MALAYSIA AGREEMENT

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment [31st July, 1963] to Question [30th July, 1963].

Mr Speaker: The Original Question was as appears in a further amended notice of motion+ copies of which are with hon. Members:

`+ 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 and the amendments thereof contained in Paper Cmd. 24 of 1963.'.

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."

Hon. Members are aware that the Member for Farrer Park has indicated that at the appropriate time he will move an amendment. I have received an amended notice of his amendment copies of which are with Members. The amendment reads:

At the end, to add -

"save and except Article 30 (2) (b) in page 144 (Terms of office of Members) and provided that appropriate steps be taken to amend firstly Article 69 in page 47 (Safeguards for constitutional position of Singapore) to provide for the initial concurrence of this Legislative Assembly by a two-thirds majority, and secondly to Article 33 in page 145 (Filling of vacancies) to provide for the filling of vacancies within three months."

I have indicated before that the debate may range over not only the original Motion but also the two amendments.

2.40 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker. Sir, the motion before the House is of grave national importance demanding serious consideration. The Prime Minister made a three-hour speech. The Opposition listened in silence because we were aware of the importance of this national issue. We accorded, and quite rightly, due respect to the Prime Minister for his grave pronouncements by listening in silence and with great attention for three hours. We did not leave the Chamber other than to attend to the call of nature. We did not interject but allowed him to make his lengthy speech although at times he found occasion to rub in harsh words against some Members of the Opposition. This is typical of the P.A.P. culture. He levelled a lot of vicious remarks against me personally, vicious not in the language used but vicious in the intent such personal remarks were meant to convey. I will reply to some of them later on in my speech.

The Member for Queenstown was the next speaker because he had given notice of his intention to move an amendment. He started speaking at about 6.20 p.m. and he was still speaking up to the moment of interruption at 12 midnight. In fact, he spoke in all for 6½ hours. As was to be expected, Sir, there were less and less Members remaining in the Chamber and for some length of time all the Government Ministers were not in the Chamber. There was even a time when there were only two Government Back-benchers. This clearly shows to the Opposition and to the public the disrespect the Government Benches including the Ministers, have for this grave national issue that was being debated. They behaved in a very irresponsible manner in their treatment of the national issue. At 11.30 p.m. that night, the Prime Minister and his obedient Minister for Finance walked into the Chamber. They were well dressed and were, in fact, sporting button-holes. Their faces were red, showing evidence of their having had a boisterous time. In fact, they had just finished a dinner given to them in their honour by the Chambers of Commerce in their belief that with common market big money can become bigger.

As soon as they stepped into the Chamber, Sir, the dignity of the House was insulted and they had to be pulled up on several occasions by the Deputy Speaker. I stood up on a point of order. I said that the Opposition gave the Prime Minister all due attention and respect during the Prime Minister's three-hour long speech. I called on the Prime Minister and his obedient Minister for Finance to accord the same measure of attention and respect to the Opposition. In an undertone, the Prime Minister remarked that I was siding with the Barisan Sosialis. I was not siding with anybody. I was just standing up for the dignity of the House. The Prime Minister left the Chamber soon after this, but the Minister for Finance remained behind and his conduct was grossly disorderly. He made loud yawning noises and he muttered some rude remarks as he left the Chamber. As he left his seat to walk to the Bar, he made some very rude remarks.

An hon. Member: What remarks?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: The remarks, Sir, are in the Official Report.

Mr David Marshall (Anson): On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. We are all accustomed to P.A.P. manners. But is this part of the very grave motion before the House which has only till midnight?

Mr Speaker: I have always allowed exordiums. I think the Member for Cairnhill knows that there is a guillotine and I think he will probably make due allowance for that.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was just trying to point out to the House and to the public the irresponsible manner that Ministers of the Government have been behaving towards this national issue. I will not quote the Hansard in order to cut down time. As the Finance Minister was leaving his seat, he muttered some rather rude remarks. Quite rightly, the Deputy Speaker pulled him up on a point of order. And he left the Chamber. Sir, I would have stood up under Standing Order 55.

Mr Speaker: Order. There, I think, I must stop the Member for Cairnhill because the application of Standing Order No. 55 would be within the purview, or jurisdiction, of the Deputy Speaker who was then pursue this point because it could be construed as being a reflection on the Chair.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I quite understand that, Sir, but let it be. I should have stood up under Standing Order 55, but at that time I was thinking of Article 30 (2)(b) - the P.A.P. might take action against its Member and we might Jose the services of a very good and efficient Deputy Speaker.

Mr John Mammen (Telok Blangah): I would like to make a point of clarification.

Tun Lim Yew Hock resumed his seat.

Mr John Mammen: The Member for Cairnhill has imputed that I, being a Member of the Party in power, was afraid of losing my seat because of section -

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think the Member for Cairnhill ever imputed that. If he did impute that, then I am afraid he might be called before the Committee of Privileges. I do not think that is a fair construction of what the Member for Cairnhill is trying to drive at. I would suggest to the Member for Cairnhill that he has made his point.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Thank you. Sir. In fact, I have very great respect for the Deputy Speaker, Sir. He has done a marvelous piece of work under sometimes trying conditions.

Sir, we had hoped that we would be guided by the wisdom of the Minister for Finance in regard to the loan agreement and the Common Market. The Prime Minister in his opening speech gave the Opposition a clear indication that his colleague, the Minister for Finance, who bore the brunt of detailed work, would speak on this aspect of the Agreement. Unfortunately the Minister for Finance was too busy during the few times he was in the Chamber interjecting and displaying disorderly conduct. Therefore, we lost the opportunity of being guided by him in our consideration of the agreement reached in regard to the loan agreement and the Common Market. I hope his silence so far is not due to the fact that he has been having some disquieting moments that make him fight shy of discharging this very important duty imposed on him by his master, the Prime Minister.

Sir, I now come to the important point that has been raised by my colleague, the Member for Farrer Park. The motion before the House, or shall we say, the documents that are for adoption, can be divided into four parts: (1) the implementation of the White Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961, (2) the loan agreement, (3) the Common Market, and (4) the constitutional matters affecting Singapore. On (1) , the White Paper Cmd. 33, the Alliance has given its full support and we are with the Government on this. There can be no charge whatsoever that we are not standing up to the stand that we took on Paper Cmd. 33. We gave the Government the mandate. They went to London and discharged it. The Member for Farrer Park has already expressed suitable appreciation of the discharge of that mandate.

In regard to (2) , the loan agreement, and (3) the Common Market, these are matters that had not been discussed in this Assembly at all. These are matters on which the Government has received no mandate. If the Government is really conscious of its strength in the Assembly, it should have consulted the Legislative Assembly on these two important aspects of the Malaysia Agreement, and received a mandate. But the Government, being a dictatorial Government, just could not care less. They thought they had all the brains with them and could go ahead. Be that as it may, we are for Malaysia. We are prepared to support the loan agreement and the Common Market. But we would have been in a much better position to speak on these two aspects of the Malaysia Agreement had the Minister for Finance deigned or condescended to let us have the wisdom of his knowledge of such economic matters.

But the most important objection which we have, and still have, despite the explanation given by the Leader of the House and the Minister for Law, are the three main points which are the subject of a proposed amendment by the Member for Farrer Park on behalf of the Alliance. The first point, Sir, is in relation to Article 69 of the Malaysia Act, which is found at page 47 of Paper Cmd. 22. We objected to this on the ground that any amendment to the Constitution should receive the concurrence of the Legislative Assembly in the proportion as is enshrined in Article 90 of the Singapore Constitution (at page 161). In the Singapore Constitution, it is laid down that no amendment shall be made "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". The Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Law stood up and explained, "That particular clause is in the Malaysia Act, and under the Federation Constitution it will require that same number of votes before it can become law." That we understand, but we in Singapore maintain that the Constitution of Singapore, in so far as such important measures as citizenship are concerned, shall not be left to just the Central Parliament with only the concurrence of the Governor, that is to say, the government of the day. A matter of such grave character should quite rightly so come under the same requirement as Article 90 of the Singapore Constitution. Then the Minister for Law said, "Oh, look at sections 69 and 66. They are the same. Section 66 is for Borneo and Sarawak. It is the same. Why all the argument?" Section 66 refers to Borneo and Sarawak, and they are coming into Malaysia on different terms - on more or less "complete" merger than Singapore. Therefore, the constitutional arrangements with Borneo and Sarawak should not be applied to Singapore because we have autonomy in a number of important subjects. Perhaps the Government will reconsider this position. An amendment to the constitution affecting rights of citizenship, Article 69, should not come into force despite its having gone through the Central Parliament on a two-thirds majority vote without the concurrence of the Singapore Legislature on the same number of votes, i.e., a two-thirds majority. I hope the Government will reconsider that.

We who have been described by the Government as taking orders - it was distorted to the extent that we take orders - say that that is the kind of order the Government of Singapore cannot take. It must be the Legislative Assembly of Singapore after having duly debated whether or not any amendment to the Constitution in regard to citizenship shall or shall not be adopted.

Sir, on the second Article, i.e. 30 (2) (b) - before I come to that, Sir, let me say this. The Deputy Prime Minister said. "Oh, this is the Malaysia Act. Section 69 is for the Malaysia Central Parliament. It is not for us to decide." Perhaps he has not got the advantage of advice from his colleague, the Minister for Law. No doubt this is the Malaysia Act, but the Federal Government would not have dared to put that in for the consideration of Parliament without consent Of agreement of the Singapore team. "This is quite all right. The Federal Government can go ahead with this amendment." The P.A.P. accepted it, otherwise it could not have been in. Therefore, we are trying to tell the P.A.P. Government that what they have done on this is not good for the people of Singapore. We, who know that we will be the next Government of Singapore - and this will be exercised by us - yet say that it is wrong.

Coming to (2), Sir, this is the real nigger in the woodpile. Article 30 (2) (b) that is in the Singapore Constitution, that is in page 144. The Deputy Prime Minister stood up and tried to explain it away. The Member for Farrer Park said, "Ah, ha, there is some jiggery-pokery going on." Yes, why is this? That this Article 30 does not read in the same manner as the Article 30 in the Blue Book? The Deputy Prime Minister again, not having had the advice of the Minister for Law, jumped up and said. "Oh this Blue Book is nothing. This is the thing that counts. And if we approve it, the Queen will just sign it as an Order in Council." Sir, if one will take the trouble to examine the Blue Book and the White Book - white because it is P.A.P., so they say it must be white - you will see that word for word and even the numbering, everything is the same except where there has been the jiggery-pokery of the P.A.P.; something is put in there that is not here. Surely the Deputy Prime Minister is not going to suggest that there was no full discussion in London as to the wording of each and every Article; even the punctuation sometimes was discussed. So there had been that discussion in London, that acceptance in London. Perhaps the Government, represented by the Prime Minister and his very able servant, the Minister for Finance, did bring this up in London, and because it is not in the London copy, then it could be that it must have been rejected by the London Ministers, rejected no doubt on the ground that this is unheard of. It is contrary to parliamentary practice throughout the world. To suggest that this is the thing that counts and not the Blue Book is just again trying to mislead Members of the Opposition who may not have that much knowledge about negotiations on constitutional matters. Oh, yes, the Deputy Prime Minister says that he has got a new book and that this is an old one.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I said a Blue one.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Would he be good enough to lend me that new book which he has? Or is he saying that it is the same one that he now has - that he never had it but now has?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Which you are having.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, would the Deputy Prime Minister please - I will sit down if he will let me know whether that book of his is something new that contains the P.A.P. jiggery-pokery clause or not? I am prepared to sit down if he will be good enough to explain to me -

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Latest edition.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Oh, the latest edition, Sir.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Reprint.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: May I have the reprint of the latest edition? May I beg the Deputy Prime Minister to be good enough to let me be guided accordingly by the latest edition reprint?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Yes. That is the white one.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Therefore I say this, that this Article 30 (2) (b) - the most heinous paragraph (b) has been put in in spite of its having been rejected in London. I do not say the Prime Minister had no right to try and put this in. But the manner in which he tried to put it in is not worthy of a Prime Minister. In his speech, he could have drawn attention to the fact that this was put in not in the Blue book, but in the White book and gave reasons why he wanted to put it in. He just left it at that, hoping that by giving us this document as late as the afternoon of Sunday and wanting us to debate it on Tuesday, they could just bulldoze it through. Article 30 (2) (b) is most reprehensible to this extent, that it has never been the practice in a Parliament where there is no proportional representation. It will be all right in France, as pointed out by the Minister for Law, where they have proportional representation, where the number of votes cast for each political Party will decide the number of seats that political Party shall have in the Legislature. That would have been all right. But ours is not a proportional representation Assembly, Sir. Ours is direct election, a candidate stands for election, he gets elected. It is not necessary that he belongs to a Party. It may be on his own qualifications, and it could be that because of his qualifications and of his association with a political Party that he gets returned. But he is not returned just because he is a member of a political Party. This Article 30 (2) (b) - what is the intention behind it? The Government know 25-25, Sembawang, no by-election. They will not dare to go there. No by-election. They know that they are holding their Members in check because of Malaysia. "Malaysia is coming, behave, boys. If you damage Malaysia, you watch out. You might be like the Barisan Sosialis after 3lst August; they might not be sitting here." They want this particular clause to protect their own party interests in this House. They know that after this Malaysia debate there may be one or two or even more Members walking across to the other side in disgust. They want this clause just to be able to keep them in check. So, I submit, Sir, that what the P.A.P. is trying to do is not to bring in a new constitution for Singapore, but a new constitution for the P.A.P., in the same way as they had tried to make the national anthem a P.A.P. anthem; in the same way as they had tried to make the national flag a P.A.P. flag; and in the same way as they had tried to make the Yang di-Pertuan Negara a P.A.P. Negara. Even in this they are trying to make everything P.A.P. There is also evidence only recently. The Yang di-Pertuan Negara -

Mr Speaker: Order. I refer the hon. Member to Standing Order 46, paragraph (8):

`The conduct of the Sovereign, Members of the Royal Family, or the Yang di-Pertuan Negara shall not be referred to in any circumstances.'

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Yes. I was just trying to explain the attempts of the P.A.P. to make things all their way.

So this Article 30 (2) (h) , if adopted, is going to make this sacred Constitution for Singapore nothing but a P.A.P. constitution for the People's Action Party to keep their Members in check, to make their Members behave, to make their Members listen obediently to His Master's Voice.

We oppose the attempt to include this clause into the Constitution and we would urge on the Government, if they really believe in parliamentary democracy and want to practise parliamentary democracy, to drop this one. And we will, as the Member for Farrer Park has said, vote with them. We will vote with them on the Malaysia motion as we have been with them all along on the Malaysia motion.

Now, coming to the third point, and that is Article 33. This refers to a by-election. The filling of a casual vacancy. Here again, the Member for Farrer Park has found out another jiggery-pokery of the P.A.P. Article 33 of this Blue Book says that the vacancy has to be filled within three months and this Blue Book certainly contains agreement reached between the Singapore Government, the Federation Government and the U.K Government. Otherwise the U.K. Government would not have dared to publish this and to make this in due course the Singapore Order in Council. A change - three months here becomes indefinitely. And why we object to this is clear, Sir. Experience has shown us that the Government can just hold up the Sembawang by-election for one year and sit pretty. And when they are charged that they are afraid to go to the by-election despite the fact that the Sembawang seat is a very important seat to either the Government or to the Opposition, they say the law says so. The Jaw says the law does not demand that we should have elections tomorrow or the day after or even six months later. Then why is the explanation given by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Law? He says, "Oh, this is there. It has been there for a long, long time. So why should it not be there?" We resist it now because experience has shown us that with a P.A.P. type of government, this could be used to the advantage of the party in power. Surely in London they must have agreed to these three months, otherwise this could not have been in the Blue Book. They agreed in London three months. They come back and try to make it indefinite. But we would not have minded if they had tried to make it indefinite and brought it openly to this Assembly and said, "Members of the Opposition, we made a mistake. Now we think you should help us, you know. We have been playing Sembawang for one year: let us have this. So we can play for two years." If they had played it straight, it would have been all right. But let us take the opening remarks of the Prime Minister - "I shall be audible. I shall be simple, I shall be straightforward." This is not straightforward, this is the most crooked manner of bringing in things - jiggery-pokery and nothing else. Audible? Yes, he was audible. Simple? That man is never simple. Straightforward? Definitely no. He is not straightforward. So, would it hurt the Government if we say that they should put in a three-month limit to see that a vacant seat is filled? If they accept the deletion 01 Article 30 (2) (b), if they accept our suggestion that any amendment of the constitution should receive a two-thirds majority votes all these things we ask in the interests of Singapore, in the interests of democracy and fair play. We are not asking for this in the interests of the Alliance. What the P.A.P. want to achieve by this is just to protect the interests of the P.A.P. If they will agree to these amendments, these points that we have brought up, we will vote with them with great pleasure and acclamation that Malaysia is 29 days now from today, and it will be a legal fact. Sure I will leave it. There are Ministers of the Government who will answer to this. But if they do not accept it, may I suggest if it can be done - I do not think it can - that voting on the motion should be in parts, so that where it refers to Malaysia we are 100 per cent with them. But where it refers to jiggery-pokery, we are against them. But if the motion is to be voted as a whole, it would just force the Alliance against their will, against their desire, to abstain from voting. And if we do that, the P.A.P. master distortionists will go out telling the people again, "There you are. The Alliance is against Malaysia." Perhaps the great minds of the Government could help us out. We are sincere. We are with them with Malaysia up to the hilt. Make it easy for us to vote on that. If they insist on puting in this jiggery-pokery, we are going to make it clear to the country that we will not tolerate nor be a party to undemocratic practices intended to prolong the life and protect the interests of any political Party.

Sir, there is one thing about this loan. The Prime Minister made great play of this loan. He said, "We lend the money to the Borneo territories. No doubt we do not want interest for the first five years on $100 million, but in return for that Singapore is assured of 50 per cent workmen and Singapore contractors going there." So at the Airport, at Hong Lim and even on television, he said. "There you are. I am looking after your interest. All of you workers of Singapore will have a chance to go to Borneo and Sarawak and earn a livelihood." He very bodly said that was the agreement. Then the Chief Minister-designate of Borneo said, "There has been no such agreement." And straightaway the Prime Minister jumped in, "The Chief Minister-designate of Borneo is wrong. I am right. I have documents to prove it." And what did he produce? Writing on the back of an envelope. This is in Misc. 5 of 1963. Writing on the back of an envelope, a photostat copy of which, it now appears, is not a photostat of the complete writing on the back of the envelope. The Federation Government, it would seem, as pointed out by the previous speakers, has denied that there has been such an agreement. In the speech of the Prime Minister, in moving his motion, I waited patiently for him to state his stand on this 50 per cent workmen. He said nothing. Perhaps his conscience was pricking him and he was trying not to bluff the Opposition as he has tried to bluff the public on the radio and on television.

Let us try and understand the Prime Minister. What was the big fight that he staged? "We want to see common market terms written into the Constitution." That is good. We are with him when he says that Singapore workmen should be given an opportunity of employment in the Borneo territories. We are with him. That is the right thing. We support him. But with his sharp mind, with his great intellect, surely in the same manner as he had insisted on protection of common market terms in the Constitution, he could have insisted that this should be written into the Constitution. If there had really been such an agreement, surely the great Prime Minister would not have wanted to negotiate matters of a constitutional nature just on a sheet of toilet paper. On the exchange of letters, the little that I know of, the exchange of letters on constitutional matters is for one party to write the various terms of agreement reached, send it to the other party and the other party to write a similar letter - in fact, word for word - return to the other party, and that is what is known as an exchange of letters. Even the Prime Minister knows it. That is why in the very first letter, on this Misc. 5, he said in the last sentence of the first paragraph:

`When you confirm them this exchange of letters will form a statement of our agreement on these matters.'

There has been no confirmation in the manner that is constitutionally understood, and yet the Prime Minister says, this is an exchange of letters. I do not know. An exchange of letters that is not an exchange of letters! A White Paper that is not really white and pure!

Sir, I think the Government should and could if done in the right manner. With Malaysia we are all brothers. The Government could still take up the matter of Singapore workmen for employment in the Borneo territories. They could take up the matter in the proper spirit of friendship, understanding and co-operation. I am sure the Borneo Government will want to co-operate with Singapore to ease the unemployment problem facing Singapore. But the Government should not try to be arrogant and say that agreement has been reached, producing just a sheet of toilet paper to confirm that agreement has been reached and demand that they should stand on that agreement reached. It will bring the P.A.P. Government nowhere. It is still not too late for the Government to bring up the matter in a responsible and gentlemanly manner with the Borneo Government. I feel sure that if that approach is even taken now at this stage, there will be a desire to co-operate and help Singapore out.

Sir, in my opening remarks just now, I have said that the Prime Minister saw fit to level a number of vicious remarks about me and that I would answer some of them later on in my speech. The Prime Minister brought this in about me - there was this man trying to sell aeroplanes to the Tunku. $8 million at 5 per cent. There was this man trying to get the Airport. $50 million. Sir, before I come to that matter, may I draw the attention of this House to the very important law, the Legislative Assembly (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Ordinance. Under this law, in section 30, which deals with offences, paragraph (h) says:

`publish wilfully any false or perverted report or any writing containing a gross or scandalous misrepresentation of any debate of proceedings of the Assembly, or of any speech of a member in the Assembly;' and in section 35, we have the penalty for such an offence. I bring this in now -

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not know what the purpose of quoting the section is. But if the hon. Member feels that there has been a breach of privilege, he knows his remedy. He has to give notice of a motion. I do not think we can pursue the matter further in this vein.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I seek your indulgence, Sir. Why I bring this up is this. It is just to help people who may be ignorant of this law so that they may not fall foul of the law. The Prime Minister, on my adjournment speech on the port workers, brought in all these things and brought them again in his speech on this Malaysia motion. The P.A.P. radio, P.A.P. television, P.A.P. newspapers all did their best. They had the right to do it, to play the full focus on character assassination. I do not mind that. But what I seek is this. Let them know that once they have done that in a debate in the Assembly, on the report of a debate in the Assembly, they have, under this, to give me the same equal right to what I say. Otherwise I might have to seek your protection on this. It is just fair coverage. What they do to us, be fair to the others. That is why I have brought it up, Sir,It is not a question of privilege at all. It would seem, according to the P.A.P. Government, that it is wrong for anybody to try to earn a living. And if you earn a living, it is wrong. You should be brought up to ridicule and have your political character assassinated. What is wrong with my trying to earn a living? Trying to sell aeroplanes to the Tunku? Is he suggesting that the Tunku and I have got a plot to try and make some money on the side? He brought in the question of 5 per cent. I do not know where they got the 5 per cent. I do not think I could even get half per cent. If I could, I would be very lucky. I would be very happy if they could help me to get 5 per cent. And when everything is successful. I might give them 4½ per cent. Airport contract? Is it wrong for a registered firm of contractors to send in a tender? The tender was not even successful. Gammons got it because their tender was lower. But to put it that way and to suggest. "Ah, that man, Lim Yew Hock, 5 per cent of $8 million." Just imagine how much it is. "Ah, $50 million. 5 per cent of $50 million." How much it is? That kind of character assassination is really beneath contempt. What is wrong with trying to earn an honest living, unless the Prime Minister is going to suggest that there had been some underhand work, with jiggery-pokery with the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya in trying to make money? If he means that, say so. If not, do not do it by innuendoes and evil suggestions, making use of the P.A.P. radio, everything pumping over the air: $8 million; 5 per cent: $50 million; 5 per cent. What is all this about? But, of course, I know their intention, Sir. It is character assassination. And they want it to take effect. And I must say it has taken effect. Strange, Sir, when that matter came out in the papers yesterday, I received a number of telephone calls. The effect was working. They said, "I say, Tun Lim. Do you know that Lee and Lee is making tons of money'? They are the legal advisers to the Indonesian Government, to the Bank Negara. Do you know that Mrs Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister's wife -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member for Cairnhill has made his point. Let us not labour on that.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: So without going into detailed speeches, on the one side a man is trying to earn a living but because he is in the Opposition he should have his character assassinated by the other side just because they are the Government and all that. Never mind. Go and make as much money as you want. There is the protection. The Government is there. Let us be clean and honest in politics. Kick as much as one wants against one's own political opponent. But let us not sink to the level of -

Mr David Marshall: Of the P.A.P.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I do not know. I cannot even call them men.

An hon. Member: Beast.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I think I could use the word "beast", Sir. Let us not sink down to the level of the beast. It is strange. Sir, all this talk. When I was talking yesterday, a Parliamentary Secretary said, "Aeroplane, ha, ha, aeroplane." What is all this?

The Prime Minister, in his opening remarks, gave a historical account of the steps towards merger. But there had been errors of truth, or some untruthful statements or claims were brought in. The Prime Minister said, it would seem, that it was because he was on so friendly terms with the Tunku since 1959 that he kept on going there to play golf, have lunch, dinner, and suddenly he wore down the opposition of the Tunku. That is not a true fact. The true fact is, and this is borne out by statements of both Prime Ministers, that as soon as the P.A.P. came to power it did make an honest effort to bring about merger. Everytime the Prime Minister stood up to say, "We want merger," on the next day the Prime Minister of the Federation said, "Shut up. We do not want merger." It works like this. There had been no desire on the part of the Federation to want merger with Singapore, because the Federation Government knew that the P.A.P. Government had been sleeping with the Communists, since it described the Barisan Sosialis who have left them as Communists. But in 1961 a change took place because the P.A.P. (or the non-Communists) and the Communists - if you like it that way - fell out. Since they fell out, there was some change of mind towards the P.A.P. Government. Perhaps since they have now got rid of their Communist comrades, something could be done. So when the Tunku came down to Singapore in May 1961, in an address to foreign correspondents at a luncheon, he threw out thoughts of a closer association with Singapore and a federation with the Borneo territories. That speech of his on 27th May, 1961, was definitely not as a result of the Prime Minister's golf playing with the Tunku, lunches and dinners with the Tunku. In fact, before then there had been no golf playing between the two Prime Ministers at all. There had been no lunches and no dinners. They were just as far apart as opposing forces - one working with the Communists, the other strongly anti-Communist. So do not try to bring that all out. And even in The Battle for Merger. "This merger problem is really hard and arduous." It even made the Prime Minister work hard and arduous to write a book, The Battle for Merger. In this book, did the Prime Minister not say that when the Plen came to see him, he told the Plen straightaway, "No, no prospects for merger."? Then the Tunku came down and on 27th May said that he was quite happy to have Singapore. "We want to be friends. Let us have a closer association." The Plen came back and said, "Kuan Yew, did you tell me a lie?" All this is in The Battle for Merger. He did not know that such a thing was coming. Yet since it has come, in his speech he is trying to claim credit - that he fought so hard, he played golf, he had lunches, he had dinners, and he achieved it. Come, come. If it is the intention of the Prime Minister to write history on this hard and arduous task, let us at least be factual. He talked about poker playing - that he is not a good bluffer. It may be that he is not good at poker - I caught him twice bluffing and I got his money because he bluffed. But what was worse to us is that the bluff is on the public. To bluff the public on the 50 per cent labour! That kind of bluff we cannot countenance. Bluff at poker, if caught, means the personal loss of the bluffer. But bluffing on constitutional matters is to sacrifice the interests of the people of the country to suit the whims and fancies of a dictator.

Sir, I would like to end my speech on this theme. Every Member on the Government side, from the Prime Minister down to even the Minister for Law, keeps on playing this record - the Alliance works with the Barisan Sosialis, who are the Communists, to deny the Federal Elections and force on us this 51-seat State elections. The Member for Farrer Park explained in this House yesterday that it was unfortunate that at that particular time the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance were not present, and it was really pathetic that without these two big men in the Government or in the Party, the Government got into a mess. The reason why we opposed the Federal Elections Bill is clear. This was repeated. Yet the P.A.P. Press would not even give the reasons why we opposed the Federal Elections Bill. No, it is not in the Press. Why play that P.A.P. line of distortion - that the Alliance is afraid of Federal elections: that the Alliance is now working with the Communists - all that kind of distortion? We were against the Federal elections and we gave our reasons. The Member for Farrer Park gave his reasons. I do not want to take up the time of this House by repeating those reasons. But it may be worth it. We oppose it because we say that the Second Reading should have taken place after this debate. By then we would have the Malaysia documents to know what we are all debating about. The Government could easily have said, "All right, let us postpone the Second Reading till after this debate." No. An arrogant Government says, "Let us fix the Opposition," and they laughed.

The other very serious objection which we raised was that we do not want a Government-controlled delineation of the divisions. We want equal representation with an independent Chairman, preferably a representative of the Federal Elections Commission, to delineate Singapore into 15 divisions. We say we do not trust the P.A.P. How can we trust them when they have had Article 30 (2) sneaked in, Article 33 sneaked in, everything is sneaked in? We have evidence of their attempts at sneaking in things. Give these two points. And what is left now is this: have an independent committee, free from Government control, to delineate the 15 divisions. The Member for Farrer Park says the ball is now at the feet of the Government. But all the Ministers, the Leader of the House (the Deputy Prime Minister), the Minister for Law, stood up and got up playing the same refrain - distorting and distorting. Instead of saying to us, "If that is what you want, all right. We promise you that we will behave, that we will reintroduce the Second Reading of the Bill. We cross our hearts that we will not cheat any more. We have been caught." That would have been all right. But no. They keep on distorting the same thing over and over again. Do not say that we are afraid of Federal elections. We want Federal elections as much as the PAP. But we want it fought in a manner that is not loaded in favour of the Party in power. The Prime Minister was absent, but when he heard about this, what was his first remark? "Ha, this unthinking action of Lim Yew Hock. I do not know why he should be with the Communists and all this, that, and the other. He is denying the people of Singapore representation in the Federal Parliament." Who denies? It is the P.A.P. who denies this representation. But what did the Prime Minister say, Sir, in his speech? "Perhaps we have to give thought to it; perhaps I may nominate two or three Ministers to sit in the Federal Parliament for the interim period." He wants to do that. But under the agreement, which we are debating now, it plainly says the manner of representation shall be as decided by the Legislative Assembly. And yet he wants to do it dictatorially. "I will send two or three Ministers, never mind." Stop-gap. He cannot do that even if he wants it. He says we are against Malaysia. He says that he wants us to vote against this Malaysia motion. "Oh, if the Alliance dare vote against this." This is like a little child who has been spanked by his mother for misbehaving and got a very bad spanking as the P.A.P. got a very bad spanking over that Federal Elections Bill. He came out crying and said, "Mama, if you want, you can choke me and make me die." We are not like that. We are for Malaysia 100 per cent. We are for Malaysia with more clean thoughts, more clean intentions than the P.A.P. can ever dare to claim. The Member for Farrer Park, in his closing remarks in very simple language, simple and unambiguous language, laid down the stand of the Alliance. And I would like to end my speech to quote this very important pronouncement of the Alliance. I quote from the Official Report (Unrevised), page 39 [col. 478]; and this is our stand:

`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 to Malaysia, some jiggery-pokery is going to be done to 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.'

Sir, if the Government wants to force us into that position, I would ask it to do it in a way that is more honest and clean. Arrange it in such a way that the voting can be in parts, if it can be done. If it cannot be done, then it cannot be done. If it can be done in parts - Malaysia? Aye. Common Market? Aye. Loan Agreement? Aye. P.A.P. cheat? No, no, no.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee) and Mr Marshall rose -

Mr Speaker: I have indicated that perhaps it is best, since there is going to be a guillotine on this motion, that we hear all views from the Opposition side first. I propose to call Mr Marshall and immediately after that I will call the Minister for Finance.

3.45 p.m.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, the Government motion asks us to welcome their success.

Mr Speaker, in the very first sitting of this Assembly after the return of the mission from England, they have had their welcome. They were thrice defeated in two days. On Thursday, on the motion for validation, on Friday, on the Bill for representation to the Federation Parliament, and again on a motion to increase their borrowing power. They have had their welcome. They know how we feel. It is true when it comes to the voting on the motion itself, certain political considerations will supercede the real feeling of the people of Singapore about the outcome of this agreement. But let us recognise that if we for a moment thought that they were heroes or even that they were successful, they would not have received that reception so soon.

Mr Speaker, I have Cmd. 22 of 1963. To us in Singapore it is primarily a funeral service for the port and the people of Singapore. It contains, however, Mr Speaker, certain lunatic aspects which it might be interesting to touch upon before we come to the main issue. I ask you to look at the first page of this document whose counterpart was tabled in England at the United Kingdom Parliament about the middle of this month, but which we received only on Sunday afternoon. It says:

`Agreement concluded between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore'.

Then if you look at Article I, Sir, page 1:

`The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Federation of Malaya, North Borneo. Sarawak and Singapore;

Desiring to conclude an agreement relating to Malaysia;

Agree as follows:-

Article I

The Colonies of North Borneo and Sarawak and the State of Singapore shall be federated with the existing States ... in accordance with the constitutional instruments annexed to this Agreement...'.

Now, let us look at Article III:

`The Government of the United Kingdom will submit to Her Britannic Majesty before Malaysia Day Orders in Council for the purpose of giving the force of law to the Constitutions of Sabah, Sarawak and Singa pore as States of Malaysia which are set out in Annexes B, C and D.'.

Ours is "C", Mr Speaker. And finally. Mr Speaker, if I might refer to Article IV -

Mr Speaker: Order. To put the record straight, when the hon. Member said "ours" I take it he meant the Singapore Constitution. That appears to be "D".

Mr David Marshall: That is so, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the correction. According to this document, therefore, Annex D - by the way, before we finish that, if you will look, Mr Speaker, at the last sentence at page 3: "Done at London this Ninth day of July, 1963 ...". Signed by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance. So according to this document, it is alleged that Annex D is the Annex which was attached to the Agreement executed on the 9th of July.

Mr Speaker, there was in England tabled in Parliament a White Paper known as Cmd. 2094. I understand you have a copy. I table an additional one, Mr Speaker. It is impossible to obtain this in any bookshop in Singapore, and I succeeded in obtaining some airmail copies. It contains the identical instruments with the addition of an index. Mr Speaker, there are variations between the Singapore White Paper and the White Paper tabled by Her Britannic Majesty's Government to the British Parliament. And I say to you. Mr Speaker, it is a question of whether we are to believe the British Government's White Paper tabled in Parliament or the Prime Minister's White Paper. Anybody who hesitates should be in Woodbridge.

The Member for Farrer Park has drawn your attention to two major falsehoods in this forgery. This Article 30 (2) (b) is an interpolation which does not appear at page 146 of the British White Paper. He has also drawn your attention to Article 33 wherein in our White Paper we delete the provision requiring that by-elections should be held within three months. Now we can understand fully the dishonesty of the constant procrastination of the Government of the Sembawang by-election. I do not know if you remember, Mr Speaker, that the last time I asked that question in April, they promised the election would be held within two months. That was April. It was always the excuse of the electoral roll. They proceed on the basis, Mr Speaker, particularly the Minister for Culture, that it does not matter what falsehood you utter. It does not matter! The power lies in the barrel of the gun and as their leader, the Prime Minister, has said, "I agree with Humpty Dumpty, a word means what I say it means." And so long as they are in power, their falsehoods which they can impose upon the Press and the radio, and organs of mass dissemination of news, it does not matter what falsehoods they propagate. It does not matter that everybody knows that they are dishonest. They consider that a sense of shame is an absurd adjunct to a political adult.

Now, Mr Speaker, I would like, apart from those matters which were drawn to your attention, to draw your attention to other falsehoods in this document, this false document which you are asked to adopt. Page 142, section 24 (4) (c) . The second last line of that section. "paragraph (e) " should read "paragraph (d) ". It is intentional, Mr Speaker. It is not our Printer's error. Page 142 of Singapore's White Paper and page 144 of the British White Paper. If I might go on to the next one. Article 32 (b) , at page 154, of our White Paper, and page 147 of the British White Paper, the last line of that paragraph reading: or paragraph (e) ' should read paragraph (d) '. Again a falsehood.

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): What page is it?

Mr David Marshall: Forgive me. Page 145 of our White Paper. Article 32 (b). `... by virtue of paragraph (a) or paragraph [it should read] (d) of clause (2) ...'

Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister, who is a lawyer and who next month will be a lawyer again, if he tries to do this in a court of law, knows he will get straight into gaol. Imagine him putting in a statement of claim with alleged amendments. "I am not trying to defraud the court." But he can do it to us. Power is in the barrel of the gun. Mr Speaker, we purport to follow the traditions of democracy, evolved by another great nation, and it is a pity that none of `is have adequate understanding that the barrel of the gun is inappropriate for democratic traditions. And perhaps none on the Front bench have an understanding of that doggerel which has recently gained so much publicity. "To lie in the House is obscene."

I draw your attention to another lunatic aspect of this motion and the documents tabled. I draw your attention to Misc. 5 of 1963 which states that it is an exchange of letters. It seems to be more a one-way traffic than an exchange. It starts off with a letter of 8th July written by the Prime Minister after the purported interview with the envelope. I draw again your attention to that paragraph to which the Member for Cairnhill drew attention, but he did not conclude the lesson. "When you confirm them this exchange of letters will form a statement of our agreement on these matters." So if you do not confirm them, Mr Speaker, there is no agreement. I repeat the words. The Prime Minister's words to Tun Abdul Razak. "When you confirm them this exchange of letters will form a statement of our agreement ...'. Mr Speaker, let us look at the second paragraph:

`Firstly, it is agreed that any law enacted by Parliament under Article 9 (3) of the Federal Constitution which imposes restrictions in respect of movement and residence as between the States of Malaya and Singapore will have reciprocal effect so that any restrictions imposed on Singapore citizens as regards movement or residence in the States of Malaya will equally apply to citizens of Malaysia, who are Singapore citizens, ...'.

What does it mean? So that any provisions apply to Singapore citizens shall mean that they apply to Singapore citizens? Somebody slipped? Because if we look at the only confirmation we have, which is an undated letter of July signed by the Deputy Prime Minister on the next page, it says:

`In the event of the Federation Government introducing legislation under Article 9 (3) of the Constitution of Malaysia imposing restrictions as between Singapore and the States of Malaya on the right conferred by Article 9 (2), I agree that such restrictions should be reciprocal.'

And I take it, it would mean also in respect of those who are not Singapore citizens - the word "not" having been left out - not being able to come to Singapore.

Now let us look at "secondly" which was never ever confirmed:

`Secondly, it is agreed that there will be no discrimination in the application of the fundamental rights provisions in Part II of the Federal Constitution against Singapore citizens other than those which have been agreed and included in the Malaysia Bill ...'.

Mr Speaker, is it not important to have that at least in the Constitution, let alone an exchange of letters? There is not even a confirmation of that. It goes on to read:

`... and that any possible modifications in the future of these fundamental rights provisions will apply equally to all citizens of Malaysia, including Singapore citizens and that no modifications will be made against Singapore citizens only.'

Where is the confirmation of "secondly" - a vital matter which he now goes to the point of being satisfied if it is in a letter from not the Prime Minister but the Deputy Prime Minister? One is reminded, Mr Speaker, of a snotty urchin playing marbles in a back alley!

And thirdly, in accordance with section 98, there will be a Bill. If you will look at this, Mr Speaker, it is curious the number of mistakes that one finds in the conduct of these Gentlemen who must have found themselves foreigners in the political stratosphere wherein they had to negotiate. There are nine points, not eight in this letter, because he refers to it later as an eight-point letter. There is a "lastly":

`Lastly, it is agreed that the Governments of the Federation and of Singapore will take such legislative, executive or other action as may be required to implement the assurances, undertakings and recommendations of the Inter-Governmental Committee on Merger and its Sub-Committees in so far as these have not been subsequently amended or implemented by express provisions of the Constitution ...'.

Mr Speaker, he was trying to do what the Governments of North Borneo and Sarawak had obtained. Might I for a moment ask you to look back to Article VIII of the Agreement, page 2, in Cmd. Paper 22 of 1963? You will see there:

`The Governments of the Federation of Malaya, North Borneo and Sarawak [but not Singapore, Sir] will take such legislative, executive or other action as may be required to implement the assurances, undertakings and recommendations contained in Chapter 3 of, and Annexes A and B to, the Report of the Inter-Governmental Committee signed on 27th February, 1963, in so far as they are not implemented by express provision of the Constitution of Malaysia.'

Now that is a solemn document, Mr Speaker, signed by the three Governments on 9th July. He is merely trying to get an exchange of letters which he does not get. He says, can I have your assurance that -

`... it is agreed that the Governments of the Federation and Singapore will take such legislative, executive or other action as may be required to implement the assurances, undertakings and recommendations of the Inter-Governmental Committee on Merger...'.

Sir, we have now this nine-point letter to which he gets one agreement - and only one - leaving eight points.

You will see next a letter of the 10th of July - that is, two days after this purported agreement on the back of an envelope! That is how he deals with the fate of our people:

`My dear Prime Minister,

I refer to our discussion on the evening of 8th July at the Ritz Hotel as a result of which we agreed:' -

So you see, Sir, it was the evening of the 8th of July, because if you will look at the next document, it starts off by saying that it was the 8th of June and it was changed to the 8th of July. That is in the handwriting of our Prime Minister, whereas the Prime Minister of the Federation says it was the 7th of July. Do you see that, Mr Speaker? Now let us go back:

`I refer to our discussion on the evening of 8th July at the Ritz Hotel as a result of which we agreed:

(i) in respect of the loan for the development of the Borneo States, no labourers will be engaged from outside Malaysia for the development projects and that 50 per cent of such labourers shall be supplied from Singapore;'-

Mr Speaker: Order. Can I remind the Member that his speech is being interpreted?

Mr David Marshall: I beg your pardon, Sir,I do apologise to the translators. I will read on:

`(ii) that the Federation will not object to the amendment of the Singapore Constitution so that where a member of the Legislative Assembly resigns or is expelled ...'.

So you see, Sir, even on the 10th of July, you have proof that Article 30 (2) (b) was not in the original agreement and it is not the British White Paper that lies; it is our Government's White Paper that lies.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Rubbish!

Mr David Marshall: I say lies!

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I say rubbish!

Mr David Marshall: Further:

`(iii) that where the Federation enacts any law restricting movement or residence such order shall be reciprocal.

I attach a photostat cops of the notes of the agreement which you signed.'

Mr Speaker, you will notice one thing. Ho has now forgotten about our fundamental rights to which he referred in the third paragraph of his letter of the 8th that hereafter there will be no discrimination or legislation against the people of Singapore specifically a thing about which we have been deeply worried throughout the merger debate. This has now been forgotten. Does he get a reply, Mr Speaker? He attaches this back of an envelope and he gets treated with the contempt that he deserves - the letter of the Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya dated 18th! It is with pain that I see our Government - whatever we may think about it - being treated in this way from outside:

`Dear Prime Minister,

[the last sentence] I am, therefore, returning them [the letters] to you.'

Let me read the whole letter:

`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.'.

He gets his little envelope and he gets his letters and he gets no confirmation of the fundamental rights of the people of Singapore of no discrimination, or 50 per cent labour - nothing. That is the way our Prime Minister negotiates. [Interruption] What did he say? We cannot blame them for smarting. He took a long time to reply. He finally did on 22nd July:

`I have your letter of 18th July.

I do not think we can ignore the letter containing the eight points ...'.

Which letter containing the eight points, Mr Speaker? If he means the letter of the 8th of July, it contains nine points. He said "eighthly" and then the last paragraph says "lastly". Lastly does not mean that it is not a point at all. I will continue:

`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.'

He is. What about the rest of us? He is happy to leave it at what? At the fact that he has written it, that there is no confirmation even by letter, that it is not in the Constitution, and that it cannot be enforced in any court of law or otherwise! He is happy to deal with the fate of Singapore in this fashion. "I am happy to leave it at that." - playing marbles in a backlane! Sir, this is the other aberration.

Now, Mr Speaker, let us come to the main motion - this tragedy which they have transformed into a farce. They ask the people of Singapore to adopt the constitutional provisions and amendments contained in Paper Cmd. 22 of 1963 and the amendments contained in Cmd. 24. As the Deputy Prime Minister said a few moments ago. "It is in our power to revise the British White Paper and we have the power to adopt or reject." Mr Speaker, let us took at what we are supposed to adopt. First of all, we are supposed to adopt the agreement signed by Her Majesty's Government, the Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore. I say it is the height of impertinence for us to adopt any of these four instruments indicated in this particular Document!

Then we come to the Malaysia Bill. Of course, we are interested in it, Mr Speaker. It is curious that we should be asked to adopt it!

Just after the Malaysia Bill, we come to the Constitution of the State of Sabah. It is we, the Members of the Legislative Assembly, who adopt the Constitution of the State of Sabah!

Then the next Document that we adopt, Mr Speaker - let us not forget that it is our duty and our responsibility - the Constitution of the State of Sarawak! Then we come to the Constitution of the State of Singapore.

Then we have to adopt the Immigration Bill for Malaysia! We have to adopt the application to Service lands in Singapore of the defence agreement! They have not even had the courtesy to table the Defence Agreement. We are blind chickens. What does it matter - you pass the motion; you say that 8 p.m. on Thursday there is a closure: we have our numbers; there are blind sheep all over the place; everybody has to vote; we know we are 25 to 25; we know that the Alliance has to vote with us? So what does it matter? All this is nonsense; all this is talk. Sir, I have a respect for this House. I table the Defence Agreement so that Members who are interested may know what it is about - the Defence Agreement of 12th October, 1957, between Her Britannic Majesty's Government and the Federation Government.

Copy of Defence Agreement handed in.

The next Order that we have to adopt, Sir, is the form of Compensation Order in Council - North Borneo and Sarawak! Do not forget that we have to adopt that.

The next thing we have to adopt is the Form of Public Officers Agreements in respect of Sabah and Sarawak. Well done, we have to adopt that!

So, Sir, it is a curious position and a very curious change from the days only three months ago when the Prime Minister said he refused to table in this House the Constitution of the Federation of Malaysia when the draft was received. He said, "Why should I table documents referring to North Borneo when it is not my responsibility?" I see you in a questioning mood, Mr Speaker. In that case would you care to look at Hansard, Vol. 20, No. 2, col. 43. Mr Speaker. I asked:

`Sir, perhaps it was an oversight that the Prime Minister has omitted to indicate whether the Government will give this Assembly an opportunity to debate the whole Draft Constitution, including the Constitution of Singapore in the context [not that we should adopt] of the Constitution for the Borneo territories...

The Prime Minister: Indeed my reply, Sir,I have already on one famous occasion...',

and he goes on and on. But let us come to the material part - the last six lines:

`That is not my problem. I am not charged with these responsibilities and I see no reason why I should move their State amendments in this Assembly or allow it as a subject for debate, in which case I shall have to defend or condemn it. But I will certainly allow the fullest of debate on the whole of the Malaysian Constitution and on the Singapore State Constitution, but not the Constitutions concerning Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei.'.

Now we are asked to adopt. Sir, can we adopt? Mr Speaker, does it make any difference if we adopt, as the P.A.P. says? If we reject, as the Member for Queens-town says. If we amend, as the Member for Farrer Park says. Has it got any validity? I say to you, Mr Speaker, the whole thing is a farce. Let us start with the document which the House has not seen. I have in my hand - I shall table it and it is the only copy I have, Mr Speaker - the Malaysia Bill of the United Kingdom which I believe has been passed without amendment. It starts off with an Explanatory Memorandum:

`This Bill provides for the relinquishment of Her Majesty's sovereignty and jurisdiction in respect of North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore (referred to in the Bill as "the new States") for the purpose of enabling them to federate with the existing States of the Federation of Malaya in accordance [I ask you to remember this, Sir] with the Malaysia Agreement Cmd. 2094).'.

Let us look at clause I (now section 1) of this Act.

`(1) For the purpose of enabling North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore (in this Act referred to as "the new States") to federate with the existing States of the Federation of Malaya (in this Act referred to as "the Federation"), the Federation thereafter being called Malaysia, on the day on which the new States are federated as aforesaid (in this Act referred to as "the appointed day") Her Majesty's sovereignty and jurisdiction in respect of the new States shall be relinquished so as to vest in the manner agreed [operative words: in the manner agreed] between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Federation and the new States.'.

What is the manner agreed? You see, Sir, it has already been passed by the House of Commons and the House of Lords - I repeat, it has already been passed and become an Act - and the manner agreed is the manner that has already been agreed and it is already referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum. I know that in this House it does not matter two hoots. We see it every day at least two dozen times, if not more, the Government doing a "Profumo" on the House. But I should very much like to see - they really believe it - Mr Duncan Sandys trying to do a "Profumo" on the House by trying to introduce an Order in Council different from that which has already been agreed put in the Malaysia White Paper Cmd. 2094 and approved by this Bill.

Sir, in case there are hasty lawyers in this House, there is a clause, now section 4 (3), which looks as though Her Majesty can vary an Order in Council that has been approved already under this Bill. It reads:

`Any Order in Council under subsection (1) of this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order in Council.'

Which is subsection (1) of this section?

`Her Majesty may by Order in Council make such adaptations in any Act of Parliament passed before the appointed day as appear to Her necessary or expedient in consequence of the new States becoming included in the Federation.'

Sir, let us take it step by step. Section 1 which vests the sovereignty in accordance with the agreements in the manner agreed. Section 4 which deals with adaptations of Acts of Parliament which can be varied by Order in Council. But the vesting of the sovereignty cannot be varied by an iota. If it is so varied, Mr Speaker, it is null and void. I should be more than surprised. Singapore lawyers can do what they please. They produce or the P.A.P. Government produces a White Paper that is a forgery and if they think that they can persuade Her Britannic Majesty's Government to play the game of politics the way they do, they will find they are mistaken. And we are here arguing about amendments, adoptions, rejections. This is law, Mr Speaker. You cannot say to the Judge, "I reject your sentence of death. I adopt your sentence." What absurdity. The sentence is passed. There is the Bill and there is the memorandum of agreement. And it is the height of absurdity to deal with responsible people and the Assembly of the people in such disgraceful fashion. After all, Mr Speaker, I have read to you the Bill. Now look at the clauses of the agreement.

The Bill says in the manner agreed. This was tabled before they read it.

Article I:

'The Colonies of North Borneo and Sarawak and the State of Singapore shall be federated with the existing States of the Federation of Malaya as the States of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore in accordance with the constitutional instruments annexed to this Agreement ...'.

So they shall be federated in accordance with the constitutional instruments now annexed.

Article III:

`The Government of the United Kingdom will submit to Her Britannic Majesty before Malaysia Day Orders in Council for the purpose of giving the force of law to the Constitutions of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore as States of Malaysia which are set out in Annexes B, C and D to this Agreement.'.

They are set out already in detail.

Article IV:

`... as from Malaysia Day, of Her Britannic Majesty's sovereignty and jurisdiction in respect of North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore so that the said sovereignty and jurisdiction shall on such relinquishment vest in accordance with this Agreement and the constitutional instruments annexed to this Agreement.'

Sincerely. Mr Speaker, is the Assembly of Singapore purporting to amend an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament, or is it our intention to embarrass the Secretary of State for the Colonies and say, "Here, we have got the vote of the Singapore Assembly. Now you give it to us. If not, the urchins in the back alley can be a nuisance."? But do they really think that nuisance though they may be, embarrassing though they may be to the British Government, the British Government would be constitutionally in a position, either morally or legally, to accord this bankrupt Government that is now on the verge of resignation this? Mr Speaker, I might add - no, let us leave it at that.

Whilst on the subject, Mr Speaker, much play has been made by this Government about the fact that it does not resign now and if we want it to resign now, let us all vote against this motion. Mr Speaker, you are aware that there is a section in our Constitution which says that any government elected under the 1958 Order in Council can only survive until five years after the commencement of that Order in Council in 1958, which means April 1964. So if there are elections this month, the Assembly elected can only survive for seven months, that is, until March next year. Quite obviously, no serious Party wants to insist on their resigning now and holding elections now, and that is why the Opposition is being patient until 1st September, so that from 1st September and in September they have to resign. From the 1st September any elections held will be held under the new Constitution and the Government that comes to power will be a government for five years. So this empty bluff about "We challenge you."

Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister knows well that this is a farce and he knew it well a long time ago. In fact, Mr Speaker, he promised us, solemnly promised us, that before he signed the agreement in England, we would be allowed to debate it and he would only sign it if it was approved by us. I do not ask you to take my word for it, Mr Speaker. Again I ask you to look at Volume 20, No. 2 of our Official Report, cols. 34, 35 and 42. May I remind the House of this promise? Col. 34, Mr Speaker, about ten lines from the bottom:

`The present time-table is that all these constitutional amendments should be ready by May [this was only the 5th of April; three and a half months ago] or, at the latest, by early June in order that they can be tabled before and approved by this Assembly and then incorporated in a treaty to be signed in London in June...'.

You see, Mr Speaker, "the time-table... before and approved by this Assembly and then incorporated in a treaty...". Col. 35, in the middle column:

`Members will realise the urgent necessity of our finding a just formula for working out our contribution. If this is not done before the end of May, then the London treaty may be delayed to the end of June or even the beginning of July, since after agreement some time will be needed by the draftsmen to frame these amendments to the Federal Constitution and some further time will be taken by this Assembly to ... adopt them.'

That is the second promise. Third promise is in col. 42; in answer to my question, the last five lines of his answer:

`We hope that this vital question of finance can be resolved soon in time for us to table all the constitutional amendments for adoption by May [for adoption by May] in order that the treaty can be signed in June.'

For adoption by us in May. One more falsehood nailed to the coffin. Only it gives me no pleasure, Mr Speaker. He talks of integrity to this House, who has shown himself to be the most amoral person that I have ever met, and I doubt whether anybody else has ever met one quite so amoral as he is, with such complete contempt for truth, for word of honour, for his contractual obligations, for his undertaking, let alone for any respect for this House. Now, Mr Speaker, I come to those parts where even anger pales. I shall not deal with all aspects. When you are being crucified, Mr Speaker, you do not worry whether somebody is picking your pocket of $150 million or $50 million. I shall not deal with the $150 million or $50 million or the financial contributions. These matters pale before two primary issues; one, that the people of Singapore will forever and all future generations be a people apart from other citizens of Malaysia and that they can be easily discriminated against as and when it is the will of the Central Government; and the second part, Mr Speaker, is that our rice bowl which has been filled by a pattern of economy extending over 140 years from the time of Raffles till today on a free port basis is going to be broken - not in twelve years; as I see it in five with slow strangulation thereafter.

Mr Speaker, I shall first deal with citizenship. But I think I would like at this stage to remind this House how bitterly I fought, I struggled and I agonised for a common citizenship with the Federation, because I say, and I am convinced it is still true, that unless we have common responsibilities, common privileges, we cannot survive for bug in this unequal harmony. I do not want any privileges in education; I do not want any privileges in labour. We are twice as wealthy as the Federation. I do not want to keep any of that wealth. I say let us make the great experiment, this unique pioneer experiment in mass human race relations -as equal partners and mutual respect and as for the free port of Singapore it is for your good, nobody has ever doubted it for a moment. That is all that we sought, the same as Penang. And then we went to New York at our expense - at least myself at mine, a large part - and thereafter there was an exchange of letters, and everything looked all right. Everybody would have a common citizenship. There will be common disability affecting all States, and there would be no discrimination. And there were even P.A.P. radio forums at which I agreed to go and I agreed to be part of the P.A.P. propaganda, because it seemed good to me and what is good for the people, it does not matter where it comes from. I went there and I asked questions and I received thoroughly dishonest replies that we received from the Prime Minister. And in those circumstances, I supported Command 33 of 1961 and broke with my Party to do so. They said, "Wait till you see the final constitutional papers. Do not trust them." And I say, constitutionally you cannot proceed on the basis that your own Government is lying. You have got to proceed on the basis that they are telling you the truth and only when they lie and they have been proved to lie when events have proved the falsehood, only then should we turn against them. I am in duty bound to accept the assurances given by the Prime Minister. Yes, the Member for Hong Lim was rather gentle with me. He used the word "bluff"; others might use even stronger words. And now, Mr Speaker, we have the full round, back again to where we were, where we started. Article 23. I am looking at the English one. I suspect so much our local one. Page 141. I am afraid I am dealing with the mistake that I found there. I have got the notes not in respect of the citizenship. If you will be patient, Mr Speaker, I will be with you in a minute. That is quite true, Sir,It is Article 23 in the Federation Constitution at page 21 of the English one - Citizenship by operation of Law. Now, you see, Mr Speaker, they give us what they promised to give us. Every citizen of Singapore becomes a citizen of Malaysia - that is fine. Then you go to the next page, 24 (4) : `Any certificate issued under Clause (1) may state that the person to whom it relates is or is not a Singapore citizen ...'. This is the first reference you have to citizen of Malaysia chopped Singapore citizen or citizen of Singapore - you know, the yellow badge. Next Article 28 (1) - if the citizen of Singapore wants to remove the yellow badge, Mr Speaker, of being a citizen of Singapore and just wants to be a Federation citizen, he has to qualify as a foreigner. Next, Article 31. There, Mr Speaker, we anticipated that we cannot stand for election in the Federation - that was clearly understood - or vote in the Federation and the Federation cannot vote or any of the Brunei States cannot vote in Singapore and we cannot stand or vote for elections in any of the Brunei States or in the Federation. We understood that, but we understood also something else, Mr Speaker, as I shall prove to you in a moment. We understood that that disability would be common to all States. A Sarawak citizen would not be able to vote in North Borneo or in Singapore or in the Federation, and a Federation citizen would not be able to vote in Sarawak or in North Borneo and a North Borneo citizen would not be able to vote in Sarawak or in the Federation. But let us look at the Constitution of Sabah. Section 16, page 86 - this is identical with section 16 of the Constitution of Sarawak:

`Every citizen [not, Sir, every citizen of North Borneo or Sabah, but every Malaysian citizen] of or over the age of 21 who is resident in the State is qualified to be elected as an elected member...'. The disqualification and the only disqualification is Article 31 of the Malaysia Constitution which disqualifies us from standing or voting for election in any State outside Singapore or any citizen outside Singapore coming to vote in Singapore. But according to the Sabah Constitution and Sarawak Constitution, it means that the Senator who seems to displease the P.A.P. so much and any other Federal citizen can go to North Borneo and stand for election or he can go to Sarawak and stand for election and the Gentlemen from North Borneo can stand for election in the Federation or vote in the Federation as normal citizens do with just the normal residence qualification of six months or whatever it is. Singapore and only Singapore, her people and her descendants, are for ever isolated.

Now, Mr Speaker, is there any serious prejudice arising out of the fact of a Malaysian citizen (Singapore status)? What are the disadvantages? Let us look at Article 60 - apart from the one I have already read. Article 60 of the Malaysia Constitution - this in the hand of our own Government, page 41:

In Article 9 of the Constitution, in Clause (2) (which guarantees to citizens the right to free movement throughout the Federation), for the words "Subject to any restrictions imposed by any law relating to the security of the Federation" there shall be substituted the words "Subject to Clause (3) and to any law relating to the security of the Federation or any part thereof.".'

Now, Clause (3). That is a new clause, Mr Speaker:

`So long as under this Constitution any other State is in a special position as compared with the States of Malaya. Parliament may by law impose restrictions, as between that State and other States, on the rights conferred by Clause (2) in respect of movement and residence:'.

And I shall show you in this very House on 6th December, 1961, the Prime Minister solemnly assuring me across the Floor of this House that we would have guarantees of freedom of movement, guarantees of association, guarantees of trade union movement, being able to have friendly and close relations with all other territories and branches. I shall show it to you. I have the documents and the letters. And then it adds:

`Provided no restriction on the right of movement between the State of Singapore and the States of Malaya shall be imposed by virtue of this Clause except by law relating to labour or education or to any matter in respect of which, because of the special position of Singapore, it appears to Parliament to be desirable to prevent the enjoyment of rights both in the State of Singapore and in the States of Malaya.'

Nice, wide; catch-all phrase. In the Manual of Military Law, you have "conduct unbecoming an officer" if you cannot catch him for anything else.

Now, Sir, what are the disadvantages of having the yellow badge of Singapore, the chop of Singapore status? First, the voting. Right, we will leave that for the moment. Next, restriction of movement and residence in respect of all connected with labour and education; the right to introduce any further discrimination by Parliament where it thinks it appropriate. That is what it means.

And last, Mr Speaker, the sting in the tail, right at the very bottom - the afterthought.

Let me read it:

`Restrictions on the right to form associations conferred by paragraph (c) of Clause (1) may also be imposed by any law relating to labour or education.'

So, they have a right to restrict movement and residence between us and the Federation; they have a right to introduce new laws of discrimination and they have the right to introduce laws limiting freedom of association. Do you want any more?

Now, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister promised us in this House and the people what they voted on allegedly in the referendum. I ask you to look at Volume 15 of our Official Report of 6th December, 1961, column 1396. This was a debate on merger, Mr Speaker - myself intervening on a point of elucidation which he was courteous enough to allow:

`If it please you, Sir, this has been most helpful and I appreciate your consent. The Federal Constitution gives constitutional protection, right of residence, right of work, right of freedom of association and freedom of speech in the Federation - only to Federal citizens. What does the Prime Minister really mean when he says - I do not know whether he means what he says - that a Singapore citizen who becomes a Federal national will have all the constitutional rights in the Federation? It makes a lot of difference.

The Prime Minister: Sir, that is so. If the hon. Member had been following the Prime Minister of the Federation, he would, have noticed that the Prime Minister of the Federation made the point that there would be no barrier between the mingling of Singapore citizens and the Federation and vice versa.'

If you like only by implication, freedom of movement, freedom of association, freedom of residence.

Next, Mr Speaker, the same debate, at column 1399, midway:

"The Prime Minister: ... Sir, as to the second part of the amendment, E have already referred to paragraph 14 of Command Paper 33 which is a clear and categorical statement agreed to by the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. It says that:

`Nationals of the larger Federation, whether Singapore citizens or the Federation citizens, will as nationals have equal rights, carry the same passport, enjoy the same protection and he subject to equal duties and responsibilities under the Constitution of the larger Federation.'

And every single word therein has been carefully weighed by the Attorney-General and the State Advocate-General on this side. The only point where Singapore citizens are different from Federation citizens is that Singapore citizens will continue to enjoy their State rights and privileges - education, labour, social welfare benefits. They are of different rates, Sir."

Now, Sir, at column 1406. You see. I had been pestering him if you notice earlier and so he replies in the second paragraph:

`Sir, in precise and clear terms, the White Paper explains that no Singapore citizen will lose his citizenship rights. In addition, he will acquire new rights as a national of the new Federation. I repeat this again, because I think it bears repetition for the purposes of the record. Among those rights will be the right to elect representatives direct to the Federation Parliament; the right to carry the same passport and enjoy the same rights and privileges under the Constitution; and to be subject, of course, to the same duties and responsibilities for instance, conscription, taxes and so on. These rights and duties are set out in many sections of the Federation Constitution, beginning with Article 8, ...'. I congratulate him there, Sir. Then he goes on:

`I do not want to labour the point, but I think hon. Members who are interested can look through the documents entitled, "Malayan Constitutional Documents". They can see there spelt out, equal rights, equal liabilities of all citizens which will later on be of all nationals of the new Federation.'.

That is the Prime Minister. Mr Speaker, despite my age I tend to be excited by things that seem worthwhile, and I was so deeply impressed by this clarification. I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister and I received for a change a most courteous reply. It is not confidential, Mr Speaker. It was intended for publication, as he said, and it was in fact published at the material time, and I table it. I am sorry, Sir, but I promised to table one other document. What was it?

Mr Speaker: The Member will have to look up the Hansard.

Mr David Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker. I will table it as soon as I have finished with this one. `PRIME MINISTER, SINGAPORE. 14th December,1961. * * * I confirm that Article 8 on equality before the law, Article 9 on prohibition of banishment, Article 10 on freedom of speech, assembly and association, Article 47 on qualifications for membership of Parliament, and Article 123 on qualifications of judges of the present Federation Constitution will be amended or will be incorporated in the Constitution of the new Federation, to accord equal rights without discrimination to all Federal nationals, be they Singapore citizens or citizens of the present Federation. Article 12 on education would appear to need no amendment. Please refer to paragraph 3 of the State Advocate-General's explanatory note dated 26th November, 1961.'

Perhaps, Sir, I might read this little bit. No, it is about money: we leave that alone. I table this - I remember now. Did I hand to you, Sir, the English Bill, the Malaysia Bill? I am so sorry; here is another one.

Documents handed in.

Mr David Marshall: That is the document I have promised to table - the Malaysia Bill. Mr Speaker, I shall refer to the series of radio talks. The first one - I have the official Press statement of the Singapore Government issued by the Ministry of Culture - MC. AU. 25/62/TTS: "TEXT OF BROADCAST BY THE PRIME MINISTER, MR LEE KUAN YEW, AT 1910 HRS., ON AUGUST 14, 1962.". This was not a forum, Mr Speaker, but just a speech.

`Let me remind you, however, that paragraph 14 [that is, of the White Paper] has one condition on Singapore citizens, who as a result of this agreement will now automatically become citizens of Malaysia. That condition is that Singapore citizens will vote and stand for elections only in Singapore. Similarly citizens of Malaysia in Malaya or Borneo will only vote and stand for elections in Malaya or Borneo.'

You will please note, Sir, the 14th of August, 1962. "Similarly citizens of Malaysia in Malaya or Borneo will only vote and stand for elections in Malaya or Borneo." Next,

`There will be complete equality and parity between all citizens, whether they are in Malaya, Singapore or the Borneo territories. The only thing is that the right to vote and the right to stand for election, outside the State where a citizen is registered as a voter, is not automatically transferable.

The time for decision has now come. We therefore intend to hold a referendum on' Saturday...'.

So these are some of the falsehoods on which the referendum was based. I table.

The document was tabled.

My next document, Mr Speaker, is a Radio Singapore Press release issued by the Ministry of Culture and states it is "a transcript of a recording in which the Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, answered questions on citizenship and other related matters which were put to him by Mr David Marshall of the Workers' Party to be broadcast over Radio Singapore at 7.10 p.m. on Sunday; l9ih August, 1962." I am sorry. I have only one copy of this. I did not think that I would obtain any courtesy by seeking additional copies from the Ministry.

Sir, my question:

`Before I ask my next question, am I correct in asking the Prime Minister, am I correct in understanding, that the common disability about a person from one territory not being able to stand or vote for election in another territory is not only applicable to Singapore and the Federation, but it is also applicable to the Borneo territories and no one Member of the four territories can stand or vote for election in the other three?

Answer: Yes. If you would look at the Cobbold Report, paragraph 190 (g), you will find it says there conversely we can consider the citizens who are normally resident in either of the Borneo territories should likewise be prevented from voting and standing for election in any Federal or State elections outside their respective territories.'

Mr Speaker, I did not have the Cobbold Report. I have since tried to trace that paragraph. Maybe I have been fobbed off with a false one. But I cannot find paragraph 190 (g). Next:

`Mr Prime Minister, since you speak of the advantages of Singapore citizenship, can you indicate, apart from the common disability which is applicable to all territories, is there any disadvantage either potential or real, attached to Singapore citizenship? - No. None that has not been made known. I mean the citizenship terms are as spelt out in paragraph 14 of the White Paper as amended by this agreement. If I may refer to the letter of the Tunku in reply to mine, placing this agreement on the record. He says:

"I confirm that the arrangement for citizenship of the inhabitants of Singapore will be in the form agreed between the Governments of the Federation of Malaya and Singapore as set out in paragraph 14 of Singapore White Paper, Cmd. 33 of 1961, as amended in regard to the nomenclature and franchise in terms of the statement referred to.".'

This sets out comprehensively what they are. Myself:

`I would like to ask in this context, is there any material aspect affecting Citizenship either of the Federation or of Singapore which is being kept secret?'

I was still suspicious, Mr Speaker.

Answer:

`None whatsoever. I would be in an extremely dangerous position to keep such an important subject secret. I mean if there is anything that affects the lives of the people of Singapore and their future status and we keep it secret, I think we will certainly have a lot to answer for.'

So they have. But the deed is done. Mr Speaker. The deed is done -

Mr Speaker: Order. It is time to suspend. I will 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 David Marshall: Mr Speaker, it is a significant thing, there are three Members - now five - out of 25 on the Government benches who are here -

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think a comment of that nature is in order.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, when we adjourned at tea time. I was on the subject of the assurances given by the Prime Minister to the people of Singapore through radio broadcasts, which is his favourite forum on the subject of citizenship and how they are now completely false - a very grave aspect. I was dealing with that broadcast of questions and answers wherein I asked the questions and he gave the answers for the broadcast on the 19th of August. I go on. Mr Speaker.

Question: Can you tell me, will there be any legal right on the part of the Federation to raise general immigration barriers against Singapore citizens?

Answer: No, because the open causeway policy will continue.

Mr Marshall: Article 9 of the Constitution - [Interruption.]

Mr Prime Minister: Yes, Article 9 of the Constitution also says, however, that certain individuals or persons can be kept to certain specified parts of the Federation which will include Singapore and, as you know, there are certain people who are -

Mr Marshall: I am not talking of gangsters and subversives. That is why I used the words "general barriers".

Prime Minister: No, no, no! Gangsters and subversives is important because some people will come under either one of the two categories and they may be asked, you know, to either stay on in the Federation side in a particular state or village, or stay on the Singapore side in a particular village or kampong.

Myself: Will the Singapore citizens have the same rights as those from Sarawak and North Borneo to work and have their business in Malaya to be employed in the Malayan civil service?

Prime Minister: Malayan civil service - there will be no Malayan civil service.

Myself: Thank you - my mistake. Malaysian civil service. And in view of what the Prime Minister of the Federation has said to become Cabinet Ministers of the Central Government?

Prime Minister: Can I take them one by one?

Myself: Please.

Prime Minister: First, everybody can go to the Federation and work there, have their business there, own houses or whatever they like.

"Everybody can go to the Federation and work...". So, Mr Speaker, in this short radio broadcast, he first assured us solemnly as he did in his first broadcast of the 14th of August that the common disability - the disability of not voting or standing for election in the Federation - would be applied also to Borneans who cannot stand or vote in Singapore or in the Federation, to Sarawakians who cannot stand or vote in Borneo, Singapore or the Federation - he assured us of that. He assured us that there would be freedom of association; he assured us that there would be freedom of movement of labour.

What is the importance? Perhaps I might pause here and say this, Mr Speaker. As I see it, if there are disadvantages to be borne, the people of Singapore should share the same disadvantages as everybody else. And if because of our special position, we have got to carry a special disadvantage, such as having the British military bases here and being the flash-point in time of war, to the danger of the entirety of our people - then we have to carry that burden if it is for the good of Malaysia as a whole. This is our nation and if the general population, through their representatives, think that the British bases are necessary for their protection, then I say we must have it even if it endangers us specifically. But there should be no racial, no citizenship discrimination and distinction, which would then not make us one people, but make us two distinct peoples as in fact is provided for in this Constitution.

I have not sought to weary you, Mr Speaker. I am conscious, first of all, that there is a "guillotine". I do not intend to hog the whole time and I know that these technicalities can sometimes be boring. But throughout the Malaysian Constitution they speak of citizens in two ways - citizens outside Singapore citizens in Singapore State; there are Singapore citizens and citizens outside Singapore. So there are two types of citizens that go all along. For example, residence inside Singapore does not count as residence for citizenship of the Federation except Federation (Singapore State) - that is, citizenship inside Singapore, residence inside Malaysia, outside Singapore. You have got this all along and this is the one thing I have been urging should not happen. We should not seek to push the people of Singapore into a corner where they find themselves discriminated, separately identified, "alien". It is dangerous for the Malaysian concept - not merely for us, Mr Speaker. It is dangerous for the stability of Malaysia as a whole.

Now. Mr Speaker, the next one I would like to refer again to Volume 20 of our Official' Report, No. 2 of the 5th of April, 1963, where for the first time, Mr Speaker, we get a curious note. Column 28 - this is the Prime Minister speaking in a Ministerial Statement:

`Mr Speaker, Sir, I have dwelt in some detail on this question of citizenship as I am quite sure Members of this House and the people outside will be happy to know that all their rights as citizens of Singapore and later as citizens of Malaysia will be duly protected in the Constitution.'

All our rights will be protected. He did not say a word about limitation of the right of association, about the right of Parliament to pass any laws to discriminate against us. But he did mention in a curious P.A.P. indirect fashion something about Labour.

Look at column 31, Mr Speaker, the second paragraph:

`Article 9 (1) , [of the Federation Constitution] which prohibits banishment of any citizen, shall apply in Singapore. The same applies to freedom of movement under Article 9 (2) ; but subject, in respect of Singapore, to the proviso that the Central Government may, if it so desires, by legislation in respect of labour or education or other matters in which Singapore citizens enjoy autonomy, prevent the double enjoyment of both rights of State autonomy in Singapore and again full enjoyment of equal rights with other Malaysian citizens in respect of labour and education, again the other States.'

Now that is not what the Constitution says about having double rights. Let us look, in fact, at what he says in answer to my question, Sir, if I might read my question, because I was very disturbed by this remark about limitation in respect of labour and education. Col. 36:

`Mr Speaker, Sir, the first question I would like to ask is to seek clarification of the remark that "Singapore citizens are not to have double enjoyment of education and labour conditions in other States." Does it by any means infer that Singapore citizens resident in other territories would be unable to find educational facilities for their children in schools of those States? Is there any suggestion that Singapore citizens would be unable to find employment in other States? It is a somewhat ambiguous phrase and I would appreciate clarification.'

Answer - if I might read right to the end of that paragraph of the Prime Minister's. Mr Speaker. I will be happy to read the whole if you think it is fairer.

Column 37:-

`... if, as a result of a massive inflow from the Federation, it may not be possible for us to pay for not only education hut lots of other items like housing and other social benefits; then, of course, the Federation Government would also consider itself not obliged to extend these facilities to our citizens as of grace and they will perhaps be charged for their school fees there, as we may well charge Federal citizens for their school fees here.'

Mr Speaker, we are talking about movement of labour and movement of education, and here he says, oh well, if we limit the question of free school fees, then they can limit theirs. It looks as though all is for our bonny blue eyes!

Now, Sir, I am a little persistent, as Unfortunately you may have found -

`Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, it is very important. What about the question of workers - no question of grace - apart from Government employment? Will the citizens of Singapore be able as heretofore to go into the Federation freely? Will they be able to obtain private employment without limitation and vice versa in so far as the Federation is concerned?

The Prime Minister: That is so, Mr Speaker, Sir. There is no intention whatsoever to prohibit the flow of labour one way or the other. But the proviso is included because we want to make provision for a situation in which we may well have to refuse to shoulder responsibilities which may be more than what our State finances can hear should the flow turn into a flood.'

Is that what the Constitution has, Mr Speaker? - there will be freedom of movement of labour?

I say this and I trust you will forgive me if for a few moments I draw attention to the future. There is a Chinese proverb. It says if you push a tiger to the wall, he must turn. It is not wise, Mr Speaker, to push the people of Singapore into isolation. These matters are now part of the Constitution and I am here before you not to indulge in the farce of adopting or rejecting, but of pleading that in the years to come, this antagonism of the Federation to Singapore - no doubt largely sparked off by the distaste for the P.A.P. personalities - will soften and they will recognise the importance of real integration.

Mr Speaker, never in the history of humanity has there been an opportunity like this one, where vast masses of radically different races - and I say radically different ethnic groups because it is not merely a question of a Belgian and a German who are basically the same ethnic group, but it is the question of the Mongolian race, the proto-Malays, the Dravidians massively divided ethnic groups - for the first time in the history of humanity coming together for the purposes of integrated co-operation in building up common loyalties, a common destiny, which can only be done in the reality of inter-racial respect and harmony. It is a phrase and a principle, which is recognised by millions, which has been propagated from a thousand pulpits, but it has never really been put into effect, never, Mr Speaker, in such a massive form as we will have to try and put it. For our own sake and for the sake of humanity, I say this, Mr Speaker, in no chauvinistic spirit: that this is a pioneer effort in the service of humanity, that we should succeed in making it workable for radically distinct ethnic groups to integrate. We have reached the stage in human development that if such an experiment does not succeed, there is very little hope for the survival of humanity as a whole.

I would urge that when calm reigns again and the irritant of the presence of the evil spirit of the P.A.P. no longer dominates the scene, and I mean in the near future, Mr Speaker, there should be very serious review of these provisions. The people of Singapore are a decent, peaceable, and a tremendously valuable people. It would be a tragedy to us, primarily to the Federation and to the world, if we should be driven into a position which can engender only bitterness, frustration and the itch to retaliation, for it is on those sentiments that Communism thrives, and it is measures of isolation of our people that would encourage Communist growth. When you have no hope left, Mr Speaker, and your back is to the wall. You cannot blame human beings for grabbing foolishly at passing expedients, because they have not the time to wait for a generation or two generations to see these inequalities dissolved.

Now, Mr Speaker, I turn to another aspect. First, our citizenship cheapened, and now our rice bowl destroyed. I want to speak about the Customs Union, Mr Speaker, a subject on which there seems to be a certain shyness to tell the truth. The Member for Farrer Park says, "I am not in a position to talk about a Customs Union and the free port status." I am a little disappointed because I would say with respect, that with the facts before him and if he had read the Rueff Report he, as well as others, should be in a position to express views which could be of assistance to us.

Mr Speaker, before I start, I want to read two curious documents. The first is by the Prime Minister of Singapore, not last century, not four years ago, not last year, but last month. I quote from a copy of our Official Report which you have not even had the time to print being Vol. 20, No. 6. The date is 10th of June, last month. It seems ages ago. Last month - a solemn promise that they will not seek a Customs Union, and today a Customs Union it is.

Again, Mr Speaker. I asked a question on a Ministerial Statement at page 8 [col. 621]:

`Mr Speaker, I would inquire from the Prime Minister whether he does not think it more appropriate that we should have a White Paper? Would he consider publishing a White Paper together with the memoranda referred to by him, and particularly, Sir, in view of the very grave connotations to that statement of his, that a common market has been agreed upon, which rather suggests not a common market, Sir, but a Customs Union [it is curious that I should have had that suspicion in my bones]; and whether he would also publish the Rueff Report for which we have been anxiously awaiting, so that we should be in a position with some responsibility and seriousness to consider a matter gravely affecting our future. It should not be taken so hurriedly, Sir. This is a matter for study and I would urge the Prime Minister to indicate whether he would consider the urgent publication of a White Paper with the memoranda and the details he has given, and other details that might help us, together with the Rueff Report.'

Page 9 [col. 622] - Mr Speaker, I would like you to follow me in case I stopped for a moment and left it. One-third of the way down:

`I say the House can have my assurance that we will not move, and in fact we have no right to move, from the terms of the White Paper which had been voted upon by the people [of Singapore] unless there is definitely a quid pro quo. ... The detailed recommendations of the Common Market are contained in the Rueff Report. It will have to be gone through by the officials. But I can assure the Member for Anson that nothing would give me more pleasure eventually when negotiations have been successfully concluded than to publish them in toto and I think he, and even more so the merchants who have built a valuable and lucrative trade over the years on the basis of our free port, will have a great interest in seeing that all this does not disappear...'.

Please notice this, Sir:

`... and even more so the merchants who have built a valuable and lucrative trade over the years on the basis of our free port, will have a great interest in seeing that all this does not disappear in the chase of a will-o'-the-wisp for a common market. I think he can take the assurance of my Minister for Finance, who has met these merchants, that there is no such sudden disappearance of our free port at all under contemplation.'.

So we will not chase the will-o'-the-wisp. We do not intend to have a Customs Union. This is genuinely a free port.

Mr Speaker, one other curious document because the Singapore Chamber of Commerce, which is not the Singapore Chamber of Commerce but the European Chamber of Commerce, has come out with a statement supporting the P.A.P. and saying what a wonderful idea this Customs Union is. Have you to hand, Sir, this Legislative Assembly Paper No. 9 of 1962? If I might refer to pages C3 and C4. This Legislative Assembly Paper No. 9 of 1962 is a Report of the Select Committee on the Tariff Advisory Commission and Customs (Amendment) Bills. Representation was made to this Committee by the Joint Standing Committee of the Chambers of Commerce of Singapore. The representation is dated the 5th June, 1962, one year ago. Mr Speaker:

`The Chambers of Commerce of Singapore have been on record on a number of occasions expressing a very strong view that protective duties of any kind are in general undesirable and they would be reluctant to readily accept the new Ordinance which goes a long way to make permanent the existing machinery hitherto established for the purpose of considering and promulgating duties on imported goods when in the first place they had been unhappy about the original law on the subject.'.

That is the second paragraph of the representation of the Joint Chambers of Commerce of Singapore. The third paragraph reads:

`The Chambers of Commerce have always been deeply concerned with any proposals which may have a damaging effect on the free port status of Singapore and the entrepot trade on which the State is to a great extent dependent. The need to industrialise is clearly understood by the Chambers, but they have always held the view that any question of duties should be considered as and when the need arises...'.

That is from the Singapore Joint Chambers of Commerce in June 1962. And, Sir, the Memorandum of Heads of Agreement in respect of which we had the merger referendum. Article 17 has been read to you, Mr Speaker. I want you to reiterate that it was there enshrined that this Constitution was subject to the maintenance of the free port status of Singapore and that the Constitution would not be changed except with the concurrence of both the Singapore and Federal Governments.

Now, let us look at Cmd. 22 of 1963.

Article IX:

`The provisions of Annex J to this Agreement relating to Common Market and financial arrangements shall constitute an Agreement between the Government of the Federation of Malaya and the Government of Singapore.'

Not written on the back of an envelope. It is formally embodied as part of the Constitution. And what is this document, Annex J? Our copy does not even have an index but you will find it at page 226.

Now, Mr Speaker, there are two kinds of duties envisaged in Annex J. One is called the protective duty, that is to say, a duty on industrial goods intended for the purpose of encouraging industries in Malaysia and not for revenue. If you are aware, Mr Speaker, we have in Singapore two protective duties, soap and paints. Because they are manufactured in Singapore and so to protect them against competition by countries which have better manufacturing abilities and wider markets and therefore able to produce more cheaply, we put a duty on soap and paints coming in, in order to help our industries to grow and stabilise themselves. But I would like you to notice, Mr Speaker, that in Annex J, and when you read the Rueff Report the emphasis is on the greater prosperity to the Federation of Malaya, not Malaysia, but the Federation Government, by the extension of protective duties because they would have a 50 per cent increased market.

We are wealthier than the Federation in per capita income, and consequently our purchasing power is greater. So the provisions are not merely for the protection of Singapore industries, but for the protection also of Federation industries. That is fair enough, Sir, if it works out equitably because the prosperity of the Federation is naturally to some extent, I hope, ours. The question is: what assurances have we that, in fact, our industries will be enabled to establish themselves? There is a provision to which your attention has been drawn in Article 1 (3), that the Federation can introduce duties in respect of Singapore produced products because Singapore at the present moment and for five years to come will not be subject to revenue duties.

Now, the second thing I want to point out, Mr Speaker, is that for these five years Singapore shall not resist the introduction of revenue duties except if it is necessary for the protection of her entrepot trade. If it is not necessary for her entrepot trade, then we shall be subjected to the same customs duties for revenue purposes as the Federation.

The third thing I want you to notice, Mr Speaker, is that for the first five years, if any duty that the Federation introduces we consider is not merely for our benefit, but would endanger our entrepot trade, then we may ask for 12 months' grace and no more. It is fair enough.

Then, Sir, we come to Article 4 (4) of Annex J. There, contrary to the specific and urgent recommendation of the Rueff Report, the Tariff Advisory Board is given authority to review, not protective duties, but revenue duties. I shall show you in the Rueff Report that they urged that the Tariff Advisory Board should have nothing to do with revenue duties. It says:

`Before 31st December, 1968, the Tariff Advisory Board shall review the revenue duties in force at that time in Singapore and in the remainder of Malaysia and shall make recommendations regarding the amendment of such duties or the imposition of additional duties. As from 1st January, 1969, the Singapore Government shall be entitled to withhold its consent to the imposition of revenue ... duty [only if we pay ransom money]'.

Now, under the White Paper we pay already $135 million, 40 per cent of which, we are told in the correspondence and published documents, is really far in excess of what the Government is entitled to under the White Paper Command 33 of 1961. But certainly nowhere in the White Paper is the Federation Government entitled to additional revenue, because we think the introduction of revenue duties would destroy our entrepot trade. And after 1968, five years from hence, if the Federation Government says, as it says, Sir, in Article 4 (1) :

`In formulating its policy relating to the harmonisation of revenue duties, the Federal Government shall pay due regard to any representations made...'.

Sir, if after 1968, they, say, want to impose a duty on sugar because there is a duty on sugar in the Federation and we have a very large export market in sugar, then assuming that the duty on sugar consumed in Singapore would yield $50 million, we have to pay the Federation 40 per cent of the revenue we do not earn in order to buy off the imposition of that duty every year. This we have to do, Mr Speaker, in a consistently running-down economy, loans of $150 million already made from our exchequer: $135 million or more annually made to the Federation; our cost of living going up as a result of the imposition of duties; our harbour facilities running down because our free port status is being eroded. We have to pay these additional sums of money by way of ransom to maintain our survival. But this is only for a period of seven years. There is no grace after 1975. After 1975 there will be one common tariff for both protective duties and revenue duties throughout Malaysia. The greatest port in Asia - Singapore - 70 million tons of shipping, 2 million tons of cargo annually, the second greatest port in the Commonwealth, the fifth greatest port in the whole world, for 140 years of development of this concept of free trade, free port, we have grown and we support our population. The Government has reminded us often enough when jeering at the Barisan that we have no assets under the earth, no tin, no gold, we have no agriculture to speak of, we have no fishery to speak of. Our basic source of employment is our port. Mr Speaker, until the Member for Hong Lim spoke. I was not aware that there is anywhere in history any legend or incident to indicate that the leading citizen of any State sold the pass to his own State and destroyed his own people. And this is the work, Mr Speaker, of two people, hence my motion - the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance - because I shall prove to you that until they left for London on the 25th of June, there was not a word, there was nothing about the common market. They had not even got the Rueff Report. They had not even time to consult their own Party; so, for a change. I cannot blame the P.A.P. except the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance. Now, Mr Speaker, are they ignorant? Did they do this -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of clarification.

Mr David Marshall resumed his seat.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The Member for Anson gave a partly inaccurate statement when he said that by the time we left for London we did not have the Rueff Report. It is true the final version of the Rueff Report was not published until after we left London but we had the preliminary report which, except for drafting errors, was identical with the final report. That report was available to the Singapore and Federation Governments several weeks before we left for London.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, it is interesting to hear that the Rueff Commission had sent a draft report. To what end? For further representations? I trust the Minister would clarify that. Why a draft report? As I see the Rueff Report, it was sent from Washington to the Prime Minister on the 2nd of July according to published documents and that was some 10 days after he left Singapore. When did his Cabinet have time to consider it? But I was saying, Sir, is it through ignorance that this Government has by this deed destroyed the free port status? I well remember, Mr Speaker, only last Friday, the Deputy Prime Minister rose in anger and, pointing at the Member for Cairnhill, said, through a misunderstanding. "You cannot have a nomination of 15 people from this Assembly. You have not got the mandate of the people for such a thing." Mandate of the people! If there is anything that requires a mandate of the people, it is so basic a change in the pattern of our economy. What mandate have they got?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of clarification.

Mr David Marshall resumed his seat.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, in order to save the Member for Anson the need for further histrionics, may I refer him to -

Mr David Marshall: Sir, can I finish my speech -

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member has given way. I will stop the Minister if he is out of order.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: He asked for the mandate from the people. May I refer him to The Tasks Ahead - P.A.P.'s Five-Year Plan, 1959-64, Part I, page 21? Would it be in order if I read extracts from that? It is all in our election manifesto.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Minister has made his point. Mr Marshall.

Mr David Marshall: I talk of the destruction of our free port status, and he talks of a Common Market. I talk of a Customs Union, and he says I mean a Common Market. He already said. Mr Speaker, and I read to you the speech of the Prime Minister. "We have no intention of chasing the will-o'-the-wisp, and destroying our present position of a free port." I am not talking of a Common Market. We are all in agreement with the concept of a Common Market, which means, in the context of Singapore as a free port, a certain erosion of the principles of a free port for the purpose of protective duties, which is clearly enunciated. They understand what I mean. Revenue duties have nothing to do with a Common Market as conceived for Singapore and never had, and since he refers to his Five-Year Plan, let me refer to some of his own utterances. I have already shown you that despite their Five-Year Plan where they say they want to destroy -the free port, they did in Article 17 of Command 33 of 1961 say, "The free port status of Singapore will be enshrined in the Constitution." Now let us look at the speech of His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara on the 31st of October, 1961, at Volume 15. Column 10. That is a speech, as you will appreciate. Mr Speaker, written by the Government, and those aspects dealing with finance written by the Finance Minister. This is talking about the merger:

`Merchants want a merger under conditions under which our free port status and our free trade with all countries will continue, and under which our trading links with the whole world will remain as they have been free and easy.' That is 31st October, 1961 - "under which our free port status and our free trade with all countries will continue". You will appreciate therefore that on the merger debate, nobody was disturbed about the free port status of Singapore. We had it enshrined in Article 17 of the White Paper. We had it from the mouth of His Excellency in the inaugural speech, and I was the only one who made passing reference to it at column 571 of Volume 15, No. 7 of 23rd November, 1961:

`The fifth reason given by the Government in His Excellency's policy speech is that the merchants of Singapore want a continuance of our free port status and maintenance of our trade with the whole world. Sir, it is almost unbelievable. I refuse to believe that this Government is not aware that there is such a State as the State of Penang. I refuse to believe that this Government is not aware that Penang is a free port by virtue of a small part of the Federation Customs Ordinance. I refuse to believe that this Government is not conscious of the fact that the free port status of Singapore could be fully protected under complete merger. So how is it that they have the audacity to say, in His Excellency's speech, that the interests of the merchants who want a continuance of our free port status and maintenance of our trade relations cannot be protected under a complete merger?'

That was the only reference, Mr Speaker, in all those agonising speeches on His Excellency's speech and on the merger, about free port.

Now we leave merger and we come to the Annual Budget Statement. The Annual Budget Statement made by the Minister for Finance to this House on the 20th November, 1961, at Volume 15, No. 10, dated 28th November, 1961, column 815, paragraph 3:

`We in Singapore live in a tight economic situation. We are a small island State which is prosperous because of our central geographical position. This allows us to render services of value to our neighbours. Through the port of Singapore passes much of the produce of the Federation of Malaya, Indonesia and Borneo. In addition, we serve as a supply base for the consumer goods which these territories need. This is the main source of our livelihood. We will continue to earn this livelihood so long as we provide these services efficiently and so long as we are on good terms with our neighbours. But when neither of these things obtains, then this principal source of our livelihood may shrivel. And this will bring in its train poverty and destitution for us.' So if our entrepot trade shrivels, it brings in its train poverty and destitution. And I say, Mr Speaker, that that is what is provided by Annex J in the provision of the destruction of our free port status.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Nonsense.

Mr David Marshall: I read on:

`Whatever our differences in political outlook may be we must refrain from such action that would lead to the ruin of our country through hostility of our neighbours or the running down of our business organisations.'

Who is providing for the running down of our port?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Nobody.

Mr David Marshall: Then in Vol. 16, No. 1, dated, 15th January, 1962, column 33, we have the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Finance - not that ne pretends to be an authority, in fairness to him - but this was the speech that he had prepared and this was in dealing with the Customs (Dumping and Subsidies) Bill:

`I can assure the House that the powers given under this Bill will be used with care and discrimination. In an entrepot economy such as ours, import duties should be introduced only when it is established beyond doubt that the gain to the State in terms of employment, national income and economic growth outweighs any possible loss to the entrepot trade.'

Mr Speaker, I was disturbed even by this Bill, and if you will look at the next column, I said:

`Singapore has a century-old tradition of being a free port. Again and again, we have often heard legitimate requests for the imposition of duties to protect the establishment or even the survival of existing industries, and we have repeatedly resisted these requests until very recently, because we are conscious that once you introduce the thin end of the wedge and start imposing duties on imports, that tradition which is of such value to us will slowly evaporate and Singapore will lose much of its trade and goodwill.'

Now let us look at the Finance Minister again in reply at column 36, in the final paragraph:

`Everyone, of course, is aware of the importance of the free port status of Singapore and no one in his senses would want that free port status destroyed.' Were the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance in their senses when they signed that agreement of 9th July, 1963?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of information, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way?

Mr David Marshall: No, Mr Speaker, Sir. I have received discourtesy once in return. I will repeat it, Mr Speaker:

`Everyone, of course, is aware of the importance of the free port status of Singapore and no one in his senses would want that free port status destroyed.'

Is that free port destroyed or not destroyed by Annex J of Command 22 of 1963!

Dr Goh Keng Swee: No. Not destroyed.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, we have reached the stage - and I say this with respect - that what is said in this House moves nobody in this House; that as his Leader once said, "I am with Humpty Dumpty. A word means what I say it means." The Japan ese did it to us when we were their prisoners. They used words like "justice" and "fair play". They had not a clue what they meant. So he can say, "It is not destroyed." It is there for all to read, that within five years we shall have all the protective duties, and at the end of five years all the revenue duties. And if we want to buy off the revenue duties, we have got to pay ransom - ransom not provided for in the White Paper - and at the end of 12 years there is not any ransom. Finished - that is the end of your free port.

They talk, Sir, of Blakang Mati. I understand it is a very salubrious area for a cemetery; maybe that is where they intend to have the cemetery of our free trade.

At column 38, if I might tax your indulgence, Mr Speaker:

`At the same time, we must take into account the demands of the free port, [this is still the Finance Minister of the free port] and where any particular instance of a request for the levying of countervailing duties arises, the Government will be in a position to make the necessary calculations of profit and loss to strike a proper balance sheet, and, after all relevant factors have been taken into account, to make the proper decision in the interests of the people.'

Now, Sir, at col. 735, No. 8 of Volume 17. Now, we are discussing the Tariff Advisory Commission Bill and the date is 17th April of last year. The Minister for Finance is still the Minister of a free port:

`Sir, our entrepot trade has brought prosperity to Singapore and will continue to do so -'.

Will continue to do so! Column 736:

`However, our brief experience in protective tariff has shown that the effects could be reduced to a minimum or even be eliminated if tariff duties are imposed with due care on selected commodities -'.

The Government has two imported articles, Sir. One of them was soap, another was paint. One of them was introduced only a month before.

Now, at col. 749, he admits, Sir, that this Tariff Advisory Commission is a radical departure.

`Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said, this is a basic departure from the laissez-faire policy of the State.'

Has he got the right to indulge in so basic a departure without a mandate from the people, even if it is for our benefit which he knows is not true? Mr Speaker, it is appropriate at this juncture, because this is on the Tariff Advisory Bill, to remind you that the Select Committee on the Tariff Advisory Commission Bill in its Report of L.A. 9 of 1962 put in that memorandum, to which I referred, in which the Chambers of Commerce of Singapore placed on record a number of occasions expressing a very strong view that protective duties of any kind are in general undesirable and that they would be reluctant to accept. That was only a year ago.

Now, Sir, let us come back to modern times. After all, it is a P.A.P. promise of a year ago - they break their promises of today - is it unfair to expect them to keep a promise of last year? Let us look at the 5th April, 1963, Volume 20, No. 2. It is a rich volume, Sir. This is only three and a half months ago, column 44; this is the Prime Minister in answer to me:

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

The Prime Minister: Sir, the Singapore Government consider it unwise and against the interests of the people of Singapore in any way to depart from the published terms and conditions for merger contained in the White Paper and amplified or amended by the formal exchange of letters between the Prime Minister of the Federation and myself.'

In this Constitution is Annex J not a departure from the published terms and conditions? Let me add, Sir, what the Prime Minister said, and these are his words:

`Any departure from these terms will make it necessary to have the whole matter redebated and re-endorsed.'

At column 47, because I was being persistent, he says, at column 47:

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

A solemnity of contract; unwise to make any changes. Let us come to even more recent times, Mr Speaker, and this time we come to the realm of the Unrevised transcript, Volume 20, page 5. The date is not last century. It is last month - 7th June, 1963. Can so much happen in so little a time? We are told that no man is in his senses wants to see the end of the free port trade. Now, we are told that it does not really matter, it is the end of the free port, it is a common market. Mr Speaker, at page 49, and this is the Annual Budget Speech of the Finance Minister [col. 554]:

`Another peculiarity of Singapore is the complete absence of natural resources, but this factor is more than balanced by our central geographical position, our excellent natural harbour and our talented and energetic population.'

How well argued.

`Because of this, the most important pursuit in Singapore is trade and its related occupations, such as banking, shipping and transportation. Singapore's pre-eminence as a trading centre of South-East Asia is known to all of us and is not a matter upon which I need elaborate.'

Yes, then, Sir, at the bottom of that page [col. 556]:

`First, we should maintain and develop the traditional strongpoints of the economy, our trading, banking, shipping and communications services which have sustained our entrepot trade.'

Mr Speaker, may I remind you that this is under the heading "State Development Plan" and this was given on the 7th of June, last month:

`It would be an error to take measures -'

No, let me read it again:

`First, we should maintain and develop the traditional strongpoints of the economy, our trading, banking, shipping and communications services which have sustained our entrepot trade.'

And now, I will go slowly, I hope the Interpreters have it:

`It would be an error to take measures harmful to our established economic functions in the quest of something new and uncertain.'

That is the Finance Minister, this same Finance Minister, one and a half months ago, six weeks:

`It would be an error to take measures harmful to our established economic functions in the quest of something new and uncertain.'

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Will you continue?

Mr David Marshall: Well, I will please him since he is polite, Mr Speaker, Sir, certainly:

`Not only should we maintain and improve our efficiency as a trading centre, but also other established lines, particularly our agriculture which consists mainly of market gardening and animal husbandry, should also be improved.' Now, Sir, I will read on from the same speech at page 50 and this is under "Industrialisation". Mr Speaker, on this point I want to say something which was twice repeated in the Rueff Report. Industrialisation as a balanced aspect of the economy of a State is valuable. Industrialisation as the sum total of a State activity is pernicious. It has tremendous social evils. Now, let me read [col. 557]:

`First what can Singapore hope to do by way of industrialisation? A large nation with a big population and an extensive land area with many natural resources can afford to experiment with high cost industries set up under a prohibition of imports or a high tariff wall. Such a country can allow these high cost industries to survive even if the industries are not efficient in the first instance, by passing on the increased cost to the consumer. Industrialisation on these lines can be rapid and spectacular if it is pressed forward with sufficient energy.

Singapore, however, lacks the pre-requisites for such an endeavour, namely, a large population, varied natural resources and extensive land area. This being the case, our plan of industrial expansion must be more circumspect and judicious. Particularly as our economy still rests so much on trade, enforced industrialisation at the expense of trade can be an uncertain gamble with such a small domestic market as we have.'

Are we going to be told, Mr Speaker, Sir, that enforced industrialisation at the expense of trade is now a certain gamble because we have increased our domestic market? Not by five times the population. That is not what is relevant but by twice the purchasing power of the people.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Four times.

Mr David Marshall: That is what we are going to be told. Now, Sir, I go on to column 562, last sentence on Common Market:

`As I have stated before this House on previous occasions, there would be no difficulty whatsoever in getting agreement on a common market with the Federation of Malaya if we were prepared to join them in a full-scale customs union. This means that we shall have to introduce in Singapore the same tariff scales as in the Federation of Malaya. The trouble about this proposal is that, while it will give a decided impetus to industrial growth, it will also dislocate the entrepot trade to a dangerous extent.'

Mr Speaker, it is the same Finance Minister who said that. This was the 7th of June. We can have a common market if we agree to a customs union but a customs union, though it will give an impetus to our common market, will dislocate our trade.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of clarification.

Mr David Marshall remained standing.

Mr Speaker: The Member does not give way.

Mr David Marshall: If I might in fairness finish it, Mr Speaker, a complete customs union is therefore not a feasible proposition for Singapore at the present juncture.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Exactly.

Mr David Marshall: How would the common market affect trade and industry in Singapore? The first point to be noted is that protective tariffs in Singapore will apply only to manufactures and not to tropical raw materials which form the greater part of our entrepot trade. So that the traditional entrepot trade in rubber, copra, coffee, tea, spices, jungle produce and other goods will not in any way be affected by a common market, and that is the common market we support. Mr Speaker. Let us use our terms even if he thinks he can confuse those in the coffee-shop. Let us here use our terms with precision and know what we are talking about. A common market is intended for purely protective duties as defined, protective duties to protect our industrial growth in order to increase employment and not revenue duties. This, Mr Speaker, was on the 7th of June last month and I love that phrase, I could not have put it better:

`- that, while a common customs will give a decided impetus to industrial growth, it will also dislocate the entrepot trade to a dangerous extent and it would be a dangerous gamble.'

Sir, you will forgive me, if I refer to it only briefly again. Our Prime Minister on the 10th June, when I said to him that his statement about a common market sounded very much like a customs union - this is not on the record - but the Minister for Finance shook his head in so vigorous a fashion that even if the Prime Minister had not replied, I would have been satisfied. He shook his head decidedly and endorsed what the Prime Minister said:

`... I can assure the Member for Anson that nothing would give me more pleasure eventually when negotiations have been successfully concluded than to publish them in row, and I think he, and even more so the merchants who have built a valuable and lucrative trade over the years on the basis of our free port, will have a great interest in seeing that all this does not disappear in the chase of a will-o'-the-wisp for a common market.'

Now, Mr Speaker, they will tell you, "But, oh yes, this is a thing of the past." I have read the Prime Minister's speech, "We had eight good men and true come to Malaya and they have produced the report."

First, Mr Speaker, I want to remind you that, according to the report, Mr Rueff had exactly 16 days in Malaya, a large part of which was engaged in social functions.

The second thing about this Rueff Report - I do not know whether it makes it a unique document, but certainly a very curious document, Mr Speaker. You will remember that we repeatedly asked for a common market, and finally the Minister for Finance said that it was the Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation who was using his influence to get a very important official from the World Bank. Why we ourselves could not do it, I do not know. So this was the choice of the Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation and he came for 16 days, although the rest of them spent some more time in travelling to Borneo and other territories.

The point I want to draw your attention to is this. According to the first page, this report was not sent to the International Bank for Reconstruction until the 25th of June. How was it in the hands of our Government before that - in draft or otherwise? It was on the 2nd July, Mr Speaker, that the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development sent it from Washington.

Mr Speaker, when a report is made under the aegis of the World Bank, the World Bank usually indicates its approval or disapproval of the recommendations, and a very curious feature of this report is contained in paragraph 3 of the letter of the President of this World Bank under date of 2nd July. I will read it:

`This report has not been given to the Executive Directors of the International Bank arid it has not been reviewed in detail by the Management. For this reason, the Report as transmitted represents the views of the Mission rather than the positive recommendations of the Bank.'

A very delightful, courteous and diplomatic way of saying, "Well, look, we don't know about this. We don't think we agree with it, but here it is in your lap."

Dr Goh Keng Swee: This is the custom of the World Bank in all their reports.

Mr David Marshall: It is very interesting, Mr Speaker, that they should find it necessary to say that specifically, "For this reason, the report as transmitted represents the views of the Mission rather than positive recommendations of the Bank."

Now, let us come to the views of the Mission - not approved by the International Bank. I would like to start off with paragraph 4, Sir, and before I do, permit me just one word. 150 years of trial and error have built up an economy that has made Singapore the greatest port in all Asia - the fifth largest in the world - on which our population subsists. And I say to you, Mr Speaker. Sir, that even if Rueff was the Archangel Gabriel and his eight other members came from the same domain, we should view with some zealous scrutiny and care any recommendations which suggest a radical departure from our pattern of economy. But when we realise that they are human beings, albeit experts in their fashion who can err, how much more care should we give in considering their recommendations, and particularly, not merely in considering their recommendations, but in seeking, Mr Speaker, to go even beyond their recommendations, radically beyond their recommendations, in respect of this departure from our free port status?

Paragraph 4:

`Trade, transport and other services account for nearly 70 per cent of employment in Singapore, about 30 per cent in Malaya...'.

Paragraph 22 -

The Minister for Education (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): Trying to skip that?

Mr David Marshall: In paragraph 31, Mr Speaker, if you will read it through, you will find that the entire concept of a Common Market is based on what he calls in the last two lines, "the increased mobility of manpower which, despite some limitations, should characterize the new Federation."

Is there increased mobility of manpower in view of the documents before us? And this is one of the bases of their recommendations.

Paragraph 34 - I am grateful to Members who are patient enough to listen -

`Moreover, in the case of Malaysia, it is essential that tariff policies not be used in a manner which would unduly raise the cost of primary production or disrupt the entrepot trade. For the economy will continue to depend very heavily on these sources of income and employment.'

That is not only us. These are words which the Federation may well listen to. Do not disrupt the entrepot trade of Singapore. Your own prosperity depends upon it.

Now, if you will look at paragraph 36 and that part just towards the bottom:

`the most important case being that of Singapore, where preservation of the entrepot trade requires a great deal of precaution.'

This is their God, Mr Rueff:

`39 (b) In the States which will form Malaysia, the main sources of income consist today of agriculture and forestry, mining and trade. This includes the entrepot trade of States like Singapore and Penang. In the interest of Malaysia, as well as of the industries which may wish to establish themselves within its market, it is essential that these existing activities be encouraged and safeguarded.'

You notice, Mr Speaker, "in the interest of Malaysia," not only for Singapore. "in the interest of Malaysia, as well as of the industries which may wish to establish themselves within its market, it is essential that these existing activities be encouraged and safeguarded. Disregard of their requirements would only destroy the favourable effects which new industry may have on employment, and impair the market or its products."

Then, Mr Speaker, at paragraph 57 where the P.A.P. out-Rueffs Rueff. Perhaps I should read the preceding paragraph 56:

As to new tariffs - whether protective or non-protective - a complication arises from the need to protect the entrepot trade. Awareness of this problem led to a statement in the Heads of Agreement that the free port status of Singapore would not be changed without the concurrence of both the Governments of the Federation and of that State. For protective tariffs we suggest,' - I want you to notice this, please, Mr Speaker - For protective tariffs only.' And this is their suggestion - For protective tariffs', not revenue tariffs, For protective tariffs we suggest , that, subject to certain safeguards, Singapore concur in advance to changes in its free port status which may be introduced through the application of such tariffs', - only protective tariffs - `by the Federal Government after receiving advice from the Tariff Board.'

So, even poor Mr Rueff, on whose shoulders all this blame is being put, says, "only protective tariffs." I would recommend a change in the White Paper provisions - not revenue duties.

Then come to 57, the next paragraph:

`We consider the uncertainties of the impact on the entrepot trade of extending non-protective tariffs are too great to decide safely on any fixed schedule for harmonization now.'

Yesterday, the Prime Minister with that arrogance which characterises the P.A.P., even in their swan song, even in their death agonies, said, "We would be fools to think that we cannot in 12 years be able to meet the whole impact of a customs union."

Mr Speaker, Mr Rueff says, and he is an economist, not just a blabberer, "We consider that the uncertainties of the impact on the entrepot trade of extending non-protective tariffs are too great to decide safely on any fixed schedule for harmonization now."

Is there a fixed schedule for harmonization now, Mr Speaker? Pity the Minister for Finance is not here. He will say, "Rubbish!" But you have five years - 1968, 1975, is the ultimate swan song, the death agony of Singapore's free port, and it is in an exchange. Is that what Rueff recommends? And the Prime Minister tells us that he will not chase the will-o'-the-wisp for the common market, and we should be so happy, including the Member for Anson. Now, Sir, what is the value of manufacturing trade to Singapore? In paragraph 81, ii is stated that in 1961 the total income of Singapore from manufacturing industries was 14 per cent only, 14 per cent in Singapore, 6 per cent in Malaya. Mr Speaker, Sir, let us face it. The whole of Annex J is intended to bring an impetus to Federation industries and I will be only too glad that they should have an impetus, because I dread the thought that Singapore should be the industrial area of the Federation with its concomitant social evils. I myself do not believe in industry, and only industry, as a salvation of our economic position. I certainly believe that we should have our fair share of industry. So in respect of this 14 per cent, we are to take the gamble, Mr Speaker. By the way, just a side-light, would you look at paragraph 83, because the P.A.P. has been saying that since they came to office industries have increased by leaps and bounds. Mr Rueff said:

`In Singapore recent growth in manufacturing has been less spectacular after buoyant progress has been experienced in the 1950-57 period.'

I hear nothing from the Front bench.

Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of elucidation?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Certainly.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Marshall remained standing.

Mr Speaker: Order. If the Member for Anson excites a reply or asks for a reply, I think he ought to give way. If he does not ask for a reply, then, of course, he is entitled, if he so chooses, not to give way.

Mr David Marshall: I am not aware of having attempted to excite a reply, Sir. But I thought the opposite Front Bench would be delighted to hear that phrase. That manufacturing had a buoyant experience between the years 1950 and 1957. But we will pass it. I do not know whether they are listening. Now we will go to paragraph 117. You see at the top of page 41, Mr Speaker:

`By creating a Malaysian Common Market the Federation thus would retain the valuable Singapore market and, moreover, for all protected goods, would increase the size of its protected market by over 50 per cent. [Good luck to the Federation.] This would allow the establishment in the Federation of a number of industries for which the size of the domestic market was hitherto inadequate for economic production.'

Now paragraph 118:

`The same is true in Singapore. In recent years industrialisation has not made rapid progress, and there is no doubt that the gradual adoption of protective tariffs by the Federation has contributed to this slowdown. The existence of a tariff barrier has been an important factor in persuading a number of firms to establish plants in the Federation rather than in Singapore, and tariffs such as those on paints, soap and wire mesh have restricted Singapore access to the Federation market.'

At paragraph 123:

`However, both Malaya and Singapore depend too much on trade to be certain that the gains from the protection of infant industries will not be offset by a possible reduction in the income derived from export or entrepot trades.'

Even in respect of protective tariffs he is worried, and he says that you depend too much on trade to be certain that what you gain from employment from infant industries will not be offset by income derived from export or entrepot trades.

`Any significant increases in the cost of production, brought about by protection, could weaken the competitive position of Malaysia's export commodities. In the same way, the introduction of protective tariffs could affect the costs of the services rendered by traders in Singapore and Penang, and could conceivably create difficulties for the entrepot trades. It is in fact the low cost of these services which has discouraged direct shipment from the producing to the consuming countries, and which has enabled Singapore and Penang to play the role of intermediaries.'

Paragraph 126:

`Expanded agricultural output on a commercial basis for domestic consumption offers one of the main possibilities for further diversification of the Malaysian economy. The products which appear to have a significant potential include fruits, vegetables, sugarcane, maize, livestock products and fish. Common market arrangements for these products could undoubtedly serve as an important stimulus to Malaysian production, especially given the improved long-run prospects for marketing in Singapore, which will have to import an increasing proportion of its food requirements.'

So if you are told that our cost of living will not go up very much, remember, Mr Speaker, that in future, in order to protect Federation agriculture, we will have duty on fruits, on vegetables, on sugarcane, on maize, on livestocks and on fish.

Now, Mr Speaker, you remember I said to you that the Rueff Report recommended that the Tariff Board should have nothing to do with revenue. It makes a special paragraph for that. You will find it at paragraph 150. But in Annex J that Tariff Board has the power to apply all revenue duties of the Federation to us. Paragraph 150:

`As was indicated above, the Tariff Board would be called upon to give advice with respect to protective tariffs, hut its jurisdiction will not extend to non-protective tariffs.'.

And in paragraph 156 he pleads that his recommendations be considered as a whole because they are closely interrelated, and he particularly emphasised that the question of non-protective duties and measures to safeguard the operation of the entrepot trade, non-protective duties as distinct from revenue duties, should not apply.

Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, in paragraph 158, just in case there are some academicians who say that we do not have a free port on the other side, you will see in line 4: "Although Singapore enjoys a free port status." It is true, Mr Speaker, there has been a very mild inroad over 140 years. We have tax on petrol, on alcohol and on tobacco. Those are revenue. That is all. And in respect of protective duties we have soaps and paints. That is all.

At paragraph 160, you will find that he says what in fact we heard the Minister for Finance say in respect of the speeches he made in the Budget. Let us have it for the record:

`The existence of the free port, however, encouraged the development of specialised transit and entrepot operations which have become the main source of employment in both Singapore and Penang.'

I am hammering this - that the entrepot trade is the main source of employment and income, and this is what they intend to banish to Blakang Mati.

Mr Speaker, paragraph 161 is a long paragraph and I will not weary you. But would you agree that that sentence in the middle in fact epitomises it? They say that there are too many difficulties for a time- table and the words are:

`A final judgment will have to wait until more experience has been gained in practice.'

But to the P.A.P., what does it matter if you sell out Singapore? I do not know, Sir. Apart from the example put forward by the Member for Hong Lim. I cannot understand how a human being can sell out his own people.

In paragraph 167, again, Mr Speaker, Sir, for the third time he hammers home: Do not have a definite time-table. Let experience teach you. Let me read it. It is not very long.

`The Mission is of the opinion that the application of uniform tariff policies in Malaysia should proceed as rapidly as is consistent with the need to preserve entrepot trade, which is and will continue to be an important source of income and employment for Malaysia. On the basis of the date available, it is fairly obvious that five years at least will be required to put into operation the safeguards and procedures which are considered essential;'.

That is for the protective tariffs we are discussing, Mr Speaker.

`... on the other hand, it is not yet possible on the basis of such information, to determine whether such a period would be sufficient to enable the traders to adjust themselves to new circumstances and to enable workers who may become redundant as a result of such adjustments to be absorbed in new activities. This process of adjustment will be governed by the rate at which industrialization progresses and the common market becomes established, and it is probable that, at the end of the five-year period, the outstanding difficulties will not be intractable.'

That is in respect of protective tariffs, not revenue.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Uniform tariff policy, man!

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr David Marshall: Paragraph 168:

`These considerations have led the Mission to the conclusion that it would be wiser not to take any decision at the present time, but to provide for a review which will be conducted at the end of the transitional period.'

Now, Mr Speaker, if Annex J had ended at the point where it provides for a review, then it would at least have been in accordance with the spirit of this paper. But Annex J goes on to fix a guillotine, the moment for guillotine, and that is the fixed time-table for the end of Singapore's 140 years' old tradition of a free port.

Paragraph 183. I am nearing the end, Mr Speaker.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Thank God!

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Minister for Finance should try and contain himself. All these little interjections will not make for order in this Assembly.

Mr David Marshall: I am at paragraph 183:

`For many years entrepot trade, as defined above, was one of the main economic activities of the original Straits Settlements, and today it remains the largest single source of income and employment in Singapore and in Penang.'

That is what these snotty urchins are playing marbles with in a dirty back alley. The most important source of income and employment in Singapore and Penang:

`Although important year-to-year fluctuations have taken place, entrepot trade has grown in importance since the early 1950's. It is difficult at the present time to determine what are the prospects of that type of trade in the near future.'

I want to stop there, Mr Speaker, because there is no doubt that the Minister for Finance, now that he is on the side of a customs union, is going to say that, of course, our entrepot trade is going to deteriorate and is going to wither away. Mr Speaker, we are a department store at the cross-road of an area which was a slump area; deep frozen in economic misery because the imperialists change; they are, for the first time, beginning to thaw out, to be conscious of their value of their own raw materials, to benefit by their raw materials, and to be conscious of their need for products that make human life pleasant; and this is the department store where they come and purchase. As those countries grow in wealth, so that department store must grow in wealth. Left alone, Mr Speaker, in that policy of a free port, Singapore must necessarily find itself as at the beginning of a golden era of trade, but at least Mr Rueff recognises that since 1950 the entrepot trade, far from withering as is claimed by the P.A.P., has improved and grown.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: We have never claimed it.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, paragraph 184:

`In the case of Singapore, the entrepot trade and tourism together contribute about 20-25 per cent of the national product and it is estimated that entrepot trade employs directly about 70,000 persons or 14 per cent of the labour force; [that is, directly] but indirect effects on employment and national income are, of course, much higher. Although it is very difficult to ascertain the number of people employed in the entrepot trade, as distinct from other forms of trading, there is no doubt that, unless the necessary precautions are taken, a change in the conditions in which trade is conducted at present may lead to serious adverse effects on employment, if not on national income.'

And perhaps, Mr Speaker, I should read paragraph 204, which it is my hope the Federation of Malaysia Government will become conscious of and seek to implement:

`For Malaysia considered as a whole, the entrepot trade of Singapore and Penang will continue to be a major source of employment and income; it is therefore of great importance, not only for the economy of Singapore or Penang, but also for that of Malaysia, that the volume of that trade be maintained at its highest possible level, and that the adjustments which may be required in view of increased industrialization should be made as easy and inexpensive as possible.'

I have, Mr Speaker, trespassed on the indulgence of this House for some considerable time in reading passages from this report which we have received all too recently. You will be conscious that the Government places the whole force of its volte-face in respect of the free port of Singapore on the shoulders of Mr Rueff and his colleagues. It was, therefore, imperative to disclose their falsehoods and to point out that Rueff and his colleagues repeatedly pleaded that there should be no fixed time-table, that we should learn by experience, and, above all, that though we should introduce protective duties in Singapore in so far as it did not endanger our entrepot trade and therefore the prosperity of Malaysia as a whole, the question of revenue duty was something apart. They talk of a Common Market just as they talk of merger, Mr Speaker, because merger was on everybody's platform; it is something good, something I believe we all want with complete sincerity. And, of course, a Common Market with the Federation whereby certain inroads into our free port status are made not only for the benefit of our industries but for the benefit of Malaysia's industries as a whole, is a legitimate aspiration which we should all support. If this Paper dealt only with protective duty, though there seems to be a somewhat rapid - a frantically rapid - attempt at the introduction of protective tariffs, I would not have opposed it except to indicate a certain anxiety. That there should be inroads in order to encourage the local industries for local workers is a matter which I supported early on when that Tariff Commission Bill was read a Second time. But as the Rueff Report says, when you are tinkering with an economic tradition of more than a century, you should go only as far as experience indicates it is safe to go. It has sounded a note of warning repeatedly against speed. It has urged that there should be no timetable. You will remember, Mr Speaker, if and when the Finance Minister will suggest otherwise, that they recommended that White Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961, Article 17, should only be amended in order to enable the Federation to impose protective tariff, not revenue tariff. Whatever the virtues, Mr Speaker, even if I be wrong, and this fixed schedule of destruction of our free port is believed to be right by the Finance Minister - I say Finance Minister because, Mr Speaker, you will remember that the Prime Minister in his address to you disclaimed all knowledge of finance and said, "I leave it to my Finance Minister who guides me," and so he is the person responsible for these arrangements, one man affecting the destiny of untold millions of today and tomorrow even if he were convinced despite his protestations of old that these provisions are for our benefit - I say the provisions of so radical a character affecting our very livelihood should not have been agreed to without reference to the people of Singapore, without reference to this Assembly, without reference even to their own political Party, but agreed on the back of an envelope in the Ritz Hotel in London after they left for London on the 25th of June. It is a most treacherous act of a proved shabby Government.

And now, Mr Speaker, I want to come to a personal matter in respect of this particular debate. It has been my intention, Mr Speaker, in view of this farce asking us to adopt something which makes no difference whether we adopt it or not, whether we reject it or not, because it is totally irrelevant; the judgment is passed, the act of the British Parliament has taken effect, and the machinery is in motion. The date of judgment is the 31st of August and there is no Court of Appeal. This is not a Court of Appeal from the British Parliament. So I thought I would not continue with this farce other than to expose certain aspects of it for those who are interested and to depart.

Mr Speaker, I read in the transcript of Tuesday of the speech of the Prime Minister what I consider to be a personal threat to me and an act of intimidation. He has been so successful intimidating others; he thinks he can do it to me in this very House. It is at page 16, 30th of July. Perhaps I should start at page 15 since the Minister for Culture interrupted. At the bottom of page 15 [Vol. 21, No. 5, cols. 311-2]:

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

Mr Rajaratnam: Than the Japanese.

The Prime Minister: Than the Japanese, I do not know whether he knows [that is me, Mr Speaker] that this is the end of an era. I think it will not be unfair to put it in this way: that as things get tougher - and things will get tougher because, as I have said, we are not showered by congratulations as we come into being (very far from it) - we have to be on the lookout for enemy agents.'.

So they are not showered by congratulations. They have to look out for enemy agents.

`I mean "enemy" in the proper sense of the word, in war. And those who aid and abet the enemy will go down with him, and we will suffer none in our midst.'.

Well, I accept that threat. I shall vote against the motion. If he thinks he can intimidate me in this Assembly, Mr Speaker, with the threat of treating me as an enemy, I know the propaganda that will take place. "Oh, he voted with the Barisan, He aids the Barisan. Therefore, he is a pro-Communist." Now, Sir, I have milk for breakfast. The Barisan have milk for breakfast. The Communists have milk for breakfast. Therefore, because the Barisan have milk for breakfast like the Communists, and I have milk for breakfast like the Barisan, I am a Communist.

Mr Rajaratnam: What do you have for breakfast?

Mr David Marshall: The Barisan, the Communists, do not like eating the flesh of their mothers, like the P.A.P. They vote against the Bill to legalise eating the flesh of their mothers. I vote against the Bill to eat the flesh of mothers. Therefore, I am a Communist. I accept that challenge, Mr Speaker. It is a despicable challenge, despicable conduct of a despicable Government.

7.31 p.m.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I was alarmed at the last 30 seconds of this debate. I was not sure whether or not the Minister for Health would have to call for an ambulance with the necessary equipment to take people to a padded cell. What is this talk about eating the flesh of mothers? Would any sane man go into these gruesome details? Sir, we must assume that the hon. Member for Anson is a sane and rational man in spite of evidence to the contrary which he himself produced in the last few minutes. Therefore, I propose to work on the assumption that he has brought his mind to bear on the subject of the Common Market, that he has studiously studied, as he pretends to have studied, the Rueff Report. Annex J, and all the other documents before us.

First, let me dispose of a few - I will go no more than to call them - minor inaccuracies. The Member for Anson condemns the Rueff Mission. The man has been here for 16 days and therefore has not studied the subject, and is unqualified to speak; proof of which he said appeared in the documents themselves when the World Bank wrote to the Prime Minister saying that they do not endorse the view, contrary to what he said is the normal World Bank practice. I do not know how many World Bank reports the Member for Anson has read. They are available. The World Bank has sent missions to every under-developed country in the world. In each of their reports they say the views are those of the mission and not the views of the World Bank. I am astounded that a man of his standing would make so easily mendacious and inaccurate statements of this nature.

Sir, I will deal with some of the less important remarks first in regard to the Rueff Report and the Common Market. The Member for Anson has been reading selected extracts from the Rueff Report to bolster his case. Sometimes. Mr Speaker, he does not even stop at the completed sentence. He stops right in the middle of the sentence. First, he read from paragraph 83, and he read out the first sentence:

`In Singapore recent growth in manufacturing has been less spectacular after buoyant progress had been experienced in the 1950-57 period.'.

The next sentence, Mr Speaker, Sir, he did not read:

`Although comprehensive industrial statistics are lacking, it appears that the increase in output stagnated after 1957 until 1960, whereupon growth resumed during 1961 and 1962. During this latter period the Economic Development Board participated actively in the establishment of a number of plants and there was an increase in the number of small manufacturing firms. Retained imports of machinery also rose sharply, indicating an increase in investment over the depressed levels of 1958 and 1959.'.

I think in fairness, Sir, to the efforts of the Government, he should have said that. But no, he just stopped short of that particular section.

His next quotation came from paragraph 87; and here, Sir, he wants to make a point that it is the Federation who gained from the Common Market and not so much Singapore. So you will note that he read only half the sentence, not the full sentence. So for the record, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I read the whole sentence?

`Using G.N.P. [that is gross national product or the national income] as a rough estimate of purchasing power, the total demand within the Malaysian market [this is the Common Malaysian Market] will be about 52 per cent higher than now existing in the Federation of Malaya...'.

In other words, the Federation of Malaya expands its market by 52 per cent if there is a Pan-Malaysian Common Market.

`and about four times that of the present Singapore market...'.

In other words, we gain 400 per cent as against 52 per cent of the Federation.

Sir, the Member for Anson contends that the Rueff Commission is concerned only with protective import duties. He claims it makes no recommendations on revenue import duties and, in fact, urged upon both governments not to have any review of revenue import duties which, according to his interpretation, has no part in the Common Market. Sir, it is very clear in Chapter VII, entitled "Harmonization of Tariff Policies". It is Part II, Chapter VII, page 61. May I read or rather re-read paragraph 167? Because in respect of that paragraph, he maintains that the reference is only to protective tariffs and not to revenue tariffs. The report goes as follows:

`The Mission is of the opinion that the application of uniform tariff policies in Malaysia should proceed as rapidly as is consistent with the need to preserve entrepot trade...'.

Uniform tariff policies, Mr Speaker, mean all tariffs. And to make the meaning quite clear, may I draw your attention to paragraph 170? This refers to the review at the end of five years. The Member for Anson said, in respect of the review which is provided for in Annex J, that the World Bank recommended that it should only cover protective tariffs and not revenue tariffs. Now, what does paragraph 170 say?

`The main object of the review would be to determine whether the complete ... [I repeat] the complete harmonization of tariffs in Malaysia -...'. ...'.

And the World Bank goes on to say to make its meaning clear beyond all doubt:

`or more specifically, the extension to Singapore of the entire Malayan tariff - could be effected without significant adverse effects on the entrepot trade or on employment.'

In other words, the review is to review the whole range of Malayan tariffs. So the Member is obviously wrong. Either he has not properly addressed his mind to this report or he is incapable of understanding simple straightforward English or he prefers to omit the evidence in this report that is against his own pet ideas.

May I continue - paragraph 170?

`The Board [that is the Review Board provided for in Annex J] may find that this could be done without further delay...'.

That is at the end of five years, complete harmonization of all tariffs including revenue tariffs.

`or that a further period of grace should be granted, or that the adjustment should be spread over a period of years, in accordance with a specific time schedule. If the Board feels that, to overcome practical difficulties, it is necessary to revise or supplement the procedures recommended by the Mission, it would make appropriate suggestions.'

So the ground is cut completely under his feet, Mr Speaker, Sir. He has been arguing on a completely false premise, and once the basic assumption is proved false, then the whole argument falls to the ground.

Sir, the Member for Anson has quoted ad nauseam from various speeches I have made. Of course, I feel flattered that he does pay regard to what I have said in various Budget statements. But what does it all prove? Does it prove any inconsistency between what I have said about the importance of the entrepot trade - the volume of income and employment generated and the agreement that we reached in Annex A, does it prove any inconsistency between that? Not at all. He has not given one bit of evidence nor advance any argument to show that, with the establishment of the Common Market, there will be a complete destruction of our entrepot trade. That is the nexus which he must establish if he were to make this point with the Common Market, with the import duties and eventually revenue duties, the free port status of Singapore will be so modified that it will be impossible to conduct the entrepot trade. The entrepot trade will shrivel, as he says; it will be buried in Blakang Mati with consequent ruin and perdition to the rest of the population.

Sir, I propose - mind you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am at present speaking off the cuff to the many points which he has raised. It will happen that I will not develop the counter arguments in the most elegant manner possible. But obviously, the Member for Anson has not the slightest idea of what the entrepot trade of Singapore consists of. He says Singapore is a departmental store. We supply goods from this departmental store to our neighbours or they come to Singapore and do their shopping. That is his concept of Singapore's entrepot trade - a departmental store. You buy perfume, tennis rackets, clothes, golf clubs - cameras may be. This is an absolutely inaccurate and false picture of Singapore's entrepot trade. Between two-thirds and three-quarters of the value of entrepot trade consists of tropical products like rubber, raw sago, coffee, rattan, pepper, jungle produce of various sorts, like jelutong; dragon's blood is an important item. It is the sap of a juice which is collected in the jungles of Sumatra and North Borneo -

The Minister for Health and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): Not the flesh of mothers, is it?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, that is the life-blood of Singapore. That is the entrepot trade. You do not go to Robinsons or Whiteaways to buy a sheet of unmilled crepe rubber - smelly stuff - or raw sago. So obviously his notion of what the entrepot trade consists of is the notion of a complete dilettante whose economic experience in entrepot trade has not extended beyond Raffles Square, possibly Change Alley. Sir, that is the stuff of the entrepot trade. The rubber we get from Sumatra, Sarawak, a little bit from North Borneo; copra, pepper, coffee and other things from certain areas. With regard to that, it has been spelt out in Annex J that such tropical produce will not come within the ambit of the Common Market arrangements, either now or within 12 years or, for that matter, after 12 years. There will be no import duties on that. Annex J is quite explicit on this matter, and to make it quite sure that we do not have export duty on these matters - because if you have an export duty on rubber imposed in Singapore, then it makes your entrepot trade extremely difficult, because you have to identify which parcels of rubber are from the Federation on which you have to collect import duties and which lots of rubber are from Indonesia on which you do not have export duty. So we have from the Federation's Finance Minister the undertaking in Document 2 of Misc. 5 of 1963, which reads as follows:

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

You will notice, Mr Speaker, Sir, "including oil." If we strike oil in Singapore, then the Federal Government will have the right to impose an export duty and have a share in it, Of course, the geological structure of Singapore, which is mainly granite, is such that there is not the slightest chance, so the geologists tell me, that we will ever strike oil. Mind you, if they are wrong and we do strike oil, I do not think we should grudge the Federation a share of the revenue.

So for the life-blood of our entrepot trade, the free port status is guaranteed, or else it is not affected by the Common Market arrangements.

Sir, what about the other one-quarter or one-third? This consists of emporium products - departmental store stuff - clothing, shoes, toys, cameras and a hundred and one things. Entrepot trade in these commodities means precisely this. We buy from Britain, America, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, any source, the best quality goods at the lowest price. Because this is so, we can re-export these goods cheaply to surrounding countries. Which are the surrounding countries?

The Borneo territories, Indonesia, the Federation of Malaya - the greater bulk of our re-export of manufactures go to the Federation of Malaya - something like 60 per cent. And we have business with extraordinary places, quite apart from South-East Asia, Thailand, Burma, Mauritius, East Africa, sometimes in the Congo. We have got orders and only last week a man has gone to Ethiopia to do some re-export business. That is the thing, but the bulk of the present entrepot trade is among the territories of Malaysia.

Now, let us see what happens under the Common Market. Some of these goods we can produce; some we cannot. For the goods that we can produce, we should cover eventually most of the consumer goods that we import from abroad. There is no reason why we cannot either make or assemble refrigerators, motor-cars; textiles, of course, is too easy - anybody can make textiles - and I have no doubt that the growth of the textile industry under the Common Market in Malaya will be a rapid and spectacular one.

The Member for Anson says if there is a protective duty, then it does not matter - it is fair enough. That is an over-simplification of the position. Even if it goes into the Common Market as a protective duty, there may be problems connected with the re-export trade. Take textiles as a good example. Of all the manufactured products entering into our re-export trade or the bazaar trade or the departmental store trade, textiles and ready-made garments are by far the most important. The problem Singapore faces is grave. It is an excruciatingly difficult one at the moment. Entrepot trade in these goods is a large one, mostly to the Federation of Malaya, but a substantial amount to other parts outside Malaysia. We know that the Federation of Malaya is intending to set up a textile industry in the Federation of Malaya, and that when the Tariff Advisory Board is set up this will be one of the early proposals which will have to be considered.

Now, what does Singapore do? The Member for Anson would say, well, there is a protective duty, just go ahead. It is not so easy, Mr Speaker, Sir,If you go ahead and put textiles as a Common Market commodity and Singapore accepts a common protective import duty on textiles, what happens? There is a substantial re-export trade of textiles to territories outside Malaysia - of the order of, I think, $150 million to $200 million. It varies from year to year. It is a substantial amount of textiles and if we want to make sure that the dealers of textiles dealing with these outside countries, mostly Indonesia, do not suffer, we have to make special provisions, not merely the ordinary bonded warehouse which is inadequate, because you have to allow space and facilities for breaking bulk, for display of samples, for re-sorting and re-packing. And that will take time. Special bonded warehouses, special free zones will have to be set up, and if it is not done in an adequate and a sufficiently expeditious manner, the entrepot trade and the re-export trade will suffer.

On the other hand, if we say, because of the importance of the entrepot trade, we exercise our option of remaining out of the Common Market in respect of textiles for one year, then what will the result be? The result will be that the textile manufacturers will go to the Federation, which will have an early start; and when the supply of textiles has flooded the Malayan market, you may find that Singapore does not have an adequate share of the textile industry.

These are the typical problems and considerations which we have to bear in mind when we come to a decision - not, Mr Speaker, about burying the entrepot trade in the cemetery at Blakang Mati or eating the flesh of your mothers, not that sort of rubbish! We make concrete cost calculations, work out possible engineering programmes to make these bonded warehouses and free zone facilities available.

There are other problems connected with this. The question of a protective duty, which he dismisses as of very little complexity, raises enormous complications, in fact. Take motor spare parts.

There is a large entrepot trade in motor spare parts. Supposing we go for assembly of motor-cars, and there are several proposals before the Government to establish motor-car assembly plants in Singapore. It is a useful industry; it provides employment, generates subsidiary industries for the manufacture of simpler components, upholstery in the process of assembling - that sort of thing - tyres, of course, and batteries. Right, what happens to the entrepot trade in spare parts? Once there is a protective duty - and this is the point the Member for Anson does not understand, he has not the mind to grasp this businessman's angle - once there is an import duty on these goods, then if you go to a shop and buy, say, spare parts - like a carburettor or whatever you will - then the price is high. It includes duty.

Now, if you want to take out a piece of component - say a carburettor - and wish to re-export it to Indonesia. You cannot go to the Customs and say, "Look, there is a tax on this; give me back the tax you have collected, because [want to sell it at a cheap price." That is not possible. The free port status has been an aid to our entrepot trade because it does not create problems of this nature - customs duties being imposed and then customs duties having to be refunded. And generally the Customs administration will never agree to a refund of tax collected once the case is broken, once the bulk is broken, once the separate identity of goods has been lost, because it opens avenues for all kinds of abuse.

Sir, even when that does not happen in Singapore, Members may be interested to hear of a case where one of the cigarette manufacturers tried to cheat the Customs. There is a duty on imported tobacco leaf. Then when you export the leaves, you get what is called the "draw-back". You paid duty on it; when you re-export because it is not used in Singapore, no duty is paid. One bright businessman decided to make a claim from the Customs Department of the duty which had been paid on the tobacco leaves. When we examined the case, we found stones in it!

So, even in this matter where the procedure is fairly straightforward, people try to cheat customs duty. Therefore, the solution whereby you can protect the re-export trade - it is the re-export trade that is the core, that is the consumer goods entrepot trade - is to have bonded warehouses and a free zone where goods designed for re-export outside Malaysia are stored, duty free, First, the price is not increased. You can still compete in your export market with Indonesia or Burma or Thailand, and customs facilities are reduced to a minimum.

Now, Sir, the Member for Anson does not understand this simple proposition. He equates import duties with the death of the entrepot trade. He quoted Singapore as the fifth largest port. May I give him the example of the world's largest port - the first largest port, Rotterdam? We handle eight to ten million tons of cargo a year; Rotterdam handles ninety million tons of cargo a year. And Rotterdam works in the regime of a full Customs Union. It is not a free port and, with the starting of the European Common Market, customs duties have been increased in many of the goods that went through the port of Rotterdam. Has it brought Rotterdam down to a shambles? Do we have to bury the port of Rotterdam in Blakang Mati?

Sir, if he had taken the trouble to go through various reports which are available, he would have found that after the European Common Market the port of Rotterdam has increased in prosperity and that its entrepot trade, far from diminishing, has increased in volume and value. Why? Because of the general prosperity of the whole European Economic Community.

Sir, the Member may not be able to follow the relationship between import duties, free zones, bonded warehouses, customs drawbacks and all these other technicalities. Let him understand this one concrete example - of the world's largest port operating within the regime of a full Customs Union, going from strength to strength. And there is absolutely no reason why we in Singapore under the Common Market arrangements should not be as successful as the traders of Rotterdam. I think few people will claim that our traders are less resourceful or less industrious than the traders of Rotterdam.

I was waiting, Mr Speaker, for a coherent, logical, step-by-step argument, with illustrations by way of products and businesses, as to how this Common Market Agreement as enshrined in Annex J of the Constitutional Document must bring about the downfall of Singapore. I see no argument. I have heard endless quotations of what I said, what the Prime Minister said, what the Rueff Mission said on the importance of the entrepot trade, why it should not be allowed to run down. We agree with the sentiments, but we do not agree with the basic assumption that if you have a Common Market, then that is the death of the entrepot trade. The case has not been proved. As it is, I would have said no defence would be called for if Members of the Assembly had special training in these matters, but since these are somewhat unfamiliar matters, particularly Common Market and the Customs regime, I feel obliged to explain in some detail that what the Member for Anson has been saying for the last two hours on the common market is absolute drivel.

Sir, just a word about revenue duties. The Member for Anson understood the meaning of revenue duties, that is, duties on the import of goods which are not made anywhere in Malaysia. Those are revenue duties. He said it is not in the Rueff Report. I pointed out that it is in the Rueff Report. And he said, "Well, why should it not be part of the Common Market?" This becomes the Customs Union. He misquoted me in one of my Budget statements, the last one I think, in which I said that agreement on the Common Market would be easy if we were prepared to accept a Customs Union. True enough. There was nothing wrong with that. By that I meant an immediate establishment of a full-scale Customs Union. A further two sentences from that, I made it quite clear there that the introduction of a full-scale Customs Union is not appropriate in Singapore now, but phasing it over twelve years is a completely different matter. First, for five years we have all the safeguards against revenue duties; at the end of five years there is the Review Board which should take into account these matters and review the whole range of Malayan tariffs, not merely Singapore tariffs, but the whole range of Malayan tariffs. I have very little doubt, Mr Speaker, Sir, that at that review, which should be an important event in our economic history, there will be a fundamental change in the tariff system of Malaya and Malaysia.

May I explain this point? The Malayan tariff system is a colonial system. That was the system which Malaya inherited from the colonial days and they have not done very much basically to change the character of import tariffs. There was no time perhaps, and possibly no reason to do so. In all industrial countries and in all well developed societies, an import duty fulfils one function, that is, the protection of domestic industries. It is not to get money because there are other more equitable forms of raising revenue such as income tax, estate duties, sales tax, this, that and the other. The function of an import duty is to protect your domestic industries. But in the British colonies - I believe the French have a different system - the import duty had been the major source of revenue to the Government. It is an iniquitous form of taxation in so far as it levies taxes on food and other necessities resulting in the poor having to pay a disproportionate burden of tax collected b the Government. And largely in all British territories, the same structure of import duty exists, and in most of them the same structure of import tariff continues after independence has been achieved. I venture to suggest that at the first review made five years from the date of the establishment of the Common Market, we can expect radical changes in the tariff system of Malaysia, which will mean that many of the more depressing items of import duties will disappear if they are not manufactured here, and in its place possibly the retention of tariffs or import duties on perhaps luxury and semi-luxury goods.

So after five years, and within 12 years from now, the fact that at the end of 12 years we have to go into a full-scale Customs regime with the rest of Malaysia does not bother me very much, for two reasons. Firstly, as I have said, they are likely to see fundamental changes in the tariff structure for Malaysia. Secondly, if within 12 years we have not made a success of the Common Market or our industrialisation plans have gone haywire, then I say, items like revenue duties and such matters woud be trivialities compared to the major problems that will be facing us then. I have a note here. Mr Speaker. I said just now that at the end of 12 years we would enter into a full-scale Customs Union with the rest of Malaysia. In fact, that is an inaccuracy, and I am glad that one of my officers here has pointed out that this will not be so because of the exclusion of primary products from the Common Market and the import and export duty on primary products is a substantial element of the present tariff system. Sir, that is for the moment about as much as I want to say in reply to the Member for Anson in respect of the Common Market.

Sir, I want to deal with some other points raised by other Members on the financial arrangements negotiated in London. The constitutional and other aspects of the Malaysia Agreement, I will leave to my colleagues. Sir, my task to reply to the criticisms of the Barisan Sosialis and the U.P.P. is at one and the same time both easy and arduous. It is easy because to refute their arguments and destroy the so-called evidence that they put up presents no difficulty whatsoever. The logic used by the Member for Queenstown is, as usual, as distorted and as twisted as his own mind. The evidence which he uses in support of his arguments is largely based on taking words and sentences from the documents and from speeches of Ministers completely out o context. You will recollect, Mr Speaker, Sir, that yesterday you had to pull him up on that point; that he just read the last sentence of one document claiming that it supported his point of view, and then you asked him to read the whole document which gave a completely different picture. As I have said, to pursue every misrepresentation and every falsehood which abounds in his 6¬ hour address is a simple matter, hut, at the same time, it is going to be an arduous one because there are so many o them, and I do not wish to tax the patience and forbearance of this House, already strained to the limit by long-winded, illogical and interminable speeches by certain Members of the Opposition. So I will confine myself only to the major issues. If I may pass judgment on the performance of the Member for Queenstown yesterday and the night before, regardless of the performance of the human intellect, grappling with momentous intricate issues before the country, I get the impression that his mind is woefully inadequate to the task. I get the idea of a computer, a small feeble one, that has gone wrong, gone mad, fed by the wrong data, producing the wrong answers. Sir, his performance is similar to that of a child who has been trying to master the multiplication tables, and, having achieved indifferent success in this, then decided to take a leap and try his hand at differential calculus. It is not unexpected that errors of logic were perpetrated at each and every stage. The odd thing is that his colleagues in the Barisan Sosialis appear to be genuinely impressed by his performance. So I conclude that not only are they ignorant of simple multiplications there is also some doubt whether they understand how to add and how to subtract. At one stage I had some doubts whether the main performer himself, the hero of the Barisan Sosialis, the Member for Queenstown, knows how to add and how to subtract. Late on the night of 30th July, I entered the Chamber and listened with some astonishment to the Member for Queenstown saying that the total contribution Singapore has to make to the Federal Government is $163 million. May I quote from page 79 of Hansard of 30th July (col. 412)?

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

Sir, there are two things wrong with his arithmetic. First, the $36 million which he says is the recurrent expenditure for Broadcasting, Airport, Defence, etc., is in fact not the recurrent expenditure for Broadcasting, Airport, and Defence. That statement is made at the top of page 79 and also at the top of page 78, third line. Broadcasting remains a State Department and we make no contribution to the Federation for it. Defence expenditure is not included in the $36 million. The $36 million, so far as I can discover, refers to the Federation Government's estimate of the cost of Singapore's departments other than Defence and Internal Security, and this will include departments such as Immigration, Prisons, Civil Aviation, the Law Courts and Judiciary, and other Federal Departments operating in Singapore. This amount of $36 million has already been included in the $124 million covered by the 40 per cent contribution. You cannot, therefore, add the same amount twice as the Member for Queenstown was doing. As for the $3 million development expenditure on Federal departments in Singapore, this is only the ceiling figure proposed at one stage, and there is no agreement that we will pay this amount regardless of what is spent. We pay only for what is spent in Singapore on Federal departments like Post Offices, Civil Aviation, Telecommunications and such like matters. It is obvious that we want these services to be maintained at the highest level of efficiency. We are an important business centre. Our efficiency depends on a good and fast postal and telecommunications service and an efficient airport And in order to avoid the possibility that the Singapore departments may ha starved of capital funds for their development, we have agreed that this pavement should be made, and I think this is a wise and prudent movement.

Sir, let us now go to the more important allegations which he has made. On the amount of contribution which we make to the Federal Government, his one point of criticism is that while early in 1962 our own private estimate was that we should be contributing something like $78 million a year now, the figure agreed to is considerably more. Sir, the full explanation for this appears in the Documents before the House. It is in Misc. 4 of 1963 which gives the full details and how this increase has taken place. The reasons are clearly available if only he will take pains to read the documents there. Early in 1962, there was no confrontation policy, and further the estimates we made in early 1962 did not take into account the additional Federal expenditure that would be necessary with the entry of the Borneo territories into Malaysia. At that time, this was still an open issue, and the terms and conditions and so on had not been settled. In fact, if my recollection serves me right, that was the time when North Borneo certainly became very apprehensive about the possibility of joining Malaysia - an attitude which they changed, of course, quite rapidly once they knew what Malaysia stood for. Well, that was one element explaining the increase.

But the greatest single element is the tremendous increase in the defence expenditure and the internal security expenditure which the Federation Government has planned to embark upon. In effect, it meant doubling or more than doubling their military and police strength. This obviously is a matter on which the Federal Government is the competent authority to make a judgment. But so far as we are concerned, I would have thought that it would be a self-evident proposition, that an independent country must have the means to defend its territorial integrity. It is known even to the meanest intellect that the cost of modern armament is high. These are some evident propositions. And here the Barisan's line of argument is self-contradictory. In the first instance, they grumble about the high rate of contribution which results from increased defence costs. At the same time, they object to the defence treaty which the Federal Government has with the British Government and which we have extended to cover the whole of Malaysia. Sir, they can take one stand or the other, but they cannot embrace both positions. If they say the rate of contribution is high because defence expenditure is high, then they should have welcomed the defence pact because that prevents the expenditure from going even higher still. We live in a turbulent age and in a particularly troublesome and turbulent part of the world - South-East Asia. Malaysia will, by world standards, be a small country in terms of population and wealth. Even in the case of larger and more powerful countries, we see that they found it to their advantage to have alliances and defence treaties among themselves. What is so wrong with Malaysia observing this widely practised principle and entering into similar arrangements? if, however, the Barisan maintains that it is wrong for Malaysia to enter into a defence pact with another country, then, instead of objecting to the large increase in defence expenditure which the Federation Government is to undertake, they should ask for an even more substantial increase. If we were to have a defence force for Malaysia capable of taking on all corners - nations with populations ten times larger than ours - we should have to spend probably more than four times the amount that is being planned for the next five years. And even this tremendous expansion in defence expenditure may not be adequate to ensure protection. Of course, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis are not interested in maintaining the territorial integrity f our new nation, Malaysia. Everybody knows that they are in full sympathy with forces outside the country, foreign powers who are determined to disrupt Malaysia. The Barisan are the truly anti-national elements among us. They see as their major task the subversion of Malaysia from within to supplement pressure and possible aggression from outside.

After 31st August, it is not for us in Singapore to say what is the proper treatment that should be meted out to such people who are bent on destroying the nation. As the House knows, these are matters for the Federal Government which would be in charge of defence, external affairs and internal security. I only want to stress to the Barisan the criminal folly of their ways. They now have only 29 days left during which time if they behave themselves and refrain from wrecking the peace of the country, they have a reasonable assurance of their personal safety. But when the curtain drops after 31st August - they may find it less amusing, Mr Speaker, Sir, with the entry of new dramatis personoe -

An hon. Member: The iron curtain of Malaysia.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: - then a new situation will arise in which they will find it less amusing than now. However, Sir, it is not a pleasant subject to dwell upon, and I think I shall move on to other things. But this could be the moment of interruption.

Mr Speaker: Order. I will take this Chair again at half-past nine.

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

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, at the moment of interruption we were contemplating with some distaste and considerable apprehension the fate of the Barisan Members after 31st August, and we turned quickly from the scene of horror to go back to the financial arrangements.

Sir, the Member for Queenstown made some observations on the 30th of July on the Singapore surpluses. First, I shall deal with those observations appearing in pages 62 and 63 of the Hansard (Unrevised transcript). Sir, he claims that the surplus of the Singapore Government, running at the rate of $100 million or so a year, is not the result of prudent expenditure and efficient tax collection. If I may quote him, first paragraph, page 62 [col. 384], he said:

`Until 25th May, 1963, the Prime Minister had been deceiving the people with talks of surpluses which he claimed are the result of a prudent and good government. We say, Sir, it is nothing of that sort. The early surpluses in Singapore were the result of downright inefficient and incompetent government.'

And he goes on to say our Government "did not have the time to use the money of the people of Singapore and voted for in this Legislative Assembly on constructive projects to help the people of Singapore." I think he really meant construction projects, Mr Speaker, Sir. Now, be that as it may. And he said surplus means in effect under-expenditure and under-use in relation to these construction projects. The Member for Queenstown has made this observation so often that I think the time has now come to nail the lie. He has been a Member of this Assembly for more than four years now, and he has been through the Budget sessions from 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1962 - four Budget Sessions in all - and obviously he still does not understand that each year we have two Budgets, two sets of Estimates - one for recurrent expenditure and one for capital expenditure, the Ordinary Estimates and the Development Estimates. In fact, I wonder if he understood the meaning of the words "recurrent expenditure" and "capital expenditure". I asked him this question two nights ago and failed to get a satisfactory reply.

Sir, the annual surpluses appear in the Estimates of recurrent expenditure, that is, they appear in the Ordinary Estimates. Recurrent expenditure of the Government means the normal running expenditure of Government departments, salaries of civil servants, purchases of goods and services, petroleum for lorries, cars, paper, electricity, - items like these. As against this normal recurrent expenditure we get certain items of revenue - from taxes, licence fees, and so on. And the surpluses arise in the Ordinary Estimates - if your revenue is more than your expenditure then there is a surplus. Now, on the other hand, construction expenditure appears in the Development Estimates and not in the Ordinary Estimates. Therefore, whether there is any spending, under-spending or over-spending on construction projects in the Development Estimates, such matters have no hearing whatsoever on the surpluses earned on current account. This again proves the complete lack of grasp of the Member for Queenstown, who at the present moment is not paying attention to my -

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think the Minister should worry about that. He is addressing the Chair.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Well, my only concern, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that matters of public interest - I am trying, Mr Speaker, Sir, to do a public service, by educating the leader of an important Party. However, if he prefers to wallow in a state of ignorance, so be it. But may I advise him - or rather repeat my advice - that before he embarks on problems of differential calculus, he should first learn simple arithmetic: how to add and how to subtract? So what the Member for Queenstown says, that our surpluses are due to under-expenditure on capital development is complete nonsense.

The Member then goes further to allege that the Prime Minister was deliberately misleading the country when the Prime Minister said that during the negotiations between the Federal and Singapore Governments in Kuala Lumpur, the Federal Government wants to take the whole of Singapore's surpluses, in the first instance, and at a later stage, relented and stated that they were satisfied with half of our surpluses. Now he said that the position was completely untrue. Sir, the documents which we have presented, Misc. 4 of 1963, give all the evidence and all the details. In fact, if you will refer to pages 48 and 49 and 50, you will see the calculations in the paper submitted by the Federation Government. Page 49, the last portion "Apportionment Percentages" with surplus, how much they take, how much we take; without surplus, how much they take, how much we take. A similar exercise is in page 50. You will note various percentages are set out, depending on whether there is a sharing of surplus, of half surplus, or no surplus. I would have thought the position is quite clear. Yet the Member for Queenstown has the effrontery to make the claim that until the 25th May, 1963, the Prime Minister was trying to mislead the people, but after the 25th May, he said that the Prime Minister was no longer misleading the people. What is the evidence, Mr Speaker, Sir, on which he claims to base his conclusions? To prove that the Prime Minister had been deceiving the people, he referred to a letter in the Straits Times of the 25th May written by an official of the Federal Treasury. May I read what the Member said:

`In a letter to the Straits Times Mr Abdullah Ayub, Deputy Controller of Supply in the Federation, revealed that the negotiations were in fact on the percentage of payment of Singapore Federal taxes to the Federation. He said that once the percentage payment had been fixed, each Government would be responsible for its own Budget, and the question of deficit or surplus does not arise. Sir, this was a great blow to the P.A.P. The letter, in fact, says that the Prime Minister has not been telling the people the truth, because all the time it should have been a percentage, and now he is talking and telling the people it was a matter of surpluses.'

And so the Member for Queenstown accepts that the letter of the Federation official to the Straits Times sets out the genuine position. Sir, how foolish can a man be? If the Member for Queenstown had been in my place, he would have accepted the position as set out by the Federation Treasury. I shudder what would have happened to the country then. He would have surrendered our surpluses, and more, to the Federal Government without even knowing it. He would have been completely bamboozled, outwitted and outmanoeauvred by the Federation. Surely, Sir, he does not believe that once the percentage is fixed, the question of surplus or deficit does not arise. By way of illustration, in order that I can make the position so clear that it will penetrate his skull: now let us suppose that the percentage of contribution had been fixed at 90 per cent, that is to say, 90 per cent of Federal taxes in Singapore goes to the Central Government. Does he not think that Singapore will then be faced with a fearsome deficit when it has to meet the expenditure of Singapore's State Departments? If he still cannot understand this proposition - and I see no light of comprehension dawning on his face - then I can only repeat my advice, and perhaps persuade the Minister for Education to admit the Member for Queenstown to a Primary School where he can re-learn the arithmetic which he has forgotten.

Now the Member objects to loans. Why, he asks, should we give loans to the Borneo territories when we need it ourselves? Every under-developed country in this world, almost by definition, needs capital. But in Malaysia, Sir, Singapore will be a member of a family of States, one of the wealthiest members of the Federation of Malaysia. The Borneo States, though they have the potential for economic development, are more short of money than we are. It is a matter of elementary fair play and justice that the more well-to-do should assist the less well-to-do if it is within his means to do so. It applies to relationships between persons and it applies with equal force to relationships between States, particularly between States in the Federation. I made this clear in my Budget statement last June - that it would be wrong for Singapore to adopt a selfish policy. If we try to hog everything for ourselves, then this will create envy and resentment towards us among the less developed States. And with Malaysia in the long run, this will be against our own self-interest. And on grounds of enlightened self-interest alone, I would have thought it obvious that financial assistance to the more needy States of Malaysia is a sound proposition, both on political grounds and on economic considerations. I consider the terms of the loan eminently fair and just and reasonable. I do not agree that there is any case for us to make an out-right grant to the Borneo territories, for we are not all that wealthy. And besides, giving money away free is bad, bad both for the donor as well as for the recipient. For the recipient, free money means an invitation to a spending spree, but when assistance is made in the form of loans which will have to be repaid, then the Borneo territories will have to take care to spend it wisely on projects that will yield a return to enable them to refund the loan. From our point of view, we will get our capital back at the end of the period of the loan.

Further, we have attached a condition to this loan, and that is that half the labour used in construction projects - and they will be used in construction projects in developing the States in Borneo - must come from Singapore.

Sir, the Member for Queenstown then refers to a newspaper item in the Nanyang Siang Pau yesterday. He says that that amounted to a complete rejection by the Federation Government of this condition. I have seen this particular newspaper item. May I say that, in the first instance, it is not issued as an official Press release of the Federation Government? It only says that it comes from Government sources, unspecified. It is a leakage of some sort, and I have a shrewd guess how it came about. We are accustomed to this kind of exchange with a certain Party in Singapore and ourselves, and I think we in the P.A.P. have not done too badly out of this encounter. No, Sir, the terms will be observed. Mind you, Mr Speaker, I am not saying that we want to force this loan on the Borneo territories. If they do not like our labourers and our money, we will not compel them to borrow from us. Now that condition is obviously not an unreasonable condition. In inter-Government loans, it is the normal practice that the money must be spent in some way whereby the lending country derives some benefits. Now, the Members opposite claim that we have agreed to an interest-free loan for ten years. The Member for Queenstown said it and it was re-echoed by the Member for Hong Lim which, in itself, means that whenever the Member for Hong Lim re-echoes some statements, surely the first reaction of any reasonable man is to suspect, because he is a great rumour-monger, a great purveyor of untruths. "Ten-year interest free," is what he said. I do not see this anywhere in the Agreement. The Agreement says interest free for five years and if economic expansion and prosperity in Singapore justifies it, then a further five years. If there should be any dispute as to whether justification exists for this extension, then the matter will be referred to an independent assessor appointed by the World Bank. Fair enough. If we prosper as a result of Malaysia to such an extent as to justify an extension of another five years, why should we worry about it? And further this provides an inducement to the Federal Government not only to abstain from taking measures harmful to our prosperity but to also act as a positive inducement for them to take steps to increase our prosperity. And again, this is not an unreasonable condition.

The Member for Queenstown asks a particularly foolish question. He wants to know why we do not impose World Bank terms on the Borneo territories. The answer is quite simple, Mr Speaker, Sir. We are not the World Bank and our relations with the Borneo States and the Federal Government are not the same as the relations between the World Bank and the borrowing countries. But in this connection, the Member for Queenstown repeats the falsehood which has been refuted in the past, namely, the falsehood that the World Bank terms on the loan to Singapore are humiliating. He knows that this is untrue; he knows that we have already pointed out to him that these terms are the standard terms applicable to all World Bank loans and are observed by each and every country borrowing money from the World Bank, be it an under-developed country or an advanced industrialised nation. Does he think that these terms are humiliating then? Does he maintain that the World Bank is bent on humiliating each and every country in the world which qualifies to borrow from the World Bank?

Sir, on another aspect of the loan, namely, the cost of the loan. The fact that we give the loan interest free for five years - how much does it cost to the State of Singapore? He says it will cost us $110 million. He assumes it is $55 million, 5½ per cent interest on $100 million for ten years equals $55 million. Then he says that we have to borrow another $100 million and pay interest on it, which will cost us another $55 million, and that therefore if you add the two sums together, it will cost us $110 million. Sir, this kind of Barisan arithmetic passes my comprehension. I cannot understand.

Mr Low Por Tuck (Havelock): You can ask an accountant.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I cannot understand. We have another Barisan mathematician, Mr Speaker, Sir. Can I reduce this to simple plain terms which are comprehensible even to the meanest intellect opposite? Let us speak in easy terms. If I were to lend you a shirt, let us say for five days - of course, not for five years - and then I am short of one shirt and so I go to High Street and buy another shirt to replace it. Now, according to Barisan calculations, I would have lost two shirts - the shirt which I lent to you and the shirt which I bought. It is this kind of curious logic repeated by my former Parliamentary Secretary obviously believing his Chairman - the man noted for a complete absence of reason and logic. Now, Sir, I come to the -

Mr Speaker: Order. I am getting a bit anxious about the time. We have another two hours to go, and I would like to have a fair division of the time left. I do not know whether any Opposition Member wishes to speak. Could I be -

Tun Lim Yew Hock: We have one Member who wishes to speak. It is just a short speech.

Mr Speaker: Could the Member inform me who he is and about how many minutes he will take?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: The Member for Southern Islands.

Mr Speaker: How long will he require? Can I be told how many minutes?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I do not know. All I know is that it is quite a short speech.

Mr Speaker: What about the Barisan Sosialis?

Mr Low Por Tuck: The Member for Upper Serangoon wishes to speak.

Mr Speaker: For how long?

Mr Low Por Tuck: About forty minutes.

Mr Speaker: We will compromise - 30 to 35 minutes. I think the Prime Minister will probably require about an hour.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon): About one hour.

Mr Speaker: One hour for the Prime Minister. What about the Member for Southern Islands?

Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib (Southern Islands): About ten minutes.

Mr Speaker: So that if the Minister could finish his speech in 20 minutes' time, we will be able to work in all the time. Would it be possible for the Minister for Finance to finish his speech in 20 minutes?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I cannot guarantee that, because this is the first time that a Member on the Government Bench has been asked to give a detailed reply on the financial arrangements.

Mr Speaker: There were two other Ministers who spoke. The Minister for Culture spoke for quite a long time on one topic, and that was the long struggle for merger. As I say, I must try to allocate the time as fairly as I can now.

Mr Ong Pang Boon rose -

Mr Speaker: Does the Minister for Home Affairs wish to say something?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: I intend to speak too, for about five minutes.

Mr Speaker: I am afraid that the Prime Minister will then have to cut his speech down.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: The Government asked for the guillotine, not we.

Mr Speaker: The point is that Government have set a guillotine and therefore they must be prepared to make some sacrifices. The Minister for Finance has already had 90 minutes. The Opposition have asked for another 40 minutes. We have now another 120 minutes. In other words, the Opposition are only asking for 40 minutes.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: The Member for Southern Islands will take ten minutes.

Mr Speaker: No, I am talking about the Member for Upper Serangoon who has asked for 30 minutes and the Member for Southern Islands who has asked for ten minutes. That is 40 minutes out of another 120 minutes. I think that is fair. The Government will have 80 minutes now to divide amongst themselves.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I will do my best within the allotted time.

As regards the collection of taxes, a great deal of time was spent in negotiations between the two Governments as to who is going to control the Revenue Department in Singapore, principally, the Inland Revenue Department and the Customs Department. The Federal Government says that Income Tax and Customs are Federal revenues, that these departments should be under their direct control and that the whole staff should be employees of the Federal Government. Our contention is that the terms of the White Paper are quite explicit and that these departments will remain under the administrative control of the Singapore Government. And so it was in the London Agreement that these two departments remain under the control of the Singapore Government. I would have thought that this would have satisfied the Members of the Opposition, but needless to say the Member for Queenstown was not satisfied. His principal contention is this, that although authority has been delegated under Article 84 of the Federal Constitution, the Federal Government can revoke this authority any time they like. I quote him from page 69 of Hansard [unrevised transcript] Vol. 21, No. 5, dated 30th July, 1963 (col. 396). He said:

`Singapore can collect the revenue only at the pleasure of the Federation Government. If at any time the Federation Government feels so inclined, it can take over the collection of all Federal revenue itself. The Singapore Government collects only if the Federation allows it to collect.'

Sir, this is a complete travesty of the truth. The Federal Government can revoke this authority only under two circumstances: first, if the Singapore Government agrees to such revocation and, secondly, if the Singapore Government fails to collect taxes in a proper and efficient manner, and this fact must he established in a court of law if the Singapore Government disputes that it has failed in its duty of efficient tax collection. Surely, Members will agree that if sonic future Singapore Government bungles its tax collection either through corruption or ineptitude, and if this failure can be established in the High Court, then it is only right and proper that the Federal Government takes over this department. There is nothing wrong or sinister in this provision.

Sir, I have dwelt at some length in replying to the Member for Anson on the misrepresentations which he has made on the subject of the Common Market and much of what I have said will apply to the remarks of the Members for Queenstown and Hong Lim when they put forward their criticisms of the Common Market. They complain that the Common Market means the abandonment of the free port status of Singapore. I have explained how, under the Common Market, special techniques are possible and special arrangements will be made to make possible the re-export trade of Singapore in manufactured goods. I have also explained that in respect of tropical produce, which forms the bulk of our entrepot trade, nothing in the Common Market arrangements will affect this entrepot trade in the slightest degree. So the unfavourable repercussion of the Common Market on the entrepot trade is largely a matter of their biased imagination. But I will say this, that if some incompetent or corrupt Government takes over Singapore in the near future and has not the ability to phase the Common Market arrangements in a way that will properly balance industrial interests against the interests of the trade, then it could happen that not only trade will suffer but also industry will suffer. But given an intelligent and effective implementation of the Common Market proposals, the immediate effect in Singapore must be to accelerate the growth of industries and the expansion of employment opportunities. In fact, in Singapore today, in anticipation of the Common Market, there has been a spurt of industrial propositions here, and very shortly I shall be awarding Pioneer Certificates to 30 firms. These are all proposals developed in recent months to set up factories in Singapore in anticipation of the common market, and the number of Pioneer Certificates involved in this exercise - some 30 - is nearly as large as the total number of Pioneer Certificates which we have awarded in the first 3½ years in our efforts to industrialise. In the first 3½ years, the number of pioneer firms receiving certificates amounted to only 42, and only in the last four or five months, 30 new firms came with solid proposals on feasible industrial ventures which will be established in Singapore before very long. Unquestionably after the establishment of Malaysia and the Common Market, we shall see an even faster rate of growth. Do the Barisan Sosialis and other Opposition Members object to the growth of new industries to provide more jobs and more income, or are they in favour of mounting unemployment and endemic misery and hopelessness? I have no doubt that the Communist mentors behind the Barisan Sosialis do not want to see economic growth and prosperity for our State, for with more prosperity, more jobs and more income, their capacity to instigate trouble diminishes. But, of course, we can hardly be expected to oblige the Communists in this respect and the gnashing of teeth and the shedding of crocodile tears over the Common Market by the Barisan Sosialis reflect no more than the chagrin which their masters must be feeling.

Sir, I want to deal with some observations made by the Member for Hong Lim in regard to loans. He has proved to be even more mendacious than the Member for Queenstown. He claims that Singapore will hardly get any benefits by supplying labour to the Borneo States. At page 54 of yesterday's Hansard [Unrevised transcript] Vol. 21, No. 6 (col. 503), he said:

`If the $150 million loan is used in the Borneo States and even if they recruit some labour from Singapore, it will only engage [and these are important words, Sir] 30, 50 or, let us say, 500 of Singapore's labourers; take away 500 of Singapore's unemployed labourers at a cost of $50 million.'

We do not accept this figure of 50 nor do we accept the figure of even 500. What are the facts? I have made inquiries from the Drainage and Road Engineers of the P.W.D. and from the Architects and Engineers of the Housing Board and the estimate they gave me is this, that for every million dollars worth of expenditure, the following number of jobs will be created for one year. A million dollars worth of roads will require 500 workers for a year; a million dollars worth of drainage, 350 workers; a million dollars worth of housing, 270 workers. We do not know how the Borneo territories will spend on their development schemes as between these three classes of expenditure or whether there will be other types of expenditure. But let us suppose that they distribute the expenditure equally over these three categories. This will mean that for every $3 million spent each year, they will require a labour force of 1,120 of whom half must come from Singapore and this $3 million gives us 560 men working for one year. Therefore, if they spend $30 million a year, which is the $150 million loan for five years, this will give total employment to some 11,200 workers, of whom half or 5,600 workers will come from Singapore. I say that this will make substantial inroads into our unemployment figures.

At page 55 (col. 504), the Member for Hong Lim entered into some truly absurd and fantastic calculations the details of which he has not given to the Assembly. He states that while Singapore is contributing large sums to the Central Government, the Borneo States will get some $200 million a year. Sir, I have had the Borneo Constitutional reports and documents studied by my officials to check on the accuracy of this assertion, and they can find nothing in any document to say that the Federal Government will be giving each year $200 million to the Borneo States. On the other hand, my information from the calculations made by my officers is that the Borneo territories of North Borneo and Sarawak have an annual tax yield of $150 million a year, and of this amount the Federal Government will take over two-thirds of $92 million in return for which they will pay $20 million by way of capitation and road grants. Sarawak will qualify for some grants depending among other factors on how large the deficit is, hut the total amount is not stated. Certainly to say the Borneo States will be getting $200 million a year while we will be paying the Federation $100 million a year is a complete prevarication.

A small point about the production tax was raised by the Member for Queenstown. He says that if it costs us $1 to make a pair of shoes in Singapore and $1.50 in the Federation, then the Singapore firms will be taxed 50 cents a pair to equalise the costs. Similarly, there will be a production tax on eggs because we produce eggs cheaper than the Federation. Sir, this is Litter and unqualified drivel. May I refer to Annex J, Article 1 (3) (a) which describes the production tax as a tax on produce in a low-tariff State which will offset the costs - since there is a typing error in my text, I had better refer to Annex I, Article I (3) (a) on production tax:

`... tax on producers in a low-tariff State which would offset the cost inequalities arising from the differential import duties.'

In other words, it is only where the import duties are different then there will be a production tax to equalise this difference in the costs. Where the difference in costs is due to other reasons, like the differences in types of machines used, better management, cheaper labour or what have you, then the production tax will not apply.

Sir, there is one point I want to underline in regard to these financial arrangements. The money we are paying to the Federal Government, now agreed at 40 per cent of national taxes collected in Singapore, is not a gift or a grant. Some political Parties are deliberately and dishonestly trying to misrepresent this contribution as a free gift. It is abundantly clear from the document in Misc. 4 of 1963 that the calculations have regard to the cost of running Federation departments in Singapore and the cost of certain Pan-Malaysian services such as Defence, External Affairs, Parliament and other matters for which Singapore should reasonably make a contribution. I understand that the Member for Anson has suggested that the people have been crucified and that their pockets are then picked - this is his description of the contribution. I think this is one of the most fatuous statements made by the Member for Anson, who has made many of them in this House. But all Members of the Opposition have conveniently overlooked paragraph 8 of Annex J. This provides that the financial arrangements shall be reviewed at the end of 1964 and every two years thereafter. The agreement should be first by negotiation between the two Governments, and if they cannot come to an agreement, then an independent assessor recommended by the World Bank shall consider the position and make recommendations which will be binding on both Governments. Surely, the Member for Anson is not suggesting that the World Bank will participate as an accessory in the act of pick-pocketing.

Sir, as I said a moment ago, our contribution is not a free gift. In fact, about three-quarters of the money we will be paying to the Federation after Malaysia is already being spent in Singapore on services provided by the Singapore Government. This represents payments which we are actually making now to Singapore departments such as the Police, the Singapore Infantry Regiment, the Prisons, the Judiciary, the Immigration Department, the Civil Aviation Department, the Audit Office and other departments which will be transferred to the Federal Government after 31st August this year. The remaining quarter represents mainly the increased costs of Defence expenditure consequent on confrontation and Malaysia. There should be no difficulty in arriving at the proper costs of running Federal departments in Singapore, and in the review made at the end of 1964, we shall know whether or not the Armed Forces and the Police maintained by the Malaysian Government in all territories will have achieved their planned rate of growth. If they do not, then there will be changes in future percentages of contribution.

Sir, I will end up on some observations about our rate of industrial growth both at the present moment and our prospective rates after the Common Market. The Member for Anson has scoffed at our prospects and present position of industrial expansion. But may I quote briefly from a document published by the Economic Intelligence Unit. This organisation makes regular studies and economic reviews of every region in the world and publishes for private circulation quarterly reports available to subscribers. I wish to quote from page 42 of No. 42 of the Review dated June 1963. It says here:

`In recent months Singapore has received greater international attention. Apart from the advantage of constituting the business centre for the coming Federation and the incentive provided by its free port status even when modified, Singapore's industry draws further investment through its concentration. The instability of the Island's political situation and its poor industrial relation have failed to offset the very real advantages which Singapore can offer. The Economic Development Board is extremely efficient. Singapore spends ten times as much on promotion as does the Federation. Overheads are low in Singapore; discharging costs are more expensive at Port Swettenham. It is significant that whereas present estimate construction of 1,800 feet of berthing space in Port Swettenham costs $14 million, 5,000 feet at what will be one of the largest bulk handling harbours in Asia - Jurong - will cost only $14 million.'

This is the point:

`Singapore has in fact reached a stage where it is likely to attract new industries more regularly than Hongkong, let alone Selangor and Perak. Although wage levels for unskilled labour are substantially higher than Hongkong, the differential is not so great in wage for skilled labour. Moreover, Singapore can offer industrial land at one-tenth the cost of Hongkong. Abundant water supply, port facilities which are unlikely to be affected by silting and land free from speculators and squatters.

Under these conditions and particularly in view of its credit worthy status, that is, credit worthy status established by the World Bank, the prospects for Singapore's industry looks bright.'.

Now, Sir, this was written before the agreement on the Common Market, and I am certain that with the additional impetus provided by the Common Market, Singapore will be an even more attractive centre of industrial investment. I am hopeful that we shall see an unprecedented rate of industrial growth in the next five years. But this is conditional on one factor, that is, the future government of Singapore will maintain the high standards of integrity and continue the effective economic policies which the P.A.P. Government has initiated.

You will recollect, Mr Speaker, Sir, that when we took office in 1959 there was no lack of prophets of doom. The Member for Tanglin, who is curiously silent in this debate, was all the time bemoaning the flight of capital from Singapore, the contraction of business and the imminence of economic collapse. Today nobody thinks along these terms other than the irresponsible Opposition of the pro-Communist Left, whose contact with reality has always been tenuous, whose capacity for reason and logic is infantile, and whose regard for truth is non-existent.

Singapore will press on regardless of the futile and now pathetic efforts of the anti-national Left to pull the country down. After Malaysia and the Common Market, I see a bright future for our people and our country - a future in which each and every one of us will have a fair opportunity to develop our talents to the full and to make our contribution for the prosperity of all.

10.24 p.m.

Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, in debating the motion in the name of the Prime Minister on the subject of the Malaysia Agreement and financial arrangements, I will not take long because I merely wish to clarify the stand of the Alliance Members in this Assembly. Although the Member for Farrer Park has submitted an amendment to this motion, the newspapers, I regret to say, have twisted all the facts that have been stated in this Chamber. Except for the Member for Joo Chiat, the stand of the Alliance Members on Malaysia is clear and has been explained by the Member for Farrer Park. Since this problem was put forward in the Assembly, we have supported it right from the beginning until the referendum was held.

The twists and turns of the P.A.P. in their attempt to divide U.M.N.O. Members and S.P.A. Members is typical of the P.A.P., although we have announced clearly that there are no U.M.N.O. Members nor S.P.A. for that matter. We are representing the Alliance in Singapore.

I refer to the amendment brought up by the Member for Farrer Park, which has been brought up not in the interests of party politics hut with foresight, and which will determine the destiny of the people of Singapore, as different from the tactics adopted by the Government on the question of the Malaysia Agreement in which is contained the Singapore Constitution. The Singapore Constitution belongs to all the people of Singapore, and is not merely the property of the P.A.P. Government. Because it is the property of the people of Singapore, we are of the opinion - and I personally, Mr Speaker, although I am new to parliamentary practice, I must say it is clear to me I see the dangers arising from the amendments which have been inserted and as contained in the Blue Book issued in England. In the United Kingdom edition, the first amendment is in connection with the tenure of office of Assemblymen and it does not state that if a Member of the Assembly resigns or is expelled from the Party, then his seat automatically becomes vacant. We ask the Government to explain in which constitution in countries which practise parliamentary democracy are party matters inserted. We have only heard a reply from the Minister for Law that this state of affairs exists in France, and although it is true, the method of election is that of the continental system on a party basis. I think that explanation is reasonable. On the other hand, we have witnessed the Cabinet changes in France. The Prime Minister of the Cabinet holds office for even less than one month. This is proof that the amendment is justified. This, the Government claims, is an effort to find a stable and strong government. If this amendment is carried and enshrined in the future Singapore Constitution, I can foresee evil consequences. We have seen Members crossing the Floor, as has been done by the Member for Aljunied. Now we are faced with the practice of parliamentary democracy. If we like to follow the model in England, we know that the Government Back benches do criticise their own Government, because the Back benches are given an opportunity to criticise their own Government if it is considered that national matters are more important than party matters. Similarly, we of the Alliance. On this problem, although it has been said that the Federation Government has given its consent, we have moved this amendment with a full sense of responsibility to the State of Singapore. We object to the insertion of this particular clause in the Assembly. If the Government is unable to accept our amendment, and in view of the fact that it is an important matter and we desire to uphold democratic principles in Singapore, we are prepared to face the future.

Mr Speaker, secondly, the question of the Singapore Constitution which can be amended conveniently. Only the Government can amend the Constitution. The Constitution is very loose; it has no value at all. We know that to uphold democratic principles, an amendment to the constitution must be given careful consideration. If we can amend the constitution easily, the consequences will be very bad indeed. Therefore, we demand that every article in the Constitution to be amended must receive a two-thirds majority vote. This is normal parliamentary practice. I cannot understand why the Government wishes to make the clause so loose. I think it has its own reasons.

Similarly, on the question of filling of vacancies in the Assembly. It should be enshrined in the Constitution. If it is not emphasised in the Constitution - we have seen examples in Singapore, because of the absence of a particular clause which binds the Government; although we may try to put the blame on the previous Government, it is our responsibility today, when we discover the weaknesses, to rectify the errors. Should any vacancy occur in future, we do not wish to leave it to the whims and fancies of the Party in power. Therefore, if the Government is unwilling to accept the amendment moved by the Alliance of Singapore, we will be forced to be a party to the mistakes and errors perpetrated by the Government, to sign the agreement which they claim has been agreed to by three parties on the subject of the Singapore Constitution.

I consider this matter affects the destiny of the people of Singapore. I think I have clarified our stand on this matter which, as I have said earlier, has been twisted and turned by the newspapers.

Secondly, in connection with the Singapore Government reaching an agreement with the British Government to recover War Department lands in Singapore. I welcome the action taken because the point has, in fact, been raised that we are short of land in Singapore. In connection with Blakang Mati, which will be the main concentration of development in Singapore in future, as the Malay proverb goes: "We do not wish to have the incident repeated twice."

I have given my co-operation to the Government regardless of party politics or otherwise. The island of Samulun has been acquired by the Government for development by Economic Development Board for the purposes of putting up factories. I have given my fullest co-operation and has, in fact, written to the Economic Development Board so that the islanders affected will be given suitable alternative accommodation. After much persuasion the islanders have agreed to be re-settled in a nearby island. But what has happened? Although the Chairman of the E.D.B. has given an assurance that I will be notified of developments, today - I wrote the letter on 27th September, 1962 - suddenly without my knowledge summonses by the court have been issued to the islanders demanding that they quit because they are considered to be in illegal occupation of State land.

I have given my co-operation to the Government, but in return I cannot agree with, in fact, I object to the action taken by the Government. I do not wish this to happen to the residents at Blakang Mati. I know the Government is giving full consideration to the development of Blakang Mati, and I hope it will give serious consideration in the future. These are the two points I wish to raise.

10.42 p.m.

Mr Chan Sun Wing (Upper Serangoon): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, let me give a reply to the Minister for Finance. He talked about yearly contributions. He said that the Barisan Sosialis, in calculating the contribution made by Singapore to the Federal Parliament, is wrong in two ways. Firstly, the $124 million is 40 per cent plus $36 million. He made the first mistake that it should be capital expenditure, whereas we treat it as recurrent expenditure.

Mr Speaker, in fact, in regard to this question, we have not made any mistake at all.

Mr Speaker: Will the Member detach his ear-piece from the microphone? It affects the loudspeaker. [Interruption] Mr Chan.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): In the Nanyang Siang Pan of the 13th of July, there was a report about a Press conference given by the Federation Minister of Finance. That was when Mr Tan Siew Sin had returned from London. He said in Singapore that of the Federal taxes collected in Singapore, 40 per cent would be given to the Federal Government. In addition to this, Singapore would also have to shoulder its Inland Revenue, Customs, Excise, Broadcasting and Administrative expenses. This expenditure is a recurrent one. In regard to internal security, defence and other major expenditure. Singapore would also be responsible for their contributions. He also said further that this burden did not include the 40 per cent taxes which Singapore would have to give to the Central Government.

Let us assume that the figures were not recurrent but capital expenditure. Have we been wrong in this calculation? No, we have not been wrong, because Misc. Paper 4 of 1963 - Document No. V UI, the fourth paragraph. This is a letter written by the Tunku to the Prime Minister. It says (Mr Chan Sun Wing spoke in English) -

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member now suddenly switches on to English. If he wishes to quote from the document in English, he must paraphrase it in Mandarin.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): I was quoting Document No. VIII. The fourth paragraph says that the Singapore Government will pay to the Federal Government the cost of capital development of Federal projects in Singapore other than projects for Defence and Internal Security. In this paragraph the Tunku does not say that this is included in the 40 per cent taxes. Therefore, it is clear. But the Minister for Finance says that we have included this amount of expenditure into the 40 per cent. Who is wrong after all? I think the Minister for Finance himself is wrong. Here we should also like to point out that the amount Singapore will have to be responsible for is not only this: there is more than this, because according to Misc. 4 of 1963, paragraph 51 at page 19, we know that the difference in the amount Singapore will have to contribute to the Borneo territories - in this respect Singapore will have to lose $4 million.

Then the question of the profits of the Currency Board, on page 49, apportionment. Singapore will also have to lose another $10 million. Therefore, under this sort of merger arrangement, the losses of the people of Singapore far exceed 40 per cent. In other words, in addition to the 40 per cent contribution, we have to incur various kinds of losses.

Talking about the loans and the 50 per cent of labour mentioned by the Minister for Finance. If we were to go according to the calculation of the Minister, then every year in North Borneo $3 million investment could provide jobs for 1,120 workers. If we were to go according to a $30 million investment, to make the calculation, then in the future three years, the same amount of money invested in Singapore would bring out 11,200 jobs. Can it resolve our unemployment situation here? Is it not important to resolve Singapore's own unemployment problem?

The third point raised by the Minister for Finance is this. He said that the Barisan Sosialis, on the question of military expenditure, has been adopting contradictory views. He said, on the one hand, we criticise the increase of military expenditure. On the other hand, we oppose the Mutual Defence Treaty.

On this question, the Barisan Sosialis stand is not contradictory at all - our views on these two items are not contradictory. If the Malayan Government or the Malaysia Government adopts a good neighbourly policy in foreign affairs, then it will not have to incur this great sum of military expenditure. This expenditure has been necessary because of the foreign policy of the Federation of Malaya, which involves the Federation in a cold war. At the same time, we cannot forget that Indonesia is still suspicious of Malaysia. This is because Malaya has been used by Britain and America as a base for subversive activities against Indonesia, and the present Malayan Government is still closely allied with Britain and the United States.

Unless the Government of Malaya adopts a neutral stand and a non-alignment policy and take the side of the Afro-Asian countries, the expenditure in the military field will be increasing - not to talk about the fact that a country like Malaya is unable to be an instrument in a Western cold war.

On the fourth point, the Minister for Finance criticised us. He said that the Barisan Sosialis does not want industrialisation. This is also contrary to facts. According to what the Minister for Finance has said a little while ago, the so-called Common Market and industrialisation in Singapore mean only the establishment of assembly plants, enabling foreign capitalists to send their half-finished products to be assembled in Singapore. This will be detrimental to the establishment of industries in a half-developed country, and will only be contributing to a new method to enable the capitalists and colonialist countries to continue to exploit Singapore. There will be no change in the economic situation at all here.

From what the Prime Minister has said, that Britain has persuaded the Federation Government to include the terms of the Common Market into the Constitution, we can see that the Common Market and the industrialisation plan will not alter British benefits here. If so, they would not have agreed to such terms being included.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will briefly reply to what the Minister for Culture said yesterday. Yesterday evening between 8.15 and 8.30 p.m. the Minister for Culture mentioned 59 times the word "Communist". According to today's Nanyang Siang Pau, in which is printed his speech, in about 30 paragraphs he used 107 times the word "Communist". From this we can judge that if we were to cancel the word "Communist" from the dictionary of the Minister for Culture, then he will not be in a position to write any article at all. I would not like to spend more time on this kind of Minister who is suffering from a Communist phobia. But I would like to reply in a few words to what he said when he brought out a few photographs in this Assembly yesterday.

Mr Speaker, you will remember that he said that the Singapore National Construction Workers Union deliberately wanted to disturb the Prime Minister. Whether or not the Prime Minister had been there on a visit, this Union had its own loudspeakers, because they had been going according to the directions of the Registrar of Societies in convening their annual members' conference at their premises. The Minister also commented on the lighting of the premises of this Union suddenly going off. But, in actual fact, the lighting normally goes off at exactly the time mentioned by the Minister, because they normally go home to sleep at roughly that time. Yet our Prime Minister described it as his victory. This sort of victory can be described as Ah Q's type of victory.

Now that the Prime Minister has returned, let me reply briefly to what he has said. In moving this motion, he seems to be deliberately describing himself as a great personage, as though without him there will be no Malaysia. According to the Nanyang Siang Pau of 31st July - there is a report on his speech - he said, "I spent about two years to make the British Government believe that if Singapore and the Federation of Malaya were not brought together, the British would lose the two territories. In the end the British were made to believe that this analysis was correct." The Prime Minister has exaggerated: he has been bragging too much. If we refer to the report, the first sentence says that the concept of the coming together of the territories of Singapore, Borneo, Sarawak and Malaya has been discussed for many years. Could it be the Prime Minister, or could it be the Minister for Culture who has brought about Malaysia, who has convinced the British? Or is it, as the Prime Minister has described, the electronic computer that has brought about Malaysia? When the Prime Minister moved his motion, his speech was filled with all sorts of threats levelled at the Opposition. This - [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Perhaps the Prime Minister does not know that the Member for Upper Serangoon has undertaken to complete his speech in 30 minutes. So if there is any interjection, time will be lost.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): The reactionary elements and the P.A.P. want to adopt suppressive measures and all sorts of tactics to prevent us from getting our victory through parliamentary constitutional means. But we believe that the labouring classes can seek and secure all sorts of means from among ourselves to counter these tactics. We want to remind those who claim to be champions of parliamentary democracy that unless they are prepared to take off their cloak of parliamentary democracy, they should not adopt all sorts of tactics to prevent the representatives of the labouring classes from entering Parliament to take up their rightful places.

Finally I will say a few words on our stand in regard to what the Member for Farrer Park has said. His amending motion, in principle, is a good amendment. But we cannot support it because the whole Constitution is no good. It is bad. For instance, a person has sores on his toes. It is useless to cut off his toes. It will not be of any help. And we have also decided that we want to abstain from voting on this amendment. Otherwise the P.A.P. will construe our action as supporting the Prime Minister's motion, because the basic character of this amending motion does not change the substance of the original motion.

Now on the question whether the P.A.P. is confident of itself, everybody is clear. I hope they will look after themselves, because more and more people will begin to know after 31st August that there are at least three Back-benchers of the P.A.P. who will either have to leave the P.A.P. themselves or be expelled by the P.A.P. 31st August will come. It is just around the corner - [Interruption] Whether you describe what I have said as a divisive action it does not matter, but we can see that the P.A.P., as a political force in this area, is already finished.

11.10 p.m.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I had hoped, although somewhat forlornly, that before the end of this Assembly, the House would rise to the occasion. We are debating today not the future of the P.A.P. or the future of the Barisan Sosialis, or the Singapore Grand Alliance. We are taking a decision of momentous proportions, and because it is of momentous proportions, I have been somewhat circumspect in the way in which my motion has been phrased. I wish to repeat that this adoption is a conditional adoption, subject to all the terms which have been agreed in the documents set out in Misc. 5 of 1963, which. I think, in view of the way the debate has gone, I shall have to take the House through in some detail.

Sir, I had expected, whatever happens, the Communists, like the Member for Upper Serangoon, to take the same consistent anti-national, anti-Malaysia line. They cannot change, it is too late for them. I had expected the Member for Hong Lim who is a specialist well versed in the arts of The Three Kingdoms to take exactly a parallel line but not quite. As I have explained earlier in the opening, there are cohorts going into battle. They believe they have 25 per cent; I think it is less now. Somebody has to inherit this 25 per cent. And the Member for Hong Lim is hoping that the banner of the Barisan Sosialis will fall from their grasp as the battle is joined after the 31st of August: and then seeing a similar banner with a similar slogan, the cohorts will go with him. I had even half expected the Member for Anson, true to his real nature, to do another acrobatic act. The miracle that he performed in July/August last year, he has unperformed this year: back again - second-class citizenship, Singapore is being sold out. Sir, what he said and what I said is on the record and on the tapes of Radio Singapore. We could play them back. I could take him through every single clause.

But I did not expect the stupidity of the Grand Alliance. Sir, I do not know if they knew what they were doing. Perhaps the 15 seats rattled them whilst I was away in Cameron Highlands at the Security Council meeting, and they suddenly took a position of being against the Government and against everything. But I would have thought that even if one plays poker, one should consider the possibilities of winning. Taking this line, lining up with the Barisan Sosialis to the point where the Member for Upper Serangoon for the first time has found words to praise the Member for Farrer Park, I do not think, Mr Speaker, Sir, with great respect, is an intelligent line. It is not the sort of thing which sensible coherent leaders do, if they calculate. And I make no bones about the fact that we spend all our time calculating the possibilities.

Sir, I will first dispose of the Grand Alliance because they are the less troublesome. By doing this somersault, what little following they have, they have thrown into complete disarray. I do not know whether they know the incalculable consequences of leaders suddenly doing a volte face. I would have thought that they were more right than I was; they were more determined to have merger at any cost. I was determined on merger on fair and just terms or to let the British take the consequences, and even now that is my position. I know there are members from the U.K. Commission who are listening and who will be reading this with great interest, and I say this categorically, that what we say categorically we never withdraw from. If the terms set out in the exchanges of letters, including the documents signed by the Tunku, the envelope - the piece of toilet paper, according to the Member for Cairnhill - are not fulfilled, then I am not prepared to defend the Constitution: I do not have to. These are terms agreed. They are conditions precedent to my signature at Marlborough House on the night of 8th July.

Now, Sir, for the S.P.A. I was not here, because I had many other matters of a constitutional nature to attend to. I thought the saddest thing was that the Member for Cairnhill was no longer in a position to lead his Party in this debate. He had to leave it to the Member for Farrer Park. Sir, I have always had a lot of time for the Member for Farrer Park. He was in his own way trying to do what he thought was right. He did not want to see this country go Communist; he did not want to see the country go to ruin and he was determined to have merger and Malaysia. I read his speech in today's papers with some sorrow, because this was not an occasion to play party politics. He could have risen to the occasion. He could really have led and retrieved the position for the Grand Alliance - grand only in name, Mr Speaker. What did he do? He took out legalistic points about the changes in the Constitution and he has got three of them on the amendments. What happens to Members of this House? Are they automatically out of this Assembly because they have changed sides? What happens to the Member for Aljunied? Is the Member for Farrer Park really that ignorant of the law? This law is not of retrospective effect. It applies to the next Assembly, the next elections. Is he that ignorant, or was he trying to score a few points? He said he would have preferred to give a $25 million straight grant, it would have been much cheaper and that it would have saved Singapore more money. Sir, I do not want to go into this, but he has asked for this. Has he stopped to consider what he was saying? That his own principals in Kuala Lumpur - and I call them principals and the Gentlemen in front of me agents, the local branch, the local agents; whatever they say they are no more than that -

Inche Ahmad Jabri: On a point of clarification.

The Prime Minister: Clarify, by all means.

Inche Ahmad Jabri: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I wish to clarify that we have received no directive or instruction from the Federation. We carefully weighed the matter before we made our decision.

The Prime Minister: A tactical position, Mr Speaker, Sir. Nobody really believes the Member for Cairnhill, or for that matter the Member for the Southern Islands, is going to stand up and say. "Boo to the Tunku"? Can they say boo to the Tunku's signature on these documents? Are they saying that they would have done better if they had been in our place giving $25 million away? $1½ million interest in perpetuity plus $25 million which will never come back. Let us go into the calculations, $1½ million in perpetuity; 5½ per cent interest at World Bank rate. We are lending $100 million; half labour; five years, no interest; after five years, if we are prosperous: World Bank review, by all means. But they must make Singapore prosperous: they must not stymie Singapore. Furthermore, the money will have to be paid back. After the fifth year, interest will be paid: fifteenth year, paid back and the Central Government guarantees the repayment. I say that is a business-like arrangement.

Sir, the Member for Farrer Park has raised three amendments. I reject them utterly and absolutely as a face-saving device to find a way out for himself and his Party. He is no ignoramus. He knows the law and I assume he has read his documents.

His first point is "Terms of office of Members." I stated in this House before I went to London that that was what we were going to do, that in the next Assembly any Member who is elected on a Party ticket whose Party's symbol appears against his name, and if he is expelled or resigns or crosses the Floor, he automatically vacates this House. We are the Government, Sir, and we do this. If they win the elections - make this an election issue - they have the right under section 19 of the State Constitution to change it back and play musical chairs. Go back to the people. I am prepared to do that, Mr Speaker, Sir. That is my stand. Vote against this and I will go back to the country and fight on this by ourselves and we will prove that they are wrong.

His second point is "Safeguards for constitutional position of Singapore". They want even more constitutional safeguards. The Government is not to be trusted; you must have a two-thirds majority of the Assembly. I say by all means. If they could get it, if they are men of such great influence in the Grand Alliance, let them go to Kuala Lumpur and get the Tunku and his colleagues to agree. I will welcome it rapturously and give them full marks for it. Do something which is quite different from all the other States. By all means. My worry is, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I think the worry of the people of Singapore is not that the Singapore Government, a non-Alliance Government, will agree to the Federation Government in giving a concession not to our interest but that an Alliance Government would not be in a position to resist.

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): The more reason why you should not agree.

The Prime Minister: Yes, exactly. If the Member for Farrer Park could only go to the Residency in Kuala Lumpur and get it for us, we would welcome it. I will reconvene an emergency sitting of this Assembly and amend Paper Cmd. 22 of 1963. Why not? I will write to the Tunku and mention this and say that this is at the special behest of the Member for Farrer Park and his colleagues who are afraid that because they would not be able to resist the Federation, therefore, they should have the safeguards. Is that what he says? That is what he is reduced to - playing party politics.

His third point is "Filling of vacancies". What is undemocratic about that? That is the constitution we have got. That is the position in Britain. Hugh Gaitskell, a Labour Leader, died in September last year shortly after the Prime Ministers' conference. His by-election did not take place till last June this year. What is undemocratic about it?

Mr Rajah: The House of Commons issues the writ.

The Prime Minister: Exactly. The House of Commons and the Government - Their majority is that - I mean really must we be reduced to this niggardly argument?

Mr Rajah: It is not niggardly. It is fundamental.

The Prime Minister: Fundamental - good.

Mr Speaker: Order. If the Member for Farrer Park wishes for elucidation, I am sure if he stands up the Prime Minister will give way.

The Prime Minister: Surely. I never refuse.

Mr Rajah remained seated.

Mr Speaker: Mr Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: Make it another election issue. If they win, change the Constitution. This is a State Constitution. It can be changed at the behest of the State Assembly. Even if we drafted it the way the Member for Farrer Park wanted, there would be nothing to prevent us from amending it the way we want, if and when we win the next election. They can do it if and when they win. But perhaps they consider the possibility of winning is such a remote eventuality that they have no confidence in themselves and that they are thinking of conscribing a P.A.P. Government. The next contest is between the Communists and us. I said that over four years ago, at the last general election. It must be, and the last Governor was wise enough. Had the Member for Cairnhill had his way, we would have been scrubbed out from the contest and he would have had to meet the Communists and he would have been mashed up into mince-meat. We are here in one piece and we intend to be here to fight for what is right for the country.

And the Member for Cairnhill. Sir, I was not here, but I was told he said, "Well, what is wrong about trying to make a little bit of money selling aeroplanes and airports?" Nothing at all, Mr Speaker, Sir. There is nothing wrong with that. If he can make 5 per cent on $50 million, good luck to him. That is $2½ million. Why not? All over the world there are contact men. If you are not a contractor, you can be the chap who knows how to get a contract, or how to sell aeroplanes, even though you know nothing about aircraft. Why not? But what I am saying is that is incompatible with his position as a leader of the people of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure you will never dream of doing it, for I would feel somewhat ashamed. On the one hand, you say, "I will fight for the rights of Singapore," and stand up to K.L. and say, "Boo" and "No", which we have to do from time to time, even after merger, after Malaysia: and, on the other hand, you say, "Would you please buy this?" You know, you probably will not get all the 5 per cent. You have to give cuts all along the line. Two per cent here, half per cent there, and maybe you wind up with 2½ per cent. But still it is a lot of money. I say that is what is wrong. It is incompatible with standing up for the rights of the people of Singapore. And instead of choosing to meet the argument - what I say here, Mr Speaker, Sir,I am prepared to say outside; no privilege - but what he said here about Lee & Lee making money out of the Indonesians, implying that I and my wife are making money because of my position, I say, let him step out of this Chamber, say that, and I give him full justification to prove it. I will go into the witness box. The plaintiff in a suit for libel goes into the witness box. He is cross-examined and is put under close scrutiny. I am not afraid. My hands are clean and so are those of my colleagues. That is why we are alive. His colleagues - what has happened to them? Iron mining, factories - all lucrative, Mr Speaker, Sir. None of them that I know of are dying of starvation or malnutrition. But let me tell him this. "Arrogant", he calls us. No - we are proud to belong to a group of men who will stand up for what it is right regardless of their personal interests. And let me say this, that in the last three months we stood the risk that if Malaysia failed because we stood for our rights, the risk of having really to face big trouble. It was a calculated risk. We also stand the risk of being dealt with, now that we have got the Finance Minister in the Federation somewhat unhappy, because the police will be handed over. I did not mention Chief Enahoru in jest, Mr Speaker, Sir. He was a Chief in his own right before Nigeria got independence, just as I am a little chief in my own right here today. And I will not be after the 31st of August. But I say, regardless of that, we do our duty. By the time we have decided to fight the principals behind the Member for Cairnhill, we are not going to be bought by petty men, or thwarted either by spite or malice.

Sir, I sympathise with the U.M.N.O. Members because they are in real trouble. They know their ground situation. I visited the Member for Geylang Serai in his constituency on Sunday. I am sorry if I had disturbed him till 2.00 a.m. in the morning. But he knows what the ground situation is like. We have only one quarrel, Mr Speaker, Sir. That is on what I said about khalwat. Now. I would like to clarify this. This is a serious matter for them and for my Government. I made the statement on religious freedom with due circumspection. I think it is the only way out for Singapore. I have been attacked by the religious head of U.M.N.O. as interfering in the affairs of the rights of the Muslims. I desire to do no such thing. The Muslims decide Muslim law for themselves, and there is the Administration of Muslim Law Bill. There is a section there - section 131 (1) and 131 (2) - which talks of cohabitation outside marriage, not khalwat. Khalwat. Sir, is this. I am sorry we have to go into these little details. But it means a male and a female found in close proximity who are not unlawfully married. What close proximity means is a matter -

Mr Rajah: Not lawfully married.

The Prime Minister: Not lawfully married - yes. If you are lawfully married, I think it is all right. However, there will be a lot of trouble. I am quite sure it is not the intention of any religion to prevent the continuance of mankind. Well, I say that I leave the Muslims to decide Muslim laws for themselves. What I am saying is that no non-Muslims in Singapore will be covered by Muslim law. I think that is fair. I cannot go beyond that. All I can say is that I will not interfere with the Muslims. They have their wishes. They do as they wish. I have, at the same time, to speak up for a lot of Buddhists, Christians and others. And if all Christians wanted to apply canonic law on all Muslims and vice versa, and Buddhists, we would wind up by slitting each other's throat. Once religion becomes a major factor in a multi-racial community, as it did in Ceylon, then we are in trouble. I am quite sure that is not the intention of Syed Ali Redha Alsagoff. "Syed" means a descendant of the Prophet, Mr Speaker, Sir. I am quite sure it is not his intention to have bloodshed in this country. We have got on and we have always been grateful to the Tunku for his leadership, because he has allowed everybody to have his little bit of liberty, and that is the way we wish to keep.

Sir, now the points raised - these are points of substance -

Tun Lim Yew Hock: On a point of information.

Mr Speaker: Point of information.

The Prime Minister: I have got another 25 minutes. I have got to run through this. I am quite happy to answer any other points if the Member would write to me. I will give a considered reply. But I want to get this on the record.

Mr Speaker: The Prime Minister is not giving way.

The Prime Minister: The Member for Anson talks about the Blue Book and the White Book, the Blue Book being the one in London and the White Book being the one we have tabled here. They are not the same. I told the House that there were amendments and that I was introducing more amendments. They are not in accordance with the exchange of letters. As I understood it from my colleagues, the Member for Anson considers the Blue Book to be the Master copy. That is not so, Mr Speaker, Sir. As far as we are concerned, the master copy is ours. The Constitutional documents plus the exchanges of letters, and if the conditions are not fulfilled, then I say the British can hand over Singapore. I am nor defending this. They can go to Television Singapura, Radio Singapore, the Press, mass meetings and explain. If I am to explain, then I want something which is right, fair, just and honourable settlement and we stick to the bargain.

Sir, I think it is fair that I should mention this letter which I have received. The United Kingdom High Commissioner has written me a letter, dated today, saying that he would like all amendments which have been made on the Blue Book to be agreed in precise terms with the Tunku. He says "by the Tunku", but I say, "with the Tunku", and that the High Commissioner should be Informed of it so that he could make the necessary amendments in the Order in Council which will be made. My position is quite simple, Mr Speaker, Sir,If the amendments are not made, I am not defending this Constitution. I have agreed to what I have agreed. They are written words, simple and clear, and must be incorporated, not least of all the provision on gangsters. I make no secret of the fact that I view with the greatest apprehension the possibility, if this power is removed, of gangsters being involved in elections as they are in other parts of the country. I have got one head gangster who was the former driver of the Member for Cairnhill under detention in St. John's Island, and he will remain there. If the Member for Cairnhill can win the elections without him, he can release him and his own gang. But as long as I am here, he will remain, and no gangster will participate in the elections.

Sir, the exchange of letters. The Member for Anson has made great play of this, and I think it is only fair that I should go through it. He said that the first letter has nine points, not answered. I think he is being wilfully obtuse, Mr Speaker, Sir. There are nine points in the letter dated the 8th of July. Tun Razak wrote me a letter on the 18th of July returning me the letters, including this one. I saw him personally, and I wrote him back. May I read my letter? That was the 22nd July, the day I went up to Kuala Lumpur:

`I have your letter of 18th July.

I do not think we can ignore the letter containing the eight points [because the last point was Cut out. Mr Speaker. Sir] 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 other two letters have been superseded by this signed note and can be ignored.'.

The signed note is in the photostat copy of the letter enclosing. There is a simple interpretation, Mr Speaker, Sir - the rule of interpretation: expressio unius excusio alterii. "Last part out" - you will see that - "Ritz Hotel, 8-7-63". I heard that the Member for Anson made fun of the Tunku's statement - the letter of 7th July. I think he was a bit anxious that we should not run out of the 8th into the 9th and so perhaps in the anxiety of the moment he misdated his signature. But I dated it the 8th. "Last part out - Inter. Govt. Committee" - that refers to point No. 9 in the letter of 8th July. The others are in, Mr Speaker, Sir.

The first point about loans does not have to be enshrined in the Constitution. It is in the Agreement. We are giving a loan of $30 million each year for five years, $20 million interest-free and $10 million with interest. If the condition is not fulfilled, the loan is cancelled. I make no bones about that either. This is a business-like arrangement in the mutual interests of the Borneo territories and Singapore. The Federation have committed themselves to development to the tune of $500 million. They want to find the money. They have asked us to help with $150 million. All right. We are partial bankers.

The others - "S'pore L. Assemblymen: - resignation or expulsion - vacate seat". That has been agreed, and even in a telegram from Kuala Lumpur to my State Advocate-General, the Attorney-General in the Federation has agreed to that. So what are the Member for Cairnhill and the Member for Farrer Park complaining about? If they do not like it, win the next elections and cancel it. Tell the Tunku that he is wrong. "Immigration restriction Order movement. reciprocal". We are now talking in terms of gangsters and other political undesirables. I have stated that if they have the right to keep our undesirables out, we want Mr James Puthucheary, Mr Woodhull, and Mr Fong Swee Suan, including Mr Lim Ching Siong (when we prove ultimately that he comes from Pontian) out of this place and so make Singapore a healthier, more peaceful and a happier place to live in. Then the Gangsters Ordinance, delegation. Sir, I want to make my position clear on this. My State Advocate-General has received a communication to say that they were delegated by way of an executive administrative act, using one of the Articles of the present Constitution. I am not satisfied with that because this must be in the Constitution and not by an administrative act. By an administrative act, something may happen in six months' time. The Member for Cairnhill is always buzzing around in Kuala Lumpur. I do not blame him. He tries for his friend. His former chauffeur who is now in St. John's writes him plaintive letters. He dare not reply to them because he can do nothing about it. The chances are that he will remain in a position where he can do nothing about it. And I would like to keep things happy that way.

Sir, there is one other matter which is of sonic importance, viz, my letter of 8th July regarding the $10 million. All these are conditions before I signed the Agreement. I say that if we do not get the $10 million, there again it is not worth the British Government's while either. I paid the British what I thought to be a tribute well deserved - that they are like an electronic computer, maybe not the representative himself but he has a team, the expertise, the experience of a whole machine. If the Members think it is worth their while quibbling about a few million dollars, it is for them to go and explain to the people of Singapore instead of me - I nearly lost my voice. Mr Speaker, Sir. But we are going to keep on going at this until we nail every falsehood down. I came back for that purpose. When I have nailed every falsehood down, then we will go to Africa and make friends because, if Chief Enchoro had more friends, there would have been a better chance. I make no bones about this. We know exactly what we are doing. We calculate the pieces on the chessboard ten moves ahead. That is the way it must be done. The enemy does that. They say brave things in this Chamber, but they know that they are gone. Their thinkers and planners behind admit that they have lost the battle against Malaysia - sending plaintive telegrams to Manila. That is not going to help them.

Finally, before I dispose of the Member for Anson, I think my colleague, the Finance Minister, has dealt with the matter at some length. All I want to say is this. Sir, on the World Bank team, three of them were members of a very talented race. They were Jews; very hard-headed businessmen. Three members on our Economic Development Board - the Director who was sent by way of secondment to the United Nations, the Economic Adviser (Prof. Cahen), the Technical Consultant, and the Chemical Engineer are also Jews; men of considerable talent. So is the Member for Anson. But I prefer to put my money on the genes these gentlemen inherited as against the Member for Anson. You cannot have every member in the family talented with strong muscles and nerves and compos mentis. [Interruption] Sometimes [Interruption] -

Mr Speaker: Time is getting on interjections from the Government Bench should stop.

The Prime Minister: But it speaks volumes for the practical and businesslike manner in which they have set out their Report. I think we have got our point across to the World Bank, as against the Federation point of view. Let me make no bones about this. All this is part of history. The Federation wanted a complete economic Customs Union immediately formed. Then we would have been killed. One-third of the entrepot trade would have died. Two-thirds of primary produce would not be affected, whatever happens. The other one-third: I am reported in the Press as saying that it would go, but that is not what I said. What I said is: over 12 years, we will have to make other arrangements, as they get covered by customs duties', only one-third gets covered by customs duties. We have the World Bank on our side, partly because we have four bright men from the chosen race speaking to truly bright men - three out of the eight - on the other side, also of the chosen race.

Sir, a matter of more substance - citizenship. I expected this: second-class, and a whole host of lies and falsehoods. But what is interesting is this. The Member for Anson, who must have some regard for his own personal professional reputation, has not taken the line of the Barisan Sosialis. My colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs, had no time to give a point-by-point reply. He will do so through the Press. A lot of falsehoods have been uttered by the Member for Queenstown, either through ignorance or wilful malice. The Member for Anson took an entirely different line. His line was: it is second-class, because there is no freedom of association, education and labour. We cannot have it on both sides. You cannot spread butter on both sides of your bread. Either you have State autonomy in education and labour, in which case you say you have the right to exclude others from the enjoyment of these privileges, or you go in. If the Member for Anson together with the Member for Cairnhill can win the next elections, and agree to surrender labour and education, then so be it. There will be a similar education policy, interchangeable for students. We will all pay taxes and the Central Government will look after everything. I put my position quite clear in April, and I have done what I have stated. I am prepared to go out publicly to explain and defend it.

Sir, the Member for Anson quoted a Chinese proverb. My Political Secretary - that is the advantage of having a Political Secretary who is educated in Chinese - said there is no such Chinese proverb. What he said was Li fu t'iau chiang - "A tiger cornered has to jump over the wall." He said he has never heard of it because tigers are never found in the city area where there are walls. I went back during the adjournment and looked up my book of Chinese proverbs. I could not find the proverb. But I could find another proverb - Kouchi t'iau chiang - "A cornered dog jumps over the wall." That is where they are - cornered dogs. They asked for this. They growled, they barked, they snapped for two years. We told them, "For God's sake, be reasonable domestic animals." You know, we are feeding them with $500 a month. We are giving them a reasonable living. They went running around as if they had the rabies. And now, as the proverb goes, they have t'iau chiang. Whether the wall is -

The Minister for Education (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): Too high!

The Prime Minister: Whether they can really make the wall, that is their business. As far as I am concerned, my sympathies are not with them. They asked for this, and they have got it.

Now, Sir, the real core - "Defence, Article VI," says the Member for Queenstown. That is the key reason for Malaysia. That is why we are going to spend a lot of money on defence; waste money. "Tunku's foreign policy is wrong," says the Member for Upper Serangoon. "That is why we have got to spend money."

The Member for Anson is not here, Mr Speaker, Sir. He wrote me a letter and he wrote you a letter about this defence agreement which was published in 1957. Now it is going to apply throughout the territories of Malaysia. I say, "Thank God for that." Let us be realists. Do they really want to go out and expect the Federation Army of 8,000 men and the Singapore Army, now Second Battalion, 2,000; 8,000 + 2,000 equals 10,000 men to fight against armies of half a million men? In South-East Asia there are armies of half a million men. I am here, Mr Speaker, Sir, because there is peace, there is security; otherwise I think our Serjeant at Arms may be absent, if there are riots, commotion: the army, the navy, troops capture the city. We cannot expect chaps to turn up and behave as if nothing has happened. This is not a laughing matter I would like to point out to the Member for Anson - I hope he reads this. He has condemned this document by inference, and throwing it. He says he is tabling it. Let me read him what he agreed to which the British rejected in 1956. He was giving the British - I am quoting now from Sessional Paper Cmd. 31 of 1956. He is always doing what the former Member for Tiong Bahru used to say, "Licking up his own spittle." This is what he did. He gave the British bases in perpetuity. Here we are giving them a lease - 30 years. After 30 years the lease expires. If by 30 years we have not stabilised ourselves then really we are in trouble. But 30 years is a long time in the life of South-East Asia and we will see a lot of changes. We shall grow in strength and stature and the region will grow in stability. Meanwhile, let us have no power vacuum. Does he really want us to close down the bases? He will be out of practice, Mr Speaker, Sir. There will be no lawyers to defend all these petty cases of seduction and kidnapping and so on. When the country is being looted and plundered and raped, do you think people have time to prosecute each other for kidnapping, taking obscene pictures and so on? No, Sir. All that goes by the way-side while you try to survive. I do not read that sort of story elsewhere. It only happens in stable, secure societies. Then you get Profumo, Christine Keeler, Ward - lewd pictures of eminent men who may or may not have frolicked in a swimming pool. Well, that is a stable society. An unstable one was in Japanese-occupied Singapore. Every other day there was a rape case. Nobody took any notice. The Member for Anson ought to count his blessings that because of us he is still making a good living. But I would like to remind him of this. That he agreed to give in perpetuity - and, what is more, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not understand the Member for Anson. I have tabled documents which I will defend and which I intend to defend. "My dear Secretary for State". He writes to me: "My dear Prime Minister". I write to Tun Razak - these are formal letters. I may be Tun Razak's old classmate and friend, but we are writing to each other in our formal capacities: My dear Deputy Prime Minister". We never get our personal and official capacities mixed up. As a representative of Singapore, I write formally. Not so the Member for Anson. They make gruesome reading, you know. I refer to Misc. No. 2 of 1956. This was to the old Secretary of State: "My dear Alan" - signed "David". Reply: "My dear David" - signed "Alan".

Finally, things got a hit chilly and the Minister for State - No. 2 in the Colonial Office then - said, "Dear David", the "My" has been dropped out. But poor David still wrote: "My dear John". That was Mr John Hare. That is where I said to the Member for Cairnhill, he and his former Chief Minister get their personal and official capacities mixed up. Ah Hong Construction is Ah Hong Construction. But the Singapore Government is the Singapore Government. They are two different things. I am not saying it is wrong to be a contact man to make money. All I am saying is, I think it is an invidious position to be in, to say that you stand up and fight for the rights of Singapore when, in fact, you are asking for favours. To build the University of Malaya buildings, Ah Hong Construction got a big contract there. Singapore, they get their fingers chopped off. And I say this goes for even after Malaysia. Tenders put in properly, no contact man required.

Sir, the time for reckoning has now come [Interruption]. I am glad to see the Member for Anson turn up because -

Mr Speaker: Order. I have always made it a point to tell Members not to comment on Members coming in or going out.

The Prime Minister: I beg your pardon. But, anyway, everybody is here to be reckoned - to stand up and speak up and be counted. The battle lines are being drawn. The battle lines outside may or may not he drawn and I hope things will be settled in Manila. But the battle lines within the country are being drawn. We had better decide what jerseys we are wearing. Either you arc for Malaysia or you are against Malaysia. Do not run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. It is an unprofitable business. The British may be a little bit squeamish about having to do in somebody they had made use of, even a Chief Minister or a former Prime Minister. But let me say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that nationalist governments all over the world, when they assume power and they face opposition which is irresponsible, deal summarily with it. And having had to deal with irresponsible opposition, although very fortunately in our case, we did not have to deal summarily with them, I nevertheless sympathise with those leaders - Abu Bakar of Nigeria, bong Chief Enohoru, extradited, recalled, in gaol: Ghana chaps fled to neighbouring territories. In Algiers, and it is a tough place, and they fought a tough war, a Minister was shot - assassinated. He was the youngest Member of the Cabinet. One day after I left, I read that one former Minister of the Provisional Government was walking along Algiers, a car drew up, he went in, and he has not been heard of since.

My sympathies are for law and order. If I tried to undermine the Tunku's Government, then I expect him to lock me up. I think he would be a fool if he did not. It is his duty. My business as a loyal Opposition is to see that Malaysia survives. This is the time when we all speak up. We are prepared to go to the country by ourselves and defend this, without the Grand Alliance. If they want to abstain, they do so at their own peril. They are playing party politics. Why not rise above this pettiness? This is something bigger than ourselves. This is going to ensure our survival. I am quoting the Member for Farrer Park now. He said that it so happened that I was the Prime Minister at a time, in a situation where things came about. The cataclysm took place, crystallization, Malaysia and merger. Not he. I played a part, yes. Why go against the will of a people to be born, to be free, to survive in a world full of strife and turmoil? And more strife and turmoil coming. Let us not misjudge the situation. Two thousand chaps are under training in Sarawak; a long border; arms are being supplied. He is a foolish man who expects a Central Government faced with that situation to sit back and let the country go to pieces. I for one, Sir, and I am sure my colleagues are with me here, will stand up and fight for Malaysia.

Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker: The Original Question was.

"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 and the amendments thereof contained in Paper Cmd. 24 of 1963."

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.".'

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

The Prime Minister: Division.

The House divided: Ayes, 16; Noes, 32; Abstentions, 2. Ayes. Noes. Bani, S. T. Abdul Hamid bin Chan Sun Wing. Haji Jumat. Fung Yin Ching, Ahmad Jabri bin Miss. Mohammad Akib. Hoe Puay Choo. Buang bin Madam. Omar Junid. Lee Siew Choh. Byrne, K. M. Leong Keng Seng. Chan Chee Seng. Lin You Eng. Chan Choy Siong, Low Por Tuck. Madam.

Ayes. Noes. Ng Teng Kian. Chor Yeok Eng. Ong Chang Sam. Goh Chew Chua. Ong Eng Guan. Goh Keng Swee. Sheng Nam Chin. Kandasamy, G. Tan Cheng Tong. Lee Khoon Choy. Tee Kim Leng. Lee Kuan Yew. Teo Hock Guan. Lee Teck Him. Wong Soon Fong. Lim Cheng Lock. Lim Yew Hock. Lingam, S V. Abstentions. Mammen, John. Koh, C. H. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Marshall, David. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. M. Ismail Rahim. Ong Pang Boon. Rajah, A. P. Rajaratnam, S. Ramaswamy. S. Sahorah binte Ahmat,Madam. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Tan Kia Gan. Thio Chan Bee. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed Al-Haj. Yong Nyuk Lin.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Mr Speaker: We are back to the Original Question on the motion moved by the Prime Minister. Now, the Member for Farrer Park.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move simpliciter my amendment* that is on Notice Paper No. 100 of 1963.

Mr Speaker: The Original Question is on the motion moved by the Prime Minister. Since which an amendment has been moved.

• `At the end, to add -

"save and except Article 30 (2) (b) in page 144 (Terms of office of Members) and provided that appropriate steps be taken to amend firstly Article 69 in page 47 (Safeguards for constitutional position of Singapore) to provide for the initial concurrence of this Legislative Assembly by a two-thirds majority, and secondly to Article 33 in page 145 (Filling of vacancies) to provide for the filling of vacancies within three months.".'

Question put, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added."

The Prime Minister: Division.

The House divided: Ayes, 7; Noes, 25; Abstentions, 18. Ayes. Noes. Abdul Hamid bin Buang bin Haji Jumat. Omar Junid. Ahmad Jabri bin Byrne, K. M. Mohammad Akib. Chan Chee Seng. Lim Yew Hock. Chan Choy Siong. Mohd. Ali bin Madam. Alwi Chor Yeok Eng. Rajah, A. P. Goh Chew Chua. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Goh Keng Swee. Thio Chan Bee. Kandasamy, G. Lee Khoon Choy. Abstentions. Lee Kuan Yew. Lee Teck Him. Bani, S. T. Lim Cheng Lock. Chan Sun Wing. Lingam, S. V. Fung Yin Ching, Miss Mammen, John. Hoe Puay Choo, Madam. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. Koh, C. H. M. Ismail Rahim. Lee Siew Choh. Ong Pang Boon. Leong Keng Seng. Rajaratnam, S. Lin You Eng. Ramaswamy, S. Low Por Tuck. Sahorah binte Marshall, David. Ahmat,Madam. Ng Teng Kian. Tan Kia Gan. Ong Chang Sam. Toh Chin Chye. Ong Eng Guan. Wee Toon Boon. Sheng Nam Chin. Yaacob bin Tan Cheng Tong. Mohamed Al-Haj. Tee Kim Leng. Yong Nyuk Lin. Teo Hock Guan. Wong Soon Fong.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Question on the Original motion put.

The Prime Minister: Division.

The House divided: Ayes, 25; Noes, 17; Abstentions, 8. Ayes. Noes. Buang bin Bani. S. T Omar Junid. Chan Sun Wing. Byrne, K. M. Fung Yin Ching, Chan Chee Seng. Miss. Chan Choy Siong, Hoe Puay Choo. Madam. Madam. Chor Yeok Eng. Lee Siew Choh. Goh Chew Chua. Leong Keng Seng. Goh Keng Swee. Lin You Eng. Kandasamy, G. Low Por Tuck. Lee Khoon Choy. Marshall, David. Lee Kuan Yew. Ng Teng Kian. Lee Teck Him. Ong Chang Sam. Lim Cheng Lock. Ong Eng Guan. Lingam, S. V. Sheng Nam Chin. Mammen, John. Tan Cheng Tong. Mohd. Ariff bin Tee Kim Leng. Suradi. Teo Hock Guan. M. Ismail Rahim. Wong Soon Fong. Ayes. Abstentions. Ong Pang Boon. Abdul Hamid bin Rajaratnam, S. Haji Jumat. Ramaswamy, S. Ahmad Jabri bin Sahorah binte Mohammad Akib. Ahmat, Madam. Koh, C. H. Tan Kia Gan. Lim Yew Hock. Toh Chin Chye. Mohd. Ali bin Wee Toon Boon. Alwi. Yaacob bin Rajah, A. P. Mohamed Al-Haj. Seow Peck Leng, Yong Nyuk Lin. Mrs. Thio Chan Bee.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

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 and the amendments thereof contained in Paper Cmd. 24 of 1963.