Hansard, 1963-06-11

The following Member has, under the provisions of subsection (2) (g) of section 42 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly: Mr David Marshall (Anson) - from 12th to 14th June, 1963.

Committee of Supply

In accordance with the provisions of paragraph (6) of Standing Order No. 86, I have for the Main Estimates for 1963 fixed the Times on each allotted day at which consideration of the heads of expenditure in respect of Which amendments stand on the Order Paper shall, if not previously disposed of, be concluded. Those times have been circulated to Honourable Members and will appear in the Official Report*(Appendix I, Cols. 851-4). MAIN ESTIMATES FOR 1963(Cols 0851-0854)

Mr David Marshall asked the Prime Minister whether he will publish the correspondence between his office and Amnesty International of London on the subject of Political Detainees.

The correspondence between my office and Amnesty International of London is circulated herewith.

Has the correspondence+(Appendix II, Cols. 855-60) been tabled? POLITICAL DETAINEES(Cols 0855-0860)

I think so. As I understand it, my Secretary has supplied enough copies.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider the suggestion made by Amnesty to release those detainees who are prepared to leave the State of Singapore and Malaysia for purposes of furthering their studies?

I think the Member for Anson has read the reply which my Secretary sent to Amnesty International. For the benefit of Members of the House who did not see the document, may I just refer to paragraph (5) of the letter by Anwar Ibrahim, my Secretary: `As in (4) above, the decision to detain and to release detainees rests with the Internal Security Council in which the Singapore Government has only three out of seven members. But the Singapore Government's three members will consider allowing detainees freedom to leave Singapore provided they are satisfied that the applicant who offers to give a written undertaking not to engage in politics abroad is one whose conduct in the past is not such as to make his words worth less than the paper they are typed on.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister is aware that that sort of condition invalidates the entire assurance given. Would he consider that whether these persons whose words he is not prepared to accept undertake political activities elsewhere or not cannot in any way damage the security of Malaya? If they go to territories like Australia or the United Kingdom or the United States of America, would he take into consideration the places to which they seek to go for the purpose of pursuing their studies?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid that the statement made by the Member for Anson is somewhat naive in its approach if he believes that a place like London is innocuous. From our point of view, a great amount of energy and effort has been spent to counter the activities of Mr John Eber and the Movement for Colonial Freedom. I see no reason why Mr John Eber should receive further assistance from more able united front Communist leaders. If we are convinced that any particular gentleman wishes to go to London for the salubrious air and to learn through the scholarship with which London and its universities are endowed, then we will seriously consider the proposition. But if - as the professional experts believe - there is a plan afoot to try, now that they are neutralised, to move them into positions where they can once again be put to good use, then, as I say, our three votes will not be used to help them. But if we are convinced that they really want to lead a quiet and peaceful life, then I say that there is no reason why we would not consider them for a job in the Ministry of Culture looking after dances and cultural shows - innocuous things like that.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has any further statement to make as to when it is proposed to hold a by-election for the Electoral Division of Sembawang.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Statistics Department is working at full capacity to complete the election registers by the end of this month, or the beginning of next. As I said at the last sitting, the Sembawang by-election will be held soon thereafter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I remember right, we were assured at the last sitting that the by-election would take place within two months. May I ask the Prime Minister whether we can expect that by-election next month?

First, I challenge the statement that the Member for Anson has attributed to me. You will notice that even when my Secretary writes to Amnesty International, he writes in very circumspect language.

Dictated by you.

I hope he has in his association with me learned how to deal with difficult gentlemen who ask difficult questions. I would assure the Member for Anson that however insidious he can be, he would never find me committed in writing in this Assembly or outside to a categorical statement that it would take place within two months. He has not found it so even in this statement. What I have said is that it is hoped - and it is working at full capacity to the knowledge of all members of the civil service and the people outside. In fact, I have moved two machines from the City Council to help them. What machines are they?

High-speed sorting machines.

We have loaned from the City Council two high-speed sorting machines to the Statistics Department to discharge these functions more efficaciously. And my answer stands.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the subject of the first General Elections in Singapore under the proposed Malaysia Constitution, and whether any changes are contemplated in the existing constitutional position relating to general elections.

Sir, there are two general elections which will arise with Malaysia. There again, I think the Member for Anson will notice that the preposition has been chosen carefully - "with" Malaysia. The first is the election of 15 seats to the Central Parliament. The second is the election of 51 seats to the State Assembly. As soon as the necessary legislation is ready, it will be tabled in this House for adoption. The boundary of the 15 seats will be decided by the Federal Elections Commission. But for the first elections to the Central Parliament, there may not be sufficient Time for the Commission to delineate the 15 constituencies. So the 15 constituencies may have to be formed by joining up the 51 Assembly constituencies in threes and fours so as to give even representation throughout the island. Just in case the Federal Elections Commission cannot get on with the job in time, my colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs, will be introducing for First Reading a Bill meant for discussion in this House in Select Committee on the joining up of the seats in threes and fours within the next few days. A change contemplated relates to the Members elected to the 51 seats in the next Assembly. At present, individual Members of the Assembly, once elected, can hold their party to ransom by changing sides. In, future, it is proposed that when a person resigns or is expelled from the party on whose platform he was elected, he will automatically vacate his seat.

asked the Minister for Finance why it took two years and three months to publish the Report of the Division of commerce and Industry for the year 1960.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked to reply. I do not accept that a time lag of two scars and three months is unreasonable for the publication of the Annual Report of the Trade Division of my Ministry. The preparation of the Annual Report must wait upon completion of trade statistics for that year. Major reorganisation in the Ministry in 1961 necessarily engaged the officers in more urgent duties, and compilation of the 1960 Report had to be held in abeyance during the period. The Member for Anson was the Minister for Commerce and industry sometime during 1955/1956, and he will doubtless recollect that during his tenure of office, he did not publish the 1953/1954 Annual Report for the Ministry of Commerce and Industry.

Sir, I am reminded of the remark that one asks the organ-grinder and gets a reply from the monkey. But I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is seriously contending that two years and three months is a period indicative of efficiency in the Department in the production of so slim a document as that Annual Report.

I have said that the officers were engaged on some other urgent duties.

Ah, I hear the organ-grinder!

asked the Minister for Finance whether he knows of any reasons why exports from Singapore in 1960 to the Dollar area and non-Sterling Asian countries should have declined as compared with 1959, and whether he will make a statement on developments in that sphere.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked to reply. In 1960, exports from Singapore to the dollar area declined by $62.2 million as compared with 1959 and exports to the non-Sterling Asian countries declined by $63.7 million. As far as the dollar area is concerned, the decrease in exports to the United States of America and Canada in 1960 as compared with 1959 was $59.7 million. Thus the decrease in exports to the dollar area was mainly owing to the decrease in exports to the United States of America and Canada. Similarly, the decrease in exports from Singapore to Japan and China in 1960 as compared with 1959 was $67.7 million. Thus the decrease in exports to the non-Sterling Asian countries was due mainly to decrease in exports to Japan and China. In 1960, the export of rubber from Singapore came up to almost 53 per cent of total exports from Singapore. This gives us the first clue. The export of rubber from Singapore to the United States of America and Canada, and to Japan and China, expressed as a percentage of total exports from Singapore to these countries for the two years was more than 80 per cent in the case of the United States of America and Canada, and more than 70 per cent in the case of Japan and China. The decrease in total export to these countries was therefore mainly owing to a decrease in the export of rubber to these countries. The reasons for the decrease in the value and quantity of rubber exported from Singapore in 1960 as compared with 1959 have already been given on page 6 of the 1960 Annual Report of the Division of Commerce and Industry. Briefly, the sales from the American and British stockpiles and the greater use of synthetic rubber were the main causes of a decline in the export of natural rubber from Singapore in 1960. I should add that since then the volume of exports of rubber has increased from 598,000 tons in 1960 to 677,000 tons in 1961.

asked the Minister for National Development whether he will make a statement on the Bedok Reclamation Scheme, and whether any extension thereof is being considered.

Sir, I do not propose to add much to what the Prime Minister stated in his speech in the debate on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Speech of 8th April, 1963. The Housing and Development Board is proceeding with the pilot project which will entail the reclamation of 48 acres near the Fisheries School at Bedok, 8½ milestone. This project is expected to be completed in about three months' time. Initially, it is intended that the reclaimed area will be an open park. In the meantime, the technical and financial aspects of reclaiming further land from Bedok to Nicoll Highway are under consideration.

Could the Minister indicate the anticipated cost of this reclamation?

This pilot project will cost about $600,000 when completed.

asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether he will make a statement of policy with reference to the erection of advertisements in or near public highways; and (b) whether any, and what licences, were granted to permit the erection of the advertising structure in North Bridge Road near the Capitol Car Park.

Sir, the erection of advertisements in or near public highways may only be allowed if written permission has been obtained from the competent authority under the Planning Ordinance, provided the structure is not within an area prohibited for the exhibition of advertisements and complies with the requirements of the relevant by-laws. The competent authority, in examining any such development, takes into account many important considerations, such as aesthetic, amenity and traffic, and is advised by a Development Control Committee. The following were granted for the erection of the advertising structure in North Bridge Road, near the Capitol Car Park :-

I would ask the Minister whether he was aware personally, before these licences were granted, of the proposal for this monument to advertising, and whether having seen it now and the grave effect it has on the dignity of the waterfront of Singapore, he would consider cancelling those licences.

Order. The first part of the supplementary question is in order, but the second part is completely out of order because it seeks an expression of opinion.

May I then take the first part and enquire from the Minister whether he was conscious of these plans before the granting of the licences?

Sir, as I have said just now, licences from the Chief Building Surveyor's Department will only be considered and issued after the competent authority under the Planning Ordinance has approved the construction of such a structure.

Am I to have no reply to my question, Mr Speaker, Sir?

Order. Perhaps that is quite an unfair question, because the Minister accepts responsibility, as he must.

In that case, may I ask the Minister this: having seen it, would he consider withdrawing those licences?

In all big cities like the City of Singapore, there are higher sky signs than the sky sign that is situated ---

Order. I think the Minister is now inviting a debate. The answer is yes or no.

Sir, I think this sky sign is consonant with the sky sign for a city of Singapore's stature. I will not withdraw.

P.A.P. aesthetics.

A-no-ne!

A-no-ne is right!

Order.

"to make provision for parking places and to repeal the existing provisions of the Road Traffic Ordinance, 1961 (No. 26 of 1961) relating thereto", presented by the Minister for National Development (Mr Tan Kia Gan); read the First time, to be read a Second Time on the first available day after 30th June, 1963, and to be printed. 2.53 p.m.

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [7th June, 1963], "That the Assembly approves the financial policy of the Government for the year 1963." Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, let me point out that this is the most unusual Time to have a Budget debate in Singapore. Half the year has already gone by and we are now asked to approve only the Budget for the second half of 1963. The first half year's Budget was passed in 1961, and according to the P.A.P., there would be "numerous complicated and onerous technical problems of details" involved because of the P.A.P. merger with the Federation on or before June 1963. But June has come by and there is still no merger. Where are the "complicated and onerous technical problems of details" involved in the present Budget that necessitate the present procedure? And how is the present Budget different in essence from the usual Budgets that we see year after year, that it could not have been prepared earlier in December 1962? The reason for the present procedure is, of course, that the P.A.P. has no use of the Legislative Assembly other than to use it as a rubber stamp for P.A.P. machinations. Passing the Budget early in 1961 made it unnecessary for the P.A.P. to hold Legislative Assembly sittings again for a long period. And indeed, there has been no Assembly sitting for months at a stretch. This unprecedented parliamentary procedure, like the telescoping of the time-table for the present Budget debate, shows what parliamentary practice we have in Singapore today. We have already had a long Assembly holiday of eight months and an Assembly seat vacant for ten months. Today, the P.A.P. merely wears the garb of parliamentary democracy for the convenience of deceiving the people both inside and outside Singapore. There is hardly anything that one can enthuse about in the Budget statement of the Minister for Finance. As usual he talks of P.A.P. successes. But take away the grease, the paint and the make-up. What is there left to show? Like the previous years, the year 1962 has been another year of dismal failure. Funds had been voted for use by the Government on development projects in order that they may benefit the people. But what development projects do we see in 1962? Until today, the people of Singapore have not been told as to how funds had been spent on the development projects in 1962. A sum of $207 million had been voted in December 1961 for the 1962 Development Estimates. The whole of Singapore can see that the money has not been spent as was budgeted for. As the Minister himself has admitted in the statement, in 1962 there was a huge surplus of $97 million, just as there was a huge surplus of $110 million in 1961. What has happened to the surplus of $97 million in 1962? Why does the Minister not inform the House and the people of Singapore as to what he has done with the money - the people's money and not P.A.P.'s money?

Not Barisan money either!

The Minister may try to hide all the ugly facts behind a mass of verbiage, but the people have the right to know the state of financial affairs of Singapore. It is the duty and responsibility of the Government to inform them of what it has done to their money - not P.A.P. money!

When did we say "P.A.P. money"?

Let the P.A.P. tell the people why there is repeated under-performance, and let the P.A.P. openly admit its own inefficiency and incompetence and even negligence in the matter. There has been too much boasting about this surplus which the Prime Minister claims is the result of P.A.P. efficiency and good government. We say that it is nothing of the sort, and let the P.A.P. admit this tact. If the surplus had come about as a result of unexpected windfalls due to a more efficient collection of revenue, then there would have been something to crow about. But if the surplus had come about as a result of funds voted for and passed in the Legislative Assembly not being used, then it could only have meant incompetent and bad government. It could only have been a source of shame to the P.A.P. and not a source of boasting and bragging. For the P.A.P. to go about telling the people that the surplus is due to the good government of the P.A.P. is therefore sheer deception. The people, of course, are not so easily deceived; nevertheless, the P.A.P. must be condemned for such attempted deception of the people, and we ask the P.A.P. not to repeat this deception. The Prime Minister goes round the constituencies. Let the Ministers here tell him not to brag about this surplus anymore. From all this, Sir, we can also see that the P.A.P. Ministers do not mean what they say. When they say success, they in fact mean failure. But however much slick talk the Minister may indulge in, he will not be able to get this past the people. The P.A.P. called the year 1961 the year of construction. But now we know that there is nothing constructive about 1961. It was a year of sell-out as far as we know ---

How?

--- and there was a surplus of $110 million of work not done and money not used on the people ---

You must be blind.

The P.A.P. did not give a name to the year 1962. We can help them.

The year of fulfilment.

It is quite clear that the year 1962 was a year of P.A.P. deceit and coercion. That is how they managed their 70 per cent in the referendum. If the 70 per cent was correct ---

71 per cent.

But what of 1963? What shall we call it?

The year of the Rabbit.

We shall call it the year of surrender - abject surrender - in spite of all the brave talk of the Minister for Finance and the Prime Minister.

Barisan finance.

Four years of P.A.P. misrule have passed, and the time will come for the people to pass judgment on the Government. In the first two years, the P.A.P. Ministers spent most of their Time throwing their weight about with habitual arrogance. They abused civil servants, -

You were one of them.

--- instituted pay cuts and generally insulted, threatened and intimidated people all around. To make things worse, taxes were raised on petrol and tobacco and the P.A.P. persisted in taking a tough line because at that Time the P.A.P. thought that it was an indispensable force. Today, with popular support gone, ---

Really?

--- the P.A.P. Ministers have to resort to the buying of votes in preparation for the coming elections. In fact, they are ready to do almost anything, and they are already bending themselves backwards to please every Tom, Dick and Harry. The Prime Minister has to run around attending dinner functions of clan associations and other private functions. He wears all sorts of head gears including turbans, and he is ready to do almost anything in order to ingratiate himself with all those whom he used to despise and ridicule not so very long ago. Pictures in the Straits Times showed the Prime Minister openly hugging the Minister for Farrer Park ---

What?

The Member for Farrer Park.

You have not had enough sleep.

And today, they have even gone to the extent of giving medals and what-not to the civil servants ---

You did not get any.

--- the very people whom the P.A.P. despised and bullied but yesterday! In all the years of P.A.P. misrule, we see broken promises, underfulfilment of projects, shortages in staff and equipment in the various Government departments. The Prime Minister wants to give the impression that he is concerned about the hospitals. Does he know that today all the various departments in the hospitals are short of equipment? The essential drugs are missing ---

You pinched them,

--- and there is increasing hardship for the people. The unemployment problem is worsening. In addition, of course, there is repression and the deprivation of the basic rights and freedoms of the people. Only in one department do the P.A.P. Ministers excel in, and that is the department of malicious distortion, deception and treachery. The P.A.P. excels in sell-outs. That is the only thing they are good in, nothing else. In the matter of the financial merger talks, in spite of all the brave talk of the Prime Minister, it is clear that the P.A.P. is already getting ready to surrender in toto to the Federation. This talk of limited common market terms is only meant to save the face of the Prime Minister in his abject surrender. The Minister for Finance still talks of independence through merger. But he cannot be serious. He was talking with his tongue in his cheek because there is no independence with the P.A.P. merger and the P.A.P. itself has admitted as much in the financial talks tussle with the Federation. If it really thinks that there is independence, why should it fight or pretend to fight? Therefore, let us get rid of this nonsense about independence through merger. The Minister also talks of finding the money to pay for new schools and houses. But although we had the money in hand in 1962, we nevertheless did not have the many new schools and hospitals. Nor the equipment and staff for them. We have surpluses which have merely been sent overseas for investment. In 1959, the surplus funds invested overseas amounted to $139 million. The sum increased to $249 million in 1960 and by 1961 the amount invested overseas had increased to $316 million. I do not wish to repeat what I have already said only two months ago in the debate on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. It can always be found in the Hansard. Unfortunately, the figures for 1962 have not come out yet. But I am sure that the figure for 1962 will be much higher than for 1961. The P.A.P.'s Five-Year Plan advocates the use of local funds for investment in Singapore. Today, we see that the P.A.P. has not only not brought back to Singapore money invested overseas, but, on the contrary, it has increased the investment abroad. What good will money invested abroad do to the people of Singapore? The main problem in Singapore's economy remains the problem of unemployment. How are we to get enough jobs for the increasing number of unemployed in Singapore? Every year, more than 30,000 students leave school. What has the P.A.P. done to obtain jobs for all these job-seekers? How does the P.A.P. deal with this problem of - according to the Minister - sustaining the economic growth of Singapore to keep pace with the yearly increase in population? For four years, the P.A.P. has been playing politics. Although the Five-Year Plan in The Tasks Ahead was announced to the people before 1959, and the Four-Year Development Plan was prepared more than two years ago, no appreciable concrete results have been shown. The industrialisation programme has been left stagnating as a result of the P.A.P. playing politics and the Ministers' obsession to fix their political opponents. The Minister boasts of pioneer certificates for industries, that they will soon commence operation and provide jobs for 3,500 people, and of a range of goods, which if and when they go into production, will provide employment for 1,620 people. Even if these figures were realised, for the sake of argument, it still would not help the situation. In four years of P.A.P. misrule. 30,000 times 4, that is, 120,000 young men and women have left school to look for jobs. Where are the 120,000 jobs for these 120,000 people? There have not been enough jobs, and the only result so far is that there is a steady increase in the already large number of hawkers and other under-employed people. So what is there for the P.A.P. to crow about? There is yet another aspect of this industrialisation scheme of the P.A.P. which is not so well known. It is that Singapore has to spend millions in the provision of the basic services for the industrial site, namely, roads, railways, post offices, power, water, telephones and other services. Now, if this money had been spent on these services for the benefit of our local businessmen, then it would have been money well spent. But our fear, Sir, is that this money will benefit mostly the foreign capitalists. The present trends are that all the benefit will go to the foreign capitalists and not to the people of Singapore. Industrialisation has always been linked with the formation of the common market between Singapore and the Federation. Yet from the financial merger talks between the two Governments, we learn that the subject of the common market has never actually been discussed until very recently. This tells us one very important thing, that during the crisis of the chicken and egg war in November and December of last year and January of this year, the Prime Minister was merely deceiving the people when he told diem that there would be a common market. Why should the people be deceived in this manner? As we have all the Time pointed out, the Causeway will remain a barrier between Singapore and the Federation even after the P.A.P. merger. We still do not know what sort of common market arrangements there will be, Rueff Report or no Rueff Report, we must hear in mind that, with overall control in the hands of the Federation, Singapore will he treated as and will remain, a very junior and unequal partner. In which ease, all the major industries will have to be approved first by the Federation before they will be allowed to be set up in Singapore. This is a far cry from the common market originally envisaged, which would permit joint Federation / Singapore control and planning of industrial programme for all Malaya. Now without even proportional representation to exert the appropriate influence on the Central Parliament. Singapore will not be able to set up industries that may compete with similar industries in the Federation, whether they be in actual operation or still under planning. P.A.P. industrialisation has obviously failed so far as local businessmen are concerned. The Ministers cannot even persuade importers and traders to take a serious interest in industrialisation. Why are these importers and traders reluctant to change to industry? There are various reasons. But a very important one is that there has never been political stability in the country. Of course, the P.A.P. would like to pass the buck on to the workers and their unions. But the facts cannot be hidden so easily. The Government has only 25 seats in an Assembly of 51, and is so afraid of meeting the people that it has not even dared to face them in the Sembawang constituency, now vacant for more than ten months. The P.A.P. today exists as a Government only because all the P.A.P. Assemblymen have a vested interest in keeping a wobbling Government going, and, of course, because the S.P.A./ U.M.N.O. Alliance for the Time being, for their own reasons, want to keep it going. But already a new crisis is looming. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture has resigned from his post of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister, and the question arises as to whether or not he will cross the Floor. Whether or not he crosses the Floor, the new crisis merely confirms what all Singapore already knows, namely, that the P.A.P. Government is soon going under. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture believes that it is safer to depend on the nurses and P.T. workers than on the Government itself.

Order. I think the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture should now be referred to as the Member for Kampong Kapor.

Yes, Sir. The Member for Kampong Kapor finds it safer to depend on the union organisations than on the P.A.P. Government itself. He knows that the P.A.P. is already sinking. He does not have to sink together with it, if he can help it. Hence, he is breaking away from the P.A.P. If the people on the Benches opposite still persist in their dreams, it is Time that they realised ---

Nightmare!

Nightmare? There are not many people who have brothers who profit from their brothers holding positions in the Government. Let those people who are talking realise all this. The P.A.P. always talks of its cleanliness and purity. Corruption can be seen everywhere.

On a point of order. May I ask the Member for Queenstown to produce evidence instead of alleging corruption?

Order. That is not a point of order. The Member for Queenstown is making serious allegations, and if the allegations are false, he, of course, takes the risk of facing the Committee of Privileges. It is his statement and he is privileged to make that statement here.

All the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education need do is to institute a Commission of Inquiry since they are so fond of Commissions of Inquiry, and then they will get at the truth. It is very easy.

Repeat it outside the House!

Anyway, there is no political stability in Singapore with the P.A.P. Government, and arrests of political opponents cannot give stability to the Government. On the contrary, they merely show the death throes of desperate politicians about to drown. The Minister says that the common market is the most decisive single factor in accelerating industrial growth. But from all that we can see, political instability is the most decisive factor here in Singapore. The sham referendum on the 1st September, 1962, has not helped to stabilise the shaky P.A.P. Government. Even the Prime Minister of the Federation said that the sham referendum did not show the strength of the pro-Malaysian forces. So fearful, Sir, are the investors of Singapore's political instability that not so very long ago Newsweek gave prominence to $20 million fleeing from Singapore to Hong Kong for investment. I remember the Minister for Finance saying that Hong Kong has succeeded in industrialisation because there are no trade unions in Hong Kong. But he conveniently forgets that few people today trust the P.A.P. Government. Even the Federation does not trust the P.A.P. But from that small remark by the Minister for Finance, we can also see that, in fact, the Minister secretly harbours hopes of doing away with unions that are opposed to the P.A.P. It is curious, Sir, that with so much money around, we still need to borrow money from the World Bank. A loan from the World Bank does not mean confidence in the Government as the Minister claims. All sorts of conditions are imposed. The interest is not low either. 5½ per cent plus incidentals comes to about 7 per cent. Why should we pay 7 per cent? The Minister should follow what he himself had advocated long ago, and make use of local funds for whatever we want to do in Singapore. Why does he not do so? It would be interesting to learn from the Minister who are the people who subscribe to the loans floated by the Government in Singapore. Are they local citizens or are they foreigners? Are the subscribers mostly banks and insurance companies and, if so, are they local banks or foreign banks? We must warn the P.A.P. of unnecessarily getting deeper and deeper into the clutches of neo-colonialism. For the benefit of the P.A.P. Members, neo-colonialism is economic and military domination after political independence has been apparently granted to the people. As far as possible, it is our policy that the people of Singapore should rely on the people of Singapore themselves. The Minister refers to the increased volume of trade. But it has not brought with it a corresponding increase in national income. In fact, with the falling prices of our raw materials and products and the rising prices of imported manufactured goods and foodstuffs, the loss to us of national income becomes greater and greater every year. The end result of it all is that Singapore will sink further and further into the clutches of neo-colonialism. The present economic policy of the Government with its pro-colonial bias can only lead us to be under tighter and tighter foreign indirect control which, in effect, will mean that the rich in Singapore will get richer, and the poor will get poorer, with a daily widening of the economic gap. This is what we must ask the P.A.P. to avoid. The P.A.P. was elected to office by the people in 1959. All we ask of it is that it should admit its mistakes of the past and immediately attend more to the needs of the poor. Of course, with the approach of election time, the P.A.P. is fast putting up an appearance of attending to the needs of the poor. The Minister crows of so-called concessions made to owner-occupied attap houses. But these are not true and sincere concessions. The P.A.P. has the intention of collecting as much money as possible from whatever source there is, regardless of whether it is from the poor or the rich. It is only the fear of loss of whatever support there is left for the P.A.P. amongst the attap dwellers that the Minister has been forced to grant so-called concessions. We urge the P.A.P. to change the error of its ways and stop taxing the poor. The P.A.P. takes great pride in its so-called housing achievements. Thousands of housing units have been built, but they are built in such an unplanned manner that they have, in fact, become white elephants. Thousands of flats are still vacant, unsuitable in site and in rent, for the vast majority of the people of Singapore. The question then arises: for whom are the housing flats built? For the comparatively well-to-do or for the poor? A big show was made of Selegie House. We just want to ask the Minister a simple question: how does he expect a poor man to stay in such expensive flats at rents of $60, $90, and $120? All that a poor man can earn will not be enough to pay for the rent. Is that the way to build houses? Is money collected in taxes from the poor and the exploited to be used as subsidy for the comparatively well-to-do? Are these flats subsidised with taxes from the poor to he used as barracks for military troops brought into Singapore to suppress the legitimate hopes and aspirations of the people?

To suppress the Communists.

What has happened to the promises of cheap housing in the P.A.P.'s Five-Year Plan? Is the Housing Board building flats for the people or barracks for the troops? We know there are a few housing units at cheap rentals, but they are only a mere handful. The majority of the Housing units are too expensive for the ordinary worker. Therefore, let the P.A.P. remember this: we must not build merely for the sake of building. The Government must build for the use of the poor, and let the P.A.P. amend its housing policy immediately. We support the decision of subsidy for housing, but let the subsidy be really used for housing for the poor and not for the comparatively well-to-do. We still remember, Sir, the adamant attitude of the P.A.P. Ministers in their wanting to raise the rentals of all the Housing Board flats, beginning with the flats at the Kallang Airport, in spite of strong protests and opposition from us who are now in the Barisan Sosialis. And we are glad that our strong protests have borne fruit and that the P.A.P. has not dared to raise the rents any further. In fact, they have done an about-turn and are trying to gain the goodwill of the people by telling them of Government subsidies. We urge the Government also to spend more on improving public amenities in the rural areas. Let the P.A.P. not just concentrate on community centres and T.V. for the sake of forcing its propaganda on the people. Let more rural roads be built. Let electric lights and pipe water, the essentials of a modern society, reach the tens of thousands in the rural areas and in the kampongs, whose people still do not enjoy these essential amenities. In order to buy votes, the Prime Minister announces the so-called improvements for the rural constituencies during his week-end visits. But the unfortunate thing about it all is that these improvements have come three years too late. We object to the delay in the implementation of these projects which should have been carried out more than three years ago. But for the coming elections, these projects might never even been thought of again by the arrogant and self-centred Ministers, so busy are they in playing politics to fix their political opponents. Sir, there is also much talk of increased expenditure on Education. But until today the Nanyang University question has not been settled. This question cannot be settled by just ignoring it. It is there, and it must be settled. The Government should stop playing politics on the question of aid to Nanyang University, and until adequate aid is given to Nantah, the P.A.P. need not put up any further pretence of pursuing a policy of equal treatment of the four streams of education. There is no question of not having the money. Millions of dollars are in the Singapore kitty. Let us use the money taken from the people on a seat of learning that has been built by the sweat and toil of the people, for the people, not only of Singapore but also of the Federation and surrounding territories in South-East Asia. Lastly, Sir, just a word about Malaysia. Malaysia is not something that comes from the spontaneous desire of the people to have national unity. On the contrary, Sir, it is designed to be a strategic and an aggressive bloc for the use of imperialist powers to suppress the legitimate hopes and aspirations of the people in the whole of South-East Asia. More than two-thirds of the people in the world condemn Malaysia. The wrangle for finance from Singapore for the expansion of Malaysian armed forces tells us what we can expect with the formation of Malaysia. It will not do Singapore any good. The P.A.P. must realise that the future of Singapore is not tied up with the Borneo territories and so with the present Malaysia plan. Our future is with the Federation. All this talk of Malaysian prosperity sounds very hollow when genuine job opportunities for the people of Singapore are restricted to the island of Singapore. People from all the surrounding territories can come into Singapore and compete with the people here for jobs. On the contrary we in Singapore cannot freely go to the other so-called Malaysian territories for jobs because of immigration restrictions and our inferior citizenship status.

Do you want to go there yourself?

The Minister talks of golden geese and golden eggs. I am glad the Minister admits that Singapore is golden. We do not have to worry about whether the egg or the goose comes first. But whether goose or egg, both are golden. Singapore, therefore, need not have to go in as a junior and unequal partner with its citizens becoming second-class citizens. The P.A.P. need not have to sell Singapore down the river. Let them remember that gold matches gold and, therefore, negotiations between Singapore and the Federation must be on the basis of justice, equality, mutual respect and mutual benefit.

Oh, please stop talking.

Thank you.

Thank God for that. 3.44 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have noticed that the Minister for Finance in his Budget speech this year has spoken with a surprisingly new voice. His language is so moderate and reasonable that it is almost like a lullaby. He is trying to soothe the Opposition and the nerves of nervous merchants, traders, and workers, so that they think that they now have a new Minister for Finance and a new Party ruling over them. Sir, the statements are so different from the days of 1959 and 1960 when the P.A.P. wielded the big axe and the big stick that the Barisan Sosialis say that they have sold themselves out to somebody somewhere. To quote an example from paragraph 28 of the Minister's speech, beginning with the second sentence in page 10 ---

Order. If possible, I ask hon. Members to use our Official Report, which has come into the hands of Members - the Official Report which has been produced overnight.

I am sorry, Sir,I have been using the other copy. I am unable to locate in the Official Report the particular paragraph* that I wish to quote from the other copy. * Page 51 of the unrevised transcript, first paragraph - Hansard, Vol 20, No. 5, dated 7th June, 1963, col.558.

Please continue from the previous copy of the speech.

--- `This being the case, our plan of industrial expansion must be more circumspect and judicious.' It implies here, Sir, that previously there was less circumspection and maybe measures that were not so judicious were undertaken.

On a point of explanation, Sir. The Member has misunderstood me. Dr Thio Chan Bee resumed his seat.

When I said that our policy must be more circumspect and more judicious, this was in comparison with larger countries with large natural resources and large population. I think if the Member will read the preceding paragraph, he will get the comparison clear enough. I was not comparing present policy with past policy.

Sir, that might have been the Finance Minister's intention, but in the Singapore context it happen to be an accurate description - that in the first year the P.A.P. was so over-confident that they took measures that were so drastic that they frightened away the capitalists who were meant to help them. Now, of course, they have learnt from bitter experience that there are other people with other wills of their own and who cannot be ridden roughshod over, and I am glad that they have learnt that they must be more circumspect and judicious in their ways. But at least we all live and learn and I am glad that they have learnt. Time has taught them. Then again, Sir, in the concluding paragraph of his speech, indirectly he praised the approach which we in the Alliance have been advocating from the very start. Our policy has been one of co-operation rather than one of confrontation and strife between races and between labour and management. In the second sentence of that concluding paragraph, he said: `In Singapore, the history of the last ten scars have been full of strife, tumult and excitement.' It sounds like a speech from one of us, Sir: `There are many people who consider that we have had more than our share of strife and that it is about Time that the energies and effervescence of our youthful society be diverted towards constructive endeavours. There is much wisdom in this approach.' Sir, I am glad that they too have learnt that there is wisdom from this side of the House. Having said all this in appreciation of their change of tone and stand, I must also place on record the doubts of many people in Singapore regarding this change. They ask: "Is this a sincere change on the part of the P.A.P., or is this a calculated move, a pose, because of the coming general elections? Having lost their support from the extreme Left, have they therefore decided to confuse the Centre and Right, so that they can take away votes that would otherwise belong to the Alliance group?" Sir, this is a common form of strategy taught by the Communists. Three steps forward and two steps backwards will mean in the end an advance. I for one welcome the change revealed in the Finance Minister's speech if it is sincere, if it denotes a change of heart and not a change of the skin for the sake of the people of Singapore. But I regret that I have to be realistic, and if the people of Singapore are to believe that this change is sincere and going to be lasting, there is much in the past that the People's Action Party will have to live down. Sir, they have to be consistent. In the past, along the road of their political progress to the pinnacle of success, they have left behind them wounded bodies ---

Mangled bodies.

I will not say "mangled"; some of them are not mangled - just the wounded bodies of their friends, comrades and allies. To name just a few, Sir, for whom the People's Action Party will have to make some kind of sacrifice to recognise that they have learnt their lesson and have changed deeply, there was the late Mr John Laycock, who appointed, as his trusted election agent, the present Prime Minister. The present Prime Minister was then a lawyer in his office. And his trusted election agent, Sir, turned out later on to be his bitter foe. I think I can say honestly that the old man died of a broken heart. Another victim, Sir, was the Member for Anson, the then Chief Minister, who found too late to his cost that being too friendly with the P.A.P. meant his being misled. Similarly, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill, the then leader of the Labour Front. He agreed that the Labour Front should be in alliance with the P.A.P. to contest the City Council elections ---

What about you now?

--- but too late, he found that the Labour Front and he were just being exploited and they suffered terribly. Now, what happened to the Member for Hong Lim and to Messrs. Lim Ching Siong and company is well known. Therefore, Sir, with that record behind them, this new tone in the voice of the Finance Minister does not convince the people unless the P.A.P. can outlive this record of a Party with the kiss of Judas. That is the fear of many people, the fear of the Tunku, the fear of many in Singapore, that if they support the P.A.P. again, they will be betrayed after the general elections. I sincerely hope that my words are not true, that this change of heart is a deep one, that they can be trusted, regardless of the result of the coming elections, to be consistent with this new line, this new approach. Sir, we now come to the question of new jobs. All political Parties in Singapore are agreed that there must be more and more jobs because there are more and more people in Singapore, and because the rate of increase of the population in Singapore is so tremendous, then the rate of increase of employment opportunities must also be rapid. In 1959, the P.A.P. said the same thing and today they say the same thing. In that, they are consistent. All Parties have been consistent in that. So they say, [Page 49 of the unrevised transcript - Hansard, Vol. 20, No. 5, dated 7th June, 1963, col. 556]: `Recognising that the creation of new jobs is of over-riding importance, the Government believes that the attack must be mounted on s broad front.' The objectives are the same. What we believe has been wrong, has been the method of achieving these objectives with the result that today the mistakes made have nullified even the efforts of previous governments. I will come to that with statistics, Sir. We cannot ignore ideologies. In Singapore any Party which is short-sighted will adopt the policy of the class struggle. But in the light of the situation in Singapore, and the Finance Minister knows it, and in this nuclear age, the ideology of the class struggle and of class hatred will lead Singapore to disaster and the world to a nuclear war. We have got to face those facts. If we are realistic, we must not allow any resentments from the past to obscure the fact that for the sake of the future of Singapore and of humanity, we must rise above our resentments and learn to co-operate. Now, Sir, if the P.A.P. fully believe in this new approach of co-operation, then there is a chance that all Parties working together instead of being at loggerheads with one another can produce a new tempo, a new productivity which will help us to solve our serious unemployment problem. We know that hitherto the P.A.P. has played a double game with labour and management. They have shown one face to the employer and another face to the trade union. It tells one union to go on strike; then it tells the employer to hold on. Sir, politics have entered into the field of labour - the Barisan for certain unions, the P.A.P. for certain unions - and the result, I think, is considerable labour unrest and strikes, and the number of jobs available in Singapore has not only increased commensurately with the population, but has diminished. Sir, in September 1957, the Labour Ministry Report recorded that there were 123,000 workers in employment; in September 1960, there were 105,600; in September 1961, there were 109,286. So after four years of P.A.P. rule, Singapore has less jobs for workmen than in 1957. That is our present position, that with increasing population we have a situation where there are less and less jobs. I would like to inform the Finance Minister of some of the reasons. I asked one employer why, since this is a period of expansion, he does not expand and take in new hands. His reply was, "We dare not expand because we do not know what the labour situation will be like later, and if we take in new hands we cannot dismiss them if they are found to be unsatisfactory. So we have found that the best thing to do is to remain as we are." Sir, that is a defeatist attitude for Singapore because we must have a climate of confidence so that there is rapid expansion and therefore a corresponding increase in the number of jobs. I think the Finance Minister himself realises that. Sir, we come now to surpluses. It is expected that this year will end with a surplus of nearly $100 million. The figure given, Sir, is $97.1 million ---

Last year.

Last year. This year's surplus may even be bigger because that has been the record so far. Sir, the question of budget surpluses, I find, is linked up very closely with the problem of unemployment. Finance Ministers all over the world would like to have large surpluses just as private individuals like to have large savings. But economists say that there is such a thing as excessive surpluses, and excessive surpluses are bad for the people's welfare ---

Talking about socialism?

If the surplus is excessive, then either the people are being overtaxed or there is under-expenditure depriving the people of benefits they should have or depriving them of more jobs. The remedy then could be reducing some of the taxes, like the taxes on petrol or providing more tax reliefs or spending more on projects to give more employment to the people. Sir, lest I be regarded as just guessing, took the trouble to consult an economist ---

Your daughter?

No. And I took the trouble to read a book on Principles of Public Finance by Hugh Dalton, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer in the United Kingdom --- Some hon. Members: He is dead.

He may be dead, Sir, but his thoughts are still relevant. He talks of overbalanced and underbalanced budgets. He says that public policy may sometimes require deliberately that temporary budget deficits be incurred in pursuit of larger aims, notably an increase of employment through an expansion of credit. Therefore, when Singapore has large surpluses, although the Government may take great pride in them and look forward to more surpluses, this achievement may have been at the expense of the people of Singapore. More jobs could have been produced if more money had been spent. Sir, there is also conscience money in that big bag. Now, as the Finance Minister is interested in income tax payers being honest and not cheating the Income Tax Department by keeping back some facts about their incomes, in the same way I think the Government should set a good example and not keep in their surplus bags money which really does not belong to them. Sir, when we were young we learnt some poetry which is relevant, I think, in this situation because these are words of wisdom which can be remembered and applied even when we are old: 'I'll fares the land, To hastening ills a prey, Where wealth accumulates, And men decay.' And the wealth can accumulate also in a government. Sir, whenever anybody talks of his successes he shows the real spirit of humility if he also acknowledges the debt he owes to the past, to his predecessors. Now, one mistake which the P.A.P. have made and which they have not admitted so far is that they assume that everything that has happened in Singapore to the credit of Singapore belongs to them. Nothing good came from those past governments, from the government of the Labour Front, of the imperialists - nothing. [Laughter] Everything good began from 1959 onwards. I see, Sir, that the Barisan friends are enjoying themselves. Maybe they appreciate that point too ---

They are behind it.

The Finance Minister said in [page 48 of the Un-revised Transcript-Hansard, Vol. 20, No. 5 dated 7th June, 1963, col. 554]: `We both possessed and still so far have retained all the pre-requisites of economic growth. We have a strong and stable currency. There is a firm legal framework in which contracts are enforceable, thereby making future business relations predictable. There is also an effective administration and reasonable supply of experienced managerial skills.' "We possessed and have" - to be accurate, Sir, it should have been "We inherited and have so far retained all the pre-requisites of growth." A "strong and stable currency" was here before the P.A.P. came into existence. "Firm legal framework", the same. So I am glad the Finance Minister admits that.

Concede, concede.

Yes. Same with the Polytechnic. Will he concede that also?

Concede.

In page 49 [Unrevised Transcript] (Hansard, col. 555), when talking about trade and expansion, they spoke about the previous laissez faire policy. They said that it could not be relied upon to generate economic growth. I agree that we cannot depend on that alone. But we have heard time and again reference made to the entrepreneur spirit of the people of Singapore, and that is a great asset. But the mistake made by the P.A.P., Sir, is that they went to the other extreme. They said they must remedy this by some form of positive State action. Sir, I want to say here that they took so much State action that it became almost gross interference with individual enterprise and the people said that if :we have no freedom and we are bound by this and that, we would have to go to the Federation and Hongkong. I am glad that today they have come in between. They admit that laissez faire and the trade of the entrepreneur is important because it develops enterprise in each man who has got initiative, and there must also be State encouragement and State help. The reason why we are in difficulty is that with the Jurong scheme well advanced, the sites ready, the Government find that there is not enough response from the industrialists and they have to give some advice to the local merchants saying that the local merchants had better transfer some of their investments to industries. I am sure the local merchants are keen on making profits. But if what they put in is going to disappear because of the uncertain labour situation, or because of a possible change in the policy of the People's Action Party after the general elections, so many of them say, "We will wait until after the general elections."

That is right.

Order. I think I ought to remind the Member for Tanglin that the Speaker is seated in this Chair and not in the Minister's Chair.

Thank you for reminding me, Sir. There were so many interruptions coming from there that my attention was drawn to that direction. Regarding tariff barriers, I made a point when the Bill went to Select Committee, Sir, and I am glad that the Finance Minister accepted it that we must not sacrifice our entrepot trade for any new industry unless the result is an increase in employment for our people. An increase in profit for any particular company or individual is not going to be the criterion. The criterion is an increase in the number of people employed. If by introducing a tariff, we thereby cause firms and organisations to be closed for the sake of a new factory, then we have got to calculate whether the number of workers thrown out of employment would be less or more. Even then, Sir, it should be done in such a way that they should not be suddenly thrown out of employment.

You are right.

Sir, the integration of the City Council is still a moot point. In theory, we agree that it leads to economy if we prevent conflicts between the City Council and the Government. But in practice, it sometimes means over-centralisation in the hands of a few. In fact, there is talk now that the City Council is the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister is the City Council. In fact, certain decisions cannot be made by officers, who before could make decisions, because the Prime Minister is the one and only one who can give the directives. Sir, we hope that this experiment will succeed. But if it does not succeed, then it may be that we have to think again in future of introducing some kind of decentralisation, so that there can be more participation democratically by the people's representatives at lower levels. Sir, on the whole, we say that the Budget speech of the Finance Minister is unusually moderate, and we can only hope that what he says he means, and that the future will show no more double-crossing by the P.A.P. of its friends and allies. But already we see, Sir, one Parliamentary Secretary resigning his job, and we wonder what is happening inside the P.A.P. at this time. 4.14 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, after four years and one week of the P.A.P. management, we can say with confidence that the P.A.P. is on the last stage of winding up. As nothing in the crucial months before the general elections in 1959 could stem the tide of the P.A.P. victory, today no power on earth can save the P.A.P. from extinction as a political force. Hundreds of Canutes cannot forestall this inevitability. As the P.A.P. had wanted the Malaysia Plan to save its skin, so will the Malaysia Plan like a Frankenstein scratch out the P.A.P. from the political arena. The P.A.P. leaders might entertain high hopes and, Sir, let us not forget that they are capable of projecting their minds into impossible flights of fanciful imagination, like during the counting in the Hong Lim by-election at the Victoria Memorial Hall, they were all ready with lion and dragon dances hidden behind the Victoria Memorial Theatre, and I understand two lorry-loads of fire-crackers were also ready, for a P.A.P. victory celebration to be followed by a victory march into Anson, where a by-election was pending at the Time. Sir, if I may say so, nobody on this side of the House knows the P.A.P. leaders, their tactics, their organisation, their support, better than I do. And I say that they are finished. I must admit that I am partly responsible for their downfall. [Interruption] You see, Sir, without us, a person like the Minister for Finance, on his own, would not have been able to get even 200 votes in Kreta Ayer in April 1959. The Minister for Education would not even get 100 votes in Geylang West. Who knows him there? But, Sir, why has it led to all this? It is because the P.A.P. has betrayed the people, has departed from its objectives, and deviated from its principles. Why should the P.A.P. leaders be so bitter, as they are today? They should not he so, for they have not lost anything. Most of them, or almost all of them here, came into the picture at a Time when the going was good - never so good in the history of any political Party in the world - when the P.A.P. was sure of victory, when it was sure of forming the Government. They have by now enjoyed for four years and one week, Sir - and I have counted 1,467 luscious days - and if at the end of it all they are not returned again, they should not complain. They should he grateful to me for the lovely Time I have given them. Sir, half of the blame for the downfall of the P.A.P. should be apportioned to the policies of the Minister for Finance. We are not concerned in today's Budget debate with the Minister's political plots, which, though misfired, would be more appropriate subjects for debate on some other occasion. It is sufficient for today's debate to say that the Minister for Finance, more than anybody else in the Government, has served to alienate the people from the P.A.P. Mr Speaker, Sir, from the word go, the Minister's financial policies were a flop. Every scheme, every new measure he introduced turned more and more sections of the people against the P.A.P. Everything that his magic wand touched turned into cold lead, generating the anger and hostility of the people against the P.A.P. Government. The Hong Lim by-election was the water-shed of the P.A.P. policies, in particular its financial policy. Before Hong Lim, we had so many new taxes introduced, new fees, new contrivances to squeeze the masses of the people. During that period, the big European firms were never asked to share the additional burden of taxation on a fair, just and equitable basis. The weight of the Government's onslaught fell mainly and heavily on the poor people and the middle class. After Hong Lim, of course, there was a moratorium. No new taxes were introduced. Some old ones were even repealed. The middle class was let off. The most significant feature in this change of policy is that despite the change or the shift in emphasis, the basic position has not altered, either before or after Hong Lim. The P.A.P. Government sees to it that the interest of and the big profits earned and reaped by the big European firms are not only well protected but further advanced by it. Sir, the Hong Lim by-election was also the water-shed of the P.A.P. Government's industrial policy. Before Hong Lim, the Minister was only interested in one huge industry, a giant steel mill with $600 million capital covering almost half the area of Singapore, and when I was in the P.A.P., I remember an occasion when he told me that this giant steel mill of his could create employment for 80,000 people. Now, Sir, in those days, all his mind was bent on the fruition of this laudable project. His great ambition was to turn Singapore into a Newcastle or an Anshan. We know that it was a mirage. It was like building castles in the air. I told him so in those days, but he turned a deaf ear. Therefore, the first two years of the P.A.P. Government were wasted. After the defeat in Hong Lim, the change came about. The shift in emphasis came. The P.A.P. Government gradually began to understand that Singapore can only accommodate small and medium scale type of light industries. However, to cover up the failure in the impracticability of a genuine steel mill in Singapore, the P.A.P. Government went out of its way to give away millions to a scrap plant. One had already existed in Bukit Timah Road for many years. I understand that this scrap plant in Bukit Timah Road was established under the Lim Yew Hock Government and that it was struggling along and finding it very difficult to carry on. This plant was forced to close down. And I believe it did approach the Government for aid. But the Government for some reason or other did not come forward to help an existing scrap plant. Instead, the Government gave away millions to a new scrap plant. Sir, why was this so? The answer is simple. It is because, by establishing a new scrap plant, the P.A.P. Government can claim that it has established a new industry- a new steel mill. It can claim that its programme of a steel mill has been realised. Sir, what nonsense! The difference between a steel mill and a scrap plant is like the difference between a motor-car factory and a motor-car assembly plant; between the Yang-tze River and the Tebrau River: (the Tebrau River is about six feet wide and it is about six feet deep); between the Prime Minister of a country like India and the Prime Minister of a small semi-colonial State like Singapore.

You were the Mayor!

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no need to ridicule that I was Mayor of Singapore. Without that phase in history, these persons on the Front benches will never be here today.

Superman!

Mighty Mouse!

None of them, on their own, could have got more than 200 votes in 1959. An hon. Member: How many did you get?

I had over 7,000 votes on my own, and I got them again!

Order. There is a very interesting conversation going on across the Floor. The Speaker is just being overlooked. Shall we just carry on with the debate?

Sir, after Hong Lim, the emphasis on the industrial policy of the P.A.P. Government was shifted on to small and medium-sized light industries. And they were wise to do so. These past mistakes were realised after so many years at the expense of our economy and the deteriorating unemployment situation. The P.A.P. Government is to be blamed for the increasing number of people who have swelled the ranks of the unemployed today. For the first Time in the history of Singapore and under P.A.P. rule, a new phenomenon has emerged. There are now hundreds of graduates from the Universities of Singapore and Nanyang, the Polytechnic, and overseas educational institutions who are wanting jobs. Sir, all this is because of the failure of the P.A.P.'s industrial policy. Despite the change of emphasis, the basic feature of the P.A.P. Government's industrial policy remains unaltered. The encouragement and the support given by Government has been concentrated on foreign capital. 4.32 p.m.

The P.A.P. Government does not bother with and is not interested in tapping the national resources at our disposal, our local entrepreneurs, our local capital, and divert all of them into industry. The P.A.P. has deviated from its enunciation of economic principles in its election manifesto, The Tasks Ahead, where it has solemnly declared that local businessmen can help in the industrialisation of our economy and our country and we do not need to depend solely on foreign capitalists. What has happened to the P.A.P. Government's industrial policy is the same as the Lim Yew Hock Government's. In fact, even worse. Foreign capitalists are now given every encouragement which is denied to local men.

Example, example.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, take the Shell Company. There is no need to give a pioneer certificate to Shell. They will have to build an oil refinery in Singapore because one has already been built, and I have said in this Assembly that by giving a pioneer certificate, for instance, to one of Shell subsidiary companies, they can play if they want to with the accounting in such a way that they do not have to pay tax in other Shell subsidiary companies which are not granted pioneer certificates.

Point of information, Sir.

I will carry on. The Minister will have a chance to reply. Pioneer certificates are given to those who will set up industries here and are denied to those industries which require support. Sir, the Minister for Finance's industrialisation and taxation policy is basically to preserve and advance the interests of foreign capital. It is this blatant, open and consistent championing of foreign economic interests which is one of the main contributing factors which have brought about the downfall of the P.A.P. We are not against foreign capital coming in to invest in this country, but we must give incentives to our local businessmen, give them support and encouragement, show them how to start industries, give them more liberal pioneer certificates, instead of giving these certificates liberally to foreign firms. Sir, as I have said at the beginning of my speech, the economic policies of the Minister for Finance have served more than anything else to alienate many people from the P.A.P. Today the P.A.P. is no more a political organisation, but a mere grouping of individuals hanging on together in their last days of office. Sir, from the humble trishaw-rider to the civil servants and the local businessmen, from every race and in every walk of life except foreign businessmen, no section of the people has not been harassed and oppressed by the P.A.P. Government. The petrol tax, the cigarette tax, the increase in traffic and hawkers' fines, the twakow tax, all forms of new taxes and many new fees have been introduced and have made the masses of the people bitter. Their attempts to introduce the shopkeepers' tax, although cancelled after the Hong Lim by-election, have annoyed the shopkeepers. The rise in assessment rates on huts in rural areas has antagonised the rural dwellers and farmers. The pay cuts, though restored after Hong Lim, have, in conjunction with P.A.P. arrogance, completely alienated the civil servants from the P.A.P. Government. Where is the P.A.P. going to draw its future support? From the Work Brigade? From the community centres? I do not think that those who work in the Work Brigade and those who go to the community centres will support the P.A.P. when the Time for decision comes. Even the last vestiges of P.A.P. support in Singapore - the foreign capitalists and the local compradores - are now switching their support to the M.C.A., which has made the P.A.P. so bitter in the past few months. Sir, the P.A.P. is finished. You will remember, Sir, that in the first two years of P.A.P. rule, how tight was the money circulation in Singapore. The economy was in a very bad condition. Taxis switched away from their meters to collecting passengers at as low as five cents each on some routes. What was the cause of all this? Sir, in the last year of the Lim Yew Hock Government, there was a stop in new Government construction and development programmes. I understand there is also a standstill now - that the P.A.P. Government is no more initiating new projects, so that `the next government will not reap the benefits of opening them. This is, of course, playing party politics without the interest of the people at heart. From June 1959 until about May 1961, when the P.A.P. Government took over the legacy of the Lim Yew Hock Government, when there was a standstill in the economy, the Minister for Finance embarked on the suicidal policy of deflation by pressing even lower the already depressed economy. He did it with his pay cuts and his new taxes on the poor, which immediately reduced spending power in the country; floating new loans at six per cent interest and keeping the money presumably in the banks at a loss with lower interest; freezing all major Government expenditure. All this and other sundry measures to tighten credit and money circulation have helped to bring down 1959 and 1960 as the darkest years in Singapore's economic history. There were curses everywhere. In those days, the policy of injecting more money and more credit into the economy should have been embarked upon. On the contrary, the Minister for Finance ventured into the self-destruction policy of deflation and it was only due to the catastrophic defeat of the P.A.P. in Hong Lim, where one of our main planks is the P.A.P.'s financial policy, that the Prime Minister realised the mistakes of his Minister for Finance and put a brake to it. Sir, if one does not have the interest of the people at heart, one can never learn. The P.A.P. Government does not have the interest of the people at heart and whatever, it embarks upon is for its self-interest. Any worthwhile things they might have done during the past one year or so were meant merely to capture votes or to play party politics. It is not sincere and the people know it. Sir, you will remember the Four-Year Plan in a blue-coloured book - the Four-Year Development Plan 1961-1964 of the State of Singapore - which was introduced into this Assembly at the height of the Hong Lim by-election. Everybody knew it was for the purpose of capturing votes. After three years have elapsed, it is very evident that the so-called Four-Year Plan was a bluff. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in page 35 of the Four-Year Development Plan the Government promised to spend $650 million in 1961, 1962 and 1963 on capital development projects. I do not think the Government has fulfilled even a small quota of the Plan. The P.A.P. Ministers cannot organise the whole government machinery into fulfilling the many projects envisaged in the Plan; and that explains the $400 million surplus which the Government is now boasting of. If I were on the P.A.P. Front bench, I would really be ashamed of it. This is another example of the P.A.P. twisting. The only item in the Four-Year Plan where the P.A.P. Government has made some headway is in housing. Sir, when the P.A.P. Ministers search their conscience in the dark of night - if they ever do so [Laughter] - they know why that is so. If I may put it, the Four-Year Plan, which was printed on high quality, first-class glossy paper, bound in thick blue covers at much expense to the State, took a much shorter Time to travel into this Chamber than this flimsy 1963 Budget which is nothing but a routine job. Sir, this Budget has come in by the slow way, by a bullock-cart, but the Four-Year Development Plan has come in by a jet plane. It took the P.A.P. Government only a few weeks to cook up this Four-Year Plan, but it took them one and a half years to frame, prepare and submit this 1963 Budget. Sir, let me give you one instance which will serve to expose P.A.P. cheat. Since at present we are experiencing the worst water rationing in Singapore for many years, it is perhaps appropriate to refer to only one item in the Four-Year Plan, the item on water. Page 77 of the Four-Year Plan has one paragraph to say about providing additional supplies of water to Singapore. The Plan reads: `To provide additional supplies of water, it is proposed to have a new waterwork, the Johore River project, which will, when completed, produce 25 million gallons per day. Pending its completion, it is proposed to have a stop-gap scheme, the Scudai River project by means of which water will be drawn from the Scudai River to meet increased demands, especially during spells of dry weather when the water supply would be in a precarious position. At the same Time, it is intended to augment the storage facilities. In this respect, it is proposed to construct the Seletar Dam which will increase the storage capacity of the present Seletar Reservoir. This dam will replace the existing dam which is too low resulting in low storage and less effective utilisation of total rainfall. Further, it is proposed to construct another two Service Reservoirs, one at Telok Blangah and the other at Jurong, to increase storage of treated water to balance the peak and idle low pressures, since the pressure variations in these areas tend to be marked.' Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, so many schemes to augment our water supply. None of these schemes have been carried out. Only the Scudai River Scheme - one out of so many, a stop-gap scheme due to P.A.P. inefficiency where millions of dollars were spent and would be wasted - a scheme which had merely been scratched on the surface. By this month, in June 1963, according to the Four-Year Plan, it is proposed to spend $13 million on another more important scheme - the Johore River project. From what we can read in the papers, the Government is still debating on this project, and therefore not even within smelling distance of initiating the project. Nothing has been done. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Johore River project - not done; the Scudai River - just only scratched; the Seletar Dam - has not been done; Telok Blangah Reservoir - not done; Jurong Reservoir - not done. Five schemes - all not done. Only the Scudai River scheme has been scratched. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it shows that the Four-Year Plan is nothing but a device to deceive the people for the purpose of electioneering. Sir, every Time I hear about this $400 million surplus, which was repeated in this Chamber again yesterday, I laugh. The moral of it is like that of a father sending his son with $3 to a shop to buy ten katties of rice. The son played truant and, instead of going to the shop, had a game of marbles. The shop having closed after the boy had finished his game, he returned home without rice for the evening meal. Being a very smart boy - and the P.A.P. Ministers are very smart boys, there is no doubt about it - and before the father could scold and cane him, he jumped up and exclaimed to his father, "Daddy, daddy, I have saved $3 for you." The family went without rice. Further, if I remember rightly, the Minister for Finance once said that this surplus money has been invested mostly in countries overseas. Sir, on the one hand, we are investing hundreds of millions of dollars overseas, but, on the other hand, we are borrowing, begging a few tens of millions of dollars from the World Bank at a higher rate of interest and with all sorts of conditions attached.

Low interest.

This is P.A.P. finance. If you borrow money from the World Bank, you must get American consultants at a very high fee, you must buy American equipment at a much higher cost than in the world market.

Rubbish!

This is P.A.P. finance.

On a point of elucidation, Sir.

If the Member will give way? He will not.

The Minister will have his time in due course. This is P.A.P. finance, as in the early days when the P.A.P. Government floated loans, paying six per cent interest and keeping the money safely in the bank. Mr Deputy Speaker, after four years of P.A.P. government, the people are already fed up. Even their Parliamentary Secretaries are getting fed up and quitting one by one. They have no more confidence in whatever the Government says or does. For instance, in the past few weeks the people were not jubilant over the announcement that the principle of a common market has been reached between the Governments of Singapore and the Federation. They have seen too many sell-outs by the P.A.P. Government. They are only watching the situation closely until the details are known. Could it be another attempt to cover up P.A.P. sins and P.A.P. sell-outs? Sir, we have reached the stage that whatever the P.A.P. Government says is never believed, is always distrusted. Can a Party, arriving at such a predicament and such a situation, still hold out hopes of staging a come-back? It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for the P.A.P. to stage a political come-back. The P.A.P. could very soon only interest students of history It is finished. There is no use to stifle the Opposition Members in this Chamber. By its manoeuvres during the past few days, each of us was given so little Time to study the Budget. But, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the opposition to the P.A.P. is not only found in this Assembly Chamber, but there are more than a million of them outside the House. 4.50 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we had a very interesting half-hour just now when the Member for Hong Lim was on his feet. He claimed that he of all persons in the Opposition knows best the way the minds of the P.A.P. Ministers are working, and he would like to take credit for having helped to put them in power. Sir, it is only when comrades fall out that we can get at the truth of the situation. This Budget speech of the Minister for Finance provides interesting reading because it is quite a toning down of all his previous speeches. He tries to explain in his Budget Speech the manner in which the P.A.P. Government is going about to ensure that there is greater industrialisation in Singapore, so that more and more employment opportunities could be offered to the mass of unemployed. Sir, let me tackle his Budget speech in the sequence that it has been presented. On the first page of his Budget speech he says there are only two outstanding issues remaining to be settled in regard to the financial talks which the Singapore Government has been having with the Federation Government. Yesterday we had a very lengthy debate on the progress that these talks have taken, and the Prime Minister considered it to be such a good tactical move that he moved an amendment in order to nail the Opposition, particularly us, whom he rudely described as the agents of principals in Kuala Lumpur. Sir, we gave our support to the amendment because we feel, in the same manner as the P.A.P. feel (if they honestly feel), that the financial talks in Kuala Lumpur have been dragged on for too long and that some finality must be reached so that Malaysia can come into existence on the 31st of August. He did disclose in his speech last night that if we were to give him our support in his representations to the Federation Government, his Government would feel greatly strengthened in its representations in the talks that will be resumed early next week. We gladly give him that support and we hope that with it he will be able to secure for the people of Singapore terms that will be in the best interest of the people of Singapore. Sir, the Minister for Finance in his speech has said that the most important pursuit in Singapore is trade and its related occupations - banking, shipping and transportation. We agree with him, and we also agree with him when he says that it would be an error to take measures harmful to established economic functions in the quest of something new and uncertain. Not only should we maintain and improve our efficiency as a trading centre, but we should also do so in other established lines. This then brings me to the industrialisation policy of the Government and to their claim that a common market for Malaysia would be in the best interests of industrialisation in Singapore and would help to build up the economy of Singapore. I will touch on that when I come to his speech on industrialisation and the common market.

It is nearly five o'clock.

It would seem that the Minister for Finance wants a tea-break. Sir, the Minister for Finance would feel obliged if he could have a tea-break. [Laughter] I have at least another half-hour or more to speak. Pardon, Sir. No tea-break for the Minister for Finance. Industrialisation. Other speakers have touched on the industrialisation policy of the Government. The Minister for Finance is very fond of crowing that the P.A.P. has the right approach to industrialisation; that the Government has done all it could to induce local capital as well as foreign capital to open up industries in Kuala Lumpur.

I suspend this sitting until half-past five. Order, order. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate resumed.

Order. I have already remarked that the Government Whip does not seem to be doing his job. It is one of his duties to see that a quorum is present, especially when Government business is being conducted or carried out. Does anybody wish to call for a quorum?

I would like to refer to Standing Orders, and draw your attention to the fact that there is no quorum in the House.

Ring the Division bells. Notice taken that thirteen Members were not present, Members summoned as if for a division pursuant to the Standing Order, and meeting resumed upon a quorum being then present.

I had occasion to remark in the past that it is one of the duties of the Government Whip to see that a quorum is present, especially when Government business is being conducted. The fact that we start after a break without a quorum, I think, must bring this Assembly into disrespect by members of the public. Tun Lim. Question again proposed "That the Assembly approves the financial policy of the Government for the year 1963."

Mr Speaker, Sir, before the tea break, I was touching on the industrialization programme of the Government, but before I proceed on this subject, Sir, may I touch on the more important issue, that is, that Budget Time is Opposition Time and that despite the fact that Budget Time is Opposition Time, the Government has felt it imperative that it should make an inroad into Opposition Time. Not contented with that, the Government is treating Budget day as an unimportant day, so much so that the Government Front benches were totally empty when this sitting was reconvened after the tea break. The Opposition cannot but take very strong objection to the manner in which the Government is treating this Budget debate. Sir, the P.A.P. Government says that it has a wonderful industrialization programme. It must be admitted that it tried all it could to implement its industrialization policy, and, in this implementation, it did adopt certain of the important measures that were introduced by the previous Government, such as the granting of pioneer certificates, tax holidays, inducements by offering industrial sites at very attractive rates. But one thing the P.A.P. has done which has damaged the industrialization policy is that it has actively participated in the trade union war. It is useless to offer all kinds of inducements such as pioneer status, tax holidays and sites at economic rents if there is industrial unrest. What is more reprehensible is that such industrial unrest arose as a result of P.A.P. manoeuvres. Sir, the P.A.P. has been in office for the past four years and all its industrialization policy and its claim to having industrialized Singapore is just nothing but a paper claim. I have heard, and even the Minister has himself said, that the Government has set aside large sums of money to lend to would-be industrialists. That would be a very big draw, lending money to would-be industrialists to open up factories. Despite this very attractive offer, there have been very, very few industrialists taking advantage of it. The reason is obvious. The labour situation is out of hand. The Government claims that these politically inspired labour troubles are happily now under control. Where is the control? The number of strikes keeps mounting up, and even an ex-Parliamentary Secretary of the Government is now with the pickets on strike.

That is democracy.

Sir, the Leader of the House calls it "democracy", but I say that it is a P.A.P. twist of the meaning of "democracy" to pay money out of public funds to a Member, to make him a Parliamentary Secretary, to make use of him to try and control the civil service for the benefit of the P.A.P. But, as there is a God above us, it has boomeranged. What they hoped to control has now got out of hand. And yet the Government says that the politically-inspired labour troubles are now under control. It is because of this labour unrest that industrialists are rather hesitant to come to Singapore and open up factories, and it is also because of this unhealthy climate that there have been more and more factories opening up in the Federation. And now to beat this labour unrest which has come about as a result of P.A.P. manoeuvres, the Government thought of another way to induce capital to come into Singapore. Sir, when the P.A.P. Government took office in 1959, and in order to lay claim that new industries had been set up almost overnight, they gave a British-owned tobacco company, known as the Malayan Tobacco Distributors Limited, the opportunity to re-start its factory in Tanjong Pagar with 100 per cent British capital. When we were in the Government, this Company approached us with a view to reopening that tobacco factory. We did not allow it to reopen except with the acceptance of our condition that local capital participation must be accepted by the company to the extent of 51 per cent local capital. We felt that this condition was imperative in the interests of Singapore, especially as we knew that the very minute the well-known brands of this company like "Players", "Capstan" and other popular brands were manufactured in Singapore, they would knock out all the other local brands manufactured by factories owned by local capital. But the P.A.P., in their wisdom to show that they had new factories opening up, allowed this tobacco company to re-open with 100 per cent British capital and, as we knew, the local factories of other brands that were making good business had to close down. The P.A.P. Government are very fond of claiming that they are the true socialists of Singapore, and yet they sold away the rights of local capital to British vested interests. Yet the Minister for Finance in his speech says that local capital need not worry, that there is a place for them, that they can divert their capital from trade and commerce to industry. But when there was an opportunity for local capital to have a proper share of the profits of the manufacture of popular brands of cigarettes in Singapore, the Government just gave them away to British vested interests. Another example, Sir, of the P.A.P. Government's desire to produce results, whatever the cost, is this oil refinery at Pasir Panjang. During our time the Shell Company negotiated with us for occupation of that piece of land. We were adamant. We were quite firm in our attitude towards the Shell Company, because our view was that as they were making good money, there was no reason why there should be special concession rates offered to them for that piece of land at Pasir Panjang, Labrador. We were firm. We demanded economic rates. The Shell Company hummed and hawed and did their best to persuade us to give in at concession rates. We did not give in. But the very minute the P.A.P. came to power, what did they do? They gave that land away to a Japanese company at rates which were very attractive.

Rubbish.

Sir, there is another point to which the Minister would say rubbish too. It is up to him. Sir, we see in the papers today, "Singapore to get third refinery: $39m plan." This is in the Straits Times of today. Would the Minister say "rubbish" if I say here that all the capital for this oil refinery is going to be American?

We do not want that rubbish.

Say "rubbish". Why is it in an oil refinery where money is to be made for jam that local capital should have no right of participation? Whereas in the Federation the Federation Government has never claimed that it is a true socialist, yet the refineries in the Federation before they could open up must invite local participation. I am glad that the Minister for Finance did not say rubbish - that this oil refinery is to be built out of 100 per cent foreign capital. And as it is an oil refinery, it is going to make good money, money to be taken out of Singapore. And what is all this pious talk about local capital? "Do not worry, you will have your share in the profits out of industrialisation of Singapore." But what is more heinous is this, Sir. They have not yet settled the terms of the common market. But for the Singapore Government to go and encourage 100 per cent foreign capital to come in and then go and talk to the Federation, "Ah, common market. Our oil must go in easy, your oil can come down easy, therefore let us talk terms." Is this the right way to go about it? An oil refinery in Singapore built with 100 per cent foreign capital, to get special treatment or equal treatment with oil refineries in the Federation built with local capital participation.

How much participation?

Sir, the Minister for Finance is just concerned with the percentage. He is not concerned with the principle The principle can go overboard. P.A.P.! What is the principle of democracy? What is the principle of Budget Time being Opposition Time? Al! that can be rubbed off. The P.A.P. can do it. The principle is involved, What is the use of expressing a pious wish that local capital will have its share of the profits of industrialisation when by its very act it denies local capital a share in the profits that are to be derived by an oil industry that is bound to make money? The greater the percentage, the greater will be the crime of the P.A.P. Whatever the percentage may be, it is still a crime. The degree is to be measured by the percentage of participation. What is the use of offering incentives, as I say, when there is labour unrest? And because the Government must produce some results, that there are industries opening up in Singapore. It is going against their own declared principles of socialism. I only hope, Sir, that when they go to Kuala Lumpur next week to talk about the common market, they will realise and admit the error of their ways and try to get a deal that is fair and square in the circumstances. The Minister for Finance fathers the common market idea. When the Government took office in its very first stage, "Ah, we must have a common commodity market." He seems to think that that is a wonderful thing and he ran down the previous Government. He said, "Ah, the previous Government never thought of that idea." The pros and cons of the common market have not yet been debated in this House, but the way this Government is going about trying to secure a common market is making it more difficult. A common market is meant for the good of all the participants. A common market is not meant for serious competition between participants. The previous Government had thought and discussed with the Federation Government that a better way of protecting industry on a Pan-Malayan basis - at that Time it was Pan-Malayan, there was no thought of Pan-Malaysian - was for a Joint Committee to advise both Governments on the types of industries that could be set up. If it was felt that because there is rubber in the Federation it is better for them to manufacture rubber shoes and rubber slippers, then no rubber shoes and rubber slippers need be made in Singapore. And if it was felt that it was better for textiles and shirts to be manufactured in Singapore, then there need not be a factory in the Federation to manufacture textiles and shirts. So in this way there would be a fair distribution. There would not be that element of competition. And if the Singapore Government want to enter into competition with the Federation Government, can we expect the two competitors will sit down to think of a way out whereby both competitors can go to town? It cannot be done that way. Here they have oil refineries in the Federation - you know we have oil refineries here all right. But now rush on to another oil refinery.

It is not the Government's refinery.

Sir, it is not the Government's refinery but it is the Government that is going to grant all the facilities for this refinery to be started in Singapore.

If they want to.

And in fact this company, if I read it correctly, is also demanding certain assurances from the Government. I do not know what those assurances are, but anyway, unless those assurances are satisfied by a Government that claims to be socialist, by a Government that tells local capital that their interests will be protected, that company may not start. But the fact that it has come out in the papers means that assurances have already been given. What those assurances are is always done in the P.A.P. style, never disclose. What will be the effect on the common market talks? Not knowing what the recommendations of the Rueff Commission are, we cannot debate on that. But there is one point that has been brought out by the Minister for Finance. He says, "You know, we have this common market. Therefore, we have to have bonded warehouses for goods manufactured either in Singapore or in Malaysia where there is this common market. Never mind the people oil Singapore will benefit." But how will it benefit the people of Singapore if they have to pay more for goods which they are used to having as a result of tariffs? Sir, Singapore is a free port and therefore goods manufactured in the Federation or elsewhere can come freely into Singapore. The Singapore market is already open to the Federation, but the Federation market is not open to Singapore goods. Therefore, this common market is aimed at allowing Singapore goods to flow freely into the Federation. But surely, Sir, the price that has to be paid for that free flow of Singapore manufactured goods to the Federation is going to be a price the people of Singapore will have to pay. Suppose shirts were manufactured here, because of this common market agreement, the local people would have to pay an extra tax for all foreign-made shirts.

What is yours?

Tooth paste is one of the commodities in this common market agreement. Therefore, tooth paste manufactured outside and sold in Singapore will be sold at a higher price. Of course, the Government can say the people of Singapore can buy locally manufactured tooth paste, but the Government cannot ride roughshod over the fact that there is such a thing as consumer's prejudice. It is strange that although a certain thing is manufactured locally and there is a known similar product manufactured outside, a product which we are used to, we keep on buying that product. Therefore, the people will have to pay a higher price for what they are used to getting. It depends on what the common market is for. We keep on talking about the common market without the Minister for Finance letting us know what the terms of the common market are. We do not know the terms, so we cannot debate them. But I want to point out that no matter What it is, a Common Market may result in higher prices of goods which the people of Singapore are used to having. There is one sentence here that has got me tickled about this Common Market on page 55 [Unrevised Transcript] (Hansard, col. 564). The Minister for Finance says in his speech: `For nearly four years we have strained every resource and ingenuity to achieve it,'. For nearly four years they have strained every resource and ingenuity. Ingenuity! What kind of ingenuity? Just to show that they are cleverer than the Federation! Is it ingenuity to allow a hundred per cent foreign capital to start a refinery here in Singapore? Ingenuity indeed! Is it ingenuity to go about telling the people of Singapore how bad the Government of the Federation was? Is that ingenuity? Sir, if they call that ingenuity, they are entitled to call it, but I call it nothing but P.A.P. twist and double talk. On page 56 [Unrevised Transcript] (Hansard, col. 566) we see the Minister for Finance crowing that the Housing and Development Board completed 12,230 houses, but during the debate on the Negara's speech I pointed out to the Government that there were 4,000 units unoccupied-vacant-resulting in a loss of revenue to the Housing and Development Board of a few hundred thousand dollars a month. Is that the way to look after the economy of the country? What the P.A.P. is interested in is to try to put up more and more buildings and then if it cannot get anybody to go and stay in the buildings, it might find some way whereby it can force people to occupy Housing and Development Board houses. Sir, the Member for Hong Lim has touched on the water shortage. Although the Government in its Four-Year Development Programme has stated very, very categorically that it would proceed with the water scheme more than two years ago, it has failed in this important task. Singapore is facing a water shortage for the second time since the P.A.P. took office. Why was there a delay in implementing this scheme? It was because the Government wants to borrow $50 million from the World Bank.

Rubbish.

Sir, the Minister for Finance is fond of saying rubbish, but did the Prime Minister not say that when we were debating the Bill to enable the Government to enter into a loan agreement? He did disclose that the Government wanted $50 million from the World Bank to develop the Johore River Scheme.

On a point of explanation. Sir, we did inform this House that any loan negotiation with the World Bank or any development project will not mean slowing down of work on this particular project. For instance, work on the Johore River Scheme is already afoot. Plans and specifications for tenders are being drawn up, and regardless of the final details of the terms of the loan, work proceeds. The same thing happened to the power station, as I have explained so often in the past. I cannot understand how is it that the Member for Cairnhill cannot grasp this elementary point.

Sir, the Minister for Finance cannot grasp his own elementary statement that the Johore River Project will be completed by the end of 1963. That is what his Government said in this Assembly.

No, no. Quote.

Right, we will quote.

How can we complete the Johore River Project in 1963?

That was said in 1961, two years ago, when they had a Four-Year Development Plan just for the Hong Lim by-election.

On a point of order, Sir. When the Leader of the Opposition makes such serious charges, surely it is incumbent upon him to produce evidence.

Order. That is not a point of order. The responsibility is the Member for Cairnhill's. If he makes a statement like that and he is proved wrong, he takes the responsibility for being wrong.

The Member for Cairnhill will remain standing until the Member for Farrer Park brings that Hansard and show it to the Minister for Finance when, in reply to a question by the Member for Farrer Park, the Government said that the Johore River Project would be completed within a stipulated Time. And I hope that when this confrontation takes place, the Minister for Finance would be cultured enough to admit that he was wrong, but I do not expect that of him, Sir, I do not expect such things of him. Sir, the Minister for Finance seems to feel the strain. It is only when he feels the strain that he jumps up now and then on points of order, points of explanation. I will come to the water project when I have the Hansard with me. But there is another sentence here as I go through this on page 58 [unrevised transcript] (Hansard, col. 569) about the Work Brigade: `The main reason was that the Work Brigade did not expand to the full extent we provided for. This was principally due to better economic conditions which resulted in a smaller number of applicants joining the Work Brigade.' Better economic conditions! Less and less people join the Work Brigade. Is it because of better economic conditions? It is because more and more unemployed have come to the realisation that they will not be made use of by the P.A.P. for a beggarly $1.50 a day. An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

That is the reason. More and more people have woken up to this manipulation of the P.A.P. to make members of the Work Brigade attend their rallies, to bring members of the Work Brigade to visit rural constituencies - almost the same faces every time - welcoming the great Prime Minister. Sir, that is why more and more people do not want to join the Work Brigade for $1.50 per day.

You can join if you want to. [The Member for Farrer Park handed to Tun Lim Yew Hock the Hansard].

Sir, he says Scudai River - poor Finance Minister. Sir, Hansard, Volume 12, No. 1 dated 13th January, 1960, column 3: Oral Answers to Questions. Johore River Scheme (not Scudai River): `Mr A. P. Rajah asked the Prime Minister when the Johore River Scheme will be completed to meet the additional water supplies required for Singapore.' On the 13th January, 1960, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Mr Chan Sun Wing, now on this side of the House [Laughter] (for the Prime Minister): `Mr Speaker. Sir, I have been asked by the Prime Minister to reply. The Johore River Scheme will take about four years to complete. On completion it will be able to supply Singapore with an additional 25 million gallons of water a day. This Scheme is expected to ensure an adequate water supply for the island's population over a period of five to ten years.' Four years to complete! 1964! One year out!

No, no.

Order. Can I have the column?

Column 4. 13th January, 1960. Four years from January 1960, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963. Yes, like a little boy in school I started - 1960, 1961, 1962 ---

Order. The passage reads: `The Johore River Scheme will take about four years to complete.' It does not say it has already been started there. Tun Lim.

This is the whole answer: `This Scheme is expected to ensure an adequate water supply for the island's population over a period of five to ten years. Should the consumption increase beyond what is expected at present, the Scheme would be extended. The minimum yield from the Johore River is approximately 300 million gallons a day. In the foreseeable future Singapore's consumption of water cannot exceed the potential supply from the Johore River.' Foreseeable future!

Yes, true. What is wrong?

Sir, it is not the foresight but rather the hind sight of the P.A.P. That is why they say "foreseeable future". An hon. Member: Come, come!

Perhaps the Member for Cairnhill would like to carry on reading right up to the end. It will throw a little more light on the subject.

Yes, yes. Supplement. Mr Rajah: `Mr Speaker, Sir, am I to understand that the first supply from the Johore River cannot be expected in Singapore before four years?

The answer is yes.' Before four years? The answer is yes. So, it means in 4 years. It cannot be earlier than 4 years, but the latest is 4 years.

On a point of explanation.

If the Member will give way?

Explanation? Oh, he is in charge!

Mr Speaker, the important thing to note is this. The Member for Cairnhill has been alleging in his speech that we promised that the Johore River Scheme would be completed by 1963. Now, nowhere is it stated in the records of Hansard that the scheme would really be completed in 1963 or 1964. All it says is that the scheme will take four years from its commencement. Now how could it be possible for the Johore River Scheme to be ready - [Interruption].

Mr Deputy is now embarking on a speech. He wanted some elucidation. I think he has already elucidated the position. Tun Lim.

Using the elucidation now given by the Leader of the House, it takes four years to complete. Right. They have just started. So only in 1968 can we get the water. What kind of a Government is this? 1968 - before the water shortage ---

Order, order. I do not see any reason why the Member for Cairnhill should now raise his voice. He has been very calm, very cool, very collected, even under pressure up till now.

I apologise, Sir. [Interruption].

Order.

This shortage of water is making every one parched. Four years more from 1964.

There is the Scudai scheme now coming up.

Now the Scudai scheme.

Yes.

Never mind. The people have put up with all this P.A.P. nonsense about water shortage for such a long Time. Sir, I was saying just now I was attracted by one paragraph of the speech.

Get on to your next point.

This is a very important point. This is on page 60 [unrevised transcript] (Hansard, col. 572): `At the same time, we must not forget how much we owe to the dedicated corps of teachers and school principals whose hands will mould the future generations of Malaysians.' But we must not forget that the Government have immorally cut down their total emoluments. And if the Government really feel that they must not forget the good work done by these people "whose hands will mould the future.". I call on them to express their thoughts in a more constructive and understandable form: that they refund back to these people the money which they extorted from them when they came into office in 1959. Sweet words butter no parsnips. We must not forget, indeed, but I am sure these people do not forget the arbitrary act of the Government. Now, coming to housing again. They tried to claim that the budgeting of a subsidy to the Housing and Development Board is an innovation introduced by them. This is not correct. The previous Government had already started this. That there should be no hidden subsidies in the S.I.T. it was arranged that every year the S.I.T. would have to apply to the Government for a Vote for the subsidy in rents. Now they try to run down the previous Government by saying this, and I could not allow this to go without challenge. And this is what the Minister says, on page 61 of the unrevised transcript [Hansard, col. 574]: `I should mention here that a substantial subsidy arose from the uneconomic rents which the previous administration had fixed in 1958/59 shortly before the general elections.' That is an allegation which I cannot accept. The previous Government gave them special rights because these were fire victims. They lost everything. And they were given the specially reduced rents for a certain period. Not like this hard-hearted P.A.P. Government during whose Time there were a number of fires, shortage of water-all sorts of disasters during the P.A.P. Time. They did not treat the fire victims with the same sympathy and understanding that the previous Government extended to them.

You are an amateur fire fighter - [Interruption].

Amateur fire fighter? Sir, it is funny that the Minister for Finance should bring this up. In fact, it has been even said outside that the fires that took place were set by the P.A.P. He gave me an opportunity to say this: that in order to ---

On a point of information, Sir.

Point of information.

Sir, the Member for Cairnhill yesterday admitted to having heard rumours. Is it a fact or a rumour?

Sir, if it is a fact, I will have nailed the P.A.P. Government. They have heard it. I would not have said it if he had not said I am a fire fighter or something or other. If the Government Front Benchers, as you have pointed out, Sir, had been a little bit more respectful to the Opposition, such exchanges of harsh words would not have taken place. Oh, and another wonderful thing I have on page 63 [Hansard, col. 577] is this. Something about "pro-Communist elements who are now being kept under control." I will ask the Government, "Who keeps them under control?" The Internal Security Council? Laughable. It is the P.A.P. Government that has taken this action. Of course, I can understand it is a little embarrassing to the P.A.P. Government to have to take action against their ex-comrades. But they should not shirk their responsibility. The fact that this sentence has crept into the speech of the Minister for Finance is a clear indication that the Government feels that it has put pro-Communist elements under control. If they have not done it, why have they put it in here? The Government have put the pro-Communist elements under control, and for that we are with them. But we find it difficult to forgive the Prime Minister, who still hides the identity of the "Plen". And that we can never forgive. And if we do come back, when the Prime Minister is just a citizen of Singapore, we - [Interruption]

You will lock him up?

We will ask him to tell us. He will have to disclose who the Plen is, or face the consequences. Sir, there is one subject which I want to touch on, and I want the Government - the Minister for Finance particularly - to give serious consideration to this. We support and congratulate the Government on making life a little bit easier for old-age pensioners by having their pensions paid out to them at Post Offices near their homes. That is a good move and a good thing. It helps the aged pensioners. But there is one complaint that has arisen, and I hope the Minister for Finance will look into this. Previously, when they went to the Treasury to get their pensions, they got them on time. But now because payment is made by Post Offices, there has been a delay of a week or ten days. I am sure that is not the intention of the Government, and I hope the Minister for Finance will look into the matter and see that aged pensioners get their pensions on the first of the month, as they used to previously. Mr Rajaratnam rose ---

Opposition time. Mr Chan Sun Wing (Upper Serangoon) rose ---

Is it in Mandarin?

Yes.

Sir, may I draw your attention to the fact that you were away from this Chamber for some time? All the speakers so far this evening have been from the Opposition. You may be under the impression that while you were away, some Members from the Government Benches spoke, but that in fact is not the case. You will recollect that in previous years - although we concede it is Opposition time, at the same time, there must be some balance, say, two from the Opposition Benches and one from here, or three to one, but so far there has been a complete run of Opposition speakers.

In other words, the debate has been one-sided.

Resolute as we are on this side of the Floor, nevertheless, if some equitable balance in time is given, it will be appreciated.

The position is quite clear, as indicated by the Standing Orders. One day has been allotted for the debate on the Budget speech, and it is the parliamentary practice that that one day is Opposition time; except for this very important proviso, that sufficient time must be allowed the Government to answer any points raised by the Opposition. And when I say Government, it does not mean necessarily only the Minister for Finance, but there may be other Ministers who may wish to answer points affecting their Ministries. Therefore, I shall watch the time very carefully, and if Ministers could indicate to me how many minutes they require, I shall try to control the debate in such a way that they will have their opportunity.

Thank you.

Mr Chan Sun Wing, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, on the 7th of June the Minister for Finance, on the occasion of making his financial speech, described the financial situation of this year as compared with that of last year as very smooth and very satisfactory. He said that this year has been a very good financial year. There is no problem except that the question of the common market has not been resolved yet. In his speech when he reviewed the economic situation of Singapore, he said that in 1962 the people of Singapore bought more cars, more refrigerators, more radio sets and more cameras. He also said that more people went to the cinemas to enjoy the pictures. That was why, he said, the people of Singapore had been enjoying better amenities and had more enjoyment in this particular year. If it had been true, then there must have been peace and prosperity in Singapore. I believe that the picture as presented by the Minister for Finance is true. But the question is, who bought the cars? Which class of people bought those things, such as cameras? Who enjoyed these luxuries of life? The Minister for Finance did not point that out. We say that for the past one year there were many symptoms, facts and phenomena which go to show that the labouring class and the poorer class of Singapore have been worse off. Mr Speaker, you have seen that there are increasing numbers of hawkers. Why is that so? In the Press every day, we can read lots of news concerning more and more robberies, thefts and all sorts of crimes. If the people have been enjoying a better livelihood and have been enjoying a more prosperous year, how is that there have been so many criminal activities? The Housing Board has built a good number of housing units with all sorts of sanitary amenities. How is that that there are so many units vacant - 4,000 units are still vacant? It is because the people have not been able to afford to pay the rents. If there had been opportunities for employment, then why should there be such phenomena? The incidence of gambling has also increased. We read also from the Press that more and more graduates of secondary schools as well as universities and higher institutes of learning advertise in the newspapers for jobs as private tutors. They have been looking everywhere for jobs. All these go to show one aspect of the true picture which the Minister for Finance has not been daring enough to point out to the people of Singapore. It is that the working people of Singapore are becoming worse off and their livelihood is becoming more difficult day by day. The Minister for Finance, in his speech, said that if the volume of Singapore's exports increased, then the employment opportunities and the income of the people would accordingly increase. Perhaps statistics clearly show that in the past one year the volume of exports in tonnage has increased, but the Minister for Finance has not been able to cover one aspect of it, which is that in the past one year the prices of the basic local produce have fallen. The price of rubber has also fallen. The price of coconut oil has also dropped. The prices for pepper and coffee have also dropped in the past one year. Why is that? And why did the Minister for Finance not dare to point out these facts? The fall in price has increased the profits of the industrialised countries. From the figures of exports and imports given by the Minister for Finance, we can see that under the P.A.P. rule, Singapore's colonial economic system, which is subjected to foreign exploitation, has not changed. For the foreign industrialised countries profits have increased more. These foreign countries could therefore benefit more from Singapore and thus benefit the bourgeois and they can throw out more crumbs. Now can we say that it is a merit to the P.A.P.? It is not. The Minister for Finance seems to be satisfied with last year's final results and has credited this to the P.A.P. Government and P.A.P. policy. But I think it is very shameful. The P.A.P. has left the socialist line and stand. That is why it has been expelled by all socialist parties. As a socialist political Party, with a socialist platform, the main concern of such a Party should be how to distribute wealth, the profits from Singapore's entrepot trade. In their distribution of the profits, have the P.A.P. changed? We have seen that during P.A.P. rule, the total number of employed workers has not increased. Even the Member for Tanglin has pointed this out just now. The Minister for Finance knows this very well. That is why at rallies and on various other occasions he has dared not point out these facts. In his speech he has only pointed out that there have been larger surpluses in the previous year which have been derived from such taxes as customs tax, property tax, tobacco tax, petrol tax and others. But who has paid most of these taxes? I can say the labouring class. From this we can see that the P.A.P. Government have squeezed a great deal of taxes from the large masses of the labouring class, but they have not used the taxation derived from them for the benefit of these people. The Jurong industrial site, the making of roads, the supply of electricity, water-all these projects and social amenities depend on money derived from the poor people in various forms of taxes. Therefore, we can see that the so-called Development Plans of the P.A.P. have nothing to be praised about because they use revenue derived from the poor people to benefit foreign capitalists and to give them more concessions and better terms to make more money locally. The P.A.P. Government have been boasting about their housing plan, but they dare not point out that behind these buildings there are poor people living in houses which are in a very bad condition. They talk about the Toa Payoh Housing Plan. Why is it that the people living in that area have not been willing to remove especially when the Government are going to provide them with very good housing accommodation? The Government blame this on Communist instigation, but, in fact, it is because the P.A.P. Government do not have a proper plan to carry out the project in that area and have not paid sufficient attention to the immediate interests of the people staying there. For instance, in Toa Payoh there are many poor people who, in addition to growing vegetables, are also engaged in many other sidelines, such as making bean curd, bean shoots, rattan work and things like that, the so-called cottage or family industries. But the Government have not paid attention to these other means of livelihood. That is why these people are not willing to move out. When they remove, how are they to maintain their livelihood and earn money? The Government have not paid sufficient attention to these people. Therefore, do the so-called industrialisation, economic development, and the Economic Development Board and all these other things mean that they can boast about them? But these poor people have not been paid sufficient attention by the PAP. Government. The P.A.P. Government want to show their achievements, such as building houses; but, on the other hand, they are ignoring the livelihood of these people. How can you explain away this sort of policy? Recently, we have been able to see the building of bridges and the installation of street lights and stand-pipes in the rural areas. The Government has done a lot in this respect. One thing I do not understand is this. They have put up all these things, e.g. in the Ponggol and Serangoon areas, but for the things that they have failed to do, they put all the blame on my shoulders. This is one of the things that I do not understand. Mr Speaker. Sir, perhaps you will remember when I was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, I was appointed Chairman of the Rural and Urban Services Consultative Committee. I believe there are many Backbenchers in the Government who know how much money the Committee had at its disposal when I was the Chairman. The Minister for Finance refused to provide us with money. Because of the refusal of the Treasury to provide us with money, many of the programmes approved by the Committee were not implemented. At that time, the City Council Treasurer wrote to us saying that this Committee had no legal rights to ask for money from the Treasury because the Committee was not a statutory body. The facts are these. The P.A.P. Government is installing these stand-pipes and street lights because of the coming general election. That is why they are trying to do something. And the Minister for Finance, in order to further his own interests, has seen fit to give some money in order to improve the amenities in the rural areas so as to deceive the people. When the Member for Bras Basah left the .P.A.P. she pointed out in this House that, when she was a member of the Rural and Urban Services Consultative Committee, the Committee threatened to resign if it was not provided with money. Sir, from this, we can see that the economic policy of the Finance Minister was not aimed at bettering the lot of the people. This blame should not fall on the P.A.P. but on the Minister for Finance alone. In his speech, the Minister for Finance also mentioned the stability on the industrial front, and that this was attributed to the repressive action taken by the P.A.P. I say that this is all wrong. The fact is that the progressive workers' organisations have matured in the past few years. As long as they are safeguarded in their organisations and they have the right to organise themselves, they will be able to look after the interests of the nation, provided their legitimate rights are looked after. The decrease in the number of strikes was not because of the Government policy. This was brought about as a result of the co-operation between employers and employees. It was also because of the confidence the local employers had in the Left-wing trade unions. That is why we have been able to see quite stable industrial relations between employers and employees in the past years. The P.A.P. thinks that it can make use of repressive actions and the Police to reduce the number of strikes. I say that this is a very wrong approach. If the working class have genuine grievances they will not kow-tow or succumb to this high-handed action. The glowing picture painted by the Minister for Finance about Singapore's economic activities cannot conceal this fact. Although the Government has been able to accumulate surpluses, these surpluses have not been equally distributed among the population. The overall increase in the Government surpluses points to one thing: the people in Singapore can maintain their prosperity through maintaining its entrepot trade. In the next five or ten years they can depend on themselves to expand their prosperity without help from the Federation. But the P.A.P., because of their attempt to prolong their political life, have sold out the rights of economic independence of the people in Singapore. The P.A.P. Government intend to deceive the people by saying that after merger there will be very good conditions in respect of industrialisation and that there will be a common market. From the speech of the Minister for Finance and the statement delivered by the Prime Minister on the progress on the financial talks, we are able to see that the whole picture of a common market is not very clear. All the terms are not finalised yet. The P.A.P. Government try to deceive the people in the matter of economy by saying that after Malaysia all our economic problems can be resolved. All this talk cannot deceive the people. We have a very grave and serious unemployment problem, and so has the Federation Government. I do not understand how the Minister for Finance can come to this conclusion, that is, unemployment plus unemployment equals prosperity. He also mentioned in his speech about Government's effort on technical education. He also boastfully said that we have a Polytechnic and the Faculty of Science in the University of Singapore which can cater for the training of professional personnel and that the courses which are not provided locally for the training of our local people will be provided by other countries under the Colombo Plan. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to remind the Minister for Finance of one thing. The P.A.P.'s so-called technical education is biased in favour of English education. In the Polytechnic, the University of Singapore and the so-called Secondary Technical School, in all these institutes of learning, the medium of instruction is English. That is to say, those who are not educated in English are deprived of an opportunity to receive technical education. If the P.A.P. does not want to change this policy - even if they want to change it now, it is too late - the problem of unemployment in Singapore will get worse especially for those who come from Chinese schools; then there will be grave problems in the future. Therefore, the P.A.P.'s support of the English-educated in the matter of technical education can only ensure the English-educated an opportunity to get technical education. This is a very dangerous and risky approach. I fully agree with one point raised by the Member for Cairnhill, which is about the Work Brigade. In his speech the Minister for Finance pointed out that the Work Brigade was not expanded according to the original plan because there had been a reduction of applicants into the Work Brigade. The original intention of setting up the Work Brigade is to alleviate the unemployment problem in the form of public assistance. With increasing unemployment, why is it that the Work Brigade, as a social relief work, is not able to attract more people? The correct inference is that, being controlled by the P.A.P., it is no more than a party piece of machinery. That is why they are not willing, for the sake of half a bowl of rice, to become lackeys of the P.A.P. Mr Speaker, Sir, on economic problems the fundamental thing is the economic system of a country. In the manifesto of the P.A.P., it is clearly stated that the P.A.P. was determined to alter the system of distribution of wealth. However, the P.A.P. has forgotten about this pledge of eliminating the system of exploitation of man by man according to the socialist platform. The Minister's speech is a confession that the P.A.P. is now working for the vested interests of cosmopolitan countries. They have now lost all their revolutionary fervour. They shout about industrialisation and foreign investment, but today everyone of us can see that although Britain and the U.S. are highly industrialised countries, there are millions of unemployed people there. How can they come here to help the people in the colonial territories when they have millions of people in their own countries who have no jobs? Because of Singapore's unique geographical position, that is why when the colonialist countries intend to carry out exploitation in this area, they must do something for the benefit of the people here. Because of their connections with British interests, that is why the civil service here is all along under stricter control. Because of Singapore's economic position and its importance to the British, they are willing to throw more crumbs to the people here. That is why although Singapore is still a colonial country, outwardly the people here seem to be better off than the people in the surrounding countries.

I do not know how much longer the Member intends to speak. I did indicate that reasonable Time should be given to the Government to reply.

Five minutes.

Five minutes, yes.

(In Mandarin): The P.A.P. do not look at the development problems of the neighbouring countries from the historical point of view. They do not understand because of their long exploitation by the colonialist countries in the past. Although they have become independent, yet they are not able to solve their economic problems and to raise their living standards in a short Time. This is not to the credit of the P.A.P. This is because of Singapore's unique geographical position as a centre of British exploitation, and that is why the British are willing to give more crumbs and benefits to the people here. Now, we can see the P.A.P., which professes to be a revolutionary Party, is complacent and satisfied with the crumbs dealt out by the British imperialists and laughs at the sufferings of the people in our neighbouring countries. The P.A.P. Government does not make use of the surplus which was accumulated in the past few years and distribute it to the labouring masses. On the contrary, because of its shaky position and its desire to enter Malaysia, the P.A.P. is now willing to hand over control of economic affairs to a pro-capitalist Government in the Federation. Although the speech of the Minister for Finance is a very beautifully written one, it is hollow. The P.A.P. Government should not forget the fact that it is not the P.A.P. alone who can look after the welfare of the people. Even the past colonial Government did something for the benefit of the people. The Lim Yew Hock Government also carried out some measures, but they were very foolish because they did not make use of publicity or do propaganda work. Before I left the P.A.P., I told the P.A.P. Ministers that the people of Singapore would not be satisfied with the small amount of social welfare work. What they demanded was political emancipation and economic freedom from foreign control.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the S.P.A.'s economic plans envisaged that industry could be promoted locally by compelling local capitalists to put up 51 per cent of the investments and getting foreign capitalists to put up the balance of the 49 per cent of the money required, the reason being that they wished local capitalists to have a controlling interest in the industries to be started up. They found that no foreign investors were prepared to invest and contribute their skill and expertise if the controlling interest was in local hands. That is why they were not able to get foreign participation for any of the industries they thought of setting up. Nor have they been able to get any local capitalists to be interested in any of their industrial schemes. This was mainly because local capitalists distrusted them as they did not like the idea of well-connected outsiders being given nominee shares in undertakings in which they were expected to put up the money. Because we did not try to do the same foolish and unclean things as the S.P.A. Government did, they now charge us with favouring foreign capitalists at the expense of local capitalists. Is it not better for us to have three foreign oil companies - one British, one Japanese and one American - than to allow one foreign well-established oil company to expand its activities so that it gets a local monopoly in oil? The S.P.A. thinking was that if they could get an economic price for the new site in which a well-established foreign oil company was interested, they were quite prepared to let it have a perpetual monopoly in oil. Is it not very much cleaner and more in accord with socialist principles to stimulate keen competition amongst foreign capitalists as we have done? The Member for Cairnhill spoke about the Inter-Governmental Joint Committee of Federation and Singapore Ministers which the SPA. Government set up to co-ordinate industrial development in both territories. Except for the fact that once or twice it met, nothing else happened. Compare all this, Sir, with the massive schemes of the P.A.P. Government in the public sector of industrial development. All that the S.P.A. Government could think of doing was to set up sites for small industries and set up a puny Industrial Promotion Board to make coffee-shop loans, many of which were written off. One such loan which had to be written off was to the owner of a piece of land for the development of a quarry who did not even possess the title deeds to the land. The S.P.A. Government was incapable of looking at the industrial development of Singapore with anything like the depth of vision and acumen that our Minister for Finance possesses; nor could they conceive of an industrial complex like that to be sited at Jurong. The Member for Cairn-hill's criticism of the P.A.P. industrial development programme is in keeping with the conscribed thinking of which he and the S.P.A. leaders are only capable. 7.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since this is Opposition time, I will not take up too much ---

It is now Government time!

Anyway, I shall not take up too much of the Opposition time. But I want to point out that in this debate the Opposition obviously had great difficulty in coming to grips with the speech of the Minister for Finance. They went through the motions of trying to pick holes in his speech. There were facts and figures which they could not refute and, therefore, they launched out into rumours, conjectures, and so on. But what should be made quite clear, Sir, is that it is all too easy for Opposition Members to say, "Yes, but I could have done better." If we had done better, it is always possible for them to say, "I could have done still better." We should go by what each of the three Opposition groups had done when they had the power to do something for the country. Take, for example, the Labour Front Government, now called the S.P.A. [Interruption] The Labour Front was a relative, somewhat a cousin of the S.P.A., because at that time they could not agree with the family but since then there has been a family reconciliation and the S.P.A. and the Labour Front are all in the same clique. So there was the Labour Front Government representing the Right-wing. They were given the opportunity to show what they could

More employment.

The only monumental and constructive effort, as I understand it, was an iron mine in the Federation. That is their testimony. That was the last stage of the Labour Front Government, because towards the end of their term, they ended up in political corruption and in general melee. They had the chance to show what they could do, and they failed. Therefore today, every Time they see concrete evidence of what a social democratic government can do, it naturally annoys them. They even have to refute that these achievements are either not there, or that if they are there, that they are not as good as they could have been. For example, Sir, the Member for Tanglin. His speech always reminds me of a gentleman who has been to a gay party and goes back meandering home but never quite getting home. The hon. Member's speech was something like this, it went on and on, and I was not quite sure whether he approved of the achievements of the Government or disapproved of them. He meandered on and on, but what he did say was that he claimed to have read Dalton, and in between he spouted poetry. But where have we gone wrong in our policy? What suggestions has he got to show us how we could have done better? The two important essentials for economic development are, first, political stability, and second, a clean, honest and efficient government. No capitalist is going to put money into any venture if he thinks that the government is not efficient, is not clean and is not incorruptible. Therefore, ill the first year of the P.A.P. Government, we were just trying ourselves out - studying the lie of the land. In the second year, everybody knows that it was a fight with the Communists because the Communists had other reasons for halting and sabotaging the economic plans of a non-Communist Government. The Communists believe, and they tell their followers - like the Member for Upper Serangoon who spent a great deal of time speaking - that you cannot give the people anything but crumbs unless you change society. The Member kept on referring to a socialist society, but we know that he was talking of a Communist society. Therefore, any advance made under a non-Communist government is one more nail in the Communist propaganda that unless you overthrow this system, you cannot improve the lot of the people. Therefore, after two years when the Communists could not get their was with us, they realised that the most important thing, as far as the economic development of Singapore was concerned, was the achievement of merger. For four years, the then Labour Front kept on saying, "In the 1959 elections, you vote for us and we will get you merger." But they never got merger. Today, they say, "Yes" but at that Time, they said. "Don't if you vote for the P.A.P., there will be no common market and no merger." We have proved that we can get merger and common market. I think the S.P.A. was the Party that offered the third alternative in the last referendum. They did not want merger. They said that they wanted something like Sarawak and North Borneo. Just before the eve of the referendum, they told their own followers. "Switch, and vote for Alternative A." These are the people who switch and change their attitude. But we said. "This is what we want - merger on the basis of the White Paper which we have approved and which we are quite convinced that the people of Singapore want, not complete merger or merger on the same terms as Sarawak and North Borneo but the kind of merger that we have put through." We have got merger and therefore we are waiting for the prospects for economic advancement. The only fly in the ointment were the Communists. When they knew that merger was about to be achieved, that the prospects for economic advancement were good and that there would be less people unemployed, less discontent. they knew that they had to fight merger not only for political but for economic reasons. That is why today you will notice that after the Communists have been conscribed and contained, stability is achieved, industrial disputes lessen, and that in the last eight or nine months there is an air of prosperity and confidence. But unfortunately, we are now having trouble from the Right-wing. These same people - this time the M.C.A. and certain Senators from the Federation - decided to upset the merger arrangements because they felt that the Communists were out and that therefore the Right-wing had a chance. Therefore, they tried to discredit us because we got merger on certain terms. And they went round to local merchants and said, "Well, now that the Communists are on the way out, there is a good chance of an election comeback." Therefore, they tried to upset our merger terms, to change them and to give economic control to the Federation - in fact, to certain M.C.A. Senators and so on. So that they can manipulate things and tell the merchants, "Well, there you are. After merger, you must deal with us. We have got the financial strings." They attempted it, but fortunately for us we fought them out in the open. And the two Senators were quiet. In fact, one of them challenged to he named. We named him and lie has been keeping quiet. The other Senator entered into an argument, but again he is quiet. Therefore, Sir, today the prospects for merger are good and the prospects for economic advancement are also good. The people know that there have been concrete achievements under the P.A.P. Government. There are facts and figures. The fact is that the buildings are there; the schools, roads, lights, and standpipes are there. This you cannot deny. We are not saying that we have created a Utopia. There is a lot of room for improvement, but what we say is that the S.P.A. - the former Labour Front Government - were given a chance but they failed. The Communists are not interested in economic construction and advancement. Therefore, we have every reason to say that what we have done has been something for the cause of socialism and democracy in Singapore. 7.26 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Budget time, as recognised by everybody, is Opposition time. Unfortunately, the Opposition got to a bad start when the Member for Queenstown opened the innings. The Member for Queenstown, as every Member in this Assembly knows, is a person who aspires to great public oratory. But unfortunately, he labours under the mistaken impression that quantity is a sufficient substitute for quality. He holds the record in the Assembly for the longest speech ever. And not only that, he also holds the runner's-up record. But in his present state of mind, with the stresses and troubles which are now afflicting his Party, he has been reduced to a state where his mind is unable to distinguish between fact and fantasy. So I think it would be a sheer waste of my Time to rebut at all the fantastic statements and assertions that he has made. The second speaker was the Member for Tanglin. Sir, everyone in this House acknowledges the Member for Tanglin as a man with many sterling qualities. His performance today has given mc some hopes that he may yet move on to great things. Sir, he is under the curious illusion that the P.A.P. is changing for the better - I mean, thank goodness, he believes that we are improving, we are being rnoderate. But I believe that his standards of judgment are changing - we have been consistent, but he has modified the way he looks at us - his approach to our political problems. I see great hopes in this. He passed many complimentary remarks about our Government. I do wish to thank him most warmly for his kind remarks, and I think he means well. We are very glad that we have on the Opposition Bench a man who, when he thinks that the Government has done well, openly gives the Government a pat on the back. We do accept his kind remarks in the spirit that it was offered. I would say that the trouble is this: the Member for Tanglin, in assessing the actions of the Government in the context of the Party, is unable at the present moment to realise that when conditions change your tactics must change although your basic strategy remains consistent. It is only after the Party had come to an open clash with the pro-Communists and got rid of the Communists and their stooges from our ranks that the differences between the social democrats in the Party and the Communists who were clinging on to us became very clear and self-evident. And so all the virtue that he is now seeing in the Party and in the Government is more evident than before. I will not argue at all in any detail about some of the proposals he makes. I think on most matters we see eye to eye, although in the little matter of deficit financing by credit creation, I think I will reserve my position there, because under the present Currency Board system it is just impossible to do so. But when he says that we accepted his point of view in the deliberations on the Tariff Board, may I say that it was just the other way round? We have always held the position that if you want to impose protective tariffs, then you must do the necessary calculations. There will be some effect on trade especially the re-export trade. It may diminish: it certainly will diminish if tariffs are too high. There will be some inconvenience to the entrepot trade. You have to balance that against the gain to the country through employment in new industries that could be established as a result of tariff. That was, if you will recollect, Mr Speaker. Sir, exactly the point that I was trying to make in the Select Committee on the Tariff Advisory Bill. I am very glad to hear that the Member for Tanglin has now come all that way with us. Sir, the third speaker was the Member for Hong Lim. He is a curious gentleman, a very ambitious man. Even when lie was in the Party I remember that when we prepared our Sixth Anniversary Souvenir number, and we asked various Ministers - he was a Minister then - to contribute an article, we all did our little hit, and, of course, the Member for Hong Lim sent an article entitled "When I was Mayor". Sir, in the history of mankind, important events occur which serve as landmarks to historians. For instance, the great flood before which Noah brought animals in twos into his ark ---

Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve. For the Member for Hong Lim, the great event in the history of mankind was the Hong Lim by-election. Before then all was darkness, chaos and confusion. After that, light, progress. Sir, this is so absurd a proposition that I do not think anybody in Singapore will take him at all seriously when he said that before Hong Lim we wanted one big steel mill, and after Hong Lim we saw the light and decided to have many small-scale industries. It is too fantastic a proposition. It was not the Hong Lim by-election nor what he said to us. Our industrial policy was influenced by the advice we received from several expert missions which the United Nations and the World Bank sent to Singapore at our request. The Member for Hong Lim sometimes reminds me of Russian emigres after the October Revolution in 1917 in Russia. You will recollect that many landed aristocrats fled the country. Many of them landed in London, impecunious. But they had two great assets. They had an imposing physique, a tall figure, blond hair, nice features and plenty of medals. This quality qualified them for the post of commissionaires in London hotels. Of course, these Russian emigres always hark back to the great days before the October Revolution in the same way that the Member for Hong Lim harks back to the great days of the Hong Lim by-election. Sir, I must most vigorously refute him, not on all his inaccuracies, because that will take me well past midnight, but at least on the subject of water expansion schemes. This is a subject of great topical interest in Singapore today because of the shortage of water. The Member for Hong Lim, in castigating the present Government for neglect in providing early enough these water expansion schemes, forgot that he was Mayor of the City Council from 1957; in 1959, he graduated from Mayor of the City Council to the City Council itself, which august office he held until May 1960, when we decided we had had enough of it. Sir, during these three to four years, he was responsible for the water supply and for the expansion of the water supply in Singapore. He was fully aware that there was one factor that prevented any steps towards expanding the water supply, and that was that the agreement to draw water from Johore, the agreement which Singapore signed with the Johore Government to draw water for Singapore, had lapsed and it must be renewed if there was to be any expansion to draw more water from Johore. He knew that. He took no steps at all when he was Mayor, when he was the City Council, to renew negotiations with the Johore Government so that water expansion schemes could be set afoot. And if there is one man in Singapore who is responsible for our present plight, it is none other than the former Mayor of Singapore, the Member for Hong Lim, and the former City Council. Sir, the Member for Hong Lim is one of the most audacious men it has been, my misfortune to meet for the spreading of deliberate untruths, untruths which he knows to be completely untrue, to be false. The Member for Anson is a different kettle of fish. He does have his moods of euphoria, sometimes in moments of rage when facts and fantasies merge into each other. The Member for Hong Lim is not of that type. He is cold and he is calculating. And when he says that nothing had been done at all to press on with our water expansion schemes as set out in the Development Plan, he knows that what he said was absolutely untrue. He cited four instances and claimed that beyond scratching the surface of the Scudai River nothing whatsoever had been done. First, the Johore River scheme, the Scudai River scheme, the scheme to raise the height of the dam at the Seletar Reservoir and the scheme to provide more fresh water at Jurong. His indictment of the Government is that beyond minor works at Scudai nothing whatsoever had been done. Sir, the facts are just the reverse. The Johore River scheme, which is the biggest water expansion scheme to be undertaken by Singapore, is well on foot - detailed design, planning, specification of contract now being undertaken. In this work we have the benefit of advice from one of the foremost firms of water engineers in the world. As I have said, we shall be applying for a World Bank loan to finance part of this scheme, but the loan itself is not of the essence, Mr Speaker, as the Member for Farrer Park has said. It is to pay for the foreign exchange counterpart cost of imported materials; that is not of importance. But work is in full swing. The Scudai River project has gone a long way and the date of completion is expected to be May next year. The scheme to raise the Seletar Reservoir dam has been abandoned on the advice of our water consultants. The Jurong River scheme has been extended not only to provide what is called a service reservoir, raising it to some height so that water pressure can be through gravitation to help in the distribution of water, but also, by damming the Johore River, to build a substantial reservoir on what was formerly the Jurong River to provide a substantial supply of fresh water for industries in Jurong. Sir, the next speaker was the Member for Cairnhill. He always likes to perform in this Assembly. Sometimes I am in doubt whether I should take him seriously or whether I should sit back and enjoy the performance. So I am not going through all the points he raised. But he and the Member for Hong Lim and the Member for Upper Serangoon stated, in their various ways, that our industrialisation programme has one great shortcoming, and that is that we favour the foreign investor as against local capital. Sir, my colleague the Minister for Health has given some gruesome details of how industrial promotion took place during his Government and I do not want to repeat them. But there was one point which the Member for Cairnhill was at great pains to stress, and that is that whereas his Government insisted on 51 per cent participation by local capital and 49 per cent by overseas capital, the P.A.P. Government is more lax in this respect. In fact, in a number of undertakings, particularly the oil refineries, we were prepared to see the whole of the capital investment coming from abroad. He thought this was a very reprehensible and unpatriotic practice. Sir, my colleague, the Minister for Health, has explained that this policy of his had led to a complete cessation of industrial expansion between 1958 and 1959. When we took office there was obviously no prospect at all of industrial growth, for the simple reason that if you want an overseas firm to come to Singapore and contribute their know-how, their techniques and their capital, they must he in a position of control in regard to the management of the business. It is common sense and apparently self-evident. Maybe what the former Government wanted was for overseas manufacturers to make all the necessary contribution, but for local businessmen to have the final say in management. Mr Speaker, this is an excellent state of affairs. I have no quarrel with that policy provided they could deliver the goods, and the experience was that they had failed to deliver the goods. Not only that. Between 1957 and 1959 there was a contraction of industrial output in Singapore. The Member for Tanglin quoted labour statistics to bear out this point. That is quite true. There was a contraction of employment in industry in Singapore during that period. Why was it so, Mr Speaker, Sir? The answer is simple. In 1957 the Federation of Malaya achieved independence and they decided that they must have their own policy. They put up tariffs for products manufactured in Singapore purely on nationalist grounds. That is quite understandable. The net result was that whereas before 1957 we had something like 1,500 workers employed in the industries making rubber shoes, two or three years after that the number was reduced to less than a third because the management of these factories decided that they should site them in Johore, Kuala Lumpur, Kiang or elsewhere. The same thing happened to other industries. The biscuit industry is an outstanding example. The result of the Inter-Governmental Committee to advise both Governments on industrial expansion - the committee which the Member for Cairnhill was so proud of - the net result to Singapore was extremely damaging. It was because we saw an unhealthy trend before the general elections that we decided that unless we had a common market whereby one territory on one side of the Causeway does not try to pinch industry from the other side of the Causeway, we can never get a genuine and balanced industrial growth either in Singapore or in the Federation of Malaya. Sir, I think I have given sufficient details of our general proposals on the common market in my Budget speech. I do not think I can go much further than that without breaking confidence, or without bringing in details of the Report of the World Bank Mission. But I do wish to stress that the Singapore Government is in deadly earnest about industrialisation. It sees the common market as the vital missing factor in our drive for industrialisation. We are determined that, as part of the terms of merger of Singapore into Malaysia, we shall have fair and legitimate terms on the common market. Sir, it is not our intention, as has been suggested by the Member for Cairnhill, to compete as a Government with the Government of the Federation of Malaya. Governments do not compete in industry, because they do not establish industries. Industries are established by private enterprise in Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. I have explained the reasons why this must be so. The Member for Upper Serangoon disagrees with the policy. He considers the policy of allowing foreign firms to establish industries in Singapore to be intensifying the exploitation of the country by foreign capital. But I will deal with that matter later. Now, so far as the point raised by the Member for Cairnhill, that Singapore is trying to compete with Kuala Lumpur in the matter of establishing industries, is concerned, may I say that that is a most harmful and mischievous statement to make? Towards the end of my Budget speech, in the concluding paragraphs, I particularly stressed the point that after Malaysia we are likely to prosper as a result of the common market, and it would be quite wrong for us, wrong ethically, wrong morally and wrong from the point of view of our own self-interest, to hog the whole prosperity for ourselves. I have no doubt that there will be fair and reasonable means of co-ordinating industrial growth in the whole of the Malaysian territories. In fact, not merely in Singapore and the Federation but also in Borneo and Sarawak, a reasonable and effective method of co-ordinating industrial growth in Malaysia can be found. Now, Sir, the last speaker was the Member for Upper Serangoon who, unfortunately, is not with us today. I am not going to reply to the various nagging complaints and the minor belly aching that he has indulged in his speech. But I would say that the basis of his approach to the economic problems facing us in Singapore is a clearly recognisable approach to me. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have studied the Marxist classics, from Das Kapital to the selected works of Stalin and Mao Tse-tung, and I immediately recognise his approach. First, he says that we have lost our revolutionary fervour - mind you, he says we lost it only after he hopped out, not before that! - particularly in our economic policy. Sir, The Tasks Ahead, the Five-Year Plan on which we were elected to office, is available for reference. In our election platform, it is stated quite clearly that in the entrepot trading economy of Singapore, you cannot have socialism. Socialism is not possible. Anybody who thinks that you can establish a socialist society in an isolated Singapore needs to have his head examined. If he has any pretence to being a Marxist or a revolutionary, he will do well to study some of Lenin's more serious works on the subject. Lenin has got one epithet for such types. He said, "These are not revolutionaries. They are only chatterboxes." Sir, the Member deplored the fact that I had sought to draw a comparison in my Budget speech between the modest but nevertheless significant prosperity which Singapore and Malaya are now enjoying, and have enjoyed for the last two years or so, with the economic depression and the economic troubles in our neighbouring countries. He said the reason is simple. They have gone through colonial exploitation for a longer Time than Singapore or Malaya had. We have been colonised in Singapore really since 1819, whereas in the case of other neighbouring countries, colonisation, of course, dated much earlier - from the 17th century, in fact, if my history serves me right. But the trouble with this Marxist dogmatic approach is that there are countries which have never been colonised in this part of the world - Thailand, for instance - or have never been colonised at all in other parts of the world, like parts of Melanesia. They have never been colonised. They are not richer than us. In fact, they are poorer than us. So how does he square up these hard facts of life, which cannot be contested, with his dogmatic approach? He sees in our efforts to industrialise through openly inviting overseas capital as an attempt to use the poor people's money to pave the way for more intensive exploitation by foreign capital. Sir, in The Tasks Ahead we have already stated openly before the electorate that we shall welcome foreign capital and foreign know-how and give them all the assistance that they require in order to establish industries in Singapore and give more jobs to our people. That was the programme on which not only we were elected but he was elected. How then can he complain of the loss of revolutionary fervour, the betrayal of the socialist revolution, hobnobbing with the colonial exploiters and all the rest of Marxist claptrap and rubbish? I do not ever imagine I would succeed in convincing him of the error of his ways. But I do warn his other colleagues that the tone and the beliefs that this great theoretician of theirs is espousing in public and in this Assembly is quite unmistakable. If they lend their support to these policies and to this ideology, then I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, after 31st of August, they will not have a tolerant, democratic non-Communist socialist Government in the Internal Security Council with at least one hand on the steering wheel - not only that, but there are three hands on the steering wheel, and one of them is ours. But after 31st of August, Mr Speaker, Sir, I say, "Well, chum, you are on your own and if you come a cropper, please do not say we have not warned you."

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Assembly approves the financial policy of the Government for the year 1963.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn.".-[Dr Goh Keng Swee] Adjourned accordingly at Eight o'clock p.m. MAIN ESTIMATES FOR 1963(Cols 0851-0854) POLITICAL DETAINEES(Cols 0855-0860)