Hansard, 1957-12-13

Mr Soh Ghee Soon has, under the provisions of subsection (3)(i) of section 47 of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from meetings of the Assembly on 21st December, 1957.

Mr Ernest Pattison Shanks, Attorney-General, took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance.

I have received a message from His Excellency the Officer Administering the Government of Singapore dated 6th December, 1957, informing me that His Excellency had on that day, in accordance with the provisions of section 62 (2) of the Singapore Colony Orders in Council, 1955 and 1956, assented to the Stamp (Amendment) Bill.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he will consider taking steps with the view to the extension of the period, which closes on 31st January, 1958, for the initial registration of Singapore citizens.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is no. The Government has accepted the All-Party Committee's recommendation to close the initial registration of citizens on 31st January, 1958.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what will then be the fate of those who have not registered by the target date but who are desirous of becoming Singapore citizens?

Is that not hypothetical?

It is hypothetical. Sir.

There is no reply, Sir?

It is hypothetical.

asked the Chief Secretary what are the qualifications for the post of Assistant Director of Information Services, and whether the post will be advertised.

Sir, the post of Assistant Director of Information Services which appears in the current Estimates is an administrative service post to carry out the day-today administration of this large and expanding Department. The qualification for direct entry into the administrative service is an honours degree. This post is presently held by an administrative officer and it is not therefore proposed to advertise the post.

Sir, is it not the recommendation of the Malayanisation Commission that this post should be advertised for local journalists?

Sir, that is in respect of the post of Director of Information Services.

"to make amendments to the written law of the Colony consequential on the attainment of independence by the Federation of Malaya", presented by the Attorney-General (Mr E. P. Shanks); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 8th January, 1958, and to be printed.

"to amend the Widows' and Orphans' Pension Ordinance (Chapter 61 of the Revised Edition)". presented by the Chief Secretary (Acting) (Mr S. T. Stewart); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 8th January, 1958, and to be printed.

Order read for resumption of debate on motion [4th December, 1957]. Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." 10.07 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. the Financial Secretary in his budget speech on 4th December, said (column 2830 of the Hansard): "... it is possible that the actual deficit would be of the order of $8 million...". It is possible that the actual deficit in 1958 will be of the order of $8 million, and to meet the deficit, it is proposed to increase, among other things, the duty on petrol and to make a slight increase in the special tax on heavy oil engine vehicles. Sir, I disagree most strongly with the Financial Secretary when he said that the imposition of the new rate on petrol is unlikely to cause any hardship to Singapore. It is quite possible, Sir, that in the near future, this increase in the price of petrol will be passed on to those who have to use public transport. Nor have the owners of private cars been let off lightly. Sir, car owners in the higher income group may be able to take the increase of 20 cents a gallon on petrol, they can afford it. But for those who find it necessary or convenient to own a car for a number of good reasons, this increase will result, when they come to balance their monthly budgets, in having to rob Peter to pay Paul. Looking closely at the picture, Sir, one cannot help coming to the conclusion that it is those who can least afford it who will be the most hard hit by this increase of 20 cents a gallon on petrol. For example, Sir, take a clerk who owns a car, draws $300 a month salary, and uses 1½ gallons of petrol a day. This means that the increased charge to him will be 30 cents. This clerk who owns a car conveys neighbours who work near his office or in the same office. They pay him, on mutual agreement, $10 per man, which means that each of them will have to pay an addition of $2 per head. This is what I do not like, Sir. Another example is a taxi. Owners of taxis work on day and night shifts. The majority of them use five gallons of petrol per shift. An increase of 20 cents in the price of petrol will mean an addition of one dollar to the cost. As taxi drivers now earn at the rate of $5 per shift, this will mean that they will lose a dollar, thus reducing their actual earning to only $4. How can they live on $4 a day at the present time? Sir, instead of imposing an additional tax on petrol to meet part of the deficit of $8 million, the Government should concentrate its energy on encouraging the establishment of industries here by foreign investors, so that more employment will be available to local citizens. With more employment, more money will be in circulation. Instead, we are told by the Financial Secretary (column 2843), "Money is tighter." Sir, it is obvious that foreign investors can only be induced to come here to set up industries if the Government is in a position to assure them that the business and political climates here are healthy for their enterprises. If such conditions are not forthcoming in 1958, I am afraid there may be even a larger deficit when the Financial Secretary makes his next budget speech. Additional means of taxation may then have to be found to meet the deficit and probably it will again be those who can least afford it who will have to foot the bill. Sir, another point on industry. The Government concentrates on having more industry in Singapore, but the industries have to pay company tax or income tax at the rate of 30 per cent. And we have export tax and import tax.

There is no import tax.

We must bear these in mind. On big industries, Sir, the Hon. the Minister for Commerce and Industry says, 'Oh, we have a few of these industries breaking down, but we have small industries coming up.' Sir, one must realise that if a big industry closes down we may have unemployment of 300 persons. The small industries come up, and two or three of them may employ only about 100 people. So the balance of 200 persons are still unemployed. The Minister for Labour and Welfare is therefore not seeing things quite clearly. Also each unemployed man may be supporting a wife and child. I take the family to be a small one. So, 200 unemployed each with a family of a wife and child - an addition of two - will mean another 400 unemployed, making the total 600 instead of only 200. Sir, this is what I expect the Minister for Labour and Welfare should look into. Thirdly, Sir, income tax. An increase in taxation may be coming up. When the 1958 budget comes up, the Financial Secretary will say, 'We are still in deficit. We have no money now. So we are trying to find some way to meet the deficit.' That means more tax will be coming up for the wage-earner. We are now not taxing those earning $3,000 a year but the Government may think, 'Ah, we must do something to get some money by fixing up a minimum of $25 income tax on $3,000.' Who is going to suffer in the end? It is the lower income group. Mr Speaker, Sir, I come now to the Financial Secretary's remarks on Malayanisation. He said (column 2824): "... it is likely that actual expenditure in 1957 will amount to about $242 million. It should be noted, however, that this total includes a sum of $9 million in respect of compensation under the Malayanisation Scheme." Very good, Sir, I have no quarrel with the principle of Malayanisation. In fact I am all in favour of it. I voted for it. But what I do not like about one aspect of the operation of the Malayanisation Scheme is that when certain expatriate officers are upgraded they take the opportunity shortly thereafter to retire and thereby receive higher Malayanisation benefits. I have heard of certain senior police officers who, while on leave abroad 8,000 miles away from Singapore, were promoted to higher ranks. They came back from leave to fill their higher appointments for just a few months and thereafter elected to retire under the Malayanisation scheme with larger retirement sums. This business of being here today and there tomorrow should be stopped. Sir, the opposite Government Benches must realise that the amount we have for payment under the Malayanisation scheme comes out of public money, not from ourselves. We must look into this carefully and not allow expatriates to return from their leave after being promoted from grade one to special grade, and then to retire. Otherwise where are we to get the money to pay them? It might cost more than $9 million, the figure stated in the Estimates. Sir, I would like the Government to look into this matter. We must stop the practice.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. the Financial Secretary in his last speech as an ex-officio Member of this Assembly has taken great pains in supporting his arguments for increased expenditure and consequent increased taxation. He has also drawn a gloomy picture for the future. Sir, not only he but his predecessors have from time to time drawn such pictures. I do think the picture for the future is gloomy when one looks at the appalling expenditure. Sir, be has raised matters in his speech with regard to stability and so on. I would like to touch on the speech he made the other day. Sir, the backbone of our income is the entrepot trade. Now nearly 150 years old, Singapore, what it is today, is built on entrepot trade. This life-blood we can still preserve if we try but there are conditions to keep this entrepot trade. First, Sir, is economic stability. Now, Sir, economic stability depends on political stability. An unstable government can never inspire confidence in the minds of the public, especially the investor, and unless there is a stable government, of the elected majority - I wonder why the Nominated Member Mr Thomas should laugh at this - this is an acknowledged fact which I can prove; and can anyone challenge this fact, that unless there is a stable government with an elected majority of the people, the government is not stable? Sir, I will deal more with this subject a little later. Sir, entrepot trade requires low handing charges. Handling charges should be the lowest to preserve and compete with neighbouring countries in selling or transhipping your goods, either imports or exports, from this territory. Now when I say handling charges it means lorry and boat hire, insurance, overhead charges, profits and so on, plus cheap labour. Sir, another condition to preserve this state is a free trade policy. We have heard time and time again wild talk of import duties or expectation of import duties, and of luxury taxation (of course dead now, I hope). Such talk keeps the mind of the public in a very uncertain state. There is a fear and trade will not settle down at its own proper level. If you want to preserve the entrepot trade, free trade policy should go on as it is now. The fourth thing is capital and labour. Sir, we should not forget that the reason why Singapore, originally a fishing village, is today a prosperous city is due to its entrepot trade. In the first instance, capital was brought by the British merchants. But capital could not do anything without labour, and labour was brought from India and China. Capital and labour worked hand in hand and therefore we now see a prosperous place. In other words, Sir, capital and labour, in the peculiar position of Singapore, is inter-dependent. I have said this previously and I repeat it again. Without capital, labour cannot exist. Capital can always flow in a favourable climate. Therefore, in a place like this, we should see that the capital is there and that labour is cooperating with capital. Sir, let me say this. When I said that in the first instance the British brought the capital, I should also say that they have taken back to England many, many times more of what they brought into Singapore - through dividends, salaries, pensions, banking, insurance, shipping, etc. Sir, a condition to preserve a state of racial and class harmony demands that preaching or saying anything which can create this racial or class hatred will destroy the economy of this city. Can we get capital from abroad to come to this city if we have wild talk which does more harm than good? We do know that we want capital. No country can do without foreign capital. That is the position today in Asia. Let us, Sir, depend on our sound commonsense. Many people have brought in a lot of "isms", possibly all from foreign countries. Now, Sir, Singapore being a small city, can we not form a policy taking the best of the two blocs for our economic purpose? I think the politicians should refrain from talking wild slogans unnecessarily, which will ultimately harm the masses - and our population is fast growing with plenty of unemployment. Sir, another factor towards maintaining our entrepot trade is a low cost of living. Can we not reduce our cost of living? Can we not formulate our policy that our cost of living comes down? Means have to be devised. As it stands today, the cost of living is going higher and higher. Sir, the next thing is industry, after entrepot trade. Many a time, politicians on the Government side have talked about the development of industry and bringing in capital from foreign countries to develop industry here. Sir, this kind of bluff serves no purpose whatsoever. It might keep people busy for a short time but these false hopes will only raise or create more unemployment and unrest. Now, Sir, how can industry survive unless these conditions are fulfilled? - capital is necessary; there should be cheap labour as in competing countries; a low cost of living so that the worker can remain contented; a vast hinterland for markets for our goods; political stability which can satisfy the investor that his capital is safe; cheap power to reduce our cost of production; low taxation; and raw material of our own (but this can be imported if the other factors are present). Let me say here and now, Sir, it is on these factors only that large industries can exist, and all the confusing and irresponsible talk will only cause more harm than good. Have we these conditions here? I challenge anyone to say that we have. They are not existing at all. Now, Sir, take for granted that someone starts a factory. What are you going to do with the goods produced at high cost? Can you sell them? If you cannot, then that industry has to close down. Then the argument starts: why not impose import duties to help this industry? Yes, you can help in that way, but the reason against it is this - that you are preventing your own Singaporeans from buying cheaper goods manufactured elsewhere in preference to his own goods, to meet his immediate needs. Another thing. Sir - if you have import duty to preserve such an industry, then you are selling your manufactured goods to your own people at a very high price. The result will be this, that you will have to increase wages and salaries. It leads you nowhere. Sir, our population is growing. What is the solution then? The only solution in the circumstances as we are faced today is to develop cottage and small-scale industries of which I spoke also at the last budget sitting. We should keep the families - wives and children - busy. The creation of these industries only is not sufficient - what is also very necessary is to foster them with loans, advances, marketing, etc. Now, Sir, people are blind to these and other factors when they talk of import duties. Those countries having import duties are already large with vast populations, and they do not depend on entrepot trade only. We are not in that position; we in this small territory are in a very peculiar position. Sir, economic stability is very essential and I said that it depends on political stability which can bring confidence to the investor, businessman and worker. What have we seen since this present Government came into power?-strikes, lock-outs, unrest, arrests, etc. Can this bring any confidence or stability to the public mind? We are not better off even today. We are in the same position. Government can always avoid strikes by looking into the matter immediately. If a strike takes place and is settled, it leaves a bad taste in both the mouth of the employer and the employee. Settlement should be made immediately, before a strike develops. Sir, the masses should also understand that they should not be misled by the wrong people. After all, they will be hitting themselves by this process. Sir, in the short period of the Coalition Government we have had two commissions of corruption appointed. Can they bring stability to the minds of the public? Coming to expenditure, Sir, there should be very rigid control of expenditure, both capital and administrative. Cut down extravagant expenditure, banquets and unnecessary travelling, and cut our coat according to our stature. Sir, one can compare our expenditure and income with those of the Federation, our neighbour. The Federation has a population four times bigger than Singapore. The Federation has thousands of miles of territories to administer. They have an Emergency too. If you compare it with our 220 odd square miles, you will see that our expenditure is definitely very high. Sir, as an illustration I might mention conferences. In previous years, Sir, Singapore was more politically advanced than the Federation. When we were invited to conferences, the Federation used to be satisfied either with briefing us or the United Kingdom chief of the delegation, and thus avoid expenditure. Can we not do this now wherever possible? After all we are a Colony still and we are in a secondary position with no vote. Sir, our cost of administration is the highest compared with that of any other Asian territory. Why? Yes, our standard of living is high, but in comparison the administration cost is too high, and that should be cut down wherever possible. Sir, coming to taxation, the Hon. the Financial Secretary has said that the financial position is sound. If so, why this additional taxation? The increase in tax on petrol and diesel oil engine vehicles will add to the difficulties and hardships of the masses mostly, as taxis, lorries, buses and so on will have to put up their fares. Who will be the losers? It is the masses. They will have to bear the extra cost, they will have to foot the bill. Besides, it will harm our entrepot trade too. Your lighterage and lorry charges will go up higher. You are making it more difficult for the entrepot trade because of this higher cost. To the Government, a fraction means nothing. I say a fraction, in relation to our 1½ million population, is very much. Sir, I might quote here a part of an editorial of the Singapore Standard: "When a political party comes into power, it wishes to experiment with its political theories, and in the course of such experiments the public are made to foot the bill, however unjustified that may be. The Government must remember that Singapore must be able to earn enough to meet its expenditure, since it is not a producing territory. Therefore, political experiments must not destroy world confidence in this entrepot, thereby affecting its trade and prosperity. The most capable of Financial Secretaries cannot perform miracles if the Government's political experiments were to drive away trade and kill the sources of revenue."

Will the hon. Member give the date of issue of the newspaper?

Thursday, 5th December. Now, Sir, this view is shared by thousands of people in Singapore. God alone can help if a recession in trade and a slump comes, as the Hon. the Financial Secretary has made a forecast of it. The best thing is to spend as little as possible. No doubt essentials like education and health should be fully supported but capital costs certainly can be reduced. Sir, compare the population of two or three years back with that of today. It is not so high and yet your expenditure has gone so high. Last thing, Sir - in the Estimates I have not seen any contributions to the Chinese Y.M.C.A., the Ramakrishna Mission, Sultan Mosque and the Young Men's Muslim Association, even though I understand the Financial Secretary received requests for help. I will not take up the Assembly's time on this; I will take up the matter at the Committee stage. Sir, in the end I must only say this, that the Coalition Government has failed, and failed miserably. 10.42 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, once again we meet in this House to debate the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill, that is the Estimates for next year. I consider that this work is more or less routine and nothing else. Every year at the end of November we come here and are asked to approve the Budget produced by the Government. Whatever amendments moved by the Opposition will serve no purpose. I have this morning received about 60 amendments to the Budget, Sir, but I doubt how many of them, or any at all, will go through. It is most unlikely because every time when a vote is put to the House, the Government has the majority, with the support of the ex-officios and Nominated Assemblymen. I may then, Sir, call elected Members of the Opposition as rubber stamps and nothing else. We come here just to put our signatures to the Budget because we are part and parcel of that Budget as well. We are partly responsible for its approval. Sir, last year the Hon. the Financial Secretary presented us with Estimates which showed a deficit of $18.7 million. What is the result of that deficit of $18.7 million, Sir? May I quote column 2824 of the Financial Secretary's speech: "Turning now to expenditure, it will be remembered that the original estimate was $254 million, and it will be seen from pages 15 and 16 of the Draft Estimates that it is likely that actual expenditure in 1957 will amount to about $242 million [only, I add in that word]. It should be noted, however, that this total includes a sum of $9 million in respect of compensation under the Malayanisation Scheme [as quoted by the hon. Member for Kampong Kapor]. If this sum is excluded - it is, I think, a fair charge on surplus funds since it will be recouped by savings on expatriation pay and passages over a period of years - what might be called normal' expenditure will amount to about $233 million [only] and there will probably be a small surplus of revenue over actual normal expenditure at the end of the year." Sir, according to the Financial Secretary, actual expenditure is only $233 million, that is excluding the $9 million for compensation under the Malayanisation scheme. Now if we add that $9 million, it comes up to only $242 million. Taking the $233 into consideration compared with what was originally estimated at $254 million, I now see that we are actually having a surplus of $2 million, rather than a deficit of $18.7 million as estimated by the Financial Secretary last year. Now, Sir, if we take the $9 million into consideration, we then actually have a deficit of only $7 million, and not, may I emphasise again, $18.7 million. Sir, if we compare this figure quoted by ,the Financial Secretary with the $7 million, I may call his figure a fictitious one. The budget for next year shows a substantial deficit of $35 million. Where can we get that money, Sir? I wonder whether the Financial Secretary will, when he comes before this House next year, say that the result will again be a surplus? May I quote what he has got to say, expecting that he may say that by next year, in col. 2830: "The position therefore is that the estimate of revenue is $242 million, the estimate of expenditure is $277 million, and we are faced with an estimated deficit of $35 million. The question is what would this deficit be in the event if no steps were taken to eliminate it. We know that, in the past, expenditure has invariably fallen short of the estimate and estimated deficits have turned into substantial surpluses." Very substantial surpluses, I may say. Sir, I would not certainly employ the Financial Secretary as the accountant of my firm if earlier he had predicted a deficit and then at the end of the year I found that I had a surplus. All these figures are just make-believe, just to misguide us -

Order. I think it is time I ought to pull up the hon. Member for using unparliamentary language. I think he has used the word "misguide". That word is unparliamentary.

I am sorry, Sir, I will stick to my original word "make-believe". These figures are just make-believe, to show us that there should be some form of taxation or increased taxation in order to meet this deficit of $35 million. Now it so happens that this year the Budget sittings happen to take place during election month. We will be having the City Council elections, and it is rather surprising that the Government has not got the courage to put up more taxation proposals, as they were expected to do. They have very carefully chosen only one item - one small item - and that is an increase of only 20 cents a gallon on petrol.

Very clever!

Yes, very clever, and it is the contention of the Government that if it increases the duty on petrol, it will only soak the rich and will not affect the poor, because only the rich can afford to own cars. How can you expect poor people to own cars? But it is rather surprising, Sir, that we have so many vehicles on the road today. I wonder if every owner of a vehicle that is on the road is in fact a rich man. Does the Government know that most of the Government clerks also own cars? Are they rich people or are they working class people earning a few hundred dollars a month? I leave that to the Financial Secretary to answer. The Financial Secretary in his speech also said that this small increase of 20 cents a gallon on petrol will not affect the ordinary people at all. As I have said, it will only affect the rich. I will quote his speech again, Sir, in col. 2831. "This rate of $1 a gallon has been in force in the Federation since November of last year and its imposition is unlikely to cause any hardship in Singapore. It has caused none in the Federation." Sir, every time the Government has something to say, "Oh, we must follow the Federation. We must fall in line with the Federation." Why? Why cannot the Federation for once follow us rather than that we follow the Federation? Let us set an example and let the Federation follow us for once. I quote again the Financial Secretary: "The new rate of duty will result in cars which do 20 miles to the gallon costing 1 cent a mile more to run. Those which do 30 miles to the gallon will cost 2/3rd of a cent a mile more to run, those doing 40 miles to the gallon, ½ a cent more, and so on. If 1,000 miles a month, or 30 miles a day, is taken as a fair average mileage for private cars in Singapore. cars doing 20 miles per gallon will cost $10 a month more to run, . . . These additional sums can be of no consequence to people who can afford to run cars for pleasure...". Now what about those who cannot afford to run cars for pleasure? What about the clerks working in Government offices, Sir? They do not own cars for the sake of running them for pleasure. They own cars so that they can go to work. I quote again from the Financial Secretary's speech: "Nor will the increase in duty be of much consequence to haulers. A round trip to Penang will cost about $10 more. I do not think that the increase in duty will affect consumption. The number of new cars, and the total number of cars registered, tend to increase each year and the consumption of petrol increases accordingly. I doubt if the increase will tend to make people use their cars less than they have done in the past." I will certainly try to take shortcuts or walk, if possible, so as to economise on petrol consumption. But if I do not, Sir, it is going to cost me $10 more a month. Is my employer going to pay me $10 more a month? I do not know where to get the extra $10. My income will be the same as it is now. Where can the Government expect me to get that extra $10? Beg, borrow or steal? Is the Government trying to encourage car owners to try and beg, borrow or steal to get the extra $10 a month? I leave it again to the Financial Secretary. In the 1956 Budget the petrol tax was increased by 5 cents. That was a very small figure. In the 1957 Budget the Government said they had to increase the petrol tax again by another 7 cents, just to meet the deficit. Now in the 1958 Budget all of a sudden there is a jump of 20 cents. What will be the fate of the car owners then when the Financial Secretary puts up his 1959 Budget? Will the petrol tax go up by another 40 or 50 cents or even more? The Financial Secretary might bear in mind that a Member of the Assembly has suggested an increase of 50 cents. Sir, the Government has also increased the tax on heavy oil engine vehicles, and again the Financial Secretary has said that this will not affect anybody. Will that not affect the bus companies? Not the car owners, but the bus companies? Now who travel in buses? Do the rich travel in buses? Are the owners of bus companies in the least worried about this increase? I doubt they are. Whatever increase in tax they have to pay will ultimately fall back on the people that travel in their buses. If the bus companies find that their budget cannot balance, they will certainly put up their fares to meet the increased expenses. Ultimately it will all come back to those who travel in buses. It is more or less a merry-go-round. As the Member for Kampong Kapor said, it is like robbing Peter to pay Paul. I think that was the phrase he used. It goes round and round. The Member for Telok Ayer, who is a businessman, has said that we should have some stability in the country rather than an increase of taxation. Let us encourage new industries. The Minister for Commerce and Industry has always tried to encourage more industries. He has said that quite a number of small industries have been established during this year. That might have been correct, but the Member for Kampong Kapor has pointed out that many big companies have closed down. I think he has quoted a figure of about 4,000 people who have lost their employment. Is that stability? I doubt it is. Now let us encourage local industries so that we can buy local goods and we can have more employment for our own people here. The next comment I wish to make on the Budget is the creation of new posts. I went through the whole Draft Estimates - it is so thick - and to my surprise I found more than 1,300 new posts being created for next year. Now is this necessary? As I again went through it carefully I found most of the posts overlap one another. Is that necessary, Sir? Cannot we try to economise on the money that will be spent on these new posts? It is rather surprising, Sir, that the Financial Secretary in his speech gave no word at all about the creation of new posts which will increase government expenditure. He never told us anything about it. That is one of the reasons for the deficit. The Financial Secretary does not bother to mention the 1,300 new posts at all.

Sir, I believe the Financial Secretary is calling me to order, and if he is I will give way.

Is it a point of order, Mr Financial Secretary?

It is a point of explanation, Sir.

I will certainly give way, Sir.

The list of new posts is given as an appendix to the memorandum which accompanied the Estimates.

Is it Command Paper 48 of 1957?

Yes, Sir.

I think I will proceed rather than argue with the Financial Secretary! He is a man of figures and I am not, so I do not think I will argue with him! Sir, turning to page 122 of the 1958 Draft Estimates, I find there is an increase in expenditure in the Police Department of roughly $600,000. For the Police Department, this figure appears to be very small.

Order. If the hon. Member is developing that argument, I suggest that that development take place in the Committee of Supply, when he comes to the appropriate Head.

I am much obliged, Mr Speaker, but I am not trying to quote actual figures. I am speaking on the policy of the Police Department as a whole.

Order. That is exactly what the hon. Member can do in the Committee of Supply.

Thank you, Sir, I will then reserve that for the Committee of Supply. But what I may say, Sir, on this subject of stability, the Government has not taken steps to prevent riots and, as has been mentioned by an hon. Member, kidnappings, extortion, burglaries and so on. In the Singapore Standard I find almost every day that they publish a special column on the first page showing the kidnappings, thefts and other crimes in Singapore. Sir, where is the stability? Where is the security for the people? If we are going to vote for more money, we must have some form of security in return. If there is no security, why should we vote for more money for next year? As law abiding citizens, I am sure all of us expect to have freedom of movement either in the day or at night. But as it stands, I know quite a number of people who are not prepared to go out at night, because they are afraid of being kidnapped. Then where is the security to the people? We must have law and order. Unless we have law and order, there is no stability at all. The Government introduced "Operation Dagger" sometime ago, and I wonder what happened to that operation. No news has been heard about it but I understand that it is still continuing. Whether it is really continuing is left to be seen. Now if we have security, then we will achieve our goal of having control over our internal security and self-government will come much earlier. Unless we have internal security, I doubt if we can have self-government; and if we cannot have self-government, when can we gain independence? So let the Government pay particular attention to this question of security so that we can have our independence. At the moment, Sir, under the Defence and Security Council, we have a Member from the Federation presiding over us. In that Council his casting vote will decide the destiny of this country. It is not we Singaporeans who are to decide the destiny of our country. It is the casting vote of a Member of the Federation, and he is an outsider who has nothing to do with us; or, as the Tunku said, "We do not want you at all." The Federation does not want us. Why should we have a Member of the Federation to preside over this Council? If Government can provide security, then we do not need him at all and we will have our own people on the Defence and Security Council. Let us then look forward to self-government and independence. Majula Singapura! 11.00 a.m.

Sir, I had not intended to speak so early in the debate, but I fear that if I had to sit through another two hours of this minor heckling, we might all go nuts before the debate is over. Quite frankly, Mr Speaker, Sir, I used to believe that when we met the mobs we talked more nonsense than when we met the legislators. After this morning's debate I have decided that we talk more sense when we meet the mobs than when we meet the legislators of Singapore. I do not propose to touch on the remarks made by Members who sit on the same side of the House as I do, because their approach to this problem has nothing in common with ours. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the last Labour Front Budget and I think that it should not be allowed to pass unnoticed. I remember the first Budget when it came in with all the pomp and fury which we have since learnt to associate with the ex-Member for Cairnhill and the ex-Chief Minister. However, all that grandiose talk has left the Labour Front and this Party is now left only with the tarnished gilt with which it was once adorned. The P.A.P. is in a quandary regarding this Budget. Though we have no love for the Labour Front, we should hate to see the Liberal-Socialist Party beat it at the polls. It is therefore our duty to see that, whatever the weaknesses and deficiencies of the Labour Front Coalition Government, it should not result in a Liberal-Socialist victory at the City Council polls on 21st December, because we have been throwing stones at them. Sir, that has decided us to take a much more matter-of-fact approach to this Budget. It could have been worse. After all, petrol has gone up 20 cents and nobody is going to be better off. The chances are that nobody is going to be much worse off, except the pirate taxi, drivers who will be seeing the Member for Kampong Kapor, and the licensed taxi drivers who will come and see the P.A.P., and we might have to change the taxi meters. Instead of 40 cents showing on the meter when the flag comes down, we might have to put it up to 50 cents. But I do not expect the economy of Singapore would be very much dislocated on that account.

Lower the petrol tax first.

But what really is alarming is the carefree way in which the Financial Secretary has put forward his Budget Estimates. Those who have to contemplate having to use the apparatus of this government one day must be dismayed at the complete inefficiency of the Government departments when they come to work out their estimates. This is not the fault of the Labour Front. It is the fault of the colonial government machinery which the Labour Front has to manipulate at the moment, and which succeeding governments will also have to work. I think it is glib to the point of dishonesty to put forward figures which the Financial Secretary knows-

Order. I cannot allow the expression "glib to the point of dishonesty".

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought if I did not say it was dishonest it would not be objectionable. However, since you have ruled that that is not a complimentary way of expressing my thoughts, I will put it in this way: that it is an inept way of handling government finance. When we are presented with a budget, we must be sure that every figure that has been budgeted for is one which that department intends to spend and can spend. If that department cannot spend it, then let it say in the remarks column that this was an amount which would have been budgeted for if it could have spent it, but as it could not spend it, it was therefore not budgeting for this figure. The 1957 Budget estimate for revenue was $235.9 million. The actual revenue is now expected to be $235.

7. There is quite a drop in the Income Tax collection although there have been some gains in other directions. The 1957 Budget estimate for expenditure was $254 million, but the actual expenditure is $241 million, including $9 million for abolition terms to expatriates. In other words, if we knock off the $9 million to expatriates, which was not budgeted for in the 1957 Budget, then we have $232 million, i.e. $22 million short in expenditure. The 1958 Budget estimate for expenditure is $277 million, i.e. a rise of $23 million on last year's estimate of $254 million. Then this very glib, this real sleight of hand on page-

Order. I think the hon. Member should choose his words a little more carefully. "Sleight of hand", I think, is unparliamentary.

Sir, I do not know what they call a clever company promoter who presents a prospectus in such a way that everything appears to be all right. These slick company promoters are very good at presenting figures, but I should have thought the Financial Secretary would at least have allowed us to see the movement as he folds the handkerchief from his sleeve and then make sure that he says that there is nothing in it before he puts it back. He says: "There is no formula which indicates what actual expenditure will be. We make our estimate in the light of past experience and results and anticipated future requirements and capacity. We know that, for the past two years, actual recurrent expenditure has tended to increase on the average by about $18 million a year. In this connection, I invite attention to the tables which were given in the Memorandum which accompanied the Draft Estimates. It seems likely that this rate of increase will be maintained in 1958. If that should prove to be the case, actual expenditure, excluding any compensation in respect of Malayanisation which may have to be brought to account, should be of the order of $250 million." In other words, having gone to the trouble of working out the estimate for each item in this voluminous Budget, he says, "Well, actually all this is a lot of rubbish. Do not believe it. The way we are going to budget is this: last year we spent $241 million - never mind about what we said we were going to spend - we spent $241 million. From our past experience, not based on any length of time, but based on the last two years, we found that expenditure kept on increasing by $18 million a year. In 1955 and 1956 it went up by a few million dollars; in 1957 and 1958 it went up by $18 million. So let us forget all about it. It is all rubbish. Plus another $18 million, that is the way to work out the Budget - $241 million plus $18 million. But knock off $9 million first, that makes it $232 million. Then plus $18 million. That is the figure we should have budgeted for." Sir, then why present it? Why are we not told that for each individual item we are going to approve this expenditure? Let this be said honestly and plainly against each individual item, if this is supposed to be a serious Budget: "This is what we hope to spend. Our intentions are good intentions. This is our capacity." And then we will know what we are passing. As it is, we have all these good intentions here and the Financial Secretary has the audacity to come to this House and say, "Well, I do not know how all this is going to work out. I take last year's figure of $241 million, minus $9 million for expatriates, which really should not be in the Budget. It is one of those sudden capital losses which we will have to bear. So it is $232 million plus $18 million - $250 million. The revenue, if it goes on unchanged, and if none of the rates of taxation change, will be $242 million. Therefore," says the Financial Secretary, "let us find where the $8 million is going to come from." I quote the Financial Secretary: "If that should prove to be the case, actual expenditure, excluding any compensation in respect of Malayanisation which may have to be brought into account, should be of the order of $250 million. In the circumstances, assuming that the estimate of revenue is achieved, it is possible that the actual deficit would be of the order of $8 million,"- and these are the operative words "and it is this sum which we must endeavour to cover by means of additional taxation." Sir, this is not a rebuke to the Labour Front Ministers or of the U.M.N.O. Minister. We do not expect them to come into power and bring their own apparatus of state with them. The democratic system does not work that way. Political Parties compete on political policy, not on the effectiveness of political bureaucracy. What is alarming is that we may be saddled with a machinery of state which cannot tell us at the end of each year what exactly happened last year and what we can do for next year. The Financial Secretary - next year it will be the Minister for Finance elected by the people - will have to come again to this House and say, "Well, gentlemen....". Having heard some of the speeches this morning, I think "gentlemen" is to too kind a word. But if next year we have the same kind of legislators as we have had in the last two years, then I say they deserve the kind of figures they will again get next year. I do not see how, unless we have a real shake, up in the civil service administration, we can improve the situation. The instruments of policy are blunt and ineffective, and whoever has to use them must be dismayed at the prospect of not being able to sharpen them in the space of time that is left for popular democracy to operate effectively in this part of the world. We view the position in South-east Asia as a whole. I would like Members of this House, particularly the Member for Queenstown - he reads the Singapore Standard (I myself never read that rag) but nevertheless if he wants to torment himself by reading it every morning, especially the thefts and the kidnapping column, then let him do so. But I would like him to look at what is happening in some other parts of the world. We have to view our position from the context of the whole of South-east Asia. We want to escape the fate that has befallen some of the other countries in South-east Asia, because they also took over from colonial regimes which were effete and ineffective and which packed up because they were effete and ineffective. So we have to consider seriously how we are going to sharpen those instruments of policy, because whoever comes in will have to work through the same bureaucratic machinery. Without any slight at our newly-promoted Permanent Secretaries, let them remember this: that their pensions and their future depend upon the bureaucracy being an effective bureaucracy. If it is not an effective bureaucracy, it is not just the politicians who will be going. They, the Permanent Secretaries, themselves will also go to the limbo of all forgotten men, and the whole society will be swept away and a new dictatorship will take its place. Sir, I cannot allow this Budget to go without making some reference to the expatriates. They are a much-abused and maligned group of people, but I think they deserve every bit of the abuse that has been heaped upon them. But today I do not intend to join the Member for Kampong Kapor - I have a sneaking feeling that somebody else wrote his speech for him [Interruption]. I am quite sure the P.A.P. would not be involved in such a nefarious scheme as to write the speech for the Member for Kampong Kapor. We say what we think openly and frankly. We do not seek to hide our views under the cover of the Member for Kampong Kapor. But I would like to have this thrown at the Financial Secretary. He said last year they spent - this is another one of those glib things - $9 million on expatriate compensation. "It is well worth it. There will be savings in allowances and all kinds of things when we get rid of the expatriates." Now they agree with us that there will be savings. But the rate of compensation and the rate of savings - let us work them out. $9 million was paid out last year. The expatriate allowance budgeted for the next year is $1.04 million. This year it is $1.

42. In other words, the saving is $0.38 million, i.e. $380,000. It looks as if it will take 30 years to recover this $9 million. When I was talking about this to an accountant, he said, "Ah, yes, but you cannot have $9 million and not pay interest." Now, if we add interest and we calculate the interest running on $9 million - I will not go through the laborious counting process - I am told the $9 million will not be recovered in less than a generation. So $9 million has gone down the drain and we are saving $380,000 a year. We are not likely to recover in one generation the $9 million if we have to pay interest, as we have to, according to the accountant. $21 million - that is the total we have to pay for Malayanisation. If $21 million were paid out all of a sudden, then we would have to wait till the next century to recover it at the rate we are recovering the $9 million. Something has gone wrong somewhere. This is the gloomiest prospect of them all which we will have to consider one of these days; doing to the Chartered Bank and Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank what they have been doing in Djakarta, and that is to put a banner up at these two establishments and say, "Taken over by the people of Singapore in order to pay for the compensation terms that we paid to the expatriates." Because $21 million plus interest - to be recovered at the rate of $380,000 on $9 million - will take two centuries to recover. The right way to do this is to write the whole thing off. But, however, I do not want to alarm any foreign capital away because-

You will not.

No, we will not. We would be able - and let us put it bluntly and simply - to tell them exactly where they stood, and they would know that what we say we mean. The first thing the political Parties, particularly the political leadership in this country, have to learn is this: do not bluff anybody. You cannot bluff people more than once. The best thing to do is to tell them what is in your mind before you do it. Tell the electorate quite clearly and frankly what you intend to do before they vote you in, so that there is no danger of your early demise six months after election, because you cannot do what you said you were going to do. Having got in, tell your opponents exactly where they stand, particularly vested interests, so that they will know how to plan in order to recoup what they hope to invest in this country. If you can assure them that you say what you mean and they work on that basis, then let me tell the Nominated Member Mr Sutherland, even he would be pleased to deal with the P.A.P. Government because he would know when to hop it in time. With the Labour Front Government or a Liberal-Socialist Government, he might be caught napping.

Never!

Has the hon. Member booked his airplane ticket yet?

Yes.

That is what we think of the extra $9 million on expatriates, Sir, It is a shocking way to work this Budget and we should not have been bothered with it. Now about taxation. Sir, no one is more conscious than the P.A.P. of the limitations on fiscal policy in Singapore as a result of the peculiar economic and political situation of Singapore vis-a-vis the Federation of Malaya. To those in the Federation who are not so conversant with political leaders or so-called political heroes in Singapore and political stars, let me say this: what was said by the Member for Queenstown is not what the people of Singapore say. If the Member for Queenstown does not believe it, then I will invite him to attend the next P.A.P. rally - he is not here, but nevertheless let it be conveyed to him that the people of Singapore do not share his opinion. It is because of the stupidity and the irresponsibility of opportunist politicians in Singapore that, from time to time, silly statements are made which not only do themselves a lot of harm - we like to see them heap more and more harm and humiliation upon themselves - but which might adversely affect temper and feeling between large groups of people who may not be aware of the unworthiness of the source of these statements. We understand these limitations on fiscal policy and therefore I do not wish to ask awkward questions like, "Why was not company tax put up to recover this $8 million deficit? Why on petrol? But, anyway, it has to be done on petrol, but why not company tax first? Why not income tax, why not a lot of other things?" Sir, we were further alarmed at the light-hearted way in which the Financial Secretary said, "Oh, well, the Income Tax Department has not collected its full quota because it lost a few expert Europeans." One or two of them pocketed a large sum of money and then switched round to the Telephone Board and climbed on to another cushy and comfortable job. All these personal things aside, we do not understand why only $65 million is expected to be collected next year. I am not an expert on Income Tax figures, Sir, but I put forward this proposition as one which is sound and reasonable and one which I think merits serious consideration in this House. Everybody knows that tax evasion goes on everywhere in the world. In fact. great democracies like America, when they cannot get kidnappers for kidnapping, get them for income tax evasion. The Income Tax people here should look up these things. They might be able to profit from the American system. If you cannot get our local Al Capone for kidnapping Tan Lark Sye's nephew, then get him for dodging the income tax or do something about it. Here are figures which, in my estimation, prove that if we have a tough and efficient Income Tax Department, not less than $100 million should be collected on the present rates. Sir, the figures are quite useful. There are no less than 12,300 employers-

Order. I was just wondering whether a detailed argument of this nature should not be properly pursued in the Committee of Supply. The hon. Member can, of course, touch on the subject, but not in detail.

What I am intending to do is to give an illustration of the ineffectiveness of the instruments of policy of the state of Singapore. Here is an example where we have a machine which did not do its job. If it had done its job, there would have been an increase of revenue in this country of no less than 35 per cent. The figures to support this proposition briefly are these. There are 12,300 employers, according to the 1955 Annual Report of Singapore, and these are the profit figures published by some companies and distributed by them in 1956. They are big employers, Sir: Federal Dispensary Ltd.-20 per cent-$200,000. Fraser & Neave-25 per cent- $2,025,000. Gammon (Malaya) Ltd.-20 per cent-$780,000. William Jacks & Company (Malaya) Ltd.-40 per cent-$2,400,000. All this distributed in one year--1956. Malayan Breweries Ltd.-31 per cent-$3,960,000. Overseas Chinese Bank-20 per cent-$3 million. Robinson & Company Ltd.-22 per cent---$880,000. Straits Trading Ltd.-17½ per cent-$1,! 75,000. United Engineers-15 per cent- $1,043,700. Wearne Brothers Ltd.-30 per cent-$2,400,900. We can go on, although there are companies like the Chartered Bank which do not publish their figures here, so we do not know what they distributed [Interruption]. I do not know what that was supposed to mean unless Mr Sutherland is quite prepared to tell me that he pays no less than 30 per cent, shall we say - for an average efficient European company?

Order. If the hon. Member addressed the Chair, he would not have seen Mr Sutherland, but I do urge that possibly the hon. Member is going too much into detail because the Standing Order itself says: "The debate on the motion for the second reading of the Bill shall be confined to the general principles of Government policy and administration ...". And the argument that the hon. Member is developing, I think, could best be developed in the Committee of Supply.

We are just indicating, Mr Speaker, Sir, as a matter of general government policy that if and when the P.A.P. runs this government, we shall see that the Income Tax Department does its duty. The way to do it is the way it is done in all civilized countries. If you think that Mr Goldsmith has not been paying his tax, then judging from the number of cars and the number of diamond solitaires his wife exhibits, you just put in an estimate of what you think he ought to pay and let him disprove it. If he pays it, next year double the estimate; then let him disprove it. If he pays again, quadruple it, and so we go on until we make everybody in the community pay their fair share of taxation or become barrow-boys or hawkers, in which case they do not have to pay any taxes at all. It might well be, as a result of just rounding off this computation, Mr Speaker, Sir, at 12,300 employers, as I said, on the mean average of $50,000 chargeable profits, that ought to bring $8,630 per employer, which means $106,149,000 per year just from employers alone. I could develop this argument, and I will, all about this property tax both in the city area and the Rural Board. But a conservative estimate of what could be collected on present rates is somewhere in the region of $128 million per year; in other words, double what the Hon. the Financial Secretary estimates for next year. The tragedy of the situation is this, that although this is what should be the case, what, ever Government comes into power next year it will be saddled with the same apparatus with which to extract the tax. Unless we have a ruthless Minister for Finance who will deal with inept and bureaucratic civil servants and will improve the running of the machinery of state, we will be back in the same position. But to wind up, it is only fair to say that the Budget could have been worse. The Labour Front took the easiest course out for its last year of office. It has forgotten all the big paper promises. I remember the first Budget debate when there was at least a spirited defence. Mr R. C. H. Lim (Nominated) reminded the P.A.P. that this was a four-year Labour Front programme and that it was only one-quarter of the way. Now this is the last year of three years and it has given up trying to pretend that it can implement them. It cannot. That is one of the reasons why it will be in the soup in the next elections, because it could not implement the programme on which it got elected. It said all kinds of foolish things and I hope that all other political Parties and would be politicians will benefit from this.

Including you.

Indeed I have. I have taken this very much into account and the P.A.P. programme for the next elections will be a programme which will be implemented after the elections. But there was one politician who I see is still running around the place like a mad dog and he has not learned from all this; he has started a new Party. He wants to start the concertina all over again - try again with a big high bid and wind up once more in the gutter. Sir, I send out my formal condolences to the Labour Front Ministers opposite. Theirs is a very unhappy position and I have to tender to them my formal sympathies. But I hope that they have served a useful purpose if only to be an example to all political leaders in Malaya of how not to win the elections and how not to run a government. 11.35 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is quite unusual in the debate on this important Budget that, except for the leader of the P.A.P., the other speakers are Independents. I must confess that I have never listened to the speeches of the leader of the P.A.P., the Member for Tanjong Pagar, so carefully as today. I think we must congratulate him in that at last, with God's blessing, he realises that the responsibility lies on his shoulders, and the advice which he has given to this House I should recommend sincerely to the P.A.P. itself. Sir, for Members to argue with statistics and figures is, I think, a waste of time. I wish to recall the remarks and recommendations which I made to the Government in last year's Budget debate. We should adopt an old Chinese saying: "Open more fountains and restrict the outflow." In other words, we should try to find more sources to collect money and restrict the spending of money. I do not oppose the principle of taxation. I was not surprised at all when the Member for Queenstown (Mr Lee Choon Eng) said that we are taxing the poor but I am surprised that the Government has not the courage to impose new taxes on companies, which means taxing the rich. Sir, it shows a lack of confidence in the prosperity of this country. If this country's prosperity can be assured, then the Hon. the Financial Secretary be the first one to try to get money from that source. Sir, I am not satisfied with the argument which is put up that the reason why the Government refuse to increase the company tax is because they want to attract foreign investment. Sir, I cannot deny that that is partly the reason but how can we expect foreign investment when we are faced today with such instability - politically and socially? Therefore the fundamental remedy to solve this problem is to bring stability to this colony. The Member for Tanjong Pagar said that he was not playing party politics but I would like to point out that even on the first page of this Budget the phrase "Colony of Singapore" appears and the P.A.P. leader went on to attack it as a colonial Budget. Yes, it is a colonial Budget. What is wrong with that? Such an outlook shows that we are not approaching the problem seriously and practically. He still plays a great part in politics. Sir, my views are these: first of all, the Government has failed to increase company tax; secondly, the Government has refused to heed the public demand to increase the parental allowances on personal relief. All that shows that the future of Singapore is not very bright. Again, Sir, the Member for Queens-town mentioned kidnappings and extortions in connection with the stability of this country. I wish to add it is not only the rich who are affected; pupils, hawkers and dance hostesses are in the grip of gangsters. They must pay a monthly rate of extortion or protection fee to certain groups of gangsters. So I wonder why, with all the power in his hands, the Chief Secretary considers that the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance should only apply to those who are subversive elements but not to gangsters. Since the implementation of the Citizenship Bill, does the Banishment Ordinance still serve any purpose? I hope that the Chief Secretary and the Government will take all this into consideration. The stability of this country is in their hands, and if they want to attract foreign investment, the stability of society is, first and foremost, important, and not merely the maintenance of a low rate of company tax. The Hon. the Financial Secretary said that the complicated education problem has at last been solved. Sir, to me, it is still not solved but only halfway. Some days ago I read - I cannot remember which paper it was - that two parents were arguing in a market. One of them asked, "To which school do you want to send your children?" The other one said. "No, I will not send my children to any school." The former asked, "Why?" The answer was, "If I send John to an English school, he is bound to be a delinquent. If I send Mary to a high school, she is going to be a subversive element." That, of course, cannot be a true picture, but if that is part of public opinion, then it shows that the people have no faith and have lost confidence in our education system for which we provide and spend so much money. Sir, I would like the Hon. the Minister for Education to consider this question: how is he going to solve the problem of the over-age students who are thrown out from Standard V and the many more we expect from the Chinese Junior middle schools?

Order. Perhaps the hon. Member will agree that that question could best be answered in the Committee of Supply.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am just on the problem of education. The Hon. the Financial Secretary has said that the problem has been settled but to me it is only half-way solved. Sir, I wish to touch on the subject of expenditure on the Defence Services. All of us have to work under the constitution and the constitution, whether it is the Rendel Constitution or the one which is proposed, clearly states that defence is solely in the hands of the British Government. Yet we are now to have a battalion and a navy. Sir, I would like to ask this question. Is it necessary, in this new age of sputniks and the hydrogen bomb, to be talking about defence in the form of creating new battalions, purchasing minesweepers and bolstering up our military forces to protect our soil? Sir, I want to ask another question. Is there anyone in this House who opposes or does hot believe in the stand taken at the Afro-Asian Conference held in Bandung that Afro-Asian nations should unite into a solid front and should stop and oppose any form of war through the banning of nuclear weapons? Therefore from which prospective enemy of this country can we expect an attack? With full confidence and full support in a lasting peace for the whole world, there is then no necessity for building up a defence force to defend our territory. That is the first argument. The second argument is: for whom is this defence necessary? We cannot deny that we are a chain in the British Commonwealth defence strategy. But we are a small island, just only 224 square miles, with a population of just over 1¼ million. And when we say that we must have a navy, an army-

Order. I do not like interrupting so frequently but I am doing so today because I have to remind hon. Members that we have only one day for the debate on the Second Reading, and the debate must be confined to general principles. Details of the Defence Services can always be debated in the Committee of Supply and there is time allotted for that debate. I would ask the hon. Member then to confine himself to general principles.

I am sorry, Sir. Therefore, I strongly suggest that the expenditure shown under the Head of Defence Services should, if possible, be scrapped. Now, let us come to commerce and industry. We are very happy to have such an able and experienced businessman as Minister for Commerce and Industry. I would like to touch on the expansion and promotion of trade and industry. I deeply regret that the Member for Tanjong Pagar is not here. I think he could contribute a great deal more, instead of a lot of rubbish talk, if he were to advise the mass of workers who follow him to increase the output of industry, and not to demand higher wages only, because if the output of industry can be increased, it will indirectly increase the national output. If we are faced with high wages and low production, how can we compete with our neighbouring countries like Hong Kong and Japan which are highly industrialised? If any leaders of workers are in the gallery, I would say, "Please, for the sake of the country, do let us-

Order. I think the hon. Member is now playing to the gallery. I would ask the hon. Member to address his remarks to the Chair.

Sir, I said that if there are any leaders of workers in the gallery, I wish to remind them to advise the workers sincerely and truly to increase the industrial output which will indirectly increase the national output. Then the stability of our country can be assured and the Government - any government, even a P.A.P. government - can carry on smoothly with industrialisation and to achieve our ultimate aim - a welfare state. Sir, I wish to point this out. I regret that under the Development Estimates, I fail to trace any plan for the development of the fishing industry. I wish to go into details on this at a later stage. Now, we come to the Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing. We are very happy to look at the report that the rural residents, farmers and fishermen, who are producing more food and increasing the export of eggs and poultry (which brings a lot of income to this country), should be encouraged. I hope that the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing will help the farmers and fishermen to enjoy a certain security of tenure of land, because the Master Plan and private building developments involve them in great difficulties. The resettlement plan should be a long-term policy in order to ensure that the farmers will not only be able to maintain their livelihood but also to produce more food for this country. 11.55 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my colleagues of the Liberal-Socialist Party will be covering many of our grounds of dissatisfaction with the policies and performances of the Government, and I will therefore limit myself to a few comments. I hope, Sir, that I shall have permission to quote a few facts and figures to substantiate the arguments I put forward. Sir, one of our greatest causes for dissatisfaction is the Government's failure to expand industry which is essential if we are to absorb our growing population in employment. It is a subject on which the Hon. the Financial Secretary was almost completely silent, as might be expected, as he could have had nothing good to say. The only reference he did make was indirectly through the mention of income tax returns: $68 million was collected in 1956; $65 million is the anticipated sum for 1957, and the amount budgeted for in 1958 is again $65 million, despite the fact that personal income tax was increased last year from 30 per cent to 40 per cent. Those, I submit, are confessions of failure by the Government to expand industry because if industry had expanded, it would be reflected in income tax revenues. But there are other barometers to indicate this. While our population is increasing by 50,000 a year from 940,000 in 1947 to 1,463,000 estimated in 1957, the number of labourers employed in manufacturing dropped from 57,332 in March 1956 to 55,011 in March 1957 and in all industries from 124,645 to 123,263 in the same period. Since the general elections, 125,000 roughly have been added to the population, and yet less are employed in industry. That is the Government's record. In existing industries, to take only two examples, the manufacture of biscuits has dropped from 196,000 cwt, for the period January to September 1956 to 136,000 cwt, for the same period in this year. Production of rubber sheeting has dropped from 277,000 lbs, from January to September 1954 to 112,000 last year and 79,000 for the same period in this year - a drop of something like 60 per cent. I mention these points in view of the Financial Secretary's statement that an excellent understanding had been reached with the Federation Government and that there has been a return of confidence in the future of Singapore-unusual exaggeration for a usually cautious Financial Secretary to make. The fact of the matter is that hardly a single new major industry has been established and developed in Singapore in the 2½ years of the Government's life; hardly a single big factory of any consequence has been opened. When questioned in this House or by newspaper reporters, the Minister for Commerce and Industry has always hinted mysteriously at large developments impending and behind-the-scene negotiations with large industrial concerns which cannot be disclosed, but nothing concrete has emerged. In the Governor's speech on 22nd April, 1955, when the present Government first announced its policy, it was stated that it would be "the policy of the Government to encourage in all practical ways the development of local industries". On 29th June of the same year, I asked: "What plans the Government has in view for the carrying out of its declared aim of attracting private capital from both local and overseas investors for the purpose of expanding trade and industry." I obtained from the Minister the reply: "...assistance in the industrial and commercial fields is taking the form of attention to individual applications on their merits..."- an extremely nebulous answer. In November 1955, in the debate on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill - two years ago - I said that I had hoped in vain to hear that the Government- "will carry out its declared policy of encouraging investment, both locally and from overseas, by such methods as allowing income tax relief's, both initial and annual, on the cost of factory construction and initial plant and ensuring that such construction goes ahead with the least possible administrative delay."

Will the hon. Member identify that passage?

Yes, Sir. Col. 988 of Vol. 1, No. 19. Despite my own enquiries in this House at intervals during the past 2½ weary and fruitless years, there has been no firm policy laid down and announced to the world regarding tax exemptions or relief's for new industries or new factories or on capital equipment. A week ago, the Minister announced in a feeble bleat that industrial concerns can apply for exemptions-

Order. I think that the words "feeble bleat" are probably unparliamentary.

Mr Speaker, that is uncomplimentary to the Minister and it was of course not intended to be so but I will perhaps reduce it to a "whisper".

He said that each application would be considered on its merits but that legislation would have to be introduced before concessions could be granted - 2½ years, and the Government is still toying with the measure we advocated in our election manifesto three years ago. That is the sort of announcement expected of run-of-the-mill civil servants trained in caution and the avoidance of decisions, not the trumpet blast of the Minister determined to tackle with energy, drive and imagination one of the most urgent problems affecting this country's welfare. But the Government machine is tired and worn out; it never had much drive or efficiency but now it has run down and lost so much confidence in itself that some of the Ministers have to go off on various pretexts to Tokyo or Delhi, while those who remained behind threw themselves into the arms of the P.A.P. to get them to fight their election battles for them. And so, Sir, there is no sign from the Financial Secretary's speech or from the Estimates of any sign of improvement on the industrial horizon during the life of the present Government, nor have we found, in turning the pages of the Estimates, that there is any sign of important decisions in any other direction. Commissions and experts have come, made their reports and gone at enormous public expense, but nothing has been implemented. The unified public transport system, free legal aid, minimum standards of living, Singapore's port, television, a housing authority, the drive against tuberculosis, a public corporation for broadcasting, the results of a Commission to investigate corruption - all these are empty promises or paper proposals or recommendations, and nothing is done. The Minister for Communications and Works in weary cynicism has said that he no longer trusts experts because experts always differ. So the Government which is barren of ideas of its own mistrusts the ideas which it pays highly at public expense for experts to supply. An example of the inefficiency of the Government is the fact that the present session has been allowed to run on from August 1956 beyond the usual period of a year to January 1958 presumably in the hope that something will turn up. The Government expects bouquets for two reasons. Firstly, it has through a firm policy towards subversive elements removed an immediate Communist threat to Singapore. We have supported the Government stand but we would remind the opposite side that it is only a negative policy. While stamping out subversion on the one hand, what has been done to create conditions which will make Communism impossible? Not only do we need more industries for our young people, but more secondary and technical education to train them for industry, and cheap housing for them to live in, but what do we find? - employment in industry declining, as I have already quoted, only one secondary school or technical school being built for every three primary schools as the Estimates show, an increase of only $20,000 in the grants for evening classes which could help to bridge the educational gap between the primary school and fitness for employment, and the deplorable failure to build houses to the extent that between September 1956 and August 1957 not one single S.I.T. housing unit was completed. Sir, I feel that I must elaborate to a little extent on this deplorable failure regarding housing. In the Governor's speech on 22nd April, 1955, the Government's policy was stated as follows in column 8, Volume 1: "The imperative and pressing need for adequate housing for those in the lower income group, including the solution of the problem of the attap dwellers and the clearance of slum areas is a challenge which the Government appreciates can only be met by the most vigorous and in some cases drastic measures." Four days later, the Minister for Housing in the first flush of enthusiasm in his first few weeks in office stated, and I quote from column 40 of Volume 1: ".... it is proposed to tackle the housing problem more vigorously and efficiently by setting up a statutory Housing Authority, solely responsible to Government, to replace the present Singapore Improvement Trust. It is hoped that such a Housing Authority would be able in a comparatively short time to bridge the increasing gap between public housing programmes and the needs of the people." With what vigour has the housing problem been tackled? The Minister gave this answer on 21st August of this year when he informed us in reply to a question of mine that whereas the number of applicants on the waiting list for S.I.T. accommodation on 30th June, 1955, was 9,571, the number on 30th June. 1957 was 11,547; no housing units having been completed since September 1956. So much for the Government's vigour - 2,000 more families on the waiting list for houses after two years' vigorous effort! And where is the Housing Authority? There is no sign of it. Let us hear the opinion of a Member of this House on housing given in the debate on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill two years ago, appearing in column 1047 of Volume 1: "Housing is a very, very essential social service. It is almost basic in the social service programme because, unless you get your housing done, you are going to have a slum population and a slum population is a political and economic liability. Some slum dwellers in Singapore - a remarkable number of them manage to rise above their environment and maintain proper standards of behaviour and cleanliness, character formation and so on, but by and large, the pressure of life in the slum is such that, scientifically speaking, it does cause the population to deteriorate as human material. You get an irresponsible, unemployable, uneducable, dull, backward, and criminal population which is a permanent liability to that part of the population which is employable and productive and it is most important that you should get rid of your slums as a matter of first priority." Those are the words, Sir, of the Minister for Communications and Works - words spoken doubtless with great emotion, but sounding horribly hollow now. If the Government felt really sincerely like this, why have they failed so miserably? Sir, we recall with some cynicism paragraph 50 of the Governor's speech opening this session from 29th August of last year when it was stated: "The Government has been gravely concerned by the danger to the public welfare from gangsters, from secret societies, from armed violence, and from corruption.". No doubt the Government is still gravely concerned in its own platitudinous way 16 months later, but what has been done to improve the situation? We see no sign of a vigorous housing policy or educational policy or industrial policy, all of which would have undermined the disorders, gang-fights, and kidnappings which have become an almost daily occurrence. Another bouquet which the Government expects is regarding the small $8 million gap between revenue and expenditure, which has to be filled by taxation. We submit that greater industrial activity, more vigour in the Income Tax Department and more vigour in the Rural Board offices where there is a figure of anything up to $3 million in rates to be collected, as Members of the Public Accounts Committee discovered, could have bridged this gap without extra taxation at all. If a result of the rise in the higher charges of haulage is an increase in the cost of living because of the petrol tax and diesel tax going up, then the Government must take the blame. At best, the cost of living will not drop. The price index for the lower income group in September of this year was 319.8 as against 313.1 in September 1956, 317 in October of this year as against 311.4 in October last year. The price of rice in October this year was $1.54 per gantang against $1.35 a year previously. So much for the Government's boast that it has helped to increase wages by ten per cent! This has been swallowed up in the increased cost of living. The only bouquet I will permit the Government is their realisation, though belated, that economic co-operation with the Federation Government is more important than political co-operation, and that the success in the former may lead in time to understanding in the latter. Singapore and the Federation must operate as one economic unit and the sooner that is accepted as axiomatic on both sides of the Causeway the better chances there are of reasonable prosperity. We hope that this policy will be pursued with tact and imagination. In conclusion. Sir, I would like to say how heartily I agree with the Hon. the Financial Secretary when he said in the course of his speech: "It is undeniable that there is at the present time a certain amount of pessimism about the future.". That pessimism will continue so long as the present Government remains in office and leans on the P.A.P. for its survival.

It seems to me that hon. Members wish to suspend? Hon. Members indicated assent.

In that case, I will take the Chair again at half-past two. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.14 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Debate resumed. 2.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is an old English saying that a drowning man clutches at the last straw.

Like the Labour Front!

That has been proved in this morning's debate when the hon. Members for Kampong Kapor and Queenstown spoke. Since they could not find any taxation which they could really say would be detrimental to the poor man-in-the-street, they had no other way but to pick holes in this increase in the petrol tax. However, Sir, their reasoning is not according to the logic that a normal man would pursue, and I am not going to comment at length on what they said because their arguments are not of such great importance. There is another English saying, Sir, and that is that a little knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge, and that was proved when the hon. Member for Tanglin was speaking. But before I comment on his arguments, I would say that there are other hon. Members who put up various other arguments on the Budget that is before the House today deserving comment. I am particularly glad, Sir, to notice that certain members of the Liberal-Socialist Party have now fallen in line with the trend of thought which I put to this House as far back as last year, and that is that wild talk is detrimental and does harm to Singapore and its economic position, and that politicians should refrain from wild talk. I sounded that warning at a similar sitting of this House last year when we discussed the Budget, and I sounded it before, when I opened the office of a local insurance company. And when I said that, probably certain Members who sit smugly now thought I meant only those irresponsible elements in our society. But I also meant others, Sir,I am clarifying it now for the information of certain members of the Liberal-Socialist Party who have always been saying. 'Capital has flown away from Singapore. What have we got to attract capital here?', and this and that. That also is wild talk - talk that is calculated to harm us in the long run. I am also glad. Sir, that we have also found support in the Liberal-Socialist Party for Singapore's free port policy but here again, they are a little behind the times. In fact, the Singapore Standard of the day before yesterday contained this headline: "Government's free trade policy to stay - Commerce Minister. Singapore's Commerce and Industry Minister, Mr J. M. Jumabhoy, yesterday gave the assurance that Government would maintain a free trade policy and keep the island a free port as far as possible." We, Sir, on this side, realise the importance of the free port policy. At the same time. Sir, we must make an effort to develop our industries. And in industrial matters there are always conflicting interests. To develop industries, there are certain times when certain industries would require a certain amount of protection. On the other hand, the merchants who predominate today in Singapore are all for the free port policy, and therefore we have a conflict of interests. At the moment the merchant class predominates in Singapore: the industrial class is much less. But we have to get a balance between the two and to see whether both views cannot be brought together. I stated earlier in this House - I think it was last year - that there was a possibility that in future we might have to have tariffs to protect certain industries. I specifically mentioned that if that does come about, we should see that the entrepot trade is not hampered, in other words, that if we ever impose tariffs, they should be selective tariffs on such items as would benefit us in the industrial field but at the same time would not take away our entrepot trade. That means those items that do not enter into the entrepot trade and which we could manufacture locally to advantage. I therefore used that word particularly, Sir - it is "selective" tariff. But of course, Sir, when Members want to interpret it to their own advantage they conveniently forget certain words - like the Member for Tanglin has when he quoted statistics (I shall come to that later) and then put out a one-sided version for the consumption of the public. That, I suppose, Sir, is quite a common practice with Members of the Liberal-Socialist Party. Now, Sir, the hon. Member for Telok Ayer gave us the points which would have to apply here in Singapore if industries are to function. I will deal with them one by one. He said that, first, capital was required. No doubt capital formation is the chief of the requirements. Without capital we cannot have industry - and we have set up the Industrial Promotion Board to help the small man with capital. But we have to rely to a great extent on imported capital. Why? The reason, Sir, is that our local millionaires do not believe in long-term investment. They want to get quick returns in a short time. They go in for the rubber market, the share market, the tin market and other such markets which give them quick returns in a short time. In spite of a lot of speeches to the contrary by people outside this House, these facts still remain so. Even this afternoon's Free Press has this to say, "Slight interest in loans" - referring to the City Council loan of $13 million floated in October last. It says: "... The City Treasurer yesterday reported that only $9,000,000 had been subscribed so far. Most of it came from the Central Provident Fund...". This loan, Sir, is offering a very good rate of interest and good returns compared with similar loans floated previously and with the general interest rate prevailing at the moment, and yet we find that local investors are not interested in investing in it. They want to go in for quicker returns. So that is the trouble with us; we cannot blame anyone particularly. It is a thing that will have to be realised slowly by our own investors and be rectified by them. Then Sir, the Member referred to cheap labour. Now it is not necessary just to have cheap labour. We can have very cheap labour but labour that is inefficient and ineffective. What is required is not cheap labour or the cutting down of the wages of labour and thereby reducing their standard of living (because every country wants to raise the standard of living of its people), but higher productivity from labour. If labour can produce more, if it acts in a responsible manner while it does its job, and gives full value for the money it is paid, you can step up productivity and therefore make goods at a cheaper price. You can be more competitive in your final product. The Member for Telok Ayer also says that one of the requirements is low cost of living. Cost of living in Singapore, Sir, is a matter which is beyond our hands. We depend on our food supplies, like rice, on our neighbours. We do not produce much of our food and therefore the cost of living, where food items, textiles and wearing apparel, and most of the necessities of life are concerned, depends on the market trends operating in the countries from which we import those goods. Therefore it is beyond our control. Later on, however, I will prove with figures that the cost of living has not gone up - in fact in certain cases it has come down slightly. A vast hinterland is required; no doubt about that. A vast hinterland is always useful but it is not something that we can get for the asking. In fact our policy to merge with the Federation of Malaya will provide that the economy of both territories will operate as one. Therefore there would be no question of a hinterland for us - we would be part of Malaya with a population of seven or eight million people. Political stability, Sir - that is a thing which you cannot have overnight. That is a thing which is in the hands of certain Members of the Opposition. Cheap power - I think we already have cheap power available in Singapore. Lower taxation - Sir, compared with those in many other countries, our taxation rates are quite low; except perhaps those of Hong Kong; but then in Hong Kong you do not have a government responsible to the people and therefore does not have to give the social services to them. You can find thousands of refugees in Hong Kong living in appalling conditions. Here, if you build an Improvement Trust house and charge $30 in rent, you have the Opposition Members shouting, "$30! How can the poor man afford it?" - in spite of the fact that half of the appropriate rent is a subsidy from Government derived from taxation. If you have such irresponsible Opposition Members, Sir, what can you do with them? Raw materials - Hong Kong has no raw materials and yet it has got first-class industries. Now, Sir, a question was asked by the Member for Tanglin, "What has the Government done about industries? Government has no definite policy or interest in industries." The Member conveniently forgets, Sir, that on 7th November, 1956, I made a statement to this House in which I outlined Government's policy in regard to the encouragement of foreign capital and industries. I would like to say that most of that policy has been carried out. I will go through it point by point. First of all, a suitable climate for investment - Government's action against subversive elements is intended to create a suitable climate, but this is not something that can come overnight. Then repatriation of profits or capital - that is in force now. We are not refusing repatriation of capital, or remittances of profits, to any foreign enterprise. Entry into Singapore of skilled workers, technicians and so on who are not available here - that is in operation now, Any foreign investor can say that he needs so many skilled workers or higher managerial staff and we give him permission to bring them in provided he can not get similar types of persons locally. Importation from competitive markets of raw materials, machinery and technical equipment - there again even though hard currency is really hard, we do allow hard currency to a manufacturer where he can prove that he can get an advantage by buying from a hard currency source. Then I said, "Government intends that a survey of the Colony's industrial potential and markets should be carried out"; and, "enquiries are being made to obtain the services of an expert". I think at the last sitting of the Assembly, Sir, I made a statement in which I said that we had obtained an expert from Canada under the Colombo Plan for this purpose. Now Members will ask, 'Why did you take a year?' Sir, experts are not produced from our pockets; we have to get a suitable man from a friendly country, and that is something which we have to wait and try and try until we get him, and no amount of shouting across the floor can accelerate getting that man. And experts are also in short supply. "Government intends to establish an Institute of Scientific and Industrial Research" - we had Dr Godwin here to make a report on that. That report is now with the Federation Government for consultation with them, and until these consultations are finalised, we cannot move in that direction. And if the Member asks, 'Why wait for Kuala Lumpur? Why don't you do it here?', he will be belying his own statement just now that economically we must be in step with the Federation - we must have one policy. Then I said that an Industrial Promotion Board with a capital of $1 million would be set up - that has been done already. Then "Government is investigating the question of making tax concessions to industries..". I said further, "The outcome of this investigation will be reported in due course" to the House. Now, Sir, that is again a pan-Malayan matter - income tax is a pan-Malayan matter and any time we want to move in that direction we have to get agreement from the Federation. Therefore this is something in which we cannot move unilaterally. Sir, hon. Members seem to be impatient at the slowness at which industrial development is proceeding, and I can understand that-

Will the Hon. Minister identify the document he is reading from?

The quotations are from a statement I made on 7th November, 1956, and included in the Official Report of that day. As I said, hon. Members seem to be impatient at the slowness of industrial development and I can well understand that. But when a man wants to invest even a thousand dollars he thinks ten times before he puts in the money. This is a question of people coming from other parts of the world to invest millions, in a country of which probably they have heard a lot about adversely because of certain politicians on the opposite Benches. Therefore it takes time to convince them that all is not bad with us; that we have good people - even though they may not be in a big majority - on the Government side. I said also that Government intends to carry out a survey of the Colony's industrial potential and markets which will, for the first time, reveal the possibilities for industrial development. This is a process you cannot expedite. The findings will act as a basis for future industrial development and be a useful guide to prospective investors who are desirous of ascertaining the industrial possibilities of Singapore. And about tariffs I said that the question would be deferred until the industrial potential and market survey had been completed. It is no use running headlong into such a thing. When you plan your industrial development or economic future, you have got to be very certain that you are not damaging anything, that what you plan will give you added benefits but not take away from your existing resources. And therefore you cannot rush headlong into it. Mention was made, Sir, of 4,000 workers going out of jobs in the footwear industry. Sir, as soon as I received an appeal from the rubber footwear manufacturers, I said we would investigate, and I referred the matter to the Industrial Promotion Board, which is the competent authority to examine this. But they took their own time. It was only yesterday, Sir, that they approached the Board and you will find in today's papers a reference to the fact that they have now set up a Working Committee. Sir, before we rush headlong into giving tariff protection to every Tom, Dick and Harry who asks for it, we have got to make certain that there are no other possibilities by which we could save an industry. If we are absolutely certain that there is no other way for the survival of that industry, then we can think of tariff protection, but not before. It is no use rushing precipitously into giving tariff protection. The Member for Tanglin also said, 'Where is the trumpet blast of Ministers?' -referring to me, Sir. He forgets that about a year back we had trumpet blasts every day from the ex-Chief Minister which were not to the liking of Members. Now when we have no trumpet blasts, they bemoan the fact that we have no trumpet blasts. It is interesting to see, Sir, how facts can be put in a one-sided manner, when the Member for Tanglin referred to labour and said that in March 1956. 124,645 labourers were employed, in March 1957, 123,263 - a short fall of just over a thousand. Sir, what he did not mention were figures previous to those years. The figures for 1954 (when we were not in power) and early in 1955 (when we were not in power) he omitted to mention. He also omitted to mention another significant fact, that is that these returns were obtained from employers. The 1956 returns were obtained from 5,470 employers, whereas the 1957 returns (which show about a thousand less) were obtained from 5,155 employers - 300 less of them. I do not know why the remaining employers did not give their returns but these figures represent returns from employers, of whom 300 have not given returns. So both figures are not fully given and even in the ones given you might get slight variations. You do not look at a particular month in a particular year and quote that as an example; you have got to look at the graph over a long period to gauge the trend. Not to do that, of course, comes out of immature understanding. Then the Member quoted some figures, about rubber. I have some figures here. January! September 1955, remilled rubber including smoked rubber except on estates, Singapore production, 56.2 thousand tons; January/September 1956, 59 thousand tons; January/September 1957, 62.5 thousand tons - a gradual increase over the three years. Rubber footwear, over which there has been a lot of bemoaning in this House this morning: January/September 1954, Singapore production 2,141 thousand pairs; January / September 1955, 2,832 thousand; January / September 1956, 2,919.7 thousand; January! September 1957, 2,784 thousand. So from 1954 to 1957 there has been an increase in production of roughly over 600 thousand pairs, if I am not mistaken. He also quoted figures about rice prices and said the price had gone up. There again I said it was beyond our control if the price went up because the market had gone up in Thailand or in Burma due to delayed rains or some other causes. An hon. Member: Stockpile.

It is not due to stockpile. That is an absurd argument, Sir,In 1954 the rice price per gantang was $1.65; in 1955 it was $1.36, in 1956 it was $1.38-a sharp reduction from $1.65 to $1.

38. Of course, Sir, the Member will pick out a particular month which is to his advantage and quote. Flour, wheaten, Australian - in 1954 it was 27 cents per pound and it has gone do wn until now it is 25 cents. For the last two years it has been 25 cents. Mee - in 1954 it was 28 cents; now it is 25 cents. Sir, these figures show that the situation is not as bad as the Member for Tanglin wishes to make out. Then we come to the main part of his speech, in which he said that the Minister had hinted mysteriously in newspaper reports about industries being opened but nothing concrete was being done. Sir, that was almost a hint that the Minister did not understand what truth was. I have figures here which may surprise the House. In 1955, 74 new industrial companies were registered; in 1956, 93; in 1957, 129 - these are industrial companies. Of these industrial companies, you have a vegetable oil refinery with a capital of $1½ million. The Member mentioned small industries, not big ones, having been registered; I am giving the big ones - with $1½ million capital - a vegetable oil refinery. Then you have industries with $1 million capital - a biscuit and confectionery manufacturer, cotton spinner, linen maker, rubber miller - each with $1 million capital. In the half a million dollar capital class you have a box manufacturer, gramophone record maker, latex foam products maker and pineapple canner. All these industries have been registered in the 11 months of this year, from January to November. In these 11 months, 2,154 businesses were registered of which 165 were limited liability companies of all types with a total capital of $225 million. Now that shows that Opposition Party members can always talk at random, generalise and ask, `Where is the evidence of industrial progress?', but they cannot quote figures. I have here proved that they are far from the truth when they make such allegations. In 1955 and 1956 there were $2 million capital companies operating canneries, sauce factories, rubber goods manufacturers; and of course we have a steel and iron mill plus other manufacturers with a million dollar capital. An hon. Member: On paper.

They are not on paper; they are operating. All these companies are working. Now. Sir, what are the new industries which are not in this list but which are coming? I am going to tell the House now - the ones that I have been `hinting mysteriously' about. Unfortunately, Sir, I have had to hint mysteriously because as Minister for Commerce and Industry I am in a responsible position and cannot divulge secret information; the companies concerned would not like me to do so. It is against business interests and business etiquette to give out secret information which is in my possession and which I do not have the authority from them to divulge. Therefore I have had no recourse but to generalise without making special reference to what they are. Now, however, I can tell the House something. Plans are now finalised for the establishment of a flour mill which, in the final stages, will involve a capital of $5 million. The company will be operated by Hong Kong capital. Approval in principle has also been given for another big enterprise with about $2 million capital the nature of which I am still not allowed to disclose. However, I can say that one-third of its capital will be local and two-thirds foreign. The Shell Company, as I have stated in the Press, is planning to build a big oil-bulking plant with a total expenditure of about $3 million. Then negotiations are now going on for the establishment of a tuna industry using Singapore as a base for the fishing vessels, and the ancillary industries of canning and others connected with tuna fishing. We have also received enquiries and are negotiating for various other ventures. I am sorry that even if hon. Members tax me to the extent of raising my temper, I cannot disclose the nature of these enterprises because I am not allowed to do so yet. They are, however, coming up and if only Members will have patience, they will see them established. An hon. Member: How long?

Sir, the capital is not owned by me or by hon. Members on the Opposition side. If it were, I could probably tell the people concerned to hurry up. The capital is owned by outside interests, they will take their own time and nothing can be done about it. We cannot force them to hurry. We do not want to hurry them. Sir, I have today given to the House figures to prove that this grouse about slowness in industrial development has no justification. There are many other points on which I would like to comment but I see that time is getting short and I do not want to take up the time of the House unduly. Therefore I will comment on each particular item at a later stage as they come up for discussion in Committee. 3.01 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been blasted with figures and-

The Chief Minister rose -

Order. Is it a business motion?

Thank you, Mr Speaker, it is. Under the provisions of Standing Order 7 (11), I beg to move, That the proceedings on the business set down this day as items 1, 2 and 3 of the Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 7. Items 2 and 3. Sir, are related to the Budget and I am sure hon. Members would like to have these matters disposed of today.

What about item 4?

Order. The matter should be put on a proper plane. I draw the attention of the Hon. the Chief Minister to Standing Order 69 (2), the last sentence: "One day shall be allotted for the second reading of the Bill and at 4.00 p.m. on that day the Speaker shall put any questions necessary to bring the proceedings on second reading to a conclusion." It is therefore necessary first to dispose of that provision before we suspend Standing Order 7. I suggest then that the Chief Minister first move a motion that, notwithstanding the relevant Standing Order, proceedings on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill be continued after 4.00 p.m. this day.

I am grateful for your guidance, Sir,I move, That notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 69, proceedings on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill be continued after 4.00 p.m. this day.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 69, proceedings on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill be continued after 4.00 p.m. this day. 3.07 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I now move, That the proceedings on the business set down this day as items 1, 2 and 3 of the Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 7.

I second it. Mr Lee Kuan Yew rose -

There is no debate on that Question.

Sir, I wish to move an amendment. May I ask the Hon. the Chief Minister why he does not wish to include item 4?

As I explained earlier, Sir, items 2 and 3 are related to the Budget. I am sure hon. Members would like to dispose of these two motions in items 2 and 3 today.

There is nothing to prevent the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar from moving an amendment simpliciter - there can be no debate.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, After '3', to insert ',4'.

Sir, I second it. Question put, "That the figure proposed to be inserted, be there inserted."

Division, Sir. The House divided: Ayes, 3; Noes, 17; Abstentions, 8; Absent, 2; Paired, 2. Ayes Noes Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Abdul Hamid bin Goh Chew Chua. Haji Jumat. Lee Kuan Yew. Braga, A. J. Chew Swee Kee. Abstentions Hart, T. M. Ede, John. Jumabhoy, J. M. Goh Tong Liang. Lim Cher Kheng. Jumabhoy, R. Lim, R. C. H. Lee Choon Eng. Lim Yew Hock. Lim Choon Mong. Mak Pak Shee. Seah Peng Chuan. Mohamed Sidik bin Soh Ghee Soon. Haji Abdul Hamid. Tan, William. Nair, M. P. D. Ong Piah Teng. Absent Shanks, E. P. Lazarous, A. R. Stewart, S. T. Lim Ching Siong. Sutherland, G. A. P. Tan Theng Chiang. Thomas, Francis. Paired Lim Koon Teck. Wong Foo Nam. Question on the amendment accordingly negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on the business set down this day as items 1, 2 and 3 of the Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 7.

Debate resumed. 3.15 p.m.

Sir, I was saying that the Hon. the Minister for Commerce and Industry was blasting at us for nearly half an hour with figures and telling us that hundreds of millions of dollars worth of capital have been registered. He has carefully avoided telling us how much of the $200 million worth of capital has been paid up. It is very easy for anyone to start a company with a $10 million capital and registering it by paying a very small premium on that capital but the main factor is how much of it is paid up? He has not told us how many of these companies which have been registered are really companies, not companies like partnerships and concerns which have been carrying on for a number of years and are now being turned into limited companies and which have to be registered under the Companies Ordinance. That is a crucial factor and not the fact that $200 million worth of capital has been registered. Sir, he has attacked the Liberal-Socialist Party regarding our wild talk to scare away capital but he has. I do not understand why, not noticed or commented upon the real scare that has been thrown in this House today by the partner whom the Labour Front has hastily married and for which I am sure that they are now repenting at their leisure.

Sir, on a point of order. Is that relevant?

Sir, he had a quarter of an hour of irrelevance and I fail to see why he should object to it now. Perhaps it hurts him.

Order. Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to give a ruling. I cannot see anything irrelevant about that remark of the hon. Member. It is quite good sometimes to marry.

Now, referring to the wild remarks of the leader for the People's Action Party, he has I declared the stand of his Party and there is no compromise. His policy is that if they get into power, they will scare away capital and "tell them where to hop off". Sir, I must say that we are very grateful to him for letting us know his policy at this stage and it is for all of us in Singapore now to decide on what future for Singapore we would like to have: whether we would have his choice to scare away capital which is so badly needed at the present moment, create unemployment and chaos, inevitably leading us into the position as in Indonesia today, or to adopt the principle which our Party stand for - a co-operation between capital and labour which we think is possible and the only solution for Singapore. If we have to fight like Indonesia for independence, then I would agree with his principle. We have to sacrifice everything so that we can free ourselves and become an independent nation. But when Great Britain has offered to us everything on a platter, I fail to see why there is any necessity to plunge our children and children's children into the depths of misery that must inevitably follow if we follow the footsteps of the countries surrounding us. This is a step which I say is unnecessary and on which we should all - everyone in Singapore - now decide and make up our minds to follow which Party, otherwise we will wake up one day and find ourselves being led into chaos and ruin.

By the Lib-Socs!

Sir, that remark makes me say this. At one time, we had the Labour Front as a cushion. Unfortunately now it has disappeared having chosen to leap into the abyss instead of fighting and dying in noble defeat. Now, I come to the only point in this Budget which I shall deal with, Sir, on a matter of which I have considerable expert knowledge. I refer, Sir, to the statement of the Hon. the Financial Secretary when he said with great pride: "By all standards, the achievement has been monumental. Since the war, over 15,500 housing units and 600 shops have been built at a cost of $95 million." Sir, that is indeed monumental, but may I ask what has the present Government done in the way of housing? They have built less than 3,000 houses which were built in 1954, out of a total aim of well over 10,000. That I must describe as an ignoble failure. Sir, we are being given excuses and reasons for not being able to build these houses. The public is not concerned with reasons. We are concerned only with the failure and the consequences that they have brought upon the people of Singapore. We are only concerned with the promises that have been broken. At the elections, we were told that we would have everything and now we get nothing. What do we have? We have 12,000 families now on the waiting list and for them there is no earthly chance of getting houses in the next few years because every house that is going to be completed will have to be given to those living on sites which have to be cleared for building by the Singapore Improvement Trust. Sir, that is a grievous position and what has the Government done to make up for the failure in meeting this what must be the most important platform? Nothing, absolutely nothing! Private development has been held up too. In my experience, it has taken us longer to get a plan passed than to build 500 houses. I am afraid and I am ashamed that I have to say this. Still, that is true and because of this, the Government has created problems everywhere. What has happened? You cannot stop people from finding shelter; they have to live somewhere. That has given the chance to speculators to build wildly all over the country hundreds of houses. That has already caused or is going to cause the collapse of the Master Plan and that has created a problem for any government to solve and it can only be solved with firmness and sympathy. Government could have easily acquired large tracts of land, putting roads, water and light and selling plots to the people who want sites to build their houses on or lease the land out so that they can build themselves a shelter over their heads. Instead of that, everything that goes out to the Planning Department is held up because of the Master Plan - a Master Plan which has never had our sanction but which has been applied during the last three years. And what is the result? Now, there are thousands of illegal houses and what is to be done? Sir, that is the biggest problem before us today. The same position, Sir, also applies to development schemes. The Hon. the Financial Secretary sighed with relief when he mentioned: "... it appears likely that, instead of the estimated deficit of $3 million, the Development Fund will show a surplus at the end of the year of the order of $40 million...". Sir, this is no progress. What it means is that $43 million worth of works which should have been done has not been done and is projected into the future causing more delay and confusion. Would it not be better for us, Sir, to have a realistic Budget than just hopes and aims unachieved? I do however endorse heartily that more of the Central Provident Fund should be invested locally and also the suggestion of the Hon. the Financial Secretary that a Planning Committee with representatives of the Government, the City Council and other development authorities be set up as quickly as possible. Too often have I noticed roads being torn up, repaired and being torn up again for the water, light and sewerage services and I am sure a Planning Committee like this will avoid all these unnecessary expenses being incurred. 3.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, contrary to the opinion of some Members on this side of the House, in my opinion, one of the most cheerful things about the review of 1957 which the Hon. the Financial Secretary made in his speech is the record of progress. The Budget has been described by the local Press as "painless" and I think that is a very fair criticism; so also were the Hon. the Financial Secretary's remarks on economic cooperation between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. The future of these two territories, Sir, is so closely linked that one would like to believe that anything other than the closest economic liaison between them would be unthinkable. Nevertheless, I have heard fears expressed from time to time about the future of the currencies of these territories and, in a way, it is a pity that the Hon. the Financial Secretary was unable to tell us more at this stage regarding the issue and control of currency, foreign exchange control, import/export control and other matters which, as he said in his speech, were for the moment sub judice. Although I do not find myself in agreement with very many of the remarks made by the Member for Tanjong Pagar this morning, I do agree that there must be a large amount of income tax evasion and this is a particularly sore point with the much maligned European community who nobody will deny have always met their obligations in full. It is at least reassuring however to hear the Hon. the Financial Secretary saying that outstanding arrears will be collected. But the good thing about this Budget, Sir, and indeed about almost every Budget presented to us over the last few years, is that the position remains, as described by the Hon. Minister on more than one occasion when he uses the effective but prosaic word "sound". A small public debt and a general revenue balance equivalent to 3½ months revenue is indeed a sound position. Nevertheless, one cannot help experiencing a little uneasiness at the thought of expenditure growing year by year while revenue is showing signs of levelling out. It is true that the main increases in expenditure are in social services, education and medical services but in the final analysis, the country's expenditure must be related to its revenue capacity and, in view of the Hon. the Financial Secretary's rebuttal of allegations regarding Government's extravagance, it is difficult to see how in the forthcoming years, the gulf of $12 to $15 million annually can be bridged unless there be a considerable increase in taxation. For my own part, I cannot see any reduction in the rate of expansion of the social services, and so on, being lightly undertaken by any socialist Government. Personally, I accept the Hon. the Financial Secretary's statement that there is nothing new or novel in the estimate of expenditure. I should believe that under his supervision and direction, the Treasury may and probably does argue bitterly about expenditure before it is approved. So, Sir, we arrive at an actual estimated deficit of $8 million and the Assembly last week heard, to my mind, the astounding fact that increases in taxation this year would be confined to petrol, diesel vehicles and stamp duty on conveyances, and I doubt, Sir, if any Members on this side of the House were other than greatly surprised. I cannot pay any serious attention to the arguments put forward by certain Members on this side of the House against the introduction of a tax on petrol. It seems to me a tax which is both logical and equitable but while many people must have sighed with relief at the moderation and mildness of the measures introduced, the ineluctable fact remains that much greater taxation is in the offing and that the present is no more than a respite. We have to admit that we are indeed one of the most lightly taxed nations in the world, as the Hon. the Financial Secretary has said, but those countries which are more heavily taxed probably get more for their money. However, if we want more, we must pay more. I find, Sir, again that I cannot share the Member for Tanjong Pagar's view that the method of presentation of these Estimates is deplorable and inefficient. There is no overt attempt to deceive the people or to secrete large sums away like some mendacious company director or, as we already have had reference to sleight of hand, some prestidigitator such as the Minister for Health. However, perhaps the Government will make an attempt to simplify them so that in the unlikely event of the People's Action Party coming into power, then the great brains of the Party will be able to understand them. I must say, Sir, that I do not like at all, in the Hon. the Financial Secretary's speech, the sinister references to eventual introduction of import duties. Many businessmen would be dismayed at the thought and even if the tariffs, as, the Minister for Commerce and Industry has indicated, were carefully chosen to avoid items which figure largely in the entrepot trade, I should feel that there is more in the entrepot trade than goods to godown basis. In a debate such as this, it is inevitable that political Parties will attack one another and it is in a way surprising that they should spare any time at all for nominated Members. I never had such limelight this morning since the days of the ex-Chief Minister. However, one is not impressed by the remarks of the Member for Tanjong Pagar. He rarely makes a speech without reference to perils unseen and people perishing and diving into the sea and such-like remarks but one or two things he said this morning I cannot let go unchallenged. One would have thought to hear him speak that the making of profits is an evil. Far from being an evil, it is indeed the chief object of business and is in itself an entirely laudable one. What is important is how profits are dealt with. An examination.. Sir, of the balance sheets of many local public companies, such as the list read out by the Member for Tanjong Pagar this morning, reveals that far from paying a large percentage of the profits to avaricious shareholders, the shareholders only receive what in business circles is known as a fair return. Frequently a large percentage is ploughed back into the business here in this country permitting the companies to expand and thus creating employment. A dividend of, shall we say, 30 per cent paid on the paid-up capital of a company would be described by the uninitiated and even by the Member for Tanjong Pagar, who in this field shows an obtuseness which he shared with the ex-Member for Cairnhill (Mr D. S. Marshall) probably as "an obscene profit" - that was the expression once used in this House. A 30 per cent dividend, Sir, does not mean that one can invest one's money in a company and obtain 30 per cent on one's money. It is entirely wrong and illogical to consider in isolation dividends paid on paid-up capital and unless one takes into account all the money employed in the business - funds which incidentally belong to the shareholders - one may receive an entirely wrong impression. Any local investor knows very well that he can only expect a certain yield on his investment. Such yield might be 10 per cent although the dividend might be 100 per cent. I would say, Sir, just before I leave this subject that an investor is entitled to a reasonable return on his money especially in an industrial enterprise. He is taking a calculated risk .and he is entitled to a certain return. Out of this return, Government takes a .good slice. The attitude of certain politicians to this is that the workers should share in all this in a bigger way than they do. The wicked capitalist. .of course, supplies them with jobs and their livelihood but he also takes all the risks as all the headaches, pays the taxes, gives his workers annual leave, medical leave, casual leave, maternity leave and virtually runs a welfare state. His motto might very well be Liberty Egalite and maternity. All this he must do so even if his company makes losses and we know full well that if they made losses, the workers would never dream or indeed would be incapable of making them up. But my last word on this subject, Sir, which I am cutting short, is simply this. Let us remember that a large majority of the local companies here may have foreign-sounding names or may have originally been foreign or British entirely in their origin but today a great number of their shareholders and the executives too are not necessarily foreigners. The owners of the company may in fact be the clerks in your office who may have ventured their small capital in order to get a better return than they get in their miserable deposit accounts with banks or the Post Office savings bank. There is just one other thing I would like to say, Sir, apropos the remarks of the Member for Tanjong Pagar, and that is this: he actually mentioned the corporation I myself serve and I would like to tell him that in the dire circumstances which he envisaged of our being taken over by some unfriendly local set-up, I can assure him that whoever they are, they will probably get less than the Japanese got out of us. 3.41 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must contradict the statements and the speeches made by two Members in the Assembly today. One was the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) and the other was the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck). They accuse the Government, Sir, for the state of affairs with regard to the housing programme. It is true that I did make a statement earlier this year that between September 1956 and August 1957 not a single housing unit was completed. I hope that both the Members and the other Members of this Assembly would realise that I used the word "completed" and that I did not use the words "under construction". But in actual fact, Sir, during that period, there were more than 4,000 housing units under construction. If Members had taken the trouble to follow some of the statements which I have made both in this House and outside, they would have realised that to have a house completed in 1956, planning should have started way back in 1954 or earlier. That was the time, Sir, when we were not in power. You cannot build a house, less still complete a huge building programme, by the mere stroke of a pen. You need planning, money and vacant land. As for vacant land, Sir, there is hardly any place in Singapore today which is not crowded with squatters. One cannot arbitrarily evict this class of people without giving them alternative accommodation even though Government has taken mandatory orders against them. The resettlement of squatters from land earmarked for the Singapore Improvement Trust building schemes is the most formidable task confronting Government in its housing projects. One non-cooperative squatter can hold up the whole scheme. I hope that Members of this Assembly will realise this when they send their chits and bits of papers to me pleading for an extension of time on behalf of squatters on Crown land against whom action is about to be taken. The Member for Tanglin - fortunately he is not here today - is one of the most distinguished offenders of this habit. If Opposition Members blame Government, then I think a fair measure of the blame should also be placed on the shoulders of the Members themselves. As for the Housing Authority, I have promised this House that a Bill for this will be introduced at the next session of the Assembly. There has been no delay in tackling this problem. The establishment of a housing and development authority is also inter-dependent on the establishment of a new planning department and a new planning authority since the Singapore Improvement Trust is at present responsible for both housing and planning, and the dissolution of the Trust therefore requires that planning should also be covered besides housing. One last word, Sir. The Member for Paya Lebar said just now that there had been delays in having plans passed by the authorities because of the Master Plan. As far as I am aware, Sir, this is not quite the case. The question of saving plans passed in Singapore does not necessarily rest entirely with the Master Plan team or the Master Plan itself but you have so many authorities in Singapore which have got to give the green light. Sometimes it may be the City Council and sometimes the Rural Board but inevitably the approval must finally rest with the Singapore Improvement Trust who are not, shall I say, the authority on the Master Plan. 3.45 p.m.

r Speaker, Sir, in his reply, the Minister for Commerce and Industry has tried to paint a picture to tell us that all is well but from one of his colleagues, the Hon. the Financial Secretary, we have heard that "the boom period is over" and that "money is now tighter". We have also heard with truth from the Hon. the Financial Secretary that in the field of labour relations, there has been labour disputes, strikes and consequential losses of pay and working time. In effect, he has admitted: "It would be idle to deny that the events of 1955 and 1956 did much to destroy the feeling of stability, security and confidence which is vital for the existence of Singapore as a centre of world trade, services and communications.' Of the two, I believe that the Hon. the Financial Secretary has spoken the truth. Today, Singapore is losing rapidly its position as a centre of trade.

How do you know?

There is no need to explain to the Member for Tanjong Pagar, who is a specialist at strikes and a specialist at riots.

Order. I think to accuse an hon. Member of being a specialist at strikes and riots is certainly unparliamentary.

It was at his invitation, Sir.

Please withdraw those remarks.

I withdraw them, Sir. The Member for Tanjong Pagar will not know anything about this.

Tell us what you know of-

Order.

I think he is a stranger in business. In Singapore, we all know and we all admit that we have nothing to produce. There is no hinterland as the Minister for Commerce and Industry is dreaming about.

On a point of explanation, Sir. I did not say that. His own Party member made that remark.

It is disorderly to stand unless the hon. Member gives way. Is the hon. Member giving way?

I think he has explained it even without my giving way, Sir. The Government Benchers have always taken that advantage and I think they take it as a matter of right. We know that today trade has not been good. The Minister for Commerce and industry will remember that when we met this time last year, there were delegations of traders coming to see him. I would say that there had been people who were manufacturers of beehoon who came along to see him saying that they would have to close down 20 or 30 factories and he said, "We will help you. We will start a corporation." He called that the Industrial Promotion Board with a capital of $1 million. They did what they could and took his advice. Today, they are still in exactly the same position. The manufacturers still find keen competition and many of them are throwing out more and more of their employees. I think the Singapore Standard published a report of some more people calling on him and this time it was the oil-millers who described to him the shortage of copra which was affecting their business. I do not think that he is going to be able to do anything for them in that matter. Again we had the shoemakers headed by Mr Soh Koon Tin seeing him about their difficulties. He told them that he could not do anything for them, that things must take their course, that goods cannot be stopped from coming in and that the free flow of goods must not be stopped - and I should say nor can he stop his salary from getting into his pocket! Last year, we had the soap manufacturers rushing madly about in Singapore and the biscuit manufacturers too and these people have reduced their output; many of them have shifted their factories into the Federation. I suppose this would be described as being an excellent understanding that has been established with the Government of the Federation of Malaya. Yes, in a matter such as this, our Singapore Government has never been in a position to protect its own trade. With the Federation, it is a sovereign state and we must take the heavy end of the stick! Today we are faced with another difficulty. There is a crisis in Indonesia. I think that our Ministers will again fold their arms and say, "Well, you may complain that business has dropped 50 per cent. The import/export business between Indonesia and Singapore has dropped because of this crisis, but we cannot do anything." Local traders are afraid of what will happen to their capital in Indonesia. They will want protection from this Government. I expect the same reply from the Government will be, "We cannot help you. We can do nothing. It will have to take its own course." Of course, Government will claim credit especially during last year when it sent an expensive mission to Indonesia and came back announcing everywhere that it had brought back so many tons of goods and rubber which had incidentally already been negotiated by the traders themselves. All these, Sir, leave me to think that Government has never awakened to the fact that it is their duty to increase trade because it is only with increased trade that we can increase revenue. If we look into the income tax returns right from the beginning when we started to collect tax, we will see that right from 1948 we started collecting $2.8 million, going up to $30 million and going up all the time until in 1956 it was $68 million. This shows, Sir, that expenditure in this colony may rise, we may need more money for our social services, but the most sensible way and the most painless way of collecting revenue would be to increase trade because anybody who makes money will not worry about being taxed. With the same rate of income tax but with increased business, I expect that we should not be collecting just $68 million but should be collecting near $100 million.

On a point of information, Sir.

If the hon. Member will give way. Mr Lim Choon Mong resumed his seat.

I want to know, Mr Speaker, Sir, whether the hon. Member could explain to us what increased trade has got to do with the mounting figures over the years. Does he suggest that the trade has been increasing from 1948 to 1956? Hence, the greater amounts year by year being collected.

I am glad that I have been asked for an explanation by the Member for Tanjong Pagar. I suppose this time I have a bright student. Income tax, Sir, is collected from profits and if profits rise, we have more income tax; if profits rise, the volume of trade has increased so that with increased trade we should have increased profits and with increased profits we shall have more in the form of revenue by way of income tax.

Sir, may I put a supplementary question? Is the Member aware that the increased amounts collected by way of tax was because the percentage for tax was increased steadily over the years and that that amount collected has no relation whatsoever to the total national income year by year?

The hon. Member does not know that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is very sad for the Member for Tanjong Pagar to hint that trade has not increased because it is hitting directly at his partners in the coming elections to say that they have not been able to bring in more trade, but the experts in the Statistics Department which send voluminous stuff to him every month dealing with trading figures should have given him those points. However, I do not think that we should waste time because one Member cannot understand this simple matter.

Can you?

Sir, in increasing trade, we must, as the Minister for Commerce and Industry said, create a suitable climate. We must not have wild talk as he said. We must keep Singapore as a free port. Yes, we must keep Singapore as a free port, so said the Minister, but we would have introduced the Luxury Tax Bill and make it not so free, and from what the Government has been trying to tell us, we expect that this freedom will be curtailed soon. This would be very serious indeed. To create a suitable climate, the Minister for Commerce and Industry remarked that they have arrested subversives and that there has been a return of confidence. Yes, they have arrested subversives but at the same time while condemning the Party that produced them they have allied with them in the coming elections in order to create not a good climate but another doubtful climate with black clouds all over the Island.

Because the Lib-Socs are going to be defeated.

Sooner or later, they will find that instead of the hope that they will get capital, capital will flee.

The Lib-Socs are frightened.

The Lib-Socs have never been frightened. I was indeed very glad this morning when the leader of the People's Action Party expressed that victory in the present polls would go to the Liberal Socialist Party.

Not in the 14 divisions.

And he referred to the tarnished gold of the Labour Front which has now vanished since our ex-Chief Minister left them. Sir, in the matter of trade promotion, there are two types of capital, local capital and foreign capital. Foreign capital needs that "climate" but local capital is in Singapore and local capital should be willing to invest in Singapore but how is that even the local people who have the money refuse to invest it in Singapore? The local people understand things even better and the local people I would say have even advocated that their money be invested in foreign countries. I will give you a very good example, Sir, an example that is, I should say, sponsored by the Government because I again agree with the Hon. the Financial Secretary that this step is wrong: the Central Provident Fund Board insists that 25 per cent of its fund should be invested outside Malaya at a time when Singapore is requiring it and the Central Provident Fund Board is a Board appointed by the present Government! This Board I would say must have the blessings of the Government to give an example to the people of Singapore not to invest all its money in Singapore but elsewhere! This I think is absolutely bad for Singapore. We need that money. We must have confidence in ourselves. All organisations that have money and all capital in Singapore should express confidence in Singapore and invest their money here otherwise how can we attract the people in foreign countries to invest their money here? However let me now turn to what Singapore can supply in the matter of its facilities. Singapore produces nothing but she can produce the service and we just do not produce the service by folding our arms or by leaving things to take their own course. We must train our men. In one of the -

The Singapore Standard.

Yes, in the Standard again, you will find that they referred to the large number of students who are leaving schools this year in search of jobs and they referred to them as aspiring to be clerks - Singapore as a country or as a land that is turning out people fit to be clerks. In this country, we produce nothing and if we just produce clerks, we will not progress. I compare Singapore with countries like Britain and Japan with limited land but which make use of their services for their livelihood. In these countries, the Governments should plan to give the people facilities so that students will not only get training to be clerks, but they can be trained in technical jobs too. They should be trained in all lines of professions to fit them in with the requirements of their country. I know in the Estimates that there is a Head for-

Boys' clubs.

- Defence. We will come to that. There is a big Head for Defence. We are spending a lot of money on our Navy. I wonder how big a Navy we can create, whether that Navy will be big enough to withstand any one of our neighbours. At best it can be said that the Navy we can create will be a coastal patrol against smugglers. Why can we not put that sum of money into something more useful? Why can we not train our people to become mariners and navigators? We have a lot of seamen in Singapore but we do not have people who are trained to take over the control of boats. That money, I think, is utterly wasted. Of course the Hon. the Financial Secretary assured us that should the Federation of Malaya take over our Navy then we must provide further regiments. I again ask why further regiments? Are we going to war? Even if the whole population of Singapore become soldiers, can we fight any of our neighbours? We will have to rely on other factors than our own strength and that money could be usefully spent in training our own people. The regiment is needed to help the Police in keeping internal peace but we do not want to overspend on that. Now even turning to Education, we know that we have provided nothing to train technical people to fit them into the various positions in trade and industry. The Government has even failed to implement its policy of giving a place to every child before the age of 12 or 14 years. Again I find this reference in the speech by the Hon. the Financial Secretary: "It is the aim of the Government to give primary education to all children between the ages of 6 and 14.". But today we find that many of the students have been thrown out of school because they failed to pass the Std. V or Primary VI examination, and they have not attained the age of 14. Even some of those who passed have not been given places because the Government's policy seems to be that for every secondary school there must be two or three primary schools. I think under this Development Head on Education you will find that on the schools planned by the Government

Order. This is the same point raised earlier on when other hon. Members were speaking, that possibly if the hon. Member wishes to embark on a detailed criticism of the Government's education policy, the right moment would be in the Committee of Supply.

I agree with you, Sir. This is only fleeting criticism and I am not dealing with it in detail; I am only making a rapid reference to it. I was referring to this Head, Sir, D 45, in order to point out that even Government itself, in the matter of building schools, would be building something like 66 primary schools to 20 secondary schools. This again, Sir, will be contrary to the promise of the Labour Front and children between the ages of 6 and 14 will not have a place in school. Of course, if the Government is pursuing such a policy and knows that it cannot sufficiently provide for all students and all the children, then it should help young people in other ways. Today we find that because of insufficient educational facilities young people have been thrown out into the streets, too young to be employed, and not educated enough to be employed, and nobody will ever employ them because of these factors; and when they are out in the streets, they become a problem to the police. We have heard a great deal of juvenile delinquency. Government has not been helping these people much. The Member for Tanjong Pagar referred to boys' clubs. At least the boys' club movement has tried to help the young people of Singapore. What has the P.A.P. to offer to the young people of Singapore? I certainly feel that with organisations and movements such as this they should get encouragement from leaders like the P.A.P. leader, instead of having cold water poured on them. If he would do a stroke of work to lift the young people up from their idleness and uselessness, I would have taken my hat off to him. Mr Lee Kuan Yew rose -

Is it a point of order?

Elucidation, Sir.

If the hon. Member will give way.

Yes, Sir.

I am full of admiration for boys' clubs properly run without government aid. I am not so full of admiration for boys' clubs not so properly run with government aid. So far as the youths of the P.A.P. are concerned they are very active indeed.

Order. I think an intervention of that nature is not quite in order. It should be just to elucidate what an hon. Member is saying.

We can always forgive the P.A.P. for their rudeness.

Order.

Sir, on the problem of the young people, with so little assistance coming from Government, I cannot help feeling that young criminals will grow up to be old and hardened criminals. Today we find there is a general feeling of insecurity in Singapore. This feeling is expressed by one of the most important organisations in Singapore - the Chinese Chamber of Commerce. They have downright condemned the inactivity of the Government in matters such as this. We must be able to live in peace and security, and if Government cannot offer us that, then it is not doing its job. I must now, Sir, touch on some of the points raised by other speakers this morning during the debate. I was most surprised to hear the P.A.P. leader talking of the Labour Front being hoodwinked by the past colonial government and again offering to its partner a wreath for its early demise. This seems to be bad. I am referring to this because the Minister for Commerce and Industry mentioned stability. I wonder how stability can be brought about when one of its own partners is accusing it of being led by the nose by the colonial government and that the millions of dollars that was approved for payment to the expatriates is going to be poured down the drain. I find it most illogical for the young brother to criticise the big brother. Coming to the question of taxation, Sir, when the Labour Front presented this Budget, I would say it was presenting a Budget meant for the election. We shall call it an election budget- with an eye to persuading the people of Singapore that it is going to be a painless budget, that it is not going to hurt them, and that the best way not to hurt them is to tax them very little. The Labour Front seems to think that a tax on petrol would do the job. I was thinking that it will have its repercussions and I think I am not wrong because the newspapers have reported that the increase of 20 cents a gallon on petrol will increase the fares of taxis. The taxi drivers have protested against it and they are thinking of increasing the fares. The lorry owners' association, bringing in rice and daily necessities for the people, have also thought of increasing haulage fees. These increases in haulage fees and in taxi fares will certainly not hit those who own the vehicles, but they will usually be passed on to the consumers. As the Chinese say, "If the sheep wants more wool, then it has to be pulled out of its own body." If the poor people want more social services, then the Government will get the money for them out of their own pocket. This method of taxation is not only directed at the people who have money but is also directed at those who have to travel by public conveyances and who rely on shopkeepers or lorries to supply them with food. A newspaper article says that the increase in petrol will also affect fishermen who use motorised sampans. It will also affect those industries that have anything to do with petrol. So on this taxation, I find that the Government has again placed it on those people who would want to have facilities from the rich but have now to pay for them out of their own pocket. On the question of promotion of trade, the Government has failed. On housing, it has not built sufficient houses. On education, it is well known that the people of Singapore have never been satisfied with what Government has done. So all in all, I find that this last Budget of the Labour Front is not at all a Budget for the people. It presents a programme that is cock-eyed, and one that will not benefit the people one iota. 4.16 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I sometimes get rather bored when I am travelling in my car, and I try to find something to do. One little thing I did recently was to take a count of the taxis I met on the road. I think the hon. Member for Serangoon and other hon. Members might be interested to know the result. I took a count extending over nine days and over a total of 12 trips. These were mostly at rush hours, at 8.30 in the morning or at 5.30 to 6.00 in the evening which are the hours when I am going to and from my office. There were other trips as well. I counted only those taxis which were actually in the traffic stream, not parked taxis or taxis at the stands or drawn up by the side of the road because the driver was going to get a cup of coffee. I found that there were 334 taxis travelling along with no passengers on board and 236 had passengers on board. My deduction from that is that the 236 passengers who were travelling were paying not only for their own 2 miles or so, but they were going to pay for the 3 miles during which the vehicle was travelling empty. If that is true of all taxis in Singapore, then that means, of course, that by and large, out of every 5 miles they travel, 3 are unpaid miles during which they are travelling empty looking for a fare. If that is true - I do not say it is, it is not a sufficient sample, but it is an interesting one - then the taxis have a very considerable margin which they can still absorb in the way of taxation before they have to put up their fares. Moreover, there is another margin which can well be absorbed by taxis before their fares are driven up by increased petrol costs, and that of course is the fact that about 50 per cent of the taxis are still capitalist-owned, for which a worker has to pay a rent to the capitalist. After he has paid the rent, he is then free to make his own personal living. The number of taxis has gone up by about 40 per cent. There are roughly 600 more taxis on the roads since the delimitation which we have secured on taxis. Of the 2,300 operating, I am told that half of them are owner-operated and the other half are still capitalist-owned rented ones. The man who rents a taxi, I am told, has to pay about $10 a day; or $7 or $8 if it is a night rental. That means that this $7, $8, or $10 is an available margin which can still be absorbed by the industry. The capitalists can go out of business and sell their taxis to the good men who are driving them and there is still an ample margin before fares have to go up. At present, the largest amount of the earnings in the industry are going to idle people who are sitting back and making a noise. I think it is highly desirable that we should have owner-operated taxis and I think, in so far as this increase in petrol costs, or diesel costs for that matter, has an effect on the taxi industry, it will be to turn it into an owner-operated industry and not a capitalist-controlled one. We have not heard much about the diesel-engine tax. Everyone seems to think in terms of the petrol engine, but it is worth noting that the diesel engine has hitherto had a very marked favourable margin in comparison with the petrol engine in the past. A diesel motor-car - not many of them, but such as there are - has been paying $168 in tax before compared to $364 paid by a 14 h.p. petrol car doing a thousand miles a month. That gap is still a wide one with the new tax. The figure is $456 for petrol and $336 for diesel, and there is still a big advantage in having a diesel-engine vehicle if you can get one. The same sort of margin applies to buses or lorries, but I will not take up the time of the House because the debate has already gone on too long. I must point out also that in the bus industry - there are some 1,200 vehicles - about two-thirds are diesel buses and one-third are petrol buses, and the diesel buses have had a marked advantage in relation to petrol buses, and still have it after tax. The number of passengers carried in buses is probably about 200,000,000 a year, possibly more, and I do not think that the amount of tax distributed amongst them is going to affect the bus fares. I have one little point to make about the lorries, and that is that the Registrar of Vehicles is at present unable to impose a load limit on them, so that they do carry very heavy loads for the time being. Now I would like to turn, quite briefly, to one or two other points made by Members of the Opposition. One of their favourite tricks is to say that we have said things which we have not said and then to attempt to shoot us down. Mr Lim Choon Mong remarked of the Minister for Commerce that he had said that all was well in industrial development. He did not say that; he said there had been progress. Mr John Ede remarked about myself that I said I had no faith in experts.

On a point of order, Sir, Is it in order for the Minister to call an hon. Member by name?

Perhaps the Minister should have referred to him as the Member for Tanglin.

I do apologise, Sir, I was looking at my notes and "J. Ede" is shorter than "Member for Tanglin". The Member's point was that I said I had no faith in experts. I did not say so. What I said was that when we got experts we had to stick to them. We have had expert after expert coming in and putting up schemes all of which have been admirable, but they do not agree with each other, so when we have to get an expert, we have to work on his advice. This sort of misrepresentation is damaging, Sir, because it leads off into a general inaccuracy of mind and misrepresentation which is carried to quite absurd lengths in Singapore. We know that there are some difficulties and troubles in Singapore but there are a great many more signs of hope and prospects of success and it is of no service at all to this country to pretend that Singapore is a bad place or a foolish place or a weak place, because it is not. It is a very good place indeed and it is very far ahead of many other territories in this part of the world, and even of territories with a very much longer history of development; and no service is done to Singapore by misrepresentation of the facts. Particularly a very bad case of this is where the hon. Member for Serangoon - he has gone out for his tea - chose to say that the trade of Singapore has fallen. It has not fallen. I will read out the figures to the House to get them on the record: 1954 $ Imports 3,024,000,000 Exports 2,685,000,000 1955 Imports 3,849,000,000 Exports 3,369,000,000 1956 Imports 3,929,000,000 Exports 3,429,000,000 In other words, trade has gone up in value year after year, $5,700,000,000 in 1954 to $7,350,000,000 in 1956. And when an hon. Member stands up in this House and hopes to get himself quoted in the Press with a completely inaccurate statement that trade has fallen, I regard it as doing no service at all to Singapore but doing considerable harm, because he may find that his incorrect figures and views are quoted and the truth is ignored and the good name of Singapore is damaged. Luckily I do not think the words of this particular Member will carry very great weight with any section of the community. 4.30 p.m. Another attempt was made by the same Member. He quoted various industries - beehoon and oil-milling, I think, footwear and so on - and said that the Minister for Commerce and Industry had not done much. Well, there again that is a misrepresentation. What they asked for of course were protective tariffs, throwing away our free port status in order to give them protection. Well, that is a very big thing to ask for. In view of the fact that Members of the Opposition have laid great stress on the free port status of Singapore, they can hardly say that we have been wrong in denying the beehoon factories protective tariffs. These are just some of the points which, I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, ought to be referred to. Even though the hon. Members concerned are not here, I wish to get them on the record, to see the facts of the case are there for those who wish to find them out in future. I think I might make one further reference, Mr Deputy Speaker, and that is to the unification of the transport system. We have in fact been told by one or two Members of the Opposition that we have not yet unified the transport system. There have been difficulties and delays and I think the public is entitled to know what these difficulties and delays have been. I am far from having lost my faith in experts. I have a transport expert who has been helping us - Mr Hawkins - and he was here a year ago. Unfortunately, he fell sick early this year and had to get back to England for an operation and has not been available to us, although he is now restored to health and will be available, I hope, in the near future. Well that is an act of a misfortune on which no government can provide. We cannot ensure that an expert whom we have relied on will not get sudden and serious illness which may cost him his life; and if he gets ill, we shall have to wait till he gets well again before we can go forward. Another factor is that last year when I went to England one of the points which I managed to secure was an agreement by the Singapore Traction Company that we should have full access to their records and accounts for the purpose of getting an accountant's professional report, so that if we consider taking them over we should be able to go ahead with an accountant's report as a guide and a basis for negotiation. I got that agreement and we then discussed with them in detail precisely what they were making available and what we would do, with various arrangements. In February this year we were able definitely to employ accountants both here and in London, and to put them to work on the Traction Company's accounts. We hoped to have the report from the accountants, I think it was last June. Unfortunately, for one reason or another, the accountants have not been able to produce their report and I have still not got it. So there again I had to get an expert or experts to do the survey of accounts and the experts unfortunately have not yet been able to keep to their due date. Moreover, we are operating in Singapore at a time of financial stringency with very great calls on our capital, and I have been anxious to devise, if possible, a method of unifying our transport system which would minimise the amount of capital which had to be found from public funds and therefore which would employ as far as possible private funds at present in the industry. This is of course one of the points made in the Hawkins Report, one on which we have been working. I particularly refer at the moment to the Chinese Bus Owners' Association, the 12 companies run by Chinese firms of varying sizes. I had hoped very much that we should retain the skill, capital and initiative which those Chinese bus owners have shown in the industry, because if we lose them we will have to find somebody else - and that is also a troublesome and maybe costly business. Well, they have not shown any enthusiasm for unification but, in the process of negotiation and discussion extending over a very long period, we finally - a little earlier this year, a month or two ago - got them to agree that they would he unified, they would be prepared to amalgamate. We have on the files the general lines of what they had in their minds and we were waiting for further progress on that. But unfortunately I am told (I do not read the Chinese papers myself) that now the President of that Association has come out with a further statement saying that, on second thoughts, he thinks amalgamation would be a mistake. Consequently, I am back where I started. After seeking to get the co-operation of the bus owners, I am not quite sure where I stand now in relation to them, and it may be that we may have to think again, and on different lines. As to that again, I cannot say, but these are factors which do not lie under the control of Ministers or the Government. I cannot control the sickness or health of an expert nor, having engaged a very highly reputed firm of accountants, can I compel production of a report in time; or if not, to get another firm of accountants and start all over again; having engaged an expert, I have to stick to him. For these reasons, there have been delays. I have wished very much to avoid them and I think the House will be interested to know the reasons why Government has not been able to avoid delay. 4.37 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think the most ignorant speech I have heard this afternoon was the one delivered by the hon. Member for Serangoon, who styles himself leader of the Opposition. I suppose the Liberal-Socialists can never produce any better man of calibre. He went on attacking the Government for failures, piled on it one criticism after another, and said that Government had failed to increase trade. On the other hand, he failed to tell us how to increase trade. He failed to give us any constructive means or ways by which Government can increase the trade of the Colony. All he did was to criticise. He also gave us a false impression by saying that Government was not do, ing its part in providing adequate educational facilities for the vast population. He said that Government had no plan to provide technical education for over-aged students. It is extremely mischievous - I am sorry he is not here to hear this, although I do not think he has the courage to hear this-it is mischievous to say that there is no plan for over-aged students, or that they are being neglected. Even at the present moment, there are large numbers of over-aged students in the schools. There is no intention to throw them out to make space (which would be proper) for children of the correct age group, of whom there are many clamouring for places. So long as these over-aged students can make the grade, they will be allowed to continue, and to assist them to make the grade, schools have been asked to separate them from those of the proper age, so that teachers can pay special attention to and assist them where there is no need to do so. There is under the Adult Education Council a large number of over-aged students or young adults, who receive some sort of education. Government gave the Council a grant of $500,000 this year and I have no doubt that this amount will increase as the need arises. There are evening classes run by Government which will cost Government an estimated $360,000 next year. Recently, I have noted that voluntary bodies want to run night schools or classes for over-aged students. I would like to take this opportunity to say that I note this with satisfaction and that officers in my Ministry will be instructed to give all assistance to such a scheme which may be submitted for approval. In this respect I want to stress that there is no shirking of responsibility, but Members must be reminded that Government resources - such as finance and personnel - are limited, and that it will therefore fall on the shoulders of public-spirited people to come and assist Government in this gigantic task. On the question of school buildings, I think it was the hon. Member for Tanglin who said that Government did not provide any technical education to fight Communism, and that only one technical school had been built. Well, two technical schools have been operating for a year now. I wish to remind the Member that during our term of office, 54 primary schools have been built, as against 42 during the period between 1949 and 1954. And of 12 new secondary school buildings planned, some have been completed and others will be completed within the next 12 months. The peak for secondary school buildings has yet to be reached, but it will not be long before the big increase in the post-war primary school population will be felt. At the moment, the biggest challenge is provision of more schools for Chinese education. The Government is committed to this and will see it through. The next four secondary school buildings completed will be used to house the present four Government Chinese middle schools. Indeed, two of the four have already been completed and will be used next month. The ten-year plan, augmented by the previous five-year plan, is based on the need of the English schools system. Now that the full grant-in-aid scheme is in operation and Government is committed to Chinese education side by side with English, Malay and Tamil, I can assure the House that a new phase in planning has begun and that this will be pursued vigorously by my Ministry. 4.43 p.m. The Acting Chief Secretary (Mr S. T. \): Sir, I do not propose to take up the time of this House for more than a few minutes but I would like to touch on one or two points which has arisen out of the debate. The first one is in connection with Malayanisation. I think when the hon. Member for Kampong Kapor touched on it, he was under the impression that an officer, on being promoted to a higher post, can, under the Malayanisation scheme, retire with higher compensation after occupying that post for just more than a few months. For the purpose of clarification, Sir, I would like to point out the fact that if an entitled officer is promoted, it does not necessarily mean an increase in his compensation. Officers are required to serve in a promotion post for a minimum period of two years inclusive of leave before they are entitled to compensation based on the salary of the higher promotion post. Sir, reference was made this morning to the present problem of crime and gangsterism in Singapore. The police, Sir, have already taken certain steps in this direction, but I am sure its work in combating crime and gangsterism can be made much more effective if it receives an increasing measure of support, information and co-operation, from the public. I can assure the House that the Government is giving active consideration to other measures to meet the situation. I think the hon. Member for Serangoon touched on the need to expend money on our regular Battalions. I think the short answer to that, Sir, is that we must have our local forces; we would like to have them to support the police in maintaining law and order should the need arise. I think the hon. Member for Changi seemed to have adopted the attitude that in this H-bomb and sputnik age, we should not bother about defence at all. I think this attitude would be all right, Sir, if we could get an undertaking from all potential enemies that they would never attack us except with an all-annihilating H-bomb! As well say, 'Why bother to buy and carry a payong? It would be no good if you are struck by lightning!' Yet a payong will protect you completely from light showers and, to a limited extent, from the heaviest rain. I think the truth, Sir, is that, unfortunately, there are many forms of warfare and aggression short of all-out attack with the most devastating weapons. I think the atomic and hydrogen bombs, Sir, have not lessened the destructive force of what is euphemistically called conventional high explosives; and nuclear weapons can be used in a tactical (that is limited objective) as well as strategic (that is blanketing) role. And whilst Singapore wishes nothing but peace to all, Sir, we must have local forces to support our police in maintaining law and order within our borders which (Singapore being an island) include large tracts of sea. 4.47 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member for Tanglin, in the course of a rather feeble effort to belittle the achievements of Government,, amongst other things suggested that the Coalition Government has not achieved anything in combating tuberculosis. I think he picked on TB because our achievements in practically all fields have been so substantial that he could not think of anything else, but even in this, his appreciation of the true situation is in error. The conquest of TB is not one of those things which can be achieved overnight. Tuberculosis has been with mankind for as long as history can recall. Even in countries where medical facilities and advances have been considerable, it has taken a very long time to come to a state where the incidence of the disease is under control. Before I assumed office, what was the situation in regard to TB? A small body of hard-working men were trying to cope with the demands of thousands, in a hospital which could not accommodate more than 500 persons, and a part of which was for the chronically sick other than TB. I refer to the Tan Tock Seng Hospital. The position is very much otherwise today, Sir. The bed accommodation has been increased to nearly 1,000 and, before the first half of next year is over, we will see a further increase of another 400 beds. In addition, the school medical service's has expanded its programme of contact-tracing and detection of cases amongst pupils and teachers. Substantial financial assistance, far in excess of that which the previous Government provided or thought of providing, has been made available to another body which is attempting to combat TB, and that is the Royal Singapore Tuberculosis Association. Government is also making a contribution towards the capital expenditure of a hospital which SATA will manage. In addition, under the Colombo Plan, we have come to arrangements with the Australian Government for the initiation of a case-finding programme. That programme will develop and soon become a reality. Registrars and radiographers have been trained overseas, officers to man it have been appointed, the unit is ready and Australia will be able, I am told (unless something absolutely unforeseen develops) to initiate the programme here in the second half of 1958. I suggest to you, Sir, that these are not small achievements. They are real achievements when viewed against the background of indifference which the Members of the former Progressive Party who adorned the Legislative Council, displayed over and again, a sprinkling of whom I see today, who have made vain attempts to grasp power, and who have lost their identity in a marriage with lion dancers and former independent capitalists. 4.51 p.m.

It falls to my lot, Sir, to wind up this rather lengthy debate. I will try to make my remarks as short as possible. The criticisms and comments on the presentation of the budget, Sir, appeared to fall into three main categories. One was criticism of the method of presentation and compilation of the Estimates; the second was criticism of the measures of taxation proposed; and the third was general criticism of the policies of Government. With regard to the first, Sir-criticisms of the method of presentation and compilation of the Budget-colonial officials were accused by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar of inefficiency and worse. I do not think I need reply to this criticism, Sir. The record of colonial officials in the Colony of Singapore speaks for itself and requires no support from me. With regard to the other criticisms made by the Member for Tanjong Pagar, I feel sure, Sir, that he was carried away by the exuberance of his own verbosity when he said that my presentation of the Budget was glib to the point of dishonesty. I doubt whether Members of the Assembly will require me to contradict that statement. However, if it is felt that I must for the record, of course I deny-

Order. I think the Hon. the Financial Secretary must have heard me over-rule that expression.

Perhaps then, Sir, I may be allowed to say that, if I were a practitioner of the art of glibness - which I am not - I would not fail to avail myself of this opportunity to make deep obeisance to the high priest of the art, who is unfortunately now absent from his seat! On the question of the compilation of the Budget - this vexed question of estimated deficits being converted in the event into surpluses - I should say first of all, Sir, that we are to a certain extent bound by precedent in the method of compilation of the Estimates. The form in which they are presented has stood the test of time. It has been used for many years. It has been shaped and amended as conditions have demanded, and I think it does represent the best possible way of presenting the Estimates of a Government under the present Constitution. It is extraordinarily difficult, Sir, to estimate actual expenditure with any degree of accuracy in conditions of an expanding economy and where departments are growing rapidly. We take every possible step to ensure that nothing is entered in the Estimates which is not required for the efficient conduct of Government business and for the implementation of plans for the expansion of social services, but it is difficult if not impossible to say what will be spent in the event. If I may take the example of Personal Emoluments, Sir, we examine every application for new appointments with extreme care because, if approved, not only will it mean an increase in Government expenditure for the period of the officer's service, but it will also increase the bill for pensions. We examine these applications with very great care and we only enter in the Estimates those new appointments which are required for the efficient conduct of Government business. But we cannot say when we make up the Estimates how many of the new posts will be filled, what will be the state of the recruitment market, how many officers will be promoted to vacant posts, or when they will be promoted, or what savings will eventuate at the end of the year. Similarly in the case of Other Charges Annually Recurrent and Other Charges Special Expenditure, we may provide recurrent expenditure for a new launch or a new building, or some similar service, but the launch or building may not be completed on schedule and savings result. I think Sir, that explains how these savings do occur. There is, of course, a solution of the kind whereby over-estimating might be avoided. It might be possible to make a very rough guess under each head of expenditure of what under-expenditure might be at the end of the year, and then make a corresponding deduction from the total of that head. But that is a purely arbitrary approach to the matter, Sir, and any guess made in that way is as likely to prove wrong as to prove right. I personally prefer the course which we have followed for many years in Singapore. That is to let the Estimates stand and then to try, on the basis of experience and the record of the past, to give some estimate of what actual expenditure is likely to be when presenting the Budget. That is what we have done in the past, Sir, and what I have done this year. I have endeavoured, on the basis of past experience, to estimate what actual expenditure for 1958 will be, and I think that my estimates will not be very wide of the mark. I cannot believe, Sir, that this is a glib presentation. If I may continue, Sir, on the subject of the speech of the Member for Tanjong Pagar, he touched on a matter of Malayanisation which I think illustrated very clearly his facile manner of speech. He said - if my memory serves me right - that the total bill for Malayanisation, taking this at $25 million would take approximately 200 years to wipe off. I would like to refer him to the Interim Report of the Malayanisation Commission and to Chapter VI which is entitled the "Financial Aspect", in which he will see that the members of the Commission estimated that, when Malayanisation was complete, the savings on expatriation pay, passages and allowances would amount to approximately $34 million per year. That being so, the total cost of Malayanisation would, according to my calculations, be wiped off within a period of eight years. The Member also made, Sir, some rather facile references to income tax, to the inability of the Income Tax Department to collect tax, and he also made what I regard as rather facile suggestions as to how we might collect $108 million in a full year. He quickly passed from the matter - perhaps he did not have time to explain how it could be achieved - but I hope, Sir, that before the matter comes up in the Committee of Supply he will give me an opportunity to consider his suggestion by showing me his calculations. As Minister responsible for the Department of Income Tax, I must protest most vigorously against the accusations which are constantly levelled against it. The Department has been in existence for a little more than nine years. It now collects 27 per cent of the revenue of the Colony. I am satisfied, on investigations which I myself have made in connection with criticisms made in this Assembly, that most of the people who are liable to tax are known to the Department. To assess 20,000 individuals in a year, 60,000 cases are examined. As I say, Sir, I think that most of the people who are liable to tax are known to the Department. It is, however, an extremely difficult matter, in a complex society such as that of Singapore, to make certain that everybody pays the amount of tax which he is liable to pay. Moreover, Sir, in the matter of the assessment and collection of tax, we have been hampered to a certain extent by the fact that the officers of the Department started as it were from scratch in 1948. But we have, over a period of 9 years, Sir, built up what I regard as a quite extraordinary volume of experience in tax assessment and collection. And I am confident that the efficiency of the Department will increase and as this efficiency increases, so the amount of tax collected will increase, and the number of evaders of tax be substantially reduced. Passing now, Sir, to the question of taxation, it has been suggested that this was an election Budget and I would like to deny this most stoutly. The fact of the matter is that, on my calculations, no more than $8 million will be required to balance the actual expenditure and revenue next year. Had more been required, the Government would not have hesitated to impose further taxation. I would like to make that quite clear. It was also suggested, Sir, that in choosing petrol, we were following the lead of the Federation. That of course is not correct. It was stated when presenting the Budget for 1956 that the policy of this Government wherever items in the tariffs of the two territories coincided, was to bring the rates in Singapore to the same level as those in the Federation. The necessity for such action is of course obvious and I need not elaborate to any extent. The existence of different rates of tax in the two territories creates administrative difficulties and results in a considerable loss of revenue. It was said by, I think, the Member for Queenstown (Mr Lee Choon Eng) that it would be a very good thing if, for a change, the Federation Government followed the Government of Singapore but I would point out that this has indeed happened this year. The Government of the Federation of Malaya has raised its rate of estate duty to the same level as that of Singapore. On the question of the increase in petrol duty, we went into this with very great care, Sir, and quite apart from the desirability of having the same rate here as in the Federation, we are convinced that an increase of 20 cents per gallon would cause no hardship to any category of society in Singapore. Certain remarks were made during the course of the debate on the statement which I made in my speech, and which my hon, friend the Minister for Commerce and Industry made in his speech,, to the effect that import duties might be imposed in Singapore. I would however like to draw attention to the fact that I merely mentioned this as a possibility which would only be considered after all other possible means of increasing revenue had been explored - you might say, as a last resort. As I said, I hope sincerely that it will never be necessary to impose import duties and thus undermine the free port status of Singapore. I think the Member for Telok Ayer (Mr R. Jumabhoy) expressed a desire that all possible steps should be taken to reduce expenditure and I can only assure him, as I did when presenting the Budget, that we are very conscious of the need. It is our constant preoccupation, Sir, to take every possible step to reduce expenditure. We examine every proposal for increased expenditure and new appointments with very great care and I think that most heads of departments will agree that it is an extremely hard matter to persuade the Treasury that any new appointment or increased expenditure is essential. Lastly, on the question of the general policies of Government, attention has been drawn to the fact that I said that it was idle to deny that confidence in Singapore was less at the moment than it had been prior to 1955. I should point out that my statement referred to the fact that events in 1955 and in the early part of 1956 had done much to destroy external confidence in the future of Singapore. What I also said in my speech, Sir - and here I would like to speak, if I may, as a colonial official - was that a feature of the last two years was the extent to which confidence in Singapore has been restored by the Lim Yew Hock Government. This has been due to the quiet and commonsense approach to all economic and financial matters which has characterized its work. I would like to stress that I speak not as a politician but as a civil servant of some years experience. We are all aware that Singapore has been built up by trade, that the future of Singapore depends on trade, that trade cannot exist or flourish unless there is confidence in the policies, organisation and the constitution of the place in which trade takes place. Traders must be certain that their contracts will be honoured and that, if they are not honoured, they can obtain redress in the courts. It is with these facts in mind that I say that the efforts of this Government in connection with the suppression of subversion, and the action which it has taken to pursue commonsense and realistic economic and financial policies, have done a very, very great deal to restore confidence in Singapore. My friend the Minister for Commerce and Industry spoke at considerable length on the question of industrialisation. On this particular point, Sir, I must congratulate the Member for Telok Ayer (Mr R. Jumabhoy) for setting out so succinctly the various conditions which have to be fulfilled if industry is to flourish in Singapore. As for the criticisms of the action of the Government in this matter, I think these have been answered very fully by the Minister for Commerce, but I would like to say, Sir, before I leave this particular subject, that we should free our minds from any misapprehensions about this question of industrialisation of Singapore. Industrialise we must, but it must be realised that our main source of livelihood has always been and always will remain trade, and industry can only be at the very best a second line of defence. All this talk about industrial expansion must not be allowed to distract the minds of our traders from what must be their main preoccupation, that is, the prosecution of trade and the preservation of their ability to be competitive, to offer immediately the best possible terms to anybody who comes to buy or sell in Singapore. Singapore can never be a Birmingham. We will never see a pall of smoke above Singapore indicating a range of factories turning out manufactured goods. We are already fairly highly industrialised in an Asian context. There are very few places in Asia which are more heavily industrialised than we are at the moment, and any expansion of industry in Singapore, as I see it, can only be by small advances along the very wide existing range of secondary industries. We cannot hope for steel mills or thread mills or anything like that on a highly industrialised scale. What we can hope for is the replacement of existing machinery by better machinery, the reorganisation of the capital structure of the family firm to allow expansion, the employment of more capable managers and the examination and exploitation of overseas markets. But that could amount to a very great deal. The hon. Mr Sutherland touched upon the question of the Central Bank. As I explained in my speech when presenting the Budget, this matter is sub judice at the present time. I should say quite clearly however that it is the concern of the Government of Singapore to preserve a stable, strong and an automatically convertible currency, because a currency of that nature is vital to Singapore as a trading centre, and I may say that we are prepared to go to very great lengths indeed to achieve the aim. I hope that, in the future, it will be possible to reach some compromise whereby, over a period of time, we can, on the one side, learn to appreciate the value of a Central Bank and on the other side learn to appreciate to the full the great advantages of a currency such as we have at the moment. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committee of Supply, what day?

Monday, 16th December, Sir.

Is the Government allotting five days for the Committee of Supply?

Yes, five days.

In accordance with Standing Order 69 (4), I have fixed the time on each allotted day at which consideration of each head of expenditure in the Schedules to the Bill and of the clauses of the Bill, if not previously disposed of, shall be concluded. Details will be circulated and will also appear in the Official Report. In fixing the times, I have of course taken into consideration, as far as possible, the indica tions given to me by hon. Members at the conference held on Monday, 9th December, 1957; but in passing I might mention that the claims totalled 2,876 minutes and we will have only 975 minutes for the five days of the Committee of Supply. Following are the times allotted Time fixed by Mr Speaker at which the consideration of each head of expenditure in the Schedules to the Bill and of the clauses of the Bill, if not previously disposed of, shall be concluded (S.O. 69 (4)). FIRST SCHEDULE(Cols 2987-2989)

5.15 p.m.

Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's authority to move, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (2) of section II of the Customs Ordinance 20th December,1957 (5th Allotted Day) (Chapter 160 of the Revised Edition), resolves that the Customs (Duties) Order, 1957, published as Notification No. S 328 in Gazette Supplement No. 87 of 4th December, 1957, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 27 of 1957, be confirmed. Sir, this motion refers to the Customs Order which was published in connection with the change in duty on petrol. The only alteration to the Customs tariff contained in the Schedule to the Paper is that there is a change in respect of petrol duty from 80 cents to $1. The reasons for the change have been fully explained and discussed in the course of today's debate, Sir, and I will do nothing more than beg to move.

I take it that the Sessional Paper is correct because on page 3 there appears to me to be some alteration in the Second Schedule. I trust that the Sessional Paper has been correctly produced. Item (c) (ii) reads: "Manufactured tobacco (excluding cigars, cigarettes and Snuff) (ii) imported otherwise than in containers of any kind for retail sale to the public per pound $2.50", as against, I think, formerly, $4.50 and there also appears to be a reduction in item (d) on the same page.

I beg your pardon, Sir, but I am firmly convinced that there is no change in the tariff other than the change in petrol duty.

All that I want to be quite convinced about is that Sessional Paper No. S.L. 27 of 1957 is properly produced and that there is no error in it.

I do not think so, Sir.

I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (2) of section 11 of the Customs Ordinance (Chapter 160 of the Revised Edition), resolves that the Customs (Duties) Order, 1957, published as Notification No. 5 328 in Gazette Supplement No. 87 of 4th December, 1957, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 27 of 1957, be confirmed. 5.18 p.m.

Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's authority to move, That this Assembly resolves theat the scales of the special tax leviable under subsection (2) of section 16 of the Customs Ordinace (Chapter 160 of the REvised Edition) on motor vehicles which are equipped with engines using heavy oil or diesel oil as fuel or fitted with producer gas attachments shall, with effect from the 1st day of Junuary, 1958, be the scales set out in the Schedule hereto in lieu of those prescribed by the resoultion of the Legislative Assembly on the 29th day of June, 1955, published as Notification No. S 202 in Gazette Supplement No. 59 of 22nd July, 1955:- Special Tax on Disel Engined Vehicles(Cols 2991-2992)

I second the motion. Question proposed. 5.20 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on this increase of tax on diesel engines, I want an assurance from the Government that, since omnibuses and most passengers buses use diesel engines, this increase in taxation will not increase the fares of buses. If it does, it will again be a tax on the bus-users and not a tax on the bus-owners. I want the Governemnt to give an assurance that there is not going to be any increase in bus fares.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I did refer to this during the debate on the Budget. I then made incidentally a number of remarks about diesel and petrol costs. Diesel-engined buses amount to about two-thirds of the 1,100 or so buses in Singapore. They have had a marked advantage in the past because the amount of tax actually paid by the petrol bus was considerably higher. There still remains a very wide margin between the diesel and the petrol bus even after this new tax. I have the figures available if the hon. Member wishes to have them. I do not think that there is any particular reason to expect that this tax would push up the fares nor of course is it a matter on which the Government has to make a decision. The rates of fares is a local government decision and it will be in the hands of the new City Council. If the bus operators sought to apply for a rise in fares, then the new local government authorities, when they are all in existence, will have to make the decision.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the scales of the special tax leviable under subsection (2) of section 16 of the Customs Ordinance (Chapter 160 of the Revised Edition) on motor vehicles which are equipped with engines using heavy oil or diesel oil as fuel or fitted with producer gas attachments shall, with effect from the 1st day of January, 1958, be the scales set out in the Schedule hreto in lieu of those prescribed by the resolution of the Legislative Assembly on the 29th day of June, 1955, published as Notification No. S 202 in Gazette Supplement No. 59 of 22nd July, 1955:- SCHEDULE(Cols 2994-2994)

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That this Assembly do now adjourn.

I second it. Question proposed.

5.24 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in raising this matter on vehicle licence fee and restriction on driving tuition, I refer to my Questions tabled in this House on 4th December and the replies given by the Minister thereto. I must admit that I was very dissatisfied with the replies given and at that time I considered that any supplementary Question to those replies would serve very little purpose because I would not be allowed to elaborate on my Questions. So the only course left to me was to claim the right to speak on this matter on the motion for adjournment and I have now obtained this right. Firstly, I will deal with the restriction of hours within the city limits for learner-drivers. The hours that are restricted are from 8.00 a.m. to 9.30 a.m., from 12.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. and from 4.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. Sir, these hours happen to be the best hours for a working man to learn driving because these are the hours during which a working man can be free. Apart from these hours, a working man has got to be at his office from 9 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. So if the hours outside 9 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. are restricted, there will not be a good chance for a man to learn how to drive. So is it then desirable that the learner should learn how to drive after dusk because if he leaves his office at 4.30 p.m. and there is no chance for him to learn between 4.30 p.m. and 6.30 p.m., which time is restricted, the only time that he can learn is after dusk? Is it then desirable that a learner should learn driving when it is just about to become dark? Now, as a learner, he is new to the wheel; that is number one. He is new to road sense; that is number two. And, Sir, he is new to all the Jaws of the Road Traffic Ordinance. At the same time, he may have loss of judgment at dusk. So where is the chance for him to actually learn how to drive? I do appreciate that these restriction hours are for the purposes of restricting people from learning to drive cars within the congested areas or in the heart of the town. Certainly, Sir, I would not encourage a learner to drive in Raffles Place, North Bridge Road or South Bridge Road during the restricted hours because I do agree that all these places are congested with traffic and it is not only undesirable and risky to the life of the learner-driver but also to the lives of the public. I certainly agree, but what I am saying is this: I am asking the Minister to consider that, apart from these congested streets, whether there are other streets within the city limits that are not congested within the restricted hours. The area within the city limits covers an area of about 39.6 square miles. Is the Minister to suggest to this House that within this 39.6 square miles every street within this area is congested with traffic during all hours of the day? I doubt it very much, Sir. Take, for instance, Alexandra Road which is in the division I represent. I find very little traffic at any time on that road. Again, Sir, I do not find that there is much traffic on Holland Road during the restricted or ordinary hours. Now Farrer Road is another road which I may quote on which you cannot find heavy traffic at all; also Pasir Panjang Road which is a straight road and is very good for a learner to drive for a distance of about 5 to 8 miles or so. All these roads are not congested at all and why then should we restrict them within the city limits during certain hours? Now if we relax the question of restricted hours on a certain number of streets, only then will a learner be able to have the chance of driving much earlier to office - he could start much earlier than 9 a.m., say at about 7.30 a.m. - and on the way down he can have a chance to learn driving. At the same time when he leaves his office at 4.30 p.m. to go home, he will also have the chance to learn from 4.30 p.m. to just before dusk, say 6.30 p.m. or 7.00 p.m. Why should we restrict the hours for driving on the streets within the city limits which are not congested at all? This is one of the things in which I think the Singapore Government has not followed the Federation Government. For all purposes, the Singapore Government says that we must follow the Federation Government. As far as I understand, Sir, there is no such restriction in the Federation. So if in everything we follow the Federation, why should we also not follow the Federation on this question of restriction? I also understand, Sir, that in a big city like London, there is no question of restriction at all, and I am sure that within the City of London there are more vehicles than we have in Singapore. Although Singapore may be a small little island with the number of vehicles registered now having a new serial lettering "SS", I think that London must be a far busier city than Singapore. Sir, I am not asking the Government to lift the ban altogether. What I am only suggesting is this, that Government should consider making or make a survey of all the streets within city limits and then ascertain which streets are really congested with traffic - as I have said, Raffles Place, South Bridge Road. North Bridge Road and so on. Have a survey to find out if these streets are actually congested; then in other streets that are not congested, let us relax restrictions. I have here, Sir, a letter from the Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works addressed to the President of the Singapore Driving Schools Association, and with your permission, I quote a paragraph from it: "Although I am bound in consideration of the general interests of the public to refuse to consider wholesale lifting of these restrictions, I am sympathetic to the needs of the driving schools and am anxious that they should improve their service," Now, Sir, the Minister is really sympathetic to this move, but he says that in the interests of the public he is not prepared to consider the wholesale lifting of restrictions. I am not asking for any wholesale lifting of the restriction, Sir. What I am asking for is that the Minister consider relaxing the ban, the restriction, on some streets which are not congested with traffic. As the Minister has said that he is really sympathetic, I hope that he will consider my request and make a survey of all the streets whether they are congested or not, and then accede to the request I have just made. The next question is that of licence fees. I see that tuition cars must be charged double fees compared with those of privately owned cars. I cannot understand this discrimination between a tuition car and a privately-owned one. There is no difference at all because a tuition car is as much a car as the privately owned. Both are of the same category of vehicle whatever their horse powers may be. I understand, Sir, that the driving schools that belong to this Association charge the same tuition rate irrespective of whether a learner uses his own private car or one from a school belonging to the Association. What is the difference then, Sir? Even if a learner provides his own car, he pays the same rate for tuition that he will have to pay if he uses a car from a school. There is no difference at all. What is there to prevent me teaching my children to drive? Will you consider me a professional instructor and charge my car double fees? I do not think so, Sir, because I have already taught my son how to drive and I have not been charged double fees. Is the Government going to do so now? I may go further, Sir, and say that even a Minister in this House has used his car to teach his wife to drive. Are we going to charge that Minister double tax on his car? Are we going to say that he should pay double tax on his car as on one which is used for tuition? His car has been used for tuition; it comes under the category of a tuition car; then why not charge it double tax? if not, why should we victimise all these instructors? We should relax all these restrictions and impositions, and see that we give the same fair treatment to everyone. If not, Sir, we will be encouraging illegal driving schools because there is nothing to prevent an ordinary car owner using his car for tuition purposes, as long as he does not use the word "school". He has a privately-owned car and he can teach on it without paying double fees. Is the Government trying to encourage illegal driving schools then? Is there anything to differentiate between a tuition car and a privately-owned one, or has the Government registered all cars used for tuition? Has it registered all such cars and said that they are solely used for the purpose of tuition and nothing else? If it has, then by all means charge double fees; if not, there should be no differentiation or discrimination. There is no registration to prove what a car is used for. How then can we call one owner a professional instructor and another an amateur? I cannot see why we should penalise one man and let go the other. After tuition hours, Sir, a car used for tuition will be used by its owner for his own private purposes. Where is the difference? He uses his car for his own pleasure and not for tuition after tuition hours. The next point, Sir, is the Minister's reply to my question whether an instructor is allowed to accompany a learner while out on test. His reply was rather vague, I might say. With your permission, Sir, I will quote his reply the other day, printed in column 2815 of the Official Report: "As an instructor myself I learn the faults of my pupils when I am instructing them." Sir, the Minister concerned happens to be an ex-school master. I do not know whether he was drawing from his experience as a schoolmaster or as a driving instructor. If he was drawing from his experience on how to drive cars, I am surprised to know that one of our Ministers is also concurrently minister of driving instruction! Can a Minister hold two appointments, Sir? I agree with him that as a schoolmaster he learns the faults of his pupils whilst he instructs them, but teaching how to drive is entirely different from checking his pupils in a classroom. In the class, the schoolmaster has examination papers to guide him. At the end of a term or a certain period, the pupil undergoes an examination. The examination papers come up, the instructor or schoolmaster checks the answer papers and finds out the faults of his pupils. With a driving instructor, it is all practical work, so if faults are made by a learner whilst out on test and his instructor is not present, how can the latter find out the faults of his pupil? The instructor, from his impressions after coaching a learner for a few months, feels, or is confident that his pupil can pass the test. But what happens when the pupil does go on test? The instructor is not allowed to accompany him and the latter fails. Now, Sir, the present system of tests is most undemocratic because you are not allowed to appeal. All the faults of the learner are not known to anybody except the tester. Now, Sir, may I say that it is a matter of opinion - a term always used in this Assembly - whether the learner has passed the test or not. The instructor feels that his pupil learner can pass but the tester feels that he cannot. So it is just a matter of opinion and there must be a board or some body to which the learner can appeal against the decision of the tester. One more point, Sir, is that if the tester does not like the face of the learner when he presents himself, he may say, "I do not like to see your face", and however good that learner may be, the tester may say, "I am sorry, young boy, because I do not like the face" - he says it privately to himself, not openly - "I am afraid I have to fail you." This is not fair, Sir. If an instructor brings a pupil to the traffic police, the instructor ought to go on the test and so be able to find out the faults of his learner during the test. Then if the learner has to go back for a second test, the instructor can coach his pupil on the faults made during the first one. And I may suggest, Sir, that when a learner goes for a second test, he should only be tested on the faults he made during the previous or first test; he should not be tested all over again. For these good reasons, I say that instructors should be allowed to follow their pupils on test. I do hope that the Minister will take all these points into consideration, stick to his letter to the President of the Singapore Driving Schools Association on 7th December that he is sympathetic to its demands and consider the request made by me in this House. 5.40 p.m.

Could I just clarify one or two points of information before I speak, Sir?

Elucidation?

Elucidation, or points of information.

Arising out of the speech?

Supplementary to the speech, Sir.

I am afraid the Hon. the Minister should make his speech now.

Sir, I had intended to ask the hon. Member for Queenstown how long he had been a City Councillor. My recollection is, since 1952, but I may be mistaken - I am not quite certain about the date. I was then going to ask him what he himself did as a City Councillor in this matter of the restriction of hours and the fee for instructional cars and so on. And finally, I wanted to ask him whether he was aware of S29, 1957, and SL33 of 1955. Because these are essentially City Council matters which come to me under a very complicated Ordinance - the Road Traffic Ordinance - on which I constantly have to refresh my memory because it is complicated. I have certain duties, responsibilities and powers but, by and large, these are matters dealt by the City Council which come up to me and I have either to approve its proposals, or I may disapprove of them. Whenever I can, of course, I approve because certainly I have no wish to come into conflict with a democratically elected body. And the hon. Member, as a City Councillor, has had the fullest access to these matters no doubt, and I am sure or I should wish to be sure that he has taken advantage of his position as a City Councillor either in the long past before he added the duties of the Assembly as well, or even today when he still retains his position.

Second thoughts are always good.

But apparently he has not in fact done so. He was under the impression that a worker cannot get tuition except after the hours of dark, that is presuming that he is working in his office or factory during the hours of daylight. Well, I am presuming that the worker is not working over-time over the weekend, and if the Member had studied this matter with the care which I am sure all Members ought to before raising a matter on the adjournment, he would be aware that one of the things that I, on becoming Minister, did in connection with this matter was to free the weekends so that in fact tuition can be given on Saturday afternoons and the whole of Sundays, and of course also on gazetted holidays.

Not enough tuition time.

Order.

It may well be that he feels that that is not enough time but nevertheless there is time, and it is not true that you have to manage it all after dusk. You have half Saturdays and the whole of Sundays available if you want to take your private tuition in driving. I think I have lost my notes and I cannot remember what the hon. Member said - a tragic loss to posterity if I do not answer his remarks. However, I will do my best according to my recollection - ah, I have found them. Now here is one thing I must resist very strongly, a perfectly wrong statement - is "disgraceful" an unparliamentary expression, Mr Speaker? - a disgraceful expression that testers who test people fail them because they do not like their faces.

Order. I think "disgraceful" is an unparliamentary expression.

Well, Mr Speaker, I will say that it is a suggestion which should not be made, and certainly not made by a responsible person who is concerned with the proper conduct of public business, because a suggestion of that sort can only do harm and cannot possibly do good. There is no ground at all for supposing that in any case a person has been failed on the ground of personal dislike, If the hon. Member has any evidence of that, he should have brought it to me long ago; if he has no evidence, then he should not make that sort of suggestion.

No appeal allowed.

Order. If the hon. Member for Queenstown feels he has been misunderstood or wishes for elucidation, he can always stand up and I am sure the Minister will sit down and hear him.

Thank you, Sir.

Now he was using an entirely wrong argument to support the suggestion that the tutor or instructor should accompany his pupil on test, and he went on to speak about examinations and that kind of thing. The simple fact is that when you have an examination you do not have your teacher sitting beside your desk helping you pass your school certificate; if the Member suggests that a driving tutor who sits in the back of the car will not in one way or another attempt to assist his pupil during the test - and is certain to distract the pupil's attention from his job of being tested - I cannot agree with him. To suggest that it is undemocratic to insist that a man is tested under test conditions, and not with an instructor on hand to encourage and guide him, seems to me a most fantastic misuse of words. There is nothing undemocratic about it at all. A man has been taught and he then goes to the test; if he cannot pass it, he can have another try - at quite short notice if he has any reason in support of it. So much for what is the weakest part of the hon. Member's argument, and one in which I cannot see any validity. The question of the same tuition rate, whether you own the car in which you are being instructed or whether you use the instructor's car - it is purely a matter for the instructor to decide what rates he wishes to charge. If he wishes to charge more, it has nothing to do with the Government. The point is simply this, that if a man proposes to use his car for reward for instruction, if he is making his living out of the use of the roads, then it is very reasonable that he should pay rather more highly than he would pay if he was merely driving around in the ordinary course of his social life. When the road is turned into a place of profit and business, then it is very proper that the person so using it should pay a sort of rent for it because what is meant for everybody to use for normal movement is being turned by him into a place of business. It is therefore reasonable that he should pay rather more than the ordinary person does, just as a hawker or anybody else who tries to trade on the road is expected to contribute. If the hon. Member had studied the matter with the care with which it ought to be studied, he would have noticed of course that the tax is not levied on those who use their motorcars for instruction, it is levied on those who use their motor-cars for instruction for reward, and that the tax is levied only on those who are professional instructors. Well, so much for that point. If the Member had studied things more carefully, he would have taken less time and there would have been less need to answer. Now, the central point that the Member wants to make is simply this, that there are some streets or roads within city limits on which it would be possible for instruction to be given without adding to congestion, because there is no congestion. Well, that is a matter of opinion. I have already written to the President of the Driving Schools Association and I have had meetings with and letters from him. Then I had meetings with Chinese driving instructors, with Mr Lambert, and with other people concerned with giving driving tuition. I am very willing to have meetings with these bodies and it is quite unnecessary for an hon. Member to get up without instructing himself about the matter he is raising and to waste the time of this House. If members of the public have these points to raise. I have never denied them access to myself. I am most willing to consider any points they raise, and if anybody can show me, indicate to me, streets and roads which are free from heavy traffic and can be used for instruction during the hours at present forbidden, and if they can suggest how the pupil and the instructor are going to get themselves there without the temptation of the pupil taking the wheel on the way there through the heavy traffic, I will be willing to look into the matter to see if we cannot come to a reasonable agreement. That is of course why I said in my letter that I could not envisage wholesale lifting of the restrictions. But I am perfectly willing to consider reasonable suggestions put to me, provided that the person knows what he is talking about, has studied the matter and is prepared to support his arguments with some reasonable facts and figures. Unfortunately in my Ministry I have no transport expert, and all transport work has to be done in addition to the normal work of the Ministry. In these circumstances, I cannot call for advice on matters of this sort. I must necessarily depend on those who wish for special consideration putting up a reasonable case; then we will give it reasonable consideration and no difficulty will arise.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at fifty-one minutes past Five o'clock p.m.