Hansard, 1961-04-12

The following Members have, under the provisions of subsection (2) (g) of section 42 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly:- Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim (Sembawang), Minister for Health - from 1st February to 30th April, 1961. Mrs Seow Peck Leng (Mountbatten) - from 6th April to 16th May, 1961.

I have to report to hon. Members that I received information from His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara that, on the 28th day of March, 1961, he assented to the following Bills:-

2.32 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in pursuance of the Assembly resolution passed at our last sitting, we sent the Federation Government a small sum of $10,000, to which I have received a reply from the then Acting Prime Minister, Tun Abdul Razak, in the following terms:- `This kind gesture on the part of the people of Singapore to contribute to the Congo Cheer Fund is greatly appreciated by the Federation Government, and I shall he grateful if you would convey this to your Government and the Assembly.'

2.33 p.m.

"to amend the Rubber Estates (Surcharge on Assessment) Ordinance (Chapter 169 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr Low Por Tuck); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 26th April, 1961, and to be printed.

"to amend the Public Trustee Ordinance (Chapter 32 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, 26th April, 1961, and to be printed.

2.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly, after careful deliberation of the acute problems of unemployment caused by Singapore's rapid population increase which is not accompanied by corresponding increase in economic expansion. ALERTS our people to the paramount need to expand employment opportunities, and to this end APPROVES the State Development Plan 1961-1964, and CALLS on all sections of the people to unite in their effort to fulfil the plan, and in particular EXHORTS the workers and trade union movement and the businessmen and industrialists to play their part in maintaining a fair balance of their respective interests so essential to success. Before I proceed to discuss the general principles and some of the detailed contents of the Development Plan, I think I should say something about the manner in which the Plan was conceived and worked out. Some such action is necessary because there are some people who are foolish or misguided enough to say that this Plan has been produced for the purpose of the Hong Lim by-election. This is absolute nonsense. An undertaking of this magnitude requires months of preparation and considerable amount of thought and judgment and many tedious hours of grinding work on minutiae. It was, in fact, in October 1959, just over four months of the P.A.P.'s assumption to office, that a decision was taken to prepare a Development Plan for the term of office of the Government. Since then, many months of labour had been devoted to shaping out the multitude of projects which eventually found their way into the Plan. Some of these projects were then already available in rough form in the different Ministries and Departments of the Government. But they had to be developed into a more definite stage before they could be considered fit for inclusion. It is necessary not only to have ideas about what new projects are desirable. In order to have a Plan worthy of the name, it is necessary to work out the consequences that follow from the implementation of such projects. There will be important matters such as the effect on future expenditure and revenue that must be fairly closely estimated. The contribution to the economic strength of the country or to its social development must also be properly assessed. The most important of all, an estimate of our financial and economic resources must be undertaken. So for eight months, Ministries and Departments of the Government worked on the Plan. The preliminary draft was finally completed in June 1960. It was approved in principle by the Cabinet. Publication was deferred, however, because of certain unknown factors, particularly the extent of financial aid that we can get from overseas. Consequently, it was decided to defer publication of the Plan until the outcome of the financial talks with the United Kingdom Government is known and the attitude of the World Bank towards any loan application from Singapore could be assessed with a greater degree of certainty. Accordingly, I proceeded to the United Kingdom last July and held discussions with the British Government. Members already know the outcome of these discussions. A certain amount of aid in the form of grants and Exchequer loans was negotiated. But they only covered the period 1960-62. The reason was that the British system of overseas financial assistance was based on a 5-yearly budget, and it was not possible for them to make any commitment going beyond 1962. While uncertainty in respect of British financial assistance had not been completely resolved, at least we knew what we could get the next two years. My visit and discussions with the World Bank had proved fruitful in that the World Bank despatched a Mission last September to make a study of the financial standing of the Government, the soundness of its financial and economic policies, and the extent to which it is credit-worthy. The Mission despatched by the World Bank had completed their report. They had forwarded, as a matter of courtesy, copies of their report to the Singapore Government. But it is not the practice of the World Bank to release the report for publication. I am, therefore, unable to divulge the contents of this report, however pleasant such a task would be. But I can say that the World Bank is prepared to consider loan operations in Singapore, and to this end they would despatch a further Mission to consider which of the projects included in the Development Plan could be financed by World Bank loans. The Mission will arrive in Singapore next week. I am sure that Members will be heartened by the willingness of the World Bank to negotiate development loans with the Government of Singapore. After the details of the United Kingdom financial assistance were known and after there was hope of getting World Bank loans, it was decided to revise the original 5-Year Development Plan to take into account these matters. By that time, the best part of 1960 had already passed and therefore it was, in the first instance, necessary to reduce the Plan period from five years to four years. It was also necessary to make minor revisions to some projects. The technical work of revision is an extremely intricate and arduous one. And officials in the Ministry of Finance who were responsible for making the detailed and revised version deserve all credit for the expeditious and thorough manner in which they carry out their work. And so it was that early this year, proof copies of the Development Plan were sent to the Government Printer, who accepted this work on a priority basis. It was, therefore, possible to present the Development Plan for the approval of this Assembly today. Sir, I do not wish to be embroiled in the details of the Plan itself. They are there in published form for everyone to read. But I think I should set out the principal lines along which fundamental thinking on the Plan took. To start with, it was necessary to examine the economic structure of our country in some detail, and to analyse the principal problems facing us. Everybody knows that the supreme challenge is to match our population growth with at least a similar rate of expansion to provide jobs for our growing population. In Chapter I of the Plan, the problem is analysed lucidly and in detail, and I recommend all those who are concerned with the affairs of State to study this chapter of the Development Plan. It makes for sober reading. It is an excellent antidote to those given to political euphoria to be reminded of the stern and objective facts of our economic life. The problem then having been passed, it is necessary to develop a set of solutions. But there is an intermediate stage. We must find out just what our sinews are; more simply, how much money do we have in the kitty today. How much money we can expect to have in the kitty tomorrow. Where the contribution from our own resources is inadequate, how much can we get from overseas. Here, I may perhaps be permitted to digress for the moment to answer some exceedingly foolish criticism of the fact that we go overseas for financial aid. There is no developing country in the world which spurns overseas aid, be the country in the Communist world or in the non-communist world. What we have to ensure is that the aid which we receive is consistent with our self-respect as a self-governing people, that is to say, that no strings are attached to this aid that go against the policies which we ourselves favour. An appraisal of our domestic resources is made in Chapters III, IV and V of the Plan. Chapter II reviews the past performance of Government finances and Chapter IV attempts a forecast of revenue and expenditure for the Plan period. Those forecasts are as close as we can make them, but in an open economy such as ours, we are exposed to the fluctuations of world trade generated abroad. The forecasts of revenue are based on the assumption that no significant recession in trade develops in the World economy. The estimate of our total resources available for financing the Plan shows that most of the money we need must come from our own pockets. Out of a total need of $871 million, no less than $591 million must be provided by our own people. These domestic sources of finance fall into three groups. First, the projected revenue surpluses of $116 million for the next four years. Then, there are the Reserve Funds in the Government and Statutory Boards amounting to $149 million. Finally, we shall have to float loans in the Singapore market amounting to $230 million in the next four years. External assistance has been set down at $280 million or some 32 per cent. This is not an excessive amount. The Plan itself as summarized in Chapter III envisages a total capital expenditure by Government and Public Authorities of an amount of $871 million. Of this, $508 million contributes towards strengthening our economy in one way or the other. That is to say, more than half of our proposed investment programme in the public sector is intended to increase our economic strength. The balance goes principally to social development, of which by far the largest item is to house the over-crowded citizens of Singapore. Housing Development is expected to use $154 million in the next four years. The programme now prepared by the Housing and Development Board will run into 1965 when they expect to build 51,000 houses at a cost of nearly $200 million. This is an all-time record for Singapore and, indeed, I suspect, in the whole of Asia there is no housing project so comprehensive as the one we are undertaking, if we relate it to a population basis. Education takes a tremendous slice of our Social Development Programme, and nobody can regret that we have to do so. What is regrettable is that the parents of Singapore in the last 16 years had been so prolific in their capacity as parents that they have created for the whole country a problem of almost terrifying dimensions. I do not propose to discuss the other contents of the Development Plan. I have no doubt that the Ministers concerned will have to say something about their own development proposals. I wish to take a broader perspective and set out the methods whereby we can overcome these problems. I need hardly mention that the problem we have to solve is how to create more jobs for our growing population. This has been repeated ad nauseam. I do not want to say further except to pose the magnitude of the problem. Reduced to the simplest terms, by 1964, we shall have to create 84,000 new jobs. How do we get about it? What must we do to give the country a fair chance of creating these new jobs? What must we refrain from doing? I think it is important that everyone understands the answers to these three questions. The Government alone is not the sole dispenser of jobs. By our own efforts, we cannot solve the problem of increasing unemployment unless the people themselves and their leaders in their respective spheres of activity, be they the labour unions, the entrepot trade, the industrial concerns - unless as I said the people and the leaders are prepared to observe a code of conduct that amounts almost to a code of social discipline. Unless these things are done, then I say that the Government, by its own efforts, will not be able to solve the grave problems ahead. To this end, therefore, we cannot neglect to drive home to the people of Singapore the seriousness of the situation and the self-control that they must exercise if we are to see this country through the difficult period ahead. In theory, the solution to our problem is a simple one. You want to create more jobs. Your trade in which you depend for your livelihood to a great extent will not increase all that fast. You therefore industrialise, that is to say, you build new factories, thereby giving jobs to your growing population. That is the theoretical answer. In its practical implementation, however, many snags arise and many bugs have to be ironed out. It is in the work of ironing out the bugs and overcoming the snags that a major concerted effort must be made. Let me discuss some of the major problems of industrialisation. The first is that to have to build factories we must have the people who know what factories to build and how to build them; and having built them, know how to run them efficiently. This is an incontrovertible, indeed self-evident, proposition and yet very few people are aware of the fact that this is one of our major obstacles. The sources of difficulty are many. Our businessmen are conversant in trade. They have less experience in manufacturing. Where there are opportunities, no doubt eventually someone will take advantage of it. But what we need now is a programme of accelerated industrialisation fast enough to mop up our pool of unemployed and to absorb the young people who will be looking for work in the years to come. The scale of the effort that must be mounted is something that is unprecedented in the history of Singapore. Therefore, special measures have to be taken to make possible industrialisation at the rate required. Certain things are necessary for rapid industrialisation. We must have factory sites, supplies of power, water, roads, communications and port facilities. These are being provided for in the Plan. But the industrial estates you build would be a sheer waste of money unless you know that industrialists are willing to set up factories on your estates. Our local industrialists will be encouraged to the maximum extent to take advantage of these opportunities. But in the first phase, at any rate, it is certain that we shall require manufacturers from abroad to invest in industries in Singapore, either by themselves or in participation with local industrialists. But no manufacturer from abroad has any obligation to Singapore to set up factories here. They will consider investment in Singapore only if they see that it is profitable to do so not only immediately, but over a number of years. It is, therefore, vital for our survival that we made the conditions attractive. There are the economic inducements such as the Pioneer Industry Legislation which exempts certain new industries from payment of income tax for up to five years. We can create favourable conditions for new industries if we are prepared to set up import duties, which must have the effect of raising prices and increasing the cost of living. We may try to extend our overseas markets by various kinds of trade agreements with our neighbours. These all help to make investment in Singapore attractive both to the domestic as well as the overseas manufacturer. But more important than these matters is to create a climate of economic stability and confidence so that people who make the decisions whether to invest in Singapore or not know for certain that the calculations which they now make have a reasonable chance of fulfilment. One of the most important elements in this climate of confidence is stability in labour-management relations. The responsibility for maintaining good labour-management relations rests not merely with labour, not merely with management; nor is it the entire responsibility of the Government. It is necessary to have all three parties working towards an agreed objective and agreeing also on the means whereby inevitable differences must be resolved. Members would have already known by now the general form of agreement which the Government and the T.U.C. have come to. We have demarcated the sphere of the economy consisting of industrial enterprises which have a significant export market. In this sphere of the economy, the T.U.C. has accepted that stability in wages is a desirable objective to attain and they will do everything that is possible to contribute to such stability. I think this is a significant advance in our quest for industrial peace with justice which is the only base on which we can build economic stability and a climate of confidence. This contribution of the Trade Union movement can be a valuable one. I think it will be welcomed by everyone who has Singapore's interest at heart. But may I say to the employers that it is not without difficulty that we have persuaded the Trade Union Congress to this working arrangement? I expect employers to respond to this effort of the T.U.C. with an equally understanding and generous attitude. It would be a disaster if the employers were to regard this as a signal whereby they can mount an offensive against the workers or the Trade Union movement. Any action to take advantage of union restraint by provocative action would be met with stern disapproval by the P.A.P. Government. But if the employers were to respond generously to the T.U.C.'s policy, then I think we have the basis on which to build up better labour-management relations so that the benefits from this through improved productivity can be shared in a just manner between capital and labour. I do not regard the agreement whose outline has been published today to be the first and last step in our quest to improve labour-management relations. The general proposals will have to be examined in further detail so as to produce concrete working rules. But this I wish to say of the trade union leaders with whom I held discussions. They are fully aware of the challenge to the economy in general and to the working class movement in particular that is posed by mounting unemployment. They are also aware of the limitations as regards the means that we can use in the present phase of Singapore's historic development to meet these problems. But they find themselves in a dilemma. The Trade Union movement in Singapore has always been a militant one. Aggressive policy and aggressive tactics were necessary in the past not merely because the employers were fully supported by the instruments of State power under the colonial regime. The Trade Union movement also had to lend its strength to the anti-colonial struggle. Further, a large section of the movement, which is based on the Chinese working class, draws its ideological inspiration from revolutionary Marxism. A number of union cadres are being trained to analyse the problems they meet in terms of Marxist-Leninist concepts. It is not my intention here to enter into a philosophic discourse on the merits or even the relevance of these revolutionary tenets in the context of our Island State. All I want to say is that, this being the case, the top level leadership of the Trade Union movement will need to explain to the leadership at lower levels and to the rank and file, the nature of the changed situation in Singapore. For myself, I think their readiness to declare themselves in favour of wage stability as a general condition of our manufacturing industries shows not only a realistic acceptance of harsh reality, but it also shows a welcome degree of political courage. The Government is aware of the many traps and pitfalls that still lie ahead for both the unions and for ourselves. But there is no reason why, if all parties concerned are prepared sincerely to work towards the objective that has been agreed upon, success cannot be achieved. I have spent some time dwelling on the prerequisites for successful industrialisation. because the principal purpose of the Development Plan is to make possible private investment, both from domestic and external sources, on a scale massive enough to provide the additional jobs that we need. Apart from improving labour-management relations, there are other matters needing attention. It is necessary for the Government actively to encourage the establishment of new industries. I think a review of our past efforts and future intentions will be appropriate here. What we have done in this field has been principally in the way of building up a preparatory organisation and doing the basic researches that are necessary. We have been fortunate to have received a tremendous amount of assistance from the United Nations. They have been extremely generous and helpful in the supply of experts and technicians. The Industrial Survey Mission headed by Dr Winsemius arrived in Singapore last October and a follow-up team to complete their work is now arriving in Singapore. The team consists of experts in various branches of industry-shipbuilding, chemical engineering, electrical goods, metal and engineering industries. These experts have prepared or are in the process of completing technical reports on what industries can be established in Singapore in their respective fields, having regard to both the economic and technical limitations. There is also a powerful team of steel experts in Singapore under the leadership of Mr Schereschewsky. These technical reports on investment possibilities which are prepared by top-ranking world experts would be of invaluable assistance to us in our effort to promote the establishment of new industries. Industrialisation has often been taken as a vague concept. What is needed here is less general talk on industrialisation and more concrete ideas on exactly what type of factories we can establish in Singapore and how it is to he done. Such ideas can only be developed by people who have experience in particular industries. Without their concrete proposals, we shall still be in the stage of vague generalisations, out of which the bricks and mortar and machines of industry cannot be created. The United Nations Steel and Industrial Missions study particular industries which in their opinion are feasible in Singapore, and this will give us something to work on. The work itself will be carried out by the Economic Development Board. I have mentioned to the Assembly on a previous occasion that we have at last found suitable top personnel to man the Board. They will be ready for work in six weeks' time when the Director and important engineering personnel will have arrived in Singapore. The work of drafting the Bill establishing the Economic Development Board is proceeding and I hope to introduce this Bill at the next session of the Assembly. While we have achieved some success in establishing new industries in Singapore, the major effort has yet to be mounted. After two years of arduous work and with the generous assistance of the United Nations technical assistance, we have at last reached a stage where we can mount this effort. But let no one be deceived into thinking that once the Economic Development Board is established and technical reports digested, then factories will mushroom all over the face of Singapore overnight. This simply cannot happen because of the large amount of preparatory work that must be put in before the factories themselves appear. It must take some time to achieve pace in development. Given the most favourable conditions, it will be some years before we get into full stride. In the meantime, the problem of mounting unemployment can hardly be set aside to wait the fruition of our effort on the long-term programme. The U.N. Industrial Mission is fully aware of this and has recommend that over the next few years a crash programme to create new employment opportunities be carried out. It has selected two areas where the creation of employment can be accelerated in a short space of time. These are employment on board ships belonging to international lines making use of Singapore as a port of call, and, secondly, the expansion of our ship breaking industry. These are matters of immediate importance, and I may perhaps be permitted to dwell on them. As regards employment on board ships, the Government has held discussions with the principal shipowners and has proposed, for their consideration, modifications in the present system of registration of seamen for employment on ships. The present system has the disadvantage of being unduly rigid and automatic in its application. There is no choice allowed either to the seamen or to the shipowner as regards the placing of seamen. It was, therefore, proposed that Company Registers be introduced whereby some choice is made available both to the shipowner and to the seamen. At the same time, training facilities have been established to increase the attractiveness of Singapore as a port of recruitment for seamen. With the co-operation of one of the larger shipping lines, training courses for saloon workers on ships will commence this month. The Polytechnic has also introduced courses for marine engineers, deck officers and wireless operators. Shipping lines, both local and international, have agreed to employ the graduates. By these, and other measures, we hope to increase the rate of employment of Singapore seamen on board local and international lines. Recent figures have shown a welcome and substantial increase. The figure for last month's recruitment saw a 50 per cent increase on the monthly average of the previous year. To increase the attractiveness of the port of Singapore to shipping lines, the Government has decided to introduce round-the-clock port services which the shipping lines had asked for. Staff for the Immigration and Health Departments will have to be increased to provide the additional services which we hope to introduce by the middle of the year. Members will be interested to know that these measures have been worked out in consultation not only with the shipowners, but also with the Trade Union Congress. This is an example where co-operation between Government, the Trade Union movement and employers can produce substantial benefits to everyone. As regards ship-breaking, our experience has been less happy. I held a meeting with local firms engaged in ship-breaking and offered them the maximum facilities and inducement by way of land, supply of working capital, assistance in training if they would work out a programme of rapid expansion. Unfortunately, our shipbreakers are limited in their technical and financial capacity. They also lack the vision that is necessary in developing an extensive industry which can compete in the international market. Accordingly, I have got in touch with ship-breaking firms overseas and am in the process of discussing with them the terms under which they could operate in Singapore. Ship-breaking is an ideal industry for mopping up unemployment, because it employs large numbers of people, requires a relatively small amount of fixed capital, and has a ready market for its product. I therefore feel justified to offer to these overseas shipbreakers extremely favourable terms. Briefly, these include the supply of working capital at rates well below commercial rates. Good land will be made available to them and the Government is prepared to bear a substantial part of the cost of training of workers. They can also be considered for pioneer industry status. I now wish to say something about the manner in which the Development Plan is to be implemented. First, of course, we must make sure that we have the money to pay for the cost of the Plan: estimates and forecast of revenue and loan possibilities have been made in the Plan and, if these are realised, then the financial bottlenecks to the implementation of the Plan would have been solved. What remains to be done then is to gear up our administrative machinery and our corps of engineers, architects and other technicians to the physical effort. In order to ensure that no obstacle is created by way of administrative delays, a reorganisation of the Finance Ministry has been undertaken. Development proposals will no longer be processed by Treasury officials as they had been done in the past. Treasury officials have been trained, and quite rightly, to regard every application for new expenditure with the gravest suspicion. Obviously if financial approval for development expenditure has to be processed in this manner, it is likely to result in interminable correspondence and even acrimonious disputes. Some new system must therefore be introduced. We have now established an Economic Development Committee consisting of both Ministers and senior Government officials. I myself as Finance Minister am Chairman of this Committee and the Minister for National Development is a permanent ministerial member. Ministers whose development proposals are under examination will attend as members of the Development Planning Committee. The officials will include the Director of Public Works, the Permanent Secretary (Economic Development), and Assistant Secretaries of the Development Secretariat which has also been recently set up. The Development Secretariat will be a new branch of the Finance Ministry. It will concern itself not only with the routine processing of development proposals but also with the checking up of progress on the implementation of development projects. It would, therefore, serve as a central reporting system on the progress made in all fields of the Development Plan. The Development Secretariat will therefore be able to alert the Government should any project lag behind its performance programme. The Economic Development Committee will be concerned with matters of policy and priorities. No project will be proceeded with unless the Development Committee has given its clearance. This clearance, however, is subject to detailed examination by a Committee of permanent officials with the Director of Public Works as the Chairman. This Committee is known as the Economic Development Sub-Committee and will replace the present Public Works Standing Committee. In order to emphasise the performance aspect of planning implementation, the Director of Public Works has been appointed Chairman of the Committee in place of the Treasury official who took the chair of the former Public Works Standing Committee. These are the administrative changes which are necessary to cut out red tape. We have decided also to strengthen the staff of the Public Works Department and have applied to five countries for assistance in the recruitment of engineers, architects, quantity surveyors and other grades of professional technicians. The number of additional staff at professional level we now need is 52. The countries we have approached are the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Israel. The overseas staff will be recruited against supernumerary posts: that is to say, they will not be held against the permanent establishment which we reserve as promotion posts for our junior engineers. The Director of Public Works has also been asked to draw up his future staff needs to enable him to cope with the greatly enhanced volume of work that the Plan calls for. He is also starting a departmental training scheme to train junior technical staff in various branches of work. As regards current performance, I will leave it to the Ministers concerned to report to the Assembly the progress now being achieved. I only need refer to a statement made by Mr Ong Eng Guan in a Hong Lim by-election meeting that the Government had done nothing beyond building some 26 community centres. He is reported to have said that the Government is building no schools and no houses. This is a calculated and blatant falsehood so characteristic of the former Member for Hong Lim. I await with interest to see whether his two companions still in the Assembly will be prepared to repeat this outrageous lie. The approval we are seeking in the Assembly or the Development Plan does not mean approval in detail of each and every item of the Plan as a fixed and permanent project to be carried out during the Plan period. As has been emphasised in the text of the Plan itself, there must be some flexibility in implementation. It may be necessary to re-examine some projects. It will certainly be necessary to revise the cost of those projects whose detailed planning had not reached a conclusive stage. These amendments to the Plan, as and when they are made and decided upon, will be reported to the Assembly for its approval. The most convenient occasion for such reports would, I think, be the Budget session. Where new projects are introduced and have to be proceeded with without; further delay, then the approval of the Assembly will be sought in the normal manner through Supplementary Estimates. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.21 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, last year, on 30th May, 1960, before the Minister for Finance went to the United States and the United kingdom to seek loans, I read in the Press about a so-called Five-Year Plan. Very little details were given. Although I was an Assemblyman in the Government, it was the first time I heard of such a Plan. There had never been any discussions. That was nearly a year ago. During this long period of time, the people never heard anything of this so-called Plan. Why was it never published before? Were the authors of this so-called Plan ashamed of it? Now, Sir, at the height of the Hong Lim by-election, when the Government is facing the people, the Five-Year Plan is reduced to a Four-Year Plan and published. What is the difference between this Four-Year Plan and the Five-Year Plan announced nearly a year ago? The Finance Minister then announced - Sir, I would like to refer to a cutting from the Straits Times dated 30th May, 1960, since I do not have the full paper: `There are many other things in the Development Plan to be published in a few months' time.' it was never published. Now in the midst of the Hong Lim by-election, we have a new Four-Year Plan. Mr Speaker, Sir, during the course of the last 22 months, I have heard of too many plans and beautiful speeches, but, unfortunately, I have yet to see one Plan implemented. Sir, look at this pamphlet published by the Ministry of Culture. It is called "A Year of Construction" based on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Speech in June 1960: `June 1960 to June 1961 will be called a year of construction,' But, Sir, construct what? It is now already April 1961. Only community centres, as far as I can see! We will support any plan aimed at helping the people, but such plans should be elastic and should be meant for implementation and not just electioneering stunts. We hope this Government is sincere and honest by letting the people know the truth. Show the people something, and not just talk. Twenty-two months is not too short a period. Mr Speaker, Sir, 13 City Councillors did more work in 15 months than this Government with a big majority has done in 22 months. 3.26 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion of the Minister for Finance. I feel it is necessary for me to say a few words. Since the P.A.P. came into power, it has shown that it has an energetic programme. It has exerted its utmost to protect the livelihood of the people of Singapore and to resolve all the problems facing them. We have a very bright future. We say clearly that the People's Action Party is more progressive than the previous Government. We are confident that the people will fully support the Plan, because its success concerns the livelihood of the people. I hope the people will be able to understand and not to construe this Development Plan as a panacea for all kinds of ills. They must not think that everything can be solved by the Plan alone. This Plan, if it is to succeed, will only help to alleviate our unemployment problem. I hope that during the period of this Development Plan all signs of the colonial era will be wiped out. We must know that difficulties lie ahead. Many countries are facing many serious problems, especially unemployment. I wish to point out that even America is facing serious unemployment problems. Therefore, in comparison, the unemployment figures in those countries are not less than ours, but they find themselves in a more advantageous position because they are more industrialised and they have more scope for expanding their industries. Moreover, their colonies are able to give them economic support. I wish the people can understand that our Four-Year Plan cannot solve every question and every problem immediately. We must know that the problems of unemployment and instability in commerce and other fields are natural. And this colonialist clique is making things difficult for us. Therefore, the difficulties which we have to face are unavoidable. We must not say that we can solve every problem just by carrying out this Development Plan. So if the people hope to achieve a happier future, they must unite together in the struggle against the colonial economic system in Malaya and also create new conditions favourable to a merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. This merger will basically solve difficult problems in our livelihood. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will also point out that the reactionaries in our country are usually inimical to us. They criticise our Government with ill intentions. Not only do they not encourage efforts towards a good end, but they also unscrupulously spread rumours attacking the P.A.P. They use this tactic in order to divide the people. They say that the P.A.P., since forming the Government two years ago, has not done any good work. These are all lies. Just now a Member on the opposite Bench said that our present Plan was introduced because of the Hong Lim by-election. This is not correct. Let me show him whether our Government has done anything or not in these two years. I must point out a few facts here in order to show that these reactionaries are only rumour-mongers. The achievements of the people's representative in my constituency during the four years under the present Government cannot be compared with ours during the past 22 months. The previous Government built only four rural roads and one of them was built only when the elections were approaching. But we have in the short period of 22 months built four, rural roads. Another road has been approved and will be laid by the Urban and Rural Services Committee. As for other public and social services such as standpipes and so on, they will be provided in the near future. Our achievements far exceed those of the last Government. All these facts show that they are part of our programme which is of concrete benefit. Of course, we are not satisfied yet with all these achievements but will endeavour still further to serve the people well with all our hearts. Therefore, we say that our Four-Year Development Plan is not brought out just for the purpose of the Hong Lim by-election. Anyone who is irresponsible enough to say that the introduction of this Four-Year Plan is for any political purpose is wrong. The introduction of this Plan is for the good of the people; to solve the problems facing the people. We must execute the Plan, and this is important. Therefore, we have brought out this Four-Year Development Plan. If some of the people are biased and attack this Four-Year Plan, they are unreasonable and wrong. However, we must do things beneficial to the people. Therefore, they must support the Government's Four-Year Plan. And these rumour-mongers must not further say that our Four-Year Plan is brought out just for the purpose of political expediency for the Hong Lim by-election. This Plan has been well considered. It has not been drafted in just a very short time. 3.39 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara announced in this Assembly on the 20th July last year that the Development Plan had been completed. The final version of the Plan is now before this Assembly. The Plan that is before us is the People's Action Party's Development Plan. This is the first time that we have this sort of Plan in the history of Singapore. It concerns very closely the workers, the farmers, the hawkers, the businessmen, and the students. In simple language, it is a Plan of the people of Singapore. It is not merely a Plan of the People's Action Party. Its success or failure will decisively affect the future prospects of the people. It will also pronounce judgment on parliamentary democracy - whether it will succeed or fail. Mr Speaker, Sir, before the P.A.P. came into power, it announced to the people of Singapore its Five-Year Plan. Let me quote from this Five-Year Plan, The Tasks Ahead [Part I, page 6]: `The plans we have laid down are not over-ambitious ones. They are realistic and are based on actual existing political and social conditions and economic circumstances. In drafting our plans we recognise that an internally self-governing Singapore is not an independent Singapore because control of our foreign affairs remains in the hands of the colonial office and so in this sense we are a semi-colony; we recognise the severe restriction of land space, a mere 210 square miles, and the pressure of a population now numbering 1½ million and still growing at the rate of 65,000 a year. We recognise that our little island has no natural resources and our economy has for the past 100 years been dependent solely on the entrepot trade, and has remained static. We recognise the complexities of our multi-racial society and the special problems which they pose. It is within this framework that we must work. It is within these limitations that we must construct and lay the basis for a future socialist society. The next five years will be critical years of testing not only for the party but for all those who believe that socialism can be achieved step by step through peaceful parliamentary democracy.' Mr Speaker, Sir, the policy statement has clearly pointed out and given us a very correct analysis of the political, economic and social situation and the resources. On the other hand, it also points out our immediate task and our future prospects. If there are people who neglect this vivid reality and who place too high hopes on the future, they will be disappointed. Our Development Plan is mainly based on the nine policy statements announced to the people before the elections. The Yang di-Pertuan Negara, in his speech in the Second Session of this Assembly, said that the People's Action Party has no intention of deceiving the people into voting for it by promises which cannot be fulfilled. It exhorts the people to vote for this realistic but not over-ambitious Plan. The overwhelming vote won by the People's Action Party proves that the people have accepted its correct analysis and its policy. If before the elections, the P.A.P. was not prepared to deceive the people with promises of getting the stars, the moon and the sun, it has even less reason now to offer false hopes to the people. In some of the Asian countries, parliamentary democracy has collapsed. The reason is that the Government in those countries, anxious to retain their political power, have adopted demagogic politics at the expense of integrity and courage. The Yang di-Pertuan Negara also said that the Government has no intention of giving up its policies and its objectives which were evolved over a long period with care and caution. A responsible government cannot recklessly alter its policy. Mr Speaker, Sir, the People's Action Party is a Party which honours its promises. Its record over the past six years testifies to this. However, the ex-Member for Hong Lim, the Member for Punggol and the Member for Aljunied said that the People's Action Party had not done anything to better the lot of the people, and that the Four-Year Development Plan is only a paper tiger. It is not worth even a cent. Everyone is aware that only people who are afflicted with insanity will indulge in this sort of criticism. No doubt-

Order. I think I heard the hon. Member for Choa Chu Kang alleging that certain Members of this Assembly are afflicted with insanity. That is an unparliamentary expression to use of any Member of this Assembly. Will the Member please withdraw the expression?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. I withdraw the phrase people who are afflicted with insanity and substitute the words `mentally deficient'. No doubt there are still people who have no work. But they have forgotten that the P.A.P. has not promised that when it comes into power it will solve their problems immediately. They have supported this Five-Year Plan of the P.A.P. May I now ask them to restudy this Five-Year Plan to see if we have gone back on our words, and see if they can find a single sentence which, says that when the P.A.P. comes into power it will solve the problem of unemployment overnight? Mr Speaker, Sir, ours is a Party with principles and political faith. Our main task is not only centred on the present immediate problems, but it also centres on our long-term problems. We must not neglect the people just for the sake of our personal fame and interest. We will never desert the people with whom we have worked so hard. Our people's faith is our faith, and our faith is our people's faith. Mr Speaker, Sir, all of us are aware that the only way to alleviate the unemployment problem is through industrialisation, although this cannot be done overnight. But if we merely shout slogans without creating the necessary prerequisite conditions for industrialisation, we will achieve nothing. What we must remember is this. There is nothing which cannot be achieved. Everything depends on us. Given the co-operation between the workers, the capitalists and the Government, I believe we will march towards industrialisation. Mr Speaker, Sir, out of a total expenditure of $871 million, agriculture takes up about 58 per cent; and out of this, $53 million will be utilised for land and agricultural development. The farmers and the rural people are entitled to the care and attention of the Government under this Plan. For example, they should get a supply of electricity and water; good roads and the opening up of drains and other drainage work. At present, there are about 20,000 farmers who are engaged in producing foodstuffs to meet the needs of the local population. For example, they produce pork, meat birds, eggs, vegetables, fruits and fresh-water fish and prawns. According to estimates, their annual production is as follows: 750,000 pigs, 16 million meat birds, 200 million eggs, 34,000 tons of vegetables, 1,700 tons of fruits; and 11,000 tons of fish and prawns. As far as the present population is concerned, our State is self-sufficient in pig and poultry production. But we still have to import a great quantity of eggs, fish, prawns, vegetables and fruits from outside countries to meet the needs of the people. In 1959 we imported 136 million eggs, 20,000 tons of vegetables from the Federation, 96,000 tons of vegetables from countries other than the Federation of Malaya, and 29,000 tons of fish and prawns from both the Federation and other countries. The total value of these foodstuffs imported into this country is $73,860,000. Mr Speaker, Sir, because of the terrific rate of increase of the population, we have a greater demand for agricultural production. If we do not increase our production, we will have to import foodstuffs from other countries, and from the economic point of view, this is not beneficial to us. Therefore, our immediate task is to increase our agricultural production so as to reduce the foodstuffs imported from other countries. In order to increase production, we have to see that our agricultural production is mechanised and that the area for cultivation should be enlarged. The Primary Production Department of the Ministry of National Development has carried out a programme to help farmers plough their land; to provide them with fertilisers and veterinary services, and to organise seminars on agriculture. All these will help them to increase their knowledge of the method of cultivation. With the increase of population, the limited land has now been used up to build houses, schools, hospitals and community centres. Therefore, we have to acquire more land from other sources. According to estimates, there are about 10,000 acres of swampy land surrounding the island of Singapore. We must convert the 10,000 acres of swampy land into good agricultural land so as to increase the area for farming. And during the 4-year period, the Government proposes to use $4 million to open up 1,000 acres of agricultural land and 1,000 acres of land for prawn ponds. These swampy lands, which have just been reclaimed, are situated at Sungei Serangoon, Sungei Seletar, Sungei Kranji, Sungei Tengah, Sungei Poyan and Ama Keng. The Government, after a careful survey, will open up these lands for the farmers. It is expected that when this survey is completed, there will be an increase of 1,100 farmers and fishermen. Other than these, there will be 500 workers who will benefit from this. This 4,000 acres of land, when fully utilised, will produce 10,000 tons of vegetables and 1,200 tons of prawns to meet the demands of the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope the people of Singapore will support this Four-Year Development Plan with actual deeds, so as to enable this Plan to succeed in the time envisaged. We must point out that this Plan is not intended for the coming by-election, but for the future benefit of the people. 4.01 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we on this side have been waiting for the other Ministers to make some detailed comments on the Development Plan, but since they have not said anything yet, I have decided that we should say something at this point. Sir, in the last few months we have noticed a change of attitude on the Government side in their approach to various problem's and in their public utterances. Now, whether this change of attitude is also a change of heart, only the future can tell. Whether this is a calculated move based on a short-term policy with a specified objective, or whether it is really a change of policy based on a long-term programme, we do not know. But five months ago in this House, the Finance Minister in his Budget speech said that economically the people of Singapore had done well. The propaganda was that the people of Singapore under the People's Action Party had never had it so good. Sir, we on this side maintain, from the facts we know and from what we have heard from the very people who put them into power, that Singapore has done badly. Anybody who goes to the popular amusement parks will have noticed the number of stalls that are kept closed. On one occasion, when I asked the ticket collectors why it was that so many stalls were kept closed, the reply was, "Not many people have got money to spend nowadays." Sir, today the truth is out, and in the motion before the House, the Finance Minister draws attention to the acute problems of unemployment caused by Singapore's rapid population increase which is not accompanied by corresponding increase in economic expansion. We have all the time maintained, Sir, that the shadow of unemployment is the one spectre that bedevils the life of the people of Singapore. The admission here practically declares that in the race against unemployment, Singapore's economy has slipped backward; that the number of unemployed has been on the increase. Sir, I believe that even at this moment the problem has been underestimated. I beg to refer, Sir, to the Development Plan, page 55, paragraph 634. The estimate of the total unemployed in 1959 was given as 46,000. Then, by some complicated process of calculation, the annual estimate of the number of unemployed was somehow reduced so that the total of unemployed requiring jobs at the end of 1964 is estimated at 84,000. Sir, in the Straits Times of Friday, 31st March, the Prime Minister at a rally in Fullerton Square gave a different figure. Now, we wonder whose estimate is correct. It is said here, Sir, that: `Some 40,000 to 50,000 children were born in 1945 and they would reach the age of 17 next year - and the majority would be looking for jobs.' And the headline gives the words- `1962 - JOBS MUST BE FOUND FOR 50,000 MORE: LEE'. Sir, the Prime Minister, in the opinion of the Finance Minister, might have given an overstatement, but he used his common sense; and we who use our common sense think that if 50,000 people are of age to go into the labour market each year, then naturally even if we exclude those who do not want to find jobs, and even if we say that there are people who retire, we must remember that there is the continuous influx of people from the Federation into Singapore looking for jobs. A reasonable estimate would be that at least 25,000 per year would be looking for jobs. In four years, one would reasonably expect something like 100,000 would be looking for jobs. With a backlog of some 46,000, the number must be a great deal more than what is given in the Development Plan; perhaps 50 per cent more, or even 100 per cent more. So the picture is even more serious than has been painted. Another aspect we must remember is that most of those who are unemployed would be the young people who, after leaving school, naturally expect employment of some kind. If after having been trained they find that the years ahead of them show nothing but prospects of unemployment, we can imagine their frustration and bitterness. For that reason, we are glad that the Government is now embarking on this Development Plan and seriously tackling the problem, even though belatedly. We hope that it is not too late for them because of the mistakes made in the last two years. Sir, paragraph 2 of the motion says: `ALERTS our people to the paramount need to expand employment opportunities,...'. At last, Sir, the Government is alerting the people. We alerted the people during the election campaign. Well, the People's Action Party held wonderful promises that the people were going to have a Utopia.

Nonsense! You gave everything away free.

Order.

Sir, the full facts are begining to appear so that five months after the Budget speech, perhaps compelled by the circumstances of the Hong Lim by-election, the truth has now to be told. Sir, I like the word "expand". We said that the drastic cut in the pay of civil servants to the tune of millions of dollars was not calculated to expand opportunities for employment, but was calculated to reduce such opportunities. Perhaps the Government might inquire from their employees how many people had been thrown out of unemployment, because many of these Government employees had to dispense with the services of domestic helpers, and indirectly many shops have had to curtail purchases of goods because of the lack of demand from those whose buying power had been reduced so drastically. Sir, it is good to note that the Government is now going to plan for an expenditure of $871 million in the next four years. We are called upon to approve the State Development Plan. Sir, we are unable at this juncture to go into the detail of the Development Plan. We have to go on the basis of the objectives, and the objectives are desirable. Some of us on this side of the House were concerned over the draft of some of these plans; over the earlier establishment of some of the phases, such as the establishment of the Polytechnic, the introduction of low-cost housing and such other schemes. But there are certain paragraphs in the Plan which call for comment and questions. Sir, with your leave, I would like to draw on some of the very important ones. Page 18, paragraph 1.

72. It is constructive. It is in language which we find strange coming from the People's Action Party. However, Sir, we always appreciate a change for the better. `1.

72. However because of Singapore's entrepot trade, it is necessary that nothing is done which may seriously disturb the confidence of the business community.' Nothing must be done to disturb the confidence of the business community. Sir, this high regard for members of the business community is something new. When we consulted a business friend, he liked this sentence but he said, "But perhaps the confidence of the business community in Singapore has already been disturbed. And so disturbed that it may take time to recover that confidence." Sir, the next two sentences practically contradict their own Party policy as enunciated in their booklets. The two sentences run as follows: `Consequently draconic measures successfully used in some other countries to give mobility to capital is not available to the Government of Singapore. Capital mobilization for industrial development would have to be a slow process of persuasion and inducement.' Sir, I for one wish that that had been their policy from the very start. But I would like to read their statement of policy in Time Tasks Ahead regarding loans. That is another big change in their attitude. Now the Minister for Finance tells us that there is nothing wrong in getting loans from foreign countries. We agree with him wholeheartedly. We have always said so, that Singapore's prosperity must depend on the goodwill of our neighbours and of all countries which trade with us. But in paragraph 2 on page 25 of Time Tasks Ahead - the P.A.P.'s Five-Year Plan 1959-1964 (Part 1) under the heading "Capital", this is what we read: `The P.A.P. profoundly disagree that the survival of Singapore depends on foreign capital and foreign capitalists. We say that there are more than adequate capital resources initially available locally.' And skipping five lines, it goes on to read: `It is absolute nonsense to say that our survival depends on foreigners when so much of our own capital is invested in foreign countries.' And skipping another seven lines: `Our salvation lies in our own hands. There are no benevolent foreigners knocking around the world, anxious to discharge these duties and responsibilities which are rightly our own. Let us not face the economic problems in the era of freedom with the mental attitudes appropriate to colonial servitude.' Sir, those are very strong words. It practically means that those who seek loans from foreign countries have "the mental attitudes appropriate to colonial servitude". Dr Goh: Rubbish!

Sir, I echo the word "rubbish"! We on this side are glad that at last common sense is coming to Members on the Government side and we hope this common sense will remain with them for long and that it is not just a tactical move to attain a temporary objective.

What temporary objective?

Sir, paragraph 5.23 of the Development Plan (page 48) - the third line reads: `It is, therefore, necessary to look abroad for financial assistance.' Then the last line of the next paragraph reads: `Further loans would be sought from the United Kingdom in late 1962 or early 1963.' Loans have to be sought. It is right that they must be sought for the sake of the welfare of the people. Sir, unfortunately during the last two years, the atmosphere in the different countries of South-East Asia has undergone quite some changes, and Singapore has now to compete for loans with countries which offer a better economic climate. We read in the Straits Times of Monday, 10th April, that the British Board of Trade is sending a delegation to survey conditions in the different countries in South-East Asia. The Federation has also a Five-Year Development Plan and they want to spend the fabulous sum of £589 million - more than five times what Singapore plans to spend. British Borneo has also its own plans. So have Thailand, Burma, Indonesia and the Philippines. What do we offer to induce foreign countries to give us loans? I hope we can offer greater security, greater stability. I do not know. That is for the Government to offer. But we do hope that the offers made will be such that a great deal of the loan money will come this way. In the last two years, however, a great deal of capital has gone out of this country - elsewhere. Anybody who goes to Kuala Lumpur and visits Petaling Jaya will have this conviction: that half of the capital invested in Petaling Jaya should have been invested in Singapore. It was very unfortunate that because of the lack of confidence in Singapore's economic future, people with capital decided to invest in the Federation rather than in Singapore. Sir, we have to face the stern reality of the problem. We cannot blind ourselves. We have to recover this confidence and we hope that the Government will take appropriate measures to ensure that recovery. Sir, private enterprise was regarded as the key to Singapore's economy before, but ever since the publication of the People's Action Party booklets, people involved in private enterprise have felt that they must take a back seat, that the State would extend its control more and more until there is less and less scope for private enterprise and that, therefore, they would have to look for opportunities elsewhere. But I am glad that in the Development Plan presented today, there is a remarkable change in attitude. The last nine lines of paragraph 6.45 on page 58 read: `But it should be stressed that this solution consists in inducing a sufficient volume of private investment in new industries which could absorb the larger labour force.' Then skipping two lines, it goes on to read: `To provide for 30,000 new jobs in industry requires a capital investment of something like $600 million, if we take a ratio of $20,000 a job. Private investment of this magnitude has never been achieved in the history of Singapore and this is what we must do to bring about a state of nearly full employment at the end of 1964.' Sir, we wish the Government the best of luck. It is indeed a stupendous task to induce private investors to invest $600 million. Unfortunately, Sir, in its policy statement, the Government gave a different impression, and I hope the Finance Minister will make an outright declaration of policy here, that the policy enunciated in the Development Plan is its permanent policy. In Part I of the P.A.P.'s Five-Year Plan, page 8, the last paragraph reads as follows: `The planned industrial enterprises will be run either by the Board or in co-operation with private capital.' Those were the main categories: either by the Board or by the Board in co-operation with private capital. Then the marginal opportunities will be given to private enterprise. It goes on to read: `Purely private capital enterprises will also receive the co-operation of the Board. Although we disagree that the survival of Singapore depends on foreign capital and foreign capitalists, nevertheless foreign capital business concerns that wish to establish factories in Singapore will be given encouragement and assistance.' Sir, the Government realises now that the State of Singapore alone cannot provide full employment for its people. It must welcome the help of everybody - local and foreign - to provide employment for our people. After all, Sir, what is merdeka if the workers are to be without employment. If their rice-bowl is to be broken, it is an empty merdeka. Merdeka must benefit everybody and not the workers in particular. It must provide jobs for the unemployed. 4.29 p.m.

Sir, this motion before the House is indeed significant in that paragraph 4 strikes something new. It "calls on all sections of the people to unite in their effort to fulfil the plan". On all sections! Sir, we were told recently in this House that the Government side did not care for the views of the Opposition. We thought that the Government did not care for the views of something like 46 per cent of the voters who did not vote them in. Sir, that is an attitude of intolerance. It is wrong. If you want to build a nation, you have to have the support of even those who disagree with you. But now the Government calls on all sections of the people to unite. But in the speeches in the Hong Lim by-election, we notice another note - speakers on the Government side call for unity and solidarity of the Left-wing forces against the rest. By implication, Sir, it means that unless people are members of the Left-wing forces, they have no equality of status in the future of Singapore. Therefore, the businessmen are regarded as enemies of the Left-wing forces. Surely a better appeal would have been a unity of all those who wish to serve the country - the people and the workers - of all who are sensible and constructive; the unity of all these forces against those who wish to disrupt and destroy the economy of the country. Sir, I put it to the Government that if there is real co-operation to ensure the success of the Development Plan, it cannot be on the basis of regarding labour and management as hostile forces that must clash, but rather as forces that must co-operate in order that the unemployed of Singapore will be provided with jobs. Sir, we welcome this portion of the motion. Sir, the last portion of the motion indicates that the Government realises its difficulties. It `EXHORTS the workers and trade union movement and the businessmen and industrialists to play their part in maintaining a fair balance of their respective interests so essential to success.' In other words, Sir, if either one of these two is unable or refuses to maintain a fair balance, then no progress can be made. But why regard the relationship between these two as one of maintaining a fair balance? Sir, we know that when two people who are restive try to maintain a fair balance, the boat is bound to rock. You cannot have the boat going fast when all the time it is rocking now on one side and now on the other side. My suggestion is this: that the essence should not be on maintaining a fair balance first. The priority should be maintaining the maximum speed - maximum productivity - and that the balancing of interests could be left, if necessary,, and if there are disputes, to a fair and Just Arbitration Court. If there are only certain cases or certain categories (if there are disputes) that cannot be solved, then those cases can be referred to the Arbitration Court. Why not all? - so long as we can ensure maximum productivity, maximum speed, toward our objective? Sir, in order to restore the confidence which we have lost to a great extent, the Government has to answer many of these questions. Naturally when businessmen read in the papers a statement from a responsible T.U.C. official - "To hell with industrial peace" - well, balancing of interests is going to be difficult. And I suggest that we must get away from this question of balancing of interests to another force. Let there be maximum speed and maximum productivity, and leave the balancing of interests not in the hands of those who want to fight but in the hands of an impartial and just tribunal. Sir, there are many questions we would like to ask about the various plans, but no doubt it is difficult to discuss details here. We can foresee difficulties because we know of the acute shortage of technical personnel so that even now we find we do not have enough Science teachers for our schools, and Science graduates are in demand in all the States around us. We hope the Government will be able to get over these obstacles and really succeed. We do hope that this Plan is not being brought before the House just to be in time for the Hong Lim by-election, but that it is to be proceeded with with great speed after this. 4.37 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, today self-governing Singapore is putting forward for the first time, in the history of Singapore, a just Development Plan. Our Finance Minister has already outlined the main points of this Plan. It is not necessary for me to discuss the whole Plan in detail, but I personally feel that there are several points in the Plan which should be brought out. The first point is that when we drafted this Plan we fully understood the present situation in Singapore. In Singapore today there is still incomplete separation from colonial rule. Singapore has not yet discarded the yoke of colonialism. Because of this, the Plan drafted by us can be said to be one which is in accordance with certain measures. It is a concrete Plan and not a dream. It is a resolute Plan. It will achieve our goals. Why do I say so? First, the most important point is what I have just said: we have not entirely shaken off the yoke of colonialism. Secondly, Singapore is a tiny island and had been under British control for over a hundred years. The British colonial policy had produced a very low standard of education. Because of the long period of oppression by the British and exploitation generally, the people are poor, and also because the United Kingdom wants to take advantage of the central position of Singapore to convey its spoils derived here to England. Therefore, Singapore has become a centre of entrepôt trade, and does not have a foundation for industrialisation. The problems of unemployment, education and other social and welfare problems left by the British need a solution and we have to resolve them. Thirdly, everybody knows that Singapore does not have natural resources. It does not have fertile farmlands or rich mountains or mines or fields. Fourthly, we know that the population increase is very high - 4.3 per cent. It is the highest in the world. The population of Singapore today totals 1,600,000. Those under 21 years of age number 50 per cent of the whole population. Over two-thirds of our population depend on less than one-third of the population's labour and livelihood. Approximately one quarter of our population are school-going children. Because of the four facts mentioned above, we have formulated this Development Plan. Also under difficult circumstances we have courageously put forward this Development Plan. But why do I say that this Development Plan is one which would only solve the problems but does not tackle the roots of the problems? We, the P.A.P., believe in socialism. Our objectives are to achieve a unified party between the Federation of Malaya and Singapore. It is only under a socialist society in which there is no exploitation of man by man that we can basically solve the problems of the people's livelihood. Of course, our problem includes the problem of unemployment. Therefore, this Plan is based on the present political, social and economic situation. But we can only solve part of the problems. It is not a Plan which can fully solve all our problems. This point has to be understood by all. Another significant point is that this Plan intends to alter the economy of Singapore from a non-productive commercial economy to a productive economy. 58 per cent of the total investment will be used for economic development. This clearly shows that our Plan is to fulfil the promises we made before the election. We have to lay well the foundation for industrialisation. Just now many Opposition Members have said that our Plan has contradicted the promises made during the last election campaign. They have also said that this Plan has been introduced because of the Hong Lim by-election. Therefore, I must now quote from The Five-Year Plan issued before the last general election. What I have said just now was quoted from the fourth book of our Five-Year Plan, at page 15: `How we want to change our non-productive economy into a productive economy. This means that we must carefully investigate all the possibilities for industrialisation in Singapore. The existence of a nation depends on whether it can produce goods, and whether it has the potentialities and possibilities for producing goods. Singapore does not have the raw materials for production. Also it does not have a large agricultural area for large-scale agriculture. Therefore, our production has to depend on how to mobilise our people for productive labour.' This Development Plan is realistic, it shows that we are resolute and courageous. During our term of office, we want to lay the foundation for industrialisation. Of course, in this Four-Year Development Plan, to pave the way for industrialisation is not very easy. For instance, if we start work at the Jurong industrial site today, we may not entirely see all the factories manufacturing at the end of four years. But we are a responsible Government. We are not utilising our term of office to meet the by-election or any election. We are doing all this for the good of the future of all the people of Singapore. We are a responsible Government, and our Plan is to take into account the long-term good for the benefit of the people of Singapore. I remember that last year I said that in dealing with economic problems and financial affairs, our stand was to save expenditure and accumulate wealth. We have to carry out our task in a calculated and planned way. We will always take into consideration that Government will not waste a single cent. Any cent spent will get its value. Otherwise, it will be wasting the sweat and blood of the people. Therefore, the basic task of the P.A.P. is to improve by stages the standard of living of the people. Of course, what we have done up till now is still not enough. We must endeavour further to strengthen our work along this path. 4.55 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I speak, I wish to answer the criticism raised by the Member for Tanglin. Just now he criticised our Development Plan. Some of his criticisms contradict the facts. Actually he was driving at something else with some ulterior motive. Just like in the fable, when the fox cannot get the grapes, he says the grapes are sour. That is my answer to the criticism put forward by the Member for Tanglin. I gladly support the Four-Year Development Plan put forward by my colleague, the Minister for Finance. Ever since the publication of this historic Development Plan, it has been well received by the public. In this House, my colleague has further analysed the Plan, but there are some points which I wish to stress. Why must I stress these points? May I mention the reasons why I should stress these points? In this blue book, there are many proposals which deserve our close attention. But I do not wish to touch on all the aspects of the Plan. I wish only to talk on two points. The first point is the increase of employment opportunities. The other point is the expansion of the public service. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, let me say something on the first point. In the present state of affairs in Singapore, it is very necessary to formulate a Development Plan. This is because the state of affairs in Singapore is like that of a big family. In matters of economics, it is just like a family which has a piece of cloth to dispense with. If the parent does not calculate and make a proper allocation beforehand, it is impossible for every member of the family to get a suit of clothing. If he can make an estimate and a proper allocation beforehand, even if not every member of the family will get a suit of clothing, at least he can be assured that he will avoid waste. Looking from a realistic angle, whenever we pass by a secondary or a primary school, before the school starts or after school, whichever school you pass by, you will see a surging crowd of students emerging from the school premises. It is not difficult to imagine that after a few years these pupils will enter the labour market to seek their livelihood. Sir, may I quote from an editorial of the Nanyang Siang Pat, dated the 3rd of April? I believe this paragraph in the editorial is unbiased. Now, let me quote from this editorial.

Is it an appropriate time to break for tea? Hon. Members indicated assent.

I suspend the sitting until 5.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.01 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate resumed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now continue my speech. Let me quote from the Nanyang Siang Pau editorial of 3rd April: `Another characteristic feature of the Four-Year Development Plan is the increase of employment opportunities. When this Plan is achieved, it will provide about 40,000 jobs for the people. That is to say, about 8,000 jobs in the public service will be available, and other economic institutions will absorb about 12,000 people. If in the process private investors invest their money in industry, there will be another 30,000 jobs, and the total number of jobs available then will solve the unemployment problem of thousands of people. But in 1964, the number of people who are looking for jobs will be 83,600. Other than the 31,000 jobless people at present, there will be an additional 52,600 people looking for new jobs. Even if everything is going on smoothly and according to our Plan, by the end of 1964, there will still be 13,600 people who will be looking for jobs. In other words, if the Plan fails, we will be faced with a more serious and grave situation and crisis. Because of the above-mentioned factors, two concepts can be arrived at. On the one hand, we are glad and cheered by our prospects. On the other hand, it cannot help to be worried. Why should we say so? Because we are hamstrung by our objective situation.' Mr Speaker, Sir, let me quote again from the last paragraph of the editorial which reads: `There is one fundamental weakness in Singapore's economy. That is the lack of natural resources. But the most important problem is the increase of population. Every year, there is an increase of 65,000 people. After a few years, the population will stand at about 2,000,000 people. On the other hand, not only are most of the population under the age of 18, but there is one-fourth of the people who are under the age of 5 or 6. If one looks further, one will see the problems and difficulties faced by Singapore and the situation will become serious year by year. For example, if there are 86,000 people who cannot get jobs in 1964, then after two or three years, the figure for unemployed people will increase. Although the Four-Year Development Plan cannot solve all our problems, it will lay the foundation for further development. Given the co-operation of the people of Singapore, it is expected that we will be able to turn the tide and go on to the path of prosperity. The Four-Year Development Plan is a Plan which concerns all of us, because.'

Order. The hon. Member seems to be still reading from the editorial of the Nanyang Siang Pau. I might remind him of Standing Order 44 which says: `... a Member shall not read his speech, but he may read short extracts from books or papers in support of his argument,'. So the extracts should only be read in support of the hon. Member's argument. He seems to be reading the editorial word for word, which seems to be an argument of the editor of that paper, and not the Member's own argument. Would he hear that in mind when he continues?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, I have one more sentence to go. It says: `It will also decisively affect our future generation.' Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now talk on another problem. According to the reactions to the Plan, I believe all partriotic citizens will do their best to support this Plan without any hesitation to make it a success. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me touch on another problem, i.e., the expansion of the public service. Everyone is aware that Singapore has been built up slowly in the past decades. We have come to the stage where many of the facilities are not in keeping with our present needs. To rectify this, the Development Plan has many proposals to improve the facilities. Now, let me quote an example. If we do not do something to improve our situation, we will not only be confronted with a very acute shortage of housing, but we may also have the problem of a shortage of roads. For the sake of the future of this country, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support wholeheartedly this Four-Year Development Plan. 5.40 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, on the motion by the Minister for Finance, we have heard speeches from the Government side welcoming the State of Singapore's Four-Year Development Plan. On behalf of the Opposition, I would like to speak in connection with the points raised by the Government regarding the difficulties in implementing this Plan. I think my colleague the Member for Tanglin has touched upon the mistakes made by the Government since the time they assumed office, which difficulties they are faced with now. We cannot blame anybody in this respect. If I am asked, I would say that the blame lies on the manner in which the Government implements its policies, which has resulted in an atmosphere of insecurity in the community of Singapore. I do not wish to dwell further on that matter except to urge the Government in future to learn from their mistakes for the betterment of the people who comprise the multi-racial society in Singapore and who owe their allegiance to this State. The difficulties which we are confronted with are not merely those which Government is faced with, but they affect each and every single citizen, whether he is rich, or whether he is a worker, even more the unemployed, the number of which is on the increase as a result of our depressed economic state of affairs; and no security is given to the family to plan its future livelihood. We realise that Singapore is a small island not more than 224 square miles, and its population has grown to 1½ million as mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. The population now numbers 1,600,000, and the number of unemployed has increased day by day. Similarly the increase in childbirth has posed another big problem, and we should consider their future livelihood. I think this problem should not only be the concern of this Assembly alone. We should find ways and means of guaranteeing a livelihood for the future citizens of Singapore. This Development Plan, which is a step forward, should get the support of every section of the population, although it is only on paper at this stage. But we have no other alternative and we have to work and work from now on to ensure a livelihood for the people. Differing political ideologies should be set aside as this Plan affects the livelihood of all the people of Singapore. However, on the question of launching this Development Plan, we are aware that we are short of money and, as pointed out by my colleague the Member for Tanglin. I hope the stand taken by the Government to gain the confidence of the capitalists will be maintained. Bombastic and high-sounding words are of no use. What is needed is the facing of hard facts so that we will be able to guarantee Singapore's prosperity in the future. 5.49 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, may I just reply to a couple of remarks made by the Member for Aljunied and the Member for Tanglin? The Member for Aljunied made a speech just like the speeches he made on the platform of the Independent candidate, Mr Ong Eng Guan, in the Hong Lim by-election. He made a lot of allegations and half-truths merely to belittle the Government. All of them have been repeatedly and suitably answered at our street corner meetings in Hong Lim, and I do not think there is any material in whatever he has said that needs further rebutting. As regards the Member for Tanglin, he said that half the investment that should have been made in Singapore went to Petaling Jaya instead, and that this was due to non-confidence in the P.A.P. Government. Let me ask him one simple question. When was the Petaling Jaya scheme started? It started long, long before the P.A.P. came into power. It started during General Templer's time; in fact, at a time when the Progressives, the Labour-Fronters and the S.P.A.s were all in power in Singapore. So taking his argument on its face value, it would only mean that the lack of confidence and lack of trust would be entirely on the previous Government. I would advise the schoolmaster not to spit into the wind. In spite of these allegations and unprincipled disparaging remarks, I still rise to add my littlie voice to the shower of approval and praise that the Government Four-Year Plan has received from all alike in Singapore - bankers, industrialists, trade unionists, workers and the ordinary men in the street. Foreign investors are keenly interested, and favourable comments have come in from all sides. This, Sir, is no surprise to us. For after 140 years of colonial domination, this is the first time that any local government has attempted a planned expenditure based on socialist principles, however limited in scope, in Singapore. You will recall, Sir, that one of the faults of the capitalist system is in its unplanned economy, depending on the whims and fancies of capitalists and on how much profit they can squeeze out of consumers by high-pressure advertisement in inducing consumers to buy something which they do not need or want. Ideas have since travelled very fast, and we in Malaya and especially in Singapore are not slow in trying our level best to do away with, or at least improve on, the evils and the haphazard economy of the capitalist system. Historical development has placed Singapore in a situation where the entrepot trade has become the lifeblood of the people. Our entrepot trade is almost entirely dependent on the goodwill and help of the Western world, which means that, unless we trade and do business in a setup that harmonises with the Western world capitalist system, we shall find it difficult indeed to maintain, to say nothing of improving, our present level of prosperity and living standard in Singapore. Truly has the Minister for Finance said, "The world does not owe Singapore anything for a living." I may even add, if anything, that it is the other way round. We almost owe the world outside for our living in Singapore. With a government based on a Socialist philosophy, it is not unexpected that we believe in planning and, wherever possible, a controlled economy. Since Singapore is a small island with no natural resources to speak of, and since our prosperity so far has been entirely dependent on our entrepot economy, as I have already indicated, there is very little likelihood of our being able to have a controlled economy; but so far as we can, within the limits of our capability, we are trying to make it a planned expenditure. Long before we formed the Government, we had already made it quite clear that we had our Five-Year Plan. Now it has been expanded and elaborated into the Government Four-Year Development Plan. This only shows our determination in pursuing our plans to help the people of Singapore to a better life and to a more equal and just society. You will recall also, Sir, that the Opposition had occasion to call themselves Socialists when they wanted to court the goodwill of the people and to gain votes. During the general election in 1959, they had this as their slogan, which translated into Chinese would read "Work for everyone, and rice for everyone." Of course, the people were not deceived, but it might be pertinent at this point to ask the S.P.A. this. If they were to honour the "Work for everyone and rice for everyone" slogan, how was it that they had no Development Plan? If they call themselves Socialists, how is it that even now, after so many years of name-changing and precarious existence, they still do not know the meaning of a planned socialist economy? It is important, therefore, that we distinguish clearly where we stand in this Assembly as regards planning. The proof of the pudding, they say, is in the eating, and we on this side of the House can, with confidence, say that we are a genuine Socialist Party. The Government's Four-Year Development Plan is irrefutable proof of planning based on a Socialist philosophy. A by-election is being held in Hong Lim, and it might be interesting to note also that even speakers on the Opposition platform have praised our Four-Year Development Plan and have wished the Plan success, which only goes to prove that in Singapore even Opposition Members cannot deny that this Government's Four-Year Development Plan is really a Plan to help Singapore survive. Sir, as has been made abundantly clear all through the Blue Book, the Plan is not a panacea for all ills. It is only an attempt to solve some of the problems that face Singapore. The nature of our problems has been fully investigated and brought home to the people. Anyone reading the Plan cannot help but feel the pressing urgency for employment opportunities that have to be created for our fast-growing population. Even if everyone should practise family planning, the immediate problem would still be there. Large numbers of schools, houses and other health facilities will have to be provided for the rapidly increasing population, and the thousands that leave school every year will have to find gainful employment. But how do we go about it? As the Plan points out, the only solution lies in industrialisation. I quote: `The Plan does not envisage the Government becoming the fountain of all industrial development or even the main industrial entrepreneur... Government's task in this Plan is mainly to create the conditions which would induce substantial private capital into industries.' For this purpose, Government has undertaken "to provide adequate supply of cheap power and water, to lay out industrial estates, which would have these facilities in addition to good communication with the port, and to provide good port facilities." And wherever necessary, Government may even invest in enterprises to inject stimulus into industry. The consequences of the Plan have already been touched upon by various speakers. The most important and most immediate impact would fall on the building and construction industry. The building of houses, factories, roads, wharves, sewers, clinics, schools, bridges would be initiated and stimulated and 40,000 new jobs would be created as a result. This would not be sufficient to solve the problem, however, and there would still be considerable unemployment. And this is where private industries come in. If the Plan is to succeed, it must find response in the private sector. The Plan is meant only, I quote, "to spark off an increase in the rate of private investment". And if the spark goes to a damp squib, then there will be no responsive fire. On the other hand, if the spark goes to a responsive combustible mixture, then we can be assured of a chain reaction that will start the engine that leads to industrialisation. Let us hope our industrialists and entrepreneurs will be responsive. They have all the things in their favour - the Plan, the initial public outlay, and Government policy and encouragement. And now we know the T.U.C. and Government have come to an agreement on industrial peace. Indeed, the industrialists and entrepreneurs have never had it so good. Sir, from all that has been said, you will see that the success or failure of the Plan will have an intimate bearing on each and every one of us in Singapore. For those now unemployed and for those fresh from school, success will mean gainful employment. For those now employed, success will mean better opportunities, better conditions of service, and better security. For taxi drivers and hawkers, success will mean thinning of their ranks and less competition, as more will find better and more highly paid employment in industries. For businessmen, success will mean greater opportunities and more trade. For the man in the street, success will mean more homes, more clinics, more schools, more transport and recreational facilities. And for Singapore as a whole, success will mean an expanding economy with greater prosperity for all. Let us hope that all in Singapore will support the Development Plan. Otherwise, the unemployment problem in Singapore will never be solved. 6.05 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully agree with the Four-Year Plan of our Finance Minister. We all know that education is very important to nation building. It is like industrialisation, which is also very important. Let us look at the Four-Year Development Plan. In page 110, we see that we have 658 Government and Government-aided schools. In 1960 there were about 340,000-odd students, and in the coming years the figure will be bigger than this. We all know that under the old Government, whatever they did they had no plan at all. They never had any long-term plan. They had no plan for education at all. In the past, under the old Government, we could see many corrupt incidents and events. Let us deal with the year 1959. There were 4,000 students for Primary I. After registration they had no places and therefore could not join any school. In the Secondary School Entrance Examination conducted by Government, those who could not pass the examination did not have any chance to join school again, and so they roamed about the streets. We could see that the secondary school-leavers who passed could only become white-collar workers. All this was the result of the old Government's rule. And the leakage of examination questions under the old Government had left a very bad impression on the students. They had no confidence at all in that examination. From all this, we can judge and see clearly for ourselves. But since we took over control, we have improved all this. We have not allowed these things to happen. Let us consider a few more facts. In 1960-61 all students of registrable age can enter school. This shows that our educational policy is in keeping with the increase of population. We want to give them a good education. Since our coming into power, we have carried out our new educational policy to allow children to attend school in all the four languages. Let us again look at the Four-Year Plan. In regard to education, we have decided that every year we will build 19 schools, of which 7 are primary schools. 7 post-primary schools, 3 ordinary secondary schools, and 2 technical schools. All this shows that we have a plan to build 19 schools every year. In these four years we will be doing the same thing - building the same number of schools. All this shows that the new Government is very concerned with the education of the people in order to let all the people and their children receive education. You will also note that these schools are not like those under the old Government. The new schools must not be English schools or any other schools according to a rigid formula. We have to take into consideration all the factors before deciding whether the schools should be English or Chinese or any other kind of schools, and we have to see whether there is a need for them. If there is such a need, then we will build schools for mixed races. Further, since we became the Government, we have taken into consideration the problem of over-age students. In the past, the old Government kicked them out from schools. But since we took over, we have built two schools for over-age students. One is the Jurong Special Secondary School and the other is the River Valley Secondary Chinese School. This shows that we are not only concerned with the over-age students but also with their education. Our adult education classes are meant to eradicate illiteracy. We have an enrolment of several thousands of youths in these classes, so that in their spare time, after their work, they can have a chance to be educated and gain more knowledge in all respects. From the Plan we can see that not only do we want to establish these adult education classes, but we also intend to have evening secondary classes. At the moment, there are 6,000 students. In future, we intend to have an evening college. So all these classes will provide primary education or middle school education right up to University standard. Why do so many people join these evening classes? It is because they have confidence in the new Government. In the past, the students who took part in the joint Government public examination had no confidence. But under our new Government they all show their confidence in and respect for the common examination for all schools. And those youths who have left school are now joining these evening classes in order to sit for the Government-sponsored public examination. Even our teachers want to study further. We can see that in the Teachers Training College, there are 1,500 teachers who have passed the Std. I examination in the national language. A few days ago there were about 1,000 teachers who set for the Std. II examination in the national language. All this shows that since the new Government took over power, everyone is very keen and has confidence in taking the examinations conducted by the Government. Not only do we want most of the children to receive an education, but we also want to give them a good education. That is why we want to have technical schools. We provide post-primary classes for those students who have not already passed the primary examination. This is something which is well planned. According to our policy, we hope the four streams of education can come to a confluence and can mix together. According to our policy, we have two integrated schools. There are also a few integrated primary schools in the four streams. This will help to break down the barriers among them and enable them to have more chances of co-operation and to instil into them a new consciousness in order to build a new united nation, so that people of all races can have a common school to attend, can be in one common classroom, and be able to live together. This is what we hope for. In all the schools of all races, we have conducted sports meetings to enable the students of all races to mix together. In another respect, we have adopted Malay as our national language. This is correct because, through the national language, students in every stream of the educational system will be able to express their thoughts and communicate with students of other races, so that the differences among them will be lessened. Our Government comes from the people. Therefore, we have to heed the opinion of the people. During the 22 months of our taking office, we have had the Educational Advisory Council and other Committees relating to educational work. The members of these Committees are representatives from the four language streams, and the Advisory Council is an adviser to the Minister for Education. In these Committees, the members can use any language to express their opinion. They have ample opportunity to express their opinion in their respective languages. All this shows that we take into consideration the views of all the people representing every race. Another thing is that the Committees concerned are formulating a common syllabus for all schools and other related work for all schools so that we will teach all the students according to the common syllabuses. Let us also look at our children. We are not doing those things that have been done in the past. We are not merely producing clerical staff or white-collar workers. That is why we have tried to have technical schools and vocational schools. We have built technical and vocational schools and we have built two-year post-primary schools. This shows that we emphasise the importance of manual work and science. Let me touch on the duties of teachers. We know it is not an easy task to build a united country because all along in the past the four streams of schools carried on in their respective ways. They were isolated from one another. They pursued their respective system of education. We want to create a constructive path and channel all the different streams into one common confluence. We must go according to our educational policy. This is a very difficult task. But we have confidence and we have the courage to fulfil our Four-Year Development Plan. The fulfilment of this Plan depends on the co-operation of the workers, the people and the Government. In the same way, our educational policy depends on the co-operation of the teachers, students and parents, either directly or indirectly. They must all exert their energy and effort to achieve the aims and objectives envisaged in the educational policy as contained in the Four-Year Development Plan. 6.21 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, in matters relating to development which we are facing and which we will face in the State of Singapore, as the Government elected by the people and with a sense of responsibility, I would like to say that the measures as contained in the Four-Year Development Plan are bold and positive. Before I touch on the contents of the Four-Year Development Plan, first let me emphasise that the Plan has been drawn up on the election pledges made by the P.A.P. as contained in the booklet The Tasks Ahead, which also embodied the P.A.P.'s Five-Year Plan if it was returned to power. Based on that plan, the Government of the day submits its Four-Year Development Plan which is being debated in the House today. Mr Speaker, it cannot be repudiated that governments, prior to this Government, for obvious reasons, fought shy of openly facing the problems and dangers which the people of Singapore as a whole would face. It is possible that if each and every problem and danger, which the people of Singapore will face in the years to come, was faced, then the result would be that there would be a sense of fear among the people, because such governments did not have definite or positive plans to meet these problems. However, as a responsible Government, it is our duty to study and analyse the hard facts based on a broad understanding of the facts and conditions as exist at present, and tell the people those facts. Mr Speaker, we should not make sweet promises to the people without considering matters affecting their welfare. We should put the true picture to them, although the people may take it with a sense of fear. I believe that only by such methods could we instil into the people of Singapore a sense of consciousness whereby they will be able to meet the challenge of the time. So the sense of responsibility which we expect from the people has prompted us to tell them the truth of the problems which the State of Singapore must face if we are not equipped with well-planned proposals. Mr Speaker, we will be guilty if we hide from the people the facts, because we do not wish to spout hot air whilst the people are hungry and their pockets are empty. By hiding the true facts from them, we are inviting danger to the State. Based on these facts, this Four-Year Development Plan was drawn up in order to overcome, within our capabilities, the difficulties which we face. It cannot be denied also that, in view of the size of Singapore in relation to its population, which is on the increase, and since the rate of childbirth is also growing at a rapid pace, every human being must live, and everyone needs the basic requirements, such as a house, a job, etc. Therefore, if we are without a proper Development Plan, I believe Singapore in the years to come will face a crucial time. Mr Speaker, in debating the Four-Year Development Plan immediately after the Hon. the Minister for Finance had delivered his speech, the Member for Aljunied explained that the Plan announced by the Minister was presented in the midst of the coming by-election in Hong Lim. The Member for Aljunied directly accused that the Four-Year Development Plan provided capital for the P.A.P. to win the by-election in Hong Lim. Mr Speaker, we hope there will be no other people who are suffering from nightmares during the daytime, because to draw up such a gigantic plan as this Development Plan is not an easy task. It requires careful analysis and study within the context of the present conditions in Singapore. It is not as easy as had been clone by the ex-Minister for National Development who drew up his Five-Year housing plan, which incurred an expenditure of $5 million, merely on tine sheet of paper. We need a plan which has been thoroughly studied, and not what I have said earlier on. However, Mr Speaker, it would appear that the Member for Aljunied, who has had occasion during this period leading up to the by-election in Hong Lim to proclaim himself as a champion of the people on matters such as these, has not touched on the contents of this Development Plan which has been tabled today, as though this is a small matter. The big issue is Hong Lim. This is only in the mind of the Member for Aljunied. It may be that, because he is engaged in the coming Hong Lim by-election in order to ensure victory, he has had no time to go through the blue book. This clearly indicates that he himself has no interest in the welfare of the people, because this Four-Year Development Plan affects all the people of Singapore. Mr Speaker, then I heard the Member for Tanglin saying that industrial peace is non-existent and he puts the blame on the Government. Mr Speaker, if there are people who think like this, then I say to them that I deny such an accusation, because everyone knows that the non-existence of industrial peace in Singapore should be put squarely at the door of several political leaders, particularly those who were in power before the P.A.P. came into power and who are today sitting on the Opposition bench. We know chat the policy of the previous Government was a biased one. The Government pampered the capitalists but exploited the labour movement who struggled for better conditions of service. For that reason, the P.A.P. is constantly fighting for the betterment of the working class. The Opposition exploited the situation by disseminating false propaganda during the past election to frighten the capitalists from investing their capital in Singapore. The effect could be seen clearly because, as I have said just now, this particular group is closely related to the employers. Actually the P.A.P., which won the elections, constantly fight for the betterment of the State of Singapore, because it realises that Singapore is merely an entrepot port and a trading centre. Other means to improve the State of Singapore are non-existent. For that reason, we constantly welcome the investment of capital, be it local or from abroad. But in this connection, we only hope this: let them invest as much capital as they like, but they must treat the working class properly. It is hoped that on this mutual understanding, the expansion of industry will continue to make progress. We restate our policy which we proclaimed when we assumed office - that we will not pamper one lot whilst exploiting the other; whilst fighting colonialism, which is our enemy No. 1, we will always continue to be guided by the principle of justice to all sections of the community. In addition, Mr Speaker, it has been mentioned by the Member for Tanglin just now in this Assembly that this Government is moving a motion calling on all sections of the people to unite to make this Plan a success. But in the Hong Lim by-election speeches, the call is - let all the Left-wing forces unite. The issue is simple. I am sure even school children can understand and appreciate the situation. He will be able to understand a Left-wing Party because Left-wing people are asked to unite at all times, because this group is firm in its fight against colonialism. The P.A.P. is a political Party which opposes colonialism. For that purpose, we urge all Left-wing political Parties to unite in the common struggle against colonialism. Besides fighting colonialism, we are also striving to uphold and maintain law and order and economic stability. Some groups are biased, and they are inclined to flirt with colonial interests. However, we constantly remind them and all those people who are anti-colonial to be careful in their fight against colonialism so as not to be deceived by the pro-colonial groups by using political opportunists as their tools. Mr Speaker, I have talked at length on matters which have been raised by the Opposition Members. Let me touch upon matters concerning my Ministry. Mr Speaker, my Ministry is responsible for solving the problems of the daily livelihood of the people of Singapore. According to the Four-Year Development Plan, land development and agricultural policy come under economic development, whether it relates to the housing problem or rural development. Concerning the housing problem, we should not overlook the fact that the rapid changes that have been taking place in Singapore over the last 100 years have resulted in the concentration of the population in the city area, with the resultant acute overcrowding of people. The expansion was unplanned, with the result that most of the existing buildings are shop-houses constructed to meet the requirements of the immigrant commercial community. Mr Speaker, the majority of these shop-houses are very old. Although land values are high, there has been very little redevelopment in the central area because of the operation of rent control which pegs rents at their pre-September 1947 levels. A survey of the housing needs of Singapore indicates that over the next 10 years, at least 147,000 housing units will be necessary to provide for the increasing population in Singapore. Mr Speaker, the former S.I.T. was responsible for much of the public housing since the years 1947 to 1959. They only managed to build, on the average, 1,700 housing units a year, although in its peak year - that was 1958 - the S.I.T. completed roughly 3,841 housing units. In order to grasp the situation, I will classify the development o, the various phases. I will quote figures of housing units built by the S.I.T. from 1955 to 1959. In the first phase in 1955, about 2,795 housing units were built; in 1956, 1,275; in 1957, 1,300; in 1958, 3,841; and in 1959, 1,517. The total for this five-year period was only nearly 10,000 housing units. This includes work that was completed by Mr Ong Eng Guan when he was the Manager of the S.I.T. from June 1959 to January 1960, during which period 794 housing units were built. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the second stage, that is, from February l960 to April 1961, a total of 2,112 housing units were completed. In the third stage, that is, the current development stage, a total of 7,832 housing units are being built: in Queenstown, 4,056 housing units are being constructed; in Tiong Bahru at the fire site, about 280 housing units; in MacPherson Road, about 1,320 housing units: in the Tiong Bahru cemetery site, 1,360 housing units; and in St. Michael's Estate, 816 housing units. This brings the total to 7,832 housing units. About 7,200 houses will be completed by December this year. This means that from 1955 to 1959, the S.I.T. was capable of building only 10,728 housing units, whilst from 1960 to 1961, the Housing Development Board completed 9,312 housing units. The comparison is 10,000 housing units in five years as against 9,000 housing units in two years. This is clearly shown by facts and figures, and we leave it to the Opposition to decide. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the first stage, according to our Four-Year Development Plan, in the current year it is estimated that $194.1 million has been allocated for the construction of housing units. This includes expenditure now being incurred of approximately $34.1 million for the year 1961. As I said earlier, by December this year, about 7,200 housing units will be completed. The fourth phase will begin from 1962. In 1962, about $40.7 million has been set aside for the building of housing units. We propose to build in Queenstown, 7.395 units; in Kallang, 1,420; and in Farrer Park, 920; making a total of 9,735 housing units. In 1963, expenditure to the tune of roughly $33.8 million will be spent on the building of 9,690 housing units in Toa Payoh. In 1964, the cost of the building programme will amount to $44.5 million for the erection of 3,570 housing units at MacPherson Road: 6,120 at Toa Payoh; and 3,060 at Thomson; making a total of 12,750 housing units. An amount of $44.5 million will be spent. After this four-year period, we shall have to continue with the housing programme in order to meet the housing demand. We will have to spend $41 million for 1965 to erect 11,760 housing units: at MacPherson Road, 1,930; at Toa Payoh, 9,690; at Covent Garden, 544; making a total of about 11,760 housing units. Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not hastily carry out our building programme. The plans have been formulated with care and according to our design. In future, we hope to build one-room units at a capital cost of $2,000 per unit; two-room units at $3,700 per unit; and three-room units at $4,700 per unit. These costs, however, make no provision for expensive piling or land cost. The new units to be built in 1962 and thereafter will comprise 30 per cent of one-room units, 40 per cent of two-room units, and 30 per cent of three-room units. The question will arise why so many two-room units are being built. The reason is that an average family has at least five persons, and with the rapid growth of population, it is possible that each family will have about ten persons. For that reason, we are building more of two-room units. The main item in the Development Plan for housing over the period of the Plan will be the construction of about 51,031 public housing units on land which has been acquired and held for the purpose of housing development by the Government. There are 1,300 acres of this land spread over the west, north and central sections of the City. They are mainly concentrated around the Kampong Bahru, Alexandra and Queenstown areas in the west; around the St. Michael and Toa Payoh areas in the north; and around the MacPherson Road, Kallang, Mountbatten and Tanjong Rhu areas in the centre. The major building activities will be concentrated in Queenstown where two neighbourhoods have been built; and in the Toa Payoh area, some 500 acres of land have yet to be cleared of settlers for housing. A few contracts for building multi-storey blocks of flats have already been given out for Queenstown. It is proposed to develop the Toa Payoh area over a period of four years in eight phases.

On a point of order, Sir, It would appear that what the Parliamentary Secretary is saying is just a Malay translation of Chapter X. Part III of the Development Plan. I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that I have read that part of the Plan. May we be spared his literal translation of that part of the Plan?

Of course, it is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development who can enlighten me on whether, in fact, his speech is a translation of the relevant paragraphs of the blue book.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, this is based on the blue book, because we are discussing the Development Plan. It is therefore necessary that my speech is based on this blue book.

What the Chair would like to know is whether, in fact, it is a translation of the blue book. Is it a translation, or is it a paraphrase of what appears in the blue book?

(In Malay): It is not a literal translation except that I am taking excerpts from the blue book which forms the policy of my Ministry.

Do I take it then that the speech is, in fact, not a translation of paragraphs in the blue book? That is the answer I would like from the Parliamentary Secretary.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, in respect of housing, we hope to implement the construction-

Perhaps I have not made myself understood. The Member for Cairnhill alleges that the speech up to now - or most of it, I take it - has been a literal translation of paragraphs in the blue book. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell me whether the speech, in fact, has been a translation of paragraphs in the blue book. I would like an answer to that.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I have explained just now that my speech is based on the contents of the book, but it is not a literal translation.

I accept that explanation. Will the Parliamentary Secretary continue?

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the fact that the people of Singapore are in need of houses, we believe earnestly that when our Four-Year Development Plan is implemented with particular reference to the industrial site at Jurong, we will be in a position to rehouse them in industrial sites. This will go a long way to ameliorate the slum areas in the City. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have dwelt at length on the subject of housing. Now, I will move on to the subject of rural development. What were the proposals that had been implemented by the P.A.P. Government, or whether these proposals could be carried out? In this blue book, the proposals for the use of land concerning rural development and for the rearing of poultry will amount to $26.15 million. Mr Speaker, before we go on to the future proposals, let us see what has been done in the past which has prompted us to present this Development Plan for the rural areas. Mr Speaker, the expansion of existing services and the implementation of new schemes and services carried out by the P.A.P. Government since it assumed office in June 1959 have benefited and assisted the farmers and fishermen in the following ways. Farmers can get their land ploughed at cheaper rates. Their young chickens below the age of six weeks can now be protected against ranikhet by nasal inoculation. Some 1,300 pigs of good strain have been sold to them to improve their stock. Mr Speaker, more young fishermen can now get training in fishing techniques. We have been able to give advice and instruction on farm sanitation. Good husbandry practice, including the control and treatment of diseases of farm animals, has been made available to them at their own villages. A more efficient chicken inoculation service as well as a more efficient disease treatment service have been made available. Under the Four-Year Development Plan, the above services will be continued and much further improved. In addition, the farmers will benefit further in the following ways. They can get a limited number of day-old chicks of good strain at reasonable prices. A lot of effort has been put in in order to produce a good strain of chicks. More good farmland, more fish ponds and more prawn ponds will be made available for increasing the production of farmers and fishermen as a result of swamp reclamation work. Fishermen in the Southern Islands can start rearing goats with Government assistance to increase their income. Films will be shown at villages and fishing villages in the farming areas, to show them the improved and latest techniques. Farmers also can get advice on how to control pests and diseases of vegetables and fruit trees and on haw to control their soil. Details of these schemes and services are as explained in the following: New schemes and services started since June 1959 which will be continued in the course of implementing the Four-Year Development Plan. (a) Cheap ploughing service: This service was started towards the end of 1959 with one tractor (35 h.p.) to assist farmers to plough their land with mechanised equipment in order to cut their cost of production and to increase their productive capacity. This service has proved so popular that in August 1950 two additional tractors (52 h.p.) were added. The Primary Production Department is charging from $25 to $35 per acre depending on the nature of the land ploughed, as against the high rate charged by commercial tractor services of $55 to $60 per acre. This is very much more than that charged by the Primary Production Department. In 1959 a total of 10 acres were ploughed, while in 1960 about 160 acres were ploughed. (b) Nasal chick inoculation service: In the past the inoculation against ranikhet disease in fowls was carried out by using hypodermic needles only, so that only chickens of more than six weeks of age could be inoculated. As a result, chickens of under six weeks of age were not protected against this disease. A new scheme has been implemented for inoculating day-old chicks with vaccine through the nasal cavity, and this service was started towards the end of 1960. This will protect them from the day-old stage. This service has been welcomed by the farmers, and it helps them to cut their cost of production. So far, 205,000 chickens have been inoculated during the first three months since the implementation of this service. (c) Distribution of pigs of improved strain: Experimental work is being carried out continuously to produce improved strains of pigs and poultry for distribution to farmers. Since June 1959, over 1,300 pigs of improved strain have been sold to farmers to assist them to improve their stocks. (d) Fisheries training courses: In order to cope with the need to provide employment for youths in the rural areas and to prepare young fishermen for the expansion of off-shore and deep-sea fishing, a pilot fisheries training course was started at the Malay school at 6¾ m.s. Pasir Panjang to teach youths, among other subjects, the maintenance and repair of fishing boat engines, the construction and repair of fishing gears and fishing boats and the `rule of the road at sea'. This is only a preliminary course and more advanced courses will be conducted later under this Four-Year Development Plan. Mr Speaker, in addition to the problems of the farmers, in order to assist them to improve their techniques in animal husbandry, a series of talks has been started early this year, 1961, by rural organisers of the Primary Production Department, with a veterinary officer in attendance. These talks deal with the most important aspects of farm sanitation and animal husbandry practices, including the control and treatment of diseases of farm animals. These talks have been well attended by farmers and attended also by their wives and children. These talks have been useful to the farmers. Mr Speaker, besides introducing new schemes since June 1959, the Government has also expanded many existing services to benefit more farmers and to give them improved services. The following services have been expanded. Chick inoculation service by hypodermic injection: This service, Mr Speaker, has been streamlined and expanded by employing more inoculators so that the farmers will get prompt service. A system of registration for the service has been formulated and is implemented strictly so as to ensure that there is no favouritism. Farm animal disease treatment service: Mr Speaker, prior to June 1959, the treatment of diseases of pigs and poultry in the rural areas was carried out in the field by only one veterinary officer. Since then this service has been improved and expanded by utilising the services of three veterinary officers for the purpose. This ensures that the service for the farmers is much more prompt than during the period prior to June 1959. Free stud boar service: This service provides for the farmers the service of high quality stud boars in order to improve the strain of the pigs. Since June 1959, a new veterinary extension centre has been established at Jurong where seven stud bears are kept for the free use of the farmers in the Jurong areas. Mr Speaker, those were the services and schemes which were implemented during the past year. The new schemes and services under the Four-Year Development Plan are as under. Since the Government assumed office in June 1959, careful and detailed plans have been drawn up to cater for the needs of the farmers and fishermen in Singapore. The following plans have already been finalised, or are already being implemented, or will be implemented under our Four-Year Development Plan. (1) Improved stud boar service: Increased production of stud boars has already been put in hand at the Government Animal Husbandry Stations so that in a year or two, many more stud boars will be available for the free use of farmers all over the State, and some of these boars will be sold to farmers at very reasonable rates. This is in order to improve the strains of pigs in the rural areas. (2) Improved strains of poultry: Improved strains of poultry are also being produced at Government stations, and it is expected that towards the end of 1961 the sale of better strains of day-old chicks to farmers could be started on a limited scale. Plans are being drawn up to reclaim 4,000 acres of swamp land so that about 1,000 acres of good farming land, 2,000 acres of fish ponds, and 1,000 acres of prawn ponds will be made available to farmers and fishermen to increase their production to meet the needs of the people of Singapore. Mr Speaker, in the Four-Year Development Plan, we have concentrated on Government Animal Husbandry Stations and also on the distribution of goats to the Southern Islanders, about which plans are in progress, and the islanders have now been asked to grow grass in order to provide food for their goats. The Film Unit will also be improved to enable the farmers to learn more. A soil testing and spraying service will also be provided. Mr Speaker, despite the fact that we are short of land, yet we can be proud of the fact that our farmers and fishermen have shown their ability to produce and rear poultry with good results. Mr Speaker, it is no exaggeration to say that this Four-Year Development Plan is not merely a film show to entertain the audience - in this case the voters or the people of Singapore - or with a view to winning the election. But as a responsible Government, it is our duty to bring home to the people of Singapore the problems which we are faced with; and we hope that the people of Singapore, with a sense of responsibility, in order to maintain economic stability, will give their whole-hearted support in implementing this Four-Year Development Plan. Mr Speaker, I fully support this Development Plan.

No other Member wishes to speak? 7.21 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been sitting still listening to the election speeches of the Back-benchers from the Government side. It is indeed a pity that the motion on a very sober Development Plan presented by the Minister for Finance in this blue book, and in a speech which was just as sober, should have been used by the Back-benchers of the Government as an occasion for making election speeches. Sir, I cannot understand why, after such a very able and sober presentation by the Minister for Finance, who has called on all people to put their shoulders to the wheel and work for the good of the people of Singapore, there should be Backbenchers of the Government who do not heed his call, why they should indulge in election speeches and yet in their enthusiasm forget themselves and try to say, as they are always wont to do, how bad the past Government was and how good the present Government is.

That is true!

But surely, Sir, even in this blue book, it has been said that certain legislation was introduced; and may I remind the Back-benchers on the Government benches that the legislation referred to by the Minister for Finance is legislation introduced by the previous Government, and that if we had been returned, we would have put into practice what we had already prepared. We are not here, Sir, to make political speeches, because we are not interested in the Hong Lim by-election at all. But when the seriousness of the situation presented by the Minister for Finance is being twisted by Government Back-benchers into political speeches, saying how good they are and how bad other people are, I must, as a Member of the Opposition, stand up and correct them and say that this is not the time. If they really mean to call on the co-operation of all people in Singapore, this is not the time to cast recriminations, although such recriminations in this particular case are unjustified. Perhaps the Minister for Culture still maintains the stand that the views of the Opposition are of no value to the Government, and he still could not care less how the Opposition votes. If so, one could excuse the Back-benchers. But one finds it difficult when two Parliamentary Secretaries, one in the Ministry of Education and the other in the Ministry of National Development, indulged in the same kind of election speeches. How bad we were in our educational policy! How crooked we were and how honest they are! May I tell them this: their honesty, their good work, all that they say that they have done in the past two years will be judged in Hong Lim? We are not judging them. The people of Hong Lim will judge what they have done in the past two years. They do not have to try and say. "We are so good. The others are so had. They are so dirty. We are so clean." If it makes them any happier, they can claim they are as clean as they want to. But I say that what they think of themselves does not count. It is what the people think of them that counts in parliamentary democracy. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development has overlooked the fact that, for the first time, we are working under a self-governing Constitution, where the Government of the day has full powers in so far as domestic problems are concerned. The previous Governments were nothing but partial colonial administrations. During my time the Minister for Finance, known as the Financial Secretary, was an expatriate officer and a colonial servant. [Laughter] The Prime Minister may well laugh, Sir, but the Prime Minister must have been aware of the restrictions of the Rendel Constitution, and because we were so aware of the restrictions, we got an All-Party delegation to go to London to get a new Constitution, and this is the Constitution under which they are now working. During our time, the City Council was a separate authority. There was their great ex-comrade, the great ex-Mayor of the City Council against whom they are fighting today in a by-election. The City Council was a separate authority. We had no control over it in so far as its development was concerned. The S.I.T. was an autonomous body. It was not the Housing Board as it now is. It had its own autonomy in planning housing. The Harbour Board, another authority, had its own plans, and so had the Telephone Board. But, Sir, the reason why this Development Plan was not introduced at that time was that there was then no necessity to introduce it. There was no such unemployment problem as we have today. But we were aware that such a situation would arise in the years to come. That was why the previous Government introduced legislation to pave the way for the industrialisation of Singapore. The present Government is now benefiting under legislation introduced by the previous Government. Yet the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development said that we were afraid - "afraid" was the word he used. We were not afraid. We were restricted. Yet we were wise. If we had in any way helped the P.A.P. towards drawing up a Development Programme, we ask for no credit. We say we serve the people. Let the people judge. We do not have to make election speeches 17 days before Polling Day in Hong Lim. The Parliamentary Secretary said that during our time we were a pro-capitalist Government. Yet today they are working under labour legislation introduced by the previous Government. Yet, if they remember rightly, during our time when they were leading the trade unions in a militant form, did they not get what they wanted? Did they not get justice done when strikes took place and they had conciliations taking place in my Ministry at that time? Did we not give justice to the workers of Singapore? Do not call us pro-capitalists. We would not like to describe the P.A.P. as something or other, although they cannot deny that they have Left-wing adventurers and so-called Communist sympathisers in their Party. We would not call them that. We say they are a genuine democratic political Party. Before you ask the people to work together, do not slap them. Today, the P.A.P. ask for capital - more and more investment. But what did they say, Sir, during the general elections? "Down with capital! I will throw you into the sea if you do not co-operate with us. But if you co-operate with us, you can at least still carry on for five years." And yet the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development said we drove away capital. We drove away capital? Yet he said we were pro-capital. That we drove away our friends! Sir, a lot of mistakes and blunders have been made by the Party in power. They themselves admit it. They say that rectification is taking place. Because there was a rectification in the dismissal of the Minister for National Development, there was a heave of relief that a genuine rectification took place; that perhaps the P.A.P., now knowing the error of their ways, are learning that in this game of running a government one must play fair to all parties. But no. When it suits them, they say, "Down with capital! Out with the British! Kick them into the sea!" When it no longer suits them, they say, "Please help us to help ourselves." They believe in the doctrine of slapping a man first, then going down on their bended knees to ask for assistance. That is not the way to run a government to serve the people of Singapore. Serving the people of Singapore is a sacred task. The livelihood of the people of Singapore is in the hands of the Government. It is a sacred duty and they should not play politics with that sacred duty. We were prepared to stand up and say today that the Plan is a good plan; that any decent government, any government that claims to be Socialist, has to introduce such a plan in order to meet the growing unemployment problem. But we did not stand up to speak immediately after the speech of the Minister for Finance, because he said that his Ministerial colleagues will be making known in this House what they have done and what they propose to do. Surely, Sir, being a handful of Opposition Members, we must before we speak give respect to Ministerial speeches, so that we can stand up and tell them, "Well done!" or tell them, "Look here, that is not the way to carry on." Therefore, I did not speak. I waited and I thought there would have been gems of wisdom. There would have been sober speeches saying, "We are dedicated to the service of the country." Instead of which they say, "We, the P.A.P., - the lightning - will strike and strike capital away!" And we are blamed. Today, the Government call on us to work with them. Kick a man down and then say. "You are my friend." I tell the Government that they still have a lot to learn, that in this sacred duty of looking after the welfare of the people of Singapore, politics must not be played, and the Minister for Finance knows it very well. The motion is worded in such language as to appeal even to those who are anti-P.A.P. We were quite touched by such an appeal. We were prepared to say, "Aha, here is a Government that has learnt the error of its ways and is calling on all people to work together for the good of the country." Instead of which they slap right, left, centre, jeer, and ask us to vote and say, "We support." Sir, in this motion there is exhortation to the workers and trade unions, businessmen and industrialists. May I hope, Sir, to exhort the Government to a better sense of their responsibility: that if they want co-operation from the people, they should first of all deserve that co-operation? They should not go out insulting the people, kicking them about and saying. "We require your help. Without you we cannot work this Plan." That is not the way. This blue print fortunately is in very sober language, and fortunately those who are interested in helping in the industrialisation of Singapore will be guided by this blue book. They will not be guided by the speeches made by the Back-benchers of the Government, because they will not have the time nor the desire to find out what is being said by the Back-benchers. I hope not. Because if they do, the Government can be sure they are not coming. Of course, Sir, the Minister for Finance has to say a little bit about what has been said by the opposing candidate in Hong Lim. That we can understand. That we will overlook. But when other Members from the Government side speak with an eye on the coming Hong Lim by-election, it makes me feel that perhaps there might be some truth in it. The Minister for Finance in his speech said that early this year proof copies of the Development Plan were sent to the Government Printer. This is April. Early this year could be, at the latest, February. Why hold this up until April, Sir, if it was really sent to the Government Printer early this year? I will not say that they are holding this up for a purpose. But I do say that they are not giving the Opposition a fair chance. They sent this book out and we received it on the 31st of March. At the last sitting of this Assembly, when the Leader of the House moved that the Assembly stood adjourn till today, we were not aware of any business for today's sitting. We received notice of this very important motion for the welfare, well-being and livelihood of the people of Singapore and the poor unemployed only at 3.30 p.m. on Monday. That is about two days ago. Of course, the Government sent in the notice within the stipulated time, that is to say, by Saturday. And because we received it late on Monday afternoon, it could be that they sent it almost at the very last minute. Why must it be so, Sir? Perhaps the Ministers, particularly the Minister for Finance, were so involved in seeing that they do not lose Hong Lim to Mr Ong Eng Guan. But even so, the Minister for Finance must realise that on an important issue of this kind, the Opposition must be given a fair chance, at least longer notice, to study this Development Plan so as to be able to contribute intelligently to the debate. Fortunately for us and fortunately for me, I at least know what this Plan is all about, because part of this Plan was our Plan. I had no difficulty. But I must tell the Government that when they require the co-operation and help of even the Opposition, that co-operation is willingly given if it is in the interest of the country. But when they ask for that co-operation, they should remember that they must give the Opposition a fair chance of contributing to this debate. The Minister for Finance in his speech has said that some of the projects which he inherited from the previous administrations were already in rough form. Even the blue book says so. And yet we have the Back-benchers on the other side saying that when we were in the government, we were a rotten government and they for the first time in the history of Singapore have introduced a Development Plan. I am prepared to pay them credit. Because of the scrapping of the City Council, because of the creation of the Housing Board, because of the Singapore Harbour Board and the Telephone Board being brought more under their control, they are at least able, as a Government, to present an overall picture. During our time we could only do what was good with what power we had under the Constitution. The City Council had a great Mayor who did what he wanted to do and was greatly acclaimed by the P.A.P. He is no longer acclaimed. He is being spat at and called a liar openly. We had no control over the City Council. We had no control over the Singapore Improvement Trust. Moreover, we had a Finance Minister who was a colonial official. So even if we had wanted to draw up a Development Plan, how could we? But as I have said earlier, and I seek your indulgence, Mr Speaker, Sir, if I repeat again this, because we knew that such a thing must come and has to come, we laid the foundation. So the Pioneer Industry Ordinance is now on the statute book. The Extension of Industries Ordinance was introduced by us. Also the Control of Manufacture Ordinance and even the amendment to the Customs Ordinance whereby power is given to the Minister to introduce straightaway a protective tariff to see that any industry that is given pioneer status in the country is not being jeopardized by the import of goods coming from foreign countries. All these were laid down. Sir, as I have said, a government which is to be worthy of its name - and the P.A.P. Government is worthy of its name - has to present a Development Plan at this particular juncture. It has to. There is no other way of solving the unemployment problem. But it knows its limitations, it has to go and borrow about $501 million. So even if we as individuals are to go and borrow money, there must be some goodwill. May I ask what goodwill the P.A.P. Government has as a result of its present utterances? I must admit the Minister for Finance is doing a very, very tough job indeed, but all his efforts are being, if I may say so in this House, damaged by some of his Ministerial colleagues. Here is the Minister for Finance saying, "Let us work and stand together. Let us see that everybody's interest is properly and fairly represented." Then we have the Minister for Labour and Law saying, "If you do not do this, I shall detain you under the P.P.S.O." What is this? You want the goodwill of employers, and yet you threaten to use a security Ordinance meant for subversives against an employer. There are instances where the Minister for Labour and Law has ticked trade unions off; but where they have been ticked off, I can assure this House that they are not P.A.P. trade unions. Where then is the justification? If it is a P.A.P. led trade union, "Ah, good, the P.P.S.O. against the employer." If it is not a P.A.P. led trade union, "Oh, no, you are wrong; go back to work." Sir, that is not the way to get the co-operation of all people. In this game of life and death, there should be no party politics. The Government will be judged even without its saying, "We are the P.A.P. We gave you this." If after four years, this Plan succeeds, there is no need for them to run down any previous government by saying that they are a good Government. The people will know, how to vote. If they have done well, they do not have to start playing politics now. Sir, even this blue book says that the Development Plan is just a little scratch on the unemployment problem - just a little help. But what is more important is the industrialisation of Singapore, and we agree with them. Everybody agrees with them. Industrialisation is the only solution, and this Development Plan is aimed at increasing the facilities for industrialisation. To that extent, it is a good Plan. It must receive the support of all right-thinking people. But the industrialisation of Singapore is another thing, Sir. When the P.A.P. came into power, what did the Minister for Finance say? "Oh, the previous Government did not even think of some bright idea like the Common Commodity Market", although during my time we had discussions with the Federation Government on how we should not step on each other's toes. Insofar as industrialisation is concerned, there should be a Pan-Malayan Committee advising on the opening up of factories. If this Committee is to advise that soap factories should be in the Federation, then there should be no soap factories in Singapore; and if a steel factory should be in Singapore, then there should be no steel factory in the Federation. And that helps.

What helps?

And still they say we had no idea. But the Common Commodity Market is the answer. Today one would have expected the Minister for Finance to say something about the Common Commodity Market. But not a word. The Minister for Finance has said that without a Common Commodity Market, industrialisation will fail. Has he told us what has happened to the Common Commodity Market talks with the Federation? If they are not successful or if they are still proceeding, could he give us some idea? "Oh, no, it is a bad thing. We must cover up because it is no good. There is a by-election in Hong Lim. 29th April is Polling Day." That is not the way to handle a very, very serious problem. The Minister for Finance himself has admitted in this House that unless we have an understanding with the Federation of Malaya on the Common Commodity Market, industrialisation will fail in Singapore. Perhaps he has changed his views. But I do not think he can say this, Sir. He is a very responsible Minister and he knows the urgency of having an agreement with the Federation of Malaya. Industrialisation cannot succeed in Singapore unless there is an understanding with the Federation of Malaya. There are certain reasons why he cannot succeed. Of course, the Minister for Finance can say that although Singapore has 1.6 million people and the Federation has 6.5 million people, yet the purchasing power is the same. Therefore, if factories were to open in Singapore it would be quite all right. But does the Government not realise that the Federation Government has already started plans to industrialise Johore Bahru just across the Causeway? Does the Government not realise that the factories in Bukit Timah today could simply go across to Johore Bahru where they have at least the knowledge that they do not have a Government which sets upon them at times and then calls upon them for their co-operation?

Employers.

The Minister for Finance suddenly walks in and chips in "employers". I am sorry I have to bring the subject up again because he has chipped in. He has not given us any indication how the Common Commodity Market talks are going, and yet he has said I am repeating this for his benefit since he has just come in-that without art understanding with the Federation of Malaya, industrialisation will fail in Singapore.

On a point of information, Sir.

If the hon. Member will give way.

Since the Minister has been away. I would like to inform him of what has been going on. Tun Lim Yew Hock resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps my interruption of the hon. Member's speech may not have been quite appropriate, but the first thought that struck me, when he was holding forth on the iniquities of the Government, was that he represents the interests of businessmen.

Order. The Minister gets up on a point of elucidation. He must indicate what the point is. If he wishes for elucidation on what the Member for Cairnhill has just said, he must indicate what that point is.

The point I was making is that he cannot, on the one hand, say that we have done nothing at all to give encouragement to industrial expansion here, and, on the other hand, claim superior merits for industrialists to carry on activities in Johore Bahru. That was the point I was making and if I-

Order. That, of course, is a point which the Minster for Finance will perhaps raise in his reply. What is the point of elucidation?

So be it.

Sir, in spite of what I have been saying in all seriousness in this House, a Front-bencher says, "Hm", and a Minister says that - I repeat it again - it will be dangerous to the Development Plan of the Government if the Government is to behave in this kind of fashion.

What fashion - treating them with contempt?

It would appear, Sir, that although this Plan is written in sober language, because of what has been said just now, that sober language does not come from the heart. If it is a bait, do not think that that is the way to serve the people of Singapore. We should not play politics with the livelihood of unemployed people. There are 80,000 of them today.

How many? You have not read the Plan. It is not-

Order. Some Members on the Government side have not been present throughout the speech of the Member for Cairnhill. So perhaps they have lost track of what he has said. But I must, in any event, prevent any repetition of what has been said in the past. Even though Ministers on the Government side have not chosen to be present during the speech of the Member for Cairnhill, there must not be any tedious repetition.

I was saying that industrialisation cannot succeed if there is no understanding with the Government of the Federation of Malaya. As it is today, the Government of Singapore and the Government of the Federation of Malaya are competing in their industrialisation plans and each of them is trying to get as much as they can on the same market. Unless there can be that understanding, and if the Minister for Finance can say that the Common Commodity Market idea is now a reality, then I think there is hope for industrialisation. Sir, before an industrialist starts a factory in Singapore, he wants to know his consumer potentiality. The consumer potentiality for Singapore is just 1.6 million people, whereas if he opens his factory in the Federation, just in Johore Bahru - which is separated by one mile of the Causeway - he has 6.5 million plus 1 .6 million (the whole Malayan market) at his disposal. So which industrialist will want to open a factory in Singapore if, by doing so in the Federation, he also has the market in Singapore? Therefore, some understanding or some arrangement is desirable and vitally necessary with the Federation Government. Again, if one says that there is the export market potentiality, surely, Sir, there is such a thing as consumer prejudice. It is hard to introduce a new brand of goods and expect to sell them overnight. You cannot do that. Unless it is a well-established brand, it is not possible to have an export market for it.

Order. Moment of interruption. Resumption of debate, what day?

Tomorrow.

Resolved. "That this Assembly do now adjourn." -[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Adjourned accordingly at 8.00 p.m.