Hansard, 1959-12-10

I have received a message from His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara dated the 30th November, 1959, informing me that, in accordance with the provisions of section 55 (1) of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, His Excellency had that day assented to the Pineapple Industry (Amendment) Bill.

In accordance with paragraph 6 of Standing Order No. 69D, I have for both the Main Estimates and the Development Estimates fixed the times on each allotted day at which consideration of the heads of expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper shall, if not previously disposed of, be concluded. Those times have been circulated to Honourable Members and will appear in the Official Report*. *Appendix, cols. 895-900. APPENDIX-MAIN ESTIMATES, 1960 PAPER CMD 32 OF 1959(Cols 0895-0900)

asked the Prime Minister to state the amount of reduction of the City Council 1959 expenditure occasioned by the cut in variable allowance.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I have been asked by the Prime Minister to reply. The cut in the variable allowances was made in the City Council as from 1st July, 1959. For the six-month period, the savings are approximately $849,000. As from 1st January, 1960, the technical and professional allowances that will be paid to Government servants will also be paid to City Council officers who qualify under the rules. Therefore, the savings for 1960 will be somewhat less. It is not possible to assess now how much will be paid out in these technical and professional allowances.

asked the Minister for National Development, with reference to the Nicoll Highway Promenade Development and the Old Kallang Airport Park Development, to state-

Mr Speaker, I should first explain that the National Construction Corps consists of two types of workers: (1) members of the general public who volunteer for work on various projects and receive no payment of any kind; and (2) members of the Special Squad which forms the hardcore of the Corps, all of whom are paid $3 a day to cover expenses. Whenever delay occurs on any project, the Special Squad is called upon to expedite the work. I presume the hon. Member for Mountbatten is concerned only with the Special Squad as seen in the various questions asked, and the replies to the various questions are as follows: To Question (a), the following payments were made to members of the Special Squad:- Nicoll Highway project $4,660.05 Kallang Park project $73,506.00 To Question (b), the Special Squad at present has about 700 members and of this number about half are members of the People's Action Party. I should mention here that many of the members of the Special Squad have applied for membership in the P.A.P. after joining the Special Squad. We have made this open. To Question (c), about 95 per cent of the P.A.P. members were unemployed at the time they joined the Special Squad. To Question (d), as the hon. Member for Mountbatten is aware, I myself announced in this House on 25th November, 1959, that members of the Special Squad would be paid $3 a day for their expenses. As far as I am aware, no other public announcement has been made in this connection.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I assume that none of those 700 members knew, the day before they started work, that they were going to be paid?

Mr Speaker, all of them knew they would be paid $3 a day as allowances.

Mr Speaker, would it be too much to ask how they knew, because there was no public announcement at all until the 25th November when it was announced in this House? Before then, there was no announcement. How did they know they were going to be paid?

Mr Speaker, my belief is that the - hon. Member for Mountbatten has not been following closely the activities of the Special Squad. If I could only ask her and many other Members on the Opposition Benches to come one day and have a look at the Special Squad. But since none of them has given even an hour to the construction projects which we have at Kallang Park, the Promenade, and Changi beach, I hope they can join the Special Squad tomorrow, or the day after, or at some convenient time of their choosing, and work in places like opening parks at Hong Lim Green, Havelock Park, Elgin Bridge, swamp reclamation, construction of roads and bridges and standpipes. And if they do such kind of work, I am sure, Mr Speaker, they will have a better insight into the activities and follow more closely the activities of the Special Squad. When the Special Squad was formed, it was decided that they should be paid $3 a day, and from the day when it was formed under my Ministry, they were paid $3 a day. It was not necessary to announce that we were paying them $3 a day, because these people were not public servants and there was no necessity for making public announcements on the detailed administrative work that the Government was doing, as it was a physical impossibility.

Mr Speaker, may I refer him to the people recruited to this National Construction Corps? Would the Minister please state whether the Labour Exchange has been consulted? As we all know, Sir, the Labour Exchange has about 45,000 registered unemployed.

Mr Speaker, the People's Action Party Government believes in doing things openly and honourably. The Special Squad is necessary because in any construction work, we need a-

Order. I must remind the Minister that we are not in a debate, and the questions ask for brief answers and to the point.

I am sorry, Mr Speaker. The recruitment of members of the Special Squad was not done through the Labour Exchange, because we believe in doing the things honestly and openly in order to achieve certain desired objectives - in this case, the construction of important projects. It was a different position when the Member for Cairnhill was the Chief Minister of the previous government during which period he formed his unemployment squad. We openly state that we are going to recruit members from our Party who would be trained in order to lead the National Construction Corps for our special projects.

Mr Speaker, Sir, do I understand aright when the Minister said that, because he did not consult the Labour Exchange, it was therefore done honestly and openly?

I think we are embarking on a debate! Perhaps the hon. Member could pursue the matter further on the adjournment or by way of a motion. Mrs Seow, question 3, please.

asked the Minister for Labour and Law, with regard to the reorganisation of Community Centres and Youth Organisations as announced by the Government five months ago, what progress has been made in such reorganisation; and whether Members of the Assembly are now expected and encouraged to participate in the activities of the Community Centres and Youth Organisations in their respective Constituencies.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Department of Social Welfare has taken over control of all Social Welfare community centres and Rural Board community centres. It is in the process of taking over the Singapore Improvement Trust community centres, and work has been started on two small-sized community centres and one medium-sized community centre. The centralisation of all community centres under a single organisation is making progress and will not be completed until all new community centres planned by Government are built. With the winding up of the Singapore Youth Council, the responsibility for co-ordinating all youth activities now rests with the Singapore Council of Social Service. Members of the Assembly can participate in the activities of community centres and youth organisations, provided they do not force their way in and are acceptable to the great majority of those enjoying these amenities and do not use these centres for political propaganda.

"for making provision for estimated financial requirements for expenditure to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund for the year 1960", presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Tuesday, 29th December, 1959, and to be printed.

"to amend the Muslims Ordinance, 1957 (No. 25 of 1957)", presented by the Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 13th January, 1960, and to be printed.

"to amend the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Chapter 2 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 13th January, 1960, and to be printed.

"to amend the Merchant Shipping Ordinance (Chapter 207 of the Revised Edition)" presented by the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 13th January, 1960, and to be printed.

2.49 p.m. The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, both the Seventh and Eighth Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure of the State of Singapore for 1959 [respectively contained in Papers Cmd. (New Series) 34 and 35 of 1959] and the resumed debate on the motion of the Minister for Finance relating to the financial policy of the Government for the year 1960 be taken today.

I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, both the Seventh and Eighth Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure of the State of Singapore for 1959 [respectively contained in Papers Cmd. (New Series) 34 and 35 of 1959] and the resumed debate on the motion of the Minister for Finance relating to the financial policy of the Government for the year 1960 be taken today

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [1st Allotted Day].

2.50 p.m.

Will the Minister signify the recommendation of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara before the Committee proceeds with the consideration of these Estimates?

I so signify. Seventh Supplementary Estimates 1959

We are on the Seventh Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1959 [Paper Cmd. (New Series) 34 of 19591. No notices of amendments have been received. There is only one Head of Expenditure, which appears on page 4*. * Head 63 Advance Accounts $42,522,019

Question, "That the sum of $42,522,019 for Head 63* stand part of the Seventh Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1959", put, and agreed to. Question, "That the sum of $42,522,019 shall be supplied to the Government under the head of expenditure for the public services shown in the Seventh Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1959 contained in Paper Cmd. (New Series) 34 of 1959", put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. Eighth Supplementary Estimates, 1959 2.51 p.m.

Eighth Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1959 [Paper Cmd. (New Series) 35 of 1959]. Here again no notices of amendments have been received. I therefore propose to take the heads of expenditure en bloc. The summary is on page 4+ + Following is the summary: Head Title Total $ 12 Film Censorship 5,040 17 Prisons 46,990 22 Treasury 6,080,924 61 Ministry of Culture 175,000 --------- 6,307,954 ---------

Question, "That the sums stated for the heads stated in the summary of totals+ contained in Paper Cmd. (New Series) 35 of 1959 stand part of the Eighth Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1959", put, and agreed to. Question, "That the sum of $6,307,954 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Eighth Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1959 contained in Paper Cmd. (New Series) 35 of 1959", put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to certain resolutions. Resolutions read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Assembly doth agree with the Committee on the said resolutions.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolutions accordingly agreed to.

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [25th November, 1959], "That the Assembly approves the financial policy of the Government for the year 1960." Question again proposed. 2.56 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the first Budget of the P.A.P. Government, but there is nothing in it for the P.A.P. to crow about. In fact, any other Government would have made the same, if not better, provisions for improvement in the social services. There is, however, Sir, one fundamental difference, and this is the manner in which the tools of Government machinery are put to use. They believe, Sir, that to give better service to the people, civil servants should have their total emoluments reduced arbitrarily. They believe, Sir, that to give better education to the children, teachers should be treated in such a manner that many have now resigned. They believe too, Sir, that to give better medical attention to the people, doctors should be treated in such a manner that many doctors have now resigned. And they believe that, to give better housing to the people, architects, engineers and others should be treated in such a shameful way that many architects, engineers and others have resigned. They believe that, to give the workers a better deal, trade unions should be brought under firm control so that they will not behave in the manner that the P.A.P. -dominated unions in the past were wont to behave. They believe that, to win over the confidence of capital for the economic development of Singapore, capital should be first frightened away by the utterances of threats during election campaigns and later coaxed by assurances that there would be no increased taxation, and that the Government would, by the exercise of firm control on trade unions, see that there is no industrial strife when the Party got into power. Sir, we do not subscribe to these beliefs. In fact, we abhor such beliefs because they are damaging to the interests of the people of Singapore. Sir, the Minister for Finance said, and I quote from Hansard, column 772: "An elected Government which enjoys the support of the mass of the people must have objectives basically different from the Government that it replaced." Sir, if by objective is meant the many beliefs that I have just related, then they can have this claim without challenge. But I think the Minister means it to mean the provisions in his Budget. In this I can see no basic difference, apart from one important aspect. He has submitted a deficit budget of $6 million; he has indicated in his speech of applications for supplementary votes in the coming months, thereby increasing the deficit; and yet he has taken no step whatsoever to meet this deficit by increasing taxation on those who can bear it. It is clear, Sir, that they have now come to the realisation that to save Singapore from economic disaster, they have to re-adjust their attitude towards capital to repair the great damage which they did by the utterances of their threats during the election campaign. They are now anxious - very, very anxious indeed - Sir, to win over the confidence of capital to help them to run the government. Sir, in the 1959 standstill budget, there was a deficit of about $4 million, and yet we, who had been accused by the P.A.P. as capitalist stooges, introduced increased income tax in the higher brackets and company tax in order to meet this deficit. This was done at a time when we had to face the impending general elections. Sir, the Minister for Finance has announced one tax proposal. That is the imposition of port dues. About this, let us see what he has to say. Column 805 of the Hansard reads: "The port dues envisaged, however, will be modest ones and shipping interests will be fully consulted before they are implemented." I repeat, Sir: "Shipping interests will be fully consulted before they are implemented." This is the right step and is another indication that they do not want to offend capital any more. It would have been a good thing, Sir, for all concerned, if they had only followed this same step by consulting fully the Staff Side instead of imposing arbitrarily the cuts in variable allowances. Capital must be treated gently, but civil servants - they are after all wage earners - should go on their bended knees that worse has not befallen upon them. Sir, the Minister for Finance in the earlier part of his speech devoted six paragraphs to his appraisal of the economic situation in the Federation of Malaya. We all know that the Federation is now enjoying a period of steady progress. But this cannot be said of Singapore. There seems to be a spirit of despondency, not only in business circles - An hon. Member: But in the Opposition!

-but throughout the country. Therefore, Sir, any move by the Government to inject confidence and a buoyant spirit into the economic life of Singapore is to be welcomed even by the Opposition. The proposal to form a commodity common market with the Federation of Malaya is indeed a good one and I wish the Minister every success.

Why did you not try to do it?

In regard to Indonesia, Sir, I am glad that relations with Indonesia have immensely improved. This is all to the good and I hope that it will lead to the early removal of the severe restrictions on imports imposed by the Indonesian Government. Sir, the Minister for Finance said that there was a major building boom in Kuala Lumpur. But the building trade in Singapore, however, went through a difficult period. Surely, the Minister knows where the blame lies. In his financial review of 1959, the Minister has quoted figures which I find it difficult to reconcile. On the one hand, he said that a shortfall of $10 million on the tobacco revenue was expected. He made no mention of other shortfalls. On the other hand, he said that if the Government had not acted as promptly and as decisively as it did - and this, of course, refers, among other things, to the increased tobacco and petrol duties and the imposition of a tax on the hire of films - there would be $4 million in revenue shortfall. First, the Minister said that there would be a shortfall of $10 million and in just under two minutes I think, this shortfall had been reduced to $4 million. Sir, the 1959 budget estimated a total revenue of $265 million. The Minister in his speech said that the revised estimates showed that the 1959 revenue would amount to $258 million, whereas on page 16 of Cmd. (New Series) 32, the revised estimated total revenue is given as $259.2 million. Sir, accepting the Minister's statement of $258 million as correct, although it is actually $259.2 million, there is, therefore, a shortfall of $7 million. The Minister said that if the Government had not acted as promptly and as decisively as it did, the shortfalls would amount to $4 million. We know that the Government did act promptly and decisively by increasing the tobacco and petrol duties and by imposing a tax on the hire of films. But what I cannot understand is why, in spite of this prompt and decisive action, the shortfall is estimated to be $7 million. If they had taken no action, it is $4 million. Because they had taken this decisive and prompt action, it rose to $7 million! Perhaps the Minister will try to explain. Sir, I base my speech not on what is in the budget but on what the Minister himself said in presenting the budget. I would urge upon the Minister that when he moves any motion in this House, he should be more attentive to the facts and figures and not expect the Opposition to wade through a mass of figures in order to find out where he has gone wrong. Sir, the Minister said in col. 776 of Hansard: "For Singapore, the year 1959 had been a period of some uncertainty. The first half of the year was notable for a general attitude of wait-and-see adopted by business enterprises. It was a period of comparative stagnation. The reason was of course the impending general elections, scheduled to take place in May." Sir, nothing can be more true. But let us examine the real reason for this stagnation and for this wait-and-see policy. This was because of the silly utterances of threats issued by P.A.P. leaders during the election campaign. And it is because of these silly utterances that business enterprises called a halt and some of them even removed to Kuala Lumpur. Now the Government is making strenuous efforts to repair this damage by giving assurances of no increased taxation. I have found, Sir, that capital is less concerned with making more profits; what it desires most of all is a healthy political climate, and so long as the climate is right, business enterprises will remain and will expand. Sir, I see that the task of promoting the visitor industry has been transferred from the Ministry of Finance to the Ministry of Culture. The Minister for Finance describes this particular important and growing industry as "the task of luring tourists to our shores". And because he considers that tourists have to be lured and not attracted, it is but right that it should be transferred to the Ministry of Culture. I do not think, Sir, that Government is serious about the promotion of the tourist industry. The budget provisions do not provide for a senior officer who knows this particular job and I would urge upon the Government that, as the tourist industry is a growing and profitable one, it should look into and strengthen this particular section in the Ministry of Culture. Sir, as regards the estimated revenue for 1960, the Minister is rather optimistic as this is based on the same rates of taxation in all fields. He has estimated the yield from Income Tax to be $65 million, and although this is $11 million less than that collected for 1959, I feel, Sir, that he has underestimated the adverse trading conditions this year. The economy of Singapore has suffered a great blow as a result of loss of confidence among business circles. Sir, as regards revenue from petrol, although the duty is now 20 cents a gallon higher than it was a few months ago, there is a downward trend of consumption brought about by economic circumstances. Less and less people are using their motor-cars for rides. Sir, the Minister expects to collect $43.1 million from tobacco, and this figure is about $9 million more than in 1959. The Minister has said that this is based on certain assumptions about consumer preferences but he is not so confident that these assumptions will be justified. He is not so sure of the types of cigarettes people will smoke in 1960. Will they smoke more imported cigarettes which are dearer, or will they smoke more locally manufactured cigarettes which are cheaper? That is the question. Sir, I say that the Minister is rather optimistic, but then, who knows, trade may pick up next year, particularly as the Government is now repenting the silly utterances of threats during the election campaign and is going all out to win over the confidence of capital. Sir, I am glad to see that the Prime Minister has taken over the direction of the City Council. This has caused a great measure of relief to the suffering public, and I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister for taking this move. It is a matter for regret that he did not do it earlier. Sir, I agree with the Minister for Finance when he said that the process of integration must be carried out in stages, and that the help of outside experts should be sought. I am anxious, Sir, that the gradual integration will not be to the detriment of the City Council employees. I would like to receive an assurance from the Government, in the same manner as the Honourable the Minister for Finance has hastened to assure the Civil Service, that such integration would not lead to an extensive retrenchment of personnel and that holders of posts found redundant and thereby abolished will be given every opportunity for transfer without loss of emoluments. Sir, in regard to that part of the Minister's speech on the Development Estimates. I will touch upon this during the Committee stage; but there are certain points in his speech I would like to mention now. It is clear, Sir, from his speech that there is no possibility that the Development Estimates will be put to full use in 1960, bearing in mind that engineers, architects and others have been driven to resign, leaving the Public Works Department and the S.I.T. with only a handful. This is indeed a setback to the Government, but this is of their own seeking. Sir, the building of more schools, more hospitals, more clinics, more houses, and so on, if done by the P.A.P., is described by the Minister for Finance as adding to the accumulation of wealth in this country and strengthening the sinews of economy. But when the same kind of development was carried out by a non-P.A.P. government, it is described as wasteful expenditure and a strain on the economy of the country.

That proves you are wrong!

The Minister, Sir, admits that the Government has to go overseas to recruit the expert know-how to help them run the Economic Development Board. I can see nothing wrong in this. It is indeed a very wise move to recruit the expert knowhow from overseas to help them run this very important Board, but I cannot understand, Sir, why the Minister should have spent so much time to explain why this Government has found it necessary to do so. It would appear from his speech that there is a group of people in the P.A.P. perhaps, Sir, who are against this sensible and realistic policy, and in this connection the Minister said (col. 797): "To these people, we can say with perfect candour that members of the P.A.P. political leadership are not lacking in talent, vigour or self-confidence. A combination of these qualities, however, may well lead to recklessness bred out of arrogance and ignorance if it is not tempered with a sense of realism." "A combination of these qualities, however, may well lead to recklessness bred out of arrogance and ignorance if it is not tempered with a sense of realism." Sir, the cat is out of the bag. Recklessness has been displayed by some Party leaders, bred out of arrogance and ignorance not tempered with any sense of realism! Sir, the Minister for Finance has indicated that there will be further claims on the revenue next year by way of applications for supplementary votes. One of these foreseen items of expenditure is the question of a grant to the Nanyang University. I would urge upon the Government to expedite consideration of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry under the chairmanship of Dr Gwee Ah Leng. It is important that an early decision be reached. Sir, we did not appoint Dr Gwee Ah Leng. Dr Gwee Ah Leng was appointed during this session [Interruption]-

Order. I think honourable Members on the Front Bench of the Government side should give a lead in this debate and refrain from interruptions.

Sir, I said I urge upon the Government that they should expedite consideration of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry under the chairmanship of Dr Gwee Ah Leng, for I know they are very anxious, just as we are, that a decision should be reached with regard to the question of a grant to the Nanyang University. Sir, there is another foreseen item of expenditure, and that is the payment of scientific and professional allowances which the Government has proposed to the Associations concerned. The Minister, Sir, has found it necessary to make a statement on this in his speech, but he has failed to give us greater details. For instance, what classes of officers qualify for such allowances? We can think of some, but we do not know the full range. It is not improbable that anomalies may arise and what steps, if any, does the Minister propose to take to correct such anomalies? For instance, if Legal Officers get this allowance, what about legally qualified men doing administrative jobs? And if such men get the allowance, what about those administrative officers in similar or more responsible positions who are not required to possess a legal qualification? The Permanent Secretaries are at the top of the Civil Service, but if they are not professional men, maybe the officers working under them may get more than what they get when they receive this allowance. It is an anomaly and has to be corrected. Sir, the Minister says that there are three grades of allowances proposed. The highest is, of course, that to be paid to officers who have shown exceptional merit in their work. We do not quarrel with that grading. But what we would like to ask the Minister to inform this House is this: who will be entrusted with the duty of assessing this question of "exceptional merit"? For the general run of Government employees we are told "the Government is prepared to present a scheme" to relieve hardship. I can understand and sympathise with the attitude of the Staff Side on this question. Surely, Sir, trade unions are not in existence to help run an agency to assist their members to borrow money to tide them over any period of hardship. Trade unions are in existence for the fundamental purpose of protecting the interest of their members, and of seeing to it that their members get paid a fair and adequate wage. It is evident that the Staff Side is not challenging the rights of the Government to impose a cut in variable allowances. What the Staff Side challenged, and this is a question which has been repeated time and time again, is the manner in which these cuts have been introduced. What they are fighting for is their right to negotiate with their employers on a matter which adversely affects the pay packets of their members. Sir, will the Government, in keeping with their declared policy of referring industrial disputes to arbitration, implement this policy in regard to their own employees? Sir, the Minister has explained the economic steps taken and has described the recent steps as the use of the big knife and the broad axe. He went on to say, Sir, In column 803: "They have been simple ones in that they do not require detailed examination of each and every item of expenditure. They could be justified only on a temporary basis . . .". "They could be justified only on a temporary basis", said the Minister for Finance. Does he mean that the cut in variable allowances, Sir, is on a temporary basis? Or will the Minister please confirm that he does not mean what he says? Sir, the Minister said, in col. 802: "It is to be regretted that a number of officers in administrative and technical posts have resigned. Some of these have chosen to leave the Government service for a more lucrative private practice. It must not be forgotten, however, that service in Government provides officers with special opportunities for advanced training, which are not available elsewhere." It is indeed, Sir, to be regretted that these officers have by force of circumstances resigned. I do not think it right to say some have left "for a more lucrative private practice". If this were so, Sir, then they would have left before the P.A.P. came into power; for then was the time when private practice was really lucrative. All these officers who have resigned, Sir, have resigned because they could not tolerate the injustices that have been piled upon them. Sir, I agree with the Minister when he said, "It must not be forgotten, however, that service in Government provides officers with special opportunities for advanced training, which are not available elsewhere." I must remind the Government also, Sir, that it must equally not be forgotten that the Civil Service is there to carry out the policy of the Government of the day and is not there to be kicked about to satisfy the recklessness bred out of arrogance and ignorance of some sections of the political leadership of the Government of the day. Sir, in concluding his speech, the Honourable the Minister for Finance paid tribute to the Treasury officials and the Government Printer. We are with the Government on this, but I must say the Minister overlooked the fact that it was not the Government Printer who did the printing, proof reading, etc, but his technical men, and these men should not be forgotten too - that to them, we too owe due thanks. 3.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, the Hon. Minister for Finance in his Budget statement said [col. 7761: "...the scare about the decline in business generated by the cuts in variable allowances was largely unfounded." Sir, this is true if he is referring to business that concerns the big magnates and the very big businesses of the millionaires. But for businesses of small tradesmen we read in the papers that taxis had to lower their fares to the level of the fares of the buses because of lack of business. They had to engage girls, it seems, to lure passengers, and when this did not work, they employed runners to campaign for passengers. Some motor firms, we were told, threatened to close down if business went on as badly as it did. Why, even the Minister for Finance himself admitted that there was a decline in the building trade. Every hawker I have met has said or complained about bad business. Unemployment is ever on the increase. Yet the Minister thinks that the scare about the decline in business generated by the variable allowance cuts was unfounded! He argued that receipts from entertainment duty and liquor revenue showed no decline. Of course, it did not, Sir. As I have said, the magnates and the millionaires have not been hit. People with big business - big money - have not been hit. That is the point. The P.A.P. claims to be a Government of the people - a Government of the masses. But it was not the rich that had been hit. It was the middle and the lower income groups that had been hit. The cut in variable allowances has hit civil servants and below. According to the Minister for Finance, the building trade went through a difficult period. Who and what was responsible for this? The Minister himself admitted that there was a building boom in Kuala Lumpur; and since, in the words of the Minister himself, prosperity in the Federation inevitably brings with it an increase in business in Singapore, how is it, Sir, that Kuala Lumpur is enjoying a building boom and Singapore is suffering the reverse fate? Perhaps in Kuala Lumpur they did everything to encourage developers. But certainly not here, Sir. In Singapore, barriers have been placed before developers. Whereas in the old days electric cables and pipe lines were put in development estates for developers because such investments eventually brought revenue to the City Council, it is now up to the developers to pay for these. In the old days, if after five years - I stand open to correction in the number of years - if the money for installation was recovered, the developers, if they had put in the deposit, were allowed to claim the refund. This is no longer the practice. Again on this point - the third point that I shall be giving - I open myself to correction - it is said that the City Council now, when working out charges for connections and installations, allow a profit for themselves - a very high percentage of profit - and this is not subject to query. The threat to close down the brick-works is sufficient warning, Sir, that if unemployment in Singapore is not to be substantially increased, these impositions should be lifted, because far from hitting the developers, it will hit the small purchaser - the wage earner, who perhaps in all his earning life has put aside some money hoping to provide a roof over his and his family's heads. Any charge that the Government forces on the developers is going to be passed on to the purchaser. It is understandable that no developer will run a losing business. Eventually it is the purchaser who has to pay for all these extra charges. The Minister believes that local industry was adversely affected for a variety of reasons. A variety of reasons was forwarded. But I think there is one important reason that has been overlooked. Local products are cheaper than imported products and, therefore, consumed by the middle and lower income groups. And these people, as I have mentioned before, having been hit by the pay cuts, consumed less and, therefore, it has affected local industry; whereas imported goods are expensive and consumed by the rich and as the rich has not directly or indirectly been hit, naturally that explains why trading conditions have shown an improvement of about ten per cent in respect of imports. Sir, as a common market with the Federation will benefit Singapore, I shall not make any comments in case they prejudice the chances of the Government. All I wish to say is - I wish the Minister luck in this project, for, he will need plenty of it if he is to see it through. The Minister seems to be pessimistic concerning the revenue increase for 1960. He gives, as the reason for this, the fact that revenue has lost the buoyancy of the post-Korean war years. One wonders what part the transfer of firms, factories and head offices from Singapore to the Federation plays in the loss of this buoyancy. The Minister has prophesied prosperity for the Federation for 1960, and he has also stated, as I have quoted before, that prosperity in the Federation inevitably brings with it an increase in business in Singapore. It is difficult then to understand why he should not be optimistic about the increase of revenue in Singapore for 1960 also. On the question of population, the Minister promised to make every effort to slow down the rate of population growth. No one denies the necessity for this, Sir, It is hoped, however, that the Government will find means and ways of carrying this out without offending religions like those of the Catholics and the Muslims. Of the 1,109 new posts created for 1960, 80 are against the deletion of existing posts, leaving 1,029 for the Health and the Education Ministries. We shall be obliged, Sir, if the Government can give us a breakdown of these figures. For instance, how many specialists, doctors, nurses, etc, for the Ministry of Health and how many lecturers, teachers, inspectors of schools, etc. for the Ministry of Education. With regard to the absorption of City Council departments by the Government, can the Government enlighten us, Sir, on the question of retiring benefits? Will the City Council employees, after being absorbed by the Government, be eligible for pensions that are enjoyed by Government servants? If so, what happens to their provident fund? For the last few months, Sir, aids to T.B. patients have been reduced by over $30,000 monthly. Will they be increased in 1960, seeing that the Social Welfare and the Health Department expenditures have been increased by $2.3 million and $1.9 million respectively? Sir, it is not wise to cut down the aids of the T.B. patients because this will bring more worry to the patients. Less food means less nourishment and, therefore, a delay in recovery, which eventually will cost Government more money. The Minister stated that costs for the Survey Department and Trade Marks Registry must be met. I wonder whether it will be possible to make these departments self-supporting like the Telecommunications Department. And can the Government tell us whether they have any plans in mind with regard to means and ways of increasing the earnings of the Airport, of improving efficiency and cutting down the cost of the Airport? Referring to Government's new development proposals, the Minister said [col. 794]: "It may be that, taking into account the vast amount of planning and preparation that will be required in relation to the availability of engineers, architects and others, there will be some difficulty in completing all the works envisaged." Can the Government tell us, Sir, how available are qualified and experienced engineers and architects in, let us say, the P.W.D., S.I.T. and the City Council? Secondly, what Government intends to do about the extensive resignations of qualified and experienced engineers and architects, and what they intend to do to prevent further resignations? The Minister stated that $7 million has been allotted to the Ministry of Labour and Law and that this will provide employment for a residual of unemployed. This gives the impression that the rest of the 45,000 unemployed would have already been given employment, leaving a residual of a few thousand who would be catered for by the $7 million. Will the Minister confirm that, with this $106 million allotted for development, and the $7 million allocated to the Ministry of Labour and Law for unemployment relief works, the problem of unemployment in Singapore will be solved? The Minister stated that work brigades will be grouped in residential units. May I suggest, Sir, that this may not be the best plan, because in areas where construction work on roads and bridges is necessary, there may not be sufficient skilled and experienced workers in that particular area and the conditions might be vice versa in the other areas. Would it not be better to allow an overflow of skilled and experienced workers of one area into another? Would it not be better to divide them according to experience or qualifications rather than do it on the basis of residential qualification? The Minister announced that an allowance of $300 will be paid monthly to officers who show exceptional merit in their work. May I venture to ask what would be the yardstick of measuring this "exceptional merit", and who is to measure this "exceptional merit"? If it is the Public Service Commission, who will put up recommendations to the P.S.C.? Who are deemed to be the technicians and professionals who qualify for this allowance? There has already been an open charge of banal disguise of individual motives, such as putting friends in office in the name of efficiency and counting on their support. This appeared in the Press. There must be some truth in this because it has not been denied and this charge has not been made by disgruntled workers or Members of the Opposition. It has been made by a very important person holding a very important post in Government - a very prominent member of the P.A.P. The fact that there has been a racket in the matter of appointments and that victimisation was practised in order to create vacancies for political supporters, is common knowledge amongst the people of Singapore. The public in general, and in particular the civil servant who has been living in fear of being the next victim, would be very grateful to the Minister or to the Government if they would give them the assurance that this gross injustice will not be repeated when measuring the exceptional merits of the civil servants. The Minister also promised that Government employees who do not qualify for this allowance can obtain assistance to tide them over for the period of their financial difficulties. Sir, many Government employees have been faced with hardship due to the variable allowance cut. Some have been forced into debt. I wonder what the Government plan to do with regard to the assistance promised. Are they planning to give them interest-free loans to pay up their debts, and to do this on a long-term basis so that the monthly deductions from their salaries would not bring about undue hardship? The Minister also accused the Staff Side of taking the attitude that further discussions should only deal with the restoration of variable allowances. Sir, surely this is understandable. The employees felt that it was not fair that only a certain section of the population should be made to bear the burden of the State budget deficit indefinitely. After all, the Minister himself admitted in his Budget speech that this method of effecting economies can only be justified on a temporary basis. At a time when Government felt that immediate action was imperative, the broad axe was dropped. But now that they had six months to plan a new budget, is it not logical that those victimised should expect to be relieved of the burden which they felt had been unjustly forced on them? The Minister admitted that there is little doubt that the civil service is going through a difficult period. I would go further, Sir, and say that the civil service has gone through a six-month period of misery. The fact that there have been innumerable resignations from several Government departments - of doctors, specialists, teachers, senior officers, engineers and architects - show that Government servants are far from happy. However, this unhappy state of affairs has not been brought about, as the Minister believes it to be, by the exacting standards expected by the Minister of the Civil Service or the speed of Malayanisation. Sir, as I said before, in my adjournment speech on the 2nd of September, the civil servants have always risen to the occasion, and if they are given fair and just treatment, they will no doubt again rise to the occasion and give the Government their loyal, their efficient and their valuable services. 3.52 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, in our debate today I certainly welcome one of the many speeches made by the Minister for Finance. I have no hesitation in saying that the time has come when we should realise and understand full well the fact that this Government, elected by the people under the constitution of self-government, will not deny that they will do anything for the benefit of all sections of the population. It may perhaps be that they will explain the mistakes which I am going to point out. But I would like to remind them that if we wish to have confidence that Singapore will prosper from year to year, then the Minister for Finance should say specifically what is mentioned in the preamble to the constitution. Mr Speaker, although we are considered a minority group, there are many other minorities composed of foreigners domiciled here who consider that their allegiance is undivided in order to determine our every-day fate for the achievement of something good. In my opinion, Mr Speaker, we do need to get money from time to time to swell our Treasury so that our Budget will fulfil the needs of the youth in Singapore who will be looking for employment and those who need assistance. The fact that such a statement is made makes it necessary, therefore, that we consider the situation in which Singapore is placed. And, as has been explained by the Minister for Finance, that is, constantly to improve the trade relations with Indonesia and matters connected with finance in the Federation of Malaya. But we cannot deny this matter or that our Treasury can be boosted if the Minister for Finance had stated in his speech as to how we can give assistance, as I mentioned just now, to the indigenous people of Singapore. In our constitution there is provision for that. But there is no mention whatsoever in the speech by the Minister for Finance. Therefore, I am doubtful. If we study his speech carefully, Mr Speaker, vacant posts for 1960 total 1,109, but will these posts help the people, who I have mentioned just now need help? What are the means whereby we can help them? Can we render assistance to them merely by way of social aid without giving any aid to raising their standard of living? Such posts, it can be said, in my opinion, are high posts. If we are going to take a census one by one, I do not think there will be many opportunities for people like myself. Mr Speaker, I hope we all are for prosperity, but here I wish to emphasise that whenever I speak I am accused of being communal. But as to who is being communal, only time will tell. Whatever be the methods they must help the lower strata. I wish to bring this point to the attention of the proper authorities, so that they will know what is really wanted by U.M.N.O. which is also represented in this Assembly. Based on such matters as appointments for 1960 - and surely the emoluments are big and the qualifications required are high-there is no clear-cut policy on what I have said just now concerning the Malays in Singapore. Continuing, Mr Speaker, I also wish to be enlightened by Government on the Economic Development Board. From what has been emphasised by the Minister for Finance concerning the $20 million which will be handed to the Economic Development Board, it could be said that it will be far from being of help to that section of the people whom I mentioned earlier on. The Malays, Mr Speaker, are not communal, because we agreed recently to send our delegation to sit on the Opposition side, because we do, in fact, need help from our own Government and we did take part in the promulgation of the Constitution. There is no ground therefore to charge me as being communal. The past Government did what little it could towards the Malays in Singapore. Therefore, I am greatly shocked, Mr Speaker. I wish to remind the House that I was accused of communalism by the Prime Minister when I spoke on the subject of internal security matters, in relation to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I hope that enlightenment will be forthcoming from the Prime Minister who had accused me before of being a communalist; but, in my opinion, what we need is to be able to stand on the same footing as the others. However, this matter will take time. We had hoped that mention would be made in the first Budget - what assistance would be given to the Malays - and not only to the Malays but also to the other minorities in Singapore. I take this opportunity to bring this point home because, although we number only eight in the Opposition, there will be a time when we will work hand-in-hand with the Government. Under our new status as a self-governing State of Singapore, this is the first time that we are debating the first Budget and U.M.N.O. wishes to draw particular attention to the Malays who are in need of help. I say that it is not possible now but it is our intention to free Singapore totally from colonial yoke in the future. I appeal particularly to the Prime Minister who had said before that I was a communalist, this and that. I say that here is the opportunity, a golden opportunity, for the Prime Minister to prove his attitude on the 1960 Budget. It could be mentioned in the scheme for the Economic Development Board, amounting to $20 million how assistance could be given to help the Malays and also other minorities who really need help. If they receive help, I am quite sure it will be very much appreciated since no opportunity whatsoever was given to them to improve their day-to-day standard of living. Therefore, Mr Speaker, such being the circumstances, I would not speak at length on other matters, but this is what we hope. I wish to reiterate in this Assembly once again that although we, particularly U.M.N.O., may be charged as being communalist in the course of the present Constitution, we will continue to call upon the Government to state in no uncertain terms the amount of assistance that will be given to the Malays in conformity with what is contained in the Constitution. Otherwise, it will be left to U.M.N.O. in Singapore to consider whether we will go forward or otherwise. 4.07 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Budget speech of the Finance Minister shows how difficult it is to try to serve two masters, to try to look in two opposite directions at one and the same time, to try to please on the one hand Party supporters and on the other hand mercantile interests in Singapore. I must say, however, that he has made a very skilful attempt.

He will be squint.

However, beneath the learned phrases and sentences, there is visible a distinct conflict of ideas or sentiments. It is not easy to try to balance on a see-saw, and present to the public an economic policy that see-saws now to the left and now to the right. The public have a feeling of uncertainty and instability that this may be but a temporary respite, a lull before the storm, before the big axe and the big knife fall again; this time on the mercantile interests.

The Member for Cairnhill said they were now being coaxed.

Sir, I notice three instances where this conflict of sentiments becomes visible. From Hansard, col. 772, paragraph 2, we read the following (the Finance Minister says): "We are a democratic socialist Government..." and a few lines below that, "it" (meaning the Government): "...will seek to eliminate the forms of exploitation of men by men which the exploiters, through being tolerated over the years, have come to regard as customary and, indeed, normal." Now, Sir, who are the exploiters referred to? Doubtless, the employers and the capitalists. However, Sir, the Finance Minister realised that he must go to the right - so in col. 798, paragraph 2, he tries to coax the people by saying: "Business people do not embark on new ventures for political objectives, such as the defence of the democratic system. They do so on a calculation of profits and if we want to induce them to develop new industrial enterprises, we must make the economic setting suitable for the promotion of these activities." I can imagine their saying, "Hear, hear!" However, Sir, these two statements or sentiments contradict each other and cancel each other. Next, on the subject of taxation. He says of the future, in col. 785, paragraph 2: "For there is a limit to the tax capacity of any economic system." Then, thinking that he has committed himself too far perhaps, he says: "I am not saying that we have reached this limit in Singapore." meaning that there is promise of further taxation. He confirms this in col. 804, paragraph 5, when he says: "The taxpayer must therefore be called upon to bear his burden of responsibility." He realised that he must go back a bit now to keep the balance on the see-saw: "However, I hasten to assure the taxpayer that there will be no unduly heavy claims on his purse. It is not proposed to make any changes to the rates of income tax next year." "Next year"? That is the rub. Thereafter, what happens? Then, Sir, a third instance. In col. 776, paragraph 4-

You have got a bible now.

-he says: "After the Government assumed office, trade has picked up". Then he contradicts himself - in col. 798, paragraph 5 - when he refers to the present state as a "state of stagnation". Sir, what are the reasons why the Finance Minister has to try to please both the extreme left and the extreme right? Because he has realised that extreme socialism is not suitable for a place like Singapore, and the effects of six months' rule on that basis have produced a Singapore economy which is not only stagnating but literally dying. So something must be done by the Honorary Doctor to help the patient to recover!

Moral rearmament!

Sir, we all know that capital - a great deal of it - has flown to other countries. It has gone to enrich and to help in the industrial development of other places. It has gone to the Federation, Borneo, Sarawak, even back to Hong Kong. But I am afraid, Sir, the Finance Minister is now trying to lock up the doors after the horses, or many of the horses, have flown away.

Run away or have flown away?

Or have run away. Sir, the climate of Singapore, economically, has become too hot for property investments. Stability has been spoiled, and so now a sugar-coated pill must be given to the patient. I believe that these steps, although temporarily they may be good, will never bring conviction to the mercantile interests unless and until the Government basically will say that they have abandoned and will abandon their ideology of the class war or the class struggle. Singapore's economy cannot be rebuilt that way. We cannot have a Government that every time pledges itself to be on the side of one section against another section. It must base its philosophy on the welfare

Of the people!

Of the people, of all the people.

Against the minority who exploit the people.

By the people, we mean all sections of the people, and not only one side against another side, because that will never bring about unity in this country or a merger with the Federation. Sir, a very interesting thing is the fact that the Government keeps on saying that they stand for a democratic, socialist form of Government. I therefore decided, Sir, that the words "democratic socialism" should be clarified so as to make us understand whether the Singapore brand is really the article as understood in other free countries. I have here, Sir, an official booklet issued in 1950 with the authority of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party on a statement of the policy and principles of British democratic socialism, and I find, Sir, that in Singapore-

What date is it?

It was issued in 1950.

That is out of date!

Well, it may be out of date, but it is a definition of a term that is not out of date. I find that in Singapore in its financial policy, the so-called democratic socialist Government has departed from the democratic socialism of free countries like Great Britain. Let me quote, Sir, extracts from pages 26 and 27 of this booklet under the head "Planning for Full Employment": "If people do not have enough money to buy all the goods that can be produced, unemployment is inevitable." And one paragraph after that: "The Government must always [I want to emphasise that, Sir - must always] be prepared to increase [I will emphasise the word again - to increase] purchasing power in order to prevent any drift towards slump. The first method is to expand public investment at the first sign of depression." I am glad that the Government, after this, is going to do this part. The second one, Sir, I am sorry to say, is where they slipped up. "The second way of increasing purchasing houses become full of goods which the people cannot afford to buy, the Government must increase spending power." The emphasis, Sir, is on increased income so as to increase spending power, power is to increase incomes. If the ware - But this Government saw fit to reduce the income of its workers by $12 million and thereby reduce their purchasing power. Sir, on another issue, on local government, the Singapore brand of democratic socialism has gone astray. In page 38 of this booklet it says here: "Democracy will flourish best when power is spread throughout the community. No more power should ever be concentrated at the centre than is reasonably necessary for efficient government. This principle determines our attitude to all forms of government." Therefore, they are against totalitarian government in any form.

Is that in the book?

Somewhere in the book. You can look it up.

Order. I think the hon. Member must realise that if he takes too much notice of interruptions from the other side of the House, he must expect more interruptions to arise. I would also ask Members on the Government bench to try - I know it is a little bit difficult when the hon. Member speaks - as much as possible not to interrupt.

To continue, Sir: "It is in accord with this principle that there should be local management of local affairs." Now, what has this Government done? They have abolished the City Council and the Rural Board. Both of these bodies are now in the process of being integrated with the Government so that there will be just one central authority, and everybody must obey. Sir, this is contrary to democratic socialism as known in Great Britain. The Federation has been referred to by the Finance Minister, I noticed, with envy. He pointed out that in the Federation they have a prosperity budget. There is a big building boom- Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

On a point of order?

Point of order. Would it be in order for the hon. Member to impute an evil motive on the part of a Member of the Assembly, an undesirable, shall we say, attitude towards our neighbour across the causeway?

Order. I am afraid the Chair is a little puzzled about what is the motive imputed. Will Dr Goh please elaborate?

Mr Speaker, the Member for Cairnhill-

The Member for Tanglin.

Yes, I beg your pardon. The Member is even more-

More democratic!

I was about to say more exclusive. But the Member for Tanglin did say that I look upon the Federation with envy, and I was just enquiring whether it would be in order to impute such an undesirable attitude of mind, an evil intent on the part of a Member of this House.

I expect the Minister for Finance is really talking with his tongue in his cheek, because I cannot imagine it is improper to impute such a laudable idea of envying the Federation for what they have. Please continue, Mr Thio.

Maybe the Minister for Finance would rather prefer that I use the word "jealousy". Sir, we admit, and he has admitted, that there is a major building boom in Kuala Lumpur. In addition, there is in motion there a successful programme of industrial development. Then he went on to express the following hopes. He said that in spite of political differences he hoped that the Federation would co-operate with Singapore as one economic unit. We on this side of the House, Sir, share with him in this hope. He also hoped that the Federation, having welcomed the transfer of commercial head offices from Singapore, would not pursue a policy designed to isolate Singapore. Sir, these are natural fears which we hope will never materialise. But on the question of a merger with the Federation, we already know the answer - nil - because the Singapore Government has decided to go left, or extreme left, whereas the Federation Government has decided to go right.

You really believe that?

Sir, I believe that some new basis for reconciliation and unity must be found. I do not believe personally that you can work out unity and co-operate with Singapore on the basis of left and right. It has got to be on the basis of right and wrong. What is right for the welfare of the people of Singapore, let us do it together. Sir, then he went on to talk about the common market with the Federation. Singapore is enthusiastic, but the Federation is cold. So with that kind of prospect, what can we foresee for the future of Singapore? I foresee that we are going to face difficult times. Here too, Sir, the Singapore Government has followed a policy known as restrictionism. They are making things difficult for private capital to invest in housing. Reference has been made to the difficulty in getting plans passed. At one time it was thought that, with Malayans in charge of the S.I.T., plans would be passed more quickly and more easily. But we have heard that things are not as we have expected. There is greater difficulty in having plans passed now than before. Then there is the demand of the City Council. Before housing estates can be developed, the developers must deposit the full cost of laying the service plus 35 per cent surcharge. One company has decided to build in Johore Bahru, not in Singapore. Even a school is called upon to pay the full cost plus 35 per cent surcharge. How can we expect foreign capital to be interested in investing further in Singapore when there are all these difficulties and all these restrictions? And yet we are facing, as the Minister for Finance has said, the nightmarish problem of population - a rapidly increasing population with a rapidly increasing problem of mass unemployment. The Government has been very wise in providing $7 million for work brigades for the young unemployed. But we know that this is only relief, a temporary relief. At the rate we are going to do it, $7 million for 5,000, just to help the present unemployed of 45,000, plus the annual increase of about 30,000, Government must be prepared to spend on relief measures $105 million rising by $42 million a year. Economically, the task is almost impossible. Sir, I am not an economic expert, but having read several books, and having had also the experience of studying budgets for quite a number of years, I know that in Singapore, we cannot follow either the extreme left kind of economy or the extreme right kind of economy. I suggest that the Government sceptics look beyond their noses, beyond Singapore, and look at West Germany. West Germany after the war suffered one thousand times or more than Singapore suffered with the pressure of 12 million refugees. They had a stupendous problem, but what do we find there today? Full employment and more than that. 104,000 foreign workers and 25,000 people from Italy were brought in. Today 350,000 jobs go abegging. Sir, wherein lies the secret of this post-war German recovery? I have here, Sir, a book issued by the Federal German Government Information Office entitled "Facts about Germany". In 1949 they faced two alternatives. They could adopt a planned economy - planned by the State and controlled by the State - or they could adopt a free economy. They had to study the question, weighing the pros and cons, and they decided for a free economy, which they described as "social market economy". In page 93 and onwards of this book there are certain statements over which, I feel, the Government experts could well ponder: "The growth of the West Germany economy took place under the German `social market economy' which means the free development of markets." And the next part to satisfy their socialist mind: "with due consideration for both private initiative and social progress. The exponents of free social market economy realised that the state has the essential duty of maintaining order in the economic realm as well as in others. But the basic principle of free market economy is free competition. These exponents are, however, aware of today's social demand and it is for that very reason that the term `social market economy' has been chosen. It signifies that the underlying principle of free market economy is not a fact dogmatically. Its limits are reached where social or cultural questions begin to clash either permanently or temporarily with the principle of unrestricted supply and demand. Now, an undeniable success has been achieved." Sir, I commend that type of economy for the consideration of the Government experts because, unless we find a solution to our mass unemployment problem, we shall not remain on the economic plateau but go further down into the ravine. Sir, today there is too much planned economy from the Government. It looks wonderful on paper, but in Singapore it will not work. They will find difficulties. People will not know what laws will be passed on a certificate of emergency. There are two theories on how to cope with a deficit in the budget. There is the theory of expansionism and there is the theory of restrictionism. Sir, I am not an expert, so I have to call on somebody who is an expert. I want to quote from a book on the "Principles of Public Finance" by Dr Hugh Dalton, formerly Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Labour Party Government in England and for some time reader in economics in the London School of Economics. The Prime Minister rose -

Is it a point of order?

On a point of information.

If the Member will give way.

No. I will not give way, Sir.

He does not want to be involved.

Dr Dalton asked the question: "Should the budget be balanced?" and he answered-

No.

-"Clearly in the long run it must be . But in the short run, measured in terms of a year or two, the budget need not be balanced." An hon. Member: Hear, Hear!

"Public policy may sometimes deliberately and legitimately incur temporary deficits in the pursuit of larger aims, notably an increase of employment through an expansion of credit." He goes on: "It is a fallacy that an unbalanced budget necessarily leads to inflation. It will only do this if the Government resorts to the printing press to cover the deficit either directly to meet its own expenditure or indirectly to support inflationary bank loans to itself. To stop budget deficits or at least to keep them within reasonable bounds, there are indeed two possible types of policy which may be adopted. The first accepts the fall in prices together with the possibility of further falls, and on this basis seeks to reduce expenditure and increase revenue." Sir, this is the policy adopted by the Finance Minister until this budget time. "The second seeks to reverse the fall in prices and relies less on economies than on stimulating trade and thus increasing revenue." Then he makes his comments on these two policies. "The first policy has been pursued under orthodox financial guidance in many countries. It has involved, in its most drastic forms, a wholesale breakage of contracts, both public and private, by legal process including the compulsory conversion of public debts and the revision of established expectations, including cuts in the salaries and wages of public servants." May I draw the attention of the Government to this particular statement, Sir. "...in pensions and many other social service benefits." Then he gave his opinion: "It is doubtful whether it has anywhere..." I repeat: "anywhere succeeded in its object." He further said: "Since it has sought to balance the state budget by unbalancing the budgets of private persons, the deflationary policy has caused great immediate privations and aroused deep popular resentment." That, Sir, was the verdict of another expert. "The second policy is `expansionist' as the first is `restrictionist'. It has been tried by fewer countries, [Sir, because this was written in 1935 or so] and affords less evidence, as yet, either of practical success or failure." Since then, Sir, I have consulted several other people and they have pointed out that this second theory has been tried out in West Germany and in America lately when there was talk of the coming world depression that never came. He continues: "On closer examination, each has its own difficulties. But, given the actual institutions and temper of the present age, the second seems the less difficult." I am glad, Sir, that the Finance Minister has decided from this budget time to follow the second policy, but only when it comes to state expenditure. May I suggest that he extends that policy not only with regard to state expenditure but also to private enterprise, and by every means he should encourage private investors to invest in Singapore? Sir, this is the policy that can save Singapore. The see-saw policy followed previously will never do. It will never give Singapore the economic stability and prosperity that we need to save the masses from unemployment. Sir, whether we are in the Opposition or in the Government, we are all interested in the future of Singapore. We do not want our children to grow up in a place where they face the spectre of unemployment all the time. I do hope, Sir, that the Government will not be self-satisfied and not be arrogant, as has been pointed out by one of their own Members, but be humble enough to consider suggestions from whatever source they come. 4.40 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, actually I was not prepared to give a speech here. But when I heard the Opposition Members speak on the Government's financial policy, the childishness and incapacity in their speeches interested me, and therefore I am going to say a few words here. Everyone knows that Singapore was a British Colony. Previously, the Colony's financial prosperity was due to the tension created by international circumstances. If the international situation were settled and the price of rubber came down, there would be no prosperity in the Colony. Such prosperity in the post-war years was not due to the encouragement or the endeavours of the previous Government, but due to the industrial prosperity created by international tensions such as the Korean war. Since our Party has come into office, we are going to improve the social situation. We want to place our finances on a stable basis. We do not depend upon international circumstances to do so. From our Finance Minister's speech it is very clear that we are a Government with constructive and vigorous energy. Our economic policy is to bring happiness to the people and not depend upon international circumstances. Since our Party came into power, we have been faced with difficulties. We inherited from the previous Government a very great deficit. The Finance Minister has pointed out very clearly that if the Government wants to meet the budget deficit, there are three ways of doing this. One is to borrow money from foreign countries, the second is that the Government itself must reduce administrative expenses, and the third is to print more currency notes. The Lim Yew Hock Government sold Christmas Island in order to balance the budget. If his Government had continued to remain in office, they would have to borrow more money from America or other countries. But our Government cannot adopt such a policy. We must, first of all, try our best. We have adopted the second method. We have reduced the expenditure of the Government. The Member for Cairnhill had just now strongly attacked the reduction of variable allowances for teachers, doctors and engineers. They have criticised our cutting down of their pay and therefore gave them cause for grievance. But actually what are the facts? The important thing is not whether the cutting down of allowances is fair or not, but what is important is how they live after their pay-cut. We have merely asked those who were in a privileged position under colonial rule to make a little sacrifice now. If they have three cars, they could use one car, if they have three servants, they could have one only, and the money spent on the maintenance of the other cars and servants could thereby be saved. We can make use of this money to improve the standard of living of the poor people which needs to be improved. When the majority of the people in our society are living in poor condition, it is not reasonable to let a small number enjoy luxury. The Member for Cairnhill has attacked us, the P.A.P. Government, that since it came into office it has controlled the trade unions very strictly. The minds of the workers are very clear on this point: in this society, the new Government is quite different from the old one. The P.A.P. Government wants to strengthen the influence of the trade unions and not to suppress them. We want them to realise that improvement of their living conditions is connected with the fate of this country. We want them to understand that if they want their standard of living to improve, they should understand the financial conditions of this country. What we are trying to do in the trade union movement is to let trade union leaders and workers realise more fully the situation of the country. Mr Speaker, Sir, you can see very clearly that the Finance Minister is a very capable man. Under his leadership, our Government has in a very short time balanced the Budget. He has also made many constructive suggestions. Regarding external affairs, the Member for Cairnhill just now praised the improvement we have made, particularly the many things we have done to improve relationships with Indonesia. What was the relation like between the old government and Indonesia? What did the previous Government do to improve relations with Indonesia? Under the Lim Yew Hock Government, Singapore became a base for subversive elements of Indonesia. This is a wellknown fact. Just now, the Member for Cairnhill said he agreed to our creating a common market with the Federation of Malaya, and he hoped that it would succeed. When he was Chief Minister, why did he not think of this plan? Regarding internal affairs, first of all, we want to integrate all the departments of the City Council into the Government administration. This is being very smoothly done. In future, when the Public Utilities Board has been set up, we can distribute the work of the Rural Board to other departments; then the Government will become more efficient and save much more money. Mr Speaker, Sir, the position set out in the Budget for 1960 is clear. In the development plan for next year, our Finance Minister has not only balanced the Budget, but has acquired for the first time in the history of Singapore large sums of money for development. Tun Lim Yew Hock said that he also had a building development plan. If every person studies carefully the geography of Singapore and how the building contractors build their houses, in one or two years' time there will be no space left for building projects. The Member for Cairnhill has praised our Industrial Development Board. Why had he not mentioned his own Development Board? Because he had only $1 million for development, and even then no progress has been made in the few years. The P.A.P. Government, however, has been clear on this point. We have more vigour to improve the industry of Singapore. The Member for Cairnhill has reminded us to promote the tourist trade in Singapore. In the past, the previous Government used public funds to give free advertisement for the big hotels, restaurants and cinemas. We will never do such a thing. The Member for Cairnhill also touched on the Report of Dr Gwee Ah Leng, and has asked us to show our attitude towards it. He seems very concerned about this matter. I do not know whether he knows the damaging effects caused by his Government saying that it wanted to give $5 million to Nanyang University. We are going to help the Nanyang University, but the point is whether it is practicable as far as finances are concerned. We have to use the money reasonably with regard to Nanyang University. This is a very complicated question and needs careful consideration. The Opposition Members criticised us and said that the Civil servants are afraid of us and many have resigned. This is not a fact. The achievement of the Government in its six months' of office could not have been realised only through its 43 Members here. Without the civil servants these achievements would not have been possible. The Finance Minister has thanked his staff for helping him to prepare a balanced Budget. This clearly shows their faith in the Government. Public servants are not as described by Opposition Members. They are not afraid of the P.A.P. Government. They work very hard, and so are confident of the Government. In the past week, the Government celebrated National Loyalty Week and the Civil servants in Radio Singapore and the Ministry of Culture have helped a lot to make it a success. Those who are afraid of the P.A.P. Government are those who are anti the people of Singapore and whose activities are questionable. When they are brought under the new rule, they are afraid because they cannot escape from it. The fact that Opposition Members defended them clearly shows that they are of the same type. Since our financial policy was announced to the public, businessmen and others in all walks of life have expected 1960 to be a prosperous year. We are still not satisfied with this. We are not over-optimistic because, in the long run, we may be faced with many difficulties due to over-population and the lack of land. If we want to better our social circumstances, we have to depend upon a merger with the Federation. We have to rid ourselves of this semi-colonialism in order to solve our financial problems. Fundamentally, it is a difficult task, but our Government has presented a favourable financial Budget in our first year. It tells all the people of Singapore that our Government is a responsible, logical, reasonable, and a talented Government.

I think it is a convenient time to suspend. I shall take the Chair again at half-past five. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Order read for resumption of debate on Question, "That the Assembly approves the financial policy of the Government for the year 1960." Question again proposed. 5.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must congratulate the Members on the Opposition Bench for their extremely well-polished attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill in this debate on the budget. They have quite obviously shown their political bankruptcy, and have to rely on political eloquence to lead them out of their quandary. Like all empty vessels, they make the most noise. And in doing so, they have echoed the emptiness of their ideas and ideals. The Member for Mountbatten, in particular, should ascertain the accuracy of her statements before bringing wild allegations against the Government benches. I speak of her allegations that Government has cut tuberculosis allowances to aggravate the situation of tuberculosis in Singapore. This, I feel, is a calculated move on her part to discredit the Government on false premises. I would like to clarify the situation here, and perhaps give the hon. Member here some accurate information. The tuberculosis allowance was instituted some few years ago to remedy the rapidly deteriorating circumstances created by the dreadful disease. The allowance is given especially for patients who have been certified by medical experts of their curability. The recipient of this allowance must have a good prognosis - a good chance of recovery, and this allowance is only given to people who, in the opinion of the chest physician, will benefit from a rest from work. As soon as the chest physician feels that the patient is well enough to go back to work, his T.B. allowance will be discontinued. The People's Action Party Government has never cut these allowances as implied by the Member for Mountbatten. What the People's Action Party Government did in September was to impose a maximum on these allowances because the way in which these allowances were given was subject to abuse. It was known that certain sufferers of tuberculosis in Singapore were receiving a T.B. allowance of over $300 per month, a really fantastic figure in comparison with the salary given to the working class. The Government fixed this maximum at $180 per month as from September this year and there were no cuts whatsoever imposed on the T.B. allowances except the removal of the 10 per cent C.O.L. allowance which was added to the T.B. allowance in 1951 due to the inflation then. The Government has on no occasion cut any allowances on tuberculosis. In fact, the Government is well aware that tuberculosis is a big problem in this country, and the Ministry of Health in particular has planned schemes to provide compulsory B.C.G. vaccination for all the people of Singapore vulnerable to the scourge of this dreadful disease. I like to ask the Opposition Members at present not to make wild allegations and frighten the people of Singapore with speeches in this Assembly. As far as the Ministry of Health is concerned, in accordance with the declared policy of the P.A.P. Government, we are spending more money next year so as to provide the people of Singapore with better facilities for health and medical care. In the Development Estimates alone, a sum of more than $8 million has been allotted to cope with the planned expansion of the medical and health services for the benefit of the people of Singapore. Though the sum is only $2,825,000 more than the Development Estimates for 1959, we are confident of achieving a much better result by careful and realistic planning. The Ministry of Health has always received substantial grants for development in the past years. But the previous Government stressed on the architectural beauty of hospital buildings rather than realistic needs. This was perhaps a scheme on the part of the previous Government to pull the wool over the people's eyes. Let us take a look at the white elephant of the S.P.A. Government at the Thomson Road Hospital for the chronic sick. The buildings alone were erected at a cost of some $4,650,000 to house just 396 chronic patients. It is pertinent here, Sir, to mention that chronic patients once admitted to a hospital are unlikely to be discharged at all. That is to say the turnover of the chronic hospital will be almost nil, or at any rate very, very small once it has been filled up initially. This shows the failure of the previous Government to grasp the problem socially and economically, much less politically. The previous Government was prepared to sink a capital expenditure of $12,000 per patient in buildings alone to solve the problem of the chronic sick. This kind of shortsightedness on the part of the previous Government resulted in the deprivation of medical care for many of those needy and sick. The first thing the Minister for Health did when he assumed office was to make a thorough and overall inspection of all hospitals and institutions in the Ministry of Health. We were aghast to see an impressive building beautifully laid out, perhaps, to rest in peace, if the previous Government had its way, at Thomson Road. It was declared open by the previous Government just before the elections as an election stunt, and left empty to stand as a monument of masterly inactivity on the part of the S.P.A. Government. This new Government is not interested in window dressing. We are interested only in resolving the needs of our people. The $8� million will be spent in realistic expansion of the health services commensurate with the economical capacity of our country. New economical and utility types of medical units will be designed and built all over the island in an attempt to decentralise the out-patient services in order to really and truly bring health to the door steps of all the people in Singapore. The main item of expenditure in the Health Ministry falls on personal emoluments, which account for some $22� million. Singapore is fortunate in having a medical school for more than half a century. This has resulted in the Ministry of Health being almost Malayanised. But there is no denying the fact that there is still a shortage of doctors in Singapore. This shortage has adversely affected our doctors in two ways. Firstly, the doctors were overworked to cope with the demands of the health service, and secondly, due to the inability of the service to spare the doctors to go abroad, they were unable to go overseas for higher qualifications which are so essential today in the face of rapid scientific advance and increasing medical specialisation. Our medical school, which maintains a very high standard, is unable to double its student intake at short notice. Government has, therefore, decided to send some 80 to 120 students annually abroad for medical training. However, it takes at least six years to train a doctor. Therefore, to meet the present needs, we have decided to recruit doctors from overseas on short-term contract. This probably answers the point raised by the Member for Cairnhill on the situation of the doctors in Singapore. Since the People's Action Party formed the Government, the standard of hospital care has improved tremendously, particularly at the Woodbridge Hospital and at the Trafalgar Home. At the Kandang Kerbau Hospital too, improvement has taken place. The out-patient services still remain congested and overcrowded, despite new extensions and added staff. This is because we are treating more than double the number of patients daily as compared with the number at the beginning of the year. It is expected that the present congestion will only be eased by complete decentralisation of the outpatient services in the future. The same applies to the Kandang Kerbau Hospital. And it is the Government's intention to build large maternity homes to solve the congestion at Kandang Kerbau Hospital in Singapore. Singapore boasts of a very high standard of health in South East Asia. A rapidly decreasing death rate and a fast increasing birth rate have brought us new problems. The population is growing at the rate of 70,000 a year. This Government is planning a campaign to reduce the birth rate in Singapore early next year. Many of us here feel that family planning should be easy to implement. But I would like to mention here that from the social-medical point of view, it is not so. It must not be forgotten that to many of the poor, sexual relationship remains perhaps the only form of recreation they can afford. After all, the Government takes care of the pregnant mother and the infant baby completely free of charge. 5.43 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, in the debate on the Singapore budget, I wish to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that it is the responsibility of the Opposition Members to criticise constructively in the interest of all the people of Singapore. What I am surprised at is the fact that the Government considers that only the P.A.P. Government is sincere, and that it is the only Government who wish to help the poor masses: and that other than the P.A.P. Government, others do not have the interests of the people at heart. In the speeches made by the Government backbenchers, the facts are contradictory to what has already been explained by the Minister for Finance in his Budget speech. For instance, Mr Speaker, the speech by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, who stated that there are two ways to improve the budget position of the State - by a reduction of administrative expenditure so that the masses will benefit, or by means of borrowing money, whether from the people of Singapore or from countries outside Singapore. We admit that these are two ways which can help Singapore to attain a state of peace and prosperity, so that the people will be able to taste the good things in life and there will be assurances for their children and their future. However, what we are concerned with, as I said earlier on, is that the Government assume that they alone can bring about an improvement to the masses, but the ways and means by which they spend the State's money is a matter with which we too are concerned. Indiscriminate spending, or spending to suit their own political ends - this is our concern, too. Mr Speaker, we have just received an answer from the relevant ministry to which a question was posed, concerning the formation of voluntary contingents the members of which were given $3 per day. That was done without consultation with the Ministry of Labour. This we consider is a big matter for Singapore in regard to the unemployment problem. The Government also admits that the members of the contingent comprised P.A.P. members, or at least the great majority of them comprised P.A.P. members. Here it is obvious and apparent that the whispers circulating among ths masses do indeed have substance. The general opinion of the masses is that if you are looking for employment you have got to be a member of the P.A.P. This is an act which I consider disappointing and disgusting to the tax payers who contribute much to the State. That kind of attitude is basically wrong, because the Government, constitutionally formed, should protect the interests of the population as a whole, irrespective of whether they are following the ideologies of the party in power or otherwise. Another point which I would like to make on this budget issue is this. After the P.A.P. assumed office, the Prime Minister issued many announcements, which were the same statements made during the election period, that is to say, to raise the standard of living of those who were neglected and ignored by the previous government. I wish to remind the House and to stress here, that the position of the past Government differed from that of the present government which is under a different constitution altogether. The powers of the past Government and those of the present Government under the new constitution also differ. I am here not to defend the past government. But I have stressed on many occasions that we are heading for a definite objective, that is to say, to shape a nation without discriminating between one community and another, and I find that the attitude or action taken by the present Government is disgusting. The Government should realise that the aim of building our nation is a big task. Hence a socialist ideology, I fear, will be a deterrent towards the shaping of a common nation. Mr Speaker, once again I stress that it is up to the P.A.P. Government to make good. Before they assumed office, they made promises to the poor masses, for instance, to the fishermen and the farmers, because they considered that these were the people who were oppressed by the capitalists. But what I find in the Budget submitted is that such matters as affect these particular sections of the masses are not mentioned. As I have said concerning the fishermen, they are oppressed by middlemen. Therefore, it is indeed necessary that their problem should be given prime consideration. The Government should help by giving these fishermen assistance in the form of capital loans to enable them to buy new equipment or gear. However, I am of the opinion that this will not really solve the crux of their problem. They can still catch fish, but the real problem they are faced with is that after the catch, where are they going to dispose of their catch? If they are encouraged to form a co-operative society, they will find it difficult to dispose of their catch. The prices offered for their catch in the market are very low indeed. The prices offered to people who bring in the fish vary. For instance, Mr Speaker, if the fish is brought to the market by the regular persons these people will be offered fixed or regular prices. However, if the fishermen themselves bring their catch to the market, the prices offered them will be considerably lower or half of what has been offered to the middlemen. Therefore, I consider there is no other way to help the fishermen than by establishing a central marketing board, administered by the Government, for the purpose of fixing the prices of fish irrespective of who brings it in, and then the catch can be sold to the retailers. There is no other way I can think of to help the fishermen out there. I am not saying that the other ways are not practical, but it is important to help the fishermen living in the islands to solve their real problems and to improve their living standards. Not much purpose can be achieved by providing them with community centres or clinics alone if we do not look into their economic aspect as well. Aside from that, Mr Speaker, concerning the civil servants mentioned in the speech by the Minister for Finance, originally it was decided to change the system. In column 802 of the Hansard, he says (I will read it in English): "It is intended next year to make a review of the staffing position to ensure that there is a hard core of experienced officers in all Departments, and that opportunities will be provided for accelerated promotion to those local officers of merit and ability who are prepared to give of their best." (Continued in Malay): Mr Speaker, in the last sentence which reads, "who are prepared to give of their best" I think that is incomplete. This is a matter about which we are uneasy. From that speech there are rumours that the civil servants wonder how they are to receive assurances from the Government, when in point of fact they are being carefully watched and they are in an embarrassing position. We have asked for assurances from the Government that, in the case of civil servants who are not able to offer themselves for voluntary services over the week-ends, nothing will be done to them and that their promotion or other rights will not be affected. We have asked for an assurance and the Prime Minister himself has given us an assurance to this effect. What the civil servants are concerned about is that, in spite of the assurance, and in order to protect their rice-bowl, they feel that they have no alternative but to offer themselves, not voluntarily, but on the pretext of being voluntary. Although such people are qualified for promotion, it has been feared that the Government would give special attention to them. Why I said this, Mr Speaker, is because they are constantly plagued with fear in their everyday livelihood, and the Government should do everything possible to allay the fears of the civil servants in the interests of all the people of Singapore. 6.05 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, it has been six months since we took office and we have arrived at such a Budget. It can be said that we have tried our best to reach this Budget. Although externally this Budget is similar to that of the previous Government, if we analyse it carefully, we will see that the content is entirely different. Let us compare our Budget with the Lim Yew Hock Government's Budget. In the 1958 Budget, Government expenditure was $124 million. This was the greatest expenditure in the history of Singapore. On the contrary, our next year's Estimates amount to only $111 million. This clearly explains the economic expenditure of the Government. Six months ago we stated our economic policy. We said that we would economise in the matter of expenditure. We can now see in our Budget for 1960 the amount of our expenditure. On the other hand, our proposed $105 million Development Fund is also the greatest amount in the history of Singapore. Just now the Member for Cairnhill criticised our Budget. We can excuse others who criticise, but not him, the Member for Cairnhill. We have to answer his criticism because he himself was still the Chief Minister six months ago. He was rather proud and happy to say that his 1958 Budget had still several million dollars remained. But if we investigate it carefully - we would know that the Estimates Expenditure for 1958 was $267 million and the Estimates revenue was $271 million - we will find that they have sold Christmas Island for $20 million. Therefore, there could have been some remainder. Otherwise we will find in the 1958 Budget a deficit of $15.5 million. But our Budget is basically different from the previous one. Our friends on the opposite side always quote from some books. I remember that a few months ago they quoted the Five-Year Plan of the People's Action Party. But now the Member for Tanglin quoted something from Western Germany. But he has forgotten that Singapore is in the East. We are always proud to say that the P.A.P. Government is the only Government that acts on what it says. Our Budget is worked out from our Five-Year Plan which the Opposition considers as their Bible. Let us see the financial policy outlined in the Five-Year Plan. If the Member for Tanglin will read the Financial Minister's speech on the common market at page 21 of the English edition `The Tasks Ahead', he will see whether that is contradictory to the promises we had made during the election campaign. Regarding the development plans between Singapore and the Federation given in the Budget speech, they are in line with the promises we gave in our election campaign. On enterprise and capital investment, that has been very clearly stated in the Budget speech. We pay special attention to the economic development of our country. We are trying our best to solve the problem of the increase of population. We are not just criticising only. Apart from the statements made in the Budget speech, we have also done certain things. For instance, last month we in the Finance Ministry visited many local factories. We have paid attention to the present conditions. From our visit, we have found out that the Lim Yew Hock Government had never before visited these factories. How could they know where the problems lie? Therefore our Budget can be said to be a very proper one. It is agreeable with the promises which we gave during our election campaign. It is unlike those given by the Opposition Members who, during the election campaign, made promises but when they were elected they forgot what they had said. Since the announcement of our Budget policy in the Press, we know, from the response of the people, that it is agreeable with the interests of the people of Singapore. 6.16 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in his speech, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister said that the prosperity of Singapore has been due to the tension created by international circumstances, and he also said that we do not want to be influenced by outside sources. I am at a loss to understand exactly what was in the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary when he said it. Could it be that he meant that the post-war prosperity, and indeed, the possibility to be able to stay alive in Singapore, was entirely due to tension caused by warring nations outside Singapore? If he meant that, I would, with respect, suggest to him that he has entirely misconceived the reason for the prosperity of Singapore, and the reasons which have enabled Singapore to prosper. And if by "but we do not want to be influenced by outside sources" he means that he does not want to be influenced by political factors from outside sources, I entirely agree with him. But if by that he meant (and as we are on a discussion of the Budget, be must, I think, have meant that) that we do not want to be influenced by outside sources in so far as our economy is concerned, it seems that in this matter, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and the Hon. Minister for Finance do not seem to see eye to eye. If I had understood the Minister's speech, I understood him to mean that Singapore being what it is, our prosperity and indeed our economic life is dependent on our neighbours, particularly the Federation of Malaya, and secondly, Indonesia. I cannot believe that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister had intended to contradict the Minister for Finance on this matter. Perhaps he had political considerations in mind when he said that. Another subject touched upon by the Parliamentary Secretary was Christmas Island. The point and purpose of touching upon Christmas Island is lost on me. What does he suggest should have been done with Christmas Island? Does he suggest that it should have been handed over by the previous Government to the P.A.P. Government as a colony? In the events that have since happened, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister had better thank his stars that that problem was taken off his plate, and that his government has got $20 million to boot. The Parliamentary Secretary also said that the P.A.P. Government has reduced the expenditure of Government on every possible head of expenditure it could think of. Undoubtedly it has done. On some of the larger items of expenditure in the Government budget, they have done it quite well - quite effectively - by unilaterally reducing total emoluments of Government servants. They have done that very well. On other matters, they have increased expenditure rather than diminished it. The cost of ministerial government, Mr Speaker, Sir, has increased and not decreased. And by an increase in the cost of ministerial government, I mean that the salaries paid to Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries to Ministers, and Political Secretaries to Ministers have increased over those paid to Ministers and Assistant Ministers in the previous Government. An analysis of the budget will indicate that for the previous government, the cost of Ministers was $317,000 approximately, whereas the cost under the present Government is 515,000 approximately. So that the cost, Mr Speaker, Sir, is easily deducible. The increase in cost of ministerial government under the present P.A.P. Government has gone well over $190,000. It is not a very big sum possibly, but when a government goes out of its way to boast that it has cut down on government expenditure by reducing the personal emoluments of civil servants, then this increase in the cost of ministerial government does not exactly seem to be in keeping with their avowed policy of keeping down expenditure on personal emoluments. The Parliamentary Secretary then said that in a short time, the Minister for Finance was able to balance the somewhat unbalanced budget of the previous Government. Whilst not for one moment detracting from what the Hon. Minister for Finance did to balance the budget, might I say that it was not an operation that presented very great difficulty to a man of the calibre of our Minister for Finance? All he had to do was arbitrarily to impose cuts on the salary of civil servants and to stop expenditure on special services. It was as simple as that, Mr Speaker, and yet, we are asked to believe by the supporters of the P.A.P. Government that the Minister for Finance had done something quite wonderful, and that he and only he could have done it; and in trying to persuade us to believe that it was only he who could have done it, they tell us what a wonderful economist he is. Let me hasten to assure them that I am the first to agree with them that he is a wonderful economist. An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Now, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health - he is not here. An hon. Member: Look for a bigger one!

He warned the Opposition Members not to frighten the people of Singapore with speeches in the Assembly. It is strange that this warning should come from a member of the P.A.P. To warn the Opposition Members! - Poor, isolated Members on this side of the House - that we could frighten the people of Singapore with speeches in this Assembly. If anybody has frightened the people of Singapore with speeches, it is not the Opposition Members, but it is the members of the P.A.P. Government who, during their vigorous campaigning, had frightened the people of Singapore.

We won!

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must congratulate the Hon, the Minister for Finance for presenting such a balanced budget. In the particular circumstances in which the Minister for Finance found himself when he was called upon to present his Budget, I suggest that his Budget was the only thing that he could have presented. And we must pay tribute to his genius for not giving way to the more difficult elements in his party in the matter of the Budget, and in placing the interests of the country before any other interest. Any other budget at this particular juncture in the economic life of Singapore would have hastened its decadence. Let us assess the circumstances as they now prevail in the light of what the P.A.P. Government have done over the last six months, and even before, and what they intend to do in the future as revealed in the budget which they have proposed to this House. The most important problem that is now worrying the parents of Singapore is education. The Ministry of Education has such revolutionary plans for seeking to change the way of life and the way of thought of the children of Singapore. They wish to achieve all their objectives in the five years they hope to be in for. Mr Speaker, Sir, the objective of being able to understand one another in a common language without the difficulty of having interpreters by one's side to translate one's fellow citizens' speech is a laudable objective, and is one which must be achieved in the least possible time. But one must not hasten these rather difficult processes in human development merely because the Government wants to attain that objective within a given period of time. No one quarrels with the Government over its education objective, but the quarrel with the Government is in respect of the manner in which it seeks to put forward these experiments in education, hoping to achieve their objective within their term of office. The first thing the Government did when it came into power was to declare that it would have a six-day week. Perhaps it is a good thing. I do not know. I am not an educational expert, Sir. But we seem to have survived over the years with the five-day week. We have produced a Prime Minister of the calibre of our present one, and we have produced a Finance Minister of the calibre of our present Minister for Finance, and I believe they grew to this intellectual stature on the five-day week. An hon. Member: Not leisure.

And yet our Education Minister would have us believe that, to build a better nation and to produce a better lot of Prime Ministers, Finance Ministers (who can say that we could get better ones than what we have today, even with a six-day week) it is necessary to impose the six-day week?

What about the language situation?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the most important thing to Singapore is for us all to think like Malayans and act like Malayans. I believe the Prime Minister in one of his speeches said that, when he was in the United Kingdom for further studies (I believe it was post-war) and that whenever he met a Chinese from Singapore in London, he could see the difference between that Chinese and other Chinese from China. Might I say to the Prime Minister, Mr Speaker, Sir, that when I was in England pre-war - that was in the year 1929-

Hyde Park!

I also experienced the same feelings that the Prime Minister himself did experience. That when we from Malaya - be he a Malay, Chinese, Indian, Ceylonese or anybody else who had been born and bred here - met in London we were able to understand each other readily; but when we met Chinese from China or Indians from India or Ceylonese from Ceylon, we found that we could not take to them. In fact, we found them alien to us. Mr Speaker, Sir, the tendency was always for Malayans to stick together with Malayans in London. What does that indicate? Does that not indicate, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the way of thought, the way of life, the way of approach to problems were similar and that we could all understand one another irrespective of race or pigmentation? Might I suggest, with respect to the Minister for Education, that the most important thing for us in Singapore is to develop a Malayan outlook? And to develop a Malayan outlook, what better way is there than of putting all our children in one school irrespective of race rather than do what is now becoming known as "segregation" in schools? I know the Education Minister has vehemently denied it. I am very appreciative of that fact. But the people of Singapore are still worried about what they call segregation of the races. If the objective is for all of us to be bilingual or trilingual within five years' time, that in itself is an objective worthy of attainment, Mr Speaker. But I put it to the Education Minister that even more worthy of attainment is a Malayan outlook. Anything that will detract from the creation of a Malayan outlook is something which the Government should discourage. And I am telling the Ministry of Education that this so-called taking away of Indian boys and Malay boys and putting them in certain schools, merely because the teaching situation is difficult and it might add to the costs of Government, is, in my opinion, a policy which will not pay this country in the long run. If it is going to cost the Government more, well then let it cost the Government more because the main objective should be to build a common Malayan outlook. Under the heading Education on page 152 of the Singapore Annual Report for 1958 certain figures are given which show that so far as English schools are concerned, there were 99,000 pupils in Government schools and 33,482 pupils in Government-aided schools, making a total of about 120,000 pupils in all Government schools. In a further section on page 145, there is a statement which says that in 1958, there were 14,719 candidates for the entrance examination of which approximately 750 were from Malay schools. From that, it appears to me, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the percentage of pupils in secondary schools is about 10 to 11 per cent of the total student population in Government and Government-aided English schools. So that 90 per cent of our children, Mr Speaker, Sir, go to primary schools and the other 10 per cent find themselves in secondary schools. May I put a proposition to the Ministry of Education for consideration? I understand that the introduction of the six-day week, Mr Speaker, has not added very much to the actual amount of school hours in school so far as primary schools are concerned. It is negligible. The five-day week and the six-day week provide the same number of school hours for the primary schools. Would not the Ministry of Education consider introducing only a six-day week for secondary schools and stop the six-day week for the primary schools? This would release a number of teachers, and Saturdays would be free for the primary schools, and could not Saturdays be utilised for the purpose of language tuition for the primary schools? I understand that the difficulty confronting the Ministry is the lack of teachers in Malay, and in Tamil and Chinese possibly. Now, instead of taking the children to the teachers, could not the teachers be taken to the children? Could not the teachers be provided with some form of transport to go from school to school and there teach Tamil or Malay as the case may be, rather than to dragoon all Malay and Tamil school children into some schools merely to cut down the cost in education? These are thoughts, Mr Speaker, which have passed through my mind and which I place before the Hon, the Minister for Education for his consideration. 6.39 p.m.

The next item that concerns the people of Singapore is the question of housing. The Development Estimates provide a sum of $25 million for the Ministry of National Development for the erection of houses. We have not heard what exactly the plans are and how the Minister for National Development hopes to utilise this $25 million during the space of 12 short months. We had also been promised a lot of houses for the year 1959. So far as I can make out, not one housing unit has been completed by the Trust. The question therefore pertinently arises, Mr Deputy Speaker, will the Ministry of National Development be able fully to utilise this $25 million which has been allocated to that Ministry, or is it merely a paper vote which, owing to the conditions prevailing in the Singapore Improvement Trust, the Minister for Finance knows that the Trust cannot fulfil? I understand there are no architects in the Trust, or such architects as there are have so little experience in building, that they do not know which way to site buildings - east, west, left or centre. If that is the position in the Singapore Improvement Trust, can they utilise the $25 million? We understand that one housing unit is going to cost $4,000. That means the Ministry will erect well over 6,000 housing units during 1960. I do not know what plans have been laid now, whether the sites have been earmarked, whether contracts have been let out, whether plans have been put on paper and contracts have been signed. If none of these has been done, I am suggesting, Mr Deputy Speaker, that building operations cannot start on the site for another four to five months and that the Minister for Finance will, at the end of 1960, find himself with, instead of a deficit budget, a surplus budget. And this will not be through any stroke of genius on his part, not this time. Now, the other factor - if you want to build houses, not only must you have architects and engineers, but you must also have a building trade fit, ready and willing to receive the grand plans of the Minister for Housing. I understand the building trade in Singapore is in the doldrums and the builders are slowly but surely trekking their way up to the Federation where there is a building boom. And if the Minister for National Development does not hurry on with his plans, he will not have the builders or the workers to construct them. No Government can hope to provide a sufficiency of houses for everyone in Singapore, and for that reason it is vital that Government encourage building also on the private sector. What has the P.A.P. Government done to encourage this? Since December 1957, the Mayor of the City Council - he is now with us as the Minister for National Development - did everything possible not only to discourage but to kill private enterprise in the private sector of building. The Mayor was unable to appreciate that revenue from assessments is the backbone of municipal finance, and that if you kill the building trade and private building, you destroy municipal finance. If there is one thing in respect of which the Mayor will go down in the history of Singapore, he will certainly go down as the one who most effectively destroyed the main sinews of municipal finance. The next point, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to touch on is the professional services in Government. The Finance Minister in his speech said that he was offering allowances staggered in three categories - $100, $200 and $300. $100 for professional and technical people with under seven years' experience; $200 for professional and technical people of over seven years' experience; and $300 for those who give the Government true and faithful service. Whether this only includes (this faithful category, I mean) the technicians and professional men, the Minister did not make quite clear. Or whether he wanted to take within his embrace the whole of the Civil Service by offering the $300 bounty to all the civil servants who are good, true, loyal and work hard, even perhaps on Sundays, that was not made quite clear. Perhaps the Minister might clarify that point. Now, I wonder what the Minister for Labour and Law has to say on a matter like that. What reactions will a genuine trade union movement have to the offer by an employer to his employees who work so hard that the employer of his own free will gives $300 each? I have always understood from good trade unionists that this is one of the ways in which employers seek to split trade unionists. I am sure the Minister for Finance-

It is an incentive.

These are incentives. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to the Minister for Finance - these are incentives to break wide open the trade union movement.

No. It is to encourage good unionists!

Do you remember in the bad old days when posts carried "Allowances, Special to the Holder" - that. I believe, was the technical term in the bad old days. The unions fought against it. Oh yes, they fought tooth and nail. They said, "The post must be paid according to what it is worth." "Special to the Holder" merely means the blue-eyed boy gets everything and the rest get nothing. Does the Finance Minister want to do a thing like that? I am sure he does not.

We will cut out the $300.

On the question of income tax. I am somewhat disappointed with the cursory statement of the Minister for Finance that there was tax evasion and that he was going to tighten up the tax machinery in order that it might effectively collect more. I think it is public knowledge, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there has been tax evasion on a mass scale in Singapore, if I may put it that way, with the result that a lot of people, who should be paying taxes and thus pulling their financial weight behind the State, have been evading it. I have with me, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Hansard of 13th December, 1957. This is the official report on the 1958 Budget; col. 2921. Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who was then the Member for Tanjong Pagar, said: "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, whatever 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." Now, Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not know what "the same position" means, but if the collection of the same amount of tax must necessarily indicate the same position, then we are in "the same position" today as when the Member for Tanjong Pagar, who happily is now the Prime Minister, addressed the Assembly on the 1958 Budget. So that if one can place any weight on the speech of the Member for Tanjong Pagar - and I am not the one to say that no one should not - then I think the position is that even today, with drastic measures, the provision of $65 million by way of income tax for the year 1960 is certainly inadequate and very much below the paying capacity of the tax-paying public in Singapore. Whether we have a ruthless Minister for Finance, I do not know, but he certainly is not lacking in courage - that we know. Therefore, he is the man for the job and we hope that when the final accounts for the year 1960 are written, instead of an amount of $65 million by way of income tax we shall have $120 million collected in the way of income tax, which will mean then, of course, instead of a $6 million deficit we shall have a surplus budget of $60 million; and the P.A.P. Government will have found all the monies they want for all the development projects over the next four years or so. Now, turning to the Medical Services. I remember the Minister for Health, whilst making a statement to the Press - I wonder if it was correctly reported, but this is what I read - that so far as the doctors were concerned, he was not worried, they could go. But he was worried about his nurses! He was wondering whether his nurses would stay with him, but if the doctors were to go, "let them go; so long as I have my nurses." Within six months of that report "we expanded so much that we are now going abroad to recruit 60 doctors." That seems to be an appropriate comment on the Minister's references to the Press about his Medical Services. Quite frankly, Mr Deputy Speaker, we are not running a government service composed of morons or donkeys. We are running a government service composed of human beings, and if you treat them like human beings they will give you good, true, honest, efficient service like human beings. What the doctors are worried about is not so much that they are being called upon to do the work that two doctors should be doing. Most of them are doing it now, and most of them are doing it willingly. But what they object to is the manner in which they are being pushed around by the Ministry and its officials, and no appreciation is given them for the amount of hard work, long hours, and no holidays which they are now doing. If the Government could only treat its servants as human beings, they will get much better results. With regard to the development programme envisaged by this Government, as set out in the Budget, a close inspection of it, Mr Deputy Speaker, seems to indicate - to me at least - that very little is going to be done. Most of the development projects are subject to financial control and by that I understand it to mean that no plans have yet been formulated, and when they are formulated, it will be subject to the most agonising scrutiny by the Minister for Finance; and by the time the Estimates have got through the agonising scrutiny of the Minister for Finance, the year might be over. So we end up in this happy position - that if the Minister for Finance, who it is suggested should be ruthless in his income tax collections, does in fact get ruthless and rake in another $60 million and if the development projects have not been advanced further over the next six months than they are today, the $60 million estimated to be spent on development projects will not be spent, and we shall end up our final accounts for the year 1960 with a $150 million surplus. 6.55 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I start by quoting a very well-known Chinese proverb, which is Tsuo ma k'an hua, meaning "Riding on horses and looking at flowers"? The Budget is an extremely complicated piece of work on which several minds have been turned for several months. For the Opposition to stand up and in a few minutes blast it to smithereens, shows I think a tendency to be superficial and just to denigrate whatever effort the Government is trying to make with the limited financial means at its disposal. It is fortunate that the P.A.P. came into power at the end of May last, because we found very soon that there was going to be a $14 million deficit for 1959. Quite rightly, when you are faced with empty coffers, the important thing to do is to tighten your belts - pay cuts have to be imposed and all of us shared in them. It is not because we did not wish to consult anybody or that we were arbitrary in our action, but a firm and quick decision had to be made before the situation deteriorated. And I would say that the industry at large appreciates this action - that we are honestly trying to balance our budget. We also discovered that the reserves had fallen from $320 million to $87 million in the short space of five years. What did the old S.P.A. Government do to stop the running down of the reserves? They sold Christmas Island for a song - $20 million to be exact. In 1957 the revenue expected from Christmas Island was $1.2 million. They have a further lease for 32 years and, on that estimate, would have earned us an estimated $38.4 million. Instead, the old government sold it for $20 million - half that price. The Member for Farrer Park brought an attack on the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister - that he has no argument for talking on Christmas Island - and suggested that we would want to colonise Christmas Island. But may I quote here what has been said by the last Government on Christmas Island: "No useful purpose would be served by a Minister visiting, apart from the practical difficulty getting there." that is Christmas Island: "...and back. The Island clearly cannot be part of a self-governing Singapore and it would be wrong to let the inhabitants think that they are in a position to reopen H.M.G.'s decision." And who are the inhabitants, Mr Deputy Speaker? The inhabitants are 1,810 Chinese, 489 Malaysians, 9 Indians, 136 Europeans, making a total of 2,444. That was the census, Mr Deputy Speaker, in 1956. Mr Deputy Speaker, when the P.A.P. Government found that financially we were faced with a critical situation, we did the right thing. It was lucky that we came in time, otherwise we would have found that the S.P.A. Government would have sold Singapore to somebody else. But may I reply to the Member for Mountbatten who has shown her interest in aeroplanes? She has asked us for the Government policy on the Airport. Here I would like to state that the present potential capacity of our single runway is far greater than the existing traffic. The Airport is estimated to lose $2.8 million in 1960, and it has been regularly losing about $2 million every year. Let us remember, before we talk about extending the runway, that there are altogether four aerodromes in a little island of 220 square miles - three military airports at Changi, Seletar and Tengah, and one civil airport. Extending an airport would mean displacing people who are living in that area. Extending your airport is not in any way going to increase your revenue. What is important is that more aircraft should be permitted to use the Airport. More airline operators should be allowed to use the Airport. Only in this way can we increase our landing fees and, therefore, help to cover the expenses paid to the Airport. At the moment the Government is not in a position to control any air traffic rights in Singapore. That is because, from my understanding of letters exchanged, the old Government had agreed that civil aviation comes under foreign affairs, and that being so, it is in the hands of the United Kingdom. That is all I wish to say, Mr Deputy Speaker. 7.04 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, first of all, I want to reply to the two respectable Opposition Member - the Member for Cairnhill and the Member for Farrer Park. They said that the Ministry of National Development had during the past few months sacked many engineers. Mr Speaker, many engineers have resigned. We can tell them directly that under the P.A.P. Government, and also when we were in the City Council, we want an efficient Government. When we were in the City Council and when we saw them working in our departments, the engineers were irresponsible and did not work for the people. At the time when we were in the City Council, we carried out a revolutionary project, and that is how to make those engineers work well and effectively and with responsibility. But, unfortunately, our project was frustrated by the Opposition. Today the P.A.P. Government is supported and elected by the people. I can tell you why during the past six months many engineers have resigned from the Ministry of National Development. There are many engineers who had not been sacked. They had gone to foreign countries by air and they had sent a letter saying that they were going to resign. They had their motives. Now we can tell you why the engineers in the Ministry of National Development had resigned. We have recruited many local engineers, because we have full confidence in local engineers. They are able to work with responsibility. Today with the P.A.P. in the Ministry of National Development, we have completed a lot of work during the past six months. Regarding our 1960 Budget, the Member for Mountbatten has said that the Ministry of National Development did not build any houses. There were no projects like those in Kuala Lumpur. She must realise that the reason why there is development in Kuala Lumpur is because they are going to build a capital. They must build a capital city there. In Singapore at present we must take care of the interest of the people - the people's housing problem. The Member for Farrer Park said that he does not know what we can do within a period of 12 months. But strangely enough we have taken office for only six months, and not twelve months. Whether it is six months or twelve months our work will be completed. That we will tell the Opposition Members. Much improvement in the reorganisation of the Ministry of National Development and S.I.T. has been made during the past six months. The old S.I.T. complaints of corruption against the allocation of flats, the passing of plans and the construction of S.I.T. houses plus the transfer of T.O.L.s or State reverted properties are now no more. There are 1,800 houses of more than 99 years lease belonging to the Government. They have been a source of much corruption. Work has been started to reorganise these 2,000 units of Government State reverted houses. At the same time the Rent Conciliation Board is being reconstituted to represent more equitably the interests of the poor tenants. The previous Board was mostly composed of members of the Landlord class. The Land Office is undergoing a thorough reorganisation and a study is now being made of a revision of our land policies so that the little land available to us in Singapore would be made use of to the maximum advantage. As soon as the S.I.T. was reorganised we started on building for the two fire sites namely the Kampong Tiong Bahru and Kampong Koo Chye sites. Work would be completed very soon and with the finance available to the S.I.T. in 1959 we are embarking on the use of all available funds we have to build up another 2,000 units of flats in the Kampong Tiong Bahru fire site. This will be the first time that the S.I.T. is building really low cost housing and the rent of these flats would be within the means of the lower income groups. Next year, when the $25 million is made available to the Housing Authority we hope that with the checks in corruption, the drafting of plans on a rational basis and the useful employment of local architects instead of expatriate architects we can build about 8,000 units of flats. $25 million if used by the old S.I.T. would only build 4,000 units of flats. Corruption in the passing of plans was well known and since the S.I.T. was reorganised all such allegations have stopped. The passing of plans is most susceptible to temptations of corruption by unscrupulous people who can make millions of dollars from the passing of plans each year. 7.15 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, today is the first day in the history of Singapore when a programme concerning the economic policy framed by a people's government is being discussed. In opening the debate, the Member for Cairnhill said that, after hearing and reading the Government's financial policy for 1960, there was nothing for the present Government to crow about. Admittedly the P.A.P. Government does not make it its policy to crow, because we do not wish to be the cock that crows. It is the hen that lays the eggs. Indirectly the Member said that, from the speech made by the Minister for Finance, it was apparent that there was a split in the Party hierarchy. I think this is irrelevant and, in point of fact, it is only people who suffer from nightmares and people who are faced with a split in their own party who are themselves full of wishful thinking. Foreign capital, he said, has no confidence in the present Government. This is most unreasonable, because Singapore has now become one of the biggest and busiest harbours in the world. Certain Members from the Opposition made a hue and cry about the reduction of the variable allowances and they have accused Government of being dictatorial and that no opportunity and no mercy were shown to the civil servants. This is a wild accusation which was made in a moment of emotion and sentiment. The Member for Kampong Kembangan in his speech touched on the preamble contained in the Constitution of Singapore. I think I am quite sure the Member had in mind the special privileges for the Malays as the indigenous people of the country. He also touched on the appointments for 1960 about which no specific mention was made by the Minister for Finance. He also mentioned the Economic Development Board. Again the Member warned that if in this matter the Government has no specific policy, then U.M.N.O. will determine the shape of the government in the future. During the election, there were people who were prepared to tear down manifestos in the presence of huge crowds. Actually, as the people's government, we are fully conscious of the fate of the neglected and the downtrodden in this country. It is our responsibility to help raise their standard of living, whether they are Malays, Chinese or Indians. Today, we had the opportunity to receive a course on economics from a Member of the Opposition who produced various booklets and made the accusation that the P.A.P. Government worked subject to capitalist interest and to the party interest - that is to say, that at one time it is for the left and at another it is for the right. It is fortunate the Member did not say that the P.A.P. Government worked for three interests - party interest, capitalist interest and also self-interest. If the P.A.P. Government support the demands of the people and, at the same time, respect the interests of the capitalists, this is because we should know the situation in which Singapore is placed. It is lacking in raw materials and dependent mainly on its entrep�t. But what we oppose are the capitalist groups who oppress the downtrodden. We do not wish to adopt the attitude of taking away one man's credit and depriving him of it. The Member for Tanglin also said that social democracy, which is being carried out by the P.A.P. Government, differs from that in England. Yes, it is different. Because the circumstances between those obtaining in England and those in Singapore are different. He also suggested that we should follow the examples of the economic policy pursued by Western Germany. I do not know which socialist ideology he follows, whether it is that of West Germany or of England. I think putting forward theories is an easy matter. 7.22 p.m.

You buy at one cent, sell at three cents and you can make a profit of two cents. But the position of the buying public must be considered. Just by putting forward theories I think if the Member for Tanglin becomes the Minister for Finance, the economic position will change every other day. To the Member for Southern Islands, I would like to stress that it is the responsibility of the Opposition to criticise. As for his accusation that the P.A.P. Government has claimed that it is the only sincere party, we have not made such a claim. But we have said that we are the only party which can carry out its pledges. The worry and the fear that money is being spent wastefully is unfounded. We will not betray the trust of the people. As an example, mention was made of the Minister for National Development recruiting workers without consulting the Ministry of Labour and Law. I think what is being done is better than what had been done by the previous Government. Against the P.A.P. Government, there was also the accusation that if you are unemployed, in order to get a job you have to be a member of the P.A.P. This is not true. If there are P.A.P. members in the squad, what of it? The Minister for National Development has admitted openly that there are P.A.P. members in the squad. It is not true to say that as it is the Party in power, all the top posts are being held by P.A.P. members. It is not fair for the Member for Southern Islands to make wild charges. If he wants to know what the Opposition is doing, he must ask his Opposition friends. Concerning the promise to raise the standard of living of those who were neglected by the past government, it is true that the Government is giving serious consideration to this matter. They do not make promises every other day, but once we make a promise, we will see to it that it is carried out. In regard to promotion, which is a matter of concern to the Member for Southern Islands, I think the civil servants should realise that they need not have any doubt in their minds that the P.A.P. Government is constantly paying attention to the safety and interest of the civil servants. And we hope that they will not work only when they are asked to. Mr Speaker, I think all the other charges will be answered by my colleagues. If I were to reply to them one by one, it will take me two hours or so. 7.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I find it rather difficult to reply to the Opposition Members when they are not in the House to listen to what I have to say. Yet time is catching on, and one could not possibly allow wild statements to go unanswered. I shall therefore have to speak my piece and allow the Opposition Members to read it in Hansard, or perhaps the hon. Member for Tanglin would kindly pass the word round. Firstly, replying to the Member for Cairnhill, former Chief Minister and last Minister for Education of the now dead Government. He has raised the point that this Government should very quickly publish the Report of Dr Gwee Ah Leng. He was the Chairman of the Committee that was appointed to review the Prescott Commission's Report on Nanyang University. It is, I think, important to mention that the Prescott Commission's Report was handed to the last Minister for Education who is now the Member for Cairnhill on the 12th of March, 1959. He did not have the courage to publish the Report, but allowed it to hang fire for 2� months, till his Government lost miserably at the last elections. And this Government, under two months, published the Prescott Commission's Report and also decided to appoint a Review Committee headed by Dr Gwee Ah Leng to go into that Report. Dr Gwee Ah Leng's Report was handed to me on 20th of November - just three weeks ago. The Report is now under consideration by the Government and will be published after due consideration. We are aware of the anxiety of the people over Nanyang University and the graduates who are soon to be produced. The Prime Minister himself has already announced the fact that the Education Ministry will be employing at least 50 of the graduates from Nanyang University for the next year subject to selection by the Public Service Commission. While on this subject, it is pertinent to ask what has happened to the so-called $5 million that was promised by the last Government. It was stated publicly and it was published in the Press, under the name of Mr Tan Lark Sye some weeks ago, that the last Deputy Speaker had suggested this $5 million grant which had the support of the former Chief Minister, Mr Lim Yew Hock, and his colleagues. Since there had been no public denial, we can only say that wild promises had been made by responsible members of the last Government and they have run away from those promises. Mr Speaker, if it had been a case of breach of promise I think it would have gone to court and serious penalties would have been imposed. So you can see for yourselves the type of politicians who made wild promises and who ran away from them when the time of reckoning came. Even at this very moment, they are not present to listen to my reply. There is talk of development of schools which the former Minister for Education was proud to talk about. Yes, we see wasteful expenditure of Government money in that there are parquet floors in science laboratories; parquet floors for school halls. I suppose the former Minister for Education and now Member for Cairnhill is very interested in dancing so that all these facilities are available. We are not. I must go on now to answer the Member for Farrer Park, when he said that we are attempting to do too much in too short a time. Mr Speaker, the problems facing this country, especially in respect of trying to bring about unity out of a diversity of four educational streams which have developed in four different ways, and trying to integrate them into one to form the basis of the future nation of Singapore, do not permit of lazy or usual methods of solution. We must have courage if we want to build a nation. We must be prepared to experiment. If we fear to experiment, we might as well turn the clock back and choose to be under colonial government. The Member for Farrer Park brings up the subject of the six-day week. Little does he realise that one-half of education in Singapore comes under the Chinese stream. I am glad the Member for Farrer Park is back, because I am answering his queries. One-half of the educational system in Singapore is the Chinese stream. Because of his fears of a six-day week, he seems to be oblivious of the fact that there is such a thing as a Chinese stream existing in Singapore. Does he realise that in both the elementary and secondary schools in the Chinese stream, a six-day week is common and normal? They have had it, but of course it was not quite a full six-day week. They used to stop their classes at 11 on Saturday mornings. Only the English schools which were accustomed to a five-day week regarded the six-day week as an extra day of hard labour! The Member then talked about a Malayan outlook. Surely that is the last thing that he could possibly level against the People's Action Party - that we do not know what is a Malayan outlook, and how we are to proceed about it. His suggestion, which was for a five-day week, but to allow the sixth day to be taken up with pure language teaching, is very simple to put forward. But surely it is not beyond his comprehension to realise that you do not learn languages one day in a week. Language is taught day in and day out, hour after hour, before it gets right into your system. Only then can language be part of yourself! It is necessary, therefore, that there should be adequate language teaching facilities during the course of the week and for so many periods a day. We hope to put in at least 44 hours per week for language teaching. But he rears the ugly head of segregation. We have already stated, Mr Speaker, that this is optional. It is not compulsory. Parents have a right to refuse; and if they do, their children stay where they are. One of the most important tenets of a democratic society is to ensure that the rights of the minority are respected. Which is exactly what this Government is trying to do in Singapore, which has largely a Chinese population. It is important that we must give in a little to the Malay and Tamil sections of the public who form the minority. As things stand in the English schools, I should like now to inform the Member for Farrer Park what present conditions are like for the purpose of teaching Malay and Tamil in English schools. The numbers are too small to form a class because we have perhaps five, or three, or one Malay pupil or Tamil in a class. Almost every class in most schools is perhaps 90 per cent Chinese. When the Chinese have their Chinese classes in an English school, what happens? The Malays and Tamils could have their classes if they can get the teachers. But they will have to have their classes in make-shift classrooms, verandahs, tiffin sheds, bicycle parks, even in the open, and sometimes next to the school lavatories. If you call that segregation, I throw my hands. Here is a case of wanting to provide the minority with as good facilities as the majority. I feel, Mr Speaker, that perhaps there will be more time for me during the period in the Committee of Supply to answer other questions, since time is the limiting factor tonight. 7.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, had the tables been turned, we would, I think, have given the Opposition a much more rousing time than they have given us. It is very difficult to take seriously opponents who cannot stand up to your punches. One gets a feeling of being cruel to people who, when you knock them down once, stay down for an indefinite length of time. The pay cuts, the pay cuts, the pay cuts! Round and round the mulberry bush! There was nothing other than the pay cuts. Then there was the Member for Cairnhill's favourite technique of fishing in troubled waters. I have told him on several occasions in the past that the least profitable thing is to try and exploit differences real or supposed in the P.A.P. We are a democratic Party with a tremendous amount of guts and gusto. We have our differences of opinion, and we settle them in the Party. And believe me, those who go fishing in troubled waters will find that it is not a tadpole which will take the bait, but a big whale that will take the fisherman into the water. From the Sunday School teacher who ventured into the fields of economics and high finance - I do not know whether we ought to take him seriously, or whether we should sit down and laugh our heads off. The bits of ill-digested, ill-understood economic titbits do not make up for an economic philosophy, and that is what is in this document produced by the P.A.P. Government through its Minister for Finance. There is a political philosophy underlying an economic treatise. I thought today, if they had some people who could help them do their thinking - as was suggested by the Member for Tanglin that he had some friends whom he had consulted on these high economic matters - that they would have propounded a counter-economic theory. All we had was a lot of rather sour and not very clever witticisms. That was what the Opposition choose to believe is a throttle attack on the P.A.P. Budget. I was not in this House when I was being quoted from Hansard, and I therefore reserve the opportunity to deal with the quotation later. But I would remind the Member for Farrer Park that when the P.A.P. says something, there is usually sufficient circumspection to provide for all kinds of contingencies. The art of political leadership lies not in making reckless, irresponsible and sweeping generalisations. It lies in the art of prophecy with sufficient of the enigma of oracles to meet all eventualities. Indeed, Sir, for that reason, I think he must have been the most surprised person to find himself here because I do not think he expected it. Now, may I meet the only point made by the Member for Farrer Park that is worthy of any consideration, this pet theme of his - that the cost of ministerial government has gone up from $300,000 to $500,000? In the course of the five days in Committee of Supply, I shall take him to task on this. First of all, on the basis of the computation; secondly, on this point - is he really suggesting that it would have been good government had he and his friends (in those halcyon days in 1955 when they had ambitions of winning the election under the Rendel Constitution) won and formed the Government? This is a Government that is prepared to put its cards on the table - that is the first function of the Government in this Asian situation. A government that shilly-shallies is one that perishes. We take our views out into the open, thrash them out, and establish what we consider to be right. That is the secret of the strength of the P.A.P. Those who seek political longevity should do well to dwell on this: that the art of long, political life is the art of being honest and being prepared to meet all corners on the level, in the open. That we intend to do for the next five days.

Is there nobody else who wishes to speak? Dr Goh, in reply?

Mr Speaker, Sir, human beings, when they find themselves in an extraordinary situation, are liable to behave in extraordinary ways. For instance, in a shipwreck and in critical situations of that nature, the normal pattern of behaviour is often abandoned and we see the basic characteristics or basic qualities of a person emerging. Somerset Maugham is the one writer whose main theme is to dwell on the unusual behaviour of human beings in critical or extraordinary or unusual circumstances. But, I think, not even Somerset Maugham's deep understanding of human nature would have enabled him to forecast with any accuracy how Members of the Opposition in the Singapore Legislative Assembly will react and behave when they are faced with the task of criticising the first Budget of the People's Action Party Government. We find, much to our delight, that the Member for Mountbatten is a staunch champion of taxi-drivers and hawkers. The Member for Tanglin has revealed a hitherto unsuspected predilection for out-of-date socialist literature, and the Member for Cairnhill emerges as a Gallahad in shining armour in defence of the Nanyang University. Sir, I put it to you as a simple and straightforward proposition that these are attitudes that have been adopted with the general elections four and a half years hence in mind, and that they do not reflect any genuine philosophical conviction when they set out on the task of commenting on the Budget. I am afraid I am now engaged in a race against time. Within a period of about fifteen minutes I have to review the comments made by Members of the Opposition. I shall start with the Member for Cairnhill. He stated that he found difficulty in adding up figures which I gave in my budget statement. I am sorry I have to go over this ground all over again. But I realise that elementary arithmetic may be beyond the capacity of some people. When the Government came into office, the budget deficit as stated in the Ordinary Estimates was $4 million. That is correct. That is quite true. But there was a deficit of $18 million in the Development budget, and I think the Member for Cairnhill did not understand that, in the calculation of a possible budget deficit for this year, I had to take into account not only the deficit in the Ordinary Estimates but the large deficit in the Development Estimates. As I have explained in the budget statement, if things were left to go on as planned by the previous Government, we would be faced with an overall deficit of $42 million, to which the late supplementary estimates made in May this year contributed $10 million. These late estimates were put up clearly with the general elections in mind. More important and more basic are the Member for Cairnhill's comments on the P.A.P. policy towards capital and trade in this country. He has the audacity to say that-

Order. I think I have over-ruled the word "audacity" in the past. Perhaps the Minister will withdraw the word.

I withdraw that word, Sir, I intended to convey to you that he was sufficiently misguided to come to the conclusion that it was the P.A.P. that was responsible for frightening business by what he termed silly utterances. Now, I wish to recall some of the statements made by the Opposition Members during the election campaign. Unfortunately I do not have the Press cuttings with me, and therefore I can only speak from memory. The Member for Cairnhill himself said that if the P.A.P. were to come to power, Singapore would be a dead city. The homes would be empty and the streets would be deserted. Well, Mr Speaker, Sir, everyone knows that during the last week the streets could not be more full than they were, with the people rejoicing in the Loyalty Week celebrations. The Member for Mountbatten stated at a meeting at Fullerton Square that if the P.A.P. came to power, they would confiscate jewellery. Now, I have noticed very carefully her attire, and as you can see for yourself, she is quite gaily bedecked with jewellery. Obviously, therefore, she did not believe what she had said in her speech at the election campaign!

Order. I think that perhaps can be termed as personal conduct, and the personal conduct of a Member wearing jewellery cannot be referred to.

I certainly did not intend to be ungallant, and if you think it is improper, I certainly withdraw. The Member for Tanglin in another election rally stated, doubtless in the heat of the moment, "The lightning has struck Singapore, and your house is on fire." Now, Sir, if these are not statements calculated to frighten the people, may I know exactly what would scare business and trade away? It is the irresponsible and mischievous statements made by the Opposition Members that had set off a sort of nuclear chain reaction in the psychology of businessmen. Regardless of what the Member for Farrer Park said, about the harmlessness and inability of his colleagues to frighten people, I say that that was the effect, and that the decline in trade preceding the election was due to a systematic scare campaign conducted by Opposition Members. Now, against their absurd and irresponsible statements, may I quote the P.A.P. policy statement as contained in "The Tasks Ahead", Part 1, page 25? This refers to a policy on foreign investment: "Foreign business concerns which wish to establish factories in Singapore will be given all the encouragement and assistance they need. We shall give them guarantees in regard to security of capital, remittance of dividends and other matters which all modern governments regard as normal practice." Therefore, when Members of the Opposition tried to make out that there had been a deviation or change from the previous P.A.P. policy, I would say to them that the evidence is quite to the contrary. We do not change our policy overnight. What we do now we have announced during the election campaign. In particular, I would refer to the comments of the Member for Tanglin when he described what he thought is our dilemma today, that we are under pressure from the membership to go what he called the extreme left, whatever that maybe, and the need to assess the real position in business. He then quoted my budget speech in respect of two points. One, that the Government would see to it that the exploitation of men by men which had been regarded as habitual and normal as a result of toleration by the previous Government, will cease; and the second point he drew attention to was that if we want to have an expansion of business and investment of capital we must see to it that suitable conditions prevail. And the Member for Cairnhill, doubtless as a result of his diligent perusal of socialist literature, came to the conclusion that there was a contradiction in these two objectives. Our Government sees no contradiction whatsoever. In fact, if the Member for Cairnhill insists that there is a contradiction-

The Member for Tanglin.

If the Member for Tanglin insists that there is a contradiction, I can only conclude that, by suitable conditions for business expansion, he meant that the exploiters must be encouraged to do their worst. There are a number of items, Mr Speaker, to which I can only now cursorily refer. The Member for Cairnhill was greatly agitated that, by the transfer of the Department of Tourism to the Ministry of Culture, the effect would be to reduce the appeal of Singapore to foreign tourists. Now, let me describe some of the attempts by the Department of Tourism to attract tourists. Under the previous dispensation, we all know that there was an establishment named "Toby's Paradise" whose proprietor had to leave the country in a hurry and under a cloud when the P.A.P. took over. This was one of the distinguished efforts of the previous Government to attract tourists. Then we found, to our horror, that an arrangement had been made to invite the winner of a competition in Australia who had the biggest chest to come to Singapore. Accordingly, arrangements were made to invite Mr Chest to come and parade him round the country in the interest of attracting tourism. Mr Speaker, Sir, I suggest that this kind of action will not only fail to attract tourists but will hold the country up to ridicule and contempt. The Member for Mountbatten made a number of comments in defence of her proposal to restore the variable allowances. She refuted my conclusion that the effect of the cuts in variable allowances was comparatively negligible. She said that the fact that liquor revenue and the cinema attendances were well maintained had, in fact, increased proved nothing, because these were forms of enjoyment catering only to, if I may quote her, "rich magnates". Now, we know that the number of seats in a cinema total several thousands and I would be astonished to learn that it is the rich magnates and the business tycoons who swamped the $1 and 50 cent-seats in the cinemas! Then the Member for Tanglin quoted at length a book published in 1925 to advise me on financial prudence. I am afraid I cannot be persuaded to fall in with his point of view and, in any case, he failed to realise that there is a basic difference between Singapore, which has an automatic currency, and the United Kingdom, which has a central bank, and it is possible for the United Kingdom Government to budget for a deficit and get finance from the central bank. But these are technical matters which I will not pursue now. As regards the variable allowances, everyone says: "Why not pay them more? This would help to make taxi-drivers and hawkers more prosperous, and we may assist local industry." The Member for Mountbatten presumes that if we were to restore the variable allowances, the purchase of soap manufactured in Singapore would increase to such an extent that it would solve the problem of industry. But let me come to the point. If you want to pay them more, where will you get the money from? Among the Opposition Members, one detects a lack of unanimity because the Member for Farrer Park, who has a lot of experience in financial matters, has concluded that no other budget is possible in the general interest of the country, and therefore-

Order. It is 8.00 p.m.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Assembly approves the financial policy of the Government for the year 1960.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn." [Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eight o'clock p.m. APPENDIX-MAIN ESTIMATES, 1960 PAPER CMD 32 OF 1959(Cols 0895-0900)