view text of speech / press release

1

LKY/1962/LKY0820.DOC

TRANSCRIPT OF A RADIO FORUM ON THE CITIZENSHIP ISSUE

BROADCAST OVER RADIO SINGAPORE AT 7.10 P.M. ON MONDAY,

20TH AUGUST, 1962.

Chairman: Good evening, in this the second of a new series of

Radio Forums to discuss aspects of the citizenship issue we

have invited on the Government side, the Minister for

Finance, Dr. Goh Keng Swee, and the Minister for Culture,

Mr. S. Rajaratnam, and two Opposition leaders in the

Legislative Assembly, Dr. Lee Siew Choh of the Barisan

Sosialis and Mr. Ong Eng Guan of the United People’s Party,

to answer questions put to them by representatives of the

foreign and local press. May we now have the first question,

please.

Dr. Lee Siew

Choh: The PAP’S trump card is nothing but a bluff. The so-

called common citizenship which has been given to the

people of Singapore is only common citizenship in name. In

actual fact, in substance it is only common nationality. The

2


very idea of citizenship means you must have the voting

rights. Therefore, to have to reapply afresh for voting rights

after having been given this so-called Malaysian common

citizenship, only means that this so-called common Malaysian

citizenship is nothing but a mere common Malaysian

nationality. And, that reminds me, I wish to add one thing

that at the present moment, the PAP have denied thousands of

people their voting rights in the forthcoming Referendum.

There are lots of people in Singapore today who are already

citizens but have been denied their rights to vote in the

forthcoming Referendum. I don’t know how the PAP is

going to answer that. Maybe because they already have such

contempt for the citizens of Singapore. The Prime Minister

already said that the one man one vote system is to be

regretted. Therefore, the so-called PAP trump card is nothing

but a bluff. We have all along said that if the PAP really

fights for the rights of the people, we would be the first to

support them. But unfortunately they are all the time trying to

find excuses, one after another, gimmicks one after another in

order to confuse and deceive the people. At the present

moment, they are putting forward their common citizenship in

3


order to deceive the people that they in actual fact really have

only common nationality. That is why you have to go along

again to register and apply for voting rights. If you are a

citizen you have the voting right. There is no necessity for

you to reapply for your citizenship rights and your voting

rights. Therefore, as we have all along said, the PAP is

merely producing a common citizenship, so-called, which is a

common citizenship only in name and it is just as phoney as

the phoney merger which they have all along been talking so

much about. All along they have been saying that it is

impossible to get citizenship, unreasonable and then they

bring in the language test and they even talk of the black

market deal in rupiahs and currency. And then they tried to

equate that the national is a citizen and all along we have

maintained that a national is different from a citizen. They

have maintained that a national equals a citizen. And now

when people realise that this so-called nationality which they

have given to Singapore citizens is a second class citizenship,

they have come round again to the same point of trying to

deceive the people by changing the name, change from

nationality to citizenship and, thereby, they hope to gain the

4


good favour of the people. Even the Tengku himself says that

only the Singapore citizens have been given nationality.

Nothing more than that.

Mr. Chairman: Dr. Goh Keng Swee.

Dr. Goh Keng

Swee: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that my friend Dr. Lee Siew

Choh comes here with the idea of delivering a political

harangue. I thought the purpose of this forum is to examine

the new citizenship proposals and clarify any doubts which

one may have in one’s mind. But Dr. Lee I am afraid is just

playing the old Barisan gramaphone record. Now, he is not a

lawyer. He is a doctor and in respect of the attributes of

citizenship, I would say that another member of the

opposition, namely Mr. David Marshall is better qualified to

speak on the subject. Now, Dr. Lee’s point is this, the central

point is this, that if you are a citizen, you can vote anywhere.

In other words, the fact of common disability, both in regard

to citizens in the old Federation, the present Federation and in

Singapore, he says that runs contrary to all principles of

5


citizenship. Now Mr. Marshall has made it quite clear that he

would accept this disability, provided it is mutual and

reciprocal. And therefore to say that the restriction of voting

rights in one territory, in both territories, to persons normally

resident there, goes against the principles of citizenship, I

think that is absolute nonsense. And only a person unversed

in this subject can make such an outrageous claim. Now, Dr.

Lee Siew Choh again comes out with this lie about second-

class citizens. On several occasions in the Legislative

Assembly, I asked Dr. Lee Siew Choh, please tell us in what

way a Singapore citizen would be second-class after merger.

What does he lose. In what ways is he inferior to citizens

elsewhere. I have not got an answer and I hope Dr. Lee will

... ...

Dr. Lee Siew

Choh: ... ... I will be giving you the answer.

6


Dr. Goh Keng

Swee: Certainly. A simple answer to a simple question.

What does the Singapore citizen lose?

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Rajaratnam.

Mr. Rajaratnam: Mr. Chairman, may I first give an answer to the

question itself. The questioner wants to know why is it we

have a Malayan citizenship, it is necessary for a Singapore

citizen to reapply if he is qualified to be a citizen. Why is it

necessary for him to re-apply, to be registered as a voter in

the Federation. The answer to that is simple. In so far as

Singapore is concerned, we have asked for merger with

special rights. That is we want merger, at the same time we

want to retain certain rights which every Singapore citizen

enjoys, multi-lingualism, the right to have autonomy over

education and labour and so on. We want these things. In

some respects, we can say we are trying to get the best of

both worlds. But whatever it is to be able to achieve that, we

have had to make a distinction. We are all Malaysian

citizens. Everybody whether from Singapore, Federation or

7


the Borneo territories. But in so far as we want to preserve

the special rights in Singapore, we must have a separate

electoral role. We must decide who are the people who are

going to vote and enjoy the special rights. They are the

Singapore citizens. And therefore, it is necessary for us to

retain a special register, containing Singapore citizens, who

can vote in Singapore and enjoy all the privileges that go with

a Singapore citizenship, apart from Malaysian citizenship.

And for that reason, we find it is necessary for purposes of

voting that we have two classes of status. One, Malaysian

citizen who will enjoy the rights of all the other people of

Malaysia, the 10-million people of Malaysia, and a Singapore

citizen, citizenship purely for the purposes of exercising our

electoral rights in Singapore. Dr. Lee earlier said, he tried to

imply now, that there is really no distinction between

citizenship and nationality.

Dr. Lee Siew

Choh: Nonsense.

Mr. Rajaratnam: He said earlier it is a bluff.

8


Dr. Lee Siew

Choh: You tried to make it that way.

Mr. Rajaratnam: Now first, their demand was in fact, Sir, I have got

their pamphlet called “Merger and You” -- which is a bit out

of date.

Dr. Lee Siew

Choh: Your Prime Minister said that.

Mr. Rajaratnam: In which they said quite clearly here. I have got it

here, in case Dr. Lee thinks I am misquoting. You may have

a look at it. It says the PAP merger is phoney. This is

unfortunately written before the amendment to the White

Paper was announced ... ...

Mr. Chairman: We’ll have that later Mr. Rajaratnam. Mr. Ong Eng

Guan.

Mr. Ong Eng Guan: The Government’s arguments on two different classes

of Malaysian citizenship is contradictory. The Minister for

9


Culture said just now that we are trying to get the best of both

worlds. On one hand, the Prime Minister has told us that

both classes of Malaysian citizenship could have equal rights.

On the other hand, it seeks to justify the question of two

different classes of Malaysian citizenship with different

voting rights on two grounds. And this is what the Prime

Minister has said on August the 14th when he broadcast over

Radio Singapore. The two grounds he gave were that there

were stricter, so-called stricter citizenship laws in the

Federation which he didn’t believe so when he participated in

the debate in the Assembly in 1957 and, secondly, there were

so-called more autonomous powers for Singapore than given

to other states of the Federation. Now if both types of

Malaysian citizenship are genuinely equal and not merely

equal in name being able to obtain the same type of passport,

then why should the Federation give Singapore more

autonomy than other states of the Federation. Doesn’t that

contradict. It only means one thing that a Singapore citizen is

getting better and more favourable treatment than the other

citizens of the Federation. In other words, we become first

class citizens and the Federation citizens become second

10


class citizens. This we think is a big joke. Now, this new

concept of a common Malaysia citizenship, is only in name

and not in substance. It is like the fiction of a Commonwealth

citizenship. Nothing but just a fiction. A Singapore citizen

now is a Commonwealth citizen and the British who rule over

us are also Commonwealth citizens. Does that signify that

there is equality between the British and us, Singapore

citizens. The British cannot vote in Singapore, likewise the

citizens of Singapore cannot vote in Britain. Does that

signify equality between the British citizens and Singapore

citizens. If they are, then there is no need to fight against

British colonialism.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Rajaratnam.

Mr. Rajaratnam: I like to ask Dr. Lee, in what way, what existing right

does the Singapore citizen lose by this arrangement. What,

can he mention here any single right that the Singapore citizen

has today that he is going to lose as a result of this

arrangement. Apart from the only disability, which is

common, is that Singapore citizens cannot stand for elections

11


in the Federation or vote in the Federation. Now I can tell

you, that at the most, may be about 10 aspiring politicians

may want to stand for elections in the Federation. May be

people are aspiring to be the Federation’s Prime Minister, the

Prime Minister of Malaysia. Those are the chaps who would

be very worried about this limitation. But the ordinary man,

your hawker, your trishaw rider, your rickshaw puller, your

taxi driver, he doesn’t believe in standing for election. He

wants to know as a Singapore citizen, would he have priority

in the matter of jobs. Yes, he will. If we abolish Singapore

citizenship and have a common citizenship, Malaysian

citizenship, then he must enjoy the right to get a flat or a job

with 10-million other people. Whereas today under this

arrangement, he will share it out with 1½ million people of

Singapore. So could Dr. Lee mention to me any single right

that the citizen now enjoys which he will lose as a result of

this arrangement?

Mr. Chairman: Dr. Lee.

Dr. Lee Siew

12


Choh: If Rajaratnam were really fighting for the rights of the

common man -- the rickshaw puller, the taxi driver and all

that -- the PAP wouldn’t be so unpopular today. That is clear

enough proof that the PAP today has forgotten to fight for the

fights of the common man.

Dr. Goh Keng

Swee: That is what you say.

Dr. Lee Siew

Choh: If the PAP really had fought for the rights of the

people, they would have accepted the fourth question which

we put in the Referendum question. The fourth question

asked for automatic citizenship and proportional

representation which has been denied and which has not been

approved by the PAP Government. At the present moment,

this change of common nationality to common citizenship is

just like a change of garment -- you have a new coat and,

therefore, it becomes new citizenship. Now, let me answer

something what Goh Keng Swee ...

13


Mr. Rajaratnam: I asked the question.

Dr. Lee Siew

Choh: Let me ask you first. You have always been trying to

tell the people that you want merger because of national unity

very good, if there was really national unity, but what have

you got? Now you say Singapore citizens are entirely

separate from the Federation citizens. Yet, when the

Federation has 11 states and each of these 11 states’ citizens

can cross the borders and go along to any other state to have

equal rights of the other ten states -- Johore having the equal

rights of the other ten states of the Federation -- yet Singapore

today is ostracised, outcast, and treated as if Singapore

people have got smallpox. Why should people be treated like

this. Goh Keng Swee asked, why second-class citizenship?

That is plain and simple for everybody to see. We have

624,000 citizens in Singapore, and we elect only 15

representatives to the Central Parliament. The Federation has

about 2.3-million. You can correct me if you like. Or 2.2-

million voters, citizens, who are going to elect 104

representatives to the Central Parliament. In other words, in

14


Singapore about 41,000 people will be electing one

representative to the Central parliament, whereas in the

Federation about 21,000 citizens will be electing one

representative to the Central Parliament. In other words,

40,000 citizens in Singapore equals 20,000 citizens in the

Federation. You can just see from this alone that the value of

citizenship in Singapore is half the value of citizenship in the

Federation, and, mind you, I do not include the case of

weightage and, cases where only half the number of citizens

can send representatives to the Central Parliament. And,

further, the citizens in Singapore will be able only to elect an

assembly which will have powers completely changed, which

will not be able to have the same powers which we now have

-- we will be controlled by the Federal Parliament -- and we

will be completely controlled by our Singapore Assembly.

So, we are only treated as a semi-colony, will be ordered

about, and if it pleases the Tunku -- pleases the Federation

politicians -- we will be allowed to do certain things. If we

do not please them, we will not be allowed to do certain

things. Therefore, what sort of citizenship do we have.

15


Mr. Rajaratnam: Mr. Chairman, may I have an answer to my question,

please?

Mr. Chairman: Do you regard that, Dr. Lee, as an answer to Mr.

Rajaratnam’s question?

Dr. Lee Siew

Choh: I have answered Dr. Goh.

Mr. Rajaratnam: Could you please answer my question? What single

right do we lose? What is the right -- any of the existing

rights a Singapore citizen now enjoys -- can you name one

which he would lose as a result of this arrangement?

16


Dr. Lee Siew

Choh: Certainly! You will lose the right definitely to control

yourself from the Internal Security point of view.

Mr. Rajaratnam: Ah!

Dr. Lee Siew Choh: Let me finish. And, what else, you will not be able to

decide your own future, which is most important if you want

to talk of parliamentary democracy. If you are going to say

that you want to have parliamentary democracy, then, it all

depends on whether you have the voting rights or not.

Because if you have the voting rights, you can decide who

will represent you in the Central Parliament and by

influencing your representative in the Central Parliament you

will be able to decide your own future -- your own political

life. You can decide who is going to be your representative,

you can decide what sort of policy you are going to have,

what sort of education, what sort of working conditions, but

now you may not be able to get it.

Mr. Chairman: Dr. Goh.

17


Dr. Goh Keng Swee: Mr. Chairman, as usual Dr. Lee has completely evaded

the question. We are asking, what rights do we lose? He has

not mentioned one. Therefore, the inference is very strong

that the Singapore citizen loses none of his rights. Now, Dr.

Lee has gone into a long waffle about proportionate

representation, control by the Federal Parliament and national

unity. I will take his points one by one.

First, proportional representation, then, he can get it

under full and complete merger. The laws on proportional

representation are there. You want complete merger, you

surrender all your rights over education, social welfare,

labour and so on --

Mr. Rajaratnam: Alternative ‘B’.

Dr. Lee Siew Choh: In other words, you are admitting that it is not real

common citizenship, then?

Dr. Goh Keng

18


Swee: No, no, we are talking about proportional

representation.

Dr. Lee Siew

Choh: Of course, that is what it means.

Dr. Goh: I think he’s got a very confused mind -- I want to

disentangle his thoughts. Let’s deal with one aspect at a time.

Now, if you are prepared to give up these autonomous

powers, and if you are prepared also to accept citizenship

laws of the Federation, then you get proportional

representation. But if you want special powers for your own

government, and you don’t accept the citizenship laws of the

Federation Government, then you can’t ask for proportional

representation. Now, as regards control by the Central

Parliament -- of course, the Central Parliament controls the

whole country in matters under its jurisdiction. In the same

way in Singapore, in matters of internal policy, you don’t get,

say, people in the constituency of Mountbatten saying that

they are being controlled by the Central Government. That’s

in the nature of things. And I do not see in what way control

19


by the Central Parliament over Singapore is lessened under

Barisan’s type of merger, that is, complete merger. On the

contrary, with complete merger, the Central Parliament has

got more powers over Singapore than under the White Paper

merger proposals.

Now, finally, national unity -- everybody knows -- and

we are not children -- everybody knows that the Barisan

Sosialis are against national unity. They fight merger -- any

form of merger under any possible terms. Now, to give you

an example of ... ... ...

Dr. Lee: Not your phoney merger?

Dr. Goh: ... ... of the propaganda which Barisan Sosialis have

been campaigning at ground level. They say, when they

visited my constituency, Kreta Ayer, that after merger,

Chinese will not be allowed to rear pigs, and will not be

allowed to buy and sell pork. That is a vicious type of

racialist propaganda of the Barisan Sosialis.

20


Dr. Lee: I think that comes from the PAP. The PAP has control

over the papers and the Radio.

Dr. Goh: These are the people who make an appeal for national

unity. I regard all this as sheer humbug and hypocrisy, and

everybody knows that.

Mr. Ong Eng

Guan: Mr. Chairman, I think I will answer first the question

put forward by the Minister for Culture. What Singapore will

lose? First, Singapore as a State would be surrendering a big

chunk of its powers in exchange for 15 seats in the Central

Parliament. Is this a worthwhile bargain? As far as we can

see, the people of Singapore do not consider ... ...

Mr. Rajaratnam: Could you tell us what powers?

Mr. Ong Eng

Guan: ... ... it is a bargain. It’s in the White Paper -- defence,

external affairs ... ...

21


Dr. Goh: Under complete merger, do you keep those powers?

Mr. Ong Eng

Guan: Now, as far as the Singapore citizen is concerned, it

will be like an inflationary situation. Before an economic

inflation, say, a dollar would be able to buy three katties of

rice. When once there is inflation, we might be able to buy

two katties of rice for a dollar. This is the same with the

White Paper. Before the White Paper, say, the Singapore

citizen will vote for an Assembly with certain powers. If the

White Paper merger is accepted, the Singapore citizen will

still be Singapore citizen will still be voting, but voting for an

Assembly with very much reduced powers.

Now, I wish also to answer some points, set out by the

Minister for Finance, and I think this is also contained in the

SPA press release supporting this new citizenship proposals,

this so-called “new proposals”.

A parallel has been raised with residents in

Mountbatten or Katong. But the situation is different. In

22


Singapore, we might have a citizen resident in Mountbatten

and whose name appears in the Mountbatten electoral

register, another appears in the Tanjong Pagar electoral

register, but if they shift their residence, they would only have

to wait for the annual revision of the electoral registers and

they can vote in the constituency they live in. There is no

need to apply as in this case, and that is the point. So far, we

have not answered the question posed by the Straits Times.

In the case of this new Malaysia citizenship, we have to apply

again for new citizenship in the Federation. It’s tantamount

to applying for new citizenship.

Dr. Goh: No. Nonsense.

Mr. Ong Eng Guan: How, would the Government answer this question: Do

we have to stay in the Federation again for 10 to 12 years

before we can apply for this new Malaysia citizenship? We

have two types of Malaysian citizenship. One is Malaysia

citizenship straight and simple, like the Canadian dollar -- the

dollar within brackets Canada. The other is Malaysia

citizenship within brackets Singapore.

23


Mr. Rajaratnam: Is it in the White Paper?

Mr. Ong Eng Guan: This is what the Tunku has said. The Tunku has said

in his speech on the 15th of August in his report to the

Parliament. He has said, yes, there will be two classes of

citizenship. One is Malaysian citizenship (Singapore

citizens), the other is just purely Malaysian citizenship.

Mr. Rajaratnam: Yes, but you said Malaysian citizenship (Singapore)

and Malaysian citizenship (Federation) earlier.

Mr. Ong Eng Guan: It comes to the same thing. Just to explain to the

people. Two types, one is Malaysian citizenship without

qualification, one is Malaysian citizenship with qualification.

The qualification is ‘Singapore’. So, in order for a Malaysian

citizenship (Singapore) to vote in the Federation, he must

reside in the Federation, satisfy the Federation citizenship

laws as any other person who comes from Britain or South

Africa or any part of the world who has to satisfy and apply

again in order to become a voter. So, once he applies to

24


become a voter then he is being raised from the status of a

Malaysia citizenship (Singapore) to a Malaysia citizenship,

pure and simple without the qualification.

Dr. Goh: Well, in what way is one better than the other, please

explain to us? Assuming you have these two categories, in

what way is one better than the other?

Dr. Lee: I think, Goh Keng Swee is very naive? If you are a

citizen and if you have to reapply in order to vote, and if you

have to stay there for ten years before you can ever have a

chance to vote, and not only ten years, you must pass another

language test and you must be of good character, your good

character being that you must be acceptable to the politicians

there. If you are not friendly with them, your chance is

‘habis’. You can’t even go there -- no use.

Dr. Goh: Why do you want to go there?

Dr. Lee: Therefore, even your Kuan Yew, you know, the other

day, this is in the transcript, page 8, if you like, when Mr.

25


Marshall asked him why there must be a Singapore

citizenship and Federation citizenship, he said, if not, you

have to qualify again. When he was pressed on, “Qualify for

what?” Kuan yew said this, “Qualify for citizenship.” Now,

I am sure Kuan Yew didn’t mean to say that, but he slipped it

out. Unfortunately, for him, and now they are on record and

it only shows that he himself has admitted that he has to

qualify again for citizenship. Well, this is confirmed by the

Tunku -- because, you know, Kuan Yew said something

positive in his press release.

Dr. Goh: No, it’s absolutely rubbish. You cannot understand

what he said, that’s the trouble.

26


Dr. Lee: Listen, listen. The Tunku said that Singapore citizens

will get automatic nationality -- become the nationals of the

Federation of Malaysia. Well, I am sure, you are not going to

deny that?

Mr. Rajaratnam: Mr. Chairman, I asked a simple question earlier.

Could either Dr. Lee or Mr. Ong Eng Guan say what existing

rights would we lose as a result of this arrangement? Dr. Lee

had made a long harangue, in fact, he always reminds me of

the Polish patriot who was asked to write an essay about the

elephant and he started writing an essay on the Polish

question. So, similarly, I have got an impression that Dr. Lee

hasn’t got a script providing a reply to this question. What

single right that we now have that we would lose?

Dr. Lee: Lee Kuan Yew says this ... ...

Mr. Rajaratnam: Mr. Ong Eng Guan did mention one, Defence and

External Affairs ... ...

Dr. Lee: You are full of stories.

27


Mr. Rajaratnam: Defence and External Affairs. He said large chunks of

powers would be lost. When I asked for a chunk, the only

chunk he could produce, specific one was Defence and

External Affairs. Defence and External Affairs is a thing that

we now enjoy in conjunction with the Federation of Malaya.

As far as Internal Affairs is concerned, Internal Security is

concerned, with Federation of Malaya, Defence and External

Affairs is in British hands, we don’t have it at all. So we

can’t lose something that we don’t have. So, what existing

rights do we lose? And I am very glad that confronted with

this point-blank question neither of the two gentlemen is able

to specify a single right.

Dr. Lee: I have already told you.

Mr. Rajaratnam: ... ... a single right -- just a minute, there’s a difference

between the right of an individual and the Assembly. They

are two different things. Now I come to the Legislative

Assembly: Mr. Ong Eng Guan again mentioned that the

Assembly would have reduced powers. It is true that certain

departments which will become pan-Malayan, or now

28


possibly pan-Malaysian, but as we have indicated that

something like 85 ... ... 80 to 85 percent of the revenue would

be spent in Singapore -- retained by Singapore. Singapore

would have control over these because it will control many of

the departments like Education, Defence, Social Welfare and

so on. So, in return for that we give up certain pan-Malayan

departments to be transferred to the Malaysian thing. So by

doing that we got representation in the Central Legislative

Assembly of 15 ... ... ...

Dr. Lee: What have we to crow about?

Mr. Rajaratnam: 15 representatives there. Now, Dr. Lee maintains that

if we have 10 more people we will become supreme. Now, if

you can find ... ... mathematically, therefore, if we are 15 we

are a colony, if we have 10 more we become equals. Now I

ask you, mathematically, how is it if you have 10 more

representatives in the Assembly, Central Parliament, how do

you become any more equal than by having 15? After all,

Penang, which will have less than 15, can say: “We are even

worse”.

29


Dr. Lee: All right, we are only asking for simple equality and

justice. Even Perak with only 450,000 citizens can send in 19

representatives to the Central Parliament. Why is it that we

have more than 600,000 citizens that we can only have 15?

As we have said, now you just mentioned it yourself.

Dr. Goh: We have control over Education and Labour, and we

can only have 15. Can’t you understand simple propositions.

Dr. Lee: You can’t even control your own budget, now your

budget will be controlled by the Central Parliament, all the

money will be handed over and it is up to the Government in

the Central Parliament to give you the portion that the Central

Parliament wants. Now you say 25 percent.

30


Mr. Ong Eng

Guan: May I answer the question given by the Minister? I

have in front of me the White Paper which gives twenty-one

powers, out of which 90 percent, in my estimate, will be

given to the Central: External Affairs, Defence, Internal

Security, Law and Justice, machinery of Government,

financial and industrial policies. Even Mr. Duclos, you

yourself could be controlled by the Federation later, over-all

policy on broadcasting and television is Federal.

Dr. Goh: He is reading from a list of Federal Powers, that is all.

Mr. Ong Eng

Guan: All this will be surrendered to the Federation. Now,

the other point is this, instead of one dollar being able to buy

three katties of rice, it would be able to buy only one or one-

and-a-half katties of rice.

Dr. Goh: But you want complete merger, isn’t it, you want to

give all powers to the centre.

31


Dr. Lee: So you are admitting it’s not common citizenship, you

are giving us.

Dr. Goh: I can’t understand what these two are ... ... ...

Dr. Lee: No, no, tell us, Dr. Goh, before you begin to speak,

would you mind telling us what’s the difference ... ...

Dr. Goh: Let’s preserve some order, Dr. Lee.

Dr. Lee: I ask you this question now that you want to speak,

you must answer the point.

Dr. Goh: I am answering Mr. Ong Eng Guan, your turn will

come, please be patient and orderly. No business can be

done, you know, if we conduct this forum as if we are a fish

market.

Mr. Rajaratnam: Or a Barisan meeting!

Dr. Lee: Barisan meeting -- you dare not even have one.

32


Dr. Goh: One Eng Guan’s proposition is extraordinary. He says:

“Well, look, you are surrendering all these powers, you are

left with nothing,” and this is the man who wants full and

complete merger, where you give up everything except,

perhaps, the Land Office.

Dr. Lee: Tell us, Keng Swee, you must answer the question

which has been asked by the Straits Times and consequent on

that, tell us: “What is the difference between then and now

after this change of common nationality to common

citizenship? You look up your paragraph 14 in the White

Paper and tell us any difference. If there is any difference,

please let us all of us know, we are all very anxious.

Mr. Ong Eng

Guan: No difference at all.

Dr. Lee: Therefore, this citizenship is only nationality.

33


Dr. Goh: You see the sort of person he is -- he asks questions,

he answers himself. What is the point? All in good time, Mr.

Chairman.

Now, first let us get down to the roots of this question.

I think we have somewhat deviated from this thing. There is

the transfer of voting rights, and there are procedures for

transfer of voting rights, and the questioner asked: “Why

can’t it be done as a matter of administrative detail?” Now,

does it mean then that if Singapore citizens can only vote in

Singapore and Federal citizens vote in the Federation, does it

mean that there is no common citizenship? Now, the answer

is, there is common, there can be common, citizenship with

these restrictions. I may not be able to convince these two

gentlemen because their minds have been made up. But a

member of the so-called their Council of Joint Action

accepted these restrictions. He says they are necessary and

they are compatible with full equality and common

citizenship, that’s Mr. David Marshall’s point of view. Now,

why are these mutual restrictions on voting rights? And the

answer really goes to the root of the matter. The Federation

34


Government is prepared to accept Singapore into a merger, in

the first instance the merger between the two countries, then

later the five territories, including the three territories of

Borneo. Now, let us face this fact: the Federation

Government derives its support mainly, principally, from the

Malay peasantry and there are fears about what’s been going

on in Singapore the last four or five years, about absorbing a

large Chinese population into a new country. These fears are

genuinely felt -- I don’t say they are justified but they are felt.

Dr. Lee: And you helped them.

Dr. Goh: No, it’s Barisan Sosialis who helped that by their

propaganda about people not being able to rear pigs after

merger. Now, they are genuine fears and speaking with some

Federation Ministers, while we were discussing the merger

problems, they had a haunting fear that after merger there still

be a mass exodus of the Chinese population across the

Causeway, and that is what they wanted to prevent. We tried

to assure them that this thing is inconceivable, there is

35


absolutely no economic, no possible future, economic,

political or any other reason.

Dr. Lee: Yet, you didn’t fight for the rights of the people of

Singapore?

Dr. Goh: ... ... for that sort of thing.

Dr. Lee: And you helped them to foster this opinion?

Mr. Rajaratnam: Nobody loses anything.

Dr. Goh: Dr. Lee always wants to reduce this forum to a fish

market. I have not interrupted him in saying in a rude

manner, but he keeps on harping when I am speaking. Now,

this is their point of view and I think it’s a point of view

which we must respect, we of Singapore must respect, and

among the Opposition members, I think, Mr. Marshall

respects that point of view. Now, it is no sacrifice to the vast

majority of Singapore citizens to vote in Singapore for

membership to the Central Parliament. There is no question

36


of inequality because Federal citizens vote in the Federation.

And now many people in Singapore will go to the Federation?

A small number, perhaps: they can still retain all their

franchise rights in Singapore, there can be special

arrangements by postal votes whereby they can still vote in

Singapore. But if they want to reside permanently in the

Federation, then obviously it is more convenient for them to

exercise their franchise rights in the Federation, and this new

arrangement will enable them to do so. Similarly, the

Federation citizen who comes down to Singapore and decides

to stay here permanently -- complete, mutual, reciprocal

equality in these matters. So, here again, when Barisan

brings up the question of second-class citizenship or

inequality of treatment, they have not been able to produce

one single, concrete, instance to support their claim.

Dr. Lee: Now , Mr. Chairman, I have just answered him why

Singapore citizens are second-class citizens.

Dr. Goh: You have not.

37


Dr. Lee: I am glad also that Goh has now talked of this fear, but

the whole trouble with the P.A.P. is they have been fostering

this fear and they have not been really fighting for the rights

of the people of Singapore, and the whole idea of this present

arrangement is to make sure that the people of Singapore are

conscribed, in accordance with the wishes of the people in the

Federation. Now, this is a little bit which Kuan Yew has

assured. When Mr. Marshall asked: “Why do we have to

have a Singapore citizenship?” Then Kuan Yew said:

“Otherwise,” he said, “how do they know who are the chaps

against whom the common disability works”. Well, we are

the chaps against whom there are going to be disabilities, that

work against us.

Dr. Goh: This is a disability in respect of voting, voting.

Mr. Rajaratnam: This is a common disability on both sides.

Dr. Lee: Therefore, now the whole idea is to make sure that

these people in Singapore will be kept aside. Now, if you

call this merger, if you call Singapore a State of the

38


Federation, then it is only right and correct and proper that all

of us should have the same equality, same citizenship.

Dr. Goh: We have.

Dr. Lee: No. If you stop the Singapore people from going

across to Johore or Perak ... ...

Dr. Goh: Nobody is stopping them.

Dr. Lee: ... ... it is amounting to you, who stay in Cairnhill, will

not be able to go to Kreta Ayer to stand for elections.

Dr. Goh: Rubbish!

Dr. Lee: If you want to stand for election in Kreta Ayer, you

have to go to Kreta Ayer and stay there for 10 years. Is that

what you are trying to drive at? Is that what you want? If

you have residential qualification of six months or one year,

as long as your name is registered in the electoral register by

the first of February in that year you have the right to vote in

39


that particular district. Why is it that you have to be deprived

... ...

Mr. Rajaratnam: May I just make a very simple point. Here is a

pamphlet by Barisan Sosialis where they define what they

mean by equal citizenship. Equal citizenship, they say here,

is that all 624,000 Singapore citizens must become Federal

citizens, that is, they must become the same kind of citizens

as the Federal citizens are. Well, today the Federal

citizenship has been abolished and only one citizenship has

been established for the Federal citizen, that is the Malaysian

citizenship. Today, the 624,000 Singapore citizens

automatically become the same kind of citizens that the

Federation citizens are, that is Malaysian citizenship. So to

that extent we have established a common citizenship. The

Singapore citizenship only applies in so far as who can vote

in because we ask for special rights and autonomy, and that is

this plain and simple fact, we have a common citizenship , we

are just like the Federation citizens, we have the same status,

except only insofar as where we can vote. And the two

disabilities which have been mentioned -- one was by Mr.

40


Ong Eng Guan, that we would no longer have control over

certain subjects like pan-Malaysian departments. That’s

quite true.

Dr. Lee: Your money?

Mr. Rajaratnam: But we will be in the Central Assembly.

Dr. Lee: Yes, your money?

Mr. Rajaratnam: All the money will be collected ... ...

Dr. Lee: ... ... and handed over.

Mr. Rajaratnam: And retained by the Singapore Goverrnment, and only

about 25% which will be handed over ... ...

Dr. Lee: Only 25%

41


Mr. Rajaratnam: ... ... which would be used in financing the Police

which will be serving the people of Singapore and the only ...

...

Dr. Lee: Which will not be controlled by you.

Mr. Rajaratnam: The Police will be contolled by us, it will be the

Central Assembly ... ...

Dr. Lee: Central Assembly?

Mr. Rajaratnam: Fifteen of us in conjunction with any of the other

states. There will be altogether 15 states. If any political

party ... ... because, you see, it is not a question of Singapore

controlling Penang or Penang controlling Perak and so on,

that is a false analogy. In politics it is political parties,

principles, which control. So, if the PAP party can win

elections throughout the Malaysian territories, then it can

control the Central Legislative Assembly.

42


Mr. Ong Eng Guan: Mr. Chairman, if, as the Minister for Culture has said,

that the present new concept of Malaysian citizenship is equal

to the old meaning and the substance or the Federal

citizenship, then why should there be a change of words?

Why not use the same old words, “Federal citizens” and that

all Singapore citizens automatically become Federation

citizens, with the same powers, and the same rights and

privileges enjoyed by present Federal citizens? Why should

we have a new phrase coined? Why should there be in this

new concept for Malaysian citizenship two separate classes,

as the Tengku has even himself admitted?

Dr. Goh Keng Swee: Nonsense!

Dr. Lee Siew Choh: Yes, the Tengku said that the Singapore citizens will

not only be nationals of the Federation of Malaysia, only

nationals of the Federation of Malaysia, and as proved in the

White Paper, paragraph 14, there is no change whatsoever in

substance -- other than the mere fact that the name “national”

has been changed to “citizen”.

43


Mr. Rajaratnam: May I just point out. In the Legislative Assembly, I

think in Hansard, Column 357, 21st of November, Dr. Lee

was arguing that citizenship and nationality are two different

concepts.

Dr. Lee Siew Choh: They should be.

Mr. Rajaratnam: Today he comes and says they are one and the same

thing.

Dr. Lee Siew Choh: They are, they are different, but you have tried because

of the word, changed it to make it the same.

Mr. Rajaratnam: Mr. Chairman, may I finish because we only have got

one minute. He said that citizenship and nationality are two

distinct concepts; so now today we abolish nationality and

provide citizenship, he says, no, they are one and the same

thing.

Dr. Lee Siew Choh: No, they should be different and they are different.

44


Mr. Rajaratnam: Let me state this. The simple fact is the Barisan do not

want merger because they and their Communist friends will

find it very difficult and, therefore, they have to find any

argument, whatever arrangement we might make, they will

never be accepted.

Dr. Lee Siew Choh: The people cannot be bluffed by you any more.

Mr. Chairman: You have been listening to a Radio Forum, consisting

of the Minister for Finance, Dr. Goh Keng Swee, the Minister

for Culture, Mr. S. Rajaratnam, Dr. Lee Siew Choh of the

Barisan Sosialis, and Mr. Ong Eng Guan of the United

People’s Party, discussing some aspects of the citizenship

issue. They were answering questions put to them by

representatives of the local and foreign press here in the

auditorium of Radio Singapore. I wish to thank the

participants and the Press for attending. Thank you.

view text of speech / press release

Documents