TRADING IN RICE

2.38 p.m.

Mr R. Jumabhoy (Telok Ayer): Mr Speaker, Sir, I take pleasure in moving the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper,

That this House is of the opinion that Government's trading in rice and/or stockpiling of rice should be abolished and that trading in rice should be free.

Sir, the whole object of moving this motion is to bring down the cost of rice for our masses. This is the staple food for our masses and when voting, I would like hon. Members to consider that the interest of the masses comes first. Even one cent a katty less in the price of rice is something to the poor man.

Sir, before I proceed, I would like to deal with the prewar history of rice. During that period, rice was sold at five to seven cents a katty. Even during the war, before the Japanese attacked, the Government Gazettes I have here show that in September 1940, the price of rice was from five to seven cents a katty. In March 1941, it was seven cents a katty. Then in May 1941, it was from six to nine cents a katty. I have quoted these figures also for the benefit of my friends who are on my side of the House, especially for the P.A.P. who call themselves the People's Party.

The Chief Minister: No "Action"!

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Now, Sir, rice is produced throughout South-East Asia: in Burma, Thailand and Indo-China. Rice was imported here during the prewar period all the time and re-exported from here. Rice from Burma was exported to Africa, Ceylon and many other countries and rice from Indo-China and Thailand was also exported to various countries. We have the shipping facilities over here in addition to the low handling charges which make it possible for those countries to ship their rice here for our local merchants to re-export.

Sir, during the prewar period till December 1941, I was a member of the Food Advisory Council and we had a plan by which every family could store a bag of rice for an emergency. Now, Sir, in February 1942, the 100 years of British rule ended within only nine weeks. Then the British re-occupied this territory again in September 1945 with the help of the Allies and during that time when the Japanese left, things were in chaos. There was shortage of every foodstuff and consumer goods. During that period which was under the British Military Administration, a department called the Supplies Department came into being. It was a great necessity, at that time, to get supplies from every possible source especially when shipping was scarce and the prices were not steady and therefore that department was very necessary. As time went on, things were becoming normal. Many things were de-controlled and there was no restriction on imports. Flour and sugar were the last to be de-controlled. Rice should also have been de-controlled about three years ago when the supplies were plentiful.

Sir, in the days from September 1945 when the British occupied this territory till three years ago, rice was sold from the producing countries on a government to government basis. All the representatives of the Governments in South-East Asia used to meet here and arrange the allocation of rice amongst themselves at a round-table conference presided over by the then Commissioner-General. Each country was allocated its quota. So far, it worked quite well as it was a seller's market. Nobody could import rice on his own account though we have heard the smuggling of rice did take place from Thailand into the Federation. I think that Government's objection to free the control of rice at that time was correct but then the time came, Sir, when rice was plentiful. Burma has been sending delegations to sell rice to every possible country. Thailand has enough rice and even if there is trouble in Indo-China and we cannot import rice from her in the future, I think there are plenty of supplies available from elsewhere and there can be no shortage. Even China is supplying rice to Ceylon and only the other day I read from a newspaper report that 5,000 tons of rice from China was arriving in Singapore for the Federation.

Now, Sir, if rice is plentiful, is it necessary to maintain a department costing the taxpayer about $68,000 to $70,000 a year? In addition, Sir, Government has its own stockpile policy and I will deal with that later at length but the system prevailing is that if an importer has to import a certain quantity of rice, he has to buy one-third of that quantity from the Government stockpile. I understand that Government has a continuous stockpile of 11,000 to 15,000 tons of rice. Sir, Government has to pay the handling charges, the godown rents - if the godowns belong to the Government, then the rents which could be derived from them by letting them out will be lost to the Government - and perhaps insurance which I am not sure about. There is also the possibility of the rice deteriorating. All these have to be taken into account and added on to the price at which the importer has to buy this one-third quantity from the Government stockpile.

Sir, let me give some figures to show how the masses have suffered by payment from revenue to meet the huge losses in the past. In 1953, over $4 million was lost. In 1954, it was $2,441,000 and in 1955, there was a profit of $413,000. Now, this Government might say, "Well, that was not our pigeon. It was under a different government." But then I would ask whether the present Government is working for the benefit of the people or not? In 1956, the loss was $278,958. Sir, may I point out that this is a minority Government? Yesterday, I read that, on the Municipal Bill, Government won by 16 to 11 votes. Now, out of those 16 votes, you have three Nominated and three ex-officios which add up to six, thus leaving ten who are actually elected Members as against 11 Opposition Members, not counting the one Member who is detained. This is how the Government functions from day to day. [Interruption.] Sir, it may be so, but you have to have your responsibilities to the people and you should not forget that but for how long can you carry on with the votes of the colonial power? [Interruption.] May I ask the Minister for Health to speak louder so that I can reply to him?

Mr Speaker: Order. I have said this before and very often. If the hon. Member speaking will address the Chair and ignore side comments, he might get on a little faster.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Thank you very much, Sir, but one would not like to be unduly disturbed when one is speaking and we on our side do not disturb others.

The Minister for Health (Mr A. J. Braga): Oh dear!

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Now all those factors are added on to the cost. It may be a quarter cent or half a cent - whatever it may be - but why should the consumer be made to pay this for the silly policy of the Government when it is not necessary to do so at all? Sir, why is this done? The Government say that they must have a stockpile. For what? I understand - unless Government contradicts - that this emergency stock is very necessary in the interest of the people. Why? It is said that there may be war again or it is possible that the Communists might attack Burma or Thailand which will affect Singapore or Malaya. What I say to them is this, Sir. A hundred years of British rule was ended within the space of nine weeks. If Burma or Thailand were to fall what can we do here? How long can we protect ourselves? I ask those questions. This is nothing but a bogey based on unnecessary fears. I suggest that it is not necessary to have any stockpile at all and tax the people indirectly by making them pay more for rice. Let me ask another question. Who is going to attack whom in this part of the world?

Mr Braga: The Opposition.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Yes, who is the aggressor? Sir, the aggressor today is the minority Government who have made the Opposition mad the way they keep on talking to cover their mistakes.

Sir, rice is available and is wanted. There is no necessity for any stockpile and there should not be any control on the rice trade. I may be told that there is no control whatsoever but I say that there is control of rice. If one imports rice from another country, he has to buy one-third of the quantity imported from the Government and at Government rate. If that is not control, then what is it called?

Sir, if rice is not controlled, it will stabilise automatically at its own price level like any other commodity. If the argument is that it cannot be done or that it will not be so, then why not control the other commodities too? You have sugar and flour, etc., which are not controlled. Why is control limited to rice only? I would like to hear an explanation from the Government as to why this is necessary?

Sir, I have been told that my motion will be defeated by the Government. I am not surprised at that as they have seven extra votes which are not the people's votes and it is because of the votes of the colonial power that make it possible for them to defeat us. What I will say to them is this: they have already dug their graves and they will be burying themselves if we are defeated.

Mr Braga: I hope to send a wreath.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: It will be so as far as Katong is concerned.

Now, Sir, I have not received a proper answer to my question about the names of the importers of rice from Pakistan and India so that we will be able to know how much rice was bought direct by the regular importers of rice in Singapore for resale to other importers. The reply was that the Chamber of Commerce publishes these facts and that I had better refer to them. Why? Government has got its own department and they have their own import permits. Why should I not get a straight answer as to who are the importers and exporters? The licences to import rice, I am told, are issued freely to applicants and are they not regularised? Is no record made? One has to apply for a licence to import rice and there must be a record of that. The information required as to what is happening will help the People's Action Party make up its mind.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: What is so obvious?

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Rice is imported from Thailand and from Burma. From July 1955 onwards, we imported rice from Pakistan and India. Now, what happens, Sir, is this. Besides the handling charges, the insurance and the godown rents, rice is bought through a middleman or a broker. This is what I wanted to prove from my question. In other words, all these factors are added on to the cost. For instance, you buy a pencil directly from the manufacturers and it will cost you cheaper than if you were to buy it through a middleman who will want to add his commission on to the cost. The consumer will then have to pay much more for it here. That was why I raised that question. In other words, the consumer pays more for everything that Government does wrong.

Sir, I have nothing more to say and I beg to move.

Mr Goh Tong Liang (Bukit Panjang): Sir, I second the motion. I reserve the right to speak at a later stage.

Question proposed.

3.00 p.m.

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, as pointed out by the mover of the motion that this commodity is the staple food of Asians and that the control of rice was introduced during the period of the British Military Administration, I think that it is not necessary for me to elaborate further but to draw the attention of Members to the fact that when legislation was introduced on the control of rice, it was done at a time when expatriate officers and not elected Ministers were in power. At that time, when the expatriate officers were in power, they were not in any way concerned about the question of the staple food for Asians although, as was pointed out by the mover of the motion, it was thought necessary to control rice as there was a shortage of rice. This control is now out-of-date because we all know that we can get rice everywhere at a far cheaper price. Rice is imported from every country and I do not see why this control is necessary. In fact, public money is wasted as a separate department has to be set up to control and distribute rice. If this money is utilised for more social welfare work, I think that the public will be far more benefited. This control is not only causing hardship to the consumers, as pointed out by the Member for Telok Ayer, but I think it is also causing hardship to the retailers as well as to the wholesalers because everyone is affected. The trouble starts from the Government, downwards to the wholesaler, passed on to the retailer and the worst sufferer is the consumer.

I think, Sir, that not only the price of controlled rice is dearer but that the "free" rice is of a better quality than controlled rice. If you buy free rice from anywhere and compare it with controlled rice, you will find that it is far, far better, as I myself have bought free rice and controlled rice. So there is no sense at all in controlling rice. Why not throw it open and let it be run on a competitive basis? We have many wholesalers here who are prepared to import rice. Let them run the trade on a competitive basis and let the consumer benefit as it is the staple food of the Asians. Without this staple food, an Asian finds it difficult to exist. An argument given by the Government is that it is a precaution against a possible war. How ridiculous is that, Sir! Again, it was pointed out by the mover of this motion that there should not be any such fear of a possible war. All Asian countries are now promoting peace and I do not see why we should fear the possibility of such a war here. The only enemy that we are afraid of, I think, are the Communists and they are within Malaya. So we should not have any fear from any outside Government. Even China is now prepared to sell rice to Malaya and Singapore. I have been told that before, China suffered from a shortage of rice and it was rationed but now, according to the delegation which went to China, it can offer 25,000 tons of rice to Malaya. Just imagine the figure of 25,000 tons of rice offered! Therefore, you can see where is the necessity for controlling rice. The question of control comes in only when there is a shortage of rice but if supply exceeds demand, there is no necessity for its control. If supply far exceeds demand, then why control rice?

I think, Sir, that the public should not be made to suffer because of the foolishness of the Government in enforcing this control. I have again and again said that control encourages black-market: the more you control, the more you encourage black-market.

3.06 p.m.

Mr Francis Thomas: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to deal with the technical details of this matter which can be better handled by the Minister for Trade and Commerce but I would like to make one point of general importance. We have had a lot of references to the controls during the time of severe shortage and to the black-market of rice and I think that it might be helpful to Members, in thinking about this problem, to have an assessment of what actually did happen and the degree to which the public was exploited, not by the controlled rice provided by the Government but by the black-market rice provided by the rice trade. This is from "The Economy of Malaya" by the Professor of Economics, University of Malaya. He estimates that for 1947, the total sales of black-market rice were between $250 million and $300 million and this was a margin of 125 per cent above the control price. He derives from these figures the deduction that nearly 50 per cent or well over $100 million went in profits to the rice trade. That was at a time of shortage - if these figures are correct; they have never been refuted although the pamphlet is more than two years old - when the rice traders made a very handsome profit indeed, thank you, out of the sufferings and hardships of the people. They did so not because there were controls but because the controls were not good enough. They were able to defeat them at a time when the Government was ill-organised as a result of the great difficulties arising from the Japanese occupation of Malaya.

I do think that it is valuable to bear in mind that if you have the rice trade solely operated for profit with no element of Government interest or control at all, you are putting the poor man's rice bowl at the mercy of businessmen who, in the natural course of capitalist business, will seek to get as much as they can out of it. It would be absurd to suppose that they will sacrifice possible profits in order that the consumer should get his rice more cheaply. That would be the function of the Government food supply system rather than of a private enterprise and, in connection with that, I have a newspaper cutting in my hand which says:

"Nehru's economic programme envisages the creation of state trading corporations to be put into operation soon to import and stock essential foodstuffs, a method to counter widespread speculation in rice and wheat."

I just make these very general points, Mr Speaker, which are, however, relevant to the debate. Since we have here a small element of public control - which perhaps as an entirely Socialist House, with the exception of perhaps one or two Independents, all the Parties are wholeheartedly and sincerely Socialist - I think that they are likely to take into account the need to preserve at least a measure of control in the public interest, so that the worker may not be exploited by the middleman who brings in the rice from the producer.

3.10 p.m.

Mr Goh Tong Liang: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am of the opinion too that "Government's trading in rice and/or stockpiling of rice should be abolished; and that trading in rice should be free."

Probably the Minister for Commerce and Industry is afraid that war will break out in the East. As the mover of the motion has said, it is all unnecessary worry. It is unlikely that a war will break out in the East or at least in this part of the world. The neighbouring countries have no time to think of wars now. They are very busy in rehabilitating themselves and growing rice. I have information from a very reliable source that Thailand, Burma, Indo-China and Taiwan have large surpluses of rice. The United States of America do not know where to dump their rice now. Australia is coming into the field now to see if we can allow her to dump her rice here. But as long as Government restricts trade, the people will have to pay - I would not say through their noses - a high price. The merchants, I am told, are prepared to guarantee that they will, at any time, supply 25,000 tons of rice which I understand is the quantity of the Government stockpile reserve.

The Chief Secretary (Mr W. A. C. Goode): At what price?

Mr Goh Tong Liang: The price will certainly drop if we get all the rice here. Sir, why does Government want to cling on to a losing business? I would suggest that Government de-restrict and then there will be a glut in the market and the price of rice will drop considerably.

3.12 p.m.

Mr R. C. H. Lim (Nominated): Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Government is a Socialist Government, I think that it is Government's duty to take the interest of the masses at heart-

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Well said.

Mr R. C. H. Lim: - and the stockpile of rice is certainly not for the benefit of the Members of the Government nor for the benefit of the Members of the Opposition. The flesh and blood of the masses have been built up since birth with rice. To free rice or to give up stockpiling rice for the benefit of the masses would mean that in a time of crisis, the masses will not be provided for with rice, their staple food. The danger of war is real. We can at least say that the danger of war is not unreal and it is Government's duty, with such a threat hanging over our heads, to see that there is enough rice in this country to provide for the requirements of the masses.

A figure of about $280,000 was given as the amount lost by Government last year. Sir, if you were to divide $280,000 by 1,200,000 persons in Singapore, you will find that Government lost last year about 23 to 24 cents per person per year or two cents per person per month. It is not expected that Government should make money on rice but Government is justified in losing money on rice for the benefit of the masses.

3.15 p.m.

Mr William Tan (Tiong Bahru): Mr Speaker, Sir, everyone knows that rice is the staple food of the Asians. It is a "must" in every household in the country and, as such, it is the paramount duty of the Government to reduce the cost of rice to the lowest possible level so that the consumers, particularly the working class, will benefit from it. Yet, it is strange that Government sees fit to maintain the Department of Control of Supplies on the flimsy excuse that it is necessary because it is a measure in case of war. This is sheer nonsense.

I was told that Government will refuse to support the motion before the House not because it is against the interest of the people, so they claim, but because a Member on this side of the House had the foresight to introduce such a motion into this House. I can quote, for instance, why the consumers are now paying more for what they should pay. For B rice, it is 10 per cent more. Government sells to the dealers at $27.14 per pikul and the same quality of rice is sold in the open market by the dealers to anybody at $24 per pikul - less $3.14 per pikul of rice. This $3.14 is passed on to the consumer. Why? It is because for every 1,000 bags of rice that a dealer imports into this country, Government forces the same dealer to buy 500 bags from the stockpile; that is to say, for every two bags imported, he has to buy one bag from the stockpile. Therefore, this $3.14 is not a loss to the importer but it is just added on to the price of rice which is imported. If a consumer goes to a grocery shop to buy rice, he has to pay more. For C rice, it is 15 per cent more. Government sells to the dealers at $26.43 per pikul and the same quality of rice is sold by the dealers at $22 per pikul. I can quote another instance from information which I have received. The successful dealer who intends to tender for the sale of rice to Government for stockpiling has to pay the sum of $4,000 for 1,000 tons.

An hon. Member: To whom?

Mr William Tan: I can ask the Government to check from records to see how many dealers have been successful in getting tenders for all these years?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: On a point of order, Sir. Is the hon. Member saying that the dealer has to pay $4,000 as a bribe or as a deposit?

Mr Speaker: It is not a point of order. It is a point for elucidation.

Mr William Tan: Why I said $4,000 is because if a dealer is to import the B rice, the C.I.F. value is only $23 per pikul and together with other charges, it comes to about $25.60 per pikul. If I am a successful tenderer why should I import rice at $25.50 per pikul when I can get from the market at $24 per pikul - the price other dealers have to pay to buy from the stockpile? Instead of new rice going into the stockpile, the old rice goes into circulation.

Mr Goode: That is nonsense.

Mr William Tan: So for every pikul of rice, they save $1 and for a ton of rice, they save $16. Therefore for 1,000 tons of rice, they save $16,000. Why can they not afford to pay $4,000 then? If I were a dealer, I would gladly pay it.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: On a point of information.

Mr Speaker: Is the hon. Member giving way?

Mr William Tan resumed his seat.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, I will be grateful if we could have this $4,000 cleared up because I do not quite follow this sleight of hand, not being a businessman myself.

Mr William Tan: That $4,000 is the sum of money that a dealer has to pay in order to be successful in getting approval for his tender.

An hon. Member: Naturally.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: On a point of information, Sir. I have taken a great interest in this debate and I am thankful to the Member for Tiong Bahru for providing us with information about this $4,000. I wonder to whom is this sum paid? Is it for goodwill or is it a deposit paid to the Government?

Mr William Tan: This money is being paid to unscrupulous opportunists who have the power-

Hon. Members: Who?

Mr William Tan: If any Member comes to my office, I will reveal them to him.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: On a point of information, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr William Tan: No, Sir.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member is not giving way. Yes, Mr William Tan.

Mr William Tan: All in all, I think that Government should decontrol this essential commodity and make the price of rice cheaper so that the working people can benefit from it.

Furthermore, I can assure this House that, immediately you lift the control of rice, the price will drop automatically. The Minister for Communications and Works spoke a little while ago on the question of the stockpile. Why can the Government not pass a law by which every dealer in rice should be made to stock a certain quantity in a godown? That will bring down the price of rice. The rich man will not suffer. For every three cents more for a kati of rice, he will not suffer but it will be the working people who will suffer.

3.24 p.m.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose the motion. If a couple of years back, the Member for Telok Ayer had made such a motion in the then Legislative Council and if I had been a Member there, I would have gladly supported him in such a motion because, not being in the Government, I would not have known what responsibility was. Now, Sir, that I know what the true position is, I am afraid that I have to oppose this motion.

Much has been said about the forcing up of the cost of rice to the poor consumer. Let me clarify it, Sir. The extra price that the consumer has to pay, because of the existence of a stockpile, is about a cent per katty.

The Member for Telok Ayer quoted pre-war prices of rice. He did not quote the post-war prices of rice which I am sure all hon. Members are aware of. However, I do not see what relation that has with the stockpile because the price of rice is something beyond our control. It is a price that is dictated by the producing countries to the buying countries and as you had a seller's market a few years ago, they took very good care to see that they got the very best out of their rice because rice formed the major portion of their economy. Even now, Sir, though rice is in plentiful supply, the prices have not gone down to any appreciable level. "Rice has always been imported here and re-exported from here." That is what the hon. Member said. That position has not changed. Rice is even now being imported here and even now being re-exported from here to various countries.

In reply to his question, I have given him in the answer the extent of the re-export of rice from Singapore. I did not have figures of the transhipped rice from Singapore on through Bills of Lading because we do not have records of transhipments on through Bills of Lading but according to the figures here, from July 1955 to June 1956, more than 100,000 tons of rice have been re-exported from Singapore. Half of that has been sent to the Federation of Malaya and about a similar quantity to Indonesia.

Sir, there has been a lot of talk about the control and the de-control of rice and I notice also that the motion puts in the words " . . . and that trading in rice should be free." Sir, rice is not controlled at the moment. Rice was de-controlled in 1953 or 1954 - I have the exact date somewhere. Since then, rice has not been controlled. What is happening is that there is a stockpile obligation on the part of the merchants to buy a certain quantity, according to his imports, from the stockpile but there is no control on rice as such. Anybody who wants to import rice is free to do so, provided he undertakes to buy the corresponding ratio from the stockpile.

The Member for Telok Ayer also said that in 1953 when other items like flour and sugar were de-controlled, it was not thought fit to de-control rice, meaning that it was not thought fit to exempt it from the stockpile. But the stockpile decision was taken in 1953 by the then Government in the Executive Council of which the hon. Member did take part and that decision of the then Executive Council was that all commodities should be de-controlled, that there should be no price control, and that there should be no restriction on import except that rice should be under a stockpile obligation. The stockpile was fixed in that year by the then Government of which the hon. Member was a Member in the Executive Council. It may have been a more colonial Government than it probably is now. In January 1954, a working party was set up with Mr Tan Chin Tuan as the Chairman and they tried their best to get an acceptable solution to the stockpile by trying to get a guarantee from traders, but it was found that none of the Chinese or the European business interests would co-operate in giving a guarantee that they would maintain a stockpile of their own free will. Therefore, a decision was taken in the middle of 1954 that a stockpile should be maintained. In essence, the stockpile is still the same today and there is no change. So it is wrong to say that a stockpile was then necessary because rice was a seller's market and in short supply. In fact, rice became a buyer's market in 1953 and I will give you the proof why it became so. The hon. Member quoted figures showing that the Government lost $4 million in 1953 and a couple of million dollars in 1954. Now, why did the Government lose that amount of money on rice? It was not our Government at that time. It was a more colonial Government with the hon. Member taking part in the Executive Council thereof but Government did lose that amount of money and the reason was this. The year before, it had been decided to allow free imports of grades that were either superior or inferior to the Government's rationing grades. I hope I am clear on that. A certain type of rice was imported by Government for rationing purposes. Now, if you wanted to import better or inferior rice than that, you were at liberty. There was no control over it. The position had become such that when the countries started producing so much rice our merchants here imported a big quantity of the superior grade rice and they were able to sell much cheaper than the Government could sell its rationed rice. This showed that rice was in free supply and that there was no short supply of rice in the producing countries at that time. Therefore, when the Government here found that they could not sell their rice unless they lowered their price because the merchants were importing better rice and selling it at a cheaper price, they had to lower their price and sell the rice at a loss. That was why there was a loss. It was not the fault of our Government and I would not say that it was the fault of the then Government, but the position is clear that rice was not in short supply at that time and yet, in spite of that, a decision was taken to maintain a stockpile. So it is clear that the stockpile decision was not based on the availability of rice or the short supply position of rice but was based on emergency requirements and the same position stands now.

I have a suspicion, Sir, that behind this move is not so much the interest of the masses but the interest of the merchants.

An hon. Member: No.

Mr Braga: Mostly Telok Ayer.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, the role of the merchants in the old days was different from the role of the merchants today. At that time, any merchant prince could carry on any trade or commerce he liked, thinking only of the benefits and the profits that accrued to him and if the country did benefit, to a certain extent, it was just incidental but there was no obligation on the part of the merchant to provide a service to the country. Now, conceptions have changed. The merchant now says that he is providing a service to the community and therefore if he is providing a service to the community, he should fit in with the general scheme of things in that community and with the general requirements of that community. If the general requirements of that community demand a safety factor in a stockpile, I do not see why the merchant should grumble especially as he is not paying for that stockpile. The consumer is paying a little more in the price as an insurance premium for some future unknown contingencies but the merchant is not paying it so why should he grumble about it?

You will find, Sir, that in all enlightened countries, the activities of merchants are harnessed to the needs of the country and they are not allowed to carry on haphazardly like the old merchant princes were allowed to carry on, thinking only of themselves and if their activities do clash with the requirements of the country, a check is put on them. You have quotas, tariffs, and so on, which are checks on the freedom of trade because of the need to harness the activities of the merchants to the needs of the community and I think our merchants should not grumble over that.

Sir, it has been said that the taxpayer has to pay the cost of the upkeep of the Supplies Department - $60,000 to $70,000 a year. That, Sir, is not true. Perhaps the hon. Members have been misinformed. If they had cared to come and ask me, I would have enlightened them. If they had cared to look up the Budget when it was presented, they would have seen that that is not so. The cost of the Supplies Department is borne by the stockpile and the consumer, in that the extra one cent he is paying, is paying for the upkeep of the Supplies Department. There is no extra cost to the taxpayer.

Then, figures have been quoted to show that the taxpayer lost about $280,000 last year and that, in 1955, there was a profit of $413,000. Now, again I want to make it very clear that the taxpayer is not paying this loss. We run the stockpile on a no profit, no loss basis and therefore, when I found that the stockpile had made a profit of $413,000, I issued a directive that we should reduce the price of rice so that the profit which we had accumulated should go back, by giving a reduction in the price, to the consumer until that profit was absorbed. The stockpile, I repeat, is run on a no profit, no loss basis. If we make a profit, we reduce the price of rice and we give the profit back to the consumer and if we make a loss, we increase the price slightly and recover the loss. This "bad" Government of the Labour Front Coalition, the much maligned Government of the Labour Front and the "minority" Government, has reduced the price of stockpile rice four times after it took office. On 15th February, 1955, before the elections, ten per cent rice was $494 and fifteen per cent was $476. Immediately after taking office, on 12th May, the price was reduced all round by $15; on 7th July, another $15 reduction; on 13th January, 1956, a further $15 reduction and on 1st February, 1956, another $10 - a total reduction up to February which went on till 11th September, 1956, of $55, since this "bad" Government took over. However, when the Government had to buy dearer rice, they had to put the price up slightly and on 12th September, 1956, we increased the price by $20, still giving a net reduction of $35 since the time we took office.

The general comment is that this "minority" Government moves on haphazardly from day to day and yet, Sir, it is this "minority" Government which is moving on so haphazardly that is going to get us merdeka, if we at all do get merdeka.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Thanks to Mr Marshall.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Thanks to Mr Marshall and thanks to Mr Lim Yew Hock. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: They are too shy to take the credit. "Why should the consumer pay for the silly policy of Government?" I forget who made that remark. "This is a bogey about emergency and wars, and so on." I am afraid that some of them do not understand the position. "If rice is free, it will stabilise at its own price." A general statement like that is probably high-sounding to the non-businessmen but to a businessman who probes into it, he will find that there is not much in it. "If rice is free, it will stabilise at its own price." It is stabilised at its own economic price or at the price of the producing countries. There is no makeshift about it. There is no control and no artificial fixing of prices. It is stabilised at the price the producing countries can afford to sell and according to the law of supply and demand. Where does Government create an instability in the price? It does not.

"Why control rice only? Why do you not control sugar, flour and a host of other things?" The hon. Member himself gave the answer in the early part of his speech and that is, "Rice is the staple food." Unless you have this staple food available in an emergency, you will have starvation. But one can live without sugar and flour: at least, our population is accustomed more to rice-eating and as to rice and flour, they both serve the same purpose; they are both starchy. I think, Sir, I read in hygiene books when I was schooling that starch turns into sugar when you put it in your mouth.

The point was made that rice is bought by middlemen - that is. Indian and Pakistani rice - and the consumer pays more. This is a free port. We cannot control anybody if he wants to buy anything. Why blame us if a middleman who buys rice from India or Pakistan is not a regular dealer? I do not know what the term "regular" means because Singapore is a free port and the activities of trade are free. But if the middleman wants to make a bit of extra profit, the direct importer will undercut him and it will not be long before the middleman will not be able to reap his profit. The Member for Queenstown (Mr Lee Choon Eng) also talked on the same lines, Sir, and I think that I have answered his arguments sufficiently well.

The main point that was raised by the Member for Bukit Panjang (Mr Goh Tong Liang) was that the merchants are prepared to guarantee a stockpile of 25,000 tons. Sir, when the stockpile was suggested, at its very inception in 1953, as I have pointed out, they did try under Mr Tan Chin Tuan to try to get the trade to agree to maintain a stockpile but they failed and the same position still holds good today. We tried even last year to get the traders to sit around and come to an agreement to keep a stockpile on their own responsibility and we even offered to advance money to them if they would keep the stockpile of rice in Government godowns so that they would not be financially embarrassed by locking up their capital for stockpile purposes. But no, they would not come to an understanding and they refused. They gave a general guarantee which was very much in the air: "Oh, yes, do not worry. We will keep a stockpile." Is that of any real value when you have an emergency? What will happen is that rice will disappear in the black market and probably all the rich Members of this Assembly and other rich people will get their rice because they can afford the black market price but not the rest of the poor public. They cannot afford the price. So a guarantee in general terms is no use unless the traders can agree to a specific scheme of putting so much rice in a godown and getting an advance from Government on it. But they refuse to give approval for such a scheme. Therefore, it is not our fault that this sort of idea does not operate and that we are forced to carry on a stockpile.

The point was made by the Member for Tiong Bahru (Mr William Tan) that if we lift the control of rice, the price will drop. That is a mis-statement. The price is not controlled by us. There is no price control here. Neither is the cost of rice controlled by us. The cost of rice is controlled by the selling countries, not by us and the rice is bought at the price operating in the selling countries either by us or by the trade. Both have to pay the same price. Therefore, if we exclude the stockpile obligation, it does not mean that the price will drop. It only means that the extra one cent which is added because of the stockpile obligation will come down. Even that one cent per katty when it is spread over two katties which is imported direct by the importer comes to half a cent per katty to the consumer - if the merchants are honest about it - because they pay one cent more for our one katty of rice but they buy two katties of rice cheaper by one cent, they therefore get two cents cheaper in the price of two katties of rice and if you add this up, it only comes to half a cent or less extra.

A serious matter was raised by the Member for Tiong Bahru who mentioned that $4,000 had to be paid before a man could tender. Sir, I would like him very much to bring the matter up to me and give me all the necessary details in confidence if he can. I will say that if he were aware of it, it was his duty as a public-spirited citizen to have gone to the Anti-Corruption Branch of the Police and informed them. He can still do so if he has not done yet or he can come to me and give me the information in confidence and I will pass it on; but if he does not like that, he can go to the Anti-Corruption Branch and lay his information there. I will be the happiest man to see that all such business - if there is such business - should be stopped.

Mr William Tan: Check the records of the Police.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: I can give one assurance that his name will not be divulged, if the hon. Member lays his information before the Anti-Corruption Branch.

Now, Sir, we come to the main cause for the stockpile. The Member for Bukit Panjang said that perhaps the Minister for Commerce and Industry was afraid of a war breaking out. He said that it was unlikely that a war should break out in this part of the world because the neighbouring countries have no time for wars and that they were busy about their own economy.

Mr Braga: Famous last words!

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Perhaps, the hon. Member has forgotten the day when we were all asleep on the morning of the 8th of December, 1941, and at about 4 a.m., we suddenly heard explosions and rushed out to see what they were. Some of us thought that it was just anti-aircraft firing and some thought of other things. Others took it seriously, and so on. So there is no saying when a war can break out. In the sick position that the world is in today, Sir, it is presumptuous on the part of anyone to prophesy when war is or is not going to break out. It is the duty of a responsible Government to see that if an emergency does take place there is provision made for feeding the masses. Sir, the Member for Telok Ayer and probably others were fortunate enough -

Mr Braga: To run away.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: -to have had the opportunity to go away when war broke out here in 1941. The general population of Singapore, Sir, could not get that opportunity. I was one of those who stayed here.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I too.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: I saw what the plight of the people was then. Sir, just before the war broke out, I understand, certain essential foodstuffs were stockpiled and it was this stockpile which stood us in very good stead for the first few months when there was no organisation yet immediately after the Japanese occupied Singapore. During this period of disorganisation, that stockpile laid by a colonial Government stood us in very good stead. Now, I have seen what happened after that. I have seen the pathetic look in the eyes of children who had to eat ubi kayu (tapioca) and who could not get sufficient rice. I have seen miserable men and women lying on the street like skeletons because they developed beri beri when they could not get rice. Sir, those who went through that experience, I am sure, will not grudge but, in fact, will support that Government should provide for a future emergency, in case there is one, especially when the merchant is not paying but the consumer is paying for it and for whose benefit this insurance against the future is. If they do not, Sir, and they vote for this motion and if there is an emergency when supplies are cut off - this can happen, without the producing countries being occupied by Communist powers; it may be due to lack of shipping that our supplies may be lessened - it will be a crime against humanity when you find those little children and mothers going about with a hungry look in their eyes. Of course, the richer section of the public will have stockpiles of their own in their homes.

Sir, I have here an authoritative report on the supply position and I will quote from it. I am not able to divulge the source but it is an authoritative report and I give that assurance. Regarding Burma, it reads:

"It was still not known what proportion of the expected export quota of 1.6 million tons would go in barter trade with Communist countries; but it appeared that supplies of Burma rice coming on to the free world market in 1957 would be scarce in relation to demand."

Now, that is without a war intervening. So, you can have a position where supplies run short because some countries suddenly buy more than they had expected. We had the case when Japan came into the market to buy 200,000 tons of rice early this year. They did not buy that much, but there was a case in point. Indonesia might suddenly find herself short and buy a big quantity, in which case, there will be a run on rice on the producing countries.

Sir, I ask hon. Members not to treat this as a Party issue. This is a matter of national importance, of importance to the people to provide for their future and therefore it is a matter of importance to Members irrespective of which side of the House they sit in. If they want to provide for the future of the masses, as the Member for Telok Ayer said, then I say that he should withdraw his motion or they should vote against it. If they think only in a short-sighted way for today and not care for tomorrow, it is up to them.

3.35 p.m.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very happy to hear the Minister for Commerce and Industry reminding us that we should not treat this issue on a party basis.

After the lengthy speeches from both sides of the House, I think the arguments fall into two classes. One, we look at it from a commercial point of view, and, two, we look at it from a military strategy point of view.

Sir, I wish to talk from the commercial point of view. The mover of the motion made it very clear that the stockpile of rice policy will not only make the taxpayer suffer but also the masses. On this point, I do not know if the Minister for Commerce and Industry, as a buinessman, can say whether it is true or not that the outcry to abolish the stockpiling of rice comes only from the merchants in the Telok Ayer area and not from the public. Not long ago, certain quarters which did not deal with foodstuffs or belonged to any organisation, printed literature to reach every leader and Assemblyman seeking his support to press the Government to abolish this stockpile policy. The basic reason is that Singapore, as we all know, is an entrepot city and there is free competition. We experienced rice rationing during the reoccupation and when the price became more stable, rationing was abolished together with food control in 1953 or 1954 - I am not sure when it came about. So the reason why the Government abolished food control two or three years ago was that Government believed in free enterprise to bring down the actual price of rice, and I wonder why the Government cannot maintain the same confidence in the policy of free enterprise to bring down the price of rice. So, from the commercial point of view, I am sure the Minister for Commerce and Industry, who was a businessman before, will admit that if the stockpile policy is dropped, the cost of imported rice will be reduced because of the many extra charges added. We have also heard the serious charge that was made by the Member for Tiong Bahru that a certain amount of money has to be paid in order to ensure a successful tender. This smells of corruption. Therefore, in order to put this on a more practical basis, the trader should be given the chance to show that with free enterprise in the trading of rice, there will be a reduction in price. The Minister for Commerce and Industry said the traders refused to give an assurance that a certain amount of rice would be stocked by them.

I have a press cutting dated 4th December, 1956. The statement was issued by the then President of the Rice Importers Association, Mr Teo Han Sun. On one item, it says that the authorities insist that for three months' local consumption, there has to be a reserve of at least 25,000 tons. The Rice Importers Association did try many a time to give an assurance to the authorities to that effect. The Association President also pointed out clearly to the Government that the actual stock of rice in the godowns of Singapore was always more than 25,000 tons of rice, which was required by the Government. I wonder whether or not the Minister for Commerce and Industry has looked into this assurance.

Lastly, I want to speak from the military point of view. If we have faith in our great neighbouring countries - and we like to call India, China, Thailand and Indonesia our brother countries - why should we suspect that all these big brothers are going to bully this small brother? So the whole thing rests on the tradition that the question of our external defence and external relations still lies in the hands of the United Kingdom Government. This is the atomic age and yet we base our strategy on the fact that this island must have a certain amount rice stocked for the people: how many infantries are required to defend this island; how many battleships to guard our sea-coast.

Sir, I think this is the right time for the elected Government to make this important point - that in this atomic age the military strategy of the United Kingdom is not to think in terms of submarines, battleships or even an atomic bomb, but the feelings of the local people. If the local people support the United Kingdom's strategy, then I think that even a stock of three months' foodstuffs is not sufficient to carry on. But the local people do not share that point of view. We must take this opportunity to show our Asian-African spirit, that we have faith in our Asian and African brothers who, for years, have suffered under imperialistic rule. War could only possibly come from this side because it is suspected that we have been influenced or have been infiltrated by the Communist forces and therefore there is a possibility of war breaking out at any moment, as has been pointed out by the Minister for Commerce and Industry. But I do not think that the local people, especially the man in the street, can understand this, and I wish to ask our intelligent leaders in this House why the Americans, in recent years, have rapidly lost popularity among our Asian nations. Why? Because the Americans talk of war the whole time, war everywhere and military bases everywhere. How much support do they think they can seek from the Asian and African people? Sir, so from this point of view, why has the Government not the courage to tell Whitehall? "The people of Singapore have faith in their own destiny. We do not think there is going to be any war now at all. We believe in peace and co-existence." If we can get away from the influence of the United Kingdom, I think the question of stockpiling will be much easier for the Government to think of.

Sir, after saying all this, I must say that I am in no way opposed to this motion, but I do sincerely suggest to Government that (1) it should abolish the stockpile policy, and (2) it should seek an assurance from the rice importers whether it is true that they can satisfy the United Kingdom strategists' demands, and (3) , that it should drop its plans for the time being and see whether the price of rice will increase or decrease. This will prove to the people that the Government is sincere in its concern for the welfare of the people. Sir, I wish to repeat again what the Minister for Commerce and Industry has said, that this issue must not be treated as a party issue but as a national issue in the interests of the people.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Masses.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Masses. So I take this opportunity, not as a champion of the masses, to repeat what the masses really think, and that is that during the Japanese occupation, they could purchase rice at eight cents per katty although stocks were insufficient and the simpleminded citizens cannot understand why they have to pay much more now when we have assured them that this Government is far better than the Japanese military government. So, Sir, Government must carefully consider this issue which is a national one.

4.08 p.m.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Speaker, Sir, everybody seems to be concerned over the welfare of the people, whether the people will be able to have their rice the next day and whether they are going to pay a cent less or a cent more. In fact, that is most commendable.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Thank you.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: However, the method of approach seems to me that one set of people think about it in the form of a Government guarantee. Other people think that we can provide that guarantee without Government's interference. Now, let us see. We have been having our stockpile for a long time. Let us see what are the reasons behind it. The first reason is that if there is a war or an emergency, then where are we to get our rice from? The second reason for stockpiling is that if there is black-marketing in rice, then we must stop the merchants from exploiting that situation. Of course, the third reason for stockpiling may be similar to the stockpiling of rubber in America which is needed as a sort of a buffer. If the price should rise, then they push out a little bit of the rubber to put the price down, and so on. It will keep down prices at the correct level to their advantage.

Now, I certainly feel that the third reason is out because Government has never tried to keep prices down in favour of the people but allows the price to go up or down as the market dictates. So that reason is out.

Now, on the second one about the control of rice, probably stockpiling and rice control will be necessary during the war years when there will be a shortage of supply. According to the usual laws of supply and demand, prices will go up when there is a shortage of rice. Price control and distribution become necessary during emergency years. But the balance has already swung over to the other side and today we find that there is no shortage of supply. In fact, supply is greater than demand. I have never heard of China exporting rice before but today she seems to be able to export rice to Ceylon. Thailand, after the war, was still short of rice but today, she seems to be offering rice to everybody and so is Burma which is trying to offer her surplus stock. Ceylon too is trying to trade with other countries and trying to barter her rice for something else. Now we have plenty of rice all around and because of this situation, the price of rice in a free market must necessarily come down. Here is where price control can stop, and the usual way of supply and demand be allowed to work for the advantage of the people. Of course, if there is a further glut, you will find that the merchants are willing to sell their goods even below cost. That will be a greater advantage to the people.

Now, let us come back to the first reason which is said to be the most important, and that is, we must have a stock to tide us over any emergency. We agree with that. I would like to ask the Government how Hongkong manages this. They have a stockpile but I think the merchants are giving a helping hand there. In Singapore, I have heard from the Minister for Commerce and Industry state that a few years ago, the traders were approached by the Government about the question of being responsible for a stockpile of rice and they refused to undertake this task. Sir, ideas can change. We know that the Government has changed a lot of its ideas and plans all along and merchants also are privileged in the same way to change their plans. During the last few days, I have been around in the market to find out the position, and I was pleasantly surprised to find that quite a number of merchants were willing to carry stocks. This question can certainly be investigated into, and if they are willing to carry stocks, then stockpiling may be done by the merchants themselves. Perhaps, in order to help the public, Government may still extend the same offer of capital and godown space for the stockpiling and keep a check on the actual amount of rice in the godowns. If that can be done, it will save us a lot of trouble. But, of course, when Government thinks about giving anybody any responsibility, it must also think of giving them some privileges, because privilege and responsibility always go together.

Mr Francis Thomas: To put a flag on a car!

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Yes, there must always be responsibility with privilege and vice versa.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: On a point of clarification, Sir. What does the hon. Member mean when he referred to Hongkong? Does he want the Government to form a ring of rice merchants of a limited number with a monopoly as in Hongkong?

Mr Lim Choon Mong: I am not a Member of the Government and I will save the trouble of cracking my head over this question but the Government should be able to think out as to the best way of doing it. I am giving the Government the idea that there is the offer from the merchants. You have the material in hand, make the best use of it!

Now, let us turn our attention to other commodities. We all say that rice is imported and that it is the staple food. Yes, rice is most important but without rice, there can still be other substitutes and such substitutes may be found in flour and other grains-

Mr Braga: Tapioca.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: - and even tapioca. I suppose many people have tasted tapioca

An hon. Member: A long time ago.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: - a long time ago and they still live, otherwise quite a number of them would not be sitting here.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: M and B pills.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Perhaps. But I am thinking of flour. If rice is important, if there is no substitute for rice and if the whole country is going to starve because there is no stockpile, why can we not have another stockpile of flour also? This is easier to store and would be a very good substitute for rice. Of course, the reasons are obvious. It is in the hands of the expatriates and not in the hands of the local people, and therefore that may be a good excuse-

The Chief Minister: Do you prefer flour to rice?

Mr Lim Choon Mong: - for leaving flour out of control?

Mr Braga: Do you prefer flour?

Mr Lim Choon Mong: You may say that it is silly and that this is not in your line, and so on; but, I say that it was the colonial policy to control everything - even the rice business which was not done by them during the period of the British Military Administration.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Are you a member of the P.A.P.?

Mr Lim Choon Mong: I am not a P.A.P. member. I am only stating a truth. Those are facts. Nobody can deny those facts.

Let us see how Government control and how Government stockpile have helped in doing things that are against the interest of the people. As a matter of fact, Government is never good at trading. Whatever they do, they always pay a higher price than the price paid for by the merchant and even if the price paid were the same, you will find that a lower grade of rice is usually shipped to them. All in all, the people will be paying

The Member for Telok Ayer crossed the floor.

Mr Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must not cross the floor unnecessarily.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, I just-

Mr Speaker: Is it on a point of order?

Mr R. Jumabhoy: No.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Thank you. My friend has given me a little note and he is still on this side of the floor.

Now, Government has never been good in trading and no matter what Government does, it will always get a raw deal from hardened businessmen.

An hon. Member: Even from the Opposition.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: if there is control, you will find that price goes up all the time. There is always loss of weight during transhipment, and when goods come in and out of godowns. I think the Government cannot deny that, and usually you find that the grades of rice may not be as they should be.

I feel that this motion is a justifiable one and I agree with my colleague that if it had been proposed by Members on the opposite Benches, it would, in all probability, be applauded and said to be good motion; but, in this case, it happens to be proposed by a Member of the Opposition and it must be treated as not so good! If the Government had such an intention at heart, then let it openly agree to no further stockpiling of rice. If the Government thinks that stockpiling is necessary, then keep this stockpile throughout its life.

Mr Goode: On a point of explanation, Sir. The hon. Member thinks that he supports the motion. I think he said just now that he also agrees to having a stockpile. I am not quite sure which he means.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: I said that, "if the Government thinks that a stockpile is necessary". Sir, I have had the privilege of being interrupted so many times.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: It is confusing, is it not?

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Yes, they are doing their best to confuse the people in order to have their own way.

I understand too that the Government tries to operate this business on a no profit, no loss basis, in a case like this, Government may think that it is operating on a no profit, no loss basis. Every time it buys stocks, it will sell out at the same price at a later date to the merchant who buys it. If the price happens to be low, the merchant buying it will benefit hut the benefit will not be passed on to the public; if the price is high, the public will suffer because the extra will be added on to the price by the merchant. I feel that in a matter of stockpiling and control of any goods, the best way to go about it is either control it fully, or not control it at all.

My colleague will probably be answering questions put by the Minister for Commerce and Industry and I will leave him to wind up the debate.

4.25 p.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, the number of times reference has been made to the word "masses" leads me to believe that there may be elections this year after all. Sometime last month when I referred to the "masses", I was criticised for being preoccupied with the lumpen proletariat. But now, I have respectable company in the use of the word "masses" in the Member for Telok Ayer, the Member for Tiong Bahru, the Minister for Commerce and Industry, the Member for Serangoon and the Member for Changi. We get more and more respectable as we go along.

Sir, there are two facets to this problem of the stockpile. I promised the Member for Telok Aver that I would keep an open mind till I have heard both sides and, like a good judge, I have tried to keep an open mind although my colleague the Member for Ponggol-Tampenis (Mr Goh Chew Chua) had already more or less decided what should be the right stand. On the one side is the question of the efficient running of the stockpile. The Member for Tiong Bahru (Mr William Tan) has mentioned the mysterious figure of $4,000 paid by importers. And another Liberal-Socialist Member has lectured about how middlemen can make profits on even one graphite pencil. If anyone seeks the road to personal happiness and prosperity, well, join this Party. We have been told that the middleman's profit is a wicked thing and from the distinguished merchant, the Member for Telok Ayer. He says. "It is a wicked thing. We must get rid of the middlemen." And I was wondering at that time whether he had already left the Liberal-Socialist Party.

We had the astonishing suggestion that if rice were freed, meaning not that controls are removed but that stockpiles are abolished, its price would stabilise itself automatically. I am not sure what it means. All I know is that no price is static unless it is controlled. It will move up and down according to supply and demand. We are asked to believe that it will stabilise itself automatically for the benefit of the masses. Sir, if we are convinced of that, then, of course the People's Action Party which the Member for Telok Ayer has congratulated for representing the people will vote for his motion. Unfortunately, I am in some doubt whether if the stockpile were removed, it would be not the masses who would benefit but the merchants.

Mr Braga: Of Telok Ayer.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: We were told that the stockpile was needed for the contingency of a war or an emergency. I suggest to this House that even without a war or an emergency situation, one may have all kinds of temporary shortages of rice, either genuine or man-made, which may boost up the price of rice. If there is this buffer, then the opportunities for windfall gains will be denied to the merchants in the Telok Ayer division because the Government being a benevolent and paternal guardian of the people will sell from their stockpile and not make the windfall gains. By the time the Liberal-Socialist Party so earnestly urges that the benefit of the masses will be brought about by the free operation of merchants and middlemen, there must be something, - I would not use the word "fishy", Sir: it might be unparliamentary to use such a word - I think that there must be a catch in it.

4.30 p.m.

The Chief Minister: Sir, there is a short point arising out of the speech of the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) and also the speech of the Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng). They say that merchants have stated recently that they are prepared to guarantee the stockpile but they have not stated that what they want, as their pound of flesh, is a monopoly of the trade. That is what was meant by the Member for Serangoon when he said that with responsibility you must get privileges. What he is asking for is that in order that the rice trade can be responsible to look after the stockpile, it must be given the privilege of exploiting the consumers. The Member for Serangoon said that rice is not the only food for which we should pile up stocks and that there are other commodities like tapioca and flour, and yet he blamed, shall we say, the Colonial officers, for having too much of a say in the stockpiling of rice. If they really had a say, Sir, I think they would rather have had a stockpiling of flour instead of rice, so that they could train us in the Western way of living. The Member for Serangoon also said, "Well, we can eat tapioca", and the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) said, "Perhaps, everyone is thinking that there is an election coming soon and maybe the Liberal-Socialists can have as one of their election banners: 'Join the Liberal-Socialists and eat tapioca.'"

4.31 p.m.

Mr Goh Chew Chua (Ponggol-Tampenis): Mr Speaker, Sir, we, who have lived through the Japanese occupation, know what distress was caused when rice supplies were short and how labourers could not work unless their cup of rice was assured to them. No amount of Japanese money could tempt them to work unless a cup of rice was guaranteed to them. Sir, the lessons of the Japanese occupation do not seem to be of any concern to the Member for Telok Ayer. Of course, this is to be expected because being a rich man he could afford to make his escape before the Japanese came in.

Mr R. Jumabhoy rose-

Mr Speaker: Is it on a point of order?

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, this is personal. I am not a rich man. May I tell him that?

Mr Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member wishes to rise on a point of order, he may do so. If he wishes to rise on a point of explanation, he may also do so but in the latter case, the hon. Member holding the floor must first give way.

Mr Goh Chew Chua: Sir, we who remained behind know how the poor people suffered then and I am therefore determined to see that they do not undergo a similar experience again so long as we are able to help them. Are we sure, Sir, that if the Member for Telok Ayer who represents the rice importers has his way and when the stockpile is abolished, that our poorer classes of people will not suffer and also that the importers will not raise the price? At any rate, Sir, the cost of upkeep of the stockpile comes to a little more than one cent a katty. If the stockpile is abolished, are we sure that the wealthy rice importers who are members of the same kongsi will not raise their prices? It is because Government has a stockpile that these merchants can be kept under proper control and if they try to raise the price, naturally Government can release from the stockpile and keep the price under control. Sir, it is quite natural that if the stockpile is abolished, those who will be the first to suffer are the poorer classes of people. The poorer people pay one cent more per katty for the stockpile of rice but what is this extra charge compared with the higher prices that they will be forced to pay if the stockpile is abolished? I am surprised, Sir, that the Member for Telok Ayer who belongs to a Party which believes in fair slices of the political cake for all should now want to increase the larger slices of the rice importers and reduce the smaller slices of the poorer section of the people. This, Sir, is not Liberal-Socialism. It is only exploitation of the poor man and unworthy of any Party with a seat in this Assembly.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: On a point of clarification, Sir. May I say that it is not one cent per katty that a consumer pays? The stockpile price is one cent dearer which is reflected, when they import two katties of free rice, to work out to half a cent on the consumer.

Mr R. Jumabhoy rose-

Mr Deputy Speaker: In reply?

4.37 p.m.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: In reply, Sir. Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, I will deal first with the Member for Ponggol-Tampenis (Mr Goh Chew Chua). Let me tell him and those who heard him that I am not talking on behalf of the merchants. Also let him state what is his idea of a rich man - $1,000, $1 million, $10 million or $50 million? My definition of a rich man is a man beyond want - I hope he learns in his old age.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: How much have you got?

Mr R. Jumabhoy: If the contention is that this commodity should be controlled in the interests of the masses, may I ask the Government why control only this commodity?

Now, Sir, I was amused to hear the Nominated Member, Mr Richard Lim, a race-horse owner, talking of Socialism. I was glad that the other Nominated Member, Mr Francis Thomas, did not touch on the technicalities but only in general. My reply to him is that if he cares at all for the masses, then there are so many other things which the Government can control in the interest of the masses.

Sir, I am not replying to the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew), who thinks that he represents all the masses but he is mistaken. What I said was that it was not in the interest of the merchants but the masses. If he can endorse it, it is all right. If he does not, it is his look-out.

Now, Sir, it seems that the Government is unrepentant and I told you the reason why. The Minister for Commerce and Industry touched in a lengthy way on so many matters. I will deal with them one by one. I dealt with rice from the time when he was not yet born.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: He has learned a lot since.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: It seems that he has learnt many things in the regular school of his colonial friends.

Sir, he made reference to my being a Member of the Executive Council and the Legislative Council. I cannot divulge anything as I was under oath as an Executive Council Member and I have not taken any advantage of any secrets I know, in this debate, but let me tell him and others that when we were there, we tried our level best and succeeded as far as we could till the present Coalition Government took charge. He also made mention of my not being here during the Japanese period. I left on 6th or 7th February, 1942, when the Japanese just entered Singapore and I had to leave because of my public position which I held then, and the thought that I might not be safe. With good luck, I returned and I found him clotheless, foodless, penniless, and-

The Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat): On a point of order, Sir, I doubt whether the Member is aware that he is casting aspersions on the Minister for Commerce and Industry.

Mr Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. Carry on, Mr R. Jumabhoy.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not casting aspersions on anybody but I am stating actual facts and he should be proud that he remained honest in that period. He did not amass money as many others did.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I think that would be out of order. Will the hon. Member please continue, avoiding making such references?

Mr R. Jumabhoy: May I not, Sir, make a statement of facts?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Not in the way the hon. Member has done.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: It is not casting an aspersion at all; it is a credit to him. Now, Sir, he touched on the export trade of rice saying that it is still going on in the same way. This is quite incorrect. Singapore may import the rice and forward it to the Federation, but in fact this is not re-export in the real sense of the term. I mean, we used to re-export big quantities in those days to Ceylon, India and Africa and not small quantities like five tons to Ceylon.

Government has not made any point at all to defend its policy of a strategic stockpile for an emergency. I say that there is no emergency or the threat of war in this part of South-East Asia. I believe the Minister also mentioned about the Japanese attack. Yes, those days have now passed. Whom do we fear now in South-East Asia? If the Government can prove that there will be a real emergency or an attack, well, that is quite a different matter but the Government has not proved it at all. We were only told of sad stories happening during the Japanese occupation of Malaya. We know all that. That is nothing new. What I want to ask is whom are we afraid of now?

It will be very interesting to know what is the total tonnage in the stockpile and what is the total tonnage sold to dealers? The Minister made reference to the honesty of the rice merchants! Only recently, he was a merchant and he can ask himself that question.

Sir, prices will always adjust according to supply and demand. On the other hand, the rice dealers are willing to have a minimum quantity of stockpile, not in Government godowns but in their own godowns which can be checked from time to time. A solution can be arrived at very easily, if it is found that they can manage it.

Much was said about the cost of half a cent or one cent more to the consumer. May I point out to the People's Action Party that if a family of ten pays half a cent or one cent more for a katty of rice, how much would it cost them monthly? Is it not in the interest of the masses that they should pay less?

The point was also made that it is not the merchant who suffers but it is the consumer. May I ask why should the consumer suffer at all? The consumer should not suffer because of this stockpile or control of the rice trade.

I was also told that there is no control of rice imports. What else can you call it if a person wants to import rice which he can import, but he has also to buy rice from the Government in the ratio of one to two? If this is not control, then what do you name it?

A point was made that by stockpiling, the Government is not incurring expenses for the running of the department, it works out like this: taking from one pocket and putting it into another pocket. It comes to the same thing. My point is this. Whether you charge it to revenue or you suffer a loss or you charge the merchant extra for taking your tonnage of rice in proportion to his imports, ultimately the consumer pays. The object of my motion is that the consumer should not suffer.

Sir, I think I have covered almost all the points in reply and I will urge the Government and my friends on this side of the House to vote for the motion.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: On a point of explanation. Sir, I wish to clarify that after the Japanese occupation, I was not clotheless, not foodless and not penniless. I was certainly not rich hut I could provide for myself.

Mr R. Jumabhoy rose-

Mr Deputy Speaker: Is it on a point of order?

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, I did not mean to hurt anybody's feelings.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Is it on a point of order?

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Just an explanation. Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I do not think that that is necessary now.

Question put.

Hon. Members: Division, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Clear the lobbies.

The House divided: Ayes, 7; Noes, 20; Abstentions, Nil. Ayes Noes Goh Tong Liang Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat Jumabhoy, R. Ahmad Bin Ibrahim Lee Choon Eng A. J. Braga Lim Cher Kheng Butterfield, C. H. Lim Choon Mong Chew Swee Kee Lim Koon Teck Goh Chew Chua Tan, William Goode, W. A. C. Hart, T. M. Jumabhoy, J. M. Lee Kuan Yew Lim, R. C. H. Noes Lim Yew Hock Mak Pak Shee Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Abdul Hamid Nair, M. P. D. Seah Peng Chuan Sutherland, G. A. P. Tan Theng Chiang Thomas, Francis Wong Foo Nam Abstentions Nil Absent Ede, John Lazarous, A. R. Lim Ching Siong Marshall, D. S. Ong Piah Teng

Question accordingly negatived.