Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure that I am voicing the concern of the general public in making reference today to the startling increase in the existing road tax, a measure which is being introduced almost simultaneously with the restrictions on traffic entering the Central Business District. It would appear that the large increase in road tax is not meant to raise revenue or meet part of recurrent expenditure. If it was just a matter of increasing revenue, then surely there are other areas which could yield revenue without causing undue hardship. Its main objective would seem to be the drastic reduction of the number of cars on the road. This being the case, I would suggest that the massive increase in road tax is both a negative approach and inequitable: it will, among other things, only serve to increase the burden of the middle and lower income groups. It must be noted that the largest increase is for motor cars between 1000 cc and 2000 cc. Cars in this range are generally owned by the middle and lower income groups who, in the past, used to pay approximately 17 cents per cc. But now with the increased road tax, they have to pay 25 cents per cc this is almost 50% more. Mr Speaker, Sir, I must repeat my contention that the increase in road tax constitutes a wholly negative approach because our Government, founded on the principles of socialism, is dedicated to raising the living standards of the lower income group. From the time we came to power we have been concentrating on introducing measure after measure to narrow the gap between the "haves" and "have-nots". I submit that the growing affluence engendered by this process of social equalisation has made the motor car, as a form of transportation, more of a necessity than a luxury. And now, Mr Speaker, Sir, a measure is being introduced to penalise those who, through hard work and diligence, have increased their income to the point where they are able to afford a car of their own. If the Government's objective is merely to reduce the number of new cars on the roads, it would not be too difficult to arrive at a solution. For example, the Ministry of Finance could increase the import duty so that existing car owners will not be unfairly penalised - it will be the potential car owners who have to decide on the possible alternatives. In other words, if they decide to have a motor car, they will have to sacrifice something else. In this way, the choice will be left to them -a motor car at the expense of some other luxury or necessity. The point of this approach is that the choice will quite fairly be left to the individual. No man need thus be penalised for events of the past which have created a situation over which he has no control. There is also another way to reduce effectively the number of new cars -by requiring all those who wish to purchase new cars to apply for permits. This is a procedure that is being quite successfully adopted in several other countries. This approach will also be more satisfactory because it should be fairly easy to ascertain whether an applicant for a new car merits consideration by the simple method of obtaining clearance from the Comptroller of Income Tax to determine whether or not he is paying income tax. If he is not, how then can he afford a new car? It would certainly prove a more equitable way of reducing the number of cars on the road. The present increase in road tax will not effectively reduce the number of cars on the road as envisaged by the Government. This is because owners of cars have, by this gross increase in car tax, either to pay the increased tax and retain the car or sell the car to some other person who can afford the tax. We will therefore have exactly the same number of cars on the road! This will clearly defeat the Government's objective. In this context, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me refer to the park and ride scheme and the Central Business District entry restrictions. Should we not wait to see the effect of the new travel restrictions before imposing taxes on motor cars? It seems to me that this two-prong attack on motorists is tantamount to anticipating the failure of the Central Business District scheme. I would suggest therefore that the car tax increase be deferred until the Government is able to assess the effect of the park and ride and Central Business District schemes. Only if these prove unsuccessful in restricting the number of cars in the Central Business District to a level considered desirable by the Government, should other measures be considered. May I add also that the present scheme seems calculated to drive cars off the road even in areas where there is no traffic problem at all. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would urge the Government to seriously reconsider this car tax increase, especially because there is no adequate transport for commuters as yet. Our bus services are still inadequate for they are clearly unable to cope with the demand. Until the bus services are considerably improved and able to meet with the requirements of the public, there should be no further increase in car tax. Otherwise we will only be crippling the members of the public who own motor cars without being able to provide them with a reasonable alternative method of getting around and coping with the problems of living and working in a busy, populated city such as ours is. The point really is: have we the right to increase the burden on the shoulders of the average working class Singaporean? His car may seem a symbol of undue affluence but it could in reality be merely his most prized and dearly bought possession. Mr Speaker, Sir, I strongly urge that this increase in road tax be seriously reconsidered, in the context of what I have noted. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I now turn to the income tax concession granted by the Finance Minister for old people capable of working beyond 55 years, the former retiring age, or even 60, the new retiring age. It is observed that this concession has been made because of our rapid economic development in the last few years, which has highlighted the need for our skilled and experienced people to go on working beyond the normal retirement age. It has apparently been recognised that such people will need to spend more money staying healthy and getting to work. This is indeed a step in the right direction and is a most welcome concession. I would like to suggest, however, that the care and concern made evident in this gesture be extended also to the younger, struggling members of our nation. We know that the consumer price index has risen sharply recently, but income tax relief in general remains pegged to the rate fixed more than 20 years ago. It is high time a thorough re-assessment was made and more tax relief accorded to lighten the burden of the beleaguered working classes. Mr Speaker, Sir, with the indulgence of the House, I would like to refer to my representations to the House in March last year, when the Honourable Minister for Finance presented his previous budget. I pointed out that the personal relief on income was fixed more than 20 years ago and called for this to be increased to a more realistic and pragmatic level, in keeping with inflationary trends which had been mentioned by the Finance Minister. The Minister had indicated that consumer prices had risen to an average of 22.0% over the previous year alone, that is to say, 1973 to 1974. How much more then must consumer prices have risen over the last 20 years? And yet there had been practically no increase in personal relief except for the $1,000 allowed as earned income. I added that if the consumer price index had risen by an average of 25% during the last year, surely it must have gone up many times since the rate of $2,000 was fixed more than 20 years ago. The final result was that the poor were becoming poorer and were being weighed down, especially by the income tax burden. I also stressed that unless personal relief was increased, there would be little incentive for the tax-paying wage earner to work harder, because they would only be able to retain a fraction of the fruits of their labour - the bulk of their increased earning being siphoned away by income tax on the one hand and inflation on the other. Mr Speaker, Sir, I was dismayed to observe the reactions of the Honourable Minister for Finance. Despite all the facts and figures clearly indicating the inequity of the position, in his reply the Honourable Minister for Finance warned that the Government might consider reducing the rate of personal income tax relief next year, to make people pay more tax. This, Mr Speaker, Sir, left me flabbergasted. It suggested retaliation on bringing out the true facts in Parliament and seeking equitable remedy. He has dismissed most unconcernedly the hard fact that the personal relief on earned incomes had not been increased over the last 20 years, except by $1,000, despite the fact that the consumer price index had gone up several times and by his own admission, the consumer price index for the year 1973-74 had gone up by nearly 25%. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is noted that this year there has been no increase in tax relief for the wage earner, and I presume that it may be argued that any imaginary relief lies in the fact that the rate of personal income tax has not been reduced! Mr Speaker, Sir, in this context may I draw the attention of the House to a report by an advisor of the NTUC that an income of $250 a month is needed for a Singapore family to maintain a minimum living standard. The NTUC arrived at this figure from a study by the Defence Minister, Dr Goh Keng Swee, on household incomes in the fifties when he was Assistant Director of Social Welfare (Social Research) in the Social Welfare Department. The minimum income then, according to Dr Goh's study, was $109.95 to support a family of four. The NTUC, which updated this report for a minimum living wage index, estimated in March 1974 that the minimum earned was $250 and that the sum of $250 was only for bare necessities. Since then, Mr Speaker, Sir, during the last year we have been hit by inflation and a tremendous increase in the price of consumer goods including basic necessities. The fact that there has been no increase in tax concessions would suggest that the average taxpayer is now paying tax on incomes at subsistence level. A government dedicated to socialist principles should not tax income at subsistence level. Otherwise, we will be taking away the bare necessities of life from our citizens. This matter, Mr Speaker, Sir, is becoming more and more urgent in the light of inflation, which is making the purchasing power of the dollar less and less. We have only to go to the shops today to see how little our dollar is worth. I would therefore urge the Minister for Finance to give serious and urgent consideration to increase the personal relief for taxpayers. Last year, in rejecting our call for a reduction in the income tax relief, the Minister for Finance stated that the international view was that Singapore's income tax relief was very generous and that Singapore could do well to broaden its tax base. International views are many and, like statistics, can be used to prove or obscure many a point even though it may not, in actual fact, have any relevance at all. As regards broadening the base, I am sure nobody can quarrel with that - everyone should pay his fair share, but the minimum income for tax exemption must be realistic and based on actual cost of living conditions in any particular country. However, with regard to broadening the base, may I refer to the recent correspondence in the press concerning the liability of hawkers to pay income tax. In answering a query from a member of the public, the Income Tax Department mentioned some very interesting facts. In the last five years, from 1969 to 1974, income tax collections were $251 million, $318 million, $404 million, $563 million and $845 million respectively. Adminis trative costs during the same period were 1.08%, 1.01%, 0.97%, 0.75% and 0.62% respectively. Broadening the base of taxpayers would be one way to offset the loss of revenue even though it may not be a hundred per cent successful, because it is the responsibility, as I mentioned earlier, of every resident to pay his tax. I was, therefore, a bit surprised to read the views of the Income Tax Department, and I quote: `that thus while it is a truism that everyone should bear his dutiful burden, it is also important, in the revenue field, to keep also in sight, costs and yields.' This statement, Mr Speaker, Sir, was made in reference to the problem of collection of taxes from hawkers. The Income Tax Department had earlier mentioned that, and I quote again: `cost of collection from hawkers, if compliance was to be as full as possible, was estimated at more than a hundred per cent.' This, Mr Speaker, Sir, is tantamount to saying that all of us are not equal before the law, and cannot be given the same treatment. In other words, because it is going to be difficult to collect tax from hawkers and others who are able to avoid, they are being allowed the concession of not paying their share of income tax. But the poor wage earner, the employee, whose salary is on the payroll and cannot escape has, on the other hand, to pay tax because it is easy to collect tax from him. This, Mr Speaker, Sir, is most inequitable and a very unjust way of looking at the problem. In other words, those who are clever in getting away with it are allowed to do so, whereas those who perforce have to be law-abiding through circumstances beyond their control are penalised. Mr Speaker, Sir, if this philosophy was implemented in other Government departments, and criminals who are difficult to catch are allowed to go their own way whereas the amateur crook, who does not know his way around, is caught and penalised, then Singapore will be in a sorry state of affairs. Mr Speaker, Sir, total Government revenue seems quite adequate for the administration of the State and there appears to be every reason why some relief should be given to income taxpayers at the lowest levels. It is true that such concessions may mean the loss of a few million dollars to the Income Tax Department, but surely that is a sacrifice that the Government can afford, since there are other ready and available sources of revenue. But it is observed that the Minister for Finance has decided against introducing any new taxes for the time being. It is not clear why taxes cannot be imposed on luxury goods, so as to avoid taxing citizens at subsistence level. In conclusion, I would therefore most humbly and respectfully urge that serious consideration be given to the question of income tax relief, for indeed there is need for such relief and such relief is even better late than never. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I now turn to the subject of the total estimated revenue which is given as $2,647.5 million, representing a mere 5% increase over the revised estimate for 1974. The Minister for Finance has drawn our attention to the appreciable slowdown in the rate of growth of revenue as compared with previous years. It is inevitable that the slowdown in economic growth should be reflected in Government revenue, unless the Government takes drastic measures and imposes new taxes to increase revenue. This, of course, is undesirable at the present time. Our taxation rate is already high and any increase in income tax rates will serve merely to act as a disincentive to businessmen and investors. On the other hand, it is inevitable that Government expenditure should rise disproportionately with economic growth for a number of reasons. I would like to suggest to the Hon. Minister for Finance that there is one area which has not as yet been fully exploited, which can not only yield revenue, but also be a social service to the community. I refer to Government being an entrepreneur and participating in certain areas in the private sector which would provide use- ful services to the public and at the same time safeguard the national interest. Economically there are firm grounds for the Government to play the role of entrepreneur. Government and government-sponsored enterprises can ensure that prices be kept to the minimum and that profits do not flow out of the country but are re-invested or distributed locally. This participation could also assist the Government in its efforts to re-structure our economy from that of an entrepot centre to an industrial economy, that derives its well-being from services and other fields. In addition, local and foreign capital can also be tied up with commercial and entrepot trade activities and can thus be geared to a greater extent to new projects formerly rejected by entrepreneurs because of the risks and capital involved. Developments in the economy can thus be in line with the objectives of the national plan. It is appreciated that Government has already ventured into wholly-owned trading companies or joint venture' with foreign and local investors and the Government bodies also run along commercial lines. I need mention only a few, such as the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore, Commercial and Industrial Security corporation, and Jurong and Sembawang Shipyards, as examples of this project. All these undertakings have proved to be highly successful. But I would like to suggest that having regard to Singapore's small size and her vulnerable position in international trade and commerce, which make us susceptible to external factors and international cartels, including the growing influence of multi-national corporations, more should be done in this area. Businessmen, whether local or foreign, are profit-oriented and trade is determined by the dictates of economics. Supplies and commodities are always made available to the highest bidder to the detriment of those who cannot pay. These harsh facts were brought home to all of us very clearly during the last few years. The price of rice, for example, our staple food, went up sky-high until Government intervention brought prices down to a more reasonable level. I would therefore like to suggest that Government explore the possibility of venturing into new areas - those dealing in essential commodities - because these are areas which are basic to our survival and could be regarded as "public utilities" in the broadest sense of the word. Mr Speaker, Sir, the very concept of public utilities is that certain requirements of the public have to be state-managed so that they will not be run entirely on a commercial basis and on the dictates of profit-making. It is generally accepted that public utilities should not be run by the private sector; hence we have the Public Utilities Board providing water, electricity and gas. In more recent times, our Government, recognising the need for the State to own some of these utilities, has taken over trading corporations which provide the telephone services and the external telegraph services. Hence, we now have the Telecommunication Authority, which has absorbed the former Singapore Cable and Wireless, the Singapore Telephone Board and so forth. These are essential services for the community and it is generally accepted that Government should run these organisations and provide the services. And all these utilities, if I may use the word, are profit-making and thus Government earns revenue in an indirect way. Sir, I feel that with the rising cost of living, inflation and so forth, the Government should branch out even more into what has, in the past, been regarded as private sector areas, even though critics may say that if Government goes into business in a big way, there will be unfair competition. But I say unfair competition against whom? Not against the citizens, certainly, but against the firms which are making massive profits. Government participation in these areas will help keep down the cost of living and the profit will go back to Government, and this can be ploughed back into social and economic development. There appears to be a good case for Government to move into business and commerce in a bigger way, to ensure that the basic needs of life for our people are not dependent upon the whims and fancies of businessmen who can jack up prices at will. The recent rise in the price of rice is a fine example. Until Government intervened and made direct purchases and rice was sold through cooperative societies and consumer clubs, the price was unduly high and the profits went to a few merchants who, in total disregard of our people's want, were bent only on making massive profits for themselves. This was a totally unfair and unjust case of events. As I said earlier, some businessmen might say that if the Government also enters the trading arena, it would cripple business activity. I cannot agree to that argument. Singapore is a fine example of a socialist-capitalist mix, and Government participation in private enterprise will only be on a limited scale to ensure that, at any point of time, there will still be a flow of essential commodities at minimum prices to the public. This will prevent price manipulation and hoarding by big businesses. We all have to accept that for big business the sole object is profit-making, and if our people are left to the tender mercies of big business, the latter will extract the maximum price they can, thus creating undue hardship as has already been proved. Therefore, if the Government also moves into these areas which are the life-lines of the community, we can ensure that at any given point of time the public will not be held to ransom. The NTUC supermarkets and our consumer clubs have shown how much cheaper prices can be, and the few dollars that the working class can save in their purchases from these places are a great boon to them. How much greater a boon will it be if there are similar state-owned, government-sponsored organisations providing supplies of basic commodities at minimum prices. On top of all this, the added advantage will be that the profit will go to Government, as I mentioned earlier. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I suggest that the Minister for Finance give this proposition serious thought as this will help keep down the cost of living and ensure a continued supply of essential commodities. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to congratulate the Minister for Finance for his industrial development policy which has given adequate attention to investment needs in times of recession. It is this type of forward planning which has seen our young Republic through the many crises which we have faced and survived since 1959. The measures taken under the export promotion policy are also a fine example of looking ahead so that we would be well equipped to grapple with problems before they arise. The proposed establishment of an export credit insurance guarantee scheme in conjunction with the banking and insurance companies is most certainly welcome and, in fact, I would say even overdue. I note this year the Government will be releasing large sums of money for development purposes and that this is also meant to be a step to counter recession. I was glad to observe in this context that he has pointed out that our anti-recessionary measures will probably have inflationary effects. I would, therefore, urge that a very tight watch he kept on these two interacting factors; further inflation will only bring greater hardship to a large number of our citizens who at present are only just able to cope with the increased prices of foodstuffs and other basic commodities brought about by imported inflation last year. I say this, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the full knowledge that the Government has set up an Economic Activation Committee to speed up the implementation of any anti-recessionary measures, because over-enthusiasm on any front cannot but have ill effects and negate our main objectives.