Mr Speaker, Sir, I have listened with close and rapt attention, as I always do, to the remarks of hon. Members on all the points which they have raised today, touching on the financial policy of this Government. I did so with a view to adopting any constructive suggestions raised and to repairing omissions in the policy which I have tried to outline with some fullness in my Budget Statement. Let us not mistake the fact that we are in the midst of one of the difficult periods in our economic history; that the right economic and financial policies to meet the situation will be important, if not critical, and that any ideas or innovations which enable us to adapt to the new situation ought therefore to be very carefully explored. I must therefore confess to feeling some disappointment at the somewhat, if I may be forgiven to say, meagre contributions, which this debate has made, to the solution of our economic problems. While I appreciate some of the complimentary remarks made on the Budget Statement, although there were critical ones also, especially the last one, I am saddened to see that, with the exception of perhaps the Member for Katong and the Member for Henderson, there has not been the comprehension that I had hoped for from all Members. This may not be entirely unnatural in respect of some of the economic and financial statements, but I had expected at least some ready appreciation of the spirit and philosophy of the Government's policy on taxation and the implementation of those policies. I touched on the philosophy of Government in dealing with the problems concerning the public, as had been voiced in the press and also faithfully reflected by hon. Members in this House both in parliamentary questions and again in this debate. That philosophy, I must repeat again, is not to encourage passengers although we may have to carry some of them from time to time, out of our compassion for giving social justice. Our intention is to provide for equality of opportunity. And we shall give every citizen or, if he is not capable of benefiting, his child or grandchild, the chance to be productive, to be able to improve himself, to move in the scale from the category of unemployed or of unskilled worker to the category of skilled worker and to the professional and brain service worker, so that he will draw the higher income and richer reward which must attend the acquisition of such skills and of the higher productivity which such skills generate. In this society there are no barriers to such mobility. If there are, we must try to remove them, and we shall not spare any expense, whether it be by formal education, informal training, or learning on-the-job. Subject to these remarks, I am glad of the very general support which Members of the House have given for the Budget and for welcoming the tax concessions which I have announced. Of course, they do not satisfy all Members and I do not expect them to satisfy even the majority of Members. In the previous Budget debate I think I had some idea of the Members' desire for additional reliefs for taxpayers and their wives under the Income Tax Act. Unfortunately, any Finance Minister must weigh the possibility of giving tax concessions or tax reliefs and their cost, with the additional expenditure that may be expected, and which I have outlined in my Budget Statement, to meet the additional cost of fuel. The additional reliefs which have been suggested for taxpayers and wives would have been very considerable. Perhaps I may disclose that I did try to work out what an additional $1,000 tax relief for every taxpayer would amount to, and I decided that the figure was not one which I could readily accept and concede in this Budget. I noted the comment of one particular Member, a rather plaintive suggestion that Budgets are not what they used to be, as no taxes but only tax reliefs were announced in the Budget Statement. I hope other Members will contain their dissatisfaction with this particular practice. I have tried to explain exactly what I proposed to do at Budget Statements, and that was that there would be no major painful additional taxes if the economy, and therefore the additional taxes generated by the economy, grows at the rate we expect it to grow. Last year's growth rate was perhaps not quite as large as we would have liked. In the past we used to calculate our growth rate at current prices, and we did not make too much distinction between the real growth rate, which was probably one or two per cent less, and the growth at current prices. Unfortunately, although our 1973 growth rate at current prices was 22 per cent, our real growth was considerably lower. Nevertheless, I did not think that there was any need in this Budget to impose additional taxes. That might be necessary if the economy turned down. Perhaps the practice, which the Member for Telok Blangah complained, of announcing no new taxes will have to he reconsidered at this time next year. The Member for Telok Blangah also made a few remarks on "flags of convenience" and why I should have given concessions in regard to shipping. I would only say that countries like Liberia do not establish concessions for shipping purely because they thought it was a fashionable thing to do. Obviously there are benefits to be obtained by any economy which decided that this was desirable, and I think that Singapore will benefit also from the amount of additional business which would be generated by the exemptions I have given for tax on shipping. If he could convince me that I am wrong in this assumption, I will be very glad to revise my views on exemption of tax. The Member for Telok Blangah also suggested amendment of section 44 of the Insurance Act in order to bring the figure of $10,000 somewhat nearer to the $50,000 level, similar to the exemption I have given for estate duty. I have noted this suggestion and will in due course consider an amendment to the Insurance Act. The Member for Potong Pasir made some comments on direct and indirect taxation, and I was somewhat puzzled by his suggestion that our income tax system is regressive. It is against most expert fiscal opinion, and I will be very happy to consider any better form of taxation which will do greater justice to the lowly paid worker as against the higher paid worker. Certainly it will be quite an innovation and we in the Ministry of Finance shall always be pleased to learn. With regard to his mention of purchase tax, I say that there have been no indirect taxes or, if there are, they will be lifted except for articles like petroleum, liquor and cigarettes. There, I think, perhaps we should save the lowly paid worker from extravagance in these and raise his real income. With regard to the remarks on the economic conditions, only the Member for Bukit Ho Swee mentioned the oil crisis. He commented on this, no doubt, because of his union connections with the oil industry. Of course, all of us are envious of the very considerable profits which the international oil companies have made, and we only hope that if any of these profits are made locally they will be ploughed back into investments in petro-chemical and other plants in Singapore, thus helping our economy to grow at a more rapid rate. One of the topics that has recurred in the comments of most Members is on inflation and prices. Now, this is a difficult problem and I have touched on it very fully in my Budget Statement because I realise its importance and its effect on the common man in Singapore. I am very conscious that we can do a lot more, and I am grateful for the many remarks which have been made here for the improvement of actions against inflationary prices. Of course, some of these remarks are fairly technical. For example, the Member for River Valley and some other Members have suggested enactment of the Protection of Consumers Act. This is one which will require fairly considerable study by my Ministry. I will certainly give consideration to the suggestion to monitor the standards and quality of products being imported in competition with our own manufacturers. I think it is fair that they should be of a quality no less than what is certainly available already from our manufacturers. However, since there are going to be multilateral negotiations on tariff and non-tariff barriers, we have to be careful in our actions to see that we do not create what may be considered a non-tariff barrier, thereby bringing us to the attention, and possible retaliation, of other countries. Nevertheless, we need to look into this matter very carefully. At the same time I would also urge the Member for River Valley, in view of his connections with the industry and employers, that he suggests to and urges the Singapore Manufacturers Association and fellow manufacturers and employers to set standards for their members to prevent profiteering, whether of quality or quantity, as any defect in any product will merely sully the reputation of the whole of the manufacturers and employers, and not only the few responsible for poor quality or quantity. One suggestion which has been made by the Member for Telok Blangah was in relation to CASE and the need for Government support. I need hardly say that we welcome all the help that CASE can give and we are prepared, to the extent that this is needed, to support with sound financial assistance the operations of CASE. There was one suggestion by the Member for Jalan Kayu which I thought not quite relevant to the problem of inflation, but he said it would be one method of dealing with it. This is the idea that inflation would be curbed if action was taken by Government to prevent rents from rising through unscrupulous landlords. As this idea has already been put in a Question to my colleague, the Minister for Law and National Development, I need not touch on this particular suggestion. The Member for Bukit Ho Swee made rather emotional remarks on profiteering. I hope that profiteers will take note of the very strong feelings which have been generated not only in him but also among the public. I can only say that we shall try and accentuate the measures which we have taken, and we shall see that there will be punishment to fit the crime where the crime is not caused by external factors. The Member for Moulmein raised some questions on wage earners. He said that wage earners were most badly hit as compared with hawkers, shopkeepers, and others. Like the Member for Moulmein, I have very considerable sympathy for the wage earners and I hope the National Wages Council will consider their position suitably when recommendations are being made. Nevertheless, I think the Member for Moulmein also thought there is a need for increasing the savings of wage earners by increasing interest rates. If there are sufficient funds for savings through the Post Office Savings Bank, and so on, his rather innovative suggestion for higher interest rates of 7 or 8 per cent would certainly draw these savings out, although I would rather hope they are already in the Post Office Savings Bank or in the Central Provident Fund. Of course, some of these savings, like the CPF savings, come to Government, when the Government issues bonds, at certain interest rates. If the Government should increase the interest rates to 7 or 8 per cent, it would mean that, for example, it would lend to the Housing and Development Board at higher interest rates. Thus the low wage earner who wants to buy a Housing Board flat would have to pay a higher price for the flat. Therefore, there are consequences to his suggestion which require to be gone into with some care. I think these were the more critical areas which Members have considered necessary for Government to deal with. But there were also suggestions on manufacturing industries and trade. The Member for River Valley has suggested that we have not done enough to attract supporting industries. While I am conscious of the need to attract such industries -. I have in fact offered incentives and financing from a $100 million fund which has been set up-he is quite right in saying that not very much has been spent from this fund. But I do not agree with him that we have neglected these industries for the more glamorous industries which he thinks we are trying to promote. In fact, some of the more glamorous industries and the multinational industries require supporting industries, and have made inquiries on what facilities are available. In my Budget Statement I mentioned that of the new industries which are being attracted, a considerable number are very highly efficient and highly technical supporting industries which I was very glad to notice are among the investments which have been committed. I hope the result of our promotion efforts will be evident in the next one or two years. There was also a suggestion that the training of our workers needs to be improved. I fully agree to this. I am always conscious of the need to increase skills and to increase our brain-manpower. Now, the analysis of why we have not got sufficient skills and brain-manpower is, of course, rather more difficult. The Member for River Valley suggested more inducements and awards to teaching staff for research to improve the morale of the lecturers in our tertiary institutions, and he suggested a $2 million grant for research. These are all very praiseworthy suggestions, and perhaps they ought to be given fuller consideration than I can do just by listening to him. The Member for Jalan Kayu suggested that further export promotion might be carried out. I fully agree with him that we can do more in the coming year and will give adequate financial support for this purpose. There were quite a number of other points which were raised, dealing with education, hospitals, health, social services and so on. Perhaps I am not in as good a position to deal with them as the Ministers in charge who will no doubt be very fully questioned and who will give detailed answers to all the points which have been raised by Members. Perhaps some of the criticisms are not always pointed at the right direction and some may be based on the lack of comprehension or misunderstanding of the policy of the administrative machinery of implementation. Some of them may he simply matters of misinformation. For example, the Member for Anson raised the question of fees for outpatient treatment. I believe the fee per attention is $2 and, of course, he made very much play of a family having colds and having to pay $3 per person in the family so that the total charge would be exorbitant. Perhaps that is an exaggeration and maybe the particular family is more hypochondriac than most of us are. Nevertheless, his points are those which members of the public feel perhaps very strongly, and no doubt they will be pressed again in the questions which are addressed to the Ministers at the appropriate time. There was some mention of the transportation system and of bus services. In an earlier question, there was suggestion that I mentioned that the management had been corrupt. Anyone reading my Budget Statement carefully would see that I did not make such an allegation, but that I thought that institutional management was necessary and that we did not want conditions obtaining as were prevalent in the Singapore Traction Company days. I think all of us are agreed that some emphasis should be laid on the solution of the transportation problems in Singapore. Quite a number of Members touched on this subject as well as on other matters connected with transportation, like the mass rapid transit system and the long-range traffic solution. I need only say that as far as I am concerned the financing of solutions to this problem will receive special attention in my Ministry. My Ministry is involved in both the Road Transport Action Committee and in the financing of transportation by international bodies, such as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Asian Development Bank, or perhaps from local funds. The remarks which Members have made on trans- portation generally will receive attention from my Ministry as well. I would also like to mention the Member for Sembawang's remarks on the inadequacy of allocation for social services. I thought that when preparing my Budget the amounts which I have allocated for economic development this year did not, in fact, come to as much as my allocation for social services generally. Perhaps this is not quite the best sort of allocation, so that maybe next year rather than increase social services relative to economic development, I will have to consider some reduction. But perhaps in absolute terms the Member for Sembawang will get what he wishes. Mr Speaker, Sir, finally, I would like to end this debate by stressing again the necessity of all of us pulling together in order to overcome the difficulties that we expect in the coming year and to achieve a satisfactory growth rate for 1974. When I made my forecast in the Budget Statement of perhaps a 10 per cent growth rate for the earlier part of this year at least, I must say that the outlook for the second half of the year was not quite as promising as now we have reason to expect. The developments in the possible lifting of the oil embargo and the highest (Nixon-Shultz) level of economic forecasting in the United States show that the second half of the year would improve on the first half of this year. Whether that kind of economic forecasting would be correct, only time will tell.