Hansard, 1961-04-13

Order read for resumption of adjourned debate on Question [12th April. 1961]. "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 industriatrialists to play their part in maintaining a fair balance of their respective interests so essential to success."-(The Minister for Finance). Question again proposed. 2.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday I was speaking towards the end of the sitting, and there wits one point in the speech of the Minister for Finance where he departed from the main subject of the Development Plan and the Industrialisation Plan of the Government. He found it necessary to refute an allegation by the opposing candidate in the Hong Lim by-election - that the Development Plan was a propaganda piece of the P.A.P. because of the by-election. I agree with him, Sir, that this Development Plan is not a piece of propaganda for the by-election, because I know and I sincerely believe their claim that they are a good, honest, clean Government. But, Sir, the facts surrounding the timing of the issue of the Development Plan and the debate which took place yesterday and is taking place today give the uncharitable feeling that there must be some foundation for the allegation that the timing of the disclosure of the Development Plan has something to do with the Hong Lim by-election. They say that for the first time in the history of elections in Singapore Polling Day was set seven weeks after Nomination Day, and that the length of time between Polling Day and Nomination Day is to give the Government a longer period of time to readjust itself in the eyes of the Hong Lim electorate. We were told, Sir, that proof copies of the Plan were sent to the Printer early this year, and yet the Plan was made known to Members of this Assembly and made known through the Press only at the end of March and early April. Therefore, Sir, the Government has found itself in the embarrassing position of having to explain away the timing of the Plan. Speaking on the timing, Sir, in a report in the Straits Times yesterday, the public were told that an agreement had been reached with the T.U.C. over their co-operation regarding the Development Plan and the Industrialisation Plan of the Government. We were told in the Press that there was a Sub-Committee, and that the Sub-Committee met in December and January. Yet report of the agreement reached was not made known to the public until yesterday. Here again there must be some foundation for the allegation that all this is timed for the Hong Lim by-election. I do not say that it is wrong. The Government can choose its own strategy in regard to any election, be it a by-election or a general election. But I have this one fear in my mind, Sir, that the timing may be a bad one in so far as the result of the Hong Lim by-election is concerned. Suppose, Sir, that Ong Eng Guan is returned by the electorate of Hong Lim. People outside this country and investors in this country may have a feeling that the Government no longer has the confidence of the people. And the Plan may fail! It is linked up with the by-election. Ministers and leaders of the P.A.P. went up on election platforms and said, "How good this Plan is! This Plan is meant for the welfare of the people of Singapore." On that they hope to win. Suppose they are rejected, and maybe wrongly rejected, what will be the fate of the Plan? Investors again may have second thoughts - not only investors in Singapore but also investors outside Singapore. We all know, Sir, that this by-election, although it is just a by-election, is getting publicity in most important countries where the Government hopes to seek foreign assistance. It is being reported in the United Kingdom. It is being reported in America and in other countries. So if the Government unfortunately loses the by-election - a by-election, after all, is just a by-election - but because it has tried to sell this Plan to the people in Hong Lim and has been rejected - I am a bit dismayed, Sir, that there had been no proper thought given to the timing of publicity of this Plan. Sir, the development side of the Plan is dependent on loans of a very big figure from foreign countries and also from local investors. The hope has been expressed that most of the money would come from local people, and whatever balance is necessary to make up the full amount of $871 million could be obtained through loans from the United Kingdom and the World Bank. Sir, the P.A.P., when they came into power, have done many things which they have already begun to feel have not been right. In this Assembly they have admitted that certain rectifications had taken place, and the most important rectification in the Government and in the Party was the expulsion of the then Minister for National Development. It was only after that rectification that the Minister for Finance went overseas to have discussions with the British Government and with the World Bank. I do not wish to suggest, Sir, that it was because of this rectification that the British Government were keen to help and that the World Bank showed indications of a desire to be co-operative. But if it is true that because of this rectification, because of this belief that the P.A.P. Government has cleansed itself of a sore, and if this sore were to defeat them at a by-election, when all the Ministers of the Government had to spend their time, their energy and sleepless nights going out fighting against a lone man - if, in spite of all that, they were to lose that fight - then if that first loan had been granted as a result of that rectification, a second loan may not be forthcoming. Sir, the Development Plan has our support. We wish it every success. But the prerequisite for that success is the ability to raise the $500-odd million that is necessary to carry out the Plan. And in this regard, too, I wish them every success. The Government from this year 1961 is having plans of the magnitude of $871 million. Therefore, I think the continuance of the Work Brigade is not necessary. The Work Brigade was brought into being just to tide over the present difficulty, to give them some form of employment - under-paid employment at that - and to keep their spirits high. But now that these development plans will throw employment open to so many thousands of workers, I suggest the members of the Work Brigade should be absorbed into working for this Development Plan and be paid a decent wage. Sir, there has been a lot of talk about the Work Brigade. The Work Brigade, they say, is nothing but a P.A.P. Brigade. Its members are nothing but members of the P.A.P., and they are used not only for work provided by the Government but as a propaganda arm of the Government. They point to the fact that when the Minister for Labour and Law returned from Tokyo members of the Work Brigade were there to cheer him. Obviously they are grateful to the Government for having given them the opportunity of earning only $2 a day and having some shelter and some cultural activities. But then that is not so bad as the suggestion which has been going around the Hong Lim by-election that members of the Work Brigade have been even asked to attend election rallies, and for their loyalty they are let off one day without work. If that is the purpose of the Work Brigade, then I think the Work Brigade should be scrapped. If the Government is sincere in wanting the confidence of investors in Singapore and outside Singapore, then investors are prepared, I am sure, if the call is a genuine call, that the safety of Singapore and the security of Singapore demand their full co-operation. But nobody is going to be led into helping the Government to build up propaganda organs for the Party. Let the Work Brigade be scrapped. Let the members of the Work Brigade be given proper employment at proper rates. Sir, the Minister for Finance has said quite rightly that the Development Plan of the Government is just the first step. It does not solve the unemployment problem. The solution lies in rapid and more rapid industrialisation of Singapore. We agree with him that unless there is industrialisation, there is no hope of solving the ever increasing unemployment problem. But I say this: unless we can get agreement on an industrialisation policy with the Government of the Federation, our industrialisation plans will receive a set-back. There was no whisper even from the Minister for Finance in his speech yesterday of the fate of the discussions between the two Governments on the Common Commodity Market. I hope he will rectify it. And if the news is good, that agreement has been reached on a Common Commodity Market, then I am sure this will be a very important factor in persuading investors locally and overseas to help in the industrialisation of Singapore. Not only is such an agreement with the Federation necessary, but the best of relationship must also be maintained with the Federation of Malaya. Everything must be done to see that Singapore has the Federation friendly towards her. The Government of Singapore must see to it that the Government of the Federation of Malaya is friendly towards it. But how can one hope to see this friendliness coming forth when at election raffles Political Secretaries, being paid $1,100 a month out of public funds, go on platforms and try to explain away the continued detention of detainees under the P.P.S.O.? The Political Secretary to the Minister for Finance stood up at an election rally and said that the continued detention of his comrades in Changi was as a result of the deciding vote of the Government of the Federation of Malaya? Surely, Sir, we have not heard from the Government that they wanted to release those detainees under the P.P.S.O. They did say that if the Government could see changes in the detainees, they would try to persuade the Internal Security Council to release these people. But they have not said that the Federation Government, the deciding vote in the Internal Security Council, is to be blamed. They are right. They should not. They cannot say that. But then to allow a Political Secretary, who is paid $1,100 a month, to go up on an election platform and blame the Federation Government for the continued detention of his comrades is certainly not helping the Government of Singapore to get on friendly terms with the Government of the Federation of Malaya. Sir, the Minister for Finance has brought in certain factors that will guide the opening up of factories in Singapore. He has explained that the consumer potentiality in Singapore is no less favourable then the potentiality in the Federation by reason of the higher earning power of the workers of Singapore. That may be so, Sir. But for a factory to start in Singapore with only the consumer potentiality in Singapore at its disposal, and it is denied the consumer potentiality in the Federation, although it may be the same, is at least to deny one-half of the whole potentiality. Therefore, an industrialist may, in his wisdom, find it better to start a factory just across the Causeway in Johore Bahru. If he does it, he has not only the market in the Federation but he has also the market in Singapore. We have all read of reports in the Press that the Federation Government has plans to develop Johore Bahru as the next stage after Petaling Jaya has been fully taken up. Then there is a hope expressed by the Minister for Finance that there are the export markets. "We in Singapore who have been in the entrepot trade and have been serving the nearby islands will be able to continue this service with goods manufactured in Singapore." But the Minister has overlooked one very important factor, the consumer prejudice. You can start a new factory. Anyone can start a new factory. But the difficulty will be to get the market. Even to sell a new product locally is going to take much time, much energy and much advertising. What more about foreign markets? Therefore, there is that initial difficulty which will take years to overcome, to have a foreign market at the disposal of local industrialists. Just to explain this consumer prejudice. Lux soap is manufactured in Malaya, and yet there are many people who go to the shop and say, "I want Lux soap manufactured in London." Although it is the same Lux soap. It is unreasonable, I admit. But one cannot help it that there is such a consumer prejudice. Again, take cigarettes for instance. People are so used to Players that they keep on wanting to smoke Players. And if it is pointed out to them that other brands locally manufactured are just as good, if not better, in tobacco content, they will not even listen to such an argument.

What type of cigarette do you smoke?

Sir, in the previous Government, we thought about this consumer prejudice and we therefore introduced the Control of Manufacture Ordinance which is now on the statute book. This Ordinance sees to it that local investors have a chance to invest in an enterprise originating from foreign countries in brands and goods that have a ready market. Before the P.A.P. became the Government, Singapore did not have, at that time, a factory producing Players. The local cigarette manufacturers - 7 Diamonds, 7 Up, 6 Down, or whatever they are called - were doing their best to sell the local product. There was difficulty in selling it because of the price differential. Because of that difficulty and because of the Government's desire to give the local cigarette manufacturers a fair chance, there was a differential in taxation. Local cigarettes are taxed less. Imported cigarettes are taxed more. So much so that the consumers in Singapore, the workers in Singapore, are forced in a way to smoke 7 Diamonds and all such other brands, because of the price differential. And as I have pointed out, the Control of Manufacture Ordinance was introduced by the previous Government to prevent this British-American tobacco company operating on its own capital. Because of this law, we told the manufacturers of Players that they could not reopen in Singapore unless they had local capital participation. They agreed with the justness of our stand. They were prepared to allow a 51 per cent local capital participation. But no. The P.A.P., when they came into power, were so anxious to have some factories going that they allowed this British-American tobacco company to reopen their factory at Tanjong Pagar on a one hundred per cent British capital. That is what the P.A.P. Government have done. And now Players. Players everywhere has knocked out all other local brands, because Players can now be sold, because it is manufactured locally, at a price competitive enough to knock out all other local brands with local capital. The Minister for Finance has quite rightly said, Sir, that there must be a climate of confidence and economic stability. The Government have, and quite rightly, persuaded the T.U.C., through discussions, to be co-operative. But the Minister for Finance said in this Assembly yesterday that it was quite a difficult task to get the leaders of the T.U.C. to agree to co-operate. And yet most of the leaders of the T.U.C. are paid out of public funds. Some of them are paid $1,100 a month just to be figureheads, as Political Secretaries, and some of them are Members of this Legislature. Yet we are told that it has been uphill work. They could not persuade their own members and those who are under obligation to them for looking after their livelihood. No one is to believe them. Of course, it is not wrong for the Government to take steps to ensure that there is economic stability so that there is industrial peace. That is why they went out of their way to try to capture and control the T.U.C. They are there to do the bidding of the Government, and to that extent investors have said that they at least have a measure of control over the workers of Singapore. But unfortunately, in trying to get this measure of control, they have to use ways and means that are not in keeping with a government that boasts of being a good, clean, honest government, by paying $1,100 a month out of public funds to some of the leaders of the T.U.C. Sir, what is very important is the confidence that must be engendered from now on in the Government, in the P.A.P., and in the P.A.P. controlled trade unions. And I am sure the Government is anxious to instil this confidence into the minds of the investors and into the minds of all in Singapore. Therefore, when they call on the people of Singapore to work together for the salvation of Singapore, may I ask them then, Sir, to bestir themselves and remember that they have a most important part to play in the success of the Development Plan? The Minister in his speech yesterday did touch on a lot of subjects, and he asked two very pertinent questions. These are, I think: What must we do to give the country a fair chance of creating new jobs? He has explained to this Assembly what we must do. But then, his next question is: What must we refrain from doing? He has not told us what we must refrain from doing. May I, therefore, say to the Government, the P.A.P. and the T.U.C., which is controlled by the P.A.P., that there are a lot of things that they must refrain from doing? First, let us come to the Government. They must refrain from continuing to show their arrogance. The arrogance of Ministers has been the worst thing that has damaged the reputation of the P.A.P. Wherever they go around, they swank and in their speeches they show that they are the know-alls and nobody else knows better than they. That is not the way to get confidence. Forget that arrogance. They must refrain from continuing to show their refusal to understand the other person's point of view. They must not be intolerant. In this House, for instance, Sir, when Members of the Opposition stand up and say something that may be of value to them, what do they do? They behave as if they have no culture, in spite of their Ministry of Culture. They must refrain from uttering unnecessary threats or throwing their weight around, like the Minister for Labour and Law telling the employers, "If you will not behave, I will use the P.P.S.O. on you!"

You must never wear a mask!

They must refrain from doing many things in order to regain the confidence they have lost. But the most decisive factor in this issue today, unfortunately, and I repeat, unfortunately, is what is happening in Hong Lim. With all their resources, with all their Ministers and their Assemblymen and Assemblywomen going all-out fighting the Hong Lim by-election, if they are to lose, confidence in the Government may be shattered. The Back-benchers, Sir, if I may say so, must refrain from trying to think that they are speaking as the Government. When the Front-benchers give the cue that the debate is to be on such and such a line, the Back-benchers feel that they are also the Government and that they must say something which is very much better than the speech of the Minister for Finance, who is so tame. That does not help. If the Government want the confidence of the people of Singapore, they must show that they deserve that confidence. And what better way of deserving that confidence than to shine out confidence and thereby attract confidence? If you have no confidence in others, others will have no confidence in you. Sir, one very important point brought up by the Minister for Finance in his speech yesterday was about shipbreaking. He explained to us that he had difficulty in getting a local company to go into this very important industry and thereby give employment to many people. He had to go overseas. And there I agree with him. He had to go overseas. He reported that he was successful in getting a foreign concern interested and he was doing his best to persuade them to come to Singapore, and the terms he offered for a loan from the Development Board were going to be very attractive. Sir, may I draw his attention to the Control of Manufacture Ordinance which has been mentioned in the blue book? Where there is good money to be made, where there is no great difficulty, local capital must be given the first opportunity. But where local capital does not have the know-how, then foreign knowhow must be invited to come in and participate with local capital to carry on the job. And yet the Minister for Finance is going to throw this away, with aid from the Development Board, to a purely foreign concern to do something which he himself admits is easy to do and where good money is to be made. This is going to be another instance of the cigarette factory. Sir, in closing, I would say that I was touched by the Minister's speech when he moved the motion. He called on all of us to observe a code of conduct which amounts almost to a code of discipline. May I end here by asking the Government, the P.A.P. and the T.U.C. to observe a code of conduct which amounts almost to a code of discipline? 3.12 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday our P.A.P. Government handed to the Legislative Assembly this Four-Year Development Plan. This shows that the Government has a plan to solve the problems of Singapore. This proves that the P.A.P. Government is a responsible government. This Development Plan has been planned for more than a year. It is now tabled before this Assembly because this Development Plan is directly connected with the future prosperity of the State. So this Development Plan has to be thoroughly considered and planned. From this we can see that this Development Plan is not because of the by-election in Hong Lim. Our Development Plan is for the future prosperity of the people of Singapore. Concerning this Development Plan, we do not say that within four years we can solve all the problems of Singapore, especially unemployment. It is impossible to solve the problem of unemployment within these four years especially in the present social environment of Singapore. In the first chapter of the Development Plan, it is said that this Development Plan is an attempt to solve some of the problems that face Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me repeat, "some of the problems that face Singapore", and not all. The main contributing factor is the rapid increase in the population of Singapore which affects their livelihood. There are problems of unemployment, education, health, housing, etc. During the last 22 months, the P.A.P. has done a lot of good for the people: for example, the building of schools, clinics, community centres, roads, and drains, the installation of standpipes, and the supply of water and electricity. In the matter of employment, we have promoted the industrialisation plan. Use is made of the young people in the Work Brigade. This has proved that the P.A.P. Government is working for the welfare of the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know that in our small island State, there are no natural resources. In order to solve the problem of unemployment, we have to promote industrialisation. But industrialisation cannot be achieved in 22 months, because, in the first place, we have to have a Plan and the implementation of this Plan cannot be carried out within one or two months. It will take a long time and it may need further consideration. A certain period of time has to elapse before the Plan could be tabled. [he success of this Plan will have to depend on the stability of the State so that investors can be attracted. This proves that the Development Plan is not just a "paper tiger". It is like a new tractor, because a new tractor needs people to drive it. If the Government and the people do not drive this new tractor properly, it will not move for the benefit of the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Opposition Members have said that this Development Plan has been tabled with an eye to the Hong Lim by-election. But I would like to ask them this question. Before the P.A.P. came into power, did they have the courage to put up such a Plan for discussion in the Assembly? They were not able to put up such a Four-Year Plan. In this respect, they are not sincere in their criticism of the Plan. Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is a trading centre. Our economy is connected with that of other countries. That is to say, our Development Plan does not only depend on the people and the Government of Singapore, but also on the economy of other countries, the political and economic stability of South-East Asia and the co-operation of the Federation of Malaya. With this in view, this Plan has been put up. 3.21 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to the Development Plan as contained in the blue book for the years 1961 to 1964, I feel that there are many points which have already been explained by the Government and that views have also been expressed by the Opposition. I do not wish to elaborate on the details. Neither do I wish to submit points which have already been clarified; for example, by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development on the subject of pigs, goats, chickens, etc. I support the views of the Government on the Development Plan in respect of seamen, which is well and good. I hope the Plan will be expanded to help seamen. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like clarification from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development on this point. During the debate on the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara on 20th July, 1959 (Hansard, Vol. 11 No. 5), I did make a statement in this Assembly. It may be that my English is not so good, and therefore I need clarification. The reason for my submitting this point is that it concerns development which, in turn, concerns money. I said in this Assembly then - and this is reported in English in Hansard, 6th line from the bottom of column 235, which reads: 'The Utusan Melayu'-

Order. The hon. Member has chosen to speak in Malay. I think all he can do now is to endeavour to paraphrase what appears in the Official Report. He may, of course, translate it if he wishes to do so.

(In Malay): It is difficult, Mr Speaker, Sir. This is an extraordinary case. However, the main point as reported in the Utusan Melayu is that in the discussion with the Chairman of the Malay Chamber of Commerce, Inche Alwi, the Government promised economic aid to the sum of $13 million to the Malays. I got a satisfactory reply from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development which is at column 267 of the same Hansard. It is difficult to translate it, Mr Speaker. In short, the Parliamentary Secretary gave an assurance that the Government's promise of $13 million would be more than enough, and he said that no previous Government had rendered such assistance. That was the gist of what he said. But in this blue book, there is no mention of this money and I fear that, by 1964, this $13 million will be forgotten. I hope to receive a definite reply that this $13 million will be provided. The Parliamentary Secretary spoke firmly and sincerely in his first speech in this Assembly, and I hope he will honour the pledge he gave. There is another point concerning this. Development Plan. There will be employment for 40,000 people: 20,000 vacancies will be created by the Government and the other 20,000 will come from private enterprise. I do not wish to dwell at length on this subject, but I would like to tackle this main issue. I regret to see that the Member for Kallang is not in this Chamber, for he replied to me when we were debating the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's first speech in this Assembly as regards the assurance of employment for the Malay-speaking people, particularly the Malays. The reply of the Member for Kallang appears at columns 259 and 260 of the same Hansard - this also cannot be translated - where he gave me that assurance on 20th July, 1959. Mr Speaker, Sir, I only wish to quote excerpts in the Malay language.

Order. I do appreciate that perhaps it is difficult for hon. Members to translate from English into Malay. It is difficult, I think, for some people to translate from Malay into English. But I think the hon. Member must realise that the Standing Orders are quite strict on the point: that if the hon. Member has chosen to speak in Malay, he must continue in Malay, and therefore his quotations must also be in Malay. He could paraphrase the quotations or, as I have indicated, give a literal translation.

(In Malay): For that reason, Mr Speaker, I am not fluent enough to translate English into Malay and vice versa. I refer to col. 259. In this matter, Mr Speaker, I hope, since the Member for Kallang is absent, his colleagues will be in a position to say whether the matter which was clarified on 20th July, 1959, could be implemented in the interests of the people of Singapore. There is another point: Mr Speaker, which concerns employment. I wish to draw the attention of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Home Affairs to the fact that in the Four-Year Development Plan approximately 1,700 personnel in the Police Force will be recruited. So, Mr Speaker, on the basis of the assurance given by the Member for Kallang, I believe that opportunities will be thrown open with sympathetic consideration to people who I believe will be able to fill those posts. Mr Speaker, I would also like to draw the attention of the Government to this. I admit that the Government in its Development Plan is unbiased. It is a just Government. But in the Utusan Melayu there was mention in bold capitals that the people in the P.A.P. are not Communists, and that although the Party is non-communal, it looks after the interests of the Malays. It is not necessary for me to read the whole news item because that will take up the time of this Assembly. Therefore, I only wish to say, Mr Speaker, that I appreciate the attitude of the P.A.P. But let the P.A.P. not forget that it is not the P.A.P. alone that looks after the interests of the Malays, but all Members of this Assembly. All political parties represented in this Assembly have agreed to look after the interests of the Malays. Therefore, Mr Speaker, based on such facts, together with the programmes contained in the Development Plan, the Plan is still vague to me. I hope it will be made clear to me what are the methods that will be implemented to safeguard the interests of the Malays. The last point, Mr Speaker, that I wish to raise for clarification concerns development in the Government's Development Plan, particularly in regard to the Ministry of Culture. I am of the opinion that the expenditure set aside for the Ministry of Culture is reasonable. In the chapter on the Ministry of Culture, there is mention of vacancies for teachers from year to year. I believe a great majority of these posts will be for the English stream. If I am wrong, I hope the Minister for Education will correct me. Today it is still a question mark to me as to what the intention of the Ministry of Culture is. Is the Ministry confining its aims to attending to grievances submitted by members of the public in the form of queries, comments, and criticisms published in the newspapers? I have not seen anywhere in this Development Plan that the Ministry could make Malay as the national language. I am talking not of the official language but of the national language. The editorial in Utusan Melayu commented on the policy to make Malay the national language in Singapore, but no reply was received from the Ministry of Culture. Similarly, a member of the public wrote concerning the Government's policy on the national language. This also received no reply from the Government. So I hope, Mr Speaker, if the Government could explain firstly to me, because if I were to comment on every remark made by the Malay Members in the Government, as contained in the Official Report on the debate held on 20th July, 1959, Vol. 11 No. 5, it is obvious that the questions of employment, language, and many other matters which are not relevant to the aims of my organisation, will only receive mere words from the Government. But I hope to receive positive answers on these matters and I expect the Government to honour its pledges. Mr Speaker, coming back to the blue hook on culture, very little mention is made on page 120 relating to Dewan Bahasa and National culture. The Institute of National Language and Culture is to be situated in the National Library adjoining the Museum. I say: do not freeze it or allow it to remain as an exhibit for the public to see, but I hope the National Institute will make further progress in the future, so that the objects and aims, particularly those of the P.A.P., whose declared policy is that Malay will become the national language, will materialise. I do not wish to comment on the Ministry of Health today because the Minister is ill. I hope he will recover soon and return to this Assembly so that I can explain my views to him. 3.43 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, first let me, in sincere earnestness, on behalf of the people of Delta, express my support for the Four-Year Development Plan proposed by the Finance Minister. This motion is historic. This motion not only speaks for the P.A.P. Government but it shows that the P.A.P. Government has exerted its utmost for the benefit of the people. It also shows that we, the P.A.P. Government, want to achieve a more ideal society through peaceful and socialistic measures. Today, we feel proud because in the past there has never been any government or party which was like the People's Action Party as a Government. We have been courageous and resolute. Before the general elections, we realised that under the limitation of a self-governing Constitution, we could not realise all our aims by just shouting empty slogans and promises to the people. Therefore, the Five-Year Development Plan proposed by us was the only promise that we could make to the people. That has been the blueprint of our policy since we came into power. This blueprint before us today is based on our policy from the Five-Year Plan [The Tasks Ahead]. This also shows that the path we are taking will, in the coming years, enable us to realise our dream. The unprincipled Parties are now all bankrupt, and we do not see their leaders any more. During this two-day debate, we have seen that the Members of the Opposition do not have the necessary courage to face or criticise the proposals contained in this Four-Year Development Plan. The problems confronting Singapore need our present Plan for their solution. But the Members of the Opposition are afraid that the P.A.P. Government will be successful in the execution of this Development Plan. Then they will have nowhere to go. Therefore, they unscrupulously criticise the Government. They say the Government, during the 22 months since their coming into power, have made some minor mistakes. They exaggerate these minor mistakes. But in what way do these criticisms contribute to the well-being of the people? Their only purpose is to attack and hurt the P.A.P., so that the people will lose their faith in them. This will make the people lose faith in the democratic parliamentary system. Today the Opposition Members, in their lengthy speeches, have also touched upon the work the P.A.P. have done in the past. In these speeches it appears that they want to teach us, but then, judging from what they do in their own organisation, they are unable to teach themselves. That is why they are now in a mess. That is why they are now sitting opposite us. The P.A.P. is a well organised and responsible Party. The proposals in this Four-Year Development Plan clearly show us as a responsible Government in facing the economic development of Singapore. It clearly shows that we are earnest, keen and very responsible, and we want to see the Plan carried out so that it will achieve its purpose and come to a very successful end. Let me now quote from the editorial in the Nanyang Siang Pau of 3rd April, to conclude my speech to show whether the tabling of this motion is for the purpose of meeting the Hong Lim by-election, or whether this Plan is really to meet the needs of Singapore in order to solve all the problems facing the people of Singapore: `During last May, it was announced by the Treasury that the Government had formulated a plan to encourage economic development in the coming five years. If all the detailed programmes are included, then the period for the plan will be at least four years, from 1961 to 1964: This quotation clearly shows what the P.A.P. really is. We, the P.A.P., are never opportunistic. Only reactionary cliques want to rob during a fire and fish in troubled waters. It is just like the Lim Yew Hock Government in the past. Before the general elections, they played many tricks. One day they built roads in a few villages; and another day they installed a few rubbish cans. But can all these actions win the confidence and support of the people? No wonder they are now so lonely and pitiful! Singapore had been under colonial rule for many years. Therefore, the people of Singapore are suffering in all ways. They are poor and many of them are in a very difficult position. Speaking from the point of view of geography, we are only a tiny island. We do not have natural resources. There is, in addition, a rapidly increasing population. According to statistics, the babies born every year total 65,000. This is a prolific increase in the natural birthrate. From all this, if our livelihood depends only on the entrepot trade, we cannot maintain ourselves in this way forever. The only way out is to industrialise. That will help to solve the problem of our livelihood. Therefore our Government has tabled this Four-Year Development Plan. The total investment sum is $871 million. This is a great sum. This will give a better future for the people of Singapore and it will lay a sound foundation for future industrialisation. This Four-Year Development Plan has very much to do with the people of Singapore. It has also very much to do with the future generation of the people of Singapore. Therefore, it ought to have the full support of all the people, concertedly and unitedly. I hope this Development Plan will receive the full support of the people, and make them work harder in order to achieve all that has been envisaged in the Plan. It is pointed out in this Plan that because of the population increase and other problems, we must extend our social and health services and so on. But housing is also a very important item in our Plan. In this respect it takes up 40 per cent of the sum allotted. From this great sum it can clearly be seen that the P.A.P. Government have exerted their utmost to solve the problem of housing for the people. It means that the Government have to build over 10,000 units of houses per year in order to alleviate the over-crowded situation prevailing at the present moment. Therefore, during the period of the Four-Year Development Plan, we will build over 50,000 units of houses. As the Plan is being put into execution, the better lands will be put to better use. As a Systematic development, we are also prepared to build new houses in the centre of the crowded areas in order to solve the confused situation and to improve the present position. The areas envisaged for future improvement are mainly Queenstown, Toa Payoh, MacPherson Road, Kallang, Mountbatten and Tanjong Rhu. The building of more houses is one of the P.A.P.'s policies. At present there are many types of houses being built to meet the needs of people of different family background and economic background, so that the poor masses can afford to pay the rent. For instance, the types of houses include a one-room flat, a two-room flat and a three-room flat. We will allot all these houses according to ration and the number of members in the family. In the Development Plan it is envisaged that the number that can be completed in these areas in every year is as follows: In 1961, we will build in Kampong Tiong Bahru, St. Michael's Estate, MacPherson Road and Queenstown, 7,096 units of houses. In 1962, in the Queenstown, Farrer Road and Geylang areas, 9,735 units will be completed. In 1963, in Toa Payoh there will he a satellite town. Then there will be fiats totalling 9,690 units for the ordinary people. In 1964, in the MacPherson Road, Toa Payoh and Thomson Road areas there will be 12,150 units of houses. In 1965, in MacPherson Road and Toa Payoh there will be 1,176 units of houses. Let us total up all the figures. By 1965 we will have completed over 51,000 units of houses, entailing a sum of $200 million. This is what the P.A.P. Government intend to carry out in respect of their housing policy. The Housing Development Board has already completed 2,112 units of houses in the past 22 months. They are located at the Jalan Eunos Malay Settlement area, Kampong Koo Chye and Tiong Bahru. 732 units are now in the process of being built. They will be completed in the near future. Therefore, we are fully confident that by 1962 we will have cleared 13,000 applications for allocation of houses. This will contribute to the solution of the housing problem. In this respect we have justified some of the trust put in by the people. Before I conclude, let me appeal to all the people of Singapore. Because of the problems confronting us and for the sake of our future generation, we appeal to them to unite together and make a success of this historic Development Plan by enabling it to be executed smoothly. I hope this Four-Year Development Plan will meet with success. 4.02 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday our Minister for Finance proposed in this Assembly a detailed Four-Year Development Plan which is now under consideration. This Plan illustrates a very important point, i.e., that only a responsible Party which resolutely wishes to do something for the people can formulate a realistic industrial plan for the people of Singapore. This is historic. This Plan itself is very wise and is absolutely necessary in the present circumstances. Singapore is only an island of 224 square miles. We do not have enough natural resources to maintain a high living standard. Without the Plan, the high living standard will gradually be lowered. My friends have all spoken about the increase of population. They say that the increase of population is a very serious problem facing the country. The population increase of this island is very terrific and surprising. There is one birth on this island every seven minutes. The increase in population, of course, will entail something good. But it will also entail some serious problems for the Government. The Government has to face these problems which are brought about by the rapid increase of population. The population in Singapore has increased from 1,500,000 to 1,600,000. At the moment, Singapore's standard of' living is considerably high as compared with that of many other neighbouring countries, such as Ceylon, Burma, Hongkong, Thailand, Indonesia and India. Our standard of living may be many times higher than their's. Why do we have this high living standard? How can Singapore maintain this prosperous state? I think this is not accidental to this island. On this island there are many people, and yet it is, short of natural resources. Our people have posed many serious problems for the Government, but they are courageous and want to learn how to advance themselves. We have good people in our tiny island. Our island is the heart of South-East Asia and also its centre of trade. Our prosperity, in the main, depends on entrepot trade. This entrepot trade has become part and parcel of our people. Of course, we have some industries, and we are processing goods imported from outside. The processing and manufacturing of these imported goods has given some jobs to the people. But we cannot solve all the unemployment problems with the little factories that already exist. We cannot be sure that the entrepot trade will continue forever. We must create more employment opportunities artificially. If we cannot merge with the Federation of Malaya immediately, then the only solution to our problems economically and in other respects is to industrialise. At the present moment, we have the entrepot trade. This entrepot trade has greatly helped the people to earn a living. But, on the other hand, our increased population has caused many serious troubles. According to the 1947 statistics, our population increase averaged 4.3 per cent every year. Thus there will be more people every year. The rate increase in the population of Singapore is the highest in the world. If this occurs in countries which are vast in areas, then this increase in population does not bring much trouble. This will give them more labour hands. But in this small island of ours, this increase in population is so frightening that it has caused many problems to the Government. Therefore, the Government have to think of ways to meet this situation and the demands of the people. This Four-Year Development Plan is brought out at the time when there is a coming by-election in Hong Lim. Because of this timing, some unprincipled people have criticized the Plan as having been brought out just for the purpose of winning votes. They say that our Plan is only an empty "show". This will be damaging to the industrialisation plan. They disregard existing realities. This Plan consists of 134 pages. How can it be formulated in just one month and be printed and issued? We, the P.A.P., are steady in our policy. We do not cheat the people with empty slogans or by other deceitful means. Our work in the past can stand the test. I say that our Four-Year Development Plan is realistic. It is also a very steady plan. It is an attempt to solve some of the problems that face Singapore. At the same time, a radical solution of Singapore's problems is not possible just by this Plan alone. But this Plan can, in a short time, resolve certain problems facing Singapore, such as the increase of population and the unemployment problem. If the entrepot trade can create more employment opportunities for the people, then it is quite good. But then it is not quite possible in the long run. A few days ago the Minister for Finance and the Minister for National Development at various mass meetings said that out of 10 persons, there was one person unemployed. Because of the number of unemployed people, many people are affected and the consequences are quite serious. If we do not think of a way to resolve this problem but merely resort to unreasonable means, then it will be a very irresponsible act. Those people who resort to mean tactics will show their true colours. This Plan will need the full-hearted support of the people if it is to be executed smoothly and meet with success. I fully support the speech of the Finance Minister. That is to say, the success of the Plan depends on the support of three sides - labour, the Government and capital. The three sides have already come to an agreement to support this Plan. From this, we can imagine that when the Plan is put into operation it will be carried out smoothly. I want to answer some points in the speech of the hon. Member for Tanglin. He said that on a certain occasion he went to an amusement park and met a doorkeeper, and from his remarks he found that there were many goods in Singapore which were without buyers. But he is a very learned scholar. He cannot assess the opinion of the masses of poor people. He can only assess the opinion of just one single person. It is very wrong to judge from the attitude of one person only. Let us now deal with our hon. Member for Cairnhill. He has said that the P.A.P. Government have driven the capitalists into the sea. But who has done that? The real capitalists can understand this. A government which has a Minister who owns a mine! How can this kind of government attract capitalists to invest in Singapore? Capitalists are all realists. They will only invest if there is a stable, social, political and economic situation that is beneficial to them. The Member for Cairnhill also criticized that the Minister for Labour and Law was always fond of resorting to the P.P.S.O. to threaten the capitalists. Now, this is really interesting. The Minister for Labour used it only in a certain situation when there was trouble in the pineapple industry. It was concerned with a certain factory and there were very unreasonable circumstances. Therefore, the Minister for Labour's attitude was quite right at that time when he made such utterances. This shows that the attitude of the P.A.P. is correct. Any unreasonable attitude which is detrimental to the workers will not receive our support. Our attitude towards them will be resolute. Capitalists and employers must understand that. Industrial peace does not depend on our workers kneeling down in front of them and seeking it. It depends only on mutual help and understanding. Only then we can achieve this. The Member for Cairnhill further said that the Industrialisation Plan was prepared by the past Government. Perhaps the past Government did prepare something along the lines of this Plan, but they then did not have the attitude as now shown by the P.A.P. If they did have such an attitude, perhaps they would not be in the pitiful and lonely situation in which they find themselves today. Their present position is pitiful, because they only know how to shout and quibble. They can only admire the present Government. They cannot understand their own mistakes. They can only quibble and talk some nonsense about Bukit Timah, Johore Bahru, doorkeepers, the P.P.S.O., and so on. This is all they can do. Lastly, the Member for Cairnhill and his fellow-travellers said that our industrialisation policy is only an empty show. This is only mean talk on their part. 4.17 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the electorate of Upper Serangoon, I unreservedly support the motion on the 1961-1964 Development Plan of the Minister for Finance. Everyone who has carefully read this Plan will agree that it is not a wild ambitious Plan. Although this Plan has received the full support of all the people, we cannot solve all the problems caused by the rapid increase in population, in particular the serious unemployment problem, within the space of four years. When the Plan is executed, it will not radically change the position of Singapore which has always depended on the entrepot trade for its livelihood. It will not weaken the position of the private investors, but it will strengthen their economic position in this country. What does this mean? We believe in democratic socialism, but we are seriously limited by political and economic considerations in respect of land, raw materials and natural resources. At the present stage, the gap between the objective realities and our socialistic aims is still great. I hope, what I have said will not convey the impression that we who believe in socialism have had our belief shakened. It does not mean that we bow down our heads in the face of reality. We do not run away from reality. We will not change our attitude to build a socialist State because of the difficulties which lie ahead. The Four-Year Plan reflects the Party's policy to improve the livelihood of the people as a long-term objective. It shows our will and tactfulness. This Four-Year Plan fully analyses the economic situation of Singapore. It not only points out what the people and the Government have to do, but it also sets out in great detail what the people will have to do in the different stages of economic construction in order to benefit them socially. This Plan is not a socialist plan, but we are fully convinced that, given the present conditions, there will not be a better and a more realistic Plan than the present Plan. This Plan will preserve at least the existing level of the people's health and will not lower the existing social and welfare standard. Furthermore, the standard of building houses, public highways and telecommunications and the supply of electricity, water and gas will be highest in South-East Asia. Therefore, in my opinion, this Development Plan - no matter what quality it has - will benefit people in all walks of life, taking the long-term point of view. Mr Speaker, Sir, from what the Minister for Finance said yesterday on the Development Plan, everybody can see that the Government has honestly exerted its utmost. From now on, the Government will continue to create favourable conditions to ensure the success of the Development Plan. The Government will embark on recruiting the best specialists and technical personnel There will be a reorganisation of the economic and administrative organisations. Foreign investors will be given favourable conditions to induce them to invest here. Politically-conscious trade union leaders have been persuaded to weigh soberly the whole situation in Singapore. The Union representing the working people in Singapore, namely, the Trades Union Congress, has already declared its full support for this Four-Year Development Plan which is in the interest of the people. The union has said that it will do its utmost to co-operate with the Government and the capitalists to solve the unemployment problem. We must congratulate the leaders of the workers in that they have the spirit of tolerance and are wise. Here I would like to quote a Chinese saying, `Everything is ready, but short of only the "east wind".'

4.27 p.m. The "east wind" means the keen interest of the capitalists to open new factories. On the other hand, it is the responsibility of Government officers, administrative experts, technical personnel and the workers to make everything ready. But without the "east wind", the Plan cannot be smoothly carried out and completed. We believe that the local capitalists who are in the entrepot trade have enough strength to blow up this east wind and not allow foreign capitalists to go ahead of them in future. The lack of manufacturing and entrepreneuring experience and an international market is not important. We are like many other countries in that we have clever and hard-working people. Difficulties in the form of lack of experience and technique can be overcome. In the preliminary stage, a very great market is not necessary because of changes in the international situation. In the past, the practice has been to telephone and engage some transport workers to make money. This practice cannot be carried on forever. Those capitalists who are conscious of this situation must recognise these facts, and they must in time utilise the unprecedented favourable conditions provided by self-government to invest locally, to build factories, and to change themselves from the despised compradore class into a national industrialist class of the people. 4.31 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion of the Minister for Finance. The State Development Plan 1961-1964 presents a very clear account of the problems that face Singapore in a very scientific and easily readable manner. In presenting the State Development Plan 1961-1964 it is not envisaged that a total solution of all our problems can be effected by the implementation of this Plan alone. Firstly, whether the provisions of this Plan can be implemented in tow within the period 1961-1964 will depend on some imponderable factors, but we are hopeful that with the full co-operation of all the people of Singapore, particularly the workers, the trade union movement and the businessmen and industrialists, we can jointly and in united effort surmount all insurmountable difficulties and work towards fulfilment of the Plan. Secondly, and this is even more important, it must be understood that the full implementation of this Plan will give employment to only some 40,000 of the 84,000 people that are expected to be in the unemployment market in 1964. But the greater significance of this Plan lies in the fact that, in giving employment to 40,000 people it paves the way to industrialisation and foreign investments by preparing the ground, so to speak, for factories to come up. It would be presumptuous on my part to dwell in further detail on the principles underlying the Plan which has been so expertly presented. But I do feel justified in emphasising the more important aspects of the Plan. Perhaps it is because industrialisation has been mouthed by so many people as a vague concept that would solve all the ills and all the problems of all undeveloped and underdeveloped countries that we have accepted the proposition without further examination into its implications. But the question, Sir, surely is how to industrialise, and this has stumped more politicians than many other problems. The great significance of the State Development Plan 1961-1964 lies in its concrete attempt in dealing with this pressing problem. In Singapore, the great difficulty in industrialisation stems from the reluctance of local capitalists to invest in industry. This is quite understandable. Owing to Singapore's position as an international trading centre, local capital is tied up in commerce. As far as commercial capital is concerned, money is readily available for rapid and profitable trading transactions. Because of the lack of foresight and know-how, particularly industrial organisation and management, local money is not available for industrial capital. But this difficulty is not insurmountable, for it is known that it is possible to accelerate the transformation of commercial capital into industrial capital by what the economists call `demonstration effect'. Investment in industries by capital from industrially developed countries will create the psychological conditions for local capital to enter industries. The State Development Plan aims at attracting private capital, both local and foreign, into Singapore. At this juncture, I may be permitted to quote a few operative sentences in the Plan. At page 33, paragraph 3.6. it says: `Government's task in this plan is mainly to create the conditions which would induce substantial private capital into industries.' Again, in paragraph 3.7 it recognises: `The only attraction that private capital has in investments is the profit that can be made. Consequently, creating the conditions conducive to the investment of private capital must mean inter alia giving such services as would lower costs of production. Some costs can be prohibitive if the services required have to be created by individual entrepreneurs. On the other hand, if these services are created for the industry as a whole the costs to individual entrepreneurs may be low. 3.

8. Consequently, the Government's contributions to industrial development, in the first instance, is 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.' The Plan lays great emphasis on the problem of population growth which at a rate of 4.3 per cent is the highest known in the world! Even more significant than the absolute size and increase of our population is its structure. More than half of the population are under 21 years of age. The major task of the Singapore Government is to channel the potential energy of these young people into productive employment. Manpower is an economic resource, but it differs from national resources in that it is inseparably linked with men who are living personalities. It is also an asset which cannot be stored. Because of the human element, unless a country's manpower resources, which in the final analysis are most precious, are productively utilised, social and political ills must follow. It cannot, therefore, be too strongly emphasised that the State Development Plan is a concrete example of the P.A.P. Government's determination to solve the unemployment problem. Whether the Government will succeed or not, much would depend upon the co-operation of all the people of Singapore, particularly the workers and the trade union movement and the businessmen and industrialists. If every single person is prepared to make personal sacrifices and work for the benefit of the State as a whole, then I say we cannot but succeed in this enterprise. Studying the Plan purely from the point of view of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, it would appear that the need for such a Plan arose out of over-enthusiasm on the part of the Ministry of Health. Reading between the lines, I come to a paradox. I am unable to tell whether praise or reproach is meant in the implications. However, coming back from my light-hearted deviation, the point I wish to drive home is that our population is expanding far too rapidly for a tiny city State such as Singapore. With our limited terrestrial dimensions and lack of natural resources, even industrialisation may not solve the problem in the long run unless man-made barriers are removed. The long-term solution to our problem would appear to be found in population control. A birth rate of 65,000 per year, or one baby in every 7 minutes, is certainly a luxury which our State can ill-afford. A high birth rate today not only presents problems of unemployment 20 years hence, but also drains Government resources heavily from the point of view of provision of social services. If the tendency of population increase is not checked, by 1982 the total cost of health, education and welfare services in Singapore would amount to the fantastic sum of $385 million per annum. This would certainly embarrass Government's industrialisation programme in that money that could have been ploughed into industrialisation would have to be diverted to the provision of social services. It has been said that while the implementation of this Plan stands to benefit all and sundry, the special efforts have to come and have to be made by a few - the workers and the trade union movement, the businessmen and industrialists, who are directly involved in the industrialisation of Singapore. The other section of the population, it is argued, other than supporting Government's Development Plan and creating conditions conducive to success for the Plan have no tangible part to play. Here, I would like to crave the indulgence of the Minister for Finance to allow me to introduce a slightly personal bias in my interpretation of his motion to suggest that all sections of the people of Singapore can play their part in the fulfilment of this Plan in a tangible manner by practising family planning. The personal and national benefits of family planning have been given wide publicity during the Family Planning Campaign, the first phase of which began last November with the training of lay workers and the successful family planning exhibition. The same exhibition is still going round the various rural community centres and the campaign is at present directed at rural dwellers. In our policy in The Tasks Ahead, we stated at page 20, "Our Health Policy" that: `In a decent socialist society every person is entitled, as of right, to access to all the medical services needed to maintain himself in sound health. Health should not be a luxury to be enjoyed only by the privileged rich while the great masses live in disease and poverty. It will take some time yet for us in Singapore to achieve a socialist society. This is possible only in the wider framework of a union between the Federation and Singapore.' We also stated in exact terms in this same document the nature of the improvements necessary for the provision of a service that will go principally to the broad masses of Singapore. The State Development Plan provides for the complete fulfilment of the P.A.P. election promises to the people, as contained in this booklet. The Development Programme for the Ministry of Health at page 103 of the Plan sets out in detail our development projects. The first district hospital at Thomson Road will be completed by 1962, and the second district hospital will be built by early 1964. The completion of these two district hospitals will enable the people to have easy access to hospital service. The General Hospital, which is situated within convenient distance for the majority of town dwellers, will be enlarged and modernised by the addition of a third medical unit of 100 to 120 beds. The Orthopedic Department and Radiotherapy Unit will be modernised with a view to providing better services in consonance with modern medical practice. The Out-patient Services will be greatly enlarged so as to provide out-patient services to the people almost at their door-steps. Nine combined out-patient clinics and eight out-door out-patient clinics will be built in the next four year and the out-patient clinic at present at Kallang will be further developed. Renovations and extensions to the Kandang Kerbau Maternity Hospital will be effected during the next four years. The existing Domiciliary Midwifery Service was found to be unpopular by the urban population for socio-economic reasons. Mothers living in congested cubicles would always prefer to go to hospital for confinement on consideration of space alone, not to speak of convenience. Government has therefore decided to build two maternity homes in crowded urban areas to serve the needs of the masses. The first Maternity Home at Maxwell Road will be completed and ready for occupation early next year. The second Maternity Home will be built in 1963. Prevention being better than cure, Government has laid heavy emphasis on preventive health measures. The Diphtheria Immunisation Bill was passed at the last sitting of the Assembly to require all children in Singapore to be effectively immunised against diphtheria. Similar legislation for tuberculosis will be introduced in the very near future. The mass X-ray campaign at present being mounted would pick out T.B. patients who act as reservoirs of infection for treatment and isolation. Better housing services provided for by the Development Plan would help to eradicate this terrible disease. In 1962, it is envisaged that the Thoracic Unit would come up in Tan Tock Seng Hospital so that better facilities for the surgical treatment of tuberculosis can be offered. In the field of personal health services, new combined clinics for Maternal and Child Health and School Health Services would be built. It is envisaged that two such clinics would be built in the urban areas and eight large ones and 12 small ones built in rural areas within the next four years. Finally, in conclusion, it cannot be too strongly stressed that the State Development Plan is Government's answers to the problems enumerated in Chapter 1 of the Plan. Successful implementation of this Plan alone may not solve all the problems, but without such a Plan the future may indeed be disastrous, as one out of every four or five economically active persons will be unemployed. 4.50 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me say that when the Opposition Members saw the Four-Year Development Plan proposed by our Minister for Finance, they were very sour in their hearts. The Member for Cairnhill said that when he was the Chief Minister, he also had this Plan. But we can now say here that he did not have the courage to produce such a Plan in the past. Today, we, the P.A.P., have the courage and capability to produce this Plan. When he saw this, he said that this was what he wanted to put forward before, as though he wanted to share in the merits in introducing this Plan. If they are responsible representatives of the people, and if their minds are not biased and influenced by party politics and a partisan spirit, then they will also support the Government's Development Plan, because it was formulated to take into consideration all the circumstances prevailing in Singapore and with due regard to all the realities of Singapore. The purpose of this Plan is to improve the economic position of Singapore, industralise it, expand the economy, promote the export trade, facilitate communications, provide social and health services, and alleviate the unemployment problem. If this Plan can be successfully executed, then the standard of living of the people of Singapore will be more or less raised. The success or failure of this Plan depends on the concerted and united effort of all the people. They must all work hard in order to realise all that is envisaged in the Plan. This Four-Year Development Plan is not merely a piece of paper for show. It does not build castles in the air. Those people who are blinded by doctrinarian concepts and so on will, of course, show a lot of dissatisfaction with this Development Plan. It is a realistic and practical Plan to meet all the serious problems confronting Singapore. It is not an empty dream. We remember that in the past the Opposition Members said that if the P.A.P. were allowed to form the Government, then all the shops would be closed down and the rice-bowls of the people would be broken. It has now been clearly shown that their past propaganda was only lies meant to deceive the people. As a woman worker, and as one who has suffered in the old society, I am glad to see that in the Plan it is envisaged that two creches will be built. They will be built where there is a dense population. Two maternity hospitals and 22 maternal and child clinics will be built. I am glad about this news. The Government is exerting its utmost to take care of the welfare of women. I also hope that the building of community centres will enable women to participate in social activities. Women can participate in all this. This protection given to the people will encourage and promote women's activities and release them from their domestic burdens. Lastly, let us see the community centres built by the Government, their uses and their purposes. At the present moment, there are many people who unreasonably attack the building of these community centres. That is why it is all the more necessary for me to clarify and stress the importance and the use of these centres. Our present society is now undergoing a social revolution and changes, and this revolution and changes have to be supported and strengthened by education. The P.A.P. wants to achieve a new socialist society, a more equal society, and therefore, under the present circumstances, Singapore has to create favourable conditions in order to merge with the Federation of Malaya, to break down the barrier of languages among the people, and to instil a consciousness among them. Therefore, the building of these community centres is very important. Those who have actively taken part in the activities of community centres have all clearly seen this. In the evening we can see many people, old and young and of all races, mix together, enjoy themselves, talk, and take part in all sorts of activities, such as sports or attending classes and receiving vocational education, and so on. Let me give an example. For instance, our community centre is situated in a slum area. There is a team of women. They can lend the community centre for the purpose of holding a tea-party or for other health activities. All this will contribute to their being friendly with one another. This can contribute to the breaking down of the language barrier among all the races. On the other hand, through the community centres, the Government can understand the opinions and the wants of the people. Their criticisms of the Government can all be gathered and assessed, and then based on all these, the Government will seek ways to improve and to do things for the good of the people, so that all the people can be united together and can participate in community centres activities. All these facts show clearly that the people are wholeheartedly supporting the community centres. Because of this the centres will contribute very much to their livelihood. These centres are meeting the needs of the people. The people can carry out all kinds of activities by making use of these centres. In future, they will definitely become part and parcel of the lives of the people. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, from these community centres we can see that they are very important to the unity of the people. Yet the Opposition Members have levelled criticisms at them. I hope the Opposition Members will co-operate in every way. That is only right. If they persist in creating rumours and trouble, that is not right.

I think it is time for tea. I suspend this debate until 5.30 p.m. It will resume at 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. Question again proposed. 5.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion on the State Development Plan calls for the full and whole-hearted co-operation of the people of Singapore in all walks of life in order to make it a success. This is not only inevitable, but also right and proper, since it is a Plan that has to be carried out by the people for the people. Chapter III of the Plan has broadly classified the development projects into three categories, namely, those contributing to economic development, those contributing to social development, and those concerned with public administration. The projects for which the Ministry of National Development is responsible belong to the first two categories, and I should like to make a report on some of the projects and, in particular, the part they will play in the Development Plan. Firstly, I shall deal with Rural Development Schemes. Under the Plan a total of about $26 million will be spent over the next four years on projects that will include roads, improvement to bridges, and water and electricity supplies in the rural areas. Of this total, a sum of $700,000 has been reserved for special schemes designed specifically to improve the lot of our farmers, fishermen and other primary producers. These people are playing an important part in our task of nation-building by producing or otherwise making available much of the pork, chicken, fish, vegetables and fruit that make up the daily food of our population. Our objective is to improve and increase their production by teaching them the latest techniques and helping them by various forms of State assistance. The Primary Production Department under my Ministry has continued to improve and expand the various services provided to farmers and other producers in the rural areas. There has been an increase in the number of free inoculations given to protect pigs and poultry from disease, and our ploughing service has proved extremely useful and popular. For fishermen who use power boats, we have been providing a repair service for engine faults and breakdowns. We have also started a Fisheries Training School at Pasir Panjang for rural youth interested in the fishing industry. At the same time, research and experimental work on the development of better strains of pigs and poultry with stronger resistance to disease and a higher yield of meat and eggs have been making good progress at the Sembawang Animal Husbandry Station. Various new projects that we have planned over the next four years will both expand and add to the services now being provided, and will include the establishment of four more veterinary extension centres to bring these services within easy reach of the people, and a special goat distribution scheme that wilt help to improve the economic position of the Malay community in the Southern Islands. When talking about the Development Plan for Singapore, with its long history of dependence on its entrepot trade and the obvious need to concentrate on industrialisation, it is very easy to overlook the importance of rural development. It is seldom realised, for example, that quite a considerable section of our population is engaged in food and agricultural production. According to the latest survey, we have about 25,000 farmers and about 6,000 fishermen, and if we take into account their families and other people who are involved, we get a figure of something like 2,000,000 people, slightly above 1/10 of the population. It has been estimated that their annual production is in the region of some 750,000 pigs, 16,000,000 chickens, 200,000,000 eggs, 34,000 tons of vegetables, 1,700 tons of fruits and 12,000 tons of fish. There is, of course, a limit to rural and agricultural development, largely as a result of the scarcity of good usable land in Singapore, and the various competing claims for what little land there is, for example, for industrial development and housing purposes. The Government, while it is aware of this limitation, is resolved nevertheless to do what it can to improve this hitherto neglected sector of the State economy, since rural development if properly planned and properly directed can play an important part in the Development Plan by providing employment for the rural population, reducing the State's dependence on imports of food, improving the livelihood of our farmers and fishermen, and generally improving rural conditions, helping to achieve the optimum use of scarce land in the State. In this connection, Sir, I should like to mention the swamp reclamation and flood alleviation projects that will be undertaken by the P.W.D., because these projects will facilitate to a considerable extent the Government's plan for rural development. The Development Plan provides for the expenditure of nearly $12 million on flood alleviation and $4 million on swamp reclamation. I need hardly remind the House of the frequent and disastrous floods which in the past brought loss and suffering to our farmers and other rural dwellers. The Government has already completed two schemes in Bedok and Geylang which have put an end to the floods that used to plague these areas. Further schemes which have been planned for implementation in the next four years include an extension of the Geylang scheme and new schemes in Bukit Timah and Ulu Pandan, two of the worst flooding areas in Singapore. As for swamp reclamation, the Government has a scheme for converting about 4,000 acres of useless swamp land in various parts of the rural areas into useful assets. When completed, the scheme will provide 1,000 acres of much needed farm land, 1,000 acres of prawn ponds, and 2,000 acres of fish ponds. Mr Speaker, Sir, a few words now about the part to be played in the Development Plan by the housing projects of the Housing and Development Board. The Plan provides for the expenditure of a total of over $190 million on housing projects that will be undertaken over the next four years to provide a total of over 51,000 units. Even before we took over the government in July 1959, the People's Action Party had recognised as one of the most acute problems in Singapore, the need to provide good and cheap housing for the large and rapidly increasing population. It is true that the previous Government was also aware of the problem and did take steps to wrestle with it. But I think it would be fair to say that in wrestling with the problems, they failed to adopt a realistic and practical approach, with the result that most of the housing units put up by the former S.I.T. were of a type not designed to provide cheap housing for the people. In fact, some of the units constructed cost so much to put up that, in order to bring them within the means of the poorer classes, who after all are the classes for whom the State must build, it is necessary to provide a considerable subsidy. In Kallang, for example, low rentals were fixed for the various housing units as follows: $25 per month for a one-room flat, $35 per month for a two-room flat, $45 to $60 per month for a three-room flat. No one will deny that these rentals are very attractive for the types of accommodation provided. But if you examine them, you will find that the lowness of the rentals is artificial. If we take into account the cost of building these flats and work out the rentals required to bring in an economic return, it will be necessary to charge the following rents: $65 to $73 for a one-room flat, $82 to $90 for a two-room flat, $81 to $96 for a three-room flat. It will be seen that the artificially low rentals fixed by the previous Government work out in some cases to less than half of the economic rentals. What does this all mean? It means simply that to maintain these artificially low rents, the Government will have to expend a considerable amount of public funds to subsidise the tenants of these flats. It has, in fact, been estimated that the subsidy amounts to about $1� million per year for Kallang Estate alone. Is it justifiable to use public funds to support an unrealistic rental policy in this way? But quite apart from the failure to work out a realistic rental policy, the previous Government also failed to build each year anything near the required number of units to meet the ever worsening housing shortage. Right from the beginning, the People's Action Party Government has taken the stand that its housing policy must be a realistic one, i.e., it must not only provide the houses but must provide houses of the right type and in sufficient numbers each year. Since its establishment in February last year, about 14 months, the Housing Board has already completed a total of 2,112 units at Kampong Koo Chye, the Tiong Bahru fire site, Queenstown and Jalan Eunos. This figure, of course, does not include 794 units completed at St. Michael's Estate and Queenstown in 1959 by Mr Ong Eng Guan, the former Member for Hong Lim. The figure of over 2,000 units over 14 months is not a mean achievement when we take into consideration the fact that the Housing Board needed some money to get down to the job, and compared with the average annual production of only 1,700 units by the former S.I.T. The Housing Board, however, is aiming to do much better than this over the next four years with the following programme:- 1961: 7,096 units at a cost of ... $34.1 million 1962: 9,735 units at a cost of ... $40.7 million 1963: 9,690 units at a cost of ... $33.8 million 1964: 12,710 units at a cost of ... $44.5 million To cater for the poorer classes of the population, the programme will include specially designed one-room flats which can be rented out at $20 per month; and of the 16,831 units scheduled for completion in 1961 and 1962, at least 10,000 units will be of the $20 type. This year, work has already started on a number of projects that will provide a total of 7,852 units and more contracts are in the process of being let out. Included among these projects are 904 $20 units at Tiong Bahru which will be completed by August this year, and 814 $20 units at St. Michael's Estate which will be completed by September this year. In the light of the above figures, the P.A.P. Government cannot be accused of indulging in mere talk over its housing plans; and from present indications, I have every confidence that the Housing Board will achieve its target of completing a total of over 7,000 units a year, an achievement that will far surpass the highest achievement of 3,841 units claimed by the former S.I.T. in 1958. Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Minister for Finance has already said, the State Development Plan which has been tabled in the Assembly has taken some six months of careful investigation and arduous preparation and with both the immediate and long-term welfare of the people very much in mind. On the publication of the Plan, the Government has already been assured of the co-operation of various sections of the community, particularly the unions and the commercial interests, and I need hardly say that it is a Plan that deserves the full and wholehearted co-operation not only of hon. Members on the other side of the House but also of every citizen of our State. 5.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the capital expenditure on projects proposed by the Ministry of Home Affairs is less than $10 million spread over four years. The amount is roughly divided into $7� million for the police and just above $2 million for the prisons. Among the more important police projects is the building of new police stations to enable the police to maintain its efficiency and effectiveness in protecting and safeguarding the interests of its citizens in the face of a rapidly expanding population, the over-spilling into the rural areas, the building of new housing estates, and the development of industrial areas. These new stations are the Queenstown Police Station, the new Geylang Police Station, the new station at Chong Pang Village in Sembawang, and the new Divisional Paya Lebar Station. Another item, which though small but nevertheless is in keeping with the ever-growing spirit of co-operation and friendliness between the people and the police force, is the erection of a number of village constables' posts in various villages in the comparatively sparse west coast area of Singapore Island and some of the smaller Southern Islands. These village constables' posts will bring the police another step closer to the people, who now look upon the Force more as their fellow-citizens, protecting them against evil doers. These are extremely small items of expenditure because the maintenance of law and order cannot depend entirely on punitive measures. I do not want to go into the sociological reasons for crime. Though one must not be naive and attribute all causes of crime to the conditions in our society, we must never forget that unemployment, poverty and housing all have a part in producing the criminals. Some criminal activity also arises out of society not providing the machinery to channelise the energies of our youths, by not having opportunities to provide useful visions, and by not providing opportunities for a life that is useful, exciting and meaningful. These are the important things, and the more successful we are in providing these things, the less important would be the punitive measures. The more successful we are in our constructive measures, the less we have to spend on the police and prisons. This must be the objective of any civilised society, and the more civilized the society, the more unobtrusive can the punitive machinery of the State be. This is what I must commend to you as far as the Plan is concerned. The Plan seeks to offer positive solutions to the problems that often lead to crime. It may also not be out of place for me to draw attention to the fact that, as this Development Plan points out, a total of nearly 84,000 new jobs will be required for full employment, but the employment opportunities of the Plan amount to only 40,000, unless the rate of private investment in new industries can be stepped up to something like $600 million in the Plan period. It will be fully appreciated, therefore, why the Government maintains a restrictive immigration policy. It is to protect in the face of increasing unemployment. Just as with the Development Plan, our immigration policy is a question of survival and the facing of practical realities. When the targets of the Plan have been fulfilled, 25 per cent of the population would be housed in public housing, the spectre of unemployment would be under control, public amenities would have been improved significantly, and I am confident that the punitive arms of the State can take an increasingly minor role in maintaining law and order. 5.56 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion in the name of my colleague, the Minister for Finance, that the Government's Development Plan for the four years 1961 to 1964, as tabled, should not only be supported by all sections of they people but also be united in their efforts to make it a success. I shall dwell upon the education aspect of the Plan which involves the sum of about $95 million, or 11 per cent of the total cost of the Four-Year Plan of $871 million. Education comes next in importance to housing under the Social Development of the Plan, and, in fact, absorbs 27 per cent of the money allotted for social development, amounting to $350 million. Even in advanced and well-developed countries, education takes a large slice not only of revenue but also for future development. In fact, the more highly developed the country is in respect of education, the greater the advance it makes in industry, science and technology. Today, the whole world is excited over the great achievement of the Russian space man in flight. Is this an over-night success? Of course not. The fruits of education are not to be seen now, tomorrow or the following year, but in the next generation for the good of future generations. In 1930, the Russian universities had an enrolment of under 300,000. In 1960, 3 decades later, the number was stepped up to nearly seven times, to over two million. That is the reason for their success today. Therefore, for new developing countries like Singapore, we should have no hesitation in setting aside huge sums of money for education, because we shall be investing for the future. Our problems are further aggravated by the fact that our population increase is at such a fantastic rate that we cannot afford to provide education for education's sake, but for a set purpose. The pupils who come out of our secondary schools should be trained to become productive and not passengers and hangers-on, expecting to be fed and nourished by the hard work of one-third of the population. Free six-year primary education is already an accomplished fact in Singapore today. When we assumed office two years ago, 4,000 Primary I pupils registered in 1958 by the previous Government for 1959 were not given a place in schools. We saw to it that they did enter school in 1960, and 56,000 were admitted for that year. This year nearly 52,000 were admitted, and the present policy is that every registered child for Primary I must be offered a place in school. Having admitted 108,000 Primary I children within the last two years, we find that the total school enrolment had increased by 65,000: from 305,000 in 1959 to 370,000 this year. Therefore, the increased enrolment of 65,000 makes it that 43,000 had since left schools in the last two years. They are either continuing their higher studies in the Polytechnic, Universities, or in employment or seeking employment. Education for a set purpose has many aspects - that of nation building, common content of syllabuses, gradual integration of different language streams into a national system of education, Malay as the National Language and the future chief medium of instruction, etc. I shall, however, confine myself today to the importance and emphasis we have placed in making education the basis for future industrialisation of Singapore - the emphasis on the study of Mathematics, Science and Technology. Having achieved the huge base of six years' free primary education, what we must achieve in the foreseeable future is the building-up of secondary education, and that is the crux of our Four-Year Education Development Plan. Last year, 30,000 pupils from the four streams of education took the first Primary School Leaving Examination. This year we expect 40,000 to do so, and also hereafter. And we have decided that all Primary school leavers aged 11 and over should be given secondary education. We have assumed that one-half or 20,000 will not make the grade at the Primary School Leaving Examination, and will be given a minimum of two years' secondary education with a vocational bias. Of the remaining 50 per cent who are expected to pass the primary School Leaving Examination, they will be given a four-year secondary education depending on their aptitude and ability as follows: 25 per cent or 10,000 will be given academic secondary education as we now know today in secondary schools leading to the University. 20 per cent or 8,000 will be given technical education leading to the Polytechnic and the Universities. 5 per cent or 2,000 will be given commercial education leading to the Polytechnic, the Universities and Commerce. Because of this proposed large switch of nearly 75 per cent of the future secondary school enrolment towards expensive vocational, commercial and technical education, the Government decided early this year to set up a Commission of Inquiry into Vocational and Technical Education which is now in session, so that the millions that have been set aside for this type of education will be planned and co-ordinated, and not proceed on a haphazard basis. We do not propose to follow the ineptitude of the previous Government by having two Technical Secondary Schools at Queenstown and Tanjong Katong without any equipment for teaching technical subjects, or having equipment worth tens of thousands rotting and rusting away in Balestier Trade School for years, not knowing what to do with them. The Commission of Inquiry into Vocational and Technical Education is expected to submit its Report about the middle of this year, and we hope to be able to consider its recommendations and implement the Report by 1962. It will be noted, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Four-Year Development programme envisaged in the Polytechnic is nearly $10 million and together with the anticipated building of no less than 9 out of 19 new schools to be built each year for secondary vocational, commercial and technical education, we shall be spending more than $36 million, that is, more than one-third of the $95 million bill for Education will be for vocational and technical education alone. Only with such emphasis can we effectively support the massive industrial programme which we have in mind to ensure that thousands of job opportunities are being created for Singapore. As can be seen from the figures, with an increase of 65,000 enrolment in schools within the last two years, we need to employ no less than 1,000 teachers each year, if only to keep up with the yearly increase of pupils and maintain the staff/pupil ratio at 1:33 as at present. In this respect, earlier on the Member for Tanglin expressed great disappointment at the shortage of Science teachers. The explanation is clear: this is due to the dereliction of duty on the part of the past Government for doing nothing about it and which we are trying to remedy today. As for the Member for Kampong Kembangan - earlier on this afternoon he hinted that of the thousands of teachers to be appointed for education, it was likely that a great majority would be for English schools, and he sought clarification if he was wrong. Of course, he is quite wrong. We do not now talk in terms of what type of teachers we employ. It all depends on the school enrolment. For a particular number of school children, there shall be so many teachers. At present the Teachers' Training College trains teachers for the three large streams of education, which are English, Chinese and Malay. In view of this large-scale annual recruitment of teachers, the decision to stop two years full-time training of teachers at the Teachers' Training College and to have only one system of in-service training had to be made as early as 1960 within six months after we took office. Like everything in Singapore, we meet with the constant problem of having to deal with quantity and yet striving hard to ensure that quality and standards do not fall. The present facilities of the Teachers' Training College at Paterson Road were not meant to tackle the new situation now being posed, hence the necessity to provide for adequate expansion, and accordingly the sum of $2.9 million has been allotted for its proper development during the next few years. The remaining items under the Plan are incidental to what has been said just now and follow general expansion. Suffice it to say that every cent of the $95 million to be spent on education envisaged in this Plan will repay rich dividends for future prosperity and happiness on this island State of ours, and I am confident everyone in this House including hon. Members of the Opposition will not only support the Education Plan but the motion of the Minister for Finance as well. 6.13 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the P.A.P. has been the Government, whenever our policies have been offered to the House for debate, whether in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's annual policy speech or in the present State of Singapore's Four-Year Development Plan, the same anti-P.A.P. slogans have been uttered by Members of the Opposition with monotonous regularity. As an Opposition, they claim to speak for the people of Singapore, but they have not attempted to analyse our Four-Year Development Plan to show how, if at all, our Development Plan has fallen short of the expectations of our people, and what developments have been omitted which should have found place in our Development Plan. That would, Sir, in my mind be the role of an intelligent, informed and responsible Opposition. Instead, they have taken to repeating their anti-P.A.P. slogans: that with the advent of the P.A.P. Government, there has not been a healthy climate for investment because of bad employer-employee relations; that these relations have been deteriorating; that the T.U.C. is Government-controlled; that membership of the Work Brigade is open only to P.A.P. members; and that capital has flown away from Singapore. On the Work Brigade, the Member for Cairnhill mentioned earlier this afternoon that when I returned from Tokyo, members of the Work Brigade were at the Airport to greet me. Does he find it uncongenial and irksome that when he returned from his mission to Vietnam not so long ago, he could not muster up a sufficient number of Party supporters to greet him on his return? Mr Speaker, Sir, he also said that the members of the Work Brigade were being exploited by the Government, and now that we have the development projects we might as well wind up the Brigade and transfer the members to work in these projects. Mr Speaker, Sir, long before the details of this plan were worked out, we have been transferring members of the Brigade for service in various Government departments and for service in quasi Government bodies which have need of their service. Mr Speaker, Sir, these completely unfounded and unfair accusations have been and are being repeated by the Opposition so often and so regularly in the hope that some of them may ultimately be believed. Do these anti-P.A.P. slogans which are indulged in by the Opposition accord with the facts as they are known to the people of Singapore? Both the Member for Tanglin and the Member for Cairnhill have stated as a matter of fact that the business community of Singapore have lost confidence in the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Tanglin has the habit - I do not know whether it is a good habit or a bad habit - of cutting out newspaper reports and quoting from them whenever he wants to pretend that the people of Singapore, and particularly the business community, have a very poor view of the work of this Government. Mr Speaker, if I may be permitted to indulge a similar habit this afternoon. I would like to produce, for the delectation of the Members of the Opposition, a report that appeared in the Free Press of Tuesday, 11th April. It was just two days ago. It is a report that gives a record of the business done in the last year by the Great Eastern Life Assurance Company, in which both the Member for Tanglin, the Member for Farrer Park and the Member for Cairnhill have large investments. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a report of business done which the Chairman of this well-established insurance company wishes to place before a general meeting of this Company to be held tomorrow, so that it can be said that this is a really up-to-date report of present conditions. This is what the report says: ,`Against the stable political background in Singapore and the Federation of Malaya, a record business involving $44,175,595 was done by the Great Eastern Life Assurance Company Limited.' This is a company, Mr Speaker, Sir, which does business with the provident sections of our statement to be tabled at the Annual General Meeting on 14th April, to be held at the registered office of the company in Cecil Street: `The chairman's report states: "Against a stable political background in Singapore and the Federation of Malaya, where the policies of the two Governments have created public confidence, record new business with sums assured of $44,175,595 was written while assets and premium income showed the largest increments achieved in one year, increasing to $51,518,020 and $8,738,383 respectively." The chairman added that the peoples of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya were fast being educated to appreciate the necessity and benefit of life assurance. He said it had now been found possible after transferring $1,500,000 to investments reserve to increase the bonus rate to policy holders in Singapore, Federation of Malaya, and Borneo territories from 25 to 26 per thousand. "At the same time, the undistributed surplus carried forward has been substantially increased, which augurs well for the maintaining of the increased rate of bonus, which is unequalled by both local and overseas competitors," he added.' Mr Speaker, Sir, who is in a better position to judge public confidence with regard to this Government from the business point of view? Hard headed business enterprises like the Great Eastern Life Assurance Company, or mealy-mouthed politicians on the Opposition Front bench?

Order. I am sure the Minister must understand that the expression "mealy-mouthed" used of parliamentarians in this Assembly is unparliamentary. Therefore, I ask the Minister to withdraw it.

Sir, you have judged that the expression "mealy-mouthed" is unparliamentary. May I withdraw it and substitute the word "misguided"?

The withdrawal, of course, must be unqualified.

Sir, it will then be an unqualified withdrawal. Mr Speaker, Sit, my friend and colleague, the Minister for Finance, has given a sober appreciation of the facts of our economic life, and has detailed the steps which the Government has taken since it has been in power to so order our economic life that we can, as an integrated community of employers and workers, have good grounds for hoping that there will be a chance of survival for our growing young population which will be coming on to the labour market in increasing numbers in the immediate years ahead, and which the proceeds of our entrep�t economy alone will not be able to sustain in gainful employment. Mr Speaker, Sir, a lot of effort and a lot of thought have been put into this Four-Year Development Plan. From the Opposition, all that the Plan has evoked are rather churlish repetitions of anti-P.A.P. slogans which are now worn rather threadbare. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member of Cairnhill yesterday, overwhelmed by the massive contents of our Four-Year Development Plan, and having seen the possibilities that will be open for the people of Singapore when this Plan materialises, cast his mind back to the time when he was Chief Minister, and tried to explain to this House that the S.P.A. Government was not able to produce any co-ordinated Development Plan of its own because he, as Chief Minister, was rather encumbered with the presence of an expatriate Financial Secretary in his planning set-up. Is not this a flimsy excuse? Does a bad carpenter not always blame his tools? And does he not always try to take it out on his tools? Mr Speaker, Sir, this is in step with his character and his inclinations. He blames his own short-comings on those into whose company he adeptly wormed his way and who served him well. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill further stated today that the P.A.P. Government was not profiting out of the S.P.A. Government's industrial planning and industrial legislation, and was granting to foreign capital such terms that local firms, competing in the manufacture of the same goods, were finding it difficult to compete. In this Assembly not so long ago, when similar observations were made by the Opposition, I pointed out, as a senior civil servant of the former Government, that I had been associated in the preparation of Press statements announcing major investments by sugar refineries, flour mills, tobacco factories, cement works and other such like industrial undertakings which, in fact, never progressed beyond the discussion stage with their respective promoters. I was then reminded by the Member for Cairnhill that, as a senior civil servant of the S.P.A. Government, I had acted improperly in spilling the beans. Mr Speaker, Sir, why did the S.P.A. Government's plans not pass beyond the discussion stage? It was because the promoters knew that with the S.P.A. Government any industrialisation proposals were hedged in with a lot of unusual "safeguards". Foreign concerns willing to invest locally under the S.P.A. regime were required to find local capitalists as associates. It is well known that our local businessmen are mostly traders and have not got anything like the experience of industry that the local businessmen of Hongkong and the Chinese businessmen of Indonesia have. We have not imposed any such conditions on foreign concerns willing to invest locally, because we, as the Government, are aware of the hard economic realities of our position, and also because we intend to keep our hands clean. We have not imposed unusual "safeguards" merely for the purpose of ensuring that our nominees are placed in the midst of undertakings which are capitalised from overseas and operated for the purpose of increasing the employment opportunities of our growing young population. Sir, in management/employee relations, all that we have done is to ensure that the worker gets his due. It is true, Sir, as claimed by the Member for Cairnhill, that we have not enacted any new labour legislation since we have been the Government, and that we are still operating the labour legislation enacted by the former S.P.A. Government. The difference is that we, as the Government, are determined to ensure that legislation introduced for the benefit of the worker is not placed in the statute book merely for the purpose of assuring the International Labour Organisation in Geneva, which the Member for Cairnhill used to visit regularly as Minister for Labour and Chief Minister of Singapore, that our workers were getting a fair deal. If this labour legislation had been properly enforced by the former Government, we as the Government would not have found it possible to collect for our workers a sum of $1,600,000 in the form not of increases in wages but in arrears of overtime, weekly holiday pay and annual leave. These facts speak for themselves, and I would have no occasion to refer to them were it not for the fact that the Member for Cairnhill had the temerity to claim in this House yesterday that all that the workers had received from the present Government is an increase in unemployment and that their lot was infinitely better under the former S.P.A. Government. He even made the ludicrous remark that the worker had a better deal under the former Ministry of Labour and Welfare than he has now under the Ministry of Labour and Law. We, Sir, as the Government, want stability in the commercial and industrial sections of our economy, because without it there cannot be the expansion which we need if we are to survive. To this end, the Government has obtained the support of the T.U.C. and the unions for a policy of wage restraint, especially in the sectors of our economy which are concerned with export markets, where there is a potential for expansion, and with essential servicing enterprises which are vital to our economy. In other sectors where wages and conditions are below par or where the prosperity of the enterprise is such as to warrant improvements, we expect there will be demands for improvement, and we hope that the employers in these sectors will be disposed to take a more reasonable view of such demands when they are received. There have been, Sir, a far greater number of wage agreements registered with the Registry of the Industrial Arbitration Court, since registration began on the 15th September of last year, than there have been awards of the Court; and all these agreements are regularly published in the Government Gazette. The Industrial Relations Ordinance has tended to produce agreements rather than to provoke conflicts, and if these agreements are carefully studied by Members of the Opposition, they will see that these agreements have not expressed any extortionate demands on the part of the workers. All of these agreements give expression to moderate increases in wages and improvements in working conditions which have been willingly accorded by employers. The Member for Tanglin referred to recent Press statements by the retiring President of the Singapore Chamber of Commerce and by the Public Relations Officer of the T.U.C. in which an unprovoked and rather foolish attack by the retiring President of the Singapore Chamber of Commerce on the unions provoked a rejoinder which was emotionally charged and in which the unfortunate expression, "To hell with industrial peace with justice", was unfortunately used. The complaint, Sir, of the retiring President of the Singapore Chamber of Commerce was that negotiations with unions took a long time and were time-consuming for the employers. He claimed that the situation demanded the institution of a Commission of Inquiry and that there should be a procedure whereby an agreement reached by a union with a certain employer could be applied to other employers as well to reduce the number of negotiations which would otherwise be necessary. This is exactly what the Industrial Relations Ordinance does not allow. It is clearly stated in that legislation that the negotiations must be between the union and the employer concerned, and not between the union and a group of employers. There is good reason for these arrangements. It is obvious that if agreements could be applied in the way suggested, then a smaller enterprise would not be able to afford the improvements which a larger enterprise would be able to offer, and it would be likely to be put out of business, with the consequence that the worker would lose his job. As negotiations must take a good deal of time, it is important, therefore, that employers should employ personnel and industrial officers to take charge of this side of the work on their behalf. If they do so, there will be no need for the directors of concerns to attend these negotiations personally. Yesterday, Sir, after I had left this Assembly, and even this afternoon, the Member for Cairnhill took two good swipes at me and said that whereas my friend and colleague, the Minister for Finance, was trying to stabilise relations, I, as the Minister for Labour, had threatened employers with the P.P.S.O. It is true, Sir, that when a bad employer acted most improperly, I threatened that if he did not change his attitude, then there would have to be recourse to the P.P.S.O. to stop him from provoking industrial discord for political reasons. In the case in question, I chaired the meeting to try and resolve a dispute in which that employer was involved. He promised to attend, but did not turn up, stating that it was more important for him to act as the Master of Ceremonies to a wedding than to be present for a settlement of this dispute in which his company was directly concerned. Those were the days before we had the Industrial Relations Ordinance. This House has already given to me the power under the Industrial Relations Ordinance to summon a recalcitrant employer to attend a conciliation meeting, and if he shows an unwillingness to attend, then all that I or my Parliamentary Secretary has to do is to sign an order that he does so. If he does not appear, then he is liable to prosecution before a District Court for contempt of the order. I have had occasion to sign such orders since the Industrial Relations Ordinance was enacted, and I am glad that it will never again be necessary for me to threaten any bad employer with the P.P.S.O. Mr Speaker, Sir, I now come to the welfare side of the community recreation development projects of the Ministry of Labour and Law. These are set out in some detail on pages 117 and 118 and pages 126 and 127 of our Four-Year Development Plan. On the welfare side the Plan proposes the spending of a sum of $1,771,700 on such projects as an extension of the Mount Emily Girls' Home; the establishment of a Girls' Approved School for the reception and rehabilitation of delinquent girls between the ages of 10 and 14; for a Girls' Hostel; for a Junior Approved School for the reception and rehabilitation of delinquent boys between the ages of 10 and 14; for improvements to the Muslim Welfare Home and the People's Association; and for the establishment of a resettlement scheme for the old. As has been mentioned in the Plan, Sir, none of these projects represent any dramatic introduction of new services, but are rather extensions and improvements of existing services. It has also been rightly pointed out in the Plan that on the welfare side what is most significant are the vast improvements which are possible, without this being reflected in the amount of capital expenditure required. The selection of the projects in themselves does not constitute all the development possible in this field. In the Budgets of 1959 and 1960 a sum of $1 million and $1� million respectively were voted by the Assembly for the development and integration of community associations. Out of this money we have been able to complete 18 new community centres in 1960. For this year, we have planned 24 new community centres. Five have been completed and opened, nine are now under construction, and 10 more sites have been selected, the planning for which is now in a very advanced stage of preparation. Between 1948 and the time we took over, the Government built four community centres and five were built by the Rural Board. Besides this, the Rural Board and voluntary associations established seven village halls. In addition to this, associations of residents established another 11 community associations, mostly housed in Housing Board estates. By the end of the year, the People's Association will have under its control 51 community centres, seven village halls and 11 resident associations, a record of which the People's Association can justly be proud. In addition, the People's Association have also taken control of 39 youth clubs. In the People's Association, voluntary bodies concerned with welfare and youth sports and other useful vocational and recreational pursuits have been co-operating with the Government in a big way to organise and direct on a scale never attempted before the leisure activities of our growing young population. In addition to building community centres in association with the voluntary bodies which I have just mentioned, the People's Association has had to undertake a comprehensive, well co-ordinated and well planned training scheme to produce the trained personnel who are required for the purpose of running these centres in a proper and efficient manner. Holiday resorts have also been built by the People's Association. These are at Pulau Ubin and Nicoll Drive, and a new holiday resort is at present being built at Tanjong Irau in the Sembawang area. Other holiday resorts are being planned at Serimbun and other vantage points along the coast and in the neighbouring islands. This in itself, Sir, is indeed a very big project and would not have been possible but for the enthusiasm and drive which have been demonstrated by these voluntary bodies in association with the officials employed on the community recreation side of the Ministry. We hope to have all community centres and holiday resorts we need completed by the middle of next year. Nor have we, Sir, neglected the provision of creches for working mothers in places where such facilities are urgently required. The S.P.A. Government found it necessary to provide only one creche for working mothers at Victoria Street. The P.A.P. Government, in control of the City Council, built four creches in Jalan Besar, Chinatown, Tiong Bahru and Telok Ayer. Since taking over responsibility for all the creches, the Ministry has opened a new creche at New Market Road, and tenders for a seventh creche in the Kallang Airport Estate will be called shortly. In addition, plans are being made for the eighth creche in the Erskine Road area, where the Housing Board is to put up a low-rental housing estate for the poor in the Chinatown area. In the existing creches there is at present no pressure for increased accommodation, except for the creche in Banda Street. Plans for the enlargement of this creche are now under active consideration. In the rural areas there has not so far been any pressing demand for the establishment of creches, as working mothers there live in attap-houses where they are able to leave their children in the charge of older folk when they go out to work. The position is being carefully studied, and where the need for creches in the rural areas is shown, it will promptly be met by Government. In the Development Estimates a sum of $2,661,000 has been provided for the development of community services in the city areas in the form of children's playgrounds, parks and open spaces, swimming pools and other such-like amenities. A furthtr sum of $1,290,000 has been provided for the establishment of similar amenities in the rural areas. The projects have been detailed in the Plan. These include the construction of swimming pools in the Queenstown, Kallang and Bukit Batok areas, improvements to the Farrer Park Athletic Centre and the Jalan Besar Stadium, and the establishment of multi-purpose playgrounds in various areas of the city and rural area. For the purpose of detailed planning of these amenities, an Amateur Sports Advisory Council has been formed in which all the controlling bodies of the various sporting associations in Singapore have been associated. This Amateur Sports Advisory Council will also have Government officials of the Ministry of Labour and other Ministries connected with public recreation on it, and will meet under the chairmanship of the Minister. The Chief Parks Officer will be in attendance at all meetings of the Council. It is intended to bring all amenities connected with public recreation which are now in existence and which are planned for the future, and which hitherto were under the divided control of the City Council and the Rural Board, under the direct control of the Ministry of Labour assisted by the advice of this Council. By these means, better and fuller use can be made of these amenities and the work of this Council will be co-ordinated as far as possible with the work of the People's Association. This Council will also be able to popularise sports which do not at present enjoy the same degree of popularity as those which are more well established. In the Party policy statement, Sir, which the Member for Tanglin referred to earlier in the debate, we have stated that we are pledged to build a Trade Union House for our workers. The money for this project has not been included in the Development Plan. We shall be entering provision for this project in the next year's budget. A Planning Committee under my chairmanship, with T.U.C. representatives and with which the Board of Architects has been associated, has been constituted by Government and a competition open to all registered architects in Singapore and the Federation will be announced in the near future in which prizes will be offered for the best design for our Trade Union House. This competition will be in keeping with the regulations prescribed for such competitions under the Architects Ordinance. It is proposed that this building will not only serve as a meeting place for the T.U.C. and its associated unions, but will also be so built as to provide all the facilities and amenities required for international conferences. The multi-purpose section of the building will be under the direct control of the Government and will be available for use by both the T.U.C. and for international conferences which are to be held in Singapore. As a self-governing State and situated as we are at the very focal point in South-East Asia, it is fitting that the Government should be in a position to offer amenities and facilities to international organisations which wish to hold their meetings in our State. 6.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I get to the more serious part of the business, will you permit me to answer just one point raised by the Hon. the Minister for Labour and Law? He was trying to prove a point when he cited the case of the Great Eastern Life Assurance Co. Ltd., but with respect to him, I do not think it proves anything at all. He cited the fact that the Great Eastern Life Assurance Co. Ltd, had put up a report that their previous year of trading was an exceptionally good one and, because of that, he tried to make the point that Singapore was doing extremely well. But what the Minister does not appreciate is that this Company carries on business not only in Singapore but also in the Federation and in the territories surrounding this island. Therefore, it could well be that any great profit derived by this Company does not come from Singapore but from the Federation of Malaya which we now know has done extremely well during the last two years. So I think the statement made by the Minister along those lines without exactly specifying the sources of the profits for that particular year does not help his case one bit. Sir, to come back to the Development Plan. The Minister for Labour and Law has said that none of the Members of the Opposition has made any attempt to analyse the Development Plan as presented by the Government. Sir, this book reached Members of the Opposition sometime towards the end of last month, and today is the 13th. Exactly 13 days after this book was presented to Members of the Opposition, a very important debate concerning the future of Singapore is being held. Does the Government really seriously expect a detailed and thorough study to enable the Opposition to offer some comments on the Plan which would help the Government to steer the course properly? The position might have been different if at, the same time when this book was submitted an indication had been given to Members of the Opposition that this - Development Plan would be the subject matter of a debate in the Assembly. When this book reached Members; of the Assembly, we knew, of course, that there was going to be an Assembly sitting on the 12th of this month. Now instead of coming clean - if I may use the expression of this very clean, Government - and telling the Opposition that it was the intention of Government to debate this Plan at this sitting, they kept it a State secret and gave Members of the Opposition just the bare statutory notice which is two days or is it one day, Mr Speaker? Is it fair to Members of the Opposition? Or may I ask the Minister for Finance - is it fair to the country at large that an important document such as this should be debated at such short notice and after Members of the Opposition and members of the public have only had an opportunity of looking at it for .10 or 12 days? If no constructive criticism is forth-coming. I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Government must take the blame for it. However, with the time at our disposal, let us try and see what we can make of this Development Plan. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am going to suggest to the Minister for Finance that this plan is not the magnum opus that it has been cracked up to be. I have been associated with the City Council for a number of years. I know a little about these so-called Development Plans. When I was in the City Council, Sir, the City Council also wanted to know where the Council was going for the period of the succeeding five years, because it wanted to have an insight into the future in order that it might make necessary financial provision. Therefore, the Council instructed each head of department to submit to it a list of the projects he had in mind. The result of that request was that every head of department put up everything he thought he should do during the next five years without considering whether everything that he put up was vitally necessary for the period of the five years in respect of which he was asked to put up the Plan. In other words, what I am saying to you. Mr Speaker, Sir, is this. In those circumstances, what usually happens is that each head of department prepares his annual budgets five years ahead, and these five-year budgets are prepared by each head of department on his own without consulting the other heads of departments and without in any way trying to integrate the expenditure of all the departments in the City Council and finding out exactly what the net result of all the projects would be if the money could have been found. Having stated that, I am going to suggest to the Minister for Finance that exactly what happened in the City Council has happened in this case. The Minister had written to his heads of departments saying "Please tell me what you can do over the next five years. Not only what you want to do but what you can do over the next five years." And I am telling him that the result is that a number of requests went out from the heads of departments and they were probably analysed by some committee, maybe by the Minister's own department. And it was vetted on the basis of what the Minister for Finance thought he could raise in the way of money. So that this Plan, Mr Speaker, Sir, is not a Plan in the sense that one thinks of a Development Plan drawn up by a young country which is seeking to set itself a Plan in order that the national income of the country might be raised from year to year, and that the standard of the living of the people could be increased from year to year. This is just a slap-dash, haphazard Plan suggested to the Minister by heads of departments, which he vetted on the basis of what he thought he could raise in the way of money. I am suggesting to him that that is the basis on which this Plan was born. If I may deal with some of the aspects of this Plan, Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will turn to page 35 of the blue book. This sets out the Development Plan Capital Expenditure Estimates for the period concerned, 1961-1964, and on page 38 there is an analysis of the Development Plan Estimates classified according to repayment potentialities - therefore, setting out the financial aspects and the financial implications of such a Plan. Mr Speaker, Sir, a Development Plan must be conceived and given birth to against a background of the needs of the country in respect of which the Plan is being propounded. We have heard of several Development Plans for India. We have heard of several Development Plans for Russia. We have heard of several Development Plans for China. Their problems are not the same as ours. Their possibilities and their potentialities are not the same as ours. Therefore, their Plans must necessarily be different from ours. The problems in Singapore are quite different from the problems in India, China and Russia. We started as a small island, and we continue as a small island without any annexation to the mainland at the moment. This place grew up as a trading centre for the areas surrounding Singapore and Malaya. Up to the end of the Second World War, we were completely a trading centre. Subsequent to the Second World War, the political situation around us was different. Territories around us got independence. Therefore, the reasons which enabled Singapore to prosper in the way that she did previous to the Second World War were slowly being whittled away. Indonesia got her independence. Malaya became independent. And the other territories like Burma and Siam began to assert themselves. They were no longer willing to let Singapore be the base from which their primary produce was to be exported elsewhere, nor were they prepared to let Singapore be the base through which the manufactured goods were to reach them from the producing countries. Therefore the happy position in which Singapore was to get the primary produce and export it to other countries, and after that bring back the manufactured goods and then send back to the original countries no longer existed in the same way as it had been before the war. The inevitable conclusion is that Singapore cannot survive by entrepot trade alone. Therefore, we have to supplement our living with some other means. Naturally we have no primary products here. Therefore, the only thing we can turn our attention to is to manufacture. We want to industrialise ourselves. The Plan recognises that and says that the only thing we can do in order to provide employment possibilities for the growing generation, and for the young boys and girls who are coming out from schools, is to try and industrialise as fast as possible. I think we all accept the position that Singapore must supplement her entrepot trade with development on the industrial sector. Against that background, therefore, the Plan must be conceived in order that the entrepot position will be maintained, if not strengthened further, and added to that, we should try and strengthen our industrial sector in a way which will not interfere with or diminish our entrepot strength. Against that background, it became the business of the Minister for Finance to formulate the Development Plan which would during the next four years maintain, if not strengthen, the entrepot position and yet bring about some sort of industrialisation which would provide employment opportunities for the girls and boys who are now in school. Mr Speaker, Sir, on page 52 of the blue book, paragraph 6.7 reads: `The Plan envisages investment in the public sector within the Plan period of $871 million.' Therefore the Plan - the break-up of which is set out on pages 35 and 38 - really concerns itself with investment by the Government in the public sector, and that investment is going to cost the country $871 million. The investment in the public sector will be a complete and utter waste of money unless the private sector comes and puts to use the investment by the Government in the public sector. I make that point, Mr Speaker, Sir, because if the Government invests the $871 million in the public sector hoping that such investment will attract private investment in the private sector, if I may put it that way, and if that does not happen, then this Plan will be ineffective. Now, let us therefore analyse the Table on page 38. Mr Speaker, the first item is: Land Purchases for General Development and Resettlement, $11.31 million. That is an item which in no way helps the industrialisation of the country. It is merely an item which supplements item No. 4 under "II. Social Development" - Housing, $153.60 million. The $11.31 million merely supplements that and is not in any way going to contribute towards industrialisation of the country. Then we get to the next item: Swamp Reclamation Schemes, $4 million. Well, nobody is going to suggest that the catching of prawns is going to help the industrialisation of our country. Then we get to the Rural Development Schemes, $26.10 million. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will get a complete analysis of' that on page 66. Now, the break-up there is: Million $ Roads 18.98 Improvement to Bridges .18 Markets .57 Community Amenities 1.29 Electricity and Water 2.88 Drainage 1.41 Bedok Water Supply .02 Other Rural .7 Development (and the Minister for National Development has just told us that that merely means helping the fishermen and the farmers) ----- 26.09 ----- Nobody is going to suggest that this: $26.09 million is going to help the industrialisation of this country over the next four years. We now come to Animal Husbandry and Agricultural Station, Sembawang, $0.05 million. I think it is self-evident, that, on the face of it, that is not going to help industrialisation. The next item, Mr Speaker, Sir, is Economic Development Board, a $100 million contribution; Kallang Project, $40 million; Jurong Project, $45 million. Quite definitely, these three items relate themselves to industrial development. Then the next item is Land Acquisition for Industrialisation and other development costs for industrialisation, $5.6 million. Quite clearly, it is connected with the three preceding items. Electricity is $78.5 million; Water $54.23 million; Gas $14.03 million. These are not entirely matters which relate themselves to industry, because we must have electricity in respect of housing projects; we must have water for our housing projects; and possibly gas also is a split item between industry and housing. So those three items partially relate themselves to industry and partially to what is known as social development. The next item is the heading "3. Transport and Communications": East Wharf Development, $12.7 million - I take it that that item relates itself to port facilities and more properly should come under the heading of Entrepot trade, or Entrepot Facilities. Improvement of Singapore River $15.7 million - I hardly think, Mr Speaker, Sir, that that is going to help industrialisation. It might make our City a more efficient entrepot trading centre, but it certainly is not going to help in the industrialisation of this island in any way. Marine, Meteorological Services, Civil Aviation, Telecommunications, Roads, Drainage, Bridges, Posts, Telephone Board - none of these items, Mr Speaker, Sir, can in any remote way be said to concern itself with industrialisation. Now, "Social Development". Health $35.8 million; Education $94.48 million - these are all matters which do not concern themselves immediately with industrialisation in the next four years and similarly items under "Public Administration", Mr Speaker, Sir. Therefore, the four items which really concern themselves with industrialising this island of ours is the $100 million grant to the Economic Development Board, the Kallang Project $40 million, the Jurong Project $45 million, and the items concerning Electricity, Water and Gas. Let us therefore, examine these several projects in turn. If I may deal with the Kallang Project first, Mr Speaker, Sir. Mention of it is made on page 69: `Kallang Swamp Project The Kallang Swamp is a group of contiguous patches of tidal swamp spread out at the confluence of the Kallang and Whampoa Rivers behind the narrow estuary of the Kallang River. Fringed by temporary residential settlements,...' and it goes on to describe the area, Mr Speaker, Sir. Then at the end of paragraph 7.39: `In 1954, the Master Plan team realised its potentialities as Kallang is the biggest single stretch of unused land that could be properly developed.' Paragraph 7.42 is very interesting, Mr Speaker, Sir: `The best fill material is available from quarries in Jalan Eunos and near the International Airport. In fact, quarrying operations will produce a good area for housing development and make suitable an old quarry area as a village site. Ample material exists. An access road from these sources will have to be constructed to link up with the fill area; heavy earth-moving machinery which constructed the airport are available and they can operate economically at a rate of about 200,000 cubic yards a month. [This is the point]. These and other machinery can undertake the huge fill in about 4 to 5 years.' So you get this wonderful Kallang Project on which we are going to industrialise, but on which nothing can be done, Mr Speaker, Sir, for the next four to five years because it has to be filled first. And this is a tidal swamp; I do not know whether the Ministry has bothered to find out whether this area, after filling, is going to be suitable for industrial development, because when you have heavy machinery installed, you have to have good foundations. And you cannot have foundations in a place which is a tidal swamp filled up. I remember this, and I think the whole of Singapore remembers this, that the first thing which the Minister for Culture did was to announce that he would have his National Theatre at Kallang. If he had only stopped to ask those who knew something about that place at the old Kallang Airport, I think he would have been advised that such a place was not suitable, because such a project had been previously considered and had been rejected by the City Council. But because the Minister was in such a hurry, he took our Yang di-Pertuan Negara there and made him lay a foundation-stone. He subsequently found that the area was unsuitable. So the Government has now gone to the King George V Park. I hope the Minister for Finance will not embark on any such foolish business on this Kallang swamp without getting any further advice from his experts as to whether the land is suitable for industrial development. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, we come to the Jurong Project, $45 million, and something is said about it on page 71: `Jurong Industrial Area To provide a site of about 1,000 acres for the Plant'. The Plant here talked of, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the iron and Steel Plant which is very famous these days in Singapore and about which we are being advised by United Nations experts who themselves are unable to make up their minds whether Singapore can take this Iron and Steel Plant. But the greater question is this: `To provide a site of about 1,000 acres for the Plant [that is, this steel plant], it is necessary to provide a large industrial estate of about 9,000 acres in the initial stage on the south-west of Singapore Island in Jurong.' What I gather from that statement, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this: that the focal point of this industrial development is going to be this Iron and Steel Plant. Now, that being the focal point, that having been established as an iron and steel plant, around it and surrounding it on the other 9,000 acres, subsidiary industries will spring up, and so utilise to the fullest extent the capital investments that have been put in on this Iron and Steel Plant. Now, the money provided for the Jurong Project is, I take it, the money that will be required for the development of the site which will enable the Iron and Steel Plant to be erected on it. This $45 million, I take it, is not the total cost of the Iron and Steel Plant. I take it that the cost of the Iron and Steel Plant will run into hundreds of millions. So that, Mr Speaker, we get to the position where these two star projects which the Minister for Finance has propounded in his Development Plan - Kallang and Jurong - on close analysis are somewhat of a fiasco in relation to the Four-Year industrialisation plan. Then we come to Electricity, Water and Gas. Now, Mr Speaker, if I may speak about Water first, because water is life, so the City Council has said. The water supply in Singapore is in great danger. I am satisfied in my own mind that there is a shortage of water in Singapore, and that the Government has not paid due attention to the water supply in Singapore. It is by sheer good fortune, Mr Speaker, Sir, that during the course of last year, we have not had the supply of water rationed, because the reservoirs have been empty enough. Had it not been for the timely rain, I think Singapore would have been faced with a shortage of water supply. I congratulate the P.A.P. Government in having called the elements to their support and got themselves out of a very, very tight situation! But you know, Mr Speaker, the elements might not be that favourable next year - this year rather - and then they will really be in a jam. And if we do not have enough water for domestic consumption, I ask the Minister for Finance how he is going to give it to industry. Let him try - there will be a riot.

What?

There will be a riot if you cut off the water supply from domestic consumers and give it to industry - that is what I am saying. Now on the Electricity question, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like the Minister for Finance to tell this House what proposals he has for increasing the amount of electricity which is being generated in Singapore today and which is going to cost him $78.50 million. Or is it merely this: that he has asked the Electrical Engineer to submit what he thought he could do for the next five years, and that officer has sent in these proposals, "Oh, I could do with $78 million. Can you give me $78 million?"? Or did he ask for $200,000 or $20,000 - I do not know. There is nothing stated as to what the plans of the Government are - whether they have formulated plans, whether they have gone out to contract - nothing like that is shown. Then there is the question of Gas: whether it is necessary to have gas for industry is a debatable point. But if the Government is advised that for that particular industry gas is necessary, well, I am quite prepared to accept that. Now, on the question of the $100 million grant to the Economic Development Board, there again, Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not know how this money is to be utilised. Apparently it could be utilised to help existing industries; on the other hand, it might be used to help industries that are likely to come in. So, on the whole, Mr Speaker, Sir, this brave Plan which is going to create a brave new world, on close analysis, does not seem to amount to much. If we had been given longer time to study it, I wonder if it might not amount to nothing at all. The rest of the projects on that page merely concern themselves with normal year-to-year development which must inevitably take place. This Plan is cracked up to be a Plan which is intended to provide for the future development of this country. By that, I take it, the future economic development of this country. From that point of view, to my mind, it is a complete failure. It cannot achieve the purpose for which Government sets itself to do. Now there is another aspect of this upon which I would like to touch. The financial aspects of the Plan are set out on page 38. Under column 1 on page 38, under "Self-funding" are set out items against Electricity, Water, Gas, East Wharf Development, Telephone Board. It is very proper, Mr Speaker, Sir, that any money borrowed should have sinking funds and interest payments accounted for. They should fund themselves and eventually these monies will be recovered and Government will have it all over again after a space of years. Then we come to this very interesting proposition by the Government: the money they are going to give to the Housing Board is also a self-funding project. As I understand it, it merely means this. That the Government is going to lend money to the Housing Board at a rate of interest. I take it that it will be an economic rate of interest. If it is an economic rate of interest, it must be about 5 per cent. And if that is the intention of Government, that the money which they will lend to the Housing Board is to be self-funding, then I challenge the Minister for National Development to let out these fiats at $20 per month without heavy subsidies. Now under column 2 "Revenue Earning (but not funding)". Apparently the Kallang project is going to earn revenue, Mr Speaker, Sir. But I cannot see it earning any revenue over the next five years. Certainly not, because you are not going to fill it in five years. It may be after the next five years, but during the next five years, it is not going to earn any revenue at all. The suggestion here is that it is going to earn revenue during the plan period. If it is not so, it has not been stated. Similarly with the Jurong project, Mr Speaker, Sir. The improvement of the Singapore River scheme is going to be a revenue - earning project. But I do not see, Mr Speaker, Sir, what revenue the Government hopes to collect, which they are not collecting at the moment on that river. Telecommunications - yes. Posts - yes. Sewerage. Mr Speaker, is going to produce revenue. I wonder how much revenue. Culture - yes, I suppose. Television, commercial radio and customs - yes. Then the "Non-revenue earning but National income-increasing" projects are set out under "Rural Development Schemes". It is an interesting proposition that is made there. If you will examine that item again at page 66. The total amount of that item there is $26,092 million. Of that, $3.47 million is put down as revenue-earning but not funding; non-revenue earning but National Income increasing is $21.33 million, and Charge on Revenue is $1.30 million. It adds up to $26.10 million all right. But I really do not know which are the items that go up to make those three separate heads. Mr Speaker, Sir, I find it very difficult to understand how roads and improvement to bridges, community amenities, and drainage could bring in revenue. Possibly markets might bring in revenue. Electricity and water might bring in revenue. Other rural development might bring in revenue. The Bedok water supply might bring in revenue. But I cannot see roads and improvement to bridges, community amenities and drainage bringing in any money, nor helping the Government to increase the national income. These are some of the things which the Government sets out on these pages, and I am suggesting to the Minister for Finance that not as careful consideration has been given to these items as should have been, because this Plan has been put together hurriedly and brought out hurriedly. We do not know who the authors of the Plan are. It is suggested in the Press - and the Press may well be wrong, as they usually are - that the Minister for Finance is one of them and Mr Puthucheary is the other. Whether that is correct or not we do not know. The Minister might tell us who are the authors of this Plan. So that is the position. Mr Speaker, Sir, as it strikes me. Whether a closer study of this will reveal that I am wrong, or whether a closer study of it will reveal that I am right, and I might find even more defects in the Plan, I do not know. But the position, as I see it, after such a study as I have been able to give to this Plan is that even if the Government succeeds in the plans that it sets out to achieve, it is not going in any way to increase the national income over the next four years.

7.21 p.m. Resolved, "That the proceedings set down on the Order Paper this day be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1" - [The Minister for Culture - Mr S. Rajaratnam].

7.22 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, listening to the speeches today and yesterday of the Members opposite, and, in particular, of the Member for Tanglin and the Member for Cairnhill on the Four-Year Development Plan, one got the distinct impression that they were in a quandary. The Four-Year Development Plan has had them stumped. They could not refute the cold logic and practicability of the Plan because, in order to do so, they would have to produce facts and arguments to expose its inadequacies and shortcomings. So they took the easy way out and at least the Member for Cairnhill said that the Plan was a good one, though his colleague, the Member for Farrer Park, is of the opinion that the Plan has practically collapsed. Perhaps the Member for Cairnhill, when he said that the Plan was a good one, felt that perhaps he was conceding too much and so he qualified his approval by saying that though the Plan was good, the P.A.P. Government which put the Plan into shape was not as good as the Plan it fathered. The Member for Tanglin, in particular, excelled himself in the art of running in all directions at the same time. The Plan was all right simply because it showed, according to his argument, that the P.A.P. Government in the 22 or 23 months it has been in power had rectified its errors. The Plan, so hinted by the Member for Tanglin, was good simply because it was a repudiation of the P.A.P. election programme as contained in The Tasks Ahead. So I waited hopefully for the Member for Tanglin to substantiate this startling analysis by comparing the programme outlined in The Tasks Ahead with the Four-Year Development Plan to show how and where both differ. In our view, the Member's claim was startling simply because the Four-Year Plan is in intention and in fact an elaboration, in economic terms, of the broad principles outlined in The Tasks Ahead. This being so, we on the Government side expected the Member for Tanglin to show in what way the Four-Year Plan was a repudiation of the basic principles and intentions stated in The Tasks Ahead. It is not always easy to follow the verbal meanderings of the Member for Tanglin even at the best of moments - and yesterday certainly was not one of his best moments. One got the impression that he was trying very hard, like the pursued octopus, to conceal his thoughts behind an unusually inky cloud of confusion. So if I have missed out some telling piece of confused logic on his part, I hope the Member for Tanglin will realise that at least I did my best to follow what he was trying to say. If I remember correctly, he remarked with a triumphant glint in his eye that during the elections the P.A.P. had promised to establish an Utopia, but now, wiser with experience, it was offering something less than an Utopia in the Four-Year Plan. Now I would not like to suggest to the Member for Tanglin that he is deliberately inventing something which is not true. I can only attribute it to too much reliance on his somewhat playful memory which deliberately misleads him into believing things which are not factually correct. People who have reached retirement age should be a little bit wary of trusting their memory too much. The allegations that the P.A.P. Government has departed from its election programme has been repeated so often not only by the Member for Tanglin, but also by his S.P.A. colleagues and by the former Member for Hong Lim, that perhaps it would not be a waste of time to expose the falsity of his calculated misinformation. Those who make such allegations are perhaps banking on the fact that the public by and large would not bother to look up our political and economic intentions as proclaimed in The Tasks Ahead and find out for themselves whether, in fact, there has been a radical departure. For example, yesterday the Member for Tanglin expressed satisfaction that the P.A.P., having promised to set up an Utopia before the elections, has now settled for something less glamorous in its Four-Year Plan. Can the Member for Tanglin therefore quote chapter and verse to justify his allegation that the P.A.P. promised to set up an Utopia? On the contrary, if he has read The Tasks Ahead carefully, he would have discovered how careful we were not to rouse false expectations. For example, I refer to Part I of The Tasks Ahead, page 6, paragraph 3, which states: `The plans we have laid down are not over-ambitious ones. They are realistic and are based on actual existing political and economic social conditions and 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 1� million and still growing at the rate of 65,000 a year.' Then again on page 7, we attempted to pitch our objectives very low. We say: `It is obvious that existing conditions are not favourable to the immediate attainment of a socialist society, and that a fully-developed socialist economy cannot be achieved as long as Singapore is separated from the Federation mainland.' Similarly on pages 20 and 21 we outlined some of the difficulties in the way of our economic development. All this judged by what we stated in The Tasks Ahead is a clear indication that there was no promise of Utopia and there has been no retreat from Utopia simply because the P.A.P. never promised an Utopia. Another argument produced by the Opposition to show that the P.A.P. had retreated from the spirit and purpose of the The Tasks Ahead was the claim that there was now a changed attitude on the part of the P.A.P. towards private enterprise. There was also an immodest hint that the Member for Tanglin and the S.P.A. were somehow responsible for persuading the P.A.P to change its views about private enterprise. This again, I am afraid, is another bit of self-induced fantasy on the part of the Member for Tanglin. The P.A.P. attitude is exactly as stated in The Tasks Ahead and the Four-Year Plan reflects the same attitude towards private enterprise as contained in The Tasks Ahead. I refer the Members of the Opposition to Part I of The Tasks Ahead on page 8, paragraph 6. This is what it states: `The planned industrial enterprises will be run either by the Board [i.e., the Economic Development Board] or in co-operation with private capital. 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.' And the role allotted to private enterprise in the Four-Year Plan is neither more nor less than what was stated in The Tasks Ahead. The Four-Year Plan is essentially a description of the activities the State will take in order to foster economic development arid stimulate activity by private enterprise. And the State's functions in economic development, if Members of the Opposition will read the Plan carefully, are as great as, if not greater than, those likely to be undertaken by private enterprise. 7.36 p.m.

The Member for Tanglin appears to be suffering from the delusion that the Four-Year Plan is a private enterprise Plan. It is not. It is a Plan of what the Government is going to spend in the public sector, one of whose effects would be to stimulate investment by private enterprise. The sum that is to be invested in the public sector is very substantial some $871 million during the next four years. It may or may not be that investment by private enterprise will equal this figure. For example, private investment in new industries has to be in the region of $600 million to provide 30,000 jobs. This will be a considerable sum for private enterprise to invest, but as against this the State will invest $871 million and will increase employment opportunities by 40,000, i.e. 20,000 in public construction and Government service and another 20,000 arising as a result of this vast expenditure by the State. What I want to stress is that the Government is not relying only on private enterprise to stimulate economic development. The contrary is the case. The Government is giving private enterprise a lead by imaginative, realistic and coherent and planned utilisation of resources. Without this massive intervention of the State in the economic field, there will be no opportunities for private enterprise to undertake rational economic development and, in particular, industrial development. Without this massive State intervention and panning, private enterprise will embark on chaotic economic activities which may profit a few individuals while driving the country as a whole to economic ruin and bankruptcy. Under the P.A.P. type of planning, private enterprise is encouraged to play a constructive and socially desirable function. Economic development will proceed not in terms of unfettered exploitation of the weak but also along lines that will be socially beneficial. Another piece of misinformation the Member for Tanglin uttered is the claim that the P.A.P. has now suddenly realised the need to encourage foreign investments. Here again let me quote relevant passages from The Tasks Ahead to show that the role allotted to foreign investments in the Four-Year Plan is not a new departure. In Part I, page 9 of The Tasks Ahead, this is what we say of the role of foreign capital: `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.' On page 25 we outlined the role of foreign capital in economic development. After reiterating our disbelief that the economic survival depended wholly or even substantially on foreign capital, we said that we would welcome foreign capital as an addition to our capital resources. We said: `Foreign business concerns which wish to establish factories in Singapore will be given all the encouragement and assistance they needed. We shall give them guarantees in regard to security of capital, remittance of dividends and other matters which all modern governments regard as normal practice. But it would be foolish to imagine that, whatever we do, foreign capital will come in on a scale needed to solve our problems. Our salvation lies in our hands. There are no benevolent foreigners knocking around the world, anxious to discharge these duties and responsibilities which are rightly our own.' So the Four-Year Plan has not in any way departed from this view. If the Members of the Opposition will look at the simple table on page 49 of the report, they will realise that the bulk of the $871 million for the Plan will come from our own resources. As far as private investments are concerned, we have at no time said that we would dispense with foreign investments. The Member for Cairnhill yesterday made great play of the warnings that were issued during the elections to foreign firms. Only he forgot to tell us the context in which the warning was issued and the nature of the warning. During the elections and before, a number of foreign firms decided to enter the political arena and back the S.P.A. Government against the P.A.P. We had even obscure Archbishops contributing to the election funds of Labour Front politicians. We said then that while we welcomed foreign capital and foreign enterprises which wished to do legitimate trade, we would not tolerate foreign capital which comes here as a prelude to political control. That was the context in which the warning to foreign capital and firms was issued. And that warning still stands. If foreign investors or foreign capitalists involve themselves in local politics, then they will be asking for trouble. But if they confine themselves to legitimate trade, they will get all protection and encouragement. That is clear from what was said in The Tasks Ahead, and that is implied in the Four-Year Development Plan. If the S.P.A. Members will read The Tasks Ahead and the Four-Year Plan carefully, they will discover that the Four-Year Plan is, essentially, an attempt to give economic flesh and bones to the broad principles outlined in The Tasks Ahead. Admittedly, the Plan is not a completely socialist Plan, but then even before the elections we said that a socialist society could not be realised within the confines of Singapore. But within the limitations of our peculiar economic structure we have attempted to introduce some of the elements traditionally associated with a socialist economy. One of these is the active and important role played by the State in the direction of our economy. The Plan, as I said a little while ago, shows the readiness of the State to intervene on a massive scale in the economic process and guide private enterprise. The other socialist element is the introduction of planning, though that planning is not as total as under a completely socialised economy. Nevertheless, there is a significant amount of planning. In the past, planning was done, by and large, annually by means of an annual Budget. For the first time in the history of Singapore, we have now a concrete Plan to cover a period of four years. The Plan has made a systematic and realistic survey of the extent of resources available during the next four years and planned its objectives in terms of these available resources. Within this context, we have said, as the motion states, that we exhort capital and labour to play a part in maintaining a fair balance between their respective interests. This term "fair balance" appears to have upset the Member for Tanglin who said that the Government should have laid more stress on increased productivity and speed in economic development. We believe in increased productivity and economic development, but we also believe in a fair balance between interests. It may be that the Member for Tanglin wants us to preserve an unfair balance, that is, to the disadvantage presumably of the workers.

I never said that.

The Member for Tanglin insisted that the Government is placing undue stress on the need to preserve a fair balance. An hon. Member: You can have reference to an arbitrator!

Both the Member for Tanglin and the Member for Cairnhill complained yesterday that the Government did not care two hoots for their views. That all depends on the views expressed. If they are intelligent views, they will be given every careful consideration. But if they are not, the hon. Members must not expect us to treat them as anything more than silly views. However, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill made a speech which struck me very much as though he was acting as a propaganda agent for the former Member for Hong Lim. He has brought in a new line. In fact, today, he was arguing very much that he hoped that the Government would not lose the by-election in Hong Lim, because if it did so, it would be disastrous not only for the country but also for the Development Plan. For the last three or four hours, I was wondering what reasons prompted this new political approach, because, if I remember correctly, until then the line of the S.P.A. was that Mr Ong Eng Guan was fighting the Opposition's battle in Hong Lim. But now the Member for Cairnhill has taken the line that he would not want Mr Ong Eng Guan to win the Hong Lim by-election. It strikes me that Mr Ong has been rather embarrassed by all this effusive support for his cause and he has perhaps found it necessary to indicate that it would be most embarrassing for a self-proclaimed revolutionary to enjoy the support of the S.P.A. So that now the Member for Cairnhill takes a new line by saying that a victory for Mr Ong in Hong Lim would be a disaster. But having disavowed sympathy for Mr Ong, the Member for Cairnhill then took to repeating in this Assembly the propaganda line Mr Ong has been taking at his street meetings and public rallies. For example, Mr Ong has always maintained that he was sacked from the Party so that the Government would have its chances of getting a loan better enhanced. Today, the Member for Cairnhill in a somewhat different fashion congratulated the Government for rectifying its errors and expelling Mr Ong from the Government. But he went on to say that he would not like to suggest that the expulsion of Mr Ong had anything to do with the Finance Minister's trip to London. He said that he personally did not believe it to be so, but he felt he could not help repeating this sort of rumour that has been spreading, and though he thought it highly improbable he felt that it was necessary to say so, so that tomorrow's papers will publish the line that there are other people who think that perhaps Mr Ong was expelled and, since his expulsion, the chances of the Minister for Finance and the P.A.P. Government of getting a loan are far better enhanced. Again, Mr Ong has always maintained that the Work Brigade is a device for cheering Ministers. The Member for Cairnhill said that he had heard that the Work Brigade was paid by Government and that it was used to cheer the Minister for Labour and Law when he returned to Singapore. Of course, the Member for Cairnhill said that he did not believe it but that was what he heard and he repeats it here. He hopes that tomorrow's papers will probably misquote the fact that he does not believe in it himself but will quote the rest of the passage to the effect that the Work Brigade is being used to cheer Ministers. Again, Mr Ong has suggested that Political Secretaries who talk on the P.A.P. by-election platform did so because they are being paid a salary out of public funds amounting to $1,100 a month each. The Member for Cairnhill took the opportunity to repeat here - in fact, he repeatedly stressed-that we are using Political Secretaries who each receive a salary of $1,100 a month. It might be pure coincidence that the Member for Cairnhill is echoing precisely the same thing that the former Member for Hong Lim is saying. The Member for Cairnhill says that he hopes the former Member for Hong Lim will not win the Hong Lim by-election, but he feels that the propaganda of the former Member for Hong Lim is worth repeating in this Assembly.

There you are!

Again, Mr Ong has made play of the issue of detainees. The Member for Cairnhill today brought up the question of detainees although this motion has nothing to do with it. He saw fit to bring up this issue again saying, "Here are the Political Secretaries pleading for their comrades in Changi," and therefore highlighting for the benefit of Mr Ong the question of detainees.

You are putting the blame on the Federation Government. It is wrong.

Mr Ong claims that the Trade Union Congress consists of Government stooges. The Member for Cairnhill dutifully repeats this in this Chamber today. Mr Ong has always maintained that the Government back-benchers do not see eye to eye with the Ministers, and the Member for Cairnhill spent a great deal of time yesterday and today saying, "Here is the Minister for Finance who is a very reasonable man. But the terrible Back-benchers do not follow the Government line," in the hope that the Minister for Finance would be in the bad books of the Back-benchers, which is precisely the same strategy that the former Member for Hong Lim had been following in this Chamber. The former Member for Hong Lim had said, "It is only the Ministers who are the wicked people. But there are very good Assemblymen on the back benches."

You have spoiled the soup!

The Member for Cairnhill has adopted a far more subtle, clever and adroit strategy than the rather naive Member for Tanglin. He comes to say, "I do not believe that So and So is a crook. But then I heard he is a crook." And then he looks up and he hopes that it would be published. He said, "No, the Minister for Finance is a very reasonable man. But the Back-benchers are really the ones who are really spoiling the soup for the Minister for Finance." Sir, this is a new strategy. Let us make one thing clear. If the Member for Cairnhill is expecting that, as a result of publicly stating that he hoped that the P.A.P. would win the by-election, he is going to administer the kiss of death to the Government Party, he is very much mistaken, because we know quite clearly that Mr Ong has the support and blessing of the Opposition. Let it remain there. Whatever subterfuges may be indulged in this Assembly, they would not cut very much ice certainly with the Government and certainly with members of the public. Mr Speaker, Sir-

Some more.

I fear that the Member for Cairnhill is a little bit anxious as to what line of argument he has to follow to help in the by-election, in view of the fact that this Assembly will be sitting on 26th April, a few days before Polling Day.

Dr Goh, in reply?

In reply, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir,I wish to start my remarks by replying to the allegation made by the Member for Farrer Park that the Opposition did not have sufficient notice to make a proper and adequate study of the Development Plan. They claimed that the document itself went to them some 13 days ago with a notice of debate just three days ago and that therefore until they received the notice of debate they were completely unaware that this matter would be discussed in the Legislative Assembly. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I remind them that at the last sitting of the Assembly on 22nd March. I made it a point to state that at the next sitting of the Assembly I would present this Development Plan for the approval of the Assembly? Therefore, if the Opposition who were probably absent as usual during serious sessions of the Assembly did not take notice of what I stated, then all I can say is that they have themselves to blame. Sir, coming to the arguments on the substantive motion, I may start on a light tone by commenting on the remarks of the Member for Tanglin, who never ceases to astonish me by his progress as a most assiduous student of political tracts published by the People's Action Party. Sir, it is my hope that the time and effort that he has spent in studying the publications of the P.A.P. would be duly rewarded by enlightenment and by an advance in political understanding. Although I can see some progress in this direction, I cannot say that he would quite make the grade now because, as understanding glimmers and dawns upon his mind, he does not attribute that to an improvement of his political understanding but to a change in our Party stand. An hon. Member: Very subtle! 8.00 p.m.

Sir, you will remember that during the general election, the Member for Tanglin said at a mass meeting, and he was reported in the Straits Times - unfortunately I do not have a copy of it today, not being systematic as the Member for Tanglin is - as saying, "Your house is on fire. It has been struck by lightning." I thought that this was just a figure of speech and that maybe the Member for Tanglin was just having a private joke by himself. But I am now convinced that he really believed that statement - that the P.A.P., when it came into power, would be out to ruin the country, burn the houses down, massacre the people, and God knows what. Therefore, when we came into power and had done none of these things, and had never acted like backwoodsmen - on the contrary, we are the most reasonable of reasonable people - he said, "You have changed!" Where? What has happened is that he now says, "Yes. They are reasonable people. They said these things. It was quite reasonable." But he thought that there is not quite that exact correspondence between our campaign speeches and our performance today. My colleague, the Minister for Culture, has gone into some detail on this subject, and I do not want to dwell too much on it. But may I say this: he said that whereas this Development Plan would be dependent on overseas capital and overseas know-how to give us the impetus to our industrialisation programme, there was no such acceptance in the Party's Five-Year Plan when we met the electorate. We said - and he quoted a section of the Party's Five-Year Plan - that "Singapore does not depend on foreign capitalists for its survival." We said that in 1959, and we say it today. The Plan never said that Singapore depends on foreign capitalists for its survival. If the Member for Tanglin disputes this proposition, it is open to him to quote any section. He quoted that part of the Plan which says to the contrary. Mr Speaker, Sir, you must remember that in May 1959, when we were campaigning, we were in the situation that whenever the former S.P.A. Government made any public declaration of economic policy, their main emphasis was this: that the P.A.P. was driving away foreign capital and therefore Singapore would die. We then had to tell the people, "Your main survival depends on your own efforts, and not on what outsiders (foreign capitalists) do for Singapore." And even today we say that the overseas manufacturer has no responsibility whatsoever to come here. That remains true. And if you stake your existence on this, then I say that you are living in a dreamworld. We have never said, and this Plan never claims to assert, that the livelihood of the people of Singapore depends on foreign capitalists. We say that we make the main effort; and having developed the strength of the economy, and having produced by our own efforts, by our own self-discipline, the proper climate for investment, then we will have a good chance of attracting a substantial amount of overseas investment and technical know-how with which to give us that first impetus to our industrialisation programme. That is all we have said. What we say now in the Development Plan is in no way inconsistent with what we said in May 1959 before the electorate. Sir, time does not allow me to answer all the statements made by Members of the Opposition, and I wish to confine my remarks to criticisms - carping criticisms, if I may say so - put forward by the Member for Farrer Park. I shall deal with his comments on the Development Plan point by point. First, he said that this Plan is not all that it is cracked up to be, because, after all, it is only a rehash of what Government departments want to do. Based on his perhaps not so brief but certainly an inglorious experience in the colonial City Council, he presumes to pronounce judgment on the mechanics whereby we created this Plan, and to say that the way it was done was inadequate. Inadequate, because it is no more than a rehash of dribs and drabs sent in by the departments of the Government. Sir, I will be the first to admit that in certain fields of government activity, the all expansion programme must depend on what the civil servants in the departments concerned tell you. That is the first approach. Take departments like the Post Office, Telecommunications, or Veterinary, or what have you. These are technical departments of Government. And if the head of department is at all worthy of his pay, he must think forward in his normal routine work. Therefore, if the department says, "Yes, this is the way. The Post Office must always know where they are going to site the new post offices over the next five years." And in respect of the programme for such technical departments, I should say that the Member for Farrer Park is correct. But to say that the whole Plan has been conceived, worked out and developed in this way is absolutely monstrous. I have explained, in the first instance, that although there are plans of some sort available in departments, it is necessary to develop them, to reappraise them, and to get a certain assessment of their consequences or revenue and expenditure if these projects are to be implemented. And this is a time-consuming effort because the departments' estimates have to be checked, rechecked, for consistency, for possibility of other factors arising. Apart from the rather mechanical work of assessing the implications and consequences of the Plan, it is necessary that the Government should be guided by a scale of priorities, because if you just add up whatever is dished out to you and swallow the whole thing, you are likely to end up with an awful tummy-ache, a completely indigestible rehash of what has been put into the sausage machine of the administrative system. And in setting out the scale of priorities - and this is the determining factor - we are not guided by the pet schemes of departments, because if you allow every department to do whatever it likes, then I can assure you, Mr Speaker, Sir, we shall not need $871 million for the next four years, but something nearer $3,000 million. You must have a scale of priorities and that scale of priorities is determined by your political programme - the programme that you put before the electorate - which gives you the direction in which you want to propel the economic system, taking into account the promises you have given to the electorate, the type of political and social advance, you think desirable and possible at this stage of Singapore's development. It is here that we find the crucial element of the Plan. It is here that the Ministry of Finance, as the central planning authority in this instance, has to balance the counter claims of the other Ministries competing for a limited amount of resources. That was the initiative that was taken by the planning organisation in consultation with Ministers in the different Ministries as regards priorities between social and economic development, and between different fields, different projects within each of its major fields. We were at once struck by what is sometimes termed, in contemporary economic terminology, "the inadequacy of Singapore's industrial intra-structure", that is to say, the basic services such as roads, port facilities, power, water, light, telecommunications, land, industrial sites, and so forth which are necessary-if you want rapid industrialisation-in order to have any chance whatsoever of succeeding. It is here that the initiative of the Government has been revealed in the Plan before the Assembly. I can assure you that if you allow the administrative machine to submit plans and projects and put them all into some sort of shape, you will have a completely different Plan from the one before the Assembly. It was necessary, while the preparation of this Plan took place, to give as much preparation in detail as was possible to projects such as Kallang, Jurong, the Economic Development Board, and so forth. As I have explained in my opening address, this Plan was first worked out in October 1959. The first draft was completed six months after. At the time when we started work on the Plan, which was nearly a year and a half ago, the technical details available for these major projects which were intended to speed up industrialisation progress were in a very rudimentary form. They were no more than vague ideas. Therefore, we had to spend a long time during the few months at our disposal to work them out in some suitable form. Since the completion of the first draft, considerable progress has been made, and I will refer to it in due course. But it is in the nature of things that you must have a dead-line somewhere and say, "All right. Whatever is ready at that time goes." After the first half of 1960, although further details were available, we decided not to incorporate them into this Plan because we were certain that there would be further revision. The Member for Farrer Park also challenged the adequacy of our plans for the development of electricity. He asked whether they were just the ideas of the Electricity Engineer. The Electricity Engineer thought that this should be done and therefore we accepted it. In point of fact, the problem of the expansion of electric power was posed by the planning authority and submitted to the Electricity Engineer for his consideration. We made a number of projections of possible expansion in the demand of electricity, given various assumptions about the growth of industry. Finally, after discussions with him, we decided on a certain projection which we thought to be the most probable. Based on that, it was up to him to produce a plan whereby this growth of electricity could be achieved. The Member for Farrer Park considers the Jurong Scheme to be an ill-conceived one and that it is not likely to lead to any success. He thinks the details of this plan to be completely inadequate. As I have said, the details of the Jurong industrial site as entered in the Plan are the ones that were available at the time when we decided to say, "So far and no farther." This is a living project. After the closing date of the plan revision, we have had a visit from a Japanese team of industrial planners. Since then, the Singapore Government has established a team of its own technical experts, consisting of engineers from the P.W.D., members of the Singapore Harbour Board, engineers from the Water Department, the Electricity Department, the Town-planners and so forth, to examine these factors in great detail. We have completed a large-scale topographic mapping of the area. The Marine Department has completed a hydrographic survey of the waters around Jurong. Boring tests have been completed and technical data are in the process of being sent to Tokyo for evaluation by the Japanese industrial planners. It is in the nature of things that, in working on a substantial long-term project such as Jurong, it is not possible to have all the final details completed in the first six or ten months of our office. That was the time when the main part of the Plan was conceived and written. We have, therefore, gone out of our way to stress that this is a flexible Plan, in itself developing from time to time as we collect more technical data and as we make a further appraisal of the economic situation. The Member for Farrer Park's remarks about the Kallang project, I think, can be dealt with very briefly. It is obvious that if it takes four to five years to fill up the swamp, then you are not going to get any revenue during that period. I would have thought that to be a self-evident proposition. And indeed it is likely that you are not going to get any revenue for a long time after that, because, having filled the swamp, you have to allow the land to settle down. But land being one of the most scarce resources in Singapore, and the Kallang swamp occupying such a central area, we consider this project is worth examining and proceeding with. If the Member for Farrer Park had read the latter part of this plan dealing in detail with the Kallang project, he would have known that what appeared in the first half was really the recommendations of some years ago when engineers decided that we could fill the swamp by moving earth from Paya Lebar. Now we are having a new look at the problem to find out whether or not we cannot fill up the swamp cheaper, such as by suction pumping of mud in the Singapore harbour. Here again technical work is in progress, and I will not say more about that. The Member for Farrer Park says, with a considerable amount of glee, that this Plan will fail if there is no private investment. Surely nobody is going to dispute that. The whole emphasis of my opening address was to stress the hope that the substantial amount of investment in the public sector would have the effect of inducing correspondingly large investments in the private sector. I am not quite sure what was the point the Member for Farrer Park was making. If his point was that the Plan should have contained some targets for private investment - and in the plans of some countries targets for private investments are set out - then I say it is not possible in an open economy such as ours to say that there shall be X million dollars of private investment in the building industry; Y million dollars' worth of investment in the chemical industry, and so forth. Such planning targets of investment in industry are possible only in two circumstances. One is when you have a completely collectivised economy, where the Government itself establishes its industries. In fact, the Government is the sole source of industrial progress. That is possible. It is also possible where you have a very substantial economy with a very large population and a closed market, that is to say, in countries such as India where you can decide not to import electric fans. Then you know that you have to produce so many hundreds of thousands of electric fans that will require private investment of so many lakhs of rupees, and you decide that such investments would be left to the private sector. Then you can set up this target and so arrange a system of licensing of new industries that it means something. But in an open economy such as ours, planning along these lines is not, at any rate at this stage, possible. The Member for Farrer Park goes to some length to refer to page 35. He says that many items in the Plan have no effect on industrialisation. For instance, the Animal Husbandry and Agricultural Stations at Sembawang are not related to industrialisation. No one will dispute that. He says that the swamp reclamation scheme intended to produce prawn ponds and reclaim land for farms has no direct relevance to industry. Nobody disputes that. But surely he is not making the point that the whole Plan should be concentrated on the development of industry to the exclusion of all other activities. That is an unacceptable proposition. Surely in a long-term development plan you must so balance your resources that all sectors of the economy have a fair share of development expenditure. Then the Member enters on a discussion of page 38 of the Plan. He disputes that roads, bridges and drains could be considered as increasing the national income. How is it that roads, drains and bridges do not increase the national income? Surely they do. You find that as an axiom in all development plans. Take the Federation Development Plan, for instance. Substantial sums of money are spent on building new roads so that new areas can be opened up for cultivation, thereby increasing the national income, so that transportation of your agricultural produce can be made more easy, so that farmers could increase their income and increase their output. If you have irrigation drains and ditches to drain out flood water, you increase your national income to the extent that you avoid losses of crops through flood damage. I would have thought that this proposition would have been self-evident. Perhaps the Member for Farrer Park was confusing the growth of national income with the growth of Government revenue. I agree that these projects do not directly contribute to the Government revenue. But they do encourage and induce the growth of output in trade, and in agriculture especially, and to that extent can be considered as contributing to the growth of the national income. Now, Sir, one last crack from the Member for Farrer Park; a rather witty one, I thought, because he said that as a result of bad management by the P.A.P. Government, we should really have a water famine by now. But luckily the rain fell and saved us from this calamity. Sir, is the Member for Farrer Park aware that far from Providence being kind to the P.A.P. Government, it has been most unkind so far as the water supply goes? I am told that last year the total annual rainfall was just over 60 inches as compared with the normal average of 92 inches a year. And in fact, last year's rainfall was one of the lowest on record. Sir, I am not going to be so presumptuous as to say that it was the result of good government that we weathered the drought. All I can say is that in the matter of water supply we did at least do a great deal to undo the horrible mistake made by the City Council when they built this famous Murnane Reservoir at a cost of $5 million and found that that Reservoir leaked.

The water supply has nothing to do with it.

I disagree absolutely, Mr Speaker, Sir, If you have a reservoir, that reservoir holds water and is available in any emergency when you are short of water. Sir, I only want to mention in passing, since the Member for Farrer Park has raised the subject, that we are checking on the development plan of the Water Engineer. An Israeli expert has come recently to have a look at it and we have also applied to the World Bank for a revaluation of the development proposals in regard to the water supply. Sir, I have perhaps ranged over a wide field and taken much of your patience at this late hour of the night. If I have not been as logical in the development of my field in this concluding speech, it is because I have to meet arguments on a large number of disparate points. In my concluding remarks, I think I should not miss out the Member for Cairnhill. He said that one of the besetting sins of the P.A.P. is its arrogance, particularly the arrogance of the Ministers. Sir, I have always considered myself a humble person and my colleagues the most reasonable of persons. I am unable to trace any tinge of arrogance in them, nor have I heard this complaint from other people. Therefore, I am wondering what is the source - why does the Member for Cairnhill-

It was the first time!

Not the first time. He has been repeating this for a long time. I cannot see any reason why he says so. Why does he think so? He has said it so often that I am convinced he believes that I am arrogant. Some months ago, Sir, I went to see a film. It was the first film I had seen for years. The film was entitled, "The School for Scoundrels". And it preached the doctrine of "one-upmanship". The principal actor propounded this theory: either you are one up, or you are one down. And he urged upon everybody to be one up. Now, I rather suspect that the Member for Cairnhill is a believer of this proposition - that either you are one up, or you are one down. And he, being a Member of the Opposition and therefore one down, thinks that those who are one up are unduly arrogant. Sir, quite frankly, I cannot accept the allegations that we are a bunch of arrogant twirps because we have gone out of our way in this Development Plan to play down the benefits which will accrue to the people of Singapore as a result of successful P.A.P. implementation-

Order. I was wondering whether the Minister for Finance has used an unparliamentary word about his own Ministers. Did he call them "twirps"? If he did, it was unparliamentary.

Sir, that was, in fact, a phrase which - I mean, that is the trouble with going to films! That was the word which I think I heard in this film, and if it is unparliamentary, Mr Speaker, Sir, I withdraw it without any reservation, because it has no bearing whatsoever on the conduct of the Government front bench. Sir, after having throughout my opening address played down and minimised the importance and the significance of this Plan, if I may be permitted for one moment to give a word of praise about the Plan and what we proposed to do about it, we can say that as the Government we have worked hard and to the best of our ability. The position is difficult and our resources are scarce. But we have never failed for want of trying, and in the implementation of this Development Plan we can assure you, Mr Speaker, Sir, and Members of the Assembly that we shall press forward in this spirit.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, 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.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn to 26th April."-[Mr Rajaratnam]. Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Nine o'clock p.m. to Wednesday, 26th April 1961.