Hansard, 1965-12-23

I have to report that on the 22nd December, l965, His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara assented to the following Bill:- The Constitution (Amendment) Bill.

In accordance with the provisions of paragraph (6) of Standing Order 85, I have for the Estimates of Expenditure of Singapore for the year 1966 fixed the times on each allotted day at which consideration of the heads of expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper shall, if not previously disposed of, be concluded. Those times have been circulated to Honourable Members and will appear in the Official Report*. * Appendix, cols. 551-4. ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE OF SINGAPORE FOR THE YEAR 1966 (PAPER CMD. 25 0F 1965)(Cols 0551-0554)

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to present a Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Financial Transactions of the De-registered Singapore General Employees' Union, the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union and the Singapore Bus Workers' Union. Hon. Members will recollect that on 11th December, 1963, I made a statement in this House concerning the setting up of a Commission of Inquiry to inquire into the mismanagement of union funds by the pro-Communist leaders of the de-registered unions. I mentioned then that while de-registration proceedings were pending against them, the leaders of these three unions were making desperate plans to withdraw large sums of money from the unions' bank accounts to finance the Communist united front campaign against merger and Malaysia. I also recounted to the House how these unions took advantage of loopholes in the trade union laws to sabotage measures taken by the Government to protect trade union funds in the interests of the workers. With the assistance of their legal adviser, Mr T. T Rajah, they contrived and succeeded in withdrawing $30,000 from banks in the second week of October 1963. When the Registrar of Trade Unions tried to ascertain whether this sum of money was properly and legally utilised, the pro-communist union leaders deliberately obstructed his inquiry. Even police investigations were hampered because of the sudden disappearance of the then General-Secretary of the Singapore General Employees' Union. These incidents caused concern to the public in general and the workers in particular. Naturally they had good reasons to be disturbed. The so-called leaders of the pro-Communist unions have been claiming all these years that they were the genuine champions of the workers and had dedicated their lives to the cause of the trade union movement. But what some of the workers did not know, because they were really misled, was that these bogus leaders were dedicated only to the anti-national cause of their political masters. They were not really interested in promoting the industrial interest of the workers but just made use of the workers as political pawns to achieve their anti-national objectives. The public and the workers have a right to know the actual state of financial affairs in these unions. It is the duty of the Government to keep our citizens informed of the true facts concerning any matters of public interest. It was against this background that a one-man Commission of Inquiry was set up under the Inquiry Commission Ordinance by His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara on 21st December, 1963. Mr Tan Wee Kian, an officer of the Legal Service, was appointed the Commissioner. The Commissioner has now completed his work. In all, there were 38 sittings of the Commission. 116 witnesses were examined, and 324 exhibits submitted to the Commission. The report of the Commission was submitted by the Commissioner to His Excellency on 31st July, 1965. I now present a copy of this Report for the information of Members. The Report of the Commission reveals a shocking state of affairs in these three de-registered unions. Their officials have been found wanting and have not discharged the responsibilities imposed on them by union rules. This group of political activists in the disguise of trade unionists were found to have displayed a flagrant disregard of the statutory provisions governing the custody of trade union funds. The unions' system of accounting was such that it provided ample opportunities for the manipulation of financial transactions. Even the unions' legal adviser, the self-styled spokesman of the workers, Mr T. T. Rajah, was found to be a party to the irregularities. According to the Report, in the transaction for the purchase of new union premises by the Singapore Bus Workers' Union, Mr T. T. Rajah, who acted for the vendors and the purchasers, undertook conveyance of the property to three union officials who were not trustees, although the rules of the unions specifically provided for all properties, movable and immovable, to be vested in the union trustees. In addition to the disappearance of the union officials, minutes and documents of the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union, the whole Set of account books was also found missing, and deliberate attempts were made to frustrate the Commission's investigation and to cover the malpractices of certain officials. The Commission also found that huge sums of union funds had been dissipated illegally. The findings of the Commission in this respect, as summarised in its Report, are: (1) That in the case of the Singapore General Employees' Union -

Mr S. V. Lingam asked the Minister of Defence if he will consider the construction of a Community Centre in the new MacPherson Housing Estate, which has a population of about 40,000 people, and when that Centre can be expected to be ready.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has no plans to construct a community centre in the new MacPherson Housing Estate in the foreseeable future. There are already in the Aljunied Constituency one standard type and one rural type community centres. In nearby Paya Lebar there are one standard type and five rural type community centres. If the residents of the MacPherson Housing Estate urgently want a community centre, they should club together and rent suitable premises from the Housing Board for this purpose. Now that we are an independent nation, social initiatives of this kind are to be encouraged. The attitude of expecting Government to be the universal provider is much to be deplored. It is a legacy of our colonial past. My suggestion to the residents of MacPherson Housing Estate is far from fanciful. In fact, a community initiative of this kind took place in Tanah Merah Kechil, Changi, where the residents clubbed together, built a community centre, and donated it to the People's Association. The residents of Changi are a sturdy breed. When the sea curfew imposed hardships on their fishermen, they did not sit on their haunches and wait for dole-outs by the Social Welfare Department. They organised a whip-round, bought food and provisions and gave these to the families of the fishermen. Their scale of donations is much more generous than the Government ration scale. It is sturdy self-reliance of this kind that I commend to the residents of Aljunied, who surely cannot be in any respect less worthy than those of Changi.

2.47 p.m.

"to amend the Trade Unions Ordinance (Chapter 154 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Labour (Mr Jek Yeun Thong); read the First time, to be read a Second Time on the first available sitting day after Wednesday, 5th January, 1966, and to be printed.

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [13th December, 1965], "That the Assembly approves the financial policy of the Government for the year 1966.".-[The Minister for Finance]. Question again proposed. 2.48 p.m.

The Motion is now open to debate. I would like to remind Members that the debate should be confined to the general principles of Government policy and administration. Any matters of detail should be raised when the Estimates are being considered in detail in the Committee of Supply. Members are to remember that it is only the general principles of Government policy and administration that are subject to debate today.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to congratulate the Finance Minister on presenting to this House a practical and useful Budget. There are inherent difficulties facing any Finance Minister in budgetting for this small island State. We are a small nation with a population of some two million and we have no natural resources. We have a big neighbour with whom, in so many ways, we are still closely linked. For example, we share a common currency. Because of this close link, any Finance Minister will have to look over his shoulder to see that any of his proposals will not invite retaliation from across the Causeway, or that any proposal will not be defeated simply because our neighbour is there. Let me give an example to illustrate my point. The income tax on companies is 40 per cent in Singapore. It is also 40 per cent in the Federation. Should we decide to raise the tax on companies to, say, 50 per cent, we have to make sure that the Federation do likewise. Otherwise, companies will move to Johore and conduct their business from across the Causeway. This little example goes to show the difficulties our Finance Minister faces in formulating economic policies for Singapore. It further goes to show how unnatural it is that Singapore and the Federation should be two economic entities instead of one whole. Be that as it may, we are now independent and sovereign. We have to manage our own affairs. The problems after independence are not quite the same as those before independence. We must find ways of meeting these problems. We must respond to the challenge. Even before Singapore joined Malaysia, Singapore embarked on a programme of industrialisation as the traditional entrepot trade was found to be insufficient and unable to create enough job opportunities for our fast growing working population. After Malaysia, however, industrialisation proceeded on the not unjustifiable basis that there would be a Common Market. With the separation of Singapore from Malaysia, the prospects of a Common Market become remote. Singapore by herself, however, forms too small a market to support an industrialisation programme. In order to industrialise effectively, an alternative to the Common Market must be found; in other words, we must find alternative markets to absorb the goods that our factories are able to produce. Unless these markets are found, our industrialisation programme will come to grief and we will face more than an unemployment problem. It is gratifying to note, therefore, that the Government is doing its utmost to find overseas export markets for our industrial goods. It is doing so on the official level by direct approaches to foreign governments. It is also encouraging private enterprises to look for overseas markets by providing suitable incentives like double deduction for tax purposes for market development overseas and for increased allowance for advertising. There is the further provision for an accelerated rate of depreciation for tax purposes for export-orientated industries. These measures proposed by the Finance Minister may be powerful incentives in normal times. We are, however, living in times that are not quite normal. Our industries are not long established. Most of them have just started production. Most of them too are pioneer industries. Pioneer industries enjoy special privileges, the most important of which is exemption from income tax for five years. Most of the new industries, therefore, would enjoy tax exemption for an initial period of five years and the double deduction in respect of expenses for overseas market development does not, therefore, benefit these pioneer industries. The same argument applies to accelerated depreciation, although in this case it is possible for manufacturers to postpone depreciation until after the first five years, i.e., after the period in which they are exempted from income tax. It is also well known that taxation is not a disincentive for capitalists. The reason is that as long as there is money to be made, capitalists do not mind paying taxes. What they worry most is the prospect of losing money. Exporting to overseas markets is a new experience to many of our industrialists. It is something of an adventure to them. To sell our goods abroad, we must give the foreign buyers some sort of inducement. We can hardly expect them to buy for cash. We would, therefore, have to sell on credit. It would be a great help, of course, if the Government could finance this export trade, especially for the small manufacturers. But this would throw an unbearable burden upon the exchequer. Financing the export trade is a more risky business than financing internal trade. This is especially so when we have to break into new markets overseas. So even if private industries can find the money to finance their exports, they would be slow to do so unless there is some sort of guarantee that their capital will not be lost. And here is where the Government can help. I have in mind, Mr Speaker, Sir, some kind of an export guarantee agency. This is some kind of insurance against default of payment by overseas buyers. At present, manufacturers, especially the smaller ones with a modest capital, are reluctant to export even if they could do so for fear that they may lose their capital. With this fear removed, we can expect to see a greater drive in industry to export. Many industrialised nations to whom an export market is important have this export guarantee system. Japan and the United Kingdom are two of the countries that come to mind. I confess that I have not made a study of any existing system and cannot, therefore, recommend how this system in our country should be set up. This task I shall leave to the experts in this field. I wish, however, to anticipate one criticism that is invariably levelled against any export guarantee system, i.e., that it invites reckless exporting by manufacturers resulting in a loss to the exchequer though not to the manufacturers themselves. This may be true in uncontrolled 100 per cent guarantee. But this defect can easily be overcome by guaranteeing not the full amount of the exports, but, say, 50 per cent. This will leave manufacturers to bear a proportion of the loss and will induce them to exercise caution. Further, exports can be controlled by commodity selection for export and quality control grading of export markets according to their risk, etc. But these are details which, as I have said, I shall leave to the experts. I also envisage this agency working hand in glove with our overseas trade missions which will advertise our products abroad and provide us with accurate information about the conditions and needs of our overseas markets. Mr Speaker, Sir, finding overseas markets to support our industries has become an urgent task in our exercise for survival. I believe this proposal of mine can help, in however small a way, in this urgent task and I humbly beg to put it forward for the consideration of hon. Members of this House.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I believe there is not a single Singapore citizen, whether from the working class or from the capitalist class, who is uneasy after the Finance Minister delivered his financial speech on the 13th December last. Usually after the policy speech by the Minister for Finance, people will be uneasy because of increased taxes. This time, not only are they very pleased because there has been no increase in taxes for the forthcoming year, but the taxes which were imposed by the Malaysian Government when Singapore was part of Malaysia have now been removed. Not only that, Mr Speaker, a point which further pleases the people of Singapore is that there are many other guarantees given by the Minister for Finance, like the setting up of more factories which will give more employment opportunities to the people, and the resumption of trade, particularly with Malaysia. This will bring prosperity to Singapore. But there is one thing about which the people of Singapore feel uneasy, and that is the attitude of the Minister for Finance in connection with back-pay. When he replied to a question by the Member for Telok Blangah on this matter, he reiterated his positive stand relating to back-pay. There is no change on that. The emphasis by the Minister for Finance can be equated to his giving a weapon to the employers to kill militant national trade unions by dilly-dallying over negotiations between the management and the trade unions. The Government will also employ this tactic to avoid reaching agreement between workers and management. For instance, when a union puts up wage claims for better working conditions, the employer can deliberately dilly-dally over the matter. Or the management will first ascertain whether there is a claim for back-pay. When it can use this weapon provided by the Minister for Finance, then it will deliberately delay negotiations. Ultimately, union members who are strongly united and support the union will lose faith in the union, resulting in the union going defunct and this is the opportunity which the management has long been waiting for. But I do not know whether the Minister for Finance adopts the same attitude as the management towards the unions. When the unions can no longer represent the workers, the management will adopt policies at its own whims and fancies and this will result in the workers being oppressed by the management.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, soon after our Finance Minister delivered his first Budget speech in the first independent Parliament of Singapore, he was received with great applause among the people of the various races in Singapore. All these people are of the opinion that this is a great assurance for the economic stability in Singapore. This is because in this Budget speech, we have been able to show our economic achievements which represent our national spirit and which augurs well for a bright future for our nation. And this again is a New Year gift for our people with the festive season just around the corner. As a representative of the people, Mr Speaker, I, on behalf of my constituents, would like to thank the Finance Minister for his Budget speech. I express my confidence in and support for this Budget speech in which our stability and progress are assured. Mr Speaker, looking at the Budget speech as a whole, we can see various salient features. I think it is necessary for me to point out these features. Firstly, in this budget we can see that the sum of some $537 million will be collected from revenue. Against this we will be spending a total of $505 million. So the balance is that we will have a surplus of some $30 million. This is the first point. The second point is that, because of our economic resilience and viability, we have not only been able to recover our losses as a result of Indonesian confrontation, but we have also been able to increase our national income by at least 2 per cent in the past one year. This is the second salient feature. The third point is that, as a result of Singapore's independence, certain retrogressive taxes have been repealed. These taxes were imposed by the Malaysian Central Government. Instead of these retrogressive measures, we have replaced them with some new measures which provide protection for our economic prosperity. From all this, we can see that with efficient and progressive new methods our economic future is well protected, and this will in turn bring about a reorganisation in the whole of our social order and improvement therein. On the other hand, this Budget speech goes a step further to show that our non-Communist democratic socialist Government is a well-organised and highly efficient piece of machinery. With its consistent policy and long-term objectives, it is able effectively to lead the people of our island State of 224 square miles towards a well-organised and better society, in which the standard of living of the people will be enhanced and improved with economic independence, which will bring about a more just, equal and prosperous nation. These are altogether the salient features that one will see in the Budget speech. What is more important is that, Mr Speaker, I would like to stress at this juncture that the contents of this Budget speech show that those theorists who are politically shortsighted are wrong in their view that they can stifle Singapore's independence with economic measures. They also show themselves that they are very stupid in believing that they can stifle our economic growth. Mr Speaker, I would like to give some facts and figures to prove my point. This will, of course, give you a better picture of the Budget speech. The average national income per capita of the working class in Singapore is as high as $1,300, which is the highest in the whole of Asia. Mr Speaker, compared with Malaysia, which is only $800 per capita income, Sabah - $700 per capita income, and Sarawak -$550 per capita income, we are also the highest in this region. The main sources of our national income come from these different fields: Commerce and Trade, 23 per cent; Industry, 18 per cent; Government services, 18 per cent; Armed Forces, 14 per cent; Agriculture, 18 per cent; Building Construction, 5 per cent; Tourism, 3 per cent; and Others, 15 per cent. The employment opportunities for our people come mainly from our commerce, transportation and other services which provide employment to 70 per cent of our people. In the field of industry and building construction, 20 per cent are employed. Agriculture provides for some 8 per cent of our employed, and others, 2 per cent. From all these figures, we can see that the economic policies of our Government are correct and on the right track. This is because, on the one hand, we can maintain our traditional trading centre and, on the other hand, we can go ahead with our industrial development programme. These figures also show that Singapore's commerce occupies a very important point in our economic structure. It is erroneous to say that it is only in times of prosperity that the Government is able to go ahead with its economic programmes. This is a very backward view which is not shown in our first Budget speech. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am pleased to have learned from the Minister for Finance that for the first time the Government is intending to consolidate and improve upon our infrastructure with great sums of money, such infrastructure being necessary for our further improvement in social amenities and economic growth. All this will, of course, give our people a better standard of living. I understand that it is the intention of the Government to spend some $976 million in the next five years, which is 60 per cent of the estimate for the purposes of economic development. Of this figure, a sum of $486 million will be spent on social development programmes, and these are all very good for our people, because this sum takes up about 32 per cent of the estimate for this particular Five-Year Plan. Mr Speaker, with regard to social development, I would like to mention in particular the programme in housing. Our housing achievements have not only won praise locally, but they have also boosted our international repute. This very well proves that our country is going on the right track and that our Government has the determination and verve to face all types of difficulties and challenges in order to find a way out for our people through all these economic challenges and difficulties. Mr Speaker, the reasons for saying so are very simple and clear. You will remember that when we first came to power in 1959, many, many people were without decent housing and even experts were of the opinion that our housing problem was difficult to solve, because at that time there was an acute shortage of houses in Singapore and whatever programme for housing development we had, it would not be possible to catch up with the growth of our population. But the facts before us today show that all those fears were actually unfounded and that the housing programme of the Government has been very successful all along. Mr Speaker, you can see that many, many question marks have turned into a lot of exclamation marks in praise of our achievements. Now we have come to a stage where we are able to build one unit in 45 minutes. All this goes to show the overall success of the housing programme of the Government. Mr Speaker, you can see how successful we are. A development officer of E.C.A.F.E. said that the housing programme in Singapore provided by the Government in respect of low-cost housing has been shockingly and surprisingly successful and that this was a very massive programme - in fact, the greatest of its kind in the whole of Asia. Mr Speaker, our success can be seen in the new housing estate now in Bukit Ho Swee which was devastated by a big fire in 1961 in which about 16,000 people were rendered homeless. The Government then took up the challenge to build houses for these people. On 1st February, 1960, the Housing Board was set up and it took over our housing development project from the former Singapore Improvement Trust. Mr Speaker, let us take note that the people of Bukit Ho Swee have been lucky in that in a short time they are able to enjoy decent housing provided by our Government. Against this background, let us take a look at the history of the former Singapore Improvement Trust. In its 32 years of existence, it was only able to put up 21,689 units of houses and shophouses. This shows that the former Lim Yew Hock and the colonial governments were not only inefficient but also incompetent. Against this historical background, we will take a look at our achievements. We have been able to put up altogether about 52,206 units of houses since 1959. This figure includes flats as well as shophouses. The break-up is as follows: in 1961, altogether 7,320 units of low-cost houses were built for our people; in 1962, we built 12,230 units; in 1963, we built 10,085 units; in 1964, we built about 13,280 units. Since the Government came to power, we have been able to put up a lot of flats and blocks of houses in various areas in Singapore, particularly in Queenstown, Bukit Ho Swee, MacPherson, St. Michael's, Alexandra, Jurong new town, Kim Keat, Geylang Serai, Toa Payoh, Kallang, Selegie Road, Onan Road, Toa Payoh South, etc. In these areas, we have been able to put up altogether about 44,345 units of houses in order to enable our people to live in housing estates. The Government also provides them with housing subsidies. The figures are as follows: in 1960, the subsidy provided was $2.1 million; in 1961, the provision was $2.1 million also; in 1962, it was $4.2 million; in 1963, it was S6.5 million; in 1964, it was $9.5 million and for 1965 it will be $9.7 million. All these figures show the amount of housing subsidy provided by the Government for the people. So the Government has not only solved the acute problem of housing shortage but has also provided the people with social amenities in the housing estates, such as schools, clinics, playgrounds, etc. Mr Speaker, from all these facts and figures, we can see that the Government has done and is doing all it can to improve the standard of living and the environments of our people. But in spite of the efforts of the Government to do good things for the people, the Barisan Sosialis and the other anti-national elements are trying to be very obstructive, particularly in cases of land acquisition. They try to whip up the feelings of the people against the Government and create trouble for their own political ends, because they do not want us to carry out our work of construction and nation-building. They know that if we are successful, it will be very difficult for them in their political struggle to achieve their own selfish ends. They are not loyal to the country. They are traitors to our people. They are loyal only to the political leaders of a country outside Singapore. We can see through their treacherous intrigues and plots. They claim that they should inculcate the theories and political ideology of Mao Tse-tung into the minds of our young people. I would like to tell them that our people are not interested in any foreign indoctrination of any kind, because it has practically nothing to do with the improvement of the lot of our people. Our people want to see an actual improvement in their livelihood. Because of this, the Barisan Sosialis have not been able even to hold on to their own political strongholds. Mr Speaker, our main task ahead now is survival. I would like to tell you what the Government has done in the various fields, such as industry and agriculture. From these figures we will be able to see the development of Singapore's economy and its bright future. First, the development of industry will no doubt provide the focal point for our efforts in the future progress of economic development. At the same time, it will be a safeguard for our society to exist in a modernised and developed economy. Industry will play a very important role in an independent Singapore. From the figures which I will give below, we can see that we have enough viability and verve to exist. In 1964 the Government provided sums totalling $120 million for industrial development. It is estimated that in Jurong the investment in industrial development by 1970 will reach about $200 million, and by 1980 this industrial city will be able to accommodate about one-half of the total population of Singapore. The Economic Development Board has already approved various loans. By the end of last year it has reached $43 million. They have directly invested in various industries totalling $15 million. At the moment, new industries number 110. Their registered capital amounts to $649 million, with a paid-up capital of $216.86 million. By the end of last year, there were 58 new factories which came into production. Four other factories are in the course of construction. These factories will he able to provide about 16,000 jobs for our citizens. It is expected that the annual production will be worth $505.85 million. Last year there were 120 factories which were non-pioneer industry factories, engaging in production. The investment reaches $44 million, thus providing 4,000 jobs. Singapore's husbandry has also made great achievements. It has brought about better prospects in the economy of Singapore. Agricultural activities have been neglected by the urban people. Every year the production of animals for domestic needs will be about 20 million heads, 200 million eggs, 750,000 pigs and 40,000 tons of vegetables. The economic value of all this will amount to $200 million. This agricultural produce will not only be sufficient for our own consumption, but there will also be a surplus for export. It has been exported to various places in Malaysia. Such produce like eggs has also been exported to Hong Kong and adjacent territories. Singapore is the only city in Asia which is able to export eggs. Statistics show that in 1961 the eggs exported reached $2.3 million. Last year it has increased to $3.3 million. The total increase in exports amounted to $1.06 million. In the same period, Singapore imported eggs valued at $6.8 million. By 1964 there was a sharp decrease to $3.8 million. The total decrease was $3 million. That is a favourable figure to show the success of our farmers. All this success is the result of our hard work and the progress of the farmers. It has shown that the Government's policy has been successful in raising their standard of living. I would now like to comment on the boycott by the Barisan Sosialis. I believe the people are intelligent and when the right time comes they will be able to understand the various activities of the Opposition Members and will be able to give the correct and just judgment on them. Let us expose their facade of democracy and socialism. In fact, these Opposition Members have fallen into a contradiction of foreign political philosophy. They have fallen into the contradiction of the Soviet revisionist policy of peaceful co-existence on the one hand, and the orthodox Leninist line on the other. This has resulted in a division and contradiction in their analysis of Singapore's independence. In the end, the fact of Singapore's independence cannot be ignored by the Barisan Sosialis and the pseudo socialists, or even affected by their slogans and smears. History will finally record that such people will fail in all their attempts. Now I would like to give the people a very reliable analysis. In order to understand the activities of the pro-Communist Barisan Sosialis, we should go a step further and understand the background of international relationships so that we can have the right solution. Finally, let me say that Singapore is now an independent country, and it has been so internationally recognised. It has now an international status. But the fate of our country is in the hands of the people. This is a Government elected by the people. All people, irrespective of race and class, should unite together for one purpose - to fight shoulder to shoulder with the Government to reform our society so that we can realise the higher objective of a Malaysian Singapore. At the same time, we should recognise that despite the political and economic separation of Singapore from Malaysia, the demographic and geographical factors are such that the people in the two territories are inseparable. These are facts. But, however much the other people wish to force us into our present temporary position, we can strive so that in the end, through the determined effort of our people and in the spirit of Yu Koon who, according to Chinese legend, moved mountains, we can establish a multi-racial society - a non-Communist, democratic socialist society - in this part of South-East Asia.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the motion moved by the Minister for Finance on 13th December, 1965, in connection with the 1966 Budget. Although our country is small, we are able to maintain a balance in the expenditure and revenue in spite of the additional burdens of defence and foreign affairs, and also without increasing taxation in the coming year. This fact shows the soundness of our economic position. Such a financial policy is also a healthy one. It has been praised and well supported by people from all sections in Singapore. On the one hand, the Government is trying to industrialise and, on the other hand, it has also not neglected the present entrepot trade. They are regarding this with favour. Our country is trying to establish trade relations with more countries, such as Russia and African countries, and enter other markets in the international field. This financial policy is the most suitable one for our country in the present context of South- East Asia. This is the correct policy to adopt. In the end, it will lead to economic progress and prosperity. It will bring more jobs to our people and raise their living standard. At the same time, it will help the further development of our economy. Mr Speaker, whether or not the economic base of a country is sound depends on population and the increase in national income. The 1965 figures show a total income of $2,100 million. But there was an increase of $108 million in the subsequent period. The average income per capita in 1961 was $200, but this year it is about $1,200 per head. This shows the increase in our national income per capita and the growth of our economic development. Although Indonesia has stopped its trade with us because of confrontation, this has not hampered us in any way in our economic progress. Mr Speaker, the Economic Development Board has undertaken joint investments with industrialists and, as a result, there is good progress in industrial development in Jurong. According to what the Minister for Finance has said, there are 82 pioneer factories engaged in production. They engage 9,000 workers. More factories will be in production. If all are in production, then the workers employed will be 15,000. The Minister for Finance has also announced that the industrial output is estimated at $1,100 million. This shows an increase over the previous year's figure. According to the Minister, our industries have a sound foundation, and the aim of our people to industrialise has now materialised. With the co-operation of the Government, I believe that in three or four years' time, our industries will be very prosperous and will definitely bear fruit, thus earning more foreign exchange for us. Mr Speaker, on the question of industrialisation, we are faced with certain problems. One of them concerns the working class. From 1954-61, there were general strikes in Singapore which discouraged prospective local and foreign investors from investing here. If they were to invest large sums of money in local industries, they would naturally hope to get some profits and dividends. But if the workers go on strike even before the products are put on the market, then industries will be killed even before any profits can be made. The investments will thus come to nothing. Therefore, our Government, in order to alleviate the worries of prospective investors in this respect, has drawn up pioneer industry laws to provide safeguards and tax concessions to investors. On the one hand, these concessions are for three to five years, and, on the other hand, there is provision for the regulation of workers. So far, there has been no trouble in this field, and the workers have been able to live and work smoothly in good surroundings. Mr Speaker, because of the importance of workers in industrialisation and the importance of trade unionism in this development programme, let me touch a little on this. In trade unionism, there are apparently two factions. We all remember that in 1961 there was the argument for and against merger and Malaysia, which led to an open split in the leadership of the trade union movement. There were the pro-Communist trade unions led by Lim Ching Siong on the one side and the democratic socialist unions led by Mr Devan Nair on the other side. Because of conflicting views, they agreed to part, and trade unionism developed along two different lines. This led to the formation of the present trade union, the N.T.U.C., consisting of 100,000 workers and which is non-Communist and democratic in principle. On the other hand, there is the Left-wing pro-Communist trade union led by pro-Communists and their stooges, who use the workers as pawns in their political struggle. Their actions and activities, which were detrimental to the interests of the workers, did not satisfy the workers and they resigned from their trade unions. This led to the collapse of these trade unions. They are now on their way down the drain. On the other hand, the healthy non-Communist democratic trade unionism under the leadership of the N.T.U.C. is a strong influence in nation building. If the N.T.U.C. can continue to lead the trade union movement by providing intelligent leadership and treating the workers with intelligence, then I believe that it will grow stronger day by day, and we can ensure that our Government's policy on labour is not changed. On 16th October, the Minister said that the Government's policy was to encourage the development of non-Communist democratic trade unionism, so that it may be built into a strong -

Order. The hon. Member is touching on the labour policy of the Government. We are discussing the financial policy. If he can relate the labour movement to the financial policy, then he is in order. But just to discuss the labour policy of the Government is out of order.

(In Mandarin): I thank you for your guidance. I was mentioning those things in passing because they touch on the labour field. Let me now talk about the Government's expenditure on education and housing. About $100 million will be allotted for housing development, of which $45 million will be for building and other sums have been allotted for other purposes. This goes to show that the Government is not neglecting this project and other development projects, include the reclamation of land. This is very important in land-hungry Singapore. On the other hand, a historic plan in urban renewal will be carried out next year and very soon our country will be turned into a modernised country in this century. Mr Speaker, the expenditure for next year will be about one-quarter of our budget. This is important, because if we want our country to be strong, then we must popularise education and raise the educational standard of the people. The Government policy is to regard education as important as the social amenities to the people. Therefore, the $120 million to be spent in this respect is quite a handsome sum. Under the Government's financial, commercial and industrial policies, we believe that our commerce and industry will be able to develop quickly. With the diligence, intelligence, business acumen and efforts of the workers together, I believe we will be able jointly to build a more just and happy society with a high living standard. 3.57 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the financial policy delivered by the Hon. the Minister for Finance on the 13th of December. Although Singapore is a small nation and has just achieved independence and sovereignty about four months ago, the Minister's financial speech is an encouragement to us that next year the financial position of Singapore will be sound. This will give inspiration to all the people of Singapore to face the problems ahead. The people of Singapore, comprising the various races, workers, businessmen, have considered the policy speech as a balanced one. This is the result of the efficient efforts of the Minister for Finance. I am happy that the Minister has given attention to the social amenities and that in the budget for next year there will be a 10 per cent increase in social amenities. I feel in future years allocations for social amenities will be increased further. In order to create a multi-racial society, such amenities must be provided. These will not only be meant for one race, but for all races that live in this country, irrespective of colour of skin, language, or culture. The P.A.P. Government is based on social democracy. Since 1959 when it first assumed office, it has worked untiringly towards the creation of a happy, prosperous and a more just and equal society. We hope that these efforts will not only be confined to the people of Singapore alone, but will also be meant for our neighbouring population of ten million. But our efforts have been misunderstood and this has resulted in our being kicked out of Malaysia. I wish to emphasise that the achievements made by our people, including the Malays, in Singapore have been the result of a positive social democracy. Nobody can deny this. If we compare our living conditions, particularly the Malays', with our neighbours', we will find that the Malays in Singapore are in a much better position than our neighbours. The Malays in Singapore enjoy benefits not only in housing and education but also in other amenities like supply of electricity and water, drains and so on. Mr Speaker, it is clear that under a government based on social democracy, the people of Singapore, including the Malays of Islamic faith, can achieve their objects. All the accusations that only under a government of Islamic religion can the Malays prosper are nonsensical. Socialism is not against any religion. Socialism is not against Islam. The teachings of Islam are not opposed to the practice of socialism. Socialism, in fact, is Islam. For instance, the payment of tithes, which is done by all the people of Islam throughout the world once a year - shows that Islam has the same policy as socialism, and that is to create a harmonious society.

Mr Speaker, Sir, nothing is a better and more practical New Year present to the 1.8 million people of Singapore than the 1966 Budget Estimates presented by the Hon. Minister for Finance. The budget, as a whole, has won the confidence and trust of our people, to whom this House is responsible, in the effort and ability of the present Government to create a more prosperous, more just and more equal society. The hazards and difficulties accompanying the sudden political changes, namely, Singapore's separation from Malaysia and its emergence as an independent sovereign nation, have proved to be not so formidable as expected. The panic of some people over the future of Singapore, with its limited space and resources, as a country independent of others, has turned out to be only a temporary nightmare. Everything has turned out fine after four crucial months have elapsed, and the majority of our people are now confident not only in the physical survival of Singapore as a nation, but also in the emergence of a more prosperous multi-racial society. The Budget Estimates of next year have strengthened this belief. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to point out several things which the Government have achieved or have decided to accomplish in the coming years, and which gives me grounds for my optimism in the future of the new State. First of all, it is the Indonesian confrontation that convinces me of the ability and the capacity of Singapore to survive and prosper. The people at large, except for a small number of anti-national elements, rejoice at the fact that despite the ordeal of Indonesian confrontation for over two long years, Singapore has been able, not only to overcome the loss resulting from the severance of trade, but also to show an increase in our national income. In fact, we expected to lose 8.7 per cent in our national income as a result of this economic war, but we have managed to show a net increase of 2 per cent. This is amazing. And again, in 1964 when confrontation reached its height, the gross capital formation represents an increase of 28 per cent over 1963. While the average rate of annual income increase during the pre-confrontation years, i.e., from 1959 to 1963, is only 22 per cent. And notwithstanding the confrontation, the value of external trade also showed an increase of no small percentage. Considering the important part played by entrepot trade in the economy of Singapore and the amount of trade we had with Indonesia before the formation of Malaysia, this achievement of the people of Singapore is a near miracle. If the nation can and does survive and prosper under the gravest trial it has ever experienced, we have no reason to doubt its ability to continue to survive and prosper hereafter, whether there is confrontation of one type or another. Sir, the second point which I think is significant is that the Government has taken or decided to take protective measures to safeguard our growing industries. Considering the role, especially in future, of industries in ensuring our prosperity and the high standard of living, it is justifiable for the Government to take whatever steps are necessary for the growth of our industries. One of the steps is the imposition of customs duties on some imported goods, especially those which the domestic industries have been able or prepared to manufacture. I understand that this is primarily a reply to the unfriendly action of the Malaysian Government. Hon. Members of the House must be aware of the consistent policy of the Government on the other side of the Causeway aiming at smothering our infant industries out of sheer feminine jealousy. This same jealousy had caused the eviction of Singapore from the Federation. Mr Speaker, Sir, anybody with an average I.Q. will know that this cold war of economy between the two Governments will do no good to both parties, although we are convinced that Singapore will suffer less, if any at all, in the long run. It is in this respect that I, and the people at large, surely, welcome the Hon. Minister for Finance's pledge that he is willing at any moment to meet the Malaysian representatives to discuss the issue of economic co-operation on the basis of mutual benefit. And I also hope that the Malaysian Government will review its policy and will not reject our friendly offer on no sounder ground than mere jealousy. The leaders of the Alliance Government should no longer be under the illusion that Singapore will suffer more. They should not calculate the extent they can hurt Singapore, but how much they will benefit from mutual co-operation. I also applaud the Government's lifting of certain taxes which were imposed by the former Central Government and which had been the target of a nation-wide criticism. With all the favourable conditions now, there is sufficient reason to anticipate the success of our industrialisation projects, and with this success, we would be able to find enough jobs every year for the school-leavers who are expected to enter the labour market. If we are to succeed in bringing about a more just and equal society in terms of employment for all, then we cannot afford to fail in our industrialisation. Sir, the Government does not neglect entrep�t trade in its Budget Estimates. This is proof that the Government has recognised and appreciated the traditional role and contribution of entrep�t trade to the economy of Singapore. In fact, before we become a truly industrialised State, we must still depend mainly on entrep�t trade for our prosperity. It is wise for the Government to create a free trade zone to promote and facilitate entrep�t trade. I can see that for many years to come, entrep�t trade will be parallel with industry as two essential life vessels of our economy. Singapore has a natural geographical position which is most favourable for trade, and it is this superb geographical position that makes Singapore the fifth largest port in the world. We must not, at any cost, surrender this natural gift, let alone give it up of our own accord. Sir, the abundant harvest of the Singapore Goodwill Mission led by the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister who returned recently from a tour of Afro-Asian and East European countries, is an example of what this type of mission can do to help boost our trade with the world, especially those countries where industries are still in their infancy. I hope the Government will send more missions, especially trade missions, abroad, as frequently as possible, within the capacity of our limited resources. This is as important as imposing protective tariffs to help the growth of our industries. Meanwhile, the Government should encourage the organisation of unofficial commercial missions and give them maximum convenience and assistance. Semi-official missions where Government officials and merchants combine will, in my opinion, bring greater results. Sir, I would like to touch on the $1.5 million involved in the Government's intention to change identity cards and the $55,000 which will be involved in the expenditure on work permits. I think it is worth mentioning Government's intention to issue new -

Order. I have already indicated to the House that the debate should be on the general policy, and matters of detail should be dealt with in Committee.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your pertinent ruling. I wish to say, in passing, that this will not affect our expenditure in bringing about prosperity to our country. Mr Speaker, as you know, the terrific -

Mr Sim, if you can relate that to the financial policy, please do. But all I am saying is that you must not embark on a detailed discussion of those two items.

These are methods to safeguard the interests of our citizens and our prosperity. Mr Speaker, Sir, as you know, the terrific influx of unskilled workers from the other side of the Causeway since Malaysia Day, and particularly since the independence of Singapore, and the expectation of a worse situation in the near future, has forced the Government to take these steps. Otherwise, the unemployment problem will deteriorate; the present prosperity will be jeopardised: and the Government's Second Five-Year Plan will be killed in the bud. However, Sir, in dealing with this problem, which is rather a delicate one, the Government should take care to see that the feeling of the masses over the other side of the Causeway will not be hurt too much. We should always show our sympathy, not only sympathy but also give spiritual strength and encouragement to them. We must see that our actions do not endanger the traditional friendship between the peoples of the two countries, especially their high esteem towards us. Mr Speaker, Sir, the next thing I wish to mention is the introduction of the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill which repeals the unsatisfactory practice of the former Central Government. The people in general, and the fair sex in particular, must rejoice at this offer of the Government. One of the signs by which the extent of development of a country is judged is the percentage of women employees in the total working force. It is true that the more women are engaged in nation building, the more advanced the country is. As a matter of fact, there are very few jobs which cannot be handled by women with equal efficiency as compared with men, in fact, Sir, there are many jobs which are monopolised by them. Therefore, it will be a great loss for the nation if the fair sex confine themselves to their kitchens. Sir, when I say "fair sex", I mean the fair sexes of all races - Chinese, Malays, Indians and so on. And the best way to encourage them to contribute their share in nation-building is to let their incomes be assessed separately from their husbands. It is also wise for the Government to re-impose the upper tax of 55 per cent on personal incomes of $100,000 or more, on the principle that the heavier burden of taxation should be borne by those best able to hear it. This is a principle to bring about a more just and equal society. Another point I wish to touch on is education. The present Government's education policy is to promote the four streams of languages. The estimated expenditure allotted to education next year amounts to $129 million out of the total expenditure estimate of $506 million. In other words, it is about one-quarter of the total expenditure. Besides, there is a sum of $28 million for development purposes of the Ministry. The fact that education consumes the greatest part of our revenue is our tradition, a tradition treasured by a responsible government. In some countries of the world today, the greatest part of the government's revenue goes to buying and producing arms and ammunition and the maintenance of strong armed forces. In this respect, we are considered lucky, for we have a government which spends more money on building more schools and training more teachers. Sir, in a nation like ours, where the social structure is a multi-racial one, education has a more important part to play. It is in the schools where our younger generation learn to live with one another irrespective of race, colour, language and creed. It is in the schools where they learn to create a multi-racial society. Considering this sacred task of nation-building burdened by our education programme, it is more than justified for the Government to put such a big amount of public funds at the disposal of the Minister for Education. Sir, incidentally, I recall the Government's intention to introduce a new measure on the study of a second language. It is decided that the study of a second language, other than the medium of instruction, will be made compulsory in all secondary schools, and instruction will begin with Secondary I in 1966. I can foresee the day when there is no language barrier between the component races of our society. Making our younger generation well versed in at least two languages is the most practical and surest way to ensure the successful creation of a multi-racial society. Mr Speaker, Sir, the last, but not the least important point I want to touch on is the problem of defence and security of our country. As all of us know, all the good things now in our possession and those which are expected in future are only real and true within the framework of peace and order. This is why we have been relying on British forces for the safety of our lives and property. All the world, except Indonesia and the pro-communist Barisan Sosialis, has not denied us the right to survive and the right to protect ourselves. But as an independent non-aligned nation, we cannot justify ourselves if we keep British forces on our territory forever, not to mention that the British Government might take the initiative to withdraw its bases one day due to financial difficulties or other reasons. Therefore, we must look ahead to the day when we have to rely on ourselves. It is high time for us to prepare and to start doing something. Sir, that is why the Government decides to spend about $70 million on security and defence. Compared with our contribution to the former Malaysian Central Government for their expenditure on our security and defence, which is 40 per cent of our State revenue, we spend much less now. We must establish and keep small armed forces strong enough for defence purpose. We never want to, and can never, invade other countries. We want to be friendly with all countries, East and West. But we do not want to be molested. Although we are a small nation, we will show the world that we want to be left alone. The Government should take pains to explain to our people our position. We must not underestimate the influence of the traditional attitude towards enlistment, especially among the Chinese community. We must also not expect ordinary people to understand the details of the Government statement published in the local Press. More publicity, especially direct contacts between Government leaders and the people, are required to arouse the interest of our people in joining the Volunteer Army Forces. Sir, a small State like ours, to maintain social order and internal security, is no less important than keeping out aggressors. Singapore shares the common problem that all cosmopolitan cities in the world face. We have to fight social evils and crime which find their hot-bed in heavily populated cities. We are fortunate enough to have a very efficient police force. The number of secret society incidents has rapidly decreased since 1959. This is a clear reflection on the effectiveness of our police force. Sir, our police force has also a duty to check and curb subversive activities of a political, racial, or religious nature. In view of the wide range and large amount of work they have to do, the Government is expanding the size of the police force. The two riots that happened last year would not have been handled by unpopular and violent armed forces had we had our own police force strong enough to cope with the situation. Sir, this is also a painful lesson - that we must trust nobody but ourselves in case of emergency. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to call upon this House to give full approval of the 1966 Budget which has been well received by the public since its presentation. Sir, the whole nation has expressed its confidence in entrusting its future to the hands of the People's Action Party Government. And I am sure, if nothing goes wrong with the behaviour of the civil servants in serving the people efficiently and cordially, then the bringing about of a more just and equal multi-racial society will be realised sooner than we expected. 4.28 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as has already been pointed out by my colleague, the Minister for Finance, in his Budget speech, expenditure on social services has been on the increase every year. For education and health services, for example, there has been a ten per cent increase in expenditure this year over that of last year, and the 1966 Budget provides for a similar order of increase next year. This is, of course, as it should be, for the continuing improvement and expansion of social services is in accordance with the declared socialist aim of the Government to provide more of the amenities of life for the people as part of the general objective of bringing about a more just and equal society. In the field of social welfare, where the needs of the handicapped and underprivileged of our society are catered for, as distinct from the needs of the people generally, there has been a constant endeavour not only to maintain the existing level and standard of the services provided, but also to improve and expand. With the coming into operation this year of the Woodlands Home for old people, which has a maximum capacity of 500, the Social Welfare Department now runs a total of 12 welfare institutions, which between them provide care and shelter for all age groups, from boys and girls of school-going age to the aged and infirm. To provide for future needs, plans have been formulated for two new Old People's Homes on the same lines as the Woodlands Home, and a Junior Approved School for boys. The Junior Approved School will provide training and rehabilitation facilities on up-to-date lines for boys below the age of 13 (the present Gimson School provides for boys above 13), and will have accommodation for 80 boys. In addition, there are plans to build extensions to an existing Girls' Home and a Boys' Home in order to increase the accommodation and improve the facilities available. While on the Social Welfare Department, I should like to draw attention to the fact that the 1966 provision for the Public Assistance Scheme, which provides financial relief for the unemployed among our citizens ($9.6 million) shows a welcome reduction as compared with this year's provision of $10 million. This is, indeed, a healthy sign, a clear indication that despite Indonesian confrontation our unemployment problem has been kept under control. Hon. Members would have read in the Press about the public display that was given by the Singapore Fire Brigade at Empress Place recently. It was the first display of its kind in the history of Singapore, and gave the people a heartening assurance of the efficiency and quality of the Fire Brigade. In particular, I should like to mention the two latest items of equipment which have been acquired by the Fire Brigade and both of which were demonstrated in the display: a new "Snorkel" Fire Engine, which is the latest development in fire fighting and particularly adapted for fire fighting and rescue work among high buildings, and the Foam Cannon, which has been specially designed for dealing with oil fires. There are also expansion plans for the Fire Brigade. Work is expected to start next year on a new $2.5 million Fire Station to serve the new satellite town that is coming up in Toa Payoh, and plans have been formulated for yet another Fire Station to serve the Jurong industrial complex. With the completion of these two projects during the next five years, Singapore will have a total of seven fire stations located strategically on a regional basis to provide protection against the hazards of fire, which must grow in a rapidly developing society like ours. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has not, however, forgotten that our progressive and hard-working population also needs recreational facilities for their leisure hours. The new Faber Scenic Park, which was officially opened last year, and the latest Raffles Park Garden-cum-Car Park, which was recently opened by the Prime Minister, have already proved to be Singapore's favourite resorts during the evenings and on public holidays. It is my Ministry's intention to continue to increase and improve these recreational facilities. A programme of improvements has already been put in hand to enhance and beautify the existing facilities at the Botanic Gardens, including the building of an ornamental bridge across the Lake, and there are plans to extend the Faber Scenic Park to the adjacent land and hill, to clean up and beautify the very popular beach resort at Nicoll Drive, and to provide more children's playgrounds especially in the densely populated areas of the city environments. As the Minister in charge of sport, I should like to refer to the Government's plan to build an up-to-date sports complex including a National Sports Stadium of Olympic standards at Kallang. This is a major project which, when completed, will give a tremendous boost to the promotion of sport in Singapore and will help to put Singapore in the forefront in the field of international sport. The basic objectives and policies of the Ministry of Culture, which have been geared to the long-term needs, hopes and aspirations of our people in a multi-racial society, have not required any radical reappraisal after separation and independence. The continual policy of preserving the basic elements of our four different cultural streams and accentuating those facets of our heritage that will ensure national unity, still stands. This policy can be instrumental not only in building an abiding multi-racial society with built-in constitutional safe-guards for minority groups, but can also serve as a bridge of amity between our people and the people of Malaysia who are traditionally one people. In general, as in the past, the total effect of the various divisions of the Ministry of Culture will be, on the one hand, to provide the people of Singapore and friendly peoples in other parts of the world with essential information on the nation's policies and activities, and on the other, to guide and sustain our people in their cultural, artistic, intellectual and other pursuits. In the context of multi-lingualism and multi-culturalism, Radio and Television Singapura will go on informing, educating and entertaining our people, and in conformity with the Government and people's four equal-language policy, daily news casts are being transmitted over radio and television. Such a practice not only benefits the most number of people but also reinforces the superstructure of our multi-racial society. Hence, the practice also of juxtaposing Malay, Chinese, Tamil and English programmes over television. Thus, over a period of time, we expect powerfully to demonstrate the virtues of multi-racialism, multi-lingualism and multi-culturalism and, at the same time, the futility of the one-language, one-race and one-culture doctrine. The completion of the new Television Building and Studios in the middle of 1966 will result in more viewing hours for our people. Also the quality of programmes can be stepped up and improved. Television time over both channels will increase. Mr Speaker, Sir, while on this subject, I gather that some of our viewers are annoyed with the hard selling of merchandise over television at the most exciting times of the best programmes. Scientific research into human nature has revealed to advertisers these periods as being the most effective on the sub-conscious minds of even those who are apparently unhappy. The net result is more money from this source of revenue and a lessening of the burden on the taxpayer for the essential broadcasting services and the possibility of buying better programmes. This practice is now universal, and besides being a dollar earner, advertising stimulates economic activity in the State. In 1965 a gross return of $4.3 million is expected from the Commercial Service, which represents 53 per cent of the recurrent expenditure for the broadcasting service. With more time over television from the latter part of next year, the income will no doubt increase when consideration can be given to having less frequent commercials in any particular programme. In a State where about half a million children are at school, the value of educational television cannot be over-emphasised. This is now in the planning stage and in 1966 a pilot scheme is expected to come into operation. Last but by no means least, in the light of independence, external publicity has become a "must". Through our external short-wave networks and through other media of publicity, including our missions abroad, our situation, ideology and reaction to world affairs can be made known to our friends in Afro-Asia and elsewhere. The acceptance of Malay as our national language since 1959 was and is based on multi-racial logic, political acumen and common sense. Internally, a national language can serve several purposes. It can effectively weld the various communities into a compact national unity. Malays, Chinese, Indians, and others can think of themselves as part of one people who speak a common national language. Other advantages also accrue from a common language. Through our language policy, most of our younger generation will be in the fortunate position of being bi-lingual or even tri-lingual. Their horizon being broadened, they will be able to pick up the best from the literary and technical literature of these languages. While accepting Malay as the national language, our people are exhorted to study their mother tongue as well. Language liberalism, as practised by us, will make for greater national progress in the long run. A national proficient in several languages will he able to pick the best from the wisdom and knowledge in the literature of the other languages. Apart from regular lessons over radio and television, National Language Months were held in 1965. The first, in June 1965, generated a great deal of enthusiasm among all sectors of the population, as evinced by the wide range of activities that took place. The second National Language Month, which was recently concluded, again created a great impact on our people. The underlying aim is to spread the use of the national language at all nation-wide levels. It is the Government's wish that employers in the private sector provide facilities and inducements to their employees to study the national language. The Government will continue the same policy in 1966 with promise of more varied and more meaningful language activities in the coming year. Mr Speaker, Sir, increasing importance is being attached to the National Museum now that we are a sovereign and independent nation. As the repository of our cultural heritage, it has been a constant centre of attraction to our own people as well as to visitors. Its modernisation is already under way. In the endeavour to stimulate cultural activities, funds are being secured for the coming year. In conjunction with civic organisations, the production of artistic work by local people has been given a fillip. A great number of art exhibitions and other cultural activities highlight the year 1965. The Government encourages new modes of expression to impart identity to our new nation. The National Theatre Trust is empowered by legislation as an agency for promoting cultural activities. It is actively engaged in planning a wider range of activities for the coming year. The Ministry of Culture has endeavoured to fulfil the major cultural needs of the people. More remains to be done in the coming year, and the indication is that 1966 will see a greater flowering in the artistic, intellectual and cultural activities in our State. A multi-racial society inevitably poses a greater variety of problems than a homogeneous one. Solutions to them are many - some are crabbed while others are downright stupid. Our solution based on a multi-racial rationale cannot be wrong. Our aim is to make our approach humane, just, practical and acceptable. This is necessarily a difficult and long-term task, and constructive criticisms and suggestions are always welcome. 4.42 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in discussing our financial budget for next year, we are discussing the gigantic plan of economic development of an emerging country. Our heart is filled with joy and new hope. We have sufficient determination jointly to shoulder the heavy task of economic construction of our country. Today what gives us regret is that the Barisan Sosialis Opposition are not shouldering their responsibility, but instead adopt a passive attitude of total disregard for the people - boycotting the Parliament. And when our newly emerging country is marching a step forward, they are trying to sabotage the progress of our country. The objective of the Barisan Sosialis is to destroy. All along they have been adopting the attitude of disruption of national unity, disrupting the construction of the country, and destroying the national economy. They are harbouring the thought of turning Singapore topsy-turvy so that they can realise their dream of building an ideal country from the debris of Singapore. Today, because of their boycott, we must solemnly point out their mistakes and mischievous activities. Undoubtedly they should give responsible constructive criticism, but they are not doing so. Instead they have engaged themselves in destroying and sabotaging our economic development and national interests. Their action is most incomprehensible. As an independent and emerging country, we look forward to a peaceful struggle in order to achieve victory, but our hope for peace is not less than any other country's. For the sake of preserving our national security and defence and the rights and interests of the people, we have to strengthen our defence. This is a necessary safeguard for our independence and security. As an independent democratic peace-loving country, our Budget is full of such spirit. From the figures of revenue and expenditure, both total about $500 million. Education will incur $129 million for next year, which is $16 million more than that of the previous year. Of the $275 million for the Development Estimates, the Ministry of Law and National Development gets 50 per cent of the expenditure. I point out these figures in order to stress a characteristic of the whole Budget. In other words, the characteristic of the whole Budget reflects the Government's hope of progress, peace and construction. They are important factors in our march towards peace, democracy and progress. In the beginning of 1966, there will be a new Five-Year Development Plan in order to implement a multi-racial society in which there is economic development and prosperity. In the first Five-Year Development Plan, the Government has already expended $192 million and built 51,000 units of low-cost houses, to provide accommodation for one-quarter of our population. The Housing Board will in the next Five-Year Plan build 12,000 units of low-cost houses yearly. It is expected that by the end of the Five-Year Plan, 60,000 units of houses and shop-houses will have been built, and that there will be reclamation of marshes and beaches and urban renewal. There will be P.W.D. development and other construction plans. What I like to stress is that these gigantic long-term construction plans have all been stipulated in our Budget in order that we may carry them out orderly and that the planning can be done in the first year with a good start. This is a long-term plan and not on a year-to-year basis. And we want to start right from the correct perspective. Our stand is very clear. The Development Estimates touch on reclamation of the sea. If there is a saying that God created the sea and the Dutch created the land, then we can change it into that God created the sea but the people of Singapore created the land. This is the right time for us to do so. There are many examples in our Budget to show that there has not been any miscalculation or wasting of money. It is a Budget in which every single cent is scrupulously used for the benefit of the people. For instance, the American Defence Budget for 1966, according to the United Press Agency, will increase to U.S.$6l,000 million. Of course, this is the result of direct American intervention in the Vietnamese war. Of course, I am not criticising or comparing the American Budget with our Budget. I am only mentioning it as an interesting contrast. From this, you can see that the total Budget for 1966 for Singapore is, in actual fact, one part out of 366 of America's Defence Budget. Now what is the percentage? The other point is that America is considering spending $10,000 million every year on South Vietnam, mainly on military aid. One-sixtieth part of it will be enough for Singapore's development construction for one year. I want to say that if the ultra adventurists or racialist ultra elements want to destroy Singapore's economic construction and system in order to turn Singapore into a hot-bed of war, and if they succeed, then we will not be able to discuss the Budget. I have said that there is no wasting of money as shown in the Budget. Speaking from the construction aspect, every cent has been well spent, except that $500 allowance for the Barisan Members. They want to get the allowance without being willing to do the same amount of work, to shoulder their responsibilities for the people. If the Minister for Finance wants to suggest a cut in their allowance, then, on behalf of the people of Jalan Besar, I fully support him should he wish to make some adjustment in this respect.

I think it is a convenient time to take the tea break. I shall suspend and resume the Chair at 5.25 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.52 p.m, until 5.25 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.25 p.m.

Debate resumed. Question again proposed.

(In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, our Finance Minister has ably and in a straightforward manner presented his Budget to this House. The Government for this year has exempted industrialists from paying the necessary taxes. In considering the welfare of the workers, the Government should ensure fair wages. If Government does not do that, productivity will go down. Increasing productivity is important to us; then only can prices be kept down and exports encouraged. The Minister for Finance will have to pay particular attention to this. Otherwise, subversive elements will influence workers to go on to the wrong path. Then there will be trouble in the State. So we have to pay attention to this. The Minister for Finance in his Budget has also ably set out arguments against back-dating. But civil servants and workers in Government have their own unions. If talks with them are prolonged, and when decisions are finally reached but the agreement is not to be back-dated, then what is the reason for it? Is that the mistake of the unions or the Government? We must examine this question thoroughly. When the unions submit certain proposals, the officials concerned prolong the discussion. Therefore, the Government are responsible. They should not blame the unions. They like to implement it from the date on which the agreement is signed. They should look into this. When talks are to be held, the Government should accelerate them and try to find decisions quickly. If we do it this way, then the unions will not be frustrated. They will then be prepared to co-operate with the Government and do their work properly. I would therefore like to ask the Minister to pay attention to it. If we make concessions to the unions, they will co-operate with us, will act responsibly and will continue to assist us. So the Minister should find ways and means of doing this. 5.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I expect our new Finance Minister to present to this House a deficit budget instead of a surplus budget, for a surplus budget indicates a pedantic luxury. However, the Finance Minister's Budget speech does reflect the Government's determination to put our economy on a sound footing. I am pleased to note that the Finance Minister has not let us down. The nation has full confidence in his ability, and the allotment to development programme as well as housing and social services indicates his appreciation of the gravity of the situation and also the immediate necessity to raise the standard of living of the people by adding more positive points to the economy. But my appreciation need not necessarily mean that I fully subscribe to the ideas contained in every aspect of this budget, as well as the policy behind it. It is extremely difficult and physically not possible to go through the entire budget with a tooth-comb and offer constructive criticisms and suggestions. Nevertheless, I shall make an attempt to analyse the budget from the point of view of the workers who have to contribute the lion's share towards the successful implementation of the development programmes of our democratic socialist Government. A look at the budget tends to create a feeling of appreciation and apprehension. Regarding our industrialisation programme, the Finance Minister appeared to be highly optimistic about our market prospects in Western countries, which, according to the Minister's calculations, are likely to provide outlets for our manufactures. While congratulating the Minister on striking a note of optimism, I am afraid I cannot share his views with regard to our markets. I wonder whether he has been fully briefed on the difficulties to be encountered while gearing our industrialisation projects to these overseas markets. I am not for a moment being pessimistic or cynical, but I will be failing in my duty if at this juncture I do not pin-point for the Government the drawbacks and the pitfalls. First of all, we have to make sure that these industrialised nations would be prepared to provide us with a share of their local markets. Further, even if for argument's sake we agree that we are assured of a certain percentage of their markets, the Minister should remember that it introduces a new economic variable, The fluctuations in the markets of these countries are bound to have repercussions in our industrialisation programme, and hence the ups and downs in the foreign markets would create jolts and jerks in our economy. Since these industrialised nations might, or might not, provide us with an expanded market in the long run, it would be advisable for our officials in the Economic Development Board to study the markets in these countries, the fluctuations, the prospects for Singapore to enter these markets, the short-run and the long-run effects, the type of products which could successfully compete with others in the long run etc., etc. Diversification in markets as well as products has to be made instead of having all eggs in one basket. Unless a proper study is made, all our dreams of our economic prosperity and a solution of our unemployment problem are bound to remain in Utopia. An assurance of a certain percentage of the markets of industrialised countries is unlikely to provide a long-term solution to our industrialisation programme. The expansion of our pioneer industries essentially depends on a proportionate expansion of our markets abroad. Hence, if these overseas nations who might be willing at this juncture to render us a helping hand by allowing or permitting us to gain access to their markets at the initial stage refuse to allow us to make further inroads into their market, the expansion of industries in Singapore would become a remote possibility, resulting in a stagnation in our economy. Thus our industrialisation programme and a solution to our growing unemployed would not become possible in the long run if we geared our economic policies to temporary solutions, without taking into account the possible impact in the long run. Further, a change in the political situation in South-East Asia and in the strategy of these nations in this part of the globe might necessitate a re-orientation in their economic policies towards Singapore, which in turn might not be very conducive to our industrialisation programme. Thus I do not think the Finance Minister's statement with regard to our economic emancipation is likely to be of much practical value to this nation, unless he is prepared to think in terms of the shortcomings, the obstacles, which might crop up now and again. In order to attract foreign entrepreneurs and foreign capital, and with a view to creating a climate for foreign capital, the Government has not only provided tax free holidays or pioneer status to industries but also promised to write oil the capital in a matter of few years through the provision for heavy depreciation. While reserving my comments with regard to this policy, I wonder whether the Honourable Minister has at any time or moment considered the measures essential to see that the huge profits are not drained off from the economy. If the return to capital is diverted to foreign countries, there will he no reinvestment on expansion of industries. For the sake of industrial expansion, the excess of profits should be siphoned off and ploughed back into the economy in the form of additional investment. Even though the Finance Minister stressed his plans to create a climate for initial investment, it looks as though he has not given much credence or thought to the idea of the second round of expansion. It would he interesting to know whether the Government has anything up its sleeve to make sure that after laying golden eggs, the hen does not carry them back overseas. Since the Government does not supply us with relevant figures for Singapore, I can safely assume, as in the case of Malaysia, that the amount of profits that has been remitted overseas during the past five years from Singapore has far exceeded foreign investments in this country. If that is the case, I am afraid the industrialisation programme might not receive an enthusiastic and unqualified support from the population. I also understand that wage restraint is the corner-stone of the Government's industrialisation programme. The workers will be only too pleased to make any legitimate sacrifices provided it would put our economy on a sound footing. Further, the working class should be assured that they are not exploited in order to fatten the coffers of a handful of unscrupulous entrepreneurs. It appears to me that wage restraint is a meaningless empty slogan which is very often used and abused to make one class in the economy alone shoulder heavy burdens, inconsistent with a welfare State. Low wages need not necessarily mean low wage cost per unit of production. In other words, keeping the wages low need not necessarily reduce the cost of production or help in any other objective of our industrialisation programme. High technical efficiency coupled with skilled managerial personnel would more effectively lower the cost of production than cheap labour. The United States products, for instance, are successfully able to compete in the continental markets even though the wages of an average U.S. labourer is much higher than that of the labourer on the continent. Thus proper training for skilled labour and specialisation would more surely canalise our industrialisation in the right direction than exploitation of labour. Further, below standard wages would adversely affect the morale and efficiency of industrial labour especially when there is a set pattern in Singapore due to the efficient and effective role of the trade union movement. Hence we cannot and we refuse to accept any suggestion that cheap labour is essential to promote industrialisation in our country. Let this Socialist Government think more in terms of reducing wage cost per unit of production through promotion of skill, specialisation and other economies of production instead of repeating the slogans that prevailed in a Gladstonian economy. Sir, it is heartening to note that the Government intends to spend on education $129.2 million for the year 1966. It is quite true that we should not consider any investment in human capital a wastage. Our higher institutes of learning, like the University of Singapore, the Singapore Polytechnic and Nanyang University, have to provide the necessary manpower to make our industrialisation programme a success. In this connection, our Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that Singapore should produce more men of science and technocrats. But I am afraid that when, on the one hand, the Prime Minister frequently stresses the necessity to produce more scientists and technicians, his Government officials (I heard the Minister for Culture talk about his expansion programme just now) on the other hand do not know how to make full use of our Science graduates from the Universities. Thus you have a sad and sorry spectacle of an Honours graduate, who has specialised in Nuclear physics, being attached to the Ministry of Culture. I do not think the Ministry of Culture has any intention of manufacturing atomic bombs even though it is a pleasure to see that the message carried by the Mirror, the official organ of the Ministry, continues to radiate its powerful message throughout Singapore and Malaysia. I understand that there are two more Science Honours graduates, one specialising in Chemistry and the other in nuclear physics, attached to the People's Association! If I am not mistaken, the investment in a Science graduate is approximately three times that of an Arts graduate. And if we cannot tap their talents and are only in a position to assign them jobs which any Arts graduate can do, then I think it would be more economic to close down the Science Departments and concentrate on Arts graduates! Otherwise, the Government should necessarily make use of these men of science in an efficient and effective manner so that their assistance will be available for our industrialisation programme. Our education policy should necessarily be tailored to meet requirements for industrialisation. We should make sure that the manpower available is utilised in a manner where they can give their best. There should be more co-ordination not only in policy matters but also in their implementation. Otherwise we will be faced with a situation where doctors and engineers will be attached to the Ministry of Law, scientists in the People's Association and Ministry of Culture, lawyers in charge of boiler plants, and philosophers at the helm of the Economic Development Board. It is high time our Ministers woke up from their slumbers and do the needful. A casual glance at the funds allocated to the Ministries for 1966 does indeed convince me that the expenditure in the public sector is quite substantial and that, as far as possible, no undue and unnecessary commitments should be taken up during the course of the coming year. But it need not necessarily mean that the Government should not honour its pledge to its employees and treat them with contempt the agreement solemnly entered into with its employees who are members of the Public Daily Rated Employees' Federation. I understand from the Budget speech and the provisions made for different categories under the Ministries and the Honourable Minister's reply to the Member for Telok Blangah that the Government has no intention to honour an agreement which was entered into the year 1961. Our Minister for Finance has also quoted F. C. Benham. But F. C. Benham has nowhere stated that the Government as an employer can always toy with the idea of going back on an agreement which it agreed to implement. No economist, as a matter of fact, no human being with an iota of common sense and fair play, would support a breach of contract. Today, the Minister has gone to the extent of suggesting that at no time would the Government be prepared to revise the emoluments of its employees in such a manner that it would involve additional commitments in the form of back pay. I quite appreciate the Minister's capacity and capability in side-tracking the issue with regard to the Government's agreement with the P.D.R.E.U. He conveniently forgot to inform the House that when an agreement was signed in 1961 with the P.D.R.E.U. it was `current pay' and not `back pay'. But the terms of this agreement were not implemented by the Government up to now. Hence today in 1965 it has become `back pay'. If the Government had implemented it after the agreement signed in 1961, then there would be no back pay. But the agreement was not implemented by the Government up to now. Why should the workers -

On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir.

If the Member will give way. Mr Ho See Beng resumed his seat.

Several Members have mentioned that there has been no implementation of the agreement. I was the Finance Minister at that time, and I say that that agreement has been fully implemented in so far as the revision of wages is concerned. There have been wage adjustments in several categories of the daily-rated workers in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. But the union, for some reason quite unknown to me, was of the opinion and apparently is still of the opinion that everyone should have an increase. There was no such recommendation by the Commission of Inquiry. That being the case, the union has no case whatsoever for asking for increases in pay, and therefore the question of back-pay does not arise.

Mr Speaker, Sir, after the Agreement of 1961 was signed, there was no revision of salary. Only on the integration of the City Council into Government, they brought up the wage -

Order. I knew the hon. Member was going to get into trouble. He is embarking on a debate on this particular agreement. We are now on the financial policy of the Government. I allowed him to touch on this, because it had some connection with the financial policy of the Government. But if he is going to embark on a debate on whether the agreement has been implemented or not, then he is out of order.

After the Government acknowledged the 1961 collective agreement and the recommendations of the subsequent Inquiry Commission, the Minister appeared before the House the other day and declared, in unequivocal terms, that the Government has no intention to honour its agreement. The Minister has made a very poor case to justify a breach of contract. In order to justify this undemocratic action, he has quoted Benham which is quite irrelevant in this particular case. If Government as an employer can afford to ignore the terms of a collective agreement, it will not be a surprise to me if the private sector too follow the footsteps of the Government and scrap collective agreements with their respective unions. Then the N.T.U.C. will not be in a position to champion the cause of its workers and bring the employers to book, especially when the Government has set an example to the employers. I wish the Minister, instead of devoting his time to Benham, could afford to spend a few hours in going through the terms and conditions of service enshrined in the collective agreements entered into between the N.T.U.C. affiliates and the respective employers. Perhaps that will provide him with the necessary candle-power for enlightenment instead of irrelevant passages from Benham. Perhaps it will be quite appropriate to quote another passage from Benham which I hope will open the eyes of our Finance Minister who appears to have a great appreciation of Benham. Mr F. C. Benham in his report on revision of salaries in the public service states: `... the total remuneration and conditions of service of government employment should compare favourably with the net advantages of private employment. They should compare sufficiently favourably to maintain the standing of government as a good employer...' Sir, this is a Report on the Revision of Salaries by Mr F. C. Benham. Since Mr Benham is a good friend of our Finance Minister, we insist that the Government should serve as a good employer, and that it should compare favourably with the private sector. I hope the Minister will follow in the footsteps of the private sector which, by and large, does not believe in "breach of contract". Most of the employers in Singapore at least honour the terms of a collective agreement. Will the Minister, who conscientiously attempts to identify himself with Benham, agree to honour the 1961 collective agreement and the recommendations of the subsequent Commission of Inquiry? Or will he at least agree with Mr Benham that the Government should be a good employer and hence consider itself obliged to honour the collective agreement? If it tears off collective agreements in this fashion, then the daily-rated employees are likely to lose faith in any assurance given by the Government, and this development is definitely not going to promote healthy employer-employee relations between the Government and its employees. I hope, at this late hour, that wisdom will prevail and that necessary additional provisions will be made in the Budget to accommodate justice, so that when Government representatives attest their signatures to any collective agreement, it does carry weight. Finally, I have only to add that the first Budget of an independent Singapore does present a rosy picture. Nevertheless, it is like a ship which is sailing against the current and weather, and through seas which are never calm. It must survive the changing conditions of each day, yet navigate nearer the chosen journey's end. The Finance Minister has made a good start, and I hope he will take us to the `high sea to progress'.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was enjoying myself listening to the Back-benchers until the Member for Bras Basah stood up and woke me up from my pleasant dream. Mr Speaker, Sir, Budget time is Opposition time, and normally a responsible Opposition should take the opportunity to examine critically the fiscal policies of the Government for the corning year, and where they defer, to make their opinions known, and, if possible, help to formulate policies which will lead us to prosperity. But today and during the last few days, we see empty benches in front of us. And here I entirely agree with the Member for Delta that the people of Singapore will not and should not forget the dereliction of duty shown by a most irresponsible lot of Members of the opposite Bench. Many reasons have been given as to why the Opposition have chickened from the open debate. One reason is probably that during the last few years, they have lost out in the open debate. They have clearly shown their colours; they have shown that they never had the interests of the people of Singapore at heart and that they are not loyal to this country. Their absence here during the first Parliament of an independent Singapore in which important policies are being debated is an added testimony to the fact that they have never had the interest of the people of Singapore at heart. There are some other reasons too, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I would only expand on one which reminds me the story of a fox which has lost its tail. The story goes that the fox was trapped and after a great deal of struggle, he managed to escape, but left his tail behind, as a result of which other foxes made fun of him. One day he had a bright idea. He called all the foxes together and told them that a tail was not a nice thing to have, that it was a dangerous thing to have, that it was difficult to keep it clean and that therefore all of them should have their tails off. A number of them were persuaded, but up rose a bright young fox who said, "Will you, Sir, turn round and let us see?" That was the end of the scheme. And so it is with the Barisan. Their leader, having lost his seat in the Assembly, is now persuading the other Members that the Assembly is not a useful adjunct to the democratic way of government. Whether there will be a body as intelligent as the bright young fox among the Barisan, only time will tell, and, Mr Speaker, Sir, fortunately I am saved the embarrassment of a monologue on the Budget by our Back-benchers who have bravely stepped into the breach. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am wondering whether it would be possible for you to divide the emoluments that are due to the Members opposite, who have disgracefully absented themselves here, among the Government Back-benchers for carrying out their work. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is time for me now to summarise some of the opinions and views expressed by the Back-benchers on the Government side. I am glad that they have shown a great deal of interest and have taken time to look through the Budget. The absence of the Barisan Sosialis here does not make any difference at all to the Budget debate because, from past experience, nothing constructive has ever come from their side: they are not constructive people, they are destructive, and the opinions that they have offered here are most sterile. First, I will take up the suggestion of the Member for Punggol with regard to export credit. I do not know whether Members are aware that at least during tile last few months, the Economic Development Board have been assisting exporters in financing the purchase of raw materials for goods ordered and to he exported abroad. The suggestion made is a good one, and we are now studying the various schemes in different countries to see in what way they can he adopted here. I am also glad, Mr Speaker, Sir, that in putting forward this suggestion, the Member for Punggol is also aware of the abuses that may arise. Also there are certain factors existing among our neighbouring countries which make it quite difficult for us to implement some export credit or insurance scheme. I am referring to the instability of the currency in some of our neighbouring countries, but whatever it is, I have already asked for an exhaustive examination into all the problems which must be resolved before our export trade can be substantially increased. Now, what is uppermost in the minds of the trade union Members on our Back Benches is the problem of back-pay. I would like to remind Members that I have already gone into the reasons why it is not possible for Government to encourage back-pay. My friend the Member for Bras Basah has accused me of being irrelevant for quoting Benham. But I am wondering whether he will agree if I, as the Minister for Finance, back-date revenue increases and ask him for back-payment on his income tax, because, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already made it clear that no government can carry out its work properly if, at any time, it can be presented with a bill for back-pay. It is not the intention of the Government to penalise the workers if delay in coming to an agreement is the responsibility of the Government. Mention was made that delay in coming to an agreement on any wage claim is always the fault of the Government. It is not always so, because trade unions are known also to adopt delaying tactics. I would like to inform the House that as recently as about a fortnight ago, the Arbitration Court handed down an award to the postal workers, and it was back-dated to about nine or ten months from the day of the award. Therefore, as I have said, we do not want to encourage the payment of back-pay, but, at the same time, if we find that there is justification for it, the Government will always be reasonable. Now I come to the Member for Bras Basah who has accused the Government of not honouring its agreement with the daily-rated workers. I do not know whether it is due to a lapse of memory on his part, or because it is just to embarrass the Government that he has made his accusation, because I have here before me an extract of the record of the minutes of the meeting held on 27th July, 1965, with the Prime Minister, at which representatives of the Public Daily-Rated Unions Federation and the N.T.U.C. were present. I quote: `Claims for fresh revision of wages should be regarded as outside the scope of the Agreement of 1961 and the Union would be at liberty to submit fresh claims on revision of wages for negotiation after settlement of the other two issues: disciplinary and grievance procedures and job evaluation exercise of ten outstanding grades involving about 300 odd employees. In the event of failure to reach agreement in the negotiation, consideration would be given for the claims to be referred to arbitration.' This, Mr Speaker, shows that all outstanding issues have been resolved, and there is an agreement that any fresh claims would be looked into after disciplinary and grievance procedures and job evaluation exercise have taken place. Mr Speaker, while the Member for Bras Basah agrees with the Government's industrialisation programme, I think he does not look with favour upon what he calls "huge profits made by entrepreneurs". I am sure he is jumping the gun here, because we are just starting and I am not aware of any pioneer industries that have made huge profits. The Member went on to the second stage of expansion. We always take one step at a time, and this is where I think the trade unionists have a great responsibility, and that is, "Do not look optimistic about the profits that are to be made by manufacturers." The Member for Bras Basah has said that I am being optimistic in my estimate of markets abroad. I say that he is being optimistic in his estimate of profits to be made by manufacturers, because, as far as I know, none of the pioneer industries have paid dividends yet. As regards his fear that if and when these companies do pay dividends the profits will be remitted overseas, I think my predecessor has already informed this House last year that more than half of the investments in the pioneer industries are by local people; so there is no likelihood of remittances being sent abroad. Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said just now, the trade unionists have a great responsibility to shoulder in that if we are to secure overseas markets, whether we are guaranteed a certain percentage or not, the quality and price of our products must be competitive. And this is where our productivity comes in. I would suggest to the trade unionists among our Members here that this is not the time to look backwards but to look forwards and ensure that there is discipline on the Floor, discipline among the rank and file, and that the efficiency of our workers is such that our entrepreneurs will be able to compete, and compete successfully, in markets overseas.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Assembly approves the financial policy of the Government for the year 1966.

Order for Second Reading read. 6.14 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." There is a common saying among the Chinese masses which goes as follows: [The Minister read the quotation in Mandarin which he then translated into English as follows]: `Good men do not become soldiers; good iron does not go into making nails.' This popular Chinese saying originated among the Chinese folk. The reason for it is not far to seek. China's long history is interspersed with years of violence. Then, as the fortunes of imperial dynasties declined, ambitious men rose to contend for mastery over the empire. And it was the fate of the ordinary people to provide or to be press-ganged into military service for one or the other of the contending parties. It is not surprising, therefore, that military service is not popular when a soldier risks his life not for his country or for his people, but for the advantage of one contending group or another. Whoever wins, he loses. The position we are facing in Singapore today is completely different from that of dynastic struggles of former imperial China. Accordingly, the Chinese saying I have quoted becomes dangerous folly. Our army is to be engaged in the defence of our country and people against external aggression. Today we are unable to do this task by ourselves. It is no use pretending that without the British military forces in Singapore today, the island cannot be easily overrun within a matter of hours by any neighbouring country within a radius of 1,000 miles, if any of these countries care to do so. Everybody - and this includes the Barisan Sosialis - can see that at least one of our neighbouring countries does care to do so. The Barisan Sosialis hope that when this happens, they would be "top dogs", or rather I should say "top running dogs". So they hoped before 30th September this year! British military protection today has made quite a number of our citizens complacent about the need to conduct our own defence preparations. These people assume that this protection will be permanent. I regard it as the height of folly to plan our future on this assumption. And if there is any basis on which we, as an independent country, Column : 543 can plan our future, it will be on the opposite assumption, that is, the removal of the British military preserve at some time in the future. Nobody - neither we nor the British - can say when this will be. It may be 5, 10 or 15 years - maybe longer, maybe shorter. Whatever the time maybe, it will be useless then to think of building up our defence forces. The time to do so is now, and the Bill before the House provides for the establishment and maintenance of the Singapore Army. Sir, coming to the main provisions of the Bill. Part II provides for the establishment of the Army and its Reserve. Part III provides for the establishment of an Army Board, the Chairman and Members of which will be appointed by the Minister. The Board will be responsible for the overall administration and discipline of the Army. It is empowered, subject to appeal to the President, to vary the conditions of service to permit a soldier to extend the term of his commitment or be placed in the Reserve. It may also, with the approval of the President, vary the basis of persons to be enlisted in the Army. Part IV of the Bill deals with discipline and provides for punishable offences and due execution of the sentences imposed. Provision is also included for the convening of courts-martial and the appointment of a Judge Advocate - General. Part IV is applicable not only to the Army but also to the other Services, such as the Navy and the Air Force, if and when they are formed. Now the offences of mutiny and sedition in the Armed Forces are punishable with the maximum sentence of death. Those falsifying statements and documents shall receive a sentence of two years' imprisonment. In order that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts will not be interfered with, provision is included that a person who is subject to military law shall not ordinarily be tried by court-martial for offences such as treason and murder, unless the offender was at that time on active military service. Although a court-martial may try person subject to military law for any offence, provision is contained in clause 63, Column : 544 subclause (2) that the President shall have power to mitigate or remit any sentence passed by a court-martial. Clause 64 provides for the appointment by the President of a person in the legal or judicial service with not less than five years' service, or a person qualified under the Advocates and Solicitors' Ordinance with not less than five years' experience, as a Judge Advocate-General. The duties of a Judge Advocate-General shall include the appointment of a Judge Advocate at court-martial, and the tendering of advice to the Army Board on the validity of the findings and sentences of courts martial. Provision is included in Part V of the Bill for the commissioning and promotion of offices by the President, who is also empowered to cancel commissions. Provision is also included in this Part for the President to grant honourary commissions to suitable persons. The qualifications of persons for enlistment and conditions of discharge and transfer to the reserves are included in Part VI of the Bill. In brief, a person for enlistment must, among other things, satisfy the qualification of Singapore citizenship. The enlistment or commissioning of others on the recommendation of the Army Board is also provided for in clause 97. A soldier may be discharged on sentence by court-martial or by order from the President. Part VII includes general provisions like summoning of witnesses for courts-martial and the rules of evidence. The conduct of proceedings at courts-martial and the admission or rejection of evidence shall be subject to laws made by Parliament. Rules of evidence as adopted at proceedings at courts-martial are the same as those followed in civil courts in Singapore. Other provisions included in Part VII are of a routine nature. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak in support of the Singapore Army Bill introduced by the Hon.Minister of Defence. I am not going to touch on the Bill in detail, but I shall touch on matters of general policy. Column : 545 I must stress that the building up of a Singapore Army is an absolute necessity. We need to build an army to protect and defend our national integrity and sovereignty because we must always beware of the territorial ambitions of a hungry neighbour whose country is many times bigger than Singapore. Sir, it is because we are a small country that we must be prepared at all times to meet any emergency. There is an order in an army parade - that is, the order "On guard" is occasionally used to test the alertness of the soldiers when a parade is held. So this House will fully agree with me that we must be on guard at all times. Sir, as Singapore is a small multi-racial nation, I therefore think our army that is to be built should also be multi-racial in character. As I have just mentioned, Singapore is a small island nation. But the very fact that Singapore is a very prosperous nation in which her people are enjoying the highest standard of living in South-East Asia is amongst her bigger and stronger neighbours. This may, therefore, tempt her bigger and hungry neighbours to try to swallow us up, not only to rob us of our hard-earned wealth, but also of our homes and also with a view to enslaving us. Sir, I am sure you yourself would not like to be shackled nor put in chains. Further, I think all able young men who have the interests of our country at heart should choose army life as a career. They can be assured of an interesting and adventurous life in the army. In doing this, we will show to our neighbours that even though we are a small nation, yet we are not an easy prey for them. We have the determination to ensure our survival as an independent and sovereign nation. We mean to keep what we have built and achieved in the past six years, and also to chart a course in which an equal and more just, muiti-racial, multi-lingual, multi-religious and multi-cultural nation will emerge. Lastly, Sir, to those anti-national elements who think they can create trouble in our midst, I have this to say. I think the army is not going to lie or keep still Column : 546 while the interests and security of our country are threatened. The army, I am positive, will deal a strong blow at such elements. So, all in all, I strongly urge this House to give its fullest support to the Bill.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I rise to support this Bill because our nation needs a national defence based not only on equipment but also on people with the spirit of dedication, and a desire to have peace in the Republic of Singapore. Our Republic must be defended at all costs and by all means against our external and internal enemies. They intend to create trouble or invade our country. The responsiblity of the people of the Republic of Singapore is to defend their integrity to the last drop of their blood. Mr Speaker, not only do the Barisan Sosialis have no interest at all to defend the Republic of Singapore, but they intend to surrender our sovereignty to their foreign masters, like the Communist Party of Indonesia, with the fate of its leader, Aidit, still unknown. The Barisan Sosialis have acted in an irresponsible manner towards the country. I think there is a small responsiblity on the part of the Barisan Sosialis to carry, and yet they have failed to discharge it. When I say "small responsiblity", I mean voicing their arguments in parliamentary debate. What is more, Mr Speaker, we cannot depend on them to defend our country. If our country has no army, inevitably all our property, including that of Dato David Marshall, will be confiscated and plundered. If our enemies, like the army of the P.K.I., were to conquer the Republic of Singapore, there would be no more law or the right of property. Land and propery will be confiscated by our enemy without compensation at all. Dato David Marshall has expressed his anxiety for the right to own property which must be written into the constitution. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill will safeguard not only land belonging to Dato David Marshall but also the property of all the people of the Republic of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, we cannot always depend on our neighbour's soldiers to defend us, although our neighbour has given an assurance that it will help us. We must have second thoughts. Because of political developments, we fear that our country may be invaded by enemies. Our neighbour says that they will send their troops to defend us. Their troops are stationed in Perlis, Penang, Sarawak and Sabah. If we have to wait 24 hours for their arrival, our country will be saved. But if we have to wait for one week, our country wilI be destroyed, for when the reinforcements arrive. I think they will be of no use to us. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, the army of the Republic of Singapore must be strengthened so that we can defend our independent and sovereign State. Mr Speaker, Sir, this matter of defence is the bounden duty of all of us who owe our loyalty to the country. We have to defend not only our property but also to preserve international law and order. On that note, I end my speech. Mr Speaker, Sir. 6.36 p.m.

(In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Singapore Army Bill. With Singapore's independence, it becomes the responsibility of our citizens to defend the State. The British were responsible for our defence, and we had no need for an army of our own. But it is not desirable for us to depend on foreign forces all the time. When we were part of Malaysia, the Central Government bore the responsibility of defence. But after we were ejected, our defence has become our own problem. During the last world war, we had known what would happen to a country which depended on foreign forces for its defence. In December 1941, the Japanese bombed Singapore. Although there were 100,000 British troops here, the Japanese were able to capture this country in two months. And now, two neighbouring countries - Malaysia and Indonesia - are not maintaining the best of relations with us. Therefore, we should be alert to defend ourselves in all circumstances. When the Deputy Prime Minister spoke, he referred to the Three Kingdoms of China. We should not face such a situation. There were two racial riots in Singapore, and it is our responsibility to maintain peace so that there is no such repetition. There are subversive forces which would like to bring about confusion. They have not been eliminated. If we have sufficient security, we will be able to manage any situation. The defence of the nation and the maintenance of peace need our own army. That is why I praise the Minister who has tabled the Singapore Army Bill. There are forces like the Barisan Sosialis who propagate that the people of Singapore should not join their own army. When we were part of Malaysia, when people were being enrolled in the security forces, the Barisan Sosialis came out in opposition. At that time, the reason they gave was that such an army was being raised to fight Indonesia. Then they were in favour of Indonesia. At the same time, the Indonesian Army sent its agents into Malaysia and Singapore to carry out subversion and sabotage. When Indonesia sought volunteers for West Irian, the Barisan Sosialis sent their friends secretly to Indonesia for training. After 30th September, there were big clashes in Indonesia between the Communists and the Army, and the Barisan Members are now in a state of hopeless confusion. They are issuing statements asking the Indonesian Army not to strike or work against the Indonesian Chinese and the Peking regime. But the Indonesian Army is crushing the Chinese in Indonesia. If we are going to prevent the Indonesian Army from crushing us in Singapore, we should establish an army and we should support it. I therefore support this Bill.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly :immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Goh Keng Swee]. Bill considered in Committee.

6.43 p.m. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, line 36, to leave out "Singapore Volunteer" and insert "People's Defence". It has been decided that the Singapore Volunteer Force be renamed the People's Defence Force. I think the nomenclature that we are proposing to use is more appropriate in the present circumstances. This amendment is as a result of this decision. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 to 158 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported, with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn." - [Dr Goh Keng Swee]. Adjourned accordingly at Twelve minutes to Seven o'clock p.m. ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE OF SINGAPORE FOR THE YEAR 1966 (PAPER CMD. 25 0F 1965)(Cols 0551-0554)