now openly, and I will continue to say it even after Malaysia. We in the Alliance provided him the elbow room during the referendum time to perform adequately. The stage was set, the Prime Minister was on the stage. We left it uncluttered for him in order to give him plenty of elbow room, and I think the Prime Minister understands what I mean when I say we gave him elbow room. If we had been harassing him on the stage, if we had been elbowing him from the stage, we would not have got the 70 per cent votes that we did in fact get in Singapore. So never let the P.A.P. Government forget that Malaysia was not a party affair. It was a joint affair by the people of Singapore who believed in Malaysia. No political statement by the P.A.P. Government at this juncture on the threshold of merger saying that the Alliance is against Malaysia will help them out. I am sorry that the P.A.P. Government should at this late stage try, because of certain actions which they have taken, which I propose to explain to the House, to suggest that we are against Malaysia or merger -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: It is not true.

Mr Rajah: Of course, it is true. The radio has said so; T.V. has said so; the papers are saying so. T.V., the radio, the papers belong to the Government -

An hon. Member: Not the papers.

Mr Rajah: They do, Mr Speaker, Sir, I regret to say. If you turn on the news at any time during the night or morning, you will hear that the Prime Minister said this and the Prime Minister said that, but why did be say that? It was because somebody made a speech to which the Prime Minister replied. But does the radio report the speech which motivated the Prime Minister into making his reply? No. It is forgotten; that is not reported. But the whole of the speech of the Prime Minister is given. The other side of the story is not given at all. The means of propaganda is at the disposal of the Government and, therefore, it appears that they are going to use it to hammer all the other political Parties out of existence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what induces the P.A.P. Government to say that we are against Malaysia? What is it? Because last Thursday, when the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance were away, and I think since we are in a truthful mood, we might as well say straight now that without the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance, the P.A.P. Front Bench is quite pathetic, Mr Speaker, Sir. They really cannot think properly. They cannot react at all. Because the Prime Minister and his able aide, the Minister for Finance, were not here, they got into a complete and utter mess over the Federal Elections Bill.

If anybody is responsible for this present impasse, Mr Speaker, Sir, over the election of seats to the Federal Parliament, then it is the P.A.P. Government. What did we object to in that Bill, Mr Speaker? Two points of objection were taken. The first point was procedural; the second point was one of substance. The procedural point was that the presentation of the Bill to the House was wrong, that it should have come after this debate. To my mind, that was a valid point. The second point was that the P.A.P. Government was going to draw the wards in the way they could, the way they wanted. Naturally, do you think we are going to allow that? We are political Parties. We want political power just as much as they do. We are not babes in the political wood. We know that if we give the Government the power to delineate the wards, they could draw them in such a way that they would get almost all the 15 seats. It is simple. Let them allow me to draw the wards, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I will draw them in such a way that the Alliance will get the greatest number of seats. Give it to the Barisan, they will do it likewise. Give to the Member for Hong Lim, and he will do it likewise. Each of four groups can draw the wards in such a way that each group can get a majority of seats. The fair thing to do is to put the drawing of the wards in an impartial body. The Deputy Prime Minister recognised this in his statement to the House. He said, "Yes, on second thoughts I now realise that 5-4 is not fair; make it 4-4," showing that at last the light was beginning to dawn. The Member for Hong Lim asked, what about the Chairman? The Chairman is important. If the P.A.P. Government had asked for or if they had listened to our suggestions, we might have suggested to them to get an independent Chairman from the Federal Elections Commission in Kuala Lumpur. Let him preside, and if there is an equality of votes on any issue, give him a single casting vote. We would be happy. The ball is now at the Government feet. They can kick it into the Federal Elections Bill goal or not as they please. So let them not blame the Alliance for making it not possible for Singapore to be represented in the Federal Parliament.

Might I say this to the Government? Let them draw these election boundaries in a fair and reasonable manner. Mr Speaker, Sir, you know this business of introducing Bills, making amendments here, there and everywhere piecemeal and getting the Assembly into a state of non-understanding - that is the phrase I am thinking of. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will remember the Singapore (Elections to the Federal House of Representatives) Bill which has now been stymied, but which still remains on the statute book with the option to the Government to reintroduce it with suitable amendments if they want to. So let not the blame lie with the Opposition any more. I hope that responsible organs which are allowed in the Assembly in order that what is said in this Assembly might be carried out to the public at large do their public duty. Instead of suppressing it, omitting it and saying "Oh, we forgot. We did not think that was important," I am suggesting, Mr Speaker, Sir, this is absolutely vital. Let nobody misunderstand this. You will recollect, Mr Speaker, Sir, that in this Bill, there is no provision as to how the electoral boundaries would have been drawn - a serious omission by the drafting side of the State Advocate-General's Department. They bring in amendments to the Schedule. They set out the Schedule, then set out the amendments that they are going to make to the Ordinance. On the First Reading all the amendments were not in. On the Second Reading, amendments were brought in very cleverly to section 8 of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. Now, section 8 reads:

`The Minister may from time to time by notification in the Gazette specify the names and boundaries of the electoral divisions of the island for purposes of election under this Ordinance.'

Originally, Mr Speaker, Sir, when this Ordinance was passed, the phrase was "the Governor may from time to time". You will recollect, Mr Speaker, Sir, that elections were first introduced in Singapore in the colonial days when power was with the Governor with his Legislative Council. Parties there were. But the deciding factor, the person who decided the electoral boundaries, was the Governor. In so far as Parties were concerned, the Governor was not interested. So he played cricket, not golf. He did not hook the hail. He played cricket. And he played it fair according to certain recognised principles. There are certain recognised principles when one draws electoral boundaries. I know them. I sat on one of them. Mr Thomson was the Chairman. They know Mr Thomson. They trust him. I also trust him. He is a perfect gentleman. The first thing we did on that Committee was to agree on the principles on which the divisions should be made. All the Parties agreed that there should be certain principles applicable in the matter of delineation of wards. Having agreed on those principles, each of us put our suggestions based on those principles. That is how we did it. In course of time, complete self-government.

Now the word "Governor" has been changed to "Minister". The Minister does not play cricket. He does not play any game at all. But he plays the party game. So what is the Minister going to do? "The Minister may from time to time by notification in the Gazette specify the names and boundaries of the electoral divisions of the Island for purposes of elections to the Federal Parliament." Mr Speaker, Sir, he is not in this to do us justice as we think it should be done. I would not blame him, if he drew it the way he wanted to; of course, I would not. If we were fools enough to give him that statutory power, why should he not use it? Surely, the Hon, the Finance Minister would do it. The thing is we caught you out. We were sufficiently -

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Farrer Park in his excitement is forgetting that he should address the Chair. I think he has made his point, and be should not labour too much on it.

Mr Rajah: I am sorry. The point k that we want to make our position quite clear, because the position we are going to take today - I hope the Government are not going to use their mass media of propaganda to distort the stand we are going to take - is what we think is in the best interests of Singapore, in our view. They might not agree. The Member for Anson might not agree. The Barisan might not agree. But, in our view, the stand we are going to take is completely fair and completely just now, today and tomorrow.

An hon. Member: What is it?

Mr Rajah: It will come in good time. Sir, when this Assembly debated the White Paper we were behind the Government. We voted with them. And the White Paper after the resolution of the Assembly was their mandate for Malaysia. Anything outside that mandate was not within the competence of the Hon, the Prime Minister and his able Finance Minister to talk about in London. Even if they did talk about it, they should have come back to us for approval and then had them embodied in the Constitution. The whole presentation of these papers in the debate, Mr Speaker, Sir, I must say, has been pathetic.

Mr David Marshall (Anson): Hear, hear!

Mr Rajah: Absolutely pathetic. This is a serious debate in which the future of the country is being considered and the decision taken here will tie it up with the rest of our national life and beyond it. Yet the way in which the vital documents have been presented to this Assembly is absolutely pathetic. I might say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the procedure adopted for the presentation of these papers in the Assembly, I think, has been determined by this - that they did not want us to read the documents.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Mr Rajah: Documents after documents came to us on the last day, Mr Speaker, and amendments on top of amendments. Imagine our predicament. There are some more to come, I am told. The whole story has not been told yet. And we are asked to consider this rationally and give a fair and reasonable appraisal of the situation in such a manner that we can all come to some reasonable conclusion on this. What is this game the Government are playing? Are they pushing us into something which they think we are going to go in without our knowledge? I think I have spotted some defects. But I do not claim I have spotted them all. Maybe the Member for Anson may have spotted some which I have not. I hope tile rest will bring up these things before the House. But as I see the Government's motion, there are three aspects to the motion.

The first aspect is the White Paper. The second aspect is the loan agreement. The third aspect is the common market. And there is a fourth aspect to it, which is neither here nor there, and the Government had hoped that we would not see it. We have seen some of it - some of us who have spent sleepless nights, and I am quite groggy on my feet. But we have seen some of it. But whether we are sufficiently compos mentis to make our points as logically and as coherently as we might otherwise have done is a matter for history to say.

On the White Paper, as I have indicated, the Government has a complete mandate from the Legislative Assembly. I congratulate the Government on carrying it through very efficiently. On the loan agreement, there was no mandate. On the common market there was no mandate. But I will not pretend that I was not unaware of what Government was doing. I will not pretend. I approve of some of the things which they said and did. I think some of the things which they finally did are wrong. But it may be purely a matter of personal opinion. They may be right, but my personal opinion is that the loan agreement was wrong. That is my personal opinion. The Prime Minister said that the ten years that are to come from today are the vital years for Singapore. He is right. If we survive the next five to ten years, we will have turned the corner into an era of stability. But the first ten years is an unstable period, and the boat is likely to rock any minute. Somebody could rock it. And, therefore, the State must be in a position to maintain the boat on an even keel. My own personal view is, give an outright grant of $25 million maybe, but do not permit $150 million of the taxpayers' money to go out in loans. We are committing the money over a period of 10 years to 15 years. I am not grudging the loan, because I know that any money lent to Borneo, any benefit which they get, Singapore must inevitably benefit. I surely appreciate that. But while benefiting others, I think we should benefit ourselves first. I really believe that if the $100 million or the $125 million of that money which is being loaned to the Federation for Borneo had been kept with us, it could have been utilised for social services. It could have been utilised for a number of good things which the people in Singapore should have. And the more they have, the less liable they are to be agitated by the friends of the Prime Minister whom he calls the manipulators of the Barisan Sosialis. That is the only point, Mr Speaker. I do not grudge Borneo the money. Good luck to them. Their prosperity must inevitably be ours. The Federation's prosperity must inevitably be ours, and we would like to be in between two areas of prosperity.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not competent to speak on the common market. The Prime Minister has said that his able Finance Minister will explain the whole position to the House. He has not yet done so. No doubt when he does so, there will be other Members on my side of the House who will deal with the matter.

I want to deal particularly with the constitutional aspect of the merger agreement and the documents that have now been put before us. You will remember, Mr Speaker, Sir, I said that there was a fourth aspect to these documents. There were deletions here and there, amendments here and there; and everything was crowded on to us within 24 hours, perhaps in the hope and expectation that we might not notice material changes. But I propose to bring up some of the matters I have noticed.

The first point I wish to deal with is Article 69. If I may refer to Paper Cmd. 22 of 1963, Article 69, page 47. This is a matter which deals with a Bill intituled "An Act for Malaysia", and this will be passed by the Federal Parliament. Article 69 of that Bill affects Singapore. With your permission, Mr Speaker, might I read it - at least the relevant portions of it? Article 69:

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

Now, constitutionally, in my mind, it means this: No amendment shall be made to the Constitution without the concurrence of the Government of Singapore if the amendment is such as to affect the operation of the Constitution in relation to Singapore as regards any of the following matters:-

`(a) citizenship of Singapore...

(b) the constitution and jurisdiction of the High Court in Singapore and the appointment, removal and suspension of judges of that court;

(c) the matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State may make laws, the executive authority of the State in those matters, the borrowing powers of the State and the financial arrangements between the Federation and the State;

(d) the discharge of functions of the Public Services Commission or of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission by a branch established for the State, and the constitution of any such branch;

(e) religion in the State [which the Prime Minister touched on yesterday], the use in the State or in Parliament of any language and the special position of the Malays in Singapore;

(f) the allocation to the State, in any Parliament summoned to meet before the end of August, 1970, of a quota of members of the House of Representatives not less, in proportion to the total allocated to the other States which are members of the Federation on Malaysia Day, than the quota allocated to the State on that day.'.

In juxtaposition to that Article, Sir, may I refer you to page 161 of the same Command Paper - Article 90 of our Constitution, because they both tie up. Article 69 is the Federal angle; let us now get the Singapore angle. Article 90 reads:

`(1) Subject to the provisions of the Federal Constitution and to the following provisions of this Article, the provisions of this Constitution may be amended by a law enacted by the Legislature.

(2) A Bill for making an amendment to this Constitution (other than an amendment excepted from the provisions of this clause) shall not be passed by the Legislative Assembly unless it has been supported on Second and Third Readings by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of members thereof.

(3) The following amendments are excepted from the provisions of clause (2) of this Article, that is to say -

(a) any amendment consequential on such a law as is mentioned in Article 23 of this Constitution;

(b) any amendment the effect of which is to bring the Constitution of the State into accord with any of the essential provisions contained in the Eighth Schedule to the Federal Constitution.'.

Mr Speaker, Sir, you will notice that by virtue of the provisions of Article 90, any Second and Third Readings on matters affecting the Constitution must be by votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of members of the Legislature. Correct. Now may I read Article 90 (1) again?

`Subject to the provisions of the Federal Constitution and to the following provisions of this Article, ..'.

The operative words in this Article, to my mind, Mr Speaker, Sir, are "Subject to the provisions of the Federal Constitution". Let us get back to the Federal Constitution. What does the Federal Constitution say? It says this - I am paraphrasing it - there is a procedure prescribed for amendment in the Federal Parliament. It must not be less than a certain number of votes, as we will have it in Singapore. So the amendments are passed in the Federal Parliament according to the minimum number of votes required, affecting our Constitution. The Federal Parliament passes it by two-thirds; they have the decency to do that. But what does our Government do? What does our Prime Minister commit us to by the back-door method? He says, "The Government will agree to it; the Yang di-Pertuan Negara will agree to it; the Cabinet will agree to it."

Dr Toh Chin Chye: No.

Mr Rajah: I may be wrong, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I would be happier if Article 69 (1) read, "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution without the concurrence of two-thirds of the votes of the Legislative Assembly of Singapore.". I would then be a much happier man, and I would sleep much better.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: That is what it is.

Mr Rajah: Well, let us have it in black and white! Let us not quibble about it in the Courts. Let us have it in a language that we all can understand. You talk about the Governor. If you were to read it again, you might think one single man could do it. Then in order to find out who the "Governor" is, you have to go to some interpreting section. And then we find that the "Governor" means the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. And then you get to know from the Constitutional experts that the "Yang di-Pertuan Negara" in the Constitution means the Cabinet. Now I am told by the Front Benchers that the Cabinet means the Legislative Assembly. I am puzzled; quite frankly I am, when the Cabinet can mean the Legislative Assembly. That really beats me. Let the Government prove that the Cabinet equates to two-thirds of the Legislative Assembly, and I am happy. But until they can show it to me and to the Assembly that the Cabinet does not equate to two-thirds of the Assembly - not a majority vote; we do not want a majority vote. We might have a 26/25 Assembly here and the Government could put it through a 26-vote; no, we do not want that. We want a two-thirds majority of the Legislative Assembly. The Prime Minister has quite rightly fought for certain things to be put into the Constitution. He has said, "I want the Common Market terms embodied in the Constitution." I agree with him completely and utterly. I am behind him because that is our only protection. Once we have it in the Constitution, the Federal Parliament Cabinet cannot alter it. We must have protection, Mr Speaker, Sir. This is no protection to us. We will end up with the Federal Cabinet taking away all our constitutional safeguards and well be left naked, high and dry. That is the first point.

The second point is Article 30 (2) (b) of Paper Cmd. 22, at page 144 - Tenure of office of Members. If I may read it, Mr Speaker, Sir:

`(1) Every Member of the Legislative Assembly shall cease to be a Member at the next dissolution of the Legislative Assembly after he has been elected, or previously thereto if his seat becomes vacant, under the provisions of this Constitution.

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

(a) if he ceases to be a citizen of Singapore; or

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

(c) if, by writing under his hand ...'.

The rest of the provision, Mr Speaker, Sir, is as it is in our present Order in Council. Now, I am a member of a political Party. I think political Parties have places in society, especially in a society which believes in parliamentary democracy. But I do not think that a political Party has any place in the constitution of any country. No. I do not believe it. It may be - if the Prime Minister or the Minister for Finance can say - that the constitution of some country has embodied the rights of political Parties in the Constitution. I would like to be enlightened on it.

Mr David Marshall: Point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Rajah resumed his seat.

Mr David Marshall: I am much obliged. It might assist the Member for Farrer Park. In truth and in fact, that provision is not in the constitutional instruments, and Paper Cmd. 22 of 1963 is a false document.

Mr Rajah: Yes, I am much obliged. I was coming to that. That is what I call a back-hand method. Or is it a back-door method - I do not know which is the more correct expression. Mr Speaker, Sir, I know of no constitutional document which gives a constitutional position to a political Party. If there is, I am willing to be enlightened. But as far as I know and as far as those whom I have been able to consult know, no. Can they advise me? We are not aware of any such thing.

Perhaps before I begin to comment on it, we should put this in its proper perspective by referring to Paper Cmd. 2094, published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, which I believe deals with the same topic as we but in certain vital issues we seem to differ.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: An earlier edition?

Mr Rajah: Whichever edition it is, it is the edition in my hands and I am going to quote from it. If the Minister for Finance has a later edition of this Command Paper issued by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, he is welcome to quote it. On page 146, Sir, of the document quoted, Article 30 reads:

`Every Member of the Legislative Assembly shall cease to be a Member at the next dissolution of the Legislative Assembly after he has been elected or previously thereto if his seat becomes vacant under the provisions of this Constitution.

The seat of a Member of the Legislative Assembly shall become vacant -

(a) if he ceases to be a citizen of Singapore; or

(b) if, by writing under his hand addressed to the Speaker, he resigns his seat in the Legislative Assembly; or

(c) if during two consecutive months in each of which sittings of the Legislative Assembly (or any committee of the Legislative Assembly to which he has been appointed) are held ,he is absent from all such sittings without having obtained from the Speaker before the termination of any such sitting permission to be or to remain absent therefrom: or

(d) if he becomes subject to any of the disqualifications specified in Article 29 of this Constitution.' So the clause which gives an honoured place to a political Party in the constitution of our country, if Government could get away with it, is not here. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not very knowledgeable in constitutional matters. I do not have the State Advocate-General to advise me. Even if I' ring him up for information, I do not get it. You will recollect that the Prime Minister made an open offer to Members of the Opposition that if they were in doubt they could approach his Ministry or the State Advocate-General. I availed myself of the Prime Minister's offer, and I rang up the State Advocate-General's Chambers and I spoke to him. E said, "I am in difficulties, Mr State Advocate-General. Can you help me?" He said, "Certainly." A most courteous gentleman. "Certainly," he said. And I said, "Look, the Prime Minister has indicated that the White Paper as published in England and the White Paper as published here differ. He has also said that the difference occurs (1) at the instance of the Singapore Government, and (2) at the instance of the Federation Government. So could you please indicate to me where the differences lie and could you separate the differences under the two appropriate heads'?" I told him that otherwise I would have to spend hours and hours comparing our document with the English document. Each document runs to about 210 pages. It is no joke. I do not have the assistance of private secretaries or able civil servants. I have got just myself to rely on. So I was very thankful to the State Advocate-General, and I asked him, "When could you let me have it?" He said, "Well, if you will give me some time, I will let you have it before lunch." I said, "Thank you very much. I shall not go out for lunch; I will stay." I stayed in but I did not get the documents. I came here at 2.30 p.m. and I saw the State Advocate-General in the corridor during tea time. I said, "I say, what has happened?" He said, "You'll get it soon," which meant I would get it soon before the sitting rose. Well, it has neither come then nor now. But that is the position, Mr Speaker, Sir. And I was foolish enough to believe -

Mr Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member for Farrer Park will be lucky during the tea-break. I suspend this sitting and shall take this Chair again at 5.30 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, when we took the adjournment I was on page 144 of Cmd. 22 of 1963 dealing with Article 30 (2) (b). I referred in my speech to the fact that this particular sub-clause (2) does not appear in the Annexure to the Act passed by the British Parliament, and I was on the verge of raising the constitutional and legal issues relating to these differences in the documents presented to us and the document which has been passed in the House of Commons and afterwards in the House of Lords. Whether it has received Her Majesty the Queen's Assent, I am not in a position to say, but I would think that once it receives Her Majesty the Queen's Assent, then the Annexure and the Bill itself become a statute and no provisions of the statute nor any part or portion of the Annexure could be altered without the consent of Parliament. Then the constitutional position would be that Her Majesty the Queen would formulate an Order in Council which would then become, [take it, our Constitution. Now the Government has presented us with Cmd. 22 of 1963 which diverges certainly to this extent in clause 30 (2) (b) which is not in the English counterpart. I want a categorical reply from the Government on this, assuming they get a vote on this section, as to what is the constitutional and legal position. Would this supersede the Annexure to the British Act which would become the Order in Council, or would Parliament have to reconvene and pass the Bill all over again with a different Annexure, or is the Queen competent constitutionally of her own accord and volition to alter the Annexure to suit the private wish of our Prime Minister and his party colleagues, because he is afraid that one or two of his Back benchers might cross over. I am not looking in any particular direction, Mr Speaker, Sir,I just happened to look that way. [Laughter] Is the Prime Minister afraid that one or two might cross over and he might lose his majority? It could well be that it is not so, but it does look like it, because he is in fact with this problem very much on his lap; does he think that this is the way out for him? I respectfully suggest to him that it should not be embodied in the Constitution. Perhaps it might be embodied in a local Act. That will be just between them and us for the moment. But to embody it in the Constitution of Singapore, Mr Speaker, Sir, is to embody it for the present and the future.

Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may read that paragraph (b) again:

`If he ceases to be a member of or is expelled or resigns from the political party for which he stood in the election;'.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope you will forgive me for referring to myself. I am possibly the only Member in this Assembly whom this section will not catch. It will not catch me at all, because I contested the elections as an Independent and if I subsequently join a Party as in fact I have and resign from it, this section does not affect me. So you will forgive me for suggesting to you that my speech on this can be completely objective - no personal motives, no personal interests; I think I should be given the weight that should be given to an objective point of view, and in this particular matter I am the only person in this august Assembly who could express that objective view, because there is no other Member in this House who was returned as an Independent.

Now, Mr Speaker, could I refer you to page 165 of the same Command Paper? Section 96 - PART VIII TEMPORARY AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS - marginal note, "Legislative Assembly.". A very interesting provision, Mr Speaker, Sir. Some of us - not me - are going to be very worried indeed after I finish reading it. I have no personal interests, as I have said. I will read it very slowly, Mr Speaker, Sir, so that it will sink in.

`The Legislative Assembly established by the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, (that is, our Constitution we arc now working on, Mr Speaker] shall remain in being and shall be deemed to be the Legislative Assembly established by this Constitution, and accordingly -

(a) the persons who immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution hold the offices of Speaker and Deputy Speaker or Members of the Legislative Assembly shall, on the coming into operation of this Constitution, continue to hold those offices...'

You are all right, Mr Speaker, Sir - no danger. [Laughter] -

`to hold those offices or their seats...'

Ah, it is getting dangerous now:

`or their seats as Members in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution;'.

So their seats can he held in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution. The submission, Mr Speaker, is that the important words are "in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution". Therefore, let us at this stage examine what are the - [Interruption] [Laughter]. You see, how smart the Prime Minister is, Mr Speaker. I take off my hat to him. If he were here, I would like to pay him a public tribute for the way in which he gets rid of his opponents, just by one amendment.

Now, section 30 (2) (b) , Mr Speaker, on page 144 reads:

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

Coming back again to section 96 on page 165 - "in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution", I might as well read on. And (b) reads:

`the Legislative Assembly shall, unless sooner dissolved, stand dissolved on the expiration of five years from the date of the first sitting of the Legislative Assembly under the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958.' Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will be good enough to turn over the page, it goes on to read:

`(2) The Speaker shall not exercise the functions of his office and no member of the Legislative Assembly shall take part in the proceedings thereof after the coming into operation of this Constitution (other than proceedings necessary for the purposes of this clause) until he has taken and subscribed before the Legislative Assembly an oath of allegiance in the form set out in the First Schedule to this Constitution.'

I had better read out this Form of Allegiance, because I think it will interest my friends in the Barisan Sosialis. [Laughter] [Interruption] I am coming to that. On page 169, Mr Speaker, Sir, I will read it slowly:

`I, ...,[it could be anybody] having been elected as a member of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Singapore, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully discharge my duties as such to the best of my ability, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the State of Singapore and to the Federation of Malaysia, and that I will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the State of Singapore. So help me God.'

That, Mr Speaker, is the oath that will have to be taken by each and every one of us fifty here. A heavy burden is being cast on you, Mr Speaker, I do not envy your position, not at all. You see, Mr Speaker, after Malaysia Day, the Constitution comes into operation. After Malaysia Day, this Assembly cannot sit without taking the oath under section 96 (2) . Before the oath is taken, you will have to consider whether the Members here are sitting in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution. If any of them have violated the provisions of section 30 (2) , then, Mr Speaker, you will either have to make up your own mind on this very delicate matter, or you will have to get advice from possibly the State Advocate-General, and do the best you can. But it could be that the factual position resulting from the 1st of September could be this. If I may deal with the Members on my left first. The Member for Joo Chiat - now an Independent - returned to the Assembly as a Singapore People's Alliance candidate and he will find that he is not sitting within the ambit of this Constitution and therefore -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Member for Farrer Park rather frightened the Speaker when he suggested that the Speaker has to make constitutional decisions. Does not section 32 of the proposed Constitution at page 145 take the matter out of the hands of the Speaker?

`Any question whether -

any Member of the Legislative Assembly has vacated his seat therein;

shall be determined by the Legislative Assembly whose decision shall be final:'.

Mr Rajah: That takes you out of your difficulties! The section you read just now - Article 30, sub-article (3) :

`Any person whose seat in the Legislative Assembly has become vacant may, if qualified, again be elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly...'

I am not suggesting that the Member for -

An hon. Member: Section 32.

Mr Rajah: I beg your pardon - section 32. I see, Sir:

`shall be determined by the Legislative Assembly whose decision shall be final.'.

Yes, Sir, I appreciate your difficulties, but the point is that before the Legislative Assembly can sit as a Legislative Assembly, they will have to take an oath. And the only person who can administer the oath is you. You see the predicament you have been placed in. Oh, a terrible situation. Sir, I am informed by the Front-benches that the Speaker knows his duty and he will do it fearlessly and without prejudice. But the net result will be; if I may deal with the left first, the Member for Jon Chiat. Unfortunately, he is absent from the House at the moment. He contested the seat, unfortunately for him as a Member of the Singapore People's Alliance, and subsequently for reasons best known to himself he has resigned from the Party and is now an Independent. He is in the tentacles of these clauses. Fourteen members in the Barisan Sosialis will also have to take counsel's opinion on this matter. The Member for Anson - the Workers' Party - he has resigned. He is also caught. He too will have to take counsel's opinion. My good friend from Hong Lim [Interruption] Oh, that is right, he and I are the only safe ones in this matter. [Interruption] We are on common safe ground. No Assembly, no Speaker, no Prime Minister can push us from pillar to post. We are quite safe until May, is it? Mr Speaker, Sir, until May 1964 we are quite safe.

Mr Speaker: Order. Would the Member for Farrer Park like to expound the position of the Member for Aljunied?

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember the Member for Aljunied. I discussed the matter with my Leader. And I said, "What do you think I should say of the Member for Aljunied?". Maybe he has a point in his favour. He is now in the P.A.P. I make a point - this operation of law, once it starts to operate, you have had it. So I suggested that having left the P.A.P., having come to this side and then gone back, it will not help him at all. That is my view. But I, in deference to my leader, thought I might not raise it. The Member for Aljunied also is in a perilous position.

Some hon. Members: No, no.

Mr Rajah: Constitutionally I mean. Constitutionally he is in a parlous position. Mr Speaker. Sir, if he does not take counsel's opinion - I am afraid you might have to take counsel's opinion [Interruption]. Of course, the decent way out of the situation would be to dissolve the Assembly straightaway, then these constitutional problems would not be posed. Perhaps you might eventually be reduced to that.

You see, Mr Speaker, Sir, how these things work. You tamper with one section, not knowing what are the full implications. May I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, how this has occurred? The English Order.

Mr Speaker: The English Order?

Mr Rajah: You know. Mr Speaker, Sir, you were once practising at the Bar, and all of us who practise at the Bar know this. The draftsmen in the State Advocate-General's Chambers take as a model the English Act. And into the English Act they introduce one or two amendments - as has been done to this Order in Council - not knowing sometimes that these amendments will cause dislocation and disruption to the whole - without having considered the whole system worked out in the original English Act. Mr Speaker, Sir, I had sleepless nights looking at this thing. I do not see why I should not give the sleepless nights to Members on the Front bench now.

On page 167 of Cmd. 2094, which I have just quoted. Article 96 is exactly identical with our Article 96. There the operative words are: "...or their seats as Members in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution; ...". There, of course, it is completely logical and it makes sense, because the whole of Article 30, reading it with this Article, does not create any disturbance or violation as our amended Article 30.

When the State Advocate-General's Chambers start to tinker with the Order in Council which has been formulated by some of the most expert legal draftsmen in the world, and if they think they are competent to tinker with it, at least they should take precautions by consulting the London draftsmen by asking, "I say, if we did this, do you think there would be any ramifications?" I think the State Advocate-General -

I do not want to detract from the praise the Prime Minister has showered on him. He has done a good job. But even Homer nods. Well, there it is.

If I may now refer to page 145. Mr Speaker, Sir, i might make the other point, that there is nothing in the Federal Constitution similar to our Constitution - Article 30 (2) (b).

An hon. Member: Oh, they are going to change it.

Mr Rajah: I do not know whether they are going to. At the moment the Federal Constitution in that respect is utterly and entirely different from ours. I think that is the point I must make to the House.

If I may read Article 33 in page 145:

`Whenever the seat of a Member has become vacant for any reason other than a dissolution, the vacancy shall be filled by election in the manner provided by or under any law for the time being in force in the State.'

Now, I understand that the counterpart in the Federation is on pages 13 and 14 of this Cmd. Paper. Is it page 13? I understand in the Federation it is six weeks from the date of vacancy.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sixty days.

Mr Rajah: Sixty days. I beg your pardon. Page 14 -

`(which requires a casual vacancy to be filled within sixty days from the date on which it occurs)'.

Are you there, Mr Speaker?

Mr Speaker: Yes, I am.

Mr Rajah: Thank you. When I said, "Are you there?", I mean on this section. You know, Mr Speaker, we have a Jot of trouble in Singapore over the Sembawang by-election.

An hon. Member: One year.

Mr Rajah: What I feel is this. That we should have these things written down in such a way that we do not give people sleepless nights thinking over what they should do and should not do. In other words, discretion. Too much discretion should not be given to the Government. You see how much time they waste thinking over whether they should have a by-election in Sembawang, whether it should be five days from today, or whether it should be six days from tomorrow. You see how much time and trouble we will save the Government if we put in an amendment to Article 33 -

`That the casual vacancy shall be filled within sixty days of such occurrence.'

The law then would take its course. And the Government would not have to make these very, very difficult decisions. I do accept it. If I were in the Government's position, I might be doing the same thing. But there is no reason why when I am in the Opposition I should not see that the right thing is done.

An hon. Member: When you are on the Government side!

Mr Rajah: We will one day, one day. Sir, that is the position.

The other point which I think I should raise for the record, which I should raise on the second point I raised, that is on Article 30 (2) (b). I apologise for not having -

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has also referred to Section 33 of Cmd. 2094. Is that the section being referred to?

Mr Rajah: Page 145, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Page 147?

Mr Rajah: I beg your pardon. Sir. In the English Order, it is page 147. In our Command Paper, it is 145.

Mr Speaker: No, page 147 -33.

Mr Rajah: Page 147 -33, Sir, is the blue book, if I may use it, Sir.

Mr Speaker: 33, yes.

Mr Rajah: 33 - oh yes, Mr Speaker, I am much obliged to you. Quite correct. Well, our article reads -

`Whenever the seat of a Member has become vacant for any reason other than a dissolution, the vacancy shall be filled by election in the manner provided by or under any law for the time being in force in the State.'

The corresponding section in the English Order in Council which appears in the English Act is 33, which I will read very, very slowly in order that the Government Benches might understand it. Except for the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister, they might not have read it.

`Whenever the seat of a Member has become vacant for any reason other than a dissolution, the vacancy shall within three months from the date on which it is established that there is a vacancy, be filled by election, in the manner provided by, or under any law for the time being in force in the State.'

An hon. Member: We got caught again.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is jiggery-pokery of the Government. These are all substantial amendments to the constitution which affect the vital interests of the State. Yet when the Prime Minister made his speech, I think, in fairness to the Opposition - now I understand, Mr Speaker, Sir, why I have not been given these differences. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have told you that I had requested the S.A.G. to give me these differences. I can now understand why I had not been given them. If the list had come to me this would have been pinpointed.

In the British Parliament, the Agreement between our Government, the Federation Government and the British Government was clause 33 -

`Whenever the seat of a Member has become vacant for any reason other than a dissolution, the vacancy shall within three months from the date on which it is established that there is a vacancy, be filled ...'.

What do we have in our Constitution? The present position as existing?

Mr Speaker, Sir, you know what happened to Mr Profumo. I am not thinking of his private life. I am thinking of his constitutional conduct - lying to Parliament. He went out. One can tell a lie positively. One can tell a lie negatively. If this is not positive, then it is the other thing.

So, you see, Mr Speaker, what a difficult position we are faced with. We support Malaysia. We believe in Malaysia. We fought for it with the Government side by side; if the Prime Minister does not object to the continuation of the simile, shoulder to shoulder. And we, who have been fighting with him on this matter on a national basis, have been unwittingly led along. I suppose the suggestion is, "Because it is Malaysia, the Alliance will not dare to vote against the motion. Therefore, let us put in all the amendments which are going to suit the P.A.P."

We cannot do it on the Alliance side. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the Alliance side we cannot accept it. We regret it very much but we cannot accept it.

Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance. I wish to propose an amendment, and if I might read the amendment to you, and then hand out copies of it so that you might give me guidance as to how I might proceed in this matter.

Envelope handed in to Mr Rajah.

May I open a document, Mr Speaker, which has just reached me? It is On Government Service, addressed to me.

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Envelope opened by Mr Rajah.

The document in question [indicating] is a document from the State Advocate-General which he promised me. But I am on the verge of finishing my speech. I think I have made enough points to satisfy even the most unwilling Front Bench. Some jiggery-pokery is, in fact, going on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek your guidance, and if I might hand over the amendment.

Amendment handed in.

Mr Rajah: The amendment reads:

At the end, to add -

"save and except the following Articles therein:-

(a) Article 69 in page 47 (Safeguards for constitutional position of Singapore);

(b) Article 30 (2) (b) in page 144 (Tenure of office of Members);

(c) Article 33 in page 145 (Filling of vacancies)."

I know. Mr Speaker, there is an amendment now before the House, but how am I to deal with the situation, may I have guidance from you on this matter?

Mr Speaker: The position is that the debate will continue on the main motion as well as the amendment which has been proposed by the Member for Queenstown. As the Member for Farrer Park has indicated that he, at the appropriate moment, will wish to move a further amendment, therefore, this debate could range over this further amendment which he says he will propose at the appropriate moment. He cannot do so now because there is already one amendment before the House. So that at the end of the debate, what I shall do, firstly, is to put the Question on the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown, and thereafter, assuming that it might not receive the agreement of this House, if it is defeated, then we go back to the main motion of the Prime Minister, and then I shall ask the Member for Farrer Park to move simpliciter the amendment which he proposes to move. He must now say what he wishes to say on that amendment. Copies can be distributed.

Copies of Mr Rajah's proposed amendment distributed to Members.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, I am obliged to you for your guidance in this matter.

I will not be very long, but I wish to make the position of the Alliance very clear. Sir, there is no question, so far as the Alliance is concerned of the S.P.A. and U.M.N.O. The Government are trying to divide us. They keep on attacking the S.P.A., leaving the U.M.N.O. out. For their edification, I might say that the Member for Cairnhill, who is an Alliance member, is the leader of the Alliance, and the Member for the Southern Islands, who is an U.M.N.O. Member, is the Whip of the Party. And any action taken by the Alliance is after joint consultation. We are in this together. There is no divergence of views. So let not the Government try and split us. It is quite unworthy of them. It will not get them anywhere.

Sir, all I wish to say is this. We are for Malaysia. I ask the Government not to make it difficult for us to vote with them on this motion. While we are for Malaysia, we are even more so for Singapore. It is because we love Singapore so much that we go into Malaysia. Now, if in going into Malaysia, some jiggery-pokery is going to be perpetrated against Singapore, to preserve some party interests, we are not going to be a party to that. We cannot and we must not. The Alliance makes this offer that if they support this amendment we will whole-heartedly and with great pleasure vote with them on the motion, but if they deny us this and defeat us on this amendment, it is with the utmost regret that we will have to refrain from voting on a matter on which we are so vitally concerned and connected. I hope the Government will not force us into that position.

Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Malaysia Agreement is a sell-out by the P.A.P. minority Government. There is not much difference between the Malaysia Agreement signed by two Ministers who have lost their mandate in the country and the same situation when the military warlord, Wang Tze Kai signed away China with 21 conditions to Japan. Both sell-outs happened more or less in the same circumstances, and in the same predicament.

We support the principle of Malaysia, which is a merger of the five territories of Malaya, Singapore, Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei - a genuine merger of these territories on fair and equal terms.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: That is bad luck.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: But the Malaysia Agreement signed by the P.A.P. minority Government in the United Kingdom with the British and the Federation Governments is not in concord with the concept of Malaysia. Singapore is relegated to a vassal State with many obligations and liabilities and with little rights. Singapore is a step-brother in this so-called family. Our rights have been sold by this P.A.P. minority Government down the gutter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on 24th January, 1962, I said in this Assembly that we support the concept of Malaysia which will provide a bigger single political and economic unit for the benefit of the ten million inhabitants of this country, giving us wider opportunities for both political and economic advancement. But, as I said in my speech on 24th January, 1962, the P.A.P. White Paper proposals could not provide us with the opportunities for both political and economic advancement for the people of Singapore.

There will be two types of citizenship, one for the rest of Malaysia, and the other, an inferior status of Malaysian citizenship, for us, the people of Singapore. There will be restrictions of movement within the new Federation of Malaysia so that the people of Singapore cannot exercise their full rights as citizens of Malaysia. The people of Singapore are relegated to an inferior class of Malaysian citizenship anti their rights will be suppressed. This is not the Malaysia we want. The present scheme is to suppress the rights of the people of Singapore. Our stand on the Malaysian issue is most constant and has never wavered, not even once.

Sir, the Malaysia Agreement, which is a direct departure from the Malaysia concept, and endorsed by the minority Government of the P.A.P., is an act of treachery perpetrated against the people of Singapore. The P.A.P. Government are so ashamed of this, and that is why Opposition Members are given all these voluminous constitutional documents only at the last minute.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Malaysia Agreement containing 232 pages was given to me on Sunday afternoon. This is the document which will decide the destiny of 1.8 million people of Singapore, and also our children to come. This document is the most vital document ever produced in the State to decide the fate and the destiny of 1 .8 million people of Singapore and their future generations. It dwarfs the importance of the Rendel Constitution and the 1958 Singapore Constitution, because in those Constitutions we were only provided with temporary Governments for fleeting phases in Singapore's history, at the most for four to five years, and despite that, with those two Constitutions, the Opposition and the people were afforded ample time and opportunities to put forward their views and discuss the merits or demerits of those Constitutions. But with the Malaysia Agreement and the new State Constitution of Singapore under this so-called Malaysia, documents which will decide our destiny for many hundreds of years to come, let me ask the Government, how many people in Singapore have read these vital documents? In my opinion, there are not more than 20 or 30 people in Singapore who have read these vital documents. The P.A.P. Government dare not even translate the Malaysia Agreement into the vernacular languages and publish it in the Press. Whereas in the case of the financial negotiations with the Federation Government, special long explanatory articles were written by the Government and even translations of certain documents on the financial agreements were made and published in the Press. Of course, the Government will give us the excuse that there is not enough time to translate the Malaysia Agreement into the various vernacular languages for the people.

But, Sir, shall we just pass this document which dwarfs all the sell-out treaties signed by Chinese military war lords to imperialist powers when only at the most 20 or 30 people in Singapore have read them? Why is the Government so scared? Why has the Government given us so little time to study the documents, to debate them, giving us only three days to debate - documents which would decide our destinies for hundreds of years! Giving us only three days to debate and to inform the people. Sir, is this not a sell-out? Is this not a genuine sell-out? And that is why they are so scared.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must strongly protest against the manner in which the P.A.P. Government is treating the Opposition and the people. They are afraid that the people will know what goes on.

The 234-page Malaysia Agreement, that is, the Blue Book, could be bought in the United Kingdom from the British Government Printing Office about two weeks ago for about $6 per copy, and some Members of the Opposition managed to obtain several copies.

I believe the P.A.P. Government said that the Malaysia Agreement published by the United Kingdom Government, which is the Blue Book, is somewhat different from the Malaysia Agreement presented to the Singapore Legislative Assembly, which is the White Book.

Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know what the Federation Government is going to present to the Federation Parliament next month when they are going to debate also the Malaysia Agreement. I believe they use the Brown Book. Now the British passed the Blue Book, which is different from the White Book passed by the Singapore Assembly, which might be different from the Brown Book passed by the Federation Parliament. Mr Speaker, Sir, how are we going to run this country? Which book is the right interpretation of what has been sold out? Would the P.A.P. tell us the whole truth? What have they sold out? How much have they sold us out? Why should we have so many versions of what they have signed in England?

I wish to seek clarification from the Government on which is the genuine Malaysia Agreement. Why do they not produce to us photostat copies of the genuine Malaysia Agreement to which this minority P.A.P. Government have attested their signatures?

Sir, I remember after the P.A.P. special conference of 19th June, 1960, when I was expelled, though there was not such an item to expel me on the agenda, the P.A.P. leadership produced different versions of the minutes of party proceedings, one version for the English press and another version for the Chinese press. Different versions of proceedings of one meeting. Now we have the same situation - different versions of what was sold out in the United Kingdom.

I must admit, Sir, it is very difficult for us to trust the P.A.P. leadership. We never know for sure to what extent this minority P.A.P. Government has sold out Singapore. I wish to ask the Government this question. Has the Government given to the Opposition all available documents concerning Singapore's constitutional future, or are these only part of the documents? Are there any more documents relevant to the constitutional future of Singapore which the P.A.P. Government has sought to hide from us?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish the Government will clarify the matter later.

The minority P.A.P. Government must make available to the Opposition Members all the minutes and all the documents of their negotiations from 1961 onwards; then we will know exactly the extent of P.A.P. treachery.

For instance, the papers on the financial negotiations as contained in Misc. 4 of 1963 contain only 77 pages. I am sure there must be thousands of pages of documents concerning just the financial talks alone. Why not give us the documents and all the facts so that we can gauge the extent of the P.A.P. sell-out?

Mr Speaker, I have a feeling there are many things the P.A.P. Government is trying to hide from us and from the people. In order to conceal all its sins of betrayal and treachery, this minority P.A.P. Government produces photostat copies on scraps of paper, things written on the back of used envelopes, and telling us they are vital constitutional documents.

Mr Speaker, Sir, how can a constitutional document be written and endorsed at the back - with scribbled notes - of a used envelope, and produced as a part of the White Paper for debate in this Assembly? Mr Speaker, Sir, I refer to the notes scribbled by the Federation Prime Minister at the Ritz Hotel on 8th July, 1963. I am not sure whether it is the 8th July, 1963, or the 7th July, 1963. There were two dates there. It could be either 12 midnight of 7th July or 12.01 on 8th July.

Sir, I believe they were only points of discussion which the Federation Prime Minister scribbled on the back of a used envelope which he happened to pick up at his desk. Is that proof that the Federation Government had agreed to all the five points of discussion scribbled on the back of a used envelope?

The words scribbled on the used envelope are:

(1) "Loans, labourers - not outside Malaysia - 50 per cent Singapore." Mr Speaker, Sir, what does that mean to us? "Labourers - not outside Malaysia - 50 per cent Singapore."

(2) "Singapore L. Assemblymen - resignation or expulsion - vacate seat - so long as does not conflict parliamentary practice." Mr Speaker, Sir, that is more understandable although it is like a Morse Code to us.

(3) "Singapore Immigration and restriction order movement. Reciprocal." Reciprocal might have many meanings.

(4) "Singapore gangster." I could not read the words. It looks like O.S.K., a Japanese shipping line. "Singapore gangster 0.5K. Detention delegate to us in Singapore."

Now, Mr Speaker, this is the best joke of this "vital constitutional document." "Detention delegate to us in Singapore." This is signed by the Federation Prime Minister. In other words, the Federation Prime Minister delegates the power of detention to the Federation Prime Minister in Singapore. "To us in Singapore" - that is what he has said. It does not say that detention delegate to the P.A.P. Government in Singapore - to the Singapore Government.

And the last point, Sir, is: "Singapore last part out - inter-government committee." This makes no sense to me at all.

Sir, to mock all this P.A.P. propaganda, we have in today's papers, that is, 31st July, the Federation Government's straight denial that they have agreed to these five points.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to refer to page 9 of one of the Chinese newspapers, the Nanyang Siang Pau. The Federation Government have come out with a denial that they have agreed to any of these points.

Mr Speaker, I think having sold away Singapore in London the Singapore Prime Minister became panicky. He must have a guilty conscience. Before he departed for London, he talked big. He tried to play up the $50 million grant issue - to cover up the purpose of the trip which was to sign away Singapore. That was the genuine and the only purpose of the trip. So in order to cover it up be used all the weapons of propaganda at his disposal and told us. "Fellow countrymen. I am not the Sultan of Singapore; I am not going to give away $50 million." But he was going there quietly to sign away Singapore lock, stock and barrel. Sir, he gave away $50 million in another form - in the form of interest-free loans for 10 years - five years in the first instance.

When he returned to Singapore he knew the big guns of the Opposition would be waiting for him. Being a very shrewd politician, he tried to catch the bull by the horns. He organised a so-called victory celebration to cover up his sell-out and his defeat in London. The crowd in the City Hall steps and in Hong Lim Park attracted by the concerts turned away when the Prime Minister began to speak. On the first night the T.V. cameraman must have got a scolding for turning his T.V. lenses on the dispersing crowd as the returned hero spoke. On the second night in Hong Lim Park the T.V. cameraman must have learnt his lesson. The Work Brigade boys in front were so embarrassed as the T.V. lenses had only their faces to focus.

Sir, the Prime Minister and the P.A.P. leadership saw it. The ground was cold. Nobody echoed to the shouts of Merdeka despite the fact that the Prime Minister tried to explain. The P.A.P. leaders knew they were finished. They pinned their last hope on the undemocratic Federal Elections Bill through which they hoped they could rig the elections.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. leadership had a feeling in London that things were not going too well. They have deceived the Chinese-speaking people in Singapore into believing that Singapore is going to have financial autonomy. Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as I know, the Prime Minister has never mentioned the words "financial autonomy" when he made his speeches in English, but when he made his speeches in Mandarin or in Hokkien, he used the words "financial autonomy" for Singapore. But I feel, Sir, that they made a grave tactical mistake in playing up the financial talks. They thought it was good propaganda, hoping to deceive the people that although they had endorsed the White Paper they still had the interests of the people of Singapore at heart - always defending their rights against the encroachment of the Federation Government. They forgot the old saying, "Who brought the wolf into the house?" They cannot deliver the goods on the financial talks which they played up. They were back to the same original position before they played up the financial talks. The whole propaganda strategy boomeranged against the P.A.P.

Mr Speaker, Sir, they gave away $50 million in another form, in the form of an interest-free loan. The P.A.P. leadership knew they were finished. Sir, I say that they will not get more than five seats in the 51-seat contest if it is held in September, that is, two months from now, or only a few weeks from now, and their five seats will diminish in number as time passes by as the people of Singapore see the Malaysia Agreement and the new Constitution of Singapore work out in practice to the detriment of the people. Therefore, the P.A.P. must do something in their power to save themselves after signing the fatal Malaysia Agreement. Any straw is good for them; any straw is good for sinking people. It must have been somewhere near midnight when the Singapore Prime Minister -or was it about 9.30 - went from his Park Lane Hotel - I believe, Sir, it costs �30 a night - to see the Federation Prime Minister at the Ritz Hotel. The Singapore Prime Minister must have put forward five items of discussion and begged the Federation Prime Minister to agree. The first point on labour arising from Singapore's $150 million loan to the Borneo State is to explain why Singapore gave away $50 million worth of interest. We have to pay $50 million worth of interest to get this loan and in turn lend it to the Borneo State. The other three points are to save the collapse of the P.A.P., particularly asking for the rights to detain people under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance. The main purpose of this request is that the P.A.P. Government will have the power to deal with political opponents since the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance has been given away to the Federation Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I can imagine that the Federation Prime Minister was tired between the nocturnal hours of 7th and 8th July. The Singapore Prime Minister can be a very persistent man. He has the capacity to drum his views into a person for hours and hours. The Federation Prime Minister requiring sleep must have listened impatiently, and being a good-natured man and requiring more sleep because he is an older man, could have nodded his head and said, "Yah, yah, yah," which means nothing at all. [Laughter] Mr Speaker, Sir, it is like the Singapore Minister for Finance. When he listens to a request for funds, he nods his head, and all the time he says, "Yes, yes, yes." But he does not mean that he agrees to the request for funds. The Singapore Prime Minister could have then taken away the used envelope on which the Federation Prime Minister had scribbled some notes on points raised by the Singapore Prime Minister. He therefore waited until the Malaysia Agreement was signed on the 9th of July, and on the 10th of July, he shot a memorandum to the Federation Prime Minister hoping by this memorandum to get the Federation Prime Minister committed. The Federation Prime Minister, being an equally astute politician, did not reply and confirm the memorandum. That is why in this exchange of letters as contained in the White Paper Misc. 5 of 1963, in this bundle of Documents, we did not see any reply, any memorandum, from the Federation Prime Minister confirming this so-called agreement on the 5 points. Mr Speaker, is this not unusual? The P.A.P. Government has a lot to explain to the people. Today the Federation Government have not only issued a denial that they have agreed to the five points, but they have produced a photostat copy which is slightly different from the photostat copy published by the Singapore Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have two photostat copies. I do not know which one is correct. We have in the Nan yang Siang Pau a photostat copy which is more or less the same as the photostat copy produced in the White Paper Misc. 5 of 1963, but it seems to me that there are many words here with crosses and marks not contained in the Singapore photostat copy. Sir, I must admit that I am getting more and more confused. There are two versions of the Malaysia Agreement; there might even be three versions. There are two versions of what happened in a bedroom at the Ritz Hotel on the night of either the 7th or the 8th of July. Sir, these are vital constitutional matters and issues affecting the fate and the lives of 1.8 million people and our future. These are not four-digit lottery numbers written on scraps of paper.

Mr Speaker, these constitutional documents are irrevocable. They will forever in perpetuity seal the fate of the people of Singapore. They are hundreds of times more important than the 1958 Singapore Constitution which is only for a period of a few years. Mr Speaker, Sir, yet when the 1958 Singapore Constitution was signed in the United Kingdom, it was signed by an All-Party Delegation and it had the backing of all the Parties and the people in Singapore. The broad principles of constitutional advancement were at first discussed at an All-Party Conference and debated in the Assembly and all Party delegations took part in the detailed negotiations on the 1958 Singapore Constitution in the United Kingdom. Draft copies of the 1958 Constitution were circulated to Opposition Assemblymen giving them ample time to study the detailed provisions so that they could fully take part in the debate. But, Sir, here we have a minority P.A.P. Government which, if it has any sense of decency left, should have resigned last Thursday on the undemocratic Federal Elections Bill after having promised to do so. Here, we have a Government which has no majority, a Government which has lost two key by-elections, signing away the rights of the people of Singapore. How can this minority P.A.P. Government sign on behalf of Singapore? They have lost their mandate to govern long ago. Even in this Assembly which was elected more than four years ago and where the power position has shifted considerably since 1959, the P.A.P. Government has suffered an ignominous defeat on the vital Bill, and they should have resigned there and then on their solemn undertaking

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not understand why this Government want to linger on from clay to day in office like the Lim Yew Hock Government did before the 1959 general elections. Why do the P.A.P. Government want to commit the rights of the people of Singapore deeper and deeper down the drain?

Mr Speaker, the documents in the Malaysia Agreement must be looked at from two aspects. The first aspect is that it is primarily a sell-out treaty signed by two persons representing a minority Government of Singapore. The second aspect is that in consideration of hawking away the rights of the people the P.A.P. Government managed to get a few concessions here and there for their own selfish interest which they hope would resuscitate the P.A.P., and if the Federation Government is prepared to be the scapegoat for destroying P.A.P. opponents, then the way is open for a higher ambition - the road to Prime Ministership of Malaysia. Of course, we know that that is an idle, vain dream. At this moment, if the P.A.P. were to hold a clean honest election, they would not get even one of the 15 seats to the Federal Parliament.

Sir, let us examine the sell-out aspect of the Malaysia Agreement. First of all, there is the sell-out on citizenship rights. I have often said that there will be two classes of Malaysian citizenship: one class meant for citizens of the 11 Malayan States and the two Borneo States of Sarawak and Sabah, and the other class is an inferior class of Malaysian citizenship (Singapore) meant for the 624,000 citizens of Singapore. The two classes of Malaysian citizenship are not interchangeable by moving residence and this distinction will remain for ever, for many, many centuries to come. It does not only affect the present generation of 1.8 million people of Singapore but also their future generations. There is no provision in the Malaysia Agreement to provide for a review of the Constitution at some future date, so that the two classes of Malaysian citizenship can be abolished, so that one class of Malaysian citizenship will remain. Sir, in other words, there will be two separate compartments in Malaysia - entirely different compartments - one compartment comprises the 11 Malayan States and the two Borneo States and the other compartment is Singapore. The Singapore compartment is doomed for ever. Under the provisions of the Malaysia Agreement, even if Singapore citizens increased greatly in number in excess of its present 624,000 citizens to even, say, one million, and let us assume the other compartment, namely, the Federation and the Borneo States have not increased at all, yet Singapore's representation in the Central Parliament would always remain at 15 seats. There is no provision for review and under the Malaysia Agreement Article 31, sub-clause (1), a Singapore citizen can only be elected as a Member of Parliament. He cannot go elsewhere and vote or stand for election, but in the case of the first-class Malaysian citizenship, he can go anywhere, stand, vote and be elected.

The Minister for home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon): Not in Singapore.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday I heard an interesting joke, that the Minister for Home Affairs did not even read the Constitution on the citizenship issue. There is no provision. Mr Speaker Sir,In that case, since the increase in the number of Singapore citizens does not affect Singapore's representation of M.P.s in the Central Government, then it should only be fair that the right to confer and deprive Singapore citizenship should rest solely on the Singapore Legislature and on the Singapore Government. But this is not what we expect in the Malaysia Agreement. The Federal Government will take away the basic rights of conferring Singapore citizenship and depriving Singapore citizenship. The right to confer Singapore citizenship by naturalisation goes to the Federation Government under Article 27 (1) (a) (ii). Of course, it is provided that the Singapore Government must concur. The Singapore Government has no right to deprive the citizenship of a person naturalised as a Singapore citizen by the Federation Government. The Singapore Government has no right to deprive the citizenship of a person naturalised as a Singapore citizen by the Federation Government. They confer on somebody whom we do not like, Singapore citizenship status, and we cannot revoke it. The Singapore Government has the right to approve Singapore citizenship by registration -only by registration. But such approval requires the concurrence of the Federation Government. That is contained in Article 57 (1) of the Singapore Constitution. The Federation Government can deprive any Singapore citizen of his Singapore citizenship by depriving the latter of his second-class Malaysia citizenship under Article 23 (3) of the Malaysia Act. Mr Speaker. Sir, what will happen is this. We will be Singapore citizens as well as second-class Malaysia citizens. The Federation Government, by depriving us of our second-class Malaysia citizenship, will automatically deprive us of our Singapore citizenship. Is this not a sell-out? I must refer you to clause 64 of the Singapore Constitution which reads as follows:

'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 citizen of Singapore.'.

Is this clause not unfair to the people of Singapore? Why should the minority P.A.P. Government commit the destiny of 624,000 Singapore citizens? The Singapore Assembly and the Singapore Government should be given full autonomy on questions of Singapore citizenship because Singapore is not being accepted in a genuine merger. Second-class Malaysia citizenship (Singapore) is entirely a class and status all on its own. Why should the Federation Government be allowed to interfere in the granting and depriving of Singapore citizenship when the fact is that whether we have more or less Singapore citizens makes no difference to the number of seats in the Central Parliament? Sir, we should have complete autonomy on the question, of Singapore citizenship, that is, the question of even controlling an inferior class of Malaysia citizenship (Singapore) and that right is now denied us. There is no autonomy given to Singapore on Singapore citizenship. This should have been the case since Singapore is to be considered a separate unit under the control of the Federation Government and not fully integrated with the Federation of Malaya.

Now, under the Malaysia Agreement the granting of citizenship by registration requires the sanction of both the Singapore Government and the Federation Government. This is under clause 57 (1) of the Singapore Constitution. Therefore, Sir, when applying for Singapore citizenship, instead of having one hurdle to cross as at present, there will be two hurdles to cross in the future.

In other words, we must please both the Singapore Government and the Federation Government in order to acquire Singapore citizenship, which automatically makes us a second-class Malaysia citizenship (Singapore). Similarly, both the Federation Government and the Singapore Government have powers to deprive Singapore citizens of their citizenship. In other words, Sir, one has to be nice not only to the Singapore Government but also to the Federation Government. I refer you to section 61 and section 64 of the proposed Singapore Constitution. The Federation Government can, on its own, without our consent, grant to Singapore citizens, as I have said just now, the status of Singapore citizenship through the process of naturalisation. This is so even though the Singapore Government might consider such a person undesirable. To add insult to injury, the Singapore Government has no right to cancel the Singapore citizenship of such a person who is granted citizenship by naturalisation by the Federation Government. May I refer you to section 61(5) of the Singapore Constitution? It is a pity, Sir, that this P.A.P. minority government give us so little time to study the constitutional documents more carefully and in greater detail. Sir, may I ask the P.A.P. Government what is going to happen to the tens of thousands of applicants for Singapore citizenship which are still pending?

I am sure if more time is given to the Opposition and if these vital constitutional documents were translated into all the vernacular languages and published in the Press, the Government would know the temper of the country, the temper of the Opposition to these sell-out documents. What type of merger is this? What type of country are we heading for? Is there any similar Federation elsewhere in the world?

Article 60 (3) of the Malaysia Act gives the Federation Government the right to restrict second-class Malaysia citizenship of Singapore travelling to or residing in any part of Malaysia, including the Borneo territories. Sir, this is a shame. Why do the minority P.A.P. Government accept this shameful condition? In other words, the Federation Government can tomorrow, after Malaysia, close the Causeway and prevent the entry of second-class Malaysia citizens of Singapore. Likewise Sabah and Sarawak can forbid entry of second-class Malaysia citizens from Singapore into the Borneo territories. Is this not a complete sell-out?

May I refer you to section 14 of the Immigration Act which is part and parcel of the Malaysia Agreement? Section 14 of the Immigration Act which is part of the Malaysia Agreement provides that we require a so-called internal travel document to go to Borneo. Why call this an internal travel document? Why not call it a passport and visa? Mr Speaker, may I ask this P.A.P. minority Government whether there is any other country in the world where citizens in the same country are forbidden to travel freely within its national boundaries? Mr Speaker, Sir, out of the hundred over countries is there any other parallel?

Item 6 of the White Paper has promised the people of Singapore that the fundamental liberties of the people of Singapore will be adequately safeguarded in the provisions of the Federation Constitution. But under the Malaysia Agreement our fundamental liberties are all conscribed. They are not protected. They are not safeguarded. There is no need for the Prime Minister to try to conceal these restrictions on the fundamental liberties of second-class citizens of Singapore by making a Ministerial statement on religious freedom. Why does the Prime Minister not come here and say, "Countrymen, all of you have the freedom to breathe fresh air."? It is a right which we already have and which we are now enjoying. Why does the P.A.P. Government agree to all these conscriptions of our fundamental liberties, of our freedom?

Let us compare our inferior citizenship status to the citizenship provisions accorded to Sabah and Sarawak. Their citizens will be treated as equals of Malaysia citizens from the 11 Malayan States. They will have no distinction. They will have the same type of citizenship. They will have the same status.

Mr Speaker, the second sell-out of the P.A.P. minority Government is the number of seats which the Prime Minister has accepted in the Central Parliament. The first sell-out is on the citizenship rights. The second sell-out is on the number of seats in the Central Parliament. Article 9 of the Malaysia Act provides for 15 members from Singapore, with 1.8 million people, compared to 16 members from Sabah, with a quarter of Singapore's population. We have 1.8 million people and we have only 15 M.P.s. Sabah has only 400,000 people and they have more M.P.s than Singapore. Is this not another P.A.P. sell-out? Sir, to make matters worse, this ratio is fixed, under the Malaysia Act, indefinitely and forever.

There is no provision to review the position after a period of time where adjustments can be made to rectify the wrongs perpetrated by the P.A.P. Government. I remember the Prime Minister said in Bukit Panjang sometime early this year during his rural visits that Singapore will have the right to review the position and can increase its representation in the Central Parliament to even 40 or 100 seats if necessary when the time comes. I have searched through the documents and cannot find such a provision. It is my belief that such a provision does not exist. The minority P.A.P. Government has therefore not only sold out the present generation lock, stock and barrel. It has sold out the future generations.

The Prime Minister told the people that Singapore has accepted less seats compared to Sabah because it will have financial autonomy. He said, without financial autonomy the Federation can hold a future Singapore State Government to ransom. Sir, where is Singapore's financial autonomy? Can the P.A.P. Government tell us Opposition Members where to find it? I have searched through the Constitutional documents during the last few days and I could not find it. There is no such thing as financial autonomy for Singapore. The vital power to legislate on taxes belongs to the Federation Government. Monetary and fiscal policies to create prosperity or a boom or a depression are in the powers of the Federation Government, in other words, basic financial powers on legislation and policies concerning finance belong to the Federation Government.

On Income Tax law, from 9th July, 1963, it is written into the Malaysia Agreement that the Singapore Government will have no more powers to introduce even new amendments. It is not only on Income Tax legislation that the Federation Minister of Finance is given full powers. The Federation Government can actually at any time take over the Singapore Income Tax Department; and even for that matter the Customs and Excise Departments. The Federation Government can check the detailed workings of the Singapore Income Tax Department through its Comptroller-General of Income Tax, and also the Customs and Excise Department through its special inspectors. Mr Speaker, Sir, relief from income tax on depreciation, and Orders made under the Industrial Expansion (Relief from Income Tax Ordinance, 1959), shall rest with the Federation Government. These powers are important because they are relevant to industrialisation.

On Customs and on Income Tax the Federation Government -

7.01 p.m.

Mr Speaker: Order. A business motion.