Hansard, 1961-12-07

Committee of Supply

In accordance with the provisions of paragraph (6) of Standing Order No. 86 and paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 87, I have for both the Main Estimates and the Development Estimates for 1962 fixed the times on each allotted day at which consideration of the heads of expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper shall, if not previously disposed of, be concluded. Those times will be circulated to Honourable Members and will appear in the Official Report*. I might add that the amount of time requested by Honourable Members exceeds the time available by almost four times, and it has accordingly become necessary to cut the time requested drastically, sometimes by more than three-quarters. It would therefore be necessary for Honourable Members who have given notice of amendments to endeavour to get together to share the time which has been made available for each head of expenditure. It is appreciated, of course, that Budget time or Supply time is Opposition time and they must make the best use of the time available. *Appendix, Cols 1623-8. Estimates of Expenditure of the State of Singapore 1962 and Development Estimates of the State of Singapore for 1962 (Cols 1623-1628)

Question. Mr Marshall.

Question No. 1+, Mr Speaker, Sir. + The Question reads as follows:- To ask the Prime Minister whether the statement made by him over Radio Singapore on the 10th October, 1961, to the effect that if an expatriate lawyer, when pursuing his professional responsibilities, says or does something which is considered foolish and is considered to injure the state of the mind of the people and to injure the Government, the Government would have to move and the expatriate lawyer would have no residence in Singapore, represents the policy of the Government, and whether he would clarify his statement. The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) not being in his seat -

The Prime Minister is not here. The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye) rose -

Dr Toh.

Just in elucidation of this, Sir. I am not supposed to answer this question. The question has been directed at the Prime Minister. I just wish to apologise on his behalf to the House that he is not here at the moment to answer it. I believe he has completely forgotten that he has one question to answer, because he has indicated to me that he will be here sometime later on at about 4 p.m. or so. If the House so desires, you can defer this question till tomorrow.

The relevant Standing Order is Standing Order 20, paragraph (3), which reads: 'If a Minister, Parliamentary Secretary or other Member, who is to answer a question, is absent, the question shall, if he then be present, be taken after all other questions appearing on the Order Paper has been disposed of. If the Minister, Parliamentary Secretary or other Member then be not present, he shall send copies of the answers to the Members who asked them and to the Clerk, who shall cause the answers to be circulated to Members and to be printed in the Official Report.' Therefore, the Prime Minister's answer will have to be circulated in the ordinary way.

On a point of elucidation, Sir. Would it be permissible if the Prime Minister were to make a statement instead of circulating the reply, so that we could ask supplementaries?

Certainly. If the Prime Minister thinks fit, at the appropriate time tomorrow, he could make a ministerial statement.

I am quite sure he will be quite prepared.

2.36 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I introduce the Appropriation Bill, it may perhaps be appropriate for me to welcome back to the House the pillars of democracy which departed from -

Order. I do not wish to have any of those jibes in this Assembly. The business now is the introduction of a Government Bill.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance for making provision for estimated financial requirements for expenditure to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund for the year 1962." Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

16th of December, Sir.

2.38 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the Fifth Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure of the State of Singapore for 1961 (contained in Paper Cmd. 37 of 1961) and the resumed debate on the motion of the Minister for Finance relating to the financial policy of the year 1962 be taken today. Question proposed.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the light of the possibility that the Leader of the House is not acquainted with the constitutional traditions of procedure, I would like to remind him that Budget Day - as this day is, as, in fact, you have just informed the House - is a day for the Opposition. There are five hours, Sir, between 2.30 and 8 p.m., our normal time, when the Budget debate takes place. The Opposition has met and the leaders have allocated amongst themselves the time which is theirs which is 4½ hours, leaving half an hour to Government, which is the traditional procedure in this matters. If the Leader of the House is of the view that the debate on the Fifth Supplementary Estimates would take so long as to eat into that half-hour, then the Opposition can meet and surrender part of its 4½ hours. But if the intention is that the. Government Front Benches or the Government side should have more than the traditional time to which it is entitled, Sir, I will oppose this motion, not because today having received notice I am not prepared to sit till late, but because I am not prepared to contravene the spirit of the democratic traditions of parliamentary procedure.

Sir, the Member for Anson has said it is the practice for Government benches to be allowed only half an hour. This is the first time I have heard of this practice. Could he please elaborate? It is not my recollection that that was the practice we had last year and the previous year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure the Front Bench will accept it from me. Could I crave the Chair's indulgence? The Chair is acquainted with traditions, and I am sure the whole House will receive an indication from you, Sir, as to what the proper procedure is.

I think I have indicated in the past that in all these matters, the parliamentary practice in other Parliaments is for agreement to be arrived at between the Government side and the Opposition side through the usual channels. That means that the Government Whip and the Opposition Whip - if there is an Opposition Whip - get together, decide as to what time should be made available to each other when there is limited time available, decide on the number of speakers and so on and so forth, so that the business on which there is a guillotine could be completed satisfactorily to both sides. As far as our Standing Orders are concerned, the position is that, ordinarily, the resumed debate on the Question, "That the Assembly approves the financial policy of the Government for the year 1962", should take from 3 p.m. (not 2.30 p.m.) to 8 p.m. Ordinarily also, if there is other business of Supply, that business of supply should be taken on a separate allotted day. But there have been cases where it is anticipated that one business of Supply would not take unduly long, and it has been the practice in the past for the type of motion which has been moved by the Leader of the House to be moved and accepted by the House. I think the Leader of the House will remember that there is an implicit understanding that if the first business of Supply enroaches on the time of the second business of supply, then he will undertake to move, at the end of the day, the suspension of Standing Orders, so that the time taken up by the first business of Supply could be added on to the time taken up by the second business of Supply after 8 p.m. That is roughly the position.

Sir, it is not my intention to rob Members of the Opposition of any time they wish to use to speak during the course of this debate, but as you have pointed out, according to page 6 of the Standing Orders, there is a footnote down there, which says quite correctly: 'The resumed Debate on the Annual Budget Statement or Business of Supply is taken at 3 p.m. on an allotted day....' We are now approximately at 2.44 p.m. If by 3 p.m. we do not finish the debate on the Fifth Supplementary Estimates, then at 3 p.m. we will automatically go on to the resumed debate on the Budget Statement. We will continue with the Fifth Supplementary Estimates, and at the moment of interruption we will extend whatever time that is lost.

I do not think I have answered the Minister for Finance. He wants to know whether there is a constitutional practice where the Minister is allowed half an hour for a reply -

The whole of it.

Well, the Ministerial bench. The answer is no. There is no such constitutional practice. All these things are made by arrangement. It might well be that the Opposition might think that even the time allotted by the Standing Orders is such that it is not sufficient for them to complete what they want to say and, therefore, insufficient for them to give any time to The Ministerial bench to answer any points they have made. That is left entirely to the Opposition. If they want an answer to the points they have made, then, of course, they should, of their own volition, allow certain time for Ministers of the Government bench to answer the points made.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the Fifth Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure of the State of Singapore for 1961 (contained in Paper Cmd. 37 of 1961) and the resumed debate on the motion of the Minister for Finance relating to the financial policy of the year 1962 be taken today.

Mr Speaker, Sir, do I now understand that Standing Orders are suspended merely for the time that may be required between 3 p.m. and such time as we start the Budget debate - only that extra time?

Actually the Standing Orders have not yet been suspended insofar as that aspect of the case is concerned. The Standing Orders will be suspended between 7 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. The Leader of the House has given an undertaking that he will add to the time available for the Budget debate the time which is to be or may be taken up by consideration of the Fifth Supplementary Estimates.

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

2.46 p.m.

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

I so signify.

We are now on the Fifth Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1961 contained in Paper Cmd. 37 of 1961. The summary is at page 1. There is an amendment to Head 28 - Ministry of Finance standing in the name of the Member for Tanglin in relation to subhead 53. Dr Thio Chan Bee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 28 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 53. Sir, it is not usual for Government to include an item involving such a huge sum as $80 million in the Supplementary Estimates. Naturally, Sir, when I saw this item, I wondered why the Minister for Finance had done so. When I read the explanation, I found it to be so meagre that I was left totally in the dark.

Hear, hear!

Then again with the Budget Estimates for 1962 coming up, one naturally wondered why this item could not have been included in those Estimates. Therefore, we want the Minister for Finance to clarify the position and justify his request for such a big sum. We would like to know, Sir, why it is so urgent that such a big sum must be included in the Supplementary Estimates. What are the schemes which are so urgent for the money to be provided rightaway? We would suggest that, in future, when requests are made for such big sums, fuller explanations be given to the House. We would also like to know from which unspent balance this sum is going to be transferred.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must accept responsibility for the somewhat meagre explanation. I think there is a point in the criticism made by the Member for Tanglin. I must say I regret that a fuller explanation for asking this large amount was not given in the Command Paper. I must say, however, that it is not true that this thing is not usual. I am speaking from memory, but I think it was in the year 1954 or 1956 thereabouts when similar transfers of sums were made from the revenue balance to the Development Fund. Perhaps I should explain here to Members who may not be familiar with financial procedure that we keep Government monies in two large funds. One is the Consolidated Fund into which all revenues are paid and against which all current expenditure is charged. The other one is the Development Fund which goes towards paying for projects in the Four-Year Development Plan approved by the Assembly. The disbursement of money in the Development Fund is controlled by the Assembly itself, either year by year, or by Supplementary Estimates as the need arises. Sir, briefly, the position is this. When we draw up the Four-Year Development Plan, we not only set out the major development projects which the State hoped to undertake in the course of the next four years, but we also made a calculation of the resources that were available then for meeting this rather large sum of capital expenditure. Copies of this blue book were circulated to all Members in the House, and I have no doubt that the Member for Tanglin has diligently perused the contents of this book. However, I would like to refresh his memory on this point. In Chapter V of the Plan entitled "Financing the Plan", we described various sources of finance such as surpluses from current revenue, the present financial resources of the Government, City Council Public Utilities, loans (World Bank loans and loans raised locally), and so forth. On page 47, you will see a recapitulation of resources available at that time. They included a transfer from the Consolidated Revenue Account, which is the Consolidated Fund, of $57.2 million, a transfer of $20 million from the Contingency Fund/Advance Accounts, a sum of $9.4 million from unexpended loan proceeds; and on another page we stated that local loans would have to be raised of which about $50 million is expected to be raised in the form of Treasury bills. So these are the sums roughly calculated in drawing up the Plan. These are the sums which represent the financial resources initially available. Sir, if you add the $57.2 million to be transferred from the Consolidated Fund, the $20 million representing a running down of the Advance Accounts, and the $9.4 million representing the unexpended loan proceeds, you will get a total of, I make it, $87 million. Then, of course, we wanted to keep a part of the loans to be raised on Treasury hills in long-term securities in the Development Fund. So in fact, the operation to be carried out according to the Development Plan will be a sum much higher than $80 million. One of the reasons is that the value of Treasury bills floated in the market has not been as much as we had hoped. So I limited this transfer from the Consolidated Fund to the Development Fund to $80 million. Of course, this is rather necessary because the Development Fund itself is running down in spite of the fact that we floated a loan of $50 million this year. By the end of this year, we have our payments for development expenditure out of this Development Fund. We may get a total of some $51 million as against $87 million which we started with at the beginning of this year. So with the transfer of some $80 million to the Development Fund, we will then get a fairly respectable figure of $171 million roughly for the Development Fund for use next year. We will be making transfers from the Consolidated Fund to the Development Fund as and when the need arises. I hope my explanation is clear to the Member for Tanglin. I think I do owe to Members of the House an apology for not setting it out in the Command Paper.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I refer the Minister for Finance to page 49 of his Development Plan. Paragraph 5.26 sets out the heads under which he proposes to finance tile Plan. $871 million was the total required to finance the Plan of which he hoped to get $116.1 million from Revenue Surplus. Now if I understand Revenue Surplus correctly, it means money saved from revenue. For the year 1961, there was a vote of $30 million as contribution from revenue to the Development Fund. In the 1962 Estimates, there is a further sum of $30 million by way of contribution to the Development Fund. $30 million plus $30 million makes $60 million. Now $80 million from current revenue makes it $140 million. Do I understand the Minister to say that revenue has exceeded his most sanguine hopes when he hoped to finance the $871 million to the point of $116 million from revenue'?

Mr Speaker, Sir, that is not the position. When we said surplus here, we meant really surplus after the $30 million had been deducted in the normal course of events in the ordinary Estimates, so that to realise the Plan, you would have to have a series of Budget surpluses not only in Development, but also in Public Utilities, Harbour Board, and so on. Have I made my point clear?

As I understand it from the Minister for Finance, of the $116.1 million which he hoped to get from Revenue Surplus, the $80 million which he is now asking the House would go towards part of that $116.1 million. He is now asking the House to vote another $80 million to the Development Fund. I take it it is from Revenue Surplus.

Perhaps he has got the book there. May I refer him to page 47, paragraph 5.17? 3.00 p.m. In the case of the third item of paragraph 5.17, "Consolidated Revenue Account", there was to be a transfer of this amount because the Revenue Account (what you call the General Revenue Balance) was substantial, and we thought we could write it down for development purposes. There is also a transfer of $20 million of the Contingency Fund into the Advance Account, because, in reviewing the various accounts, we found there was an over-provision and we could safely reduce that amount by $20 million. Then there is the "Unexpended loan proceeds" which is still in the General Revenue Balance. So this roughly makes up the sum of $80 million. And, of course, we have floated Treasury bills, as we have said, part of which proceeds we want to put in the development fund.

Do I understand the Hon, the Minister for Finance to say this: that this $80 million then is the sum set out under "Consolidated Revenue Account $57.2 million" and the sum set out against "Contingency Fund/Advance Accounts $20 million", making $77.2 million. That is the amount he is now asking to be transferred to the Development Fund, and that this $80 million is not from any surplus revenue for the year 1961. Is that correct?

Mr Speaker, Sir, just for further clarification. In the Budget Estimates, page 8, I see the following particulars, "Deduct Deficit for 1961". Just one question, Sir. If there was not this item of $80 million to be transferred to the Development Fund, would that have altered the statement there, so that instead of a deficit, there would have been a surplus?

My recollection is this: it took some time before we transferred this. My recollection is that this is based on the Estimates presented to the Assembly last year plus the changes allowed for increasing costs, variable allowances, and so on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we hope that in future all these particulars will be included in the Command Paper. In view of the clarification given, I beg to withdraw the amendment.

Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the amendment be withdrawn?

I was going to ask a further question.

The Member for Tanglin has asked for leave to withdraw.

I beg your pardon.

Of course, the hon. Member may speak, but that means there will have to be a vote taken on the amendment.

In that case, I will get my information privately. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $80,000,000 for Head 28 ordered to stand part of the Fifth Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1961.

Head of expenditure undisposed of - Head 17. The sum of $236,000 for Head 17 ordered to stand part of the Fifth Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1961.

Question, "That the sum of $80,236,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Fifth Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1961 contained in Paper Cmd. 37 of 1961", put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to a certain resolution. Resolution read.

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

Question put, and agreed to. Resolution accordingly agreed to. 3.06 p.m.

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [28th November, 1961], "That the Assembly approves the financial policy of the Government for the year 1962." Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance has found it fit to refer to the Barisan Sosialis in his speech on the financial policy of the Government for the year 1962.

You should have been honoured!

He has suggested that we should not be unmindful of the hard economic facts facing the people of Singapore. Sir, we are not only conversant with the stern economic realities confronting us, but we are also acutely conscious of the need to put up with them and to make the best possible job of it. We are well aware of the entrepot nature of Singapore's economy. We are aware of Singapore's growing population. We are aware and are keenly desirable of industrial peace, because this is closely tied up with the need for industrialisation upon which so much of our population would depend for jobs in the near future. Sir, it is because of our consciousness of the delicate nature of our economy and the magnitude of our problem we have to face that we feel the co-operation of the entire people is a prerequisite for the success of any government. Sir, it is here that I have to remind the P.A.P. Government where they have blundered, namely, that in their budgeting, in their taxation policy, in their efforts to work out a policy of collection of revenue, and in their order of priorities in respect of expenditure of public needs, they do not seem to have taken into account the feelings and desires of the people. Sir, it is here that we have to teach the P.A.P. Government a simple but nevertheless grim fact amongst all other objective economic realities. That is, that we have a politically conscious people and an educated populace who could be persuaded to accept policies, and even hardships that may follow from these policies, if they are satisfied that Government is in sympathy with their basic problems and aspirations. Sir, the necessity of the people's co-operation is fundamental, especially when the people of Singapore are politically volatile. I would ask the Minister for Finance to remember this reality. It is a particularly pertinent reminder, for he and most of his ministerial colleagues have been extremely ham-fisted in the application of their policies.

Hear, hear!

I must remind the Minister for Finance that he cannot treat people like pawns on the chessboard, and that policies which hurt the people or even appear to do so are ultimately going to be rejected by the people. Sir, the speech of the Minister has given no great comfort to the people of Singapore. He justifies his proposed Budget by the assertion that expenditure on various items has been greater than that of preceding years. Sir, this is a rather naive way of trying to get acceptance of Government's financial policy. Our revenues have increased, and so expenditure of our various social services has also increased together with the expenditure on various other items. There is nothing new or startling in this simple fact. There is no reason for the Minister for Finance to make a special point of it.

I would.

Sir, let me examine certain main features of the Minister's speech. The Minister says that the development expenditure for the year 1961 would amount to $100-$110 million and, according to the Minister, this is an all-time record in Singapore. Sir, is this really true? I do not think he dares even answer that. In page 8 of the Development Estimates for 1962, the grand total for 1961 quoted for development was $166.2 million. Of this, how much is really going to be spent by the end of the year? The estimated expenditure is to be $107.8 million. Therefore, the Government is going to spend only 65 per cent of what has been allocated for development. But, unfortunately, even this amount would not be spent. Of the $107.8 million. $40 million is, in fact, a paper transfer. So actually the amount to be spent by the end of 1962, if indeed that amount will be spent, will be $107.8 million minus $40 million, that is $67.8 million. If you are to work it out, this is only 41 per cent performance. Sir, it is interesting to note that this $67.8 million is much lower than the pre-P.A.P. years. It is much lower than what the Lim Yew Hock Government had spent. If you turn to page 25 of the Development Plan, Sir, in Table 2.11, under the title "Capital Expenditure 1955-1960", you will see under column 1955, (at the bottom of it); $89.2 million; 1956, $83.9 million; 1957, $118.4 million; 1958, the figure is also $118.4 million. But when it comes to 1959 and 1960, there are only $73.5 million for 1959 and $66.6 million for 1960.

On a point of elucidation, Sir. Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

Dr Gob, point of elucidation, if it is not too lengthy.

Yes, Sir. I would ask the Member whether he is aware that the total he is reading included capital expenditure on public utilities, transport and communications - things like the railways, the Harbour Board, the power station and so on. These are not included in the Government's Development Estimates. The grand total includes various items. Let us take the first two lines of Table 2.11, for instance. "Transport and Communications" includes the Telephone Board. We are spending millions of dollars on such items. "Public utilities" will include the Power Station at Pasir Panjang. This is not development expenditure of the Central Government with which we are concerned in the Development Estimates before us. You are not comparing similar things.

My colleague has pointed out to me, Sir, that if you turn to the next page, at Table 2.12, the amount spent under the Singapore Harbour Board and the Singapore Telephone Board is only a comparatively small sum. Anyway, the point is that the expenditure by the P.A.P. Government has fallen far short of what it should have been.

Hear, hear!

Again, of the $67.8 million, which I mentioned a little while ago, $34 million is to be spent on housing. Therefore, the actual amount spent on social services and public amenities is $67.8 million minus $34 million; that is, $33.8 million, Sir. If you work it out, Sir, this is only 25 per cent of the estimated expenditure. It is simple arithmetic. You do not have to be an economist to know all this.

You should go back to medicine.

It is time you learnt something, my boy!

Order. The Member for Queenstown should talk across the Chamber to the Speaker but not towards the Government Benches.

My apology, Sir. In the last Budget, 1961 was to be called the year of construction. We do not mind if slogans are used by political Parties or individuals so long as they reflect the real sentiments or the intentions of the people who use them. The year of construction! But has it really been so? Can the P.A.P. Government stand up and say proudly that it has been a year of construction?

Yes.

On the contrary, Sir, this assertion about the year of construction is a dismal failure. The people in the P.A.P. Government simply do not mean what they say. They are men who believe in slick talk. They are men who believe that by the use of attractive words and phrases they will be able to get anything past the people. Sir, we had occasion in this Assembly to mention that the first year of the P.A.P. was the year of excitement.

Hear, hear!

There were many others. Most of the first year was spent by the Ministers in throwing their weight about.

Hear, hear!

They saw themselves as a lot of mighty men who could get away with almost anything on earth - abuse of civil servants, pay cuts, threats and insults galore. That was the essence of the P.A.P. Government talk. They became a lot of self-fancying people. In the second year, when they were running into political difficulties, when they realised that they had to show something for having been elected into office, they called it the year of construction. We have already said that it was more a year of confusion. The taxes on petrol and tobacco, increased rents and numerous other hardships brought them little sympathy. Instead, they persisted in their so-called tough line in the belief that everybody would support them, as there was no other viable Left-wing force. Sir, the Four-Year Development Plan was rushed through in view of the Hong Lim by-election. Sir, any plan that advances the interest of the people, any plan that brings greater amenities and comforts, must be supported. Sir, the trade unions and many others supported this plan. But it is one thing to draw up a plan and another thing to implement it. The Government had to draw up the plan if only to prove to the people of Singapore that it was doing something for them. But unfortunately, at the same time, it was also carrying out policies which made it difficult for the people, especially for the poor men, in Singapore. The overall picture is as follows. The P.A.P. plans to spend in the year of construction $166.4 million. Of this amount, $40 million was to be a grant to the Economic Development Board. This $40 million, we are told, is the amount spent. But, in fact, it is a mere paper transfer. It has only been effected on paper. It has not been translated into terms of actual development. That is, it has not been used for the purpose it was given. Nothing of this money has been spent in the sense used. The money re-means invested in Britain. The only difference is that, instead of this money being held in the name of the Accountant-General, it is now probably held in the name of the Economic Development Board. Therefore, to get a correct measure of the achievements of the P.A.P. in its so-called year of construction, one has to deduct the $40 million which is still invested in Britain. You will therefore see, Mr Speaker, that only $67.8 million would be used by the end of the year, giving the P.A.P. Government approximately a 41 per cent fulfilment. Is this not a true reflection of what has been carried out by the Government? As I have said, Mr Speaker, of this $67.8 million, $34 million was a grant to the Housing Development Board. Even if we are to assume that all the money has been used or will be used by the end of the year, the achievements of the P.A.P., in services other than public housing, are a complete and utter failure.

Why?

Of the $92.2 million budgeted for use in 1961, only $33.8 million is expected to be used. That is, calculated at the very most, a 37 per cent fulfilment of what was expected. By any test, Mr Speaker, this is a failure. Any honest government will admit that it is a failure.

Order. I do not think the Member for Queenstown should provoke the Ministerial bench by pointing at them. I think if he points at the Speaker, the Speaker will be quite happy. He is allowed to do so.

I do not mind it.

I will bear that in mind, Sir. Here we have a steady record of under-fulfilment and continuing under-fulfilment. But skilful Ministers with their ingenuity are able to find words to hide this failure, words that make unprecedented failures into all-time records of success. Mr Speaker, Sir, by the end of this month, which brings to an end this so-called year of construction, the P.A.P. Government can show only meagre efforts that do not deserve the praise of anyone. The fact is that the P.A.P. in 1961 has failed, and failed dismally. In 1959, when the P.A.P. took office, there was a collapse of development expenditure. The Government and statutory bodies spent $45 million less than in 1958, when the Labour Front was in office. This can easily be seen from the Development Plan, page 25. You take the columns 1958 and 1959. Subtract 73.5 from 118.4, and you get 45. If you go further from the figure in the 1960 estimates, you will see that only $11.1 million of the $41.7 million was spent. This only constitutes 21 per cent of the development expenditure in 1959. Most of this was probably spent before the P.A.P. took office. In 1960, the supposed year of construction of the P.A.P., development expenditure was supposed to be $105.8 million. That can be seen in the Development Budget of 1960, page 467. State Development Projects - $105.8 million. The 1961 Estimates presented to the House are very significantly silent on the performance of 1960. There is no column, Sir, which gives you the expenditure for 1960. We have been told of acute needs. One has only to read the first chapter of the Government Four-Year Development Plan to see that year after year, very little has happened. All we get is how much better than others the P.A.P. is in doing nothing.

You must be blind!

What has happened to the money that is not being used?

Put into his pocket!

All that has happened is that our investments in Britain are increasing. Money belonging to the people is used in Britain for housing and other social and economic purposes, and all our people get are words, words and more words. At the end of 1958, the Singapore Government's Sterling Securities in the Surplus Funds Account were $70.6 million. This is in the Financial Statements for the year 1958, page 15 - "Surplus Funds Sterling Securities - $70,663,941.04". At the end of 1959, Sir, it has risen to $93.6 million. Development fund investments in Britain had increased by $46.1 million. Our investments in Britain doubled in 1959.

What is wrong with Singapore?

That you must ask our Finance Minister. I refer you, Sir, to the Financial Statements for the year 1959, pages 44 and 48. At page 44, you will see at the bottom of the right-hand column $93.5 million; and on page 48, at the bottom of the column, $46 million. In 1960 and 1961, the P.A.P. went on investing in Britain. I will be surprised if the investment from these two funds alone is not between $250 million and $300 million. What were the P.A.P. election promises on this matter, Sir? Let me quote The Tasks Ahead, Part 1, page 25: 'A P.A.P. government will make sure that a part of Singapore investments in foreign countries will be channelled back into local industrial development.' Sir, not only have they not got back the money, but more has been sent away. How has this been done? A large part of this has been borrowed from the public, particularly the workers, at low interest and sent to England to earn higher interest?

From the workers?

The Central Provident Fund, do you not know that?

Order. The hon. Member must ignore those interjections and address the Speaker.

The P.A.P.'s much published economic policy, in fact, is that of a - I am sure the Ministry of Home Affairs will be interested - moneylender. This is the policy of political bankruptcy of the P.A.P., and this bankruptcy is even more manifest in their economic policy, and they cannot expect -

Sir, on a point of elucidation.

If the Member will give way.

Sir, how can -

No. The Member will not give way. An hon. Member: Too bad!

Order. Dr Lee.

You can see from this alone, Sir, that - [Interruption]

Order.

- they cannot possibly expect - [Interruption]

Order. Please continue.

I am continuing my speech, Sir. [Laughter] I was going to say that now that you have heard all these revelations and facts you cannot possibly expect anyone of us here to support - An hon. Member: Give way then!

- the policy statement of the P.A.P. Mr Speaker, Sir, aside from certain information given to us by the Minister for Finance about the status of pioneer industries, one does not hear a word of what the Government has done to encourage investment from local resources. It has been a cardinal principle of the P.A.P.'s election platform to try and encourage investment in industries from capital available from local sources. Let me quote again The Tasks Ahead, Part 1, page 25 - I will read this little bit; it is very interesting: 'The P.A.P. profoundly disagrees that the survival of Singapore depends on foreign capital and foreign capitalists. We say that there are more than adequate capital resources initially available locally. Indeed, the position is that large sums of local capital are being invested in foreign countries, often in unprofitable investments. The total amount of Singapore capital invested by banks, insurance companies, central government, local authorities and the public boards is not known with certainty. It is probably in the region of $800,000,000. It is absolute nonsense to say that our survival depends on foreigners when so much of our own capital is invested in foreign countries.' And one more paragraph, Sir: 'Foreign business concerns which wish to establish factories in Singapore will be given all the encouragement and assistance they need. We shall give them guarantees in regard to security of capital, remittance of dividends and other matters which all modern governments regard as normal practice. But [and this is the significant paragraph] it would be foolish to imagine that, whatever we do, foreign capital will come in on the scale needed to solve our problems. Our salvation lies in our own hands.' I will finish the paragraph, Sir: 'There are no benevolent foreigners knocking around the world, anxious to discharge these duties and responsibilities which are rightly our own. Let us not face the economic problems in the era of freedom with the mental attitudes appropriate to colonial servitude. Let us never forget that self-government is not possible without self-reliance. This is true both in politics as well as in economics.' That is the quotation. Now, what has the Government done to encourage local business to invest in industry? There is hardly any mention of this fact in the speech of the Minister for Finance. Are we to understand that the P.A.P. no longer believes that capital for investment is to be made available from local sources? Sir, the Budget that has been presented to us here has been a balanced one. Government is not expected to have a deficit and, in fact, deficit financing is not part of Government's policy. In fact, I will even go further and say that with savings that would be made in each Ministry every year we would again have a surplus. Sir, being in this comfortable position of having a surplus, I would urge that the Government should concentrate on providing greater amenities to the poorer sections of the community - water, electricity, health services to the city population, and similar amenities and better transport facilities to the rural population. We have been told that development projects have been held back because of the shortage of engineers, architects and quantity surveyors. Sir, the P.A.P. suffered a loss of trained personnel when it came into office. A greater loss was suffered as a result of the cut in the variable allowances which was, Sir, a naive political gimmick on the part of the Minister for Finance trying to convince the people of Singapore that the upper strata of the civil service were overpaid. Sir, I do not wish to enter into arguments about whether they are or they are not overpaid, but the simple fact is that, as a result, we have had a shortage of technicians, which in turn has affected our development programme. In other words, it is the workers and the ordinary people of Singapore who have suffered from this blind and narrow-minded policy effected by the Minister for Finance who was himself once a civil servant. Sir, the Minister for Finance has admitted that delays in implementing the development programme have been due to the shortage of these architects, engineers and quantity surveyors. He should have foreseen the result of his own actions. He should have foreseen that the people of Singapore are the ones who would suffer by this naive and shortsighted policy of his. He is a man who talks about realities and he has shown a complete lack of a sense of realism in his previous conduct. Only now, Sir, is there some glimmer of responsibility and realism. An hon. Member: After you have left them!

I am glad, as said by the Member who interjected, that we in the Barisan Sosialis have compelled him to move in the direction of realism. Similarly, we note the sort of delays and inadequacy in the Ministry of Health resulting in under-expenditure - something like $3.7 million less than the Estimates. I am glad to note that the Minister for Finance admits that this is principally due to unfilled posts - the senior and ancillary grades. Sir, this situation would never have arisen if the Government had adopted a more enlightened policy from the beginning and had foreseen the effects of the pay cuts upon the civil servants. The P.A.P. is supposed to be a socialist Government. But a socialist government, Sir, is sensitive to the feelings of trade unions. Yet not the slightest respect was shown to unions representing the civil servants. But the end result of it all was that, in the case of the Ministry of Health, doctors and nurses left the medical service in substantial numbers, causing serious dislocations from time to time. I am glad to say that the ex-Parliamentary Secretary and ex-Political Secretary to the Minister for Health had made repeated representations to the Government to revise its attitude and improve the terms and conditions of service of the staff in the medical service. But this probably only met with increasing resistance from the Minister for Finance.

I never refused them.

Fortunately, political events have driven the Government into a position where it is now compelled to revise its whole thinking towards the civil service. Sir, we are proud to say that the representations of the Barisan Sosialis to the Government have had a salutary effect.

Hear, hear!

The Government that once condemned the civil service in the most vulgar tones today literally -

On bended knees.

- bends backwards to please the civil service. We are glad that at last our civil servants have been restored their self-respect. We are glad that the Government has been startled into realising the folly of its past ways. Sir, it is not my intention to dwell at any length on the policy speech of the Minister for Finance. It is a rather colourless speech and there is nothing in the Budget that can possibly generate enthusiasm. It is as flat and stale - if I may say so, Sir -

As the speech we are listening to now.

- as the Minister himself is. The Minister himself seems to confess that this may be his last Budget -

Oh, no!

- he knows it for the State of Singapore under its present Constitution. He will not be presenting any more Budgets after this. It is little wonder -

On a point of order, Sir.

On a point of order?

[Interruption] - patience.

That is not a point of order.

I do not think that is a point

He is grossly misrepresenting -

I do not think that is a point -

I thought that -

Order. The Minister is getting too excited. I do not think that is a point of order. It is perhaps a hope expressed by the Member for Queenstown that the Minister for Finance has presented his last Budget. That is all. It might not be realised.

No, but he went further. He said that I said it may be my last Budget. I had assumed that the hon. Member was literate and could understand simple English, but I have grave doubts now, Sir.

Sir, may I quote what he himself has said?

Yes.

He does not mean what he says!

Of course, if he does not mean what he says -

Order. Let us have the page.

On page 26, the fifth paragraph, he said: 'Mr Speaker, Sir, this may be the last Budget of the State of Singapore under its present Constitution as a self-governing State.' An hon. Member: So what?

To be presented by the Minister for Finance.

No.

Order. Please quote the exact paragraph carefully and slowly so that we will understand what is being said.

It says here: 'Mr Speaker, Sir, this may be the last Budget of the State of Singapore under its present Constitution as a self-governing State.'

There is nothing about me.

It is little wonder, Sir, that the Minister for Finance himself should show so little interest in the whole matter. Sir, I would ask the Minister to, consider carefully the question of reducing rents and of spending more on public amenities so that the larger sections of the community may benefit by this expenditure of public funds. As I have said, there is no fear of our running into a deficit. Even if this concentration of assisting the lower income groups of our society should entail a little mare generous policy to the professional groups of our society who will assist us in our development plans, then I think this should be done. For, after all, development is of basic interest to the people and this should be carried out in the swiftest possible time. 3.58 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has given a name to its first year term of office. They call its first year term of office a year of consolidation, its second year term of office a year of construction. But in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech and in the Budget Statement, it is strange that the Government did not give a name to its third year term of office.

The year of the dead rat!

This year has been a year of construction. But I would beg leave to call its third year term of office a year of contraction.

Liquidation!

Not so fast. It was consolidation and construction, and now it is contraction. Mr Speaker, Sir, exactly a year ago, when we debated the second Budget policy of this Government, we went into some trouble. But I hope, after all these disputes and adversities of the Government, it has learnt to be more tolerant to our comments and sound criticisms. No doubt our criticisms last year on the Government's Budget policy were valid because due to our criticisms, many of the taxes which were to be imposed were never imposed at all. The business registration tax, the profession-al tax and a few other minor taxes were never carried out. The pay cuts were restored. Sir, perhaps it is pertinent at this juncture for me to make a brief comment on the financial and economic policies of this Government. First, we will talk about the fiscal policies of this Government. From the beginning when the Government assumed office, it was quite clear to us that it was bent on a taxation policy of soaking the poor. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have a very good economist who never bothers to take advice from his colleagues on his financial policies, and that is why he lands himself in such a mess today. Mr Speaker, Sir, many of the measures introduced - the taxes introduced - were to soak the rich, were to soak the poor. [Laughter]

That is right!

For instance, the petrol tax, the cigarettes tax, the lotteries tax, which were meant for the very poor classes of our community. The pay cuts, the increase in registration fees of twakohs, and several other taxes - the business registration tax - are meant for the lower middle class and the middle class. As I have mentioned in my speech last year - I crave indulgence to repeat a small section of what I said last year [Hansard, 8th December, 1960, col. 101]: 'Mr Speaker, Sir, the taxation policy of this Government has been calculated to tax the people of Singapore for the benefit of foreign business. Since June 1959, this Government has introduced 12 new taxes. In the 1961 Budget these 12 new taxes in my estimation will yield approximately $45 million. Most of these millions will be squeezed, cent by cent, dollar by dollar, from the poor, from the wage earners, from the shopkeepers, from the taxi-drivers and the hawkers, from the working population, from the small private companies run by local merchants. An estimated $100,000 out of the $45 million is all the contribution this Government has asked from the big European firms which control our economy and make most of the profits. These European firms in my opinion make at least half of the profits of Singapore, and are asked by this [so-called] "Socialist" Government to contribute less than 1 per cent of the $45 million; to be exact .002 per cent.' Sir, that is, in essence, the taxation policy of this Government. During the past 2½ years, its taxation policy was a failure and that is why now it dare not introduce any more new taxes. Its economic policy was also a failure. We see very few industries being set up. We see the growing problem of unemployment. We see a shrinking economy, and that is partly due to the failings of the financial and economic policies of the Government. When the P.A.P. assumed office, we were faced with a deflationary situation, i.e. business was bad and economic conditions were bad. Normally, during such times, what the government should do is not to impose any new taxes but to use whatever reserves it has - up to a reasonable safe margin - and spend it on capital projects or other projects. Because the Minister for Finance refused to give the money, and I cannot print the currency notes myself -

You chased away all the architects!

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will come to the point of architects later. Instead of not imposing new taxes and investing more in the economy and encouraging the volume of spending in the country, what the Government did was to squeeze more from the public, particularly from the poorer sections of the community to whom one cent means one cent. And on top of that, to stop spending. We could see, during the first two years before the Hong Lim by election, there was very little construction - not to say S.I.T. houses, but schools and other projects which were very few. The Hong Lim by-election was the watershed of Government's economic and fiscal policies. Only then did it realise that it had made mistakes in those policies. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to explain, briefly, the effect of the failing of the policies of the Government. For instance, if a taxi-driver earns $200 a month and if the Government takes $20 from him, he would have $20 less to spend. This would affect the hawkers and would, in turn, affect the vegetable farmers, the shopkeepers and the wholesale dealers. The reaction would be more than the $20 which the Government is taking from the poor taxi-driver. Instead, the Government, in addition to that, not only imposes a tax on the poor, but also restricts additional expenditure on the building of houses and schools. For instance, if the Government had spent money on the building of houses, schools and other capital projects, this money would have been circulated in the community. There would have been more jobs for the unemployed. The unemployed would have been able to buy more vegetables so that the money would go to the hawkers and shops, and more money would have been circulated. Sir, this is not all. In addition what the Minister for Finance did was to borrow, and borrow at 6 per cent interest; and if I am not wrong, just keep the money in the bank.

You are wrong. Sir, on a point of elucidation.

If the Member will give way. Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

If things were as bad as he made out - that everyone is suffering - could he explain why tax returns are better this year than expected - in revenue, income tax, customs and excise? I have spent a long time in my Budget speech to say that 1960 was a good year. How does he reconcile that?

Mr Speaker, Sir, these are the normal tricks of a statistician, and as an accountant I will expose that trick.

Do it now.

Here is page 13 of his speech: 'The 1961 revenue position is satisfactory. The yield from most of the main items of revenue exceeded expectations. 1960 by all accounts must have been a good business year, for the yield from Income Tax surpassed the estimated amount of $75 million by $5 million.' Very impressive, Mr Speaker, Sir,It would be even more impressive if, in last year's Budget, the Minister for Finance did not put $75 million but just $10 million. Then it would be surpassed by $70 million.

That is your logic.

Yes. The normal Budget that is presented year after year since 1945 has been presented in the same way - always under-estimate revenue and always over-estimate expenditure. Year after year, the income tax yield will be more than what has been estimated. Expenditure will always be less than what has been estimated and provided for in the Budget.

On a point of elucidation. Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

Can the Member explain why there were more cargoes and more ships, and more trade was done? [Interruption]

Order.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance should have asked another question: why should there be more children? Business is bad. A four per cent increase. Sir, these are normal increases in our economy. There is no need even for this Government to stay on. Still there would be increases. Because there are more people in the world, more cargoes are carried, more ships pass by to get water, so there will be increases. Let us look at page 10 of the Budget Statement, paragraph 2: 'Now to turn to the general economic picture of the State. The value of Singapore's trade in 1961 has not been as large as that of the previous year.' Is that sufficient?

Go on.

'For the first three-quarters of 1961, the value of our total trade amounted to $5,473 million as compared with $5,700 million last year.' $5,473 million as compared with $5,700 million - a decrease of about 7½ per cent. 'Our imports fell by $72 million and, more seriously, our exports by $155 million.'

Sir, on a point of elucidation. Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

If the trade would increase because of population growth - we had a population growth - how was it that trade increased in 1961 as compared with 1960?

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are two reasons. One reason was as the Minister for Finance has said - the price of rubber went down. The second reason was the failing of the Government's economic policy. The government did not do whatever it could to encourage more trade to come in from Indonesia, the Federation of Malaya, and the surrounding territories.

We have more trade from Indonesia. You cannot ignore that fact.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has failed in its fiscal and economic policies. Has it been successful in its policy of industrialisation? We all know of the complete flop of the Industrial Promotion Board. I think we must pass a law to make sure that persons who are to promote industries must at least have the minimum practical experience of running a small kachang puteh shop. Mr Speaker, Sir, armchair theoreticians who do not know how to operate a cash register are not good for the promotion of industries. In my view, there are three basic conditions for the industrialisation of a country. First of all, we must have the entrepreneurs and skilled labour. Second, we must have the available capital. And third, we must have a wide enough market for the goods to be sold. In this respect, it must be admitted that Hongkong was and is in a better and more advantageous position than Singapore. On the first condition of skilled entrepreneurs and skilled workmen, Hongkong has an advantage of having an influx of people from Shanghai, which is an industrially developed country, and other cities of China when the Nationalist regime fell in China. These people went to Hong-Kong with their available capital. The entrepreneurs in Singapore are not industrial entrepreneurs but commercial entrepreneurs. It is very difficult to convince the commercial entrepreneurs, who want quick returns, to invest their money in industry. Mr Speaker, Sir, the second problem is the question of capital. We know there is enough capital in this country to start new industries. As a matter of fact, much of this capital has gone over to the Federation, or even overseas, to be invested in commercial enterprises or stocks and shares. There is no shortage of capital in Singapore to be channelled into any industrial enterprises, if sufficient inducement is given.. Thirdly, Sir, it is the question of market. Unless there is a sufficiently big market for the sale of our manufactured products, few industries will start enterprises in Singapore. If an industry starts in Malaya, it is assured of at least an eight million to ten million population as its market. But if the same industry is operated in Singapore, it can be assured of only two or three million population as its market. The Government has not been successful in its common market talks. During the merger debate, the Government has not convinced us that its so-called merger proposals will bring the common market to fruition. We hope that later, when the Minister for Finance gives his reply, he will tell us what has happened to the common market proposals in the White Paper. Will there be a common market? Sir, three basic conditions are necessary for the successful operation of industries. Firstly, available capital. What has the Government done? Has it done anything to induce it to go into these industries? No. Secondly, a common market. Has the Government been successful in achieving a common market? As far as we can see, also no. Thirdly, skilled entrepreneurs and skilled workmen. Has the Government been trying to obtain skilled entrepreneurs and skilled workmen from other places in order to fill the gap? Mr Speaker, Sir, it is no use telling a businessman who has been a commission agent or who runs a trading house to start a factory because he does not know how a factory operates. The Government must provide him with the requisite industrial entrepreneurs and the requisite skilled workmen - at least the foreman - to start the factory. What the Government has done is not industrialisation but producing paper plans, blue prints and United Nations missions. I do not say they are valueless. But too many missions without practical results, or fantastic schemes like the iron and steel mill do not lead us anywhere. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a known fact that if we can have a steel mill in Singapore, we can create employment for perhaps 80,000 people. That is more than-the figure of the present unemployed and under-employed. But let us face facts. Is a steel mill a reality? Can it be successful? Mr Speaker, Sir, where are we going to get the coal? Is it from Indonesia? Where can we get the iron ore? Is it from Kota Tinggi? An hon. Member: Singapore!

Pardon?

Please continue.

Where are we going to get the iron ore? Kota Tinggi is the nearest place. But we know that the transport cost of taking iron ore from Kota Tinggi to Jurong in Singapore or even from Batu Pahat to Jurong would be not much less than taking it from there to Japan where steel mills have been established for ages and where the operation, cost is cheap. They do not have to spend $800 million or a few hundred million dollars on the steel mill. Mr Speaker, Sir, where is the coal? Indonesia? How much would it cost to transport a ton of coal from Indonesia for the steel furnace in Jurong? Even if we can overcome these difficulties - of iron, coal, water supply, electricity supply, skilled mechanics - even if all the problems can be overcome, Mr Speaker, Sir, where is the market? Are we going to sell our steel plates and steel wire to Australia where there is a big mill, the Broken Hills Proprietary Ltd. They are exporting steel to us. Are we going to sell the steel to India, when at present the Tata Mills are selling to us? Are we going to sell the steel to the Yawata Mills of Japan? Or are we going to sell the steel to the steel mills in Anshan in China? Mr Speaker. Sir, except for the Federation of Malaya, I do not see any sources or any place which is going to buy our steel. The Federation of Malaya and Singapore together are not a big enough market for a steel mill. What should be done is that, instead of having preposterous schemes, we should come down to hard facts, we should come down to earth, and the practical realities of industrialisation. Concentrate on small industries - cottage industry, small industry or medium industry. But not on gigantic proposals as steel mills. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government's taxation policy has been a failure. The Government's economic policy has been a failure. The Government's industrialisation policy has also been a failure. Mr Speaker, Sir, we will now come to the architects. In the 1961 Budget, at page 23 of the transcript, on housing, the Minister for Finance said: 'The number of homes expected to be completed this year is therefore 7,454. The Board expects to meet its future target of 10,000 homes a year well in advance of its time-table. The end of next year will see the end of the long and frustrating years of waiting for decent homes by more than 10,000 families on the register of applicants. Some have waited for six or even eight years. By next year there will be a home for each one of these families, and at rents they can afford. This is a record achievement in the provision of public housing and can be claimed as a major success of the P.A.P. Government. The achievement is all the more remarkable if we bear in mind that the Housing and Development Board had to start with what was left of the wreckage of the former S.I.T.' Mr Speaker, Sir, I must admit that the only sphere of public construction where the Government has been successful in the past one year or since the Hong Lim by-election has been in the construction of S.I.T. flats. Let us look at the Four-Year Plan. Mr Speaker, Sir, according to the Four-Year Plan, at page 35, the Government has provided $206.86 million for 1961. In the Budget speech of the Minister for Finance, he says that in 1961 the Government will spend only between $100 and $110 million. Mr Speaker, Sir, $110 million out of $206 million. This is about half of it. The Government can spend only half of what it has provided. Now, Sir, this is a very clear example that the Government cannot satisfactorily carry out the public projects it has announced. The only sphere of operation where it was relatively successful was in public housing.

On a point of clarification. Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

I rather suspect that Members have not understood the figures with which they are dealing. May I explain that the $206.86 million on page 35 of the Development Plan refers to development projects in the whole State, including those undertaken by the public utilities, such as electricity, water, gas, the Telephone Board, the Harbour Board and so on? What we are discussing now are the Government's Development Estimates. They are two different things. I pointed this out when the Member for Queenstown raised some queries. I think the Member for Hong Lim too has fallen into the same error.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if we deduct those items which the Minister for Finance has stated just now, I think it will come to about $166 million. Mr Speaker, Sir, it must be admitted that housing has been quite successfully completed in 1961 by the Government. Why is this so? Just now the Minister said that there were no architects. Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know that the main architects who are now building houses for the Government are the architects I recruited when I took over the S.I.T. The basic plans which they are at present working on are about the same basic plans, with some slight alterations here and there, which I and those architects drafted in the early days.

You chased them away!

We did not run away. The Minister for Labour and Law ran away from Hong Lim. He forgot about it.

I never ran away from Hong Lim.

Sir, we prepared the basic plans, the basic organisation and machinery on which the present Government can build those houses.

Do you believe that?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are known for our targets. We never failed to reach our targets in the City Council in the 15 months of our history. The Government has never successfully completed any of its projects, even in housing, which is 7,454 out of 10,000 units expected. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are glad this Government is not imposing any more taxes for 1962. We are also glad the Government has seen its errors and has decided to withdraw the business registration tax and other taxes. But we feel that these measures in themselves are not sufficient. Sir, we feel that there are many measures which the Government must take to remedy the mistakes they have made during the past two years. We feel that the Government's promise of a $1 million scheme for the taxi-drivers which they themselves promised because they said the scheme was to take the place of coupons should lx, immediately instituted. We wish that the Government will also consider the reduction of hawkers licence fees, which should not be a source of revenue, but should only be for purposes of administrative control. There are many other taxes which the Government has imposed during its two years of office. We hope the Minister for Finance will review some of them and see what measures can be taken to rectify some of the mistakes. Mr Speaker, Sir, we also hope that in the construction of these S.I.T. houses (the Government have said that these will be constructed at rents that people can afford), they will carry out what has been promised, because, as far as we know, many of the present flats are being offered to the public at too high rents. If I am not mistaken, there are still many flats at present vacant and the Government is going out of its way to offer them to other applicants. Sir, we hope the Government will not only introduce a standstill Budget, but will take certain measures to rectify some of its past mistakes. 4.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the first time the Government has presented to the House an integrated Budget. When I say an integrated Budget, I mean a Budget which concerns not only what normally is accepted as Government items but also includes items which were in the City Council Budget. Unfortunately, Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Water, Gas and Electricity Departments, being the trading departments, still remain technically and legally with the City Council, it has not been possible for the Minister to include them in the State Budget. However, I have been trying to find out whether the City Council has published its 1962 Budget. The sources of my information - I hope they are correct, Mr Speaker, Sir - say that such a budget has not yet been published. I hope I am right in that surmise. I was hoping, Mr Speaker, Sir, that something would have been said by the City Council on what it is going to do for the year 1962, because, in my opinion, what the City Council does in the matter of electricity and water is particularly pertinent to what the Government hopes to achieve in the years 1962 and 1963, and thereafter in matters of industrialisation, housing and such other public projects. The Government hopes to start its Jurong project, if I remember correctly, sometime towards the end of 1962. It thinks something in the way of industrialisation should be started in Jurong. If I remember the Minister for Finance correctly, his scheme for Jurong was that a steel mill would initially be established and around that a steel mill would centre private enterprise which would base its activities on the products of the mill itself. I understand, Mr Speaker, Sir, that before a steel mill can operate satisfactorily, it needs quite a supply of water. Unless this supply is readily available, and available on all possible occasions - whether it is a dry spell or a wet spell - the activities of this mill cannot be carried on. If ever a period of months during the year the mill had to cease to operate because of a water shortage, the whole project would become uneconomic. Therefore, it is pertinent to know what the Government intends to do in the matter of water supply. I believe water and electricity are now the ministerial responsibility of the Hon, the Prime Minister. I hope he will, in his reply, tell the House what is Government's intention. If I remember correctly again, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister, in answer to one of the questions put in this House, said that it was the intention of Government to go to the Scudai River before it goes to the Johore River and that it hopes to spend $20 million on the Scudai River scheme, as a result of which it hopes to bring water to Singapore within two years. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is unfortunate that that scheme is not in the Budget. If it had been in the Budget it would have been subject to the scrutiny of the Estimates Committee where the whole scheme could have been carefully examined on the basis of whether it was, in fact, necessary for such a scheme to be implemented before the Government goes to the Johore River. I have a little experience of these matters, Mr Speaker, Sir, and my own considered opinion is that it is an absolute waste of public money to go to Scudai now and spend $20 million there, while going to Johore at the same time. I sincerely hope that before the Government embarks on such a scheme, it will reconsider the position. From the point of view of the Opposition - at least from the point of view of the Alliance - I hope it will be possible for the Government to consult the Opposition before it embarks on such a scheme. Mr Speaker, Sir, part of our trouble over the water supply has been due to the fact that during the dry weather the flow of these rivers dries up. We get quite a bit of our supply from the Tebrau River. Now, when the dry weather sets in, the flow of the Tebrau River comes almost to a standstill, and naturally water is scarce. Scudai, Mr Speaker, Sir, is another stream which is subject to a dry weather flow. During the wet weather, of course, it runs fast and high. But during the dry seasons, it runs dry and slow. I am suggesting to the Government that the water supply of Singapore should not be dependent on streams which are subject to a dry weather flow. The expert advice is that if we go to Johore even at its driest, it will carry a sufficient capacity for it to give a sufficient supply of water to Singapore, both for domestic and industrial uses. Sir, the City Council would have gone to the Johore River long ago, but unfortunately it was not possible for the City Council to do so because the Johore River Scheme was then centred in an area which was subject to military control. Because of Communist and other activities in that area, the City Council was not allowed to go in there to carry out the scheme. When it became possible to carry out the Johore River Scheme, the Council had already embarked on Tebrau, and, therefore, was committed to Tebrau. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, let us not make the same mistake - it was not a mistake then. We had to do it then. Let us therefore not go to Scudai now to supplement Tebrau and then go to Johore which will give us a full supply all the time for all the years yet to come. I do hope, Mr Speaker, Sir, that before the Government goes to Scudai, it will consider the scheme very carefully before it spends $20 million on such a scheme which eventually must come to nought after the Johore River Scheme has come to fruition. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would also like to hear from the Minister for Finance what definite plans the Government has afoot in the matter of going to the Johore River for a supply of water. My own information, Sir, for what it is worth - it may be incorrect - is that the Government is not ready even now on the Johore River Scheme. It is still floundering. Did it sent the Water Engineer to Europe to look for water or to look for money. I think it might have done better for itself if it had sent him to the Johore River to see how best and how quickly he could carry out that scheme. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Government is sincerely interested in getting water from Johore within two years, I will tell the Government how to do it. It can be done.

Hear, hear!

It can be done, Sir. This is not a joke. There are people in Singapore who have told me they can bring water into Singapore within two years if only they go to the proper quarters. The people who are in charge of the water supply of Singapore know it, but will not go to them for that advice and for that help. If that is correct, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is criminal. Mr Speaker, Sir, the other point on which I wish to touch is the question of the electricity supply of Singapore. I also understand - here again I speak without absolute knowledge; this is what I hear from sources which I think can be relied upon - that so far as our electricity supply is concerned, we have reached the end. The peak load is now such that with all our generators going at Pasir Panjang, we can just about make it. I also understand that for some reason or other St. James Power Station is not working. Why that is so, I do not know. I have been told the reasons, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I have not confirmed them, so I do not want to mention them to the House. Perhaps the Finance Minister might tell us why it is that after so many millions of dollars have been spent on St. James Power Station, it is not operating today, hereby placing a heavier burden on Pasir Panjang. The position in Pasir Panjang is that one generator is always out of function - it has to be. And if one generator should fail accidentally, then we would be in for blackouts again. So perhaps the Minister for Finance will let us know what the position is with regard to the future supply of electricity in Singapore. On the question of housing, which rightly affects the people of Singapore, here again, Mr Speaker, Sir, the question of water and electricity supply is important. Sir, we know that during the last year or so the Government has not done very much in the way of physical construction of houses, but during the last six months they have accelerated construction and are getting on with the job. But I do not think, Mr Speaker. Sir, that the Government can maintain this rate of development if they do not develop the capacity of water supply and electrical energy in Singapore. There is no point, to my mind, in building houses in Singapore if we cannot give to those houses an adequate supply of water and electric light. Electricity may be unimportant: we might be able to use candles or kerosene. But in a modern city such as ours, where the sewage is dependent for its carriage on an adequate supply of water, you will realise, Mr Speaker, Sir, how important it is that we have a safe and adequate water supply. If we have no water supply, then houses will be left unoccupied, if the Housing Board say, "We have constructed 3,000 units for this year," it is a meaningless statement because those 3,000 units will remain unoccupied merely because the Government has fallen down on its job of providing an adequate water supply. Again on the question of housing, Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that the Housing Board depend for their sources of money on the Government. I have read through the Budget Statement of the Minister for Finance. We know that the money is on loan, but in no place does he say the terms and conditions under which the loans are made. I think this House will be interested to hear from the Minister for Finance the percentage rate of interest, the manner of repayment, and how the loans are effected. He has also said that he is considering a housing subsidy, and has told the House that when he has definitely made up his mind on this, he will let the House know all about it. If he is now in a position to tell us the quantum of the subsidy and how and why it is going to be used - whether it is going to be used to reduce rentals all round, or whether there is going to be a scheme by way of a means test - I think this House will be very much obliged to him. Sir, the other point on which I wish to touch is the question of a tax on properties in Singapore. The Minister for Finance has done very well out of the property tax. I notice he has had a windfall of $12 million more on property tax than he expected. Now I ask him to reconsider the position which I advocated to this House some months ago when the property tax was being discussed - the question of remitting assessments on vacant houses. The Minister then indicated that it was not a practical problem, because there was such a housing shortage in Singapore that it was impossible to have a shortage of houses! I would urge upon him again to reconsider the position because it is not a matter of houses which are built and available to be let being vacant. On that I agree with him entirely. Unless he makes it possible for property owners to claim a remission on unoccupied properties, property developers are going to be very hesitant about developing a housing estate. This is the point, Mr Speaker, Sir. As soon as a certificate of fitness is obtained by the developer, the property tax automatically attaches to the property. Unfortunately it attaches to the property by operation of law. Now if a property owner develops a hundred houses simultaneously - and I believe they have to develop them simultaneously if they want to keep the cost down - and if they do not sell them simultaneously before this operation of law attaches a tax to them, and if they sell Only 50 per cent of the houses, then assessments on the rest of the 50 per cent of the houses is raised. Instead of housing development becoming a paying proposition, one can imagine a set of circumstances where it could be a loss to the developer. With these thoughts in mind, he is shy of developing houses. Therefore, the position is that, because of this difficulty, housing developers are being precluded from developing housing estates in the manner they would do if they know that ii is possible in law to go for a waiver of tax on vacant houses. I think that will be a greater impetus to housing developers. Sir, this is such a small matter from the point of view of raising tax, and such a big point in the way of an inducement to housing developers, that I think the Minister for Finance will do well to reconsider his policy on vacant houses. If he reconsiders the position and favourably considers vacant houses, then it might be necessary to introduce amending legislation to the Property Tax Ordinance. Sir, there is another point I wish to touch upon. I see that in the Minister's Budget Statement he has said that he is going to give a gift of houses which belong to the Municipal Rate Fund to the Trading Departments. I do not see why he should be so generous with the ratepayer's money. I think he should not make a gift to the Trading Departments. If the Trading Departments were to make a gift to the Municipal Rate Fund, I would gladly accept that because then it would inure for the benefit of the Fund which is the taxpayer's money. The Trading Departments are purely trading concerns of the City Council. They are purely commercial projects. I cannot understand why the Municipal Rate Fund should subsidise trading projects. I would suggest that is wrong in principle. If the Minister thinks of handing them over, I would ask him to ask the new Board to hand over an equivalent sum of money to him when he makes the handover to this Board. Perhaps I might refer him to this passage in page 15 of the Annual Budget Statement: 'Certain houses and buildings which are the property of the Rate Fund Departments will be handed over to the new Board in order that it may be properly equipped to carry on its functions economically in the interests of consumers of water, gas and electricity.' By the phrase "handed over", Mr Speaker, Sir - I hope I am not doing the Minister an injustice - when a chap hands over something to me, I hope he hands it over to me as a gift; but if the handover is for a consideration, for an adequate proper market value, then I have no objection. Again, I wish to have elucidation from the Minister for Finance on another point. He has made a statement that quite recently a loan of $50 million has been floated which has been fully subscribed. I think the House would like to- know who the persons were who subscribed to it, whether they were local or foreign subscribers, or whether it was mostly taken up by the banks or by private individuals, and the extent to which private individuals, banks, trustees and people in that category contributed to it. The other point on which I would like to touch, quite cursorily now but I would like to enlarge on it when coming to debate the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, is the question of income tax. I am not asking the Minister to reduce income tax, but he has taken unto himself and his Department certain powers of raising assessments whereupon the tax immediately becomes payable: and if any argument ensues on the correctness of the assessment and the Income Tax Department subsequently concedes that is has been wrong, then there must be a remission of the tax. Having arrived at the stage where a remission is accepted by the Comptroller, its payment takes a long, long time - almost an indecently long time, I am told by the people who are waiting for it. This is one of the difficulties which I expected would happen in this case. It is purely an administrative matter, Mr Speaker, Sir. If the Comptroller has said, "Yes, I have assessed you too much. I must remit you X dollars," and the money has been received by the Government, I see no difficulty in repayment. An hon. Member: Human nature!

It is not human nature, Sir. The Government is inhuman. It is the inhuman nature of the Government.

Order. I would like to inform hon. Members what is in my mind. The encroachment by the Fifth Supplementary Estimates was a matter of seven minutes. Perhaps if I do not use for the tea break until about seven minutes past five, that will meet the case of the time being taken up by the Fifth Supplementary Estimates.

Sir, I was saying that the difficulty was not about the humanity of the Government in this matter. Where an institution becomes so large that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing; the Minister for Finance wants a thing to be implemented straightaway, but he has a Comptroller who has so many vassals under him, and in the pressure of work and in the computation of incomes which they want to gather - and I am told by the Minister he has caught up on the backlog - and while they are catching up on their backlog, Mr Speaker, Sir, they have forgotten the people who are waiting to receive their money which Government should not have had in the first place. That is the position. Sir, one of the reasons why I suggested that an interest should be paid by the Government for withholding the money for the period of the withholdment was this. If an interest was charged on that money, the Comptroller would see to it that it was quickly returned - at least the Minister for Finance would see to it that it was quickly returned. The point now is that his Comptroller is so concerned about gathering in the tax that he forgets to pay out the money that he has over-gathered, and the Minister for Finance does not know anything about it. The only chance of getting this to the ears of the Minister is an occasion such as this.

He is very efficient.

I do hope that the Minister for Finance will issue adequate and explicit instructions to his Comptroller to see that these remissions should be made expeditiously, otherwise it brings into contempt the whole of the taxing system, and we do not want to do that. Sir, the other point on which I wish to congratulate the Government is this. For a long time, City Council employees were in doubt as to what was going to happen to their future and their terms of employment. I now understand from the financial statement that it is proposed not to alter their terms and conditions of service one iota. They were most worried about what was going to happen to their Municipal Provident Fund. And I am very glad to see, Sir, that Government has made up its mind to carry on with the Municipal Provident Fund and to let the employees who are now contributing to that fund to remain on that fund and to retire on that fund. The last point that I want to touch upon is the question of the Work Brigade. This Work Brigade, Mr Speaker, Sir, is an emotional matter, if I may put it that way. From the point of view of the Government, when they started it, it was an emotional institution, not a practical institution. For reasons best known to the Government it started this Work Brigade. On principle, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it was wrong to do that - to have this small Work Brigade do these little jobs all over the place. In a commercial and trading city such as ours, it is wrong. There are lots of people in Singapore whose livelihood depends on these little odd jobs which the Government, the City Council, the Housing Board, and such like institutions provide. The institution of this Work Brigade meant that those people whose livelihood depended on that type of work were deprived of it.

Hear, hear!

That, I think, Mr Speaker, was absolutely wrong. I do recommend most heartily the dissolution of the Work Brigade. If the Government had a political purpose, it seems to have overdone it. Members of the Work Brigade are on strike now! Anyway, leaving aside the political implications, the rightness or wrongness of the strike, and whether people like them should be allowed to form a trade union, if they go on strike and sit down there, public projects are held up: and these could easily have been done by people who live in cubicles in Chinatown, whose livelihood depended on these things, and are now being deprived of them. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, if we talk about first-class citizens and second-class citizens, we get to the stage where a Work Brigade member is a first-class citizen, and the people who live in Chinatown and who are deprived of their normal livelihood by these people are second-class citizens. And we do not want first- and second-class citizens in this city anyway. Certainly the Barisan Sosialis do not want it.

And you suggest to dissolve it.

If we dissolve it, then we will all become first-class citizens! The difficulty started when the ex-Minister for National Development - I believe that was his brain-child - had the Work Brigade in his Ministry; for reasons best known to the Government they transferred it to the Labour Ministry because I think it was getting out of hand under the ex-Minister.

I think he was raising a private army.

I do not know of any private army, Mr Speaker, Sir. But anyway it was quickly transferred to the Ministry of Law so that the Minister for Law could keep law and order. But now it seems that they want to send it back to the Ministry of National Development again. It is a pity the Minister is not here as I want to ask him whether he is going to start a private army of his own! Really, Mr Speaker, Sir, I really do think the Work Brigade is played out. Let us get back to the old system. This old system. Mr Speaker, Sir, has been established over a period of time, has been tested by time, and has not been found wanting. So let us not change an accepted institution merely for the sake of change. There is no virtue in changing: it does not bring anything good commensurate with the change. Therefore, let us abolish the Work Brigade. And it is even more heinous to the public of Singapore when they look at the composition of the Work Brigade. Members of the Work Brigade get jobs when decent normal citizens cannot get them. Government may have good intentions when they bring gangsters into the Work Brigade and put them under discipline, instead of Pulau Senang, they keep them in the Work Brigade.

Banyak susah lah!

It may be a good social experiment, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not doubt it. It is a good social experiment to put them under discipline, put them in uniform and make them undergo rigorous training. Discipline is a good thing. The Barisan Sosialis understand it. The P.A.P. understand it. We all understand it. Now the point is this. There seems to be no purpose in the Work Brigade, and the sooner we abolish it I think the better for all of us. Mr David Marshall rose -

Is it a convenient time to suspend? Only two minutes.

Very well, Sir.

I hope there will not be a claim for two minutes afterwards! So I suspend. I will take this Chair again at 5.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.05 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 pin.

Question again proposed, "That the Assembly approves the financial policy of the Government for the year 1962."

Sir, this is a standstill Budget of a dying Government. It displays the imagination of a mouse and the promise of a dead rattle. One would have expected, Sir, that knowing that it is dying, the Government would have done it with some grace. Instead we have the Minister for Finance ponderously pontificating on providence and indulging in gibes at the Opposition. He told us, Sir, that it was gracious providence that ordained that the Budget would be introduced in the midst of the debate on merger; the gracious providence being the P.A.P. Government and its own decision to introduce it in the midst of a debate vital to the welfare of this country, a squeezing out of the merger debate in a manner contrary to recognised and accepted traditions of constitutional procedure. Then, Sir, we have from the Minister for Finance, in a Budget Statement, all that I consider to be inappropriate jeers and smears of the Opposition. According to him, all that we have done in these past days is to indulge in euphoria, wild fantasies, and he fears for our sanity circling in orbit in space. Mr Speaker, Sir, whatever may be the ultimate home of the dead P.A.P., let me assure the Minister for Finance that I shall not be seeking to meet his ghost in space. I shall remain on earth.

We are very much alive!

Order.

They feel hurt, Mr Speaker.

We are amused.

I had once before, Sit, to note the curious phenomenon of the Government Front Benchers who squirm and laugh whenever they are hurt. Sir, the Minister for Finance went on to describe us sneeringly as amateur politicians. We are amateur only in so far as it is true that we get paid nothing but our allowance for our service to the State. We do it from an almost masochistic urge to serve where others are prepared to let things go by default. We are not in politics, Mr Speaker, either as a career or to make money, and I am proud of being called an amateur politician from that point of view: a politician who seeks to do his duty to his fellow human beings at his own expense in time, energy, money and agony. The P.A.P. can enjoy their professional status for the little period - Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

Is it on a point of order?

On a point of elucidation. Mr David Marshall resumed his seat.

Sir, I have the feeling that the Member for Anson might have been unduly sensitive -

Is it a point of elucidation?

Yes, because if he had read my statement closely, he might have understood that those remarks were really meant for the Barisan Sosialis.

I am obliged to the Minister, and I am a little disappointed. Mr Speaker. I am not a Member of the Barisan Sosialis. I have no brief for them. In my relations with them, they have been courteous. But I do repeat, whether directed to them or directed elsewhere, remarks, sneers, and jeers of that character in a Budget Statement are grossly inappropriate. Sir, for myself, I believe that when this Government finally ends its death rattle and disappears, the Minister for Finance, of whom so much has been expected, will not be missed. He tells us that we have been indulging in slogans which do not feed empty stomachs. I would ask the Minister for Finance just what does his Budget Statement do about feeding empty stomachs? It shamelessly shirks the issue of making provisions for the unemployed, either by way of creating employment or by way of providing social services. Finally, Sir, whilst blaming us for wool gathering in orbit, he himself indulges in pipe-dreams of a new independence. It seems we have had an old independence, and we are going to have a new independence. As he puts it, a merger, according to him, will certainly take place at the latest in 1963. I want to say this to the Government - and I trust they will believe me that I say it with a sense of the gravity of what I am saying - that if the Government continue to handle the issue of our relationship with the Federation in the same arrogant and ham-handed manner that they have displayed recently, then the referendum which they have promised will be a slap in the face which will really shock them, negative the proposals for closer relations which they say they seek and which their conduct makes it so difficult to accept. Sir, the most alarming feature of this Budget without virtue is the fact that it is completely devoid of a dynamic approach to what is recognised as a dynamic situation. We are almost led to believe that, lulled into a sense of security by the so-called closer relations with the Federation, the Government seek to surrender Singapore to the greater priority of Petaling Jaya. Is there then to be an end of a vigorous approach to our unemployment problem, and even to the promise of socialist measures to give our poor the security and a standard of living compatible with human decency? is the socialist concept of security for the individual to give way to the prevailing Federation economic policy? is it to mean unconditional surrender of those very ideals for which this Front Bench stood and in respect of which it was elected - the practical ideal of socialism for the improvement of the lot of the common man? For there is nothing in this Budget Statement that gives even token sympathy for the lot of the poor. Sir, this Government has in its lifetime made two substantial contributions to our welfare, and I recognise them. One was the vigorous approach displayed in the past 20 months by the Housing and Development Board. That was a magnificent effort for which the Minister for National Development and his Government are entitled to take full credit. I would like to say that as a citizen and as a representative of the people, I want to express my gratitude for the energy and skill displayed by his Ministry in that particular field. I want to say to the Minister for Finance that it will be with pleasure that I will support all loans and assistance necessary to the Ministry of National Development in the field of housing. I have no doubt the Minister recognises that he owes much to his predecessor, and perhaps even to previous governments, for the ground work laid for this dramatic expansion in housing. But he himself is fully entitled to a hundred per cent credit for bringing those past hopes, plans and efforts to fruition to the extent that he has surpassed all the previous efforts of previous governments, who themselves were seeking, I have no doubt honestly, to make their contribution to those in need of housing in Singapore. The P.A.P. Government, in 1959 and 1960, started with the sorriest possible record in the field of housing. It is only fair to give credit to those who are now changing the picture. It is my hope that the Minister will not rest on his oars and that we will, in fact, have annually the 10,000 houses necessary not only for those who need housing today but for the increase of our population annually. I am happy to note, Sir, that in that field at least there seems to be no let-up and that the Ministry is being given such tools, both financially and otherwise, as he requires. Sir, there is one other field of this Government's administration which has attracted, and still attracts, my admiration, and that is in its realistic and energetic approach in making available industrial sites in Singapore. It is not a new idea, but they have taken hold of it well and they have brought about its fruition, or rather they have tried to bring it about in a manner that any of us who travels to Singapore can see, and I for one hope to see a great deal more. However, Sir, both in the statement by the Minister and, in so far as I can assess, from the Budget, there seems to be a flagging of interest which I find a little alarming. The excuse - it may be a valid excuse - the Minister is giving is that there are inadequate professional men to cope with requirements. This, Sir, is also the excuse that he has given in respect of the promised reclaimation of swamps known as the Kallang Project, where we are told quite bluntly that the detailed design is not being proceeded with. Again and again throughout that Budget Statement, the Minister has put forward this excuse - and when I use the word "excuse" I do not necessarily mean, Sir, that it is not valid - that adequate technical and professional personnel are unavailable. I say to the Minister that the solution of the problem is, and has always been, in the hands of the Government. It is this Government which has chased away technical personnel and which has made it very difficult for us to recruit professional and technical men. It is their arrogant conduct, Sir.

Prove it.

The facts are there in the City Council, in the legal services and throughout the public services. Since this Government took office, the number of resignations of professional and technical men in the medical service - we have had some figures already - and I say it is due to the arrogant conduct of this Government and its complete ruthlessness in its human relations. Sir, surely this Assembly has not forgotten the notorious Enright letter. The only adjectives that are really applicable to that letter are unparliamentary, and I leave it to the imagination of the decent Members of this House. But this House may well not be aware that that letter of gutter culture had a tremendous damaging effect on the image of Singapore overseas amongst professional men. Their attitude now is why should they, who are respected and responsible men of academic standing and stature in their respective fields, come to Singapore where they have to subject themselves to the humiliations, the insults and the barbaric conduct of the notorious P.A.P. Government? The Minister has told you he has made various approaches to various governments. That is true, Sir, I have some knowledge of it. But I say to you, Sir, that the Government fails because it fails to recognise certain basic principles. The first basic principle, to my mind, is to recognise that our Malayanisation policy requires that as soon as possible, in fact, even where it is impossible, a Malayan should be at the head of every department. Malayans should be in key positions. But otherwise professional and technical personnel may, where necessary, be expatriates. The other principle is that professional and technical men are in tremendous demand throughout the world. The world today is experiencing an expanding need, because in vast areas of the world - not only Singapore, Sir, not only Asia, but Africa and elsewhere - there is a tremendous expansion on the part of people for services which would bring them greater comfort and even what are now recognised as basic needs. Those services are performed mainly by professional men. Those professional men, whether they are engineers or architects, lawyers or doctors, are in very great demand. In order to attract them to Singapore, their conditions of service must be encouraging and attractive. Economy in this field is false economy resulting in a tremendous loss to our people. I urge our Minister for Finance, who is so pedestrian that the word "imagination" repels him, to exercise a little human understanding and, if he cannot, to seek advice from those who have achieved some success in human relations in drawing up a scheme to attract professional and technical personnel from overseas to fulfil our needs. If we approach the problem as a human problem, Sir, you will recognise that, first and foremost, we must destroy the image that in Singapore a professional man will have to suffer P.A.P. insults, P.A.P. humiliations and improper P.A.P. interference in the discharge of his duties. We must also assure him of security of tenure. We must give him conditions of remuneration that would have some relationship with what he can get in private practice. Today the image of Singapore, to professional and technical men overseas, is an image worthy only of their contempt. I say to this Government, which though I believe is dying yet threatens to live one more year, that even in that one year it can do a great deal of damage. I do ask that it seriously reconsider and reorient its policy not only towards expatriate professional man, but also towards Malayan professional and technical men. Sir, these men can earn in private practice incomes considerably in excess of what they have to accept in Government service. You cannot expect to attract good men although you can expect to keep those who are with you because they do not wish to lose the hopes of pensions which are the main attraction for continuity of service. But I do say, Sir, that unless we approach the problem realistically of recruiting both Malayan and expatriate personnel in the professional and technical fields, we will keep having a bumbling budget like this one, where all we can do is vote vast sums that are never spent. Sir, the arrogance and false sense of economy of this Front Bench has been a clot on the development of this area - a clot that it is time it was dissolved. The Minister for Finance has mentioned the Economic Development Board. I think we are all happy. Sir, that finally it has been set up. The delay has been inordinate and the proud boast that solid progress has already been registered in farcical. The only progress, in so far as I can assess from the Minister's statement, is that a half-million dollar loan to a local ship-building firm has been granted and some 12 industries for pioneer status have been processed. Let us not have empty boasts. The personnel of the Economic Development Board, Sir, do give rise to legitimate hopes of solid progress. Let us not spoil it by cheap boasts. I look forward in the next few months to solid progress. But the solid progress which has been achieved is a statement that comes from outer space where the Minister seeks to send the Opposition. Sir, the Industrial Research Unit has been promised for more years then I can remember. Finally we are told that it is almost in sight. Let us not drag our feet either in its formation or its functioning. The P.A.P. now knows it has not got eternity to work in to meet the requirements of our pressing employment problem. We are told with pleasure - and it is a pleasure that I share - that the World Bank has agreed to finance our development projects. It is certainly an achievement. I would like to ask the Minister whether this promise of loans will in any way be affected by the fact that in our proposed closer relations with the Federation, we would be only in control of some three-quarters of our annual income. Would Singapore still be in a position to negotiate loans with the World Bank on favourable terms?

The White Paper.

I gather, Mr Speaker, Sir, he tells me that that is so. Well, I am glad to hear it. Sir, you have heard more than one speaker amongst the few speakers today mention the steel mill. The people of Singapore have been treated to a great deal of P.A.P. propaganda about the steel mill - how the Minister has achieved agreement, and with Japanese capital, and we are going to have the steel mill for cert. Next day, the Minister has not reached agreement. Rather I do not think it has ever been published. But I gather today that, in fact, there is no agreement with anybody to establish a steel mill in Singapore and that the propaganda items published by the newspapers came from the fertile brain of the Minister for Culture. It is a pity his imagination does not go with the facts. Sir, the Minister for Finance has mentioned the Schereschewsky Report on steel mills and he has also mentioned the Winsemius Report on industrialisation. I would like to know why these reports have not been tabled. Is there a danger to our security that we should know what is in those reports? Have they anywhere by implication suggested it? Perhaps the P.A.P. Government has not got white wings and a halo? I would ask the Minister to tell us when we may expect to have these reports, as we are entitled to. Sir, the Minister has congratulated himself on the establishment of a trade representative in Indonesia. I certainly agree with him that that was a good move. Our trade relationship with Indonesia has been deteriorating far too long for entirely artificial reasons, and restoration to a healthier approach would be to both our advantage and Indonesia's. But in view of the repeated questions we have put to him, I would have liked to see an effort on his part - at least a token effort - to send a trade mission, not necessarily residing, but for a trip to Delhi and Peking, to see what could be achieved. I do say, Sir, the money involved would not be great. The advantage may well be great. It is worth the effort. In a country like ours which depends on trade, a little imaginative approach to our problems may well pay far greater dividends than the costs of debentures which are a failure. I do express the hope that even now the Minister will tell us he will consider sending trade missions to those capitals with whom there is a potential of greater trade with Singapore. The Member for Farrer Park has drawn your attention to the Work Brigade. Sir, I was not here when the Work Brigade was formed. I confess I have not studied the issue whether the Work Brigade is a good thing or not. But there is one aspect of our allotment for the Work Brigade which exercises my mind. It should have definitely come from a trade unionist, but since it has not, Sir, I would like to draw the attention of the House to it. It is my view that the people in the Work Brigade are being grossly underpaid and that their conditions of service are inappropriate. I say that Government must accept the principle that a member of the Work Brigade is entitled to the same remuneration as they would have to pay to a worker who is a trade unionist and can demand a proper remuneration. I recognise that in the Work Brigade they are being housed and fed, and I accept the principle that from the proper remuneration that they should receive there should be a deduction for both housing and feeding. At the same time, I would like an assurance that, in fact, the Government accepts the principle that payments for their services should not be less than payments for the services of outside workers and that it is not a device for cheap and sweated labour. Next year we will have a television service. It was promised to us six years ago. Other things intervened and we are now told - not by this Government; I do not blame them - that we will be having it next year. Sir, in the light of experience of what has happened to Radio P.A.P., I ask for an assurance that the television service will not be used as an adjunct of the P.A.P. political machine but will be used for the legitimate requirements of the people of Singapore. The Minister for Culture has proved himself quite an empire builder in the name of the P.A.P. He has no understanding of culture and little understanding of the needs of the people. In so far as I can judge, his activities have been materially directed to the political welfare of his colleagues and his party. I for one, in so far as I can, will resist the expansion of the empire that he seeks by the additional expenditure in the Budget. The so-called expansion of the activities of the Minister for Culture must be justified on the needs of the people, and there must be protection from what we know to have been past political abuse of the Government machinery of propaganda for party political purposes. I do not think it is proper, and, in so far as I can, I will not permit the use of public money for the benefit of the P.A.P. political machine and the whitewashing of the Government Front Bench. Next we have the petroleum duty. Have you noticed that the petroleum duty has fallen by $2 million? Sir, in a Budget that clearly indicates a buoyant economy, that is surprising; and whilst on the subject of a buoyant economy, let me answer the question of the Minister for Finance who asked, "If we are a bad Government that has not done well with the people of Singapore, how is it that our economy is expanding?" [interruption] Oh, it was an indiscretion. I am so glad he recognises that it is non sequitur, that, in fact, the economy is expanding - no thanks to this Government - but by virtue of the activities of our people and of the area in which we live.

Sir, on a point of elucidation. Mr David Marshall resumed his seat.

I was engaged in some remarks vis-a-vis what the Member for Hong Lim said. I was trying to correct his statement that the economy was shrinking and I said that it was not so. I never claimed credit for the Government for this. I do not know why the Member for Anson should read through my innocent remarks sentiments and feelings that were not there.

Thank you, Sir. At least we draw two facts from the statement of the Minister for Finance: one, the economy is buoyant and expanding; two, the Government does not take credit for it.

On a point of elucidation, Sir. Mr David Marshall resumed his seat.

If our economy is buoyant generally, surely there must he many factors, one of which could be the Government.

I am so glad the Prime Minister is seeking to be so precise. He said that it could be the Government. It could, but it is not.

Ha!

If we had a Government that understood the real nature of the position of Singapore and recognised the importance of trade missions overseas in order to expand our economy and our trade, we would have had something totally different than this stale Budget. [Laughter] Let us go back to petroleum and our laughing Minister for Finance. An hon. Member: Zugzwang!

A contraction of petroleum revenue in an expanding and buoyant economy - it is a contradiction. Why? He has said to you that they are switching over to diesel. But why? Because, Sir, he has laid too heavy a burden on the ass. He has broken its hack. He has gone beyond the point of diminishing returns. [Laughter] Sir, for a conservative economist, he has a curious habit of laughing in the wrong places. Sir, even a conservative economist recognises - I trust - the phrase "the point - of diminishing returns. We are taxing petrol at $1.20 for what is being retailed at 72 cents - a duty of 170 per cent. Now that we have reached the point of diminishing returns, I would ask the Minister whether he would consider reducing that duty to something more reasonable -

On a point of elucidation, Sir. Mr David Marshall resumed his seat.

If the Member for Anson will look up the Schedules of Cmd. Paper 33 of 1961, it is one of the items which will be Pan-Malayan. He knows it. Obviously he has done his homework. The moment there was a slight disparity, cars either started shooting down to Woodlands or Woodlands started shooting up to Johore Bahru. I hope one of these days we shall have the pleasure of hearing him in some other chamber in Kuala Lumpur where no doubt he will castigate the Minister for Finance there.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not like dragging up the past but I would remind the hon. Gentleman who last spoke that we did have the increase of petrol tax nowhere near to $1.20, that there was a disparity until the Government increased the petrol tax and that there were - he is quite right, Sir - I gather a few cats were shooting up and down Woodlands in order to save ten cents (just a few cars - not even a fleabite). Let us not exaggerate. As for its being a Federation responsibility, again let us not exaggerate. We can have - if it pleases the Federation and if and when those closer relations are achieved - a separate taxation. That is neither here nor there. In the same way that we are having today the customs barrier - and I have no doubt it will be maintained for purposes of keeping Singapore a free port - so we can have different taxes. But, Sir, the lack of logic of this tax, where we now see that the point of diminishing returns has been reached and there is not a word of regret and there is a refusal to recognise it, is as amusing - although far more serious to a lot of people - as the stupid tax on professional boxing about which you have heard we got zero dollars and zero cents in 1959, 1960 and in 1961, and the Minister has informed me by letter that he intends to continue that tax and expects to receive zero dollars and zero cents. That is his logic - the logic that can insist on a heavy burden on the taxi-drivers, that can insist on taking away their livelihood, that can -

On a point of elucidation.

A point of elucidation, with respect, Sir, should come at least at the end of a sentence.

Order. I think the Member for Anson is quite correct. If there is to be elucidation, let the Member complete his sentence and then the Minister can rise. An hon. Member: Yes, after a full-stop.

Mr Marshall.

I was saying, Sir, I am no economist - all right, no laughter fortunately! Maybe they recognise that their Minister is not an economist either by now. But the point is, it is simple logic. If a tax is producing nothing, its existence is a dead weight on the administration; and if a tax is producing diminishing returns, then it is a danger to our revenue. Here is a tax which has gone too far and which has now brought in $2 million less than what it brought in last year and is expected to bring in less, why can we not give this $2 million to the taxi-drivers and the lorry-drivers - the $2 million that we are losing anyway and stop this changeover? Does the Minister wish to rise?

Yes.

He can do so.

Sir, I was seeking elucidation on the tax on professional boxing. I am not aware that there is any tax on professional boxing as such. An hon. Member: What about wrestling?

There is an entertainment tax and surely professional boxing has to pay the same rate of tax on entertainment. For one reason or other, the Member for Anson has developed a very keen interest in this. I do not know -

Order. I think the Minister must concentrate on elucidation only.

The point is this. If we were to give special preference to, professional boxing, We could levy the same rate as in the Federation where it is about 15 per cent against 45 per cent. But there is a similar decline in the Federation; from the fact that professional boxing involves expenses, it does not lead to any increase in this sport at all. How can the Member for Anson expect that if we were to take similar steps there would be a revival of the sport? Before we can make any decision about the tax, we must see the cause for the decline of the tax yield. An hon. Member: You are talking about a boxer.

I am delighted, Sir, that what I hoped would be an aside is now being made a major issue. I can assure the Minister that I have not up my sleeve any organisation, nor am I a shareholder or organiser of any boxing entertainment, nor do I hope to go in for professional boxing when he has finally defeated me. I have tried to point out that here is a tax that produces zero dollars plus zero cents every year, and yet this entertainment duty is left on the statute book in order to act as an impediment and a punishment to anybody who might like to have professional boxing. I will not insult the Minister by saying that it is feminine logic, but I do not know what Other logic one can call it unless one can say it is a particular brand of his logic, that he maintains on the statue book duties which are a dead weight, which add to the cost of administration, and which have produced zero. I gave, as an example of his logic, a matter that is far more grievous, in respect of the petroleum duty which has its effects. The Government has received representations. It has its effect on the poor. [Laughter] I do not know why every time the poor are mentioned, he laughs. It is so funny, Sir. Yes, from the depths of one's beer glass, one can laugh at the poor. I do not and I will not.

On a point of order, Sir. The Member for Anson looks so fierce and his expression is so angry.

I suppose I am now asked to rule on unparliamentary expressions. If the Minister says that he was intimidated by those looks, then the Member for Anson is wrong. He must not intimidate Members of the Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry for this country if a Minister can be intimidated so lightly. We come to entertainment duty - I had anticipated boxing - here, Sir, in an expanding and buoyant economy, we have a fall of $1½ million* in Entertainment Duty. * At page 18, line 18 of the stencilled copy of the Annual Budget Statement, there was a typographical error. "$l½ million" should read "$½ million".

Anti-yellow drive!

Ah, that is right, Sir,I checked up and found that in the Appeals Board of Film Censors (or the Appeals Cinematographic Board), out of 19 appointments, 14 were P.A.P. I would like to ask whether it is these 14 pall-bearers who are responsible for the loss of $1½ million in entertainment tax.

On a point of clarification.

Elucidation?

Is he making a speech or I? [and resumed his seat.]

This $1½ million drop in entertainment duty. This is the first time I have heard of it. He may be right, but I am very alarmed.

$1½ million, I said. And you said it is Wrong. I did not say it is wrong.

Order. I did not say it.

I am so sorry, Sir. The Minister says it is wrong. [Interruption] I am not a P.A.P. Sir, would you look at page 18, lines 18 and 19: 'There is also $1½* million decrease in Entertainment Duty.' * At page 18, line 18 of the stencilled copy of the Annual Budget Statement, there was a typographical error. "$l½ million" should read "$½ million". I sit down for a minute.

Order. Will the Member continue? Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

Point of elucidation?

I do not know whether the Member is reading from the same text, but page 18 of my draft deals with the Rates Departments of the City Council.

Lines 18 and 19. Sir, if we might go on whilst the Minister catches up with what he said. Six years ago the foundation stone was laid for one of the most important aspects of the commercial activity of Singapore, and that is the Air Terminal. Today we are told that agreement is about to be reached on equipment. We are told about plans and designs, and about pouring in of tenders. Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

He has caught up.

Sir, I beseech the Member for Anson to read the text carefully, because the $1½ million refers to Sweepstake revenue.

It is the line just before that.

Oh, yes, this refers to the estimates for next year as compared with those for this year. It does not refer to the estimates for the receipts for this year as compared with the estimates of this year. I hope I have made my point clear.

On a point of elucidation, Sir. 'There is also $1½ million decrease in Entertainment Duty.'

1962 Estimates.

Order. The Minister is correct in trying to elucidate that point, because that may be misleading. Perhaps the Member for Anson will agree that it is only in connection with the 1962 Estimates.

Sir, these are estimates which we are talking about. "There is an anticipated decrease in Entertainment Duty of $1½ million." And the question Iam asking is: are the 14 pallbearers on the Film Appeals Board responsible for this? He can give his explanation. Let us go back -

Can I -

Oh, no.

The Minister may rise it the Member will give way.

I just want to dispose of this point.

I am making the speech, not you! [Interruption]

Order. All these interjections, of course, will cut into the time that the Minister hopes to get.

Point of order, Sir. We have arranged that the Government will have half an hour, and if the Minister does not want that half an hour, he is at liberty to interject when Opposition Members are speaking.

Order. I have no idea at all that an arrangement has been made. I am very glad an arrangement has been made. Interjections are, in fact, useful if there is some matter which needs elucidation, because that will enable Members to understand what is being said in a debate of this nature. In a debate of this nature, I think Members are entitled to know what is being said, and Assemblymen are expected to understand what has been said.

On a point of order, Sir. As the Member for Hong Lim has said, since he has graciously announced that he has given the Government half an hour for a reply, we are not deterred at all.

Order. That is not a point of order, but a point of arrangement. Mr Marshall.

Mr Speaker, I do appreciate the courtesy I received from the Front Bench, particularly yesterday in respect of a point of clarification. I hope I am not considered mingy but I have, I think, given ample opportunity to the Minister for Finance and I would appreciate it if he would permit me to continue my argument. I would like to come next to the business registration tax. Sir, I was not here when it was introduced and I must confess to you that I have not delved into it to ascertain whether it is just or whether it is unjust. But I would like, now that it is being withdrawn, to refer you to the Minister's comments when he introduced it with a flourish on the 29th November, 1960 [Hansard], col. 44, Vol. 14. This is what he had to say about the business registration tax: 'The reason for introducing this form of taxation is apparent. A large majority of small shopkeepers do not contribute whatsoever to the Inland Revenue. Further, if the proprietor is a man of abstemious habits, he does not even contribute to the liquor and tobacco tax. If he lives in a shop premise, as is usually the case, he does not own a motor car and hence does not contribute to the petroleum duty. Such persons are in a truly privileged position. Their children receive education, the cost of which the State pays up to 98 per cent or more. If any member of his family falls ill, he can get free treatment or near free treatment in State hospitals or dispensaries. Further, they enjoy the full protection of law enforcement and public order. It is only equitable that he be called upon to make a contribution towards the cost of providing these benefits.'

Order. I have a signal from the interpreters to say that the Member is speaking too fast.

I am sorry: 'Further, they enjoy the full protection of law enforcement and public order. It is only equitable that he be called upon to make a contribution towards the cost of providing these benefits. Nor can it be said that the rates are unduly high. Hawkers' licensing fees are on the average much higher than the rates we are levying on sole proprietorships and partnerships. The yield from this business registration fee is expected to be about $2.0 million per year.' That was last year, Sir. Now we are told that we do not need this $2 million because of our reunification with the Federation - that is his word - and because the Budget shows a surplus. Sir, what has reunification, even if it comes about, to do with this business registration tax which the Minister, at the time of introducing called a small tax on persons in a privileged position? Are they not any longer persons In a privileged position? And he said it was only equitable that such persons should be called upon to make a contribution. Is it no longer equitable to call upon them to make a contribution? Can we not use this: $2 million in social services, in increasing the allowance to the 90,000 officially starving human beings in Singapore? Is this a socialist government? Or is it the truth that the cloak of socialism is no longer required now that it has hopes of co-operation with the Federation Government? And people in privileged positions, Sir, we must curry favour with them. This Budget, Mr Speaker, is a shameless confession that all the socialist slogans mouthed by the P.A.P. were a mere facade, just as they now confess that their former protestations - that they had no Communists - was a facade. This Budget is a confession that the Government is, and intends to be, wholly on the side of vested interests and of capital in its approach to our problems. I have made repeated efforts in this Chamber to obtain at least a promise from this Government that they would introduce social legislation. You know to what extent I have been fobbed off repeatedly with "in due course", "when", and "if'. I say to you, Sir, that it is a shameful thing that even in its dying year, this Government is so completely devoid of conscience that it makes not even a small effort towards the ideal for which it was elected, the ideal of social justice. I condemn this Government for its economic policy of supporting the rich and ignoring the poor. Cancel the business registration tax - 90,000 people officially starving, and not a word about them. 40,000 people unemployed and a lot more under-employed - not a word about them. What has he done? I do not know, Sir, how it is possible for this Government to have not even a twinge of conscience in refusing to make provision for unemployment insurance or for social security measures in the field of sickness allowance, widows' allowance, old age pensions. The country is ripe for these measures. Sir, these promises were good for the election when these gentlemen whom you see on the Government Benches used to spit, and spit, and spit at the Government of the Member for Cairnhill.

Order. I do not think it is appropriate in this Assembly for anyone to say that a Member of this Assembly spits and spits and spits at Opposition Members, even metaphorically.

If it please you, Mr Speaker. They were venomous - much I agree with them - about the shortcomings of their predecessors. I, Sir, who have reason to view with grave suspicion any statement made by any P.A.P. person, actually believed that this Government would genuinely make an effort to achieve a measure of social security if only to maintain their popularity with the populace and keep up the facade of being socialists whilst, in fact, they were Right-wing capitalists. Sir, elementary humanity, if not electoral expediency, should compel them to make an honest effort to introduce measures of social security. One matter that has been drawn to our attention by the Member for Queenstown, if true, should cause us concern. That is the extensive funnelling of Singapore funds to the United Kingdom to finance United Kingdom enterprises. I have no objection to assisting Britain at all, Sir. But I say, let us help ourselves first. And I would like a full explanation from the Minister as to the reason for not utilising that money in Singapore in order to assist our industries. Sir, one expects little from the Government that is creditable. This Budget is not. This Budget is a corpse of broken promises and dead hopes.

Dead what?

Hopes.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard the Financial Statement for 1962 made by the Minister for Finance. It seems that the current year's economic policy appears to be very simple to the Government. It gives the people the impression that the Government intends to shirk its responsibility in order to cover up its previous errors. I believe all of us have heard the Minister for Finance say that the 1962 Budget would be the last of its kind in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. has said that this year is a year of construction. Looking at the Budget, the word "construction" is very attractive. In fact, according to the Member for Queenstown (the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis) the Budget for 1962 shows that it is only 40 per cent of the performance of the Budget of 1961. We have looked at the Budget. To us, 1962 is a dying year for the P.A.P. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you compare the 1962 economic policy with the 1961 economic policy, you will note that this is still an old tune. The Financial Statement made by the Minister for Finance on the economic policy has not mentioned the state of unemployment in Singapore. That is, it has not stated whether the Government has tried to solve the problem of unemployment. The Minister for Finance has not stated whether, during its two years of office, the Government has created opportunities for employment and to what extent. During its two years of office, the livelihood of the people has not been improved. The Minister for Finance has not stated to what extent it has been improved. All this has not been mentioned in his Financial Statement. I feel much regret at this omission. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. has often said that its deeds conform to its words. But if you look at the promises which it made in its pamphlet in 1959 - in The Tasks Ahead - Part I under the article "Our Economic Policy" - you will find that it says: 'The objective of the economic policy of a People's Action Party government will be to obtain for the general masses of the people, a happy, full and secure livelihood.' How confident and how considerate it was! Yet the P.A.P. has been in office for 2½ years. Is there any solution to the problem of unemployment? There is one point in this article which has attracted the attention of this House. It says: 'The unemployment problem is very serious. If we do not take any step to consolidate and strengthen our economy to create employment opportunities up to 1962, then it will be very serious.' These were the actual words spoken by the P.A.P. in 1959. In Singapore there will be about 20,000 to 30,000 people every year looking for work. We feel like asking the P.A.P. this. How many people today are still left unemployed? How many employment opportunities has it created so far? The Minister for Finance says that he has tried to promote economic expansion, to encourage industrialisation, and to give pioneer status to new industries. He says that up to the end of this year, five pioneer industries will probably be established in this country and will go into production. However, how many employment opportunities can be created in such a manner? It is not clearly stated in the Financial Statement. He says further there have been 27 applications for pioneer industry status and there will be employment for 1,900. If we calculate on this basis - taking for granted that these factories will be put into production - how will these employment opportunities compare with the 20,000 to 30,000 people looking for work every year in Singapore? If we take for granted that these 1,900 people can get jobs by the end of this year, it only constitutes 6 per cent of the total unemployed people. 6.43 p.m.

If industrialisation is carried out in this manner, how can we solve our unemployment problem? The Finance Minister did not set out the steps for its solution in his statement. The only thing he is proud of is the Four-Year Development Plan. The main objective of this Development Plan is to increase the total national income per capita from 11 per cent to 20 per cent. Let us see whether the Government has raised the standard of living of the people or whether it has raised the per capita income. If we look at the Government estimates, to tell the truth, it is a very attractive and impressive document. The figures are very big. If you study the projects in detail, you will note just how much the Government has done this year. The Member for Queenstown has exposed this just now. Now I will try to set out the three main features of this Budget. In the 1962 Development Estimates, we have approved $3,690,000. However, the amount that has been spent in 1961 is about $673,000. This is only 20 per cent of the amount allotted. This is the situation in the Ministry of Health. If we take a look at the Ministry of Education, in spite of the fact that the Ministry of Education has built a number of schools - it has made a promise to build a certain number of schools, and in the 1961 Development Estimates $22 million has been allotted to the Ministry of Education - not enough schools have been built. But the actual sum which is expected to be spent this year is about $6,900,000. This means that development in the field of education shows only 30 per cent performance. If we take a look at Social Welfare, the original estimate for 1961 is $360,000, but the actual amount expected to be spent at the end of this year is very disappointing. The Department of Social Welfare has spent about $6,000. The Assembly has allotted $360,000, but only $6,000 has been spent. This is only 2 per cent of the amount allotted. Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a simple example and an actual fact. The Government has tried to make the Budget figures very impressive and attractive. As a matter of fact, the Government is not firm in its implementation of policies. The Government says it has money and wishes to implement its policies, but is short of technicians and professional men. If you look up the speech of the Minister for Finance with regard to the government's economic policy, you will see a paragraph on the P.W.D. That department is short of engineers. It is a recognised fact that the shortage of technicians is universal. Yet has the P.A.P. Government ever tried to overcome its difficulties? No. We know many technicians have returned from overseas after completing their studies but they have not got jobs yet. There are many local university graduates who have not got employment up till now. This is only one aspect of the problem. The Member for Queenstown has said just now that the attitude of the Government towards professional men with regard to treatment and remuneration is the reason why they have left this country for other places. The Minister for Finance has said that we must look after these technicians and professional men properly because all of us require their services. We do not care what their political stand is so long as they are loyal to the policies of the Government and are able to carry them out properly. What is the result? Well, we can clearly see that experienced professional men and technicians have resigned on a considerable scale. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let us look at the financial policy of the Minister for last year. This has never been mentioned in the current Financial Statement. Last year he said that in a new country that was trying to shake off the shackles of colonial rule, we must try to create equal opportunities so that no class would have a privilege over the other and we must try to march as far as we could towards a socialist objective so that we could have a more just and fair society. "This policy will be able to rectify the unequal relationship between the employers and the employees. In the old country many workers had to suffer a great deal under colonial rule and their opportunities were very strictly restricted. In those days the English-educated were treated very well and they were isolated from the rest of society. But now you can see how the P.A.P. Government is trying to give equal opportunities to the Chinese-educated and graduates of Nanyang University." They continue to say that in a socialist government the government should not only try to give equal opportunities to the various classes of people but must also try to explain the economy of the country so that everybody will be able to make a contribution towards nation building. "Because our population is increasing, we must try to do our best. This is very clear." But in the Financial Statement for this year, the Minister for Finance has said nothing about this. This paragraph has disappeared entirely. Let us look at this year's statement again on what he says about the improvement of the people's livelihood -

Order. Could the Member please inform the House which book he is quoting from regarding last year's financial speech?

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, sir, it is from the Nanyang Digest, reporting the Finance Minister's speech made in this Assembly in regard to the 1960 Financial Statement. He said there were three items of tax increases last year. He said this new taxation would increase the revenue of the Government by $10 million. This burden of taxes is not necessary hut this additional revenue will enable greater development in the building of schools and more hospitals in the interests of the people. That means to say, if you get money from the people, you must spend it on the people themselves, so that they will enjoy a better life. We agree with this principle entirely. But let us look again at the current Budget estimates. We find that the revenues for this year are quite considerable and we expect the Government to spend a great deal of money out of these revenues for development purposes. But it is regrettable for me to say that this is not the case, because the Government has not spent the people's money properly on the people themselves, as has been promised. Today, frankly speaking, if we compare the current estimates with those of last year, we have a feeling that there has been no foresight as to how much money will be spent for 1961. I wonder how the Minister for Finance can state in the proper column that the amount actually spent is very negligible compared to the amount on expenditure approved by this House. The P.A.P. Government today is very disappointing to the people, because in 1959 it promised to do many things. Although I have broken away from the Government to join the Barisan Sosialis, I feel that the promises we made in 1959 should be carried out as far as possible, and that we must pay attention to the implementation of the policies as laid down according to the promises made to the people. Today, the P.A.P. is trying to boast that 1961 is a year of construction, but I am still wondering how this can be true. I will say that this is the last year of the P.A.P. 6.58 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is a matter for regret that the Budget debate is taking place ahead of the debate on the Negara's speech. The normal parliamentary procedure is that the Negara's speech will provide a debate on the Government's policy for the ensuing year, and the Budget is Government's attempt at implementing that policy. But now we are debating the Budget first instead of the Negara's speech because of the number of days we have spent debating the merger motion. Sir, for the past two years we have been on this side of the House. We were alone for the first year. There were eight of us here and we criticised the Government most vigorously in regard to their Budgets. In 1959, we were laughed at and ridiculed. Members of the P.A.P. even went to the extent of saying how bad and how wicked the Lim Yew Hock Government was and how clean and how good the P.A.P. Government was. Then in 1960, when we had their second Budget, three Members from the other side came over to this side, and there was a lot of noise going on - in fact, a lot of exposures and counter-exposures - so much so that it resulted in a Commission of Inquiry. Then in their third Budget this year, this side has increased in number and their side has decreased. This, however, is not so bad. But when those who came from the other side now say that what they said to mean at that time was not what they meant to say, and that what they mean to say now is that the P.A.P. Government is a rotten Government and that the sooner it gets out the better for all concerned, and how good the Lim Yew Hock Government was, Sir, I really find it difficult to reconcile these statements. Although we on this side of the House might feel gratified that our strength has increased, it is very hard for me, Sir, to reconcile the statements now made by Members who have come over to this side when they criticise the Government's activities during the past two years, with which activities they were closely connected. Some of them were Parliamentary Secretaries and some were very active Back-Benchers. 7.02 p.m.

Apart from that, Sir, what I would like to say is this, before I leave this subject. The Member for Queenstown was most violent in his criticism of the Government for the pay cut. He said that that should not have been done. If I remember rightly, when there were eight of us on this side of the House, we were very vehement in our criticism of the arbitrary action of the Government in imposing the pay cut, and there were the 13 Members who are now on this side of the House and who stood up to say that we were talking rubbish. Now they have learnt the error of their ways and they criticise the Government for its action against the civil servants, to which action they were a party. Well, perhaps they are now saying they are sorry that they had done that and they hope that the Government will learn the error of its ways. It is up to them. I do not know. The Member for Queenstown stood up this time and criticised the Government. I think he said these words, "They blundered in their Budget and in their taxation policy," and it was only last year, when the Minister for Finance introduced eight new forms of taxes, that the Member for Queenstown stood up and said in this Assembly - I think I can remember the words he said - "I unreservedly support the Government." It was then last year. This year, things have changed and maybe they have learnt that the taxation policy of the Government introduced last year with their support should not have their support. A number of speakers have touched on the cut in the variable allowance. We are glad that the Government has found it necessary to pay back the cut that they imposed arbitrarily, but it would appear that there is still a lot of heartache amongst the civil servants. They maintain - as we have maintained for the past two years - that the cut imposed by the Government was an arbitrary cut and that it was against all trade union principles. Any cut which the Government had wanted to introduce could have been introduced after proper negotiations with the trade union bodies. The unions, I understand, are now asking the Government to negotiate with them with a view to finding a way to heal this sore once and for all. I do urge upon the Government that they should - if there is such a request - negotiate with the unions and bring this matter - which has caused a lot of heartache amongst the civil servants - to an end once and for all. Sir, we read in the newspapers today that the Work Brigade is going on strike. Members will remember that for the past two years, I have said in this Assembly that the Work Brigade was just an attempt by the P.A.P. to build up a - An hon. Member: A private army.

- Frankenstein. Today it has turned out to be an organisation which has come cut openly because it cannot stand it any more. It says that the Government is bad. I did say a year ago that the Work Brigade is nothing but an attempt by the Government to impose slave conditions on those who are unemployed. Before the P.A.P. came into power, the previous Government tried to solve the unemployment problem by giving the unemployed relief work at the rate of $3 a day plus rice and sugar. When the P.A.P. came into power - the workers' government as they claim themselves to be - they cut off the rice and sugar rations and now the members of the Work Brigade are only paid $1.50 a day. I told the Government that if they hoped to make use of the Work Brigade to be present at the Airport to welcome Ministers home when they come back from leave or see them off when they go elsewhere, or to make use of leaders of the community centres to cheer them when they walk from the City Hall to this Assembly, that was not going to help them; they would be creating a Frankenstein. We know today that the People's Association is out against the Government because they say that the P.A.P. is no good. It is the same thing with the Work Brigade. Sir, let us go through the Budget Statement of the Minister. The Minister rightly says that in order to achieve some success in the industrialisation policy and in the development programme: '...one of the main objectives of the Plan is to induce an increase in the rate of private capital investment.' He is quite right. You must induce an increase in the rate of private capital investment.

On a point of order, Sir. We have to close at eight o'clock and I think it is only fair that I should be given an opportunity of replying, being a target -

Order. That, of course is not a point of order. It is a waste of time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in fact, I will be speaking 25 minutes less than my allotted time agreed among Opposition Members. But just to cut the story short, this is what the Minister says, that in order to increase the rate of private capital, there must be an inducement to see that there is an increase in private investment. But how do they go about it now, Sir? We know in Singapore that there is a trade union war today between the P.A.P.-controlled trade unions and S.A.T.U. - the Barisan Sosialis-controlled trade unions. Each group is trying to go all out to prove that it is the better group. That is why we are having a series of strikes today. The P.A.P. tries to do something to prove that it is better. The Barisan Sosialis might feel that they want to prove that they are better. Therefore, they are creating all this industrial unrest. How are they then going to induce an increase in private investment? This was touched upon by the Member for Anson - about the World Bank having agreed to finance some of the development projects. The Minister says at page 9 of the Budget Statement: 'It is a source of satisfaction to the Government that the World Bank has agreed to finance our development projects, for a World Bank loan indicates the confidence of the Bank in the financial standing of the Government: I think it would be more correct to say "the confidence of the Bank in the financial standing of Singapore" and not "of the Government", because the P.A.P. Government is now going bankrupt. It started with 43 Members. It became 40, then 39, and now it is 26. One more less and it will go completely bankrupt. It is just on the verge of bankruptcy. On the question of the steel mill, there is one point that has not been touched on, and that is, a steel mill is coming into existence in Petaling Jaya, Selangor. One steel mill there is more than enough to cope with the requirements of Malaya as a whole, and even of Malaysia when it takes place. The Japanese steel mill is out. It is no good. It has no chance. There is no water. Just to prove that there were more imports, the Minister for Finance says that the registration of private motor cars, motor-cycles and scooters increased by 35 per cent, and yet it has been pointed out by the Member for Anson that the revenue from petroleum is going to be $2 million less than is estimated for this year. What is the reason for it? Diesel? I submit, Sir, that the reason why petrol is being used less today is because of this funny car park business that is going on. Sir, there is nowhere to park your car. It is easier for a car-owner not to go by car. It is easier to travel by bus or taxi. That is one of the reasons why the petroleum tax has gone down. It is more convenient to travel by bus or taxi.

Do not shout. Read the Standing Orders.

This is the final point on which I would like to touch. It has raised a good laugh. I hope the Government side will laugh this one off. The Minister says at page 25: 'Mr Speaker, Sir, I now come to revenue proposals for 1962. It is obvious that this is not the time for new taxes and I do not intend to introduce any new taxes next year nor to raise existing ones.' It is obvious. Surely it is obvious. They are going out and they hope to come back. Therefore, they will not want to do anything -

Going out where?

Going out of the scene. Therefore, they think it is obvious. Surely it is obvious. Who does not know it? Last year, they came along with eight new tax proposals. They thumped their chests. When we stood up on this side of the House and said. "It is not right that you should introduce such and such a tax," they tried to justify them. In fact, they ridiculed us, On the professional tax, the Prime Minister himself said - I will not quote it again because it has been quoted by the Member for Anson - that it was necessary. What was more important to the Government was not to raise money but to explore all local avenues of taxation before they go outside for loans. But now they say they are not going to introduce new taxes because of impending merger. 7.15 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry that time is short. However, it is necessary that in debating the Budget speech of the Minister for Finance, I should bring up this point that I feel is important, i.e., the surplus that we find today. I am happy to note that the Minister for Finance says in his speech that all the political slogans have brought about results for the benefit of the people. Mr Speaker, we must face hard realities and find ways and means to improve the livelihood of the people of Singapore. In our efforts to achieve progress for Singapore, we should not forget important problems, such as the composition of a multi-racial society. Each problem has its own difficulties, and our first step must be to get rid of the wall of division. The question of uniting our various peoples is the most important task. If we are unable to break down this communal barrier. I think it will be very difficult for us to solve this problem as a whole. Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of my Party, I say again that in the Budget Statement of the Minister for Finance, there is no mention of how we could solve this problem, with particular reference to the section which concerns by industrialists who are non-Malays, and in the effort to bring about a more egalitarian society. There is mention of the field of employment. At present, unemployed Malays have no chance to gain employment in industries or factories, many of which are controlled by industrialists who are non-Malays. If we could suggest to the industrialists to take in Malays, it would be a step towards bringing about closer relationship and mutual understanding between the various communities which live in Singapore; like the step taken in the Federation of Malaya today where industrialists are giving more opportunities to the Malays. This will at least bring about an understanding in the development of industries in our State and also bring about the unity of our peoples in Malaya. So I hope this matter will receive the serious consideration of the Government. We cannot achieve our political and ideological aims if the various peoples in our country cannot be united. Although it is our aim to bring about a more equal society, if we cannot bring about mutual understanding among the various peoples in all fiel4s, whether it be educational, industrial, etc., I think we cannot achieve socialism. Although my Party is not a socialist Party, we must aim at the unity of our peoples.

Order. I think the Leader of the House wishes to move a business motion.

7.22 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That the proceedings on item 2 be continued after 8 p.m. and be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 for half an hour.

Under Standing Order 83, one day is allotted for the continuation of the debate on the financial policy of the Government. In order to enable this motion to be moved, there must be an assent of hon. Members, because under Standing Order 99: 'A question the object or effect of which may be to suspend any Standing Order of the Assembly shall be proposed only either after notice given or after the expression of the general assent of the Assembly.' This motion proposed to be moved would have the effect of suspending Standing Order No. 83. Therefore, it needs the assent of hon. Members. Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the motion be moved?

No.

Then it cannot be moved. Perhaps the Member for the Southern Islands will bear that in mind and give the Minister as much time as possible to reply.

On a point of order, Sir. In view of the fact that yesterday the Member for Queenstown said he did not understand -

Order. I do not think we should debate this. The sooner the Member for the Southern Islands completes his speech, the better it will he. The Prime Minister will have other opportunities - a ministerial statement perhaps.

7.24 p.m. Debate resumed.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I submit my views for the consideration of the Government. I shall discuss the general and detailed aspects of the financial policy when we come to the Committee stage. 7.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, today is supposed to be the day for the Opposition. To my mind, the opportunity they have had of putting forward their cause by criticising and pointing out the inadequacies of the Government in a rational way has been completely lost. We may put the contributions we have had from Members opposite in a few categories. First, there is the usual political line completely unrelated to the Budget - to call upon the Government to resign - political issues which are completely unconnected with the issues before the House. I shall dismiss such comments with, the contempt that they deserve. On the other hand, a number of Opposition speakers have made perhaps well-founded criticisms or pointed out certain parts of the Government's financial policy on which they are not completely clear. Therefore, in the short time at my disposals I intend to dwell on the second category of the remarks by Opposition Members in this debate. I think the Member for Queenstown falls into the first category. We have wasted nearly an hour on a thoroughly fruitless, bellicose, inaccurate, and illogical address by him. Surely when you talk about the Budget, Mr Speaker, Sir, the first thing you have to do is to get your facts and figures right. It is obvious that the Member for Queenstown got all his facts muddled up and his figures confused. His only contribution to this debate - if we can call it a contribution - was a long political tirade, so familiar with Barisan Sosialis Members containing nothing but words. The Member for Hong Lim just reiterates in the most heinous and blatant way the untruth that he uttered last year, that the new taxes we introduced were designed to tax the poor and that only $100,000 came from the big European firms. It is absolutely amazing that a man who is an accountant could come to such a conclusion. No basis in fact, none in evidence, and none whatsoever in logic. So I shall dismiss the speeches of these two Members of the Assembly with the contempt that they deserve. I propose, instead, to discuss here a number of salient points raised by other Members of the Opposition. They are: first, the reason for the shortage in technicians which is preventing the full implementation of our Development Plan; second, the Economic Development Board, its functions and programme, and the problems facing it; and third, industrialisation. If I have time, I shall deal with certain matters raised by the Member for Anson regarding social insurance, the Work Brigade and possibly some matters raised by the Member for Farrer Park in connection with loans and subsidies to the Housing Board, accommodation, assessment of empty houses, and our plans for the expansion of the water supply. Sir, first, the shortage of technicians. That fact is admitted all round. The Government has never tried to conceal the fact that there is a grave shortage of engineers, architects and other grades which is impeding the implementation of our Development Plan. It has been alleged by some Members that this is due to the arrogant attitude of the Government and political interference in technical matters. Sir, allegations are very easy to make. But not the slightest shred of evidence has been put forward in support of these grave allegations. They have not quoted one instance in which an engineer or an architect or a quantity surveyor has left the service of the Government either because of political interference or because of inadequate pay. But be that as it may, I think I should give some details of how the Government is proposing to remedy the situation. I will talk on the subject in general terms. We have approached a number of governments and asked them to recruit for us technicians in different grades. This is a vital matter because whether or not we can fulfil the Four-Year Development Plan depends on whether we can get the skilled men to do it. So far as the present position goes, we have made fairly good progress with the U.K. Government. Our terms are these. We say that we are prepared to recruit overseas engineers and technicians, but we are not prepared to pay them more than what we pay our own officers. Otherwise that would be one of the grounds which will breed discontent, jealousy, a decrease in morale and so on. The British Government have agreed that they will pay the expatriate element - what is called the inducing element - which includes expatriation pay, passages, home leave and that sort of thing. Agreement would be reached any moment now, after which advertisements will appear in the newspapers in London and elsewhere calling for applications to these posts. We have also made some arrangements with the Government of Israel, and, as I mentioned in my Budget Statement, we have had three technicians so far in the fields of engineering, architecture and so forth. Sir, the Member for Anson, in one of his rather high-spirited moments, has ascribed this failure to get technicians entirely to the arrogance of the P.A.P. and the fact that the image of Singapore is not an attractive one. He may he true. He may have the facts for coming to his conclusions. But let us say this - who are the persons responsible for creating such a bad public image of Singapore abroad?

The P.A.P.!

I say it is the Members of the Opposition, particularly the Member for Anson who cannot possibly control himself. I mean between his tongue and his mind there is inadequate co-ordination, and he speaks certain things which his mind never intends. These are the people who, by their exaggeration, have created the impression that there has been political interference in professional matters. These people have never been able td quote a single instance. But the Member for Anson has at least honestly pointed out a real reason, and that is that there is a world-wide shortage of engineers and technicians. If you want to have them, you have to pay the price.

Have you?

We are negotiating with the British Government. They are prepared to pay the additional amount, and if they are prepared to do so, Mr Speaker, Sir, why should we refuse to accept it? This is an absolutely vital point in our Development Plan. As I have mentioned, we have stepped up the awards for scholarships in engineering, chemistry and so on and so forth - several posts - but this would not solve our immediate problem, because the bright boys and girls we send abroad now will not be back until about five or six years. In the meantime, we must get these people. If we do not succeed to the extent that we wish, then Mr Speaker, Sir,I can assure you that it is not for want of price. Now, Sir, the Economic Development Board. There has been general relief expressed by Members opposite that at last the Board has been established. We have never pretended that it is an easy thing to set up because, as part of our election programme, we said that we were going to set up this Board and provide it with vast sums of money - $100 million. If you are going to give an organisation a huge sum of money, you must make absolutely sure that they can spend this money wisely and for the purpose for which the money was intended. We took some two years to set up the Board. I do not think we can be accused of being dilatory about this matter. We do not pretend to he geniuses who have the right solution at the finger tips and can make vital decisions of great import just off the cuff. We have to consult international experts. And we did. There is no need to apologise for that. And we have set up the Board. Sir, sometimes I feel the Member for Anson is saying, "Look, at long last! What have you to do?" I have explained at great length that the way to do it is a step-by-step process, that is, by getting experts, setting up commissions and getting views all round. We took a long time recruiting personnel. We have had offers from various organisations saying, " I think this man is good." We rejected them after we had interviewed them. We found thqy were not the sort of people we think we should have. If we wanted to produce quick results, I would say that the P.A.P. Government would be well advised to follow the techniques or the methods of the Member for Anson. When he was Chief Minister, I was then a student in the London School of Economics. One morning, to my complete surprise, I was called to the office and told that there was a trunk call from Singapore from the Chief Minister, and I thought some calamity must have befallen the country. So I went there, and the Member for Anson, as Chief Minister, rang me up and said, "Look, a serious decision has been made. We want to appoint an Economic Adviser. Will you please ask Professor Arthur Lewis to take on the job?" He said the Professor was absolutely vital to the country. The survival of the State depended on whether Arthur Lewis would take up the appointment. Whereupon I took the first train from Lancaster/St. Pancras to Birmingham, rang up Professor Lewis and said, "Look, I have a proposal to make. My Chief Minister has asked whether you will take on the job." And he said, "Yes, yes. Queer chap, your Chief Minister. He rang me up last night. He rang me up when I was having my bath." And he said to me, "Go home. You know that even if I took on the job, it would not make two pence worth of difference because that is not the sort of thing you want in Singapore." As I have said, if we want to proceed with this quick method of appointing advisers to the Board, we could have done it. But I do not think that is going to produce any result at all. Sir, it has been alleged by some Members of the Opposition - although others disagree; they take a diametrically opposite point of view - that we are trying to go out of our way to please foreign investors and foreign capitalists while ignoring the local industrialists. That was the view, I think, expressed by the Member for Queenstown. He quoted at length from our manifesto, that we do not need foreign capital, and what are we doing now? On the other hand, the Member for Hong Lim, who is more worldly wise in his methods, because he is a businessman, - the Member for Queenstown is a doctor - knows that local businessmen are merchants and traders and they cannot open Factories unless they are guided and assisted. That is our point. There is nothing we are doing now that contradicts our policy which was stated at the general elections, namely, that our survival did not depend on foreign capital, because we have a sufficient amount of capital here. But the foreign manufacturers and industrialists, as distinct from the capital they bring to Singapore, can provide the know-how. That is important. Your local businessman has the capital. But he has no know-how. That is the point the Member for Hong Lim was making. Very often the foreign manufacturer, though he has the know-how, does not have the capital because of exchange control, restrictions and various other reasons. The policy of the Government is to bring local businessmen in partnership with overseas industrialists in some form of participation to the benefit of both. It is, of course, untrue to say that we are neglecting the local industrialists. The majority of firms receiving pioneer certificates are local firms. The majority of firms for which we are providing factory sites for industrialisation are local firms. I would not agree entirely with the Member for Hong Lim who says that all businessmen are commercial agents, because there is a small - true it is a small - but vigorous and expanding class of Chinese local industrialists. It is our business to encourage them in every way possible. We have an Economic Development Board to give them loans on reasonable terms v.-high they cannot get from banks, because our banks only give loans against trade credit - short-term loans. Thus the Board gives most valuable assistance to them. We are starting an Industrial Research Unit which was brought up by the Member for Anson. I can say that the target date for starting this unit, as told by me, would be March next year. Possibly things can go wrong - equipment may be delayed - in which case, it would be June next year. In this way, we can give our industrialists assistance - in technical know-how, capital and advice, if needed. Of course, the Economic Development Board hope to have a fairly comprehensive consultative service. But here again we are held up because we have to recruit really first-class men. We have been in touch with the World Bank and the United Nations, but it is not easy to get good men. If you are prepared to put up with second or third-rate men, you can start some sort of service. But when industries confront some problems, you will find that they will not be able to solve them. In fact, for all practical purposes, it is not worth setting up the unit. Now, Sir, I will say a few words about the steel mill. From what the Members of the Opposition say, I gather the impression that they believe a steel mill to be something of a gigantic establishment. Is it? It need not be so. There is a scale for these steel mills. You can go for blast furnace. Then, of course, there is a certain minimum scale, where, say, half a million tons a year and nothing less than that will do. On the other hand, techniques have been deeloped where you can go for smaller scale steel mills with every prospect of success. In this case, it was expressed, Mr Speaker, Sir, whether we are ever going to have a steel mill at all. I mentioned in my Budget Statement that we have brought together a number of local businessmen to start this steel mill. They have been negotiating with a Japanese company and not the Government. The Government has been trying to bring them together. There are advantages in joint participation, but unfortunately the local men thought that the terms of the Japanese company for capital participation were too stiff. So they said, "Well, we just run the show ourselves." This is not Government putting up the money and, therefore, you do not know whether you will succeed or not. But these are hardheaded businessmen, two of whom are abroad now, ordering plant, interviewing applicants for posts arid so on. They are putting up about $10 million in this project. Let us say when a businessman puts up that amount of money, he would have a shrewd idea that it is workable, feasible and profitable. Social insurance is a subject so dear to the heart of the Member for Anson. Then, of course, as a great humanitarian, he could not feel otherwise than to deplore the distress, suffering and poverty of those who are not fortunate. Sir, I think the matter was discussed once in this House and reasons were given why the Government finds it difficult to proceed with the introduction of social insurance. I can assure you, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it is not because I am utterly devoid of human feeling, as has been expressed by the Member for Queenstown, who thinks I am just a chess player, a calculator -

Zugzwang.

- and even the Member for Anson thought that I could do more with warmth of feeling. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, when you start, this social security scheme, it is absolutely vital that your workers and their leaders accept social insurance as social security. If they do not accept it, then I say it is utterly fruitless; first, if it is just an act of paternalism, which we are now aiming to do, and secondly, they will oppose it and if there are ways, jam up the administration -

What about the employers?

Nobody, of course, is, Sir, I myself had a series of discussions with illustrious trade union leaders such as Mr Lim Ching Siong, Mr Woodhull, Mr Dominic Puthucheary and others, and I put forth before them proposals, not in principle, but a cut and dried administrative scheme. Oddly enough, Dominic's brother, James, the Chairman of the Central Provident Fund -

Ex-chairman.

- ex-chairman - had worked out this scheme. We said, "Well, let us introduce this thing", and they said, "No." What was the outcome of it? This is for the benefit of the workers and the State, because then you will do away with one of the most important reasons for industrial strife, that is, redundancy. Sir, they said, "No." There are reasons - genuine or not, it is not for me to say. They say we cannot persuade the workers to make their contribution. They say if you give it to them free, that is another matter. But, Sir, social insurance means the beneficiary must make a contribution. Then the benefits are theirs as of right, unlike public assistance where there is no contribution. When a man accepts public assistance, there is something of charity about it which does not taste right in the mouth. Therefore, social insurance. I say if such illustrious trade union leaders do not want social security for the workers, it is hardly fair for the Government, Mr Speaker, Sir, to introduce it. The Barisan Sosialis never stop reminding us how close we are to the masses. Let them decide. The moment they say they want it, well, implementation is merely a technical problem. An hon. Member: Bring it.

It is merely a technical problem, I agree with you. But the workers' leaders must want it first. We are not going to ram it down their throats. No more than we are going to chase student pickets by force. An hon. Member: Itching powder?

Itching powder in another matter.

The Barisan Sosialis is going to decide everything for you?

Now, Sir, the Work Brigade. There may be trouble there. A statement which causes great hilarity, Mr Speaker, Sir, in Barisan Sosialis circles - I do not know whether I should put any interpretation on it - but that is past. The Work Brigade was conceived as an unemployment assistance scheme. There were thousands of young men and women coming out to work but are unable to find work. What are they going to do? They loiter around. So we say, give them work to do, organise camps, feed them, discipline their lives, get them to do useful work, pay them out of consideration a daily rated allow-a flee. That is the way the Work Brigade was organised and conceived. They are not a fulltime working force because it is out intention - [Interruption]

Order.

- that they stay in the Work Brigade perhaps 3 months or 6 months or 9 months, during which time we hope to find them jobs in the Government service or the statutory authorities. This is the period when they are trained and given useful work, when their aptitudes can be assessed and training courses organised for them to fit those who are more able for productive work. The type of project that the Work Brigade is allotted to do and the method of carrying out the work has been so designed that you use the largest possible number of hands with the minimum amount of machinery. The cost does not matter. If we say this is a Work Brigade project, digging a ditch or putting a road, and we need not want to do it in the cheapest way, we can let it out on contract, as the Member for Farrer Park says, which is the thing to do. It will save the Government money. But, Sir, we have to do something for these young men and women who otherwise would just be cooling their heels. We were hoping that discipline could help the Work Brigade develop so that we could find employment for them not only in Government service but also in private employment. They can choose whichever form of private employment that pays. They can say yes or no. Unfortunately, Mr Speaker, Sir, for reasons which I will not discuss now, the members of the Brigade have different views on the subject. They think they are full-time workers. If we are to treat them as fully paid full-time workers, I will say, all right, two-thirds of them would go, in fact: probably the whole bunch of them would go because we could carry on with the projects far cheaper by using ordinary commercial methods. The project, therefore, is a temporary phase where a young man does some work, lives a disciplined camp life, has a chance of getting instruction. It is not employment in the sense that others have some work result. It is quite different. We have found permanent jobs for more than 1,000 members of the Work Brigade in the two years, and I say that is a good record. To that extent we have established a Work Brigade which has fulfilled our original objective. Therefore, Sir, when these people have the idea that they should form unions and that they should find more pay, and if they do press their point, Mr Speaker (no doubt there are less well intentioned people behind them egging them on to it), then I say the solution is to close down the Work Brigade and save money. So I say that those members who are now being misguided by various persons should rethink the whole position. It gives us no pleasure, Sir, to close down the camps because we want to provide useful work and activity for these people. But they are not doing full-time work. It is not a full-time proper career. Because if that was so, the whole modus operandi would be different. Sir, I have only two minutes to go and there are some 4 or 5 other topics to go through. I would have liked to deal with the subject raised by the Member for Farrer Park, because I think it is an important issue, particularly the future of the Public Utilities Board, and an expansion scheme for water and light. Unfortunately, time does not permit me to do so. As regards the request that we should reappraise the assessment of empty houses, I have already said in my Budget Statement last year that should there be a state where large numbers of houses are left empty because the housing shortage has been overcome, or any other reason, then the position will be reviewed. If the Member for Farrer Park thinks that we have reached that stage, then I say the Government would he well advised to examine this problem.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Assembly approves the financial policy of the Government for the year 1962.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Adjourned accordingly at Eight o'clock p.m. Estimates of Expenditure of the State of Singapore 1962 and Development Estimates of the State of Singapore for 1962 (Cols 1623-1628)