our study tribeby sobena
What Were the Merger Terms, and Who Opposed Them?Chapter 8 · Video 4 of 10

What Were the Merger Terms, and Who Opposed Them?

What Were the Merger Terms, and Who Opposed Them?

The merger terms agreed in 1961 gave Singapore a , but they split the PAP. Members who felt the terms were unfair were expelled and formed the , which became a formidable opposition. These notes explain the terms and the three grounds on which the Barisan opposed them: citizenship, and control of internal security.

The Merger Terms

A 1960s noticeboard with papers pinned to it
Reading the news about the merger terms. Illustration drawn for Our Study Tribe.
  • Special status: Singapore would keep its own Head of State, its own state elections, and control of education, labour and its civil service.
  • Federal control: Kuala Lumpur would take charge of Singapore's defence, internal security and foreign affairs.
  • Finance: Singapore would collect its own revenue and pay the federal government an agreed share for federal services.
  • Citizenship: Singapore citizens would be "", not "federal citizens", and could vote only in Singapore's elections.

The Barisan Sosialis

  • A party split: PAP members such as Lim Chin Siong and Fong Swee Suan judged the terms unfavourable and challenged Lee Kuan Yew, who narrowly survived a vote of confidence in July 1961.
  • A new party: those expelled formed the Barisan Sosialis (Socialist Front) in August 1961, with Dr Lee Siew Choh as Chairman and Lim Chin Siong as Secretary-General.
  • A formidable rival: the Barisan took 35 of the PAP's 51 branch committees and control of most organised unions, gravely weakening the PAP.
  • Mobilising opposition: from September 1961 it organised student demonstrations and strikes and debated merger in radio forums.

What Were the Merger Terms, and Who Opposed Them?

Reason 1: Citizenship
  1. PointThe Barisan Sosialis opposed the terms because Singaporeans would not become full citizens of the federation.
  2. EvidenceSingaporeans would not receive federal citizenship automatically; they would only be "federal nationals" who could vote only in Singapore. In Parliament in November 1961, Dr Lee Siew Choh asked whether they could move freely, compete for jobs on equal terms and enjoy equal business rights.
  3. ElaborationDenying Singaporeans equal citizenship implied they would have fewer rights than other Malaysians. This allowed the Barisan to portray merger as making Singaporeans members of the federation, an argument that won it considerable sympathy.
  4. LinkHence, citizenship became the Barisan's most powerful argument against the merger terms.
Reason 2: Too Few Seats
  1. PointThe Barisan opposed the terms because Singapore would be under-represented in the federal parliament.
  2. EvidenceSingapore would receive only 15 seats, though its population merited about 24. By contrast, North Borneo would receive 16 seats instead of about 7, and Sarawak 24 instead of about 11.
  3. ElaborationWith fewer seats than its population justified, Singapore would have limited influence over federal decisions. Although it kept control of education and labour in exchange, the Barisan argued that the imbalance proved Singapore's interests could be overridden.
  4. LinkThus, under-representation deepened opposition to the terms and reinforced fears of second-class treatment.
Reason 3: Who Controls Security?
  1. PointThe PAP's radicals opposed the terms because control of internal security would pass to Kuala Lumpur.
  2. EvidenceUnder the terms, internal security would belong to the federal government, led by the firmly anti-communist Alliance. The radicals believed that after merger it would move to suppress them.
  3. ElaborationA federal government determined to contain communism could detain left-wing leaders far more readily than before, so for the radicals merger on these terms threatened their political survival rather than offering independence.
  4. LinkTherefore, fear of a federal crackdown hardened their opposition, a fear that Operation Coldstore in 1963 appeared to confirm.

In One Sentence

  • The merger terms gave Singapore a special status, but they split the PAP, and the new Barisan Sosialis opposed them because Singaporeans would not be full citizens, Singapore would be under-represented, and Kuala Lumpur would control internal security.

Think About It

  1. Singapore kept control of education and labour but got fewer seats. Was that a fair trade? Explain your view.
  2. Why might the word "federal nationals" instead of "federal citizens" upset people, even if their daily lives did not change much?
  3. The PAP split over merger. How could a split inside the governing party affect the whole country?