APPROPRIATION BILL

Order read for resumption of debate on motion [4th December, 1957].

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

10.07 a.m.

Mr Seah Peng Chuan (Kampong Kapor): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. the Financial Secretary in his budget speech on 4th December, said (column 2830 of the Hansard):

"... it is possible that the actual deficit would be of the order of $8 million...".

It is possible that the actual deficit in 1958 will be of the order of $8 million, and to meet the deficit, it is proposed to increase, among other things, the duty on petrol and to make a slight increase in the special tax on heavy oil engine vehicles.

Sir, I disagree most strongly with the Financial Secretary when he said that the imposition of the new rate on petrol is unlikely to cause any hardship to Singapore. It is quite possible, Sir, that in the near future, this increase in the price of petrol will be passed on to those who have to use public transport. Nor have the owners of private cars been let off lightly. Sir, car owners in the higher income group may be able to take the increase of 20 cents a gallon on petrol, they can afford it. But for those who find it necessary or convenient to own a car for a number of good reasons, this increase will result, when they come to balance their monthly budgets, in having to rob Peter to pay Paul.

Looking closely at the picture, Sir, one cannot help coming to the conclusion that it is those who can least afford it who will be the most hard hit by this increase of 20 cents a gallon on petrol. For example, Sir, take a clerk who owns a car, draws $300 a month salary, and uses 1½ gallons of petrol a day. This means that the increased charge to him will be 30 cents. This clerk who owns a car conveys neighbours who work near his office or in the same office. They pay him, on mutual agreement, $10 per man, which means that each of them will have to pay an addition of $2 per head. This is what I do not like, Sir.

Another example is a taxi. Owners of taxis work on day and night shifts. The majority of them use five gallons of petrol per shift. An increase of 20 cents in the price of petrol will mean an addition of one dollar to the cost. As taxi drivers now earn at the rate of $5 per shift, this will mean that they will lose a dollar, thus reducing their actual earning to only $4. How can they live on $4 a day at the present time?

Sir, instead of imposing an additional tax on petrol to meet part of the deficit of $8 million, the Government should concentrate its energy on encouraging the establishment of industries here by foreign investors, so that more employment will be available to local citizens. With more employment, more money will be in circulation. Instead, we are told by the Financial Secretary (column 2843), "Money is tighter." Sir, it is obvious that foreign investors can only be induced to come here to set up industries if the Government is in a position to assure them that the business and political climates here are healthy for their enterprises. If such conditions are not forthcoming in 1958, I am afraid there may be even a larger deficit when the Financial Secretary makes his next budget speech. Additional means of taxation may then have to be found to meet the deficit and probably it will again be those who can least afford it who will have to foot the bill.

Sir, another point on industry. The Government concentrates on having more industry in Singapore, but the industries have to pay company tax or income tax at the rate of 30 per cent. And we have export tax and import tax.

The Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy): There is no import tax.

Mr Seah Peng Chuan: We must bear these in mind. On big industries, Sir, the Hon. the Minister for Commerce and Industry says, 'Oh, we have a few of these industries breaking down, but we have small industries coming up.' Sir, one must realise that if a big industry closes down we may have unemployment of 300 persons. The small industries come up, and two or three of them may employ only about 100 people. So the balance of 200 persons are still unemployed. The Minister for Labour and Welfare is therefore not seeing things quite clearly. Also each unemployed man may be supporting a wife and child. I take the family to be a small one. So, 200 unemployed each with a family of a wife and child - an addition of two - will mean another 400 unemployed, making the total 600 instead of only 200. Sir, this is what I expect the Minister for Labour and Welfare should look into.

Thirdly, Sir, income tax. An increase in taxation may be coming up. When the 1958 budget comes up, the Financial Secretary will say, 'We are still in deficit. We have no money now. So we are trying to find some way to meet the deficit.' That means more tax will be coming up for the wage-earner. We are now not taxing those earning $3,000 a year but the Government may think, 'Ah, we must do something to get some money by fixing up a minimum of $25 income tax on $3,000.' Who is going to suffer in the end? It is the lower income group.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I come now to the Financial Secretary's remarks on Malayanisation. He said (column 2824):

"... it is likely that actual expenditure in 1957 will amount to about $242 million. It should be noted, however, that this total includes a sum of $9 million in respect of compensation under the Malayanisation Scheme."

Very good, Sir, I have no quarrel with the principle of Malayanisation. In fact I am all in favour of it. I voted for it. But what I do not like about one aspect of the operation of the Malayanisation Scheme is that when certain expatriate officers are upgraded they take the opportunity shortly thereafter to retire and thereby receive higher Malayanisation benefits. I have heard of certain senior police officers who, while on leave abroad 8,000 miles away from Singapore, were promoted to higher ranks. They came back from leave to fill their higher appointments for just a few months and thereafter elected to retire under the Malayanisation scheme with larger retirement sums. This business of being here today and there tomorrow should be stopped.

Sir, the opposite Government Benches must realise that the amount we have for payment under the Malayanisation scheme comes out of public money, not from ourselves. We must look into this carefully and not allow expatriates to return from their leave after being promoted from grade one to special grade, and then to retire. Otherwise where are we to get the money to pay them? It might cost more than $9 million, the figure stated in the Estimates. Sir, I would like the Government to look into this matter. We must stop the practice.

Mr R. Jumabhoy (Telok Ayer): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. the Financial Secretary in his last speech as an ex-officio Member of this Assembly has taken great pains in supporting his arguments for increased expenditure and consequent increased taxation. He has also drawn a gloomy picture for the future. Sir, not only he but his predecessors have from time to time drawn such pictures. I do think the picture for the future is gloomy when one looks at the appalling expenditure. Sir, be has raised matters in his speech with regard to stability and so on. I would like to touch on the speech he made the other day.

Sir, the backbone of our income is the entrepot trade. Now nearly 150 years old, Singapore, what it is today, is built on entrepot trade. This life-blood we can still preserve if we try but there are conditions to keep this entrepot trade. First, Sir, is economic stability. Now, Sir, economic stability depends on political stability. An unstable government can never inspire confidence in the minds of the public, especially the investor, and unless there is a stable government, of the elected majority - I wonder why the Nominated Member Mr Thomas should laugh at this - this is an acknowledged fact which I can prove; and can anyone challenge this fact, that unless there is a stable government with an elected majority of the people, the government is not stable? Sir, I will deal more with this subject a little later.

Sir, entrepot trade requires low handing charges. Handling charges should be the lowest to preserve and compete with neighbouring countries in selling or transhipping your goods, either imports or exports, from this territory. Now when I say handling charges it means lorry and boat hire, insurance, overhead charges, profits and so on, plus cheap labour. Sir, another condition to preserve this state is a free trade policy. We have heard time and time again wild talk of import duties or expectation of import duties, and of luxury taxation (of course dead now, I hope). Such talk keeps the mind of the public in a very uncertain state. There is a fear and trade will not settle down at its own proper level. If you want to preserve the entrepot trade, free trade policy should go on as it is now.

The fourth thing is capital and labour. Sir, we should not forget that the reason why Singapore, originally a fishing village, is today a prosperous city is due to its entrepot trade. In the first instance, capital was brought by the British merchants. But capital could not do anything without labour, and labour was brought from India and China. Capital and labour worked hand in hand and therefore we now see a prosperous place. In other words, Sir, capital and labour, in the peculiar position of Singapore, is inter-dependent. I have said this previously and I repeat it again. Without capital, labour cannot exist. Capital can always flow in a favourable climate. Therefore, in a place like this, we should see that the capital is there and that labour is cooperating with capital.

Sir, let me say this. When I said that in the first instance the British brought the capital, I should also say that they have taken back to England many, many times more of what they brought into Singapore - through dividends, salaries, pensions, banking, insurance, shipping, etc.

Sir, a condition to preserve a state of racial and class harmony demands that preaching or saying anything which can create this racial or class hatred will destroy the economy of this city. Can we get capital from abroad to come to this city if we have wild talk which does more harm than good? We do know that we want capital. No country can do without foreign capital. That is the position today in Asia.

Let us, Sir, depend on our sound commonsense. Many people have brought in a lot of "isms", possibly all from foreign countries. Now, Sir, Singapore being a small city, can we not form a policy taking the best of the two blocs for our economic purpose? I think the politicians should refrain from talking wild slogans unnecessarily, which will ultimately harm the masses - and our population is fast growing with plenty of unemployment.

Sir, another factor towards maintaining our entrepot trade is a low cost of living. Can we not reduce our cost of living? Can we not formulate our policy that our cost of living comes down? Means have to be devised. As it stands today, the cost of living is going higher and higher.

Sir, the next thing is industry, after entrepot trade. Many a time, politicians on the Government side have talked about the development of industry and bringing in capital from foreign countries to develop industry here. Sir, this kind of bluff serves no purpose whatsoever. It might keep people busy for a short time but these false hopes will only raise or create more unemployment and unrest.

Now, Sir, how can industry survive unless these conditions are fulfilled? - capital is necessary; there should be cheap labour as in competing countries; a low cost of living so that the worker can remain contented; a vast hinterland for markets for our goods; political stability which can satisfy the investor that his capital is safe; cheap power to reduce our cost of production; low taxation; and raw material of our own (but this can be imported if the other factors are present).

Let me say here and now, Sir, it is on these factors only that large industries can exist, and all the confusing and irresponsible talk will only cause more harm than good. Have we these conditions here? I challenge anyone to say that we have. They are not existing at all.

Now, Sir, take for granted that someone starts a factory. What are you going to do with the goods produced at high cost? Can you sell them? If you cannot, then that industry has to close down. Then the argument starts: why not impose import duties to help this industry? Yes, you can help in that way, but the reason against it is this - that you are preventing your own Singaporeans from buying cheaper goods manufactured elsewhere in preference to his own goods, to meet his immediate needs. Another thing. Sir - if you have import duty to preserve such an industry, then you are selling your manufactured goods to your own people at a very high price. The result will be this, that you will have to increase wages and salaries. It leads you nowhere.

Sir, our population is growing. What is the solution then? The only solution in the circumstances as we are faced today is to develop cottage and small-scale industries of which I spoke also at the last budget sitting. We should keep the families - wives and children - busy. The creation of these industries only is not sufficient - what is also very necessary is to foster them with loans, advances, marketing, etc.

Now, Sir, people are blind to these and other factors when they talk of import duties. Those countries having import duties are already large with vast populations, and they do not depend on entrepot trade only. We are not in that position; we in this small territory are in a very peculiar position.

Sir, economic stability is very essential and I said that it depends on political stability which can bring confidence to the investor, businessman and worker. What have we seen since this present Government came into power?-strikes, lock-outs, unrest, arrests, etc. Can this bring any confidence or stability to the public mind? We are not better off even today. We are in the same position. Government can always avoid strikes by looking into the matter immediately. If a strike takes place and is settled, it leaves a bad taste in both the mouth of the employer and the employee. Settlement should be made immediately, before a strike develops. Sir, the masses should also understand that they should not be misled by the wrong people. After all, they will be hitting themselves by this process.

Sir, in the short period of the Coalition Government we have had two commissions of corruption appointed. Can they bring stability to the minds of the public?

Coming to expenditure, Sir, there should be very rigid control of expenditure, both capital and administrative. Cut down extravagant expenditure, banquets and unnecessary travelling, and cut our coat according to our stature.

Sir, one can compare our expenditure and income with those of the Federation, our neighbour. The Federation has a population four times bigger than Singapore. The Federation has thousands of miles of territories to administer. They have an Emergency too. If you compare it with our 220 odd square miles, you will see that our expenditure is definitely very high.

Sir, as an illustration I might mention conferences. In previous years, Sir, Singapore was more politically advanced than the Federation. When we were invited to conferences, the Federation used to be satisfied either with briefing us or the United Kingdom chief of the delegation, and thus avoid expenditure. Can we not do this now wherever possible? After all we are a Colony still and we are in a secondary position with no vote.

Sir, our cost of administration is the highest compared with that of any other Asian territory. Why? Yes, our standard of living is high, but in comparison the administration cost is too high, and that should be cut down wherever possible.

Sir, coming to taxation, the Hon. the Financial Secretary has said that the financial position is sound. If so, why this additional taxation? The increase in tax on petrol and diesel oil engine vehicles will add to the difficulties and hardships of the masses mostly, as taxis, lorries, buses and so on will have to put up their fares. Who will be the losers? It is the masses. They will have to bear the extra cost, they will have to foot the bill. Besides, it will harm our entrepot trade too. Your lighterage and lorry charges will go up higher. You are making it more difficult for the entrepot trade because of this higher cost.

To the Government, a fraction means nothing. I say a fraction, in relation to our 1½ million population, is very much. Sir, I might quote here a part of an editorial of the Singapore Standard:

"When a political party comes into power, it wishes to experiment with its political theories, and in the course of such experiments the public are made to foot the bill, however unjustified that may be. The Government must remember that Singapore must be able to earn enough to meet its expenditure, since it is not a producing territory. Therefore, political experiments must not destroy world confidence in this entrepot, thereby affecting its trade and prosperity. The most capable of Financial Secretaries cannot perform miracles if the Government's political experiments were to drive away trade and kill the sources of revenue."

Mr Speaker: Will the hon. Member give the date of issue of the newspaper?

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Thursday, 5th December.

Now, Sir, this view is shared by thousands of people in Singapore. God alone can help if a recession in trade and a slump comes, as the Hon. the Financial Secretary has made a forecast of it. The best thing is to spend as little as possible. No doubt essentials like education and health should be fully supported but capital costs certainly can be reduced. Sir, compare the population of two or three years back with that of today. It is not so high and yet your expenditure has gone so high.

Last thing, Sir - in the Estimates I have not seen any contributions to the Chinese Y.M.C.A., the Ramakrishna Mission, Sultan Mosque and the Young Men's Muslim Association, even though I understand the Financial Secretary received requests for help. I will not take up the Assembly's time on this; I will take up the matter at the Committee stage.

Sir, in the end I must only say this, that the Coalition Government has failed, and failed miserably.

10.42 a.m.

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, once again we meet in this House to debate the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill, that is the Estimates for next year. I consider that this work is more or less routine and nothing else. Every year at the end of November we come here and are asked to approve the Budget produced by the Government. Whatever amendments moved by the Opposition will serve no purpose. I have this morning received about 60 amendments to the Budget, Sir, but I doubt how many of them, or any at all, will go through. It is most unlikely because every time when a vote is put to the House, the Government has the majority, with the support of the ex-officios and Nominated Assemblymen. I may then, Sir, call elected Members of the Opposition as rubber stamps and nothing else. We come here just to put our signatures to the Budget because we are part and parcel of that Budget as well. We are partly responsible for its approval.

Sir, last year the Hon. the Financial Secretary presented us with Estimates which showed a deficit of $18.7 million. What is the result of that deficit of $18.7 million, Sir? May I quote column 2824 of the Financial Secretary's speech:

"Turning now to expenditure, it will be remembered that the original estimate was $254 million, and it will be seen from pages 15 and 16 of the Draft Estimates that it is likely that actual expenditure in 1957 will amount to about $242 million [only, I add in that word]. It should be noted, however, that this total includes a sum of $9 million in respect of compensation under the Malayanisation Scheme [as quoted by the hon. Member for Kampong Kapor]. If this sum is excluded - it is, I think, a fair charge on surplus funds since it will be recouped by savings on expatriation pay and passages over a period of years - what might be called normal' expenditure will amount to about $233 million [only] and there will probably be a small surplus of revenue over actual normal expenditure at the end of the year."

Sir, according to the Financial Secretary, actual expenditure is only $233 million, that is excluding the $9 million for compensation under the Malayanisation scheme. Now if we add that $9 million, it comes up to only $242 million. Taking the $233 into consideration compared with what was originally estimated at $254 million, I now see that we are actually having a surplus of $2 million, rather than a deficit of $18.7 million as estimated by the Financial Secretary last year.

Now, Sir, if we take the $9 million into consideration, we then actually have a deficit of only $7 million, and not, may I emphasise again, $18.7 million. Sir, if we compare this figure quoted by ,the Financial Secretary with the $7 million, I may call his figure a fictitious one. The budget for next year shows a substantial deficit of $35 million. Where can we get that money, Sir? I wonder whether the Financial Secretary will, when he comes before this House next year, say that the result will again be a surplus? May I quote what he has got to say, expecting that he may say that by next year, in col. 2830:

"The position therefore is that the estimate of revenue is $242 million, the estimate of expenditure is $277 million, and we are faced with an estimated deficit of $35 million.

The question is what would this deficit be in the event if no steps were taken to eliminate it. We know that, in the past, expenditure has invariably fallen short of the estimate and estimated deficits have turned into substantial surpluses."

Very substantial surpluses, I may say. Sir, I would not certainly employ the Financial Secretary as the accountant of my firm if earlier he had predicted a deficit and then at the end of the year I found that I had a surplus. All these figures are just make-believe, just to misguide us -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think it is time I ought to pull up the hon. Member for using unparliamentary language. I think he has used the word "misguide". That word is unparliamentary.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: I am sorry, Sir, I will stick to my original word "make-believe". These figures are just make-believe, to show us that there should be some form of taxation or increased taxation in order to meet this deficit of $35 million. Now it so happens that this year the Budget sittings happen to take place during election month. We will be having the City Council elections, and it is rather surprising that the Government has not got the courage to put up more taxation proposals, as they were expected to do. They have very carefully chosen only one item - one small item - and that is an increase of only 20 cents a gallon on petrol.

The Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy): Very clever!

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Yes, very clever, and it is the contention of the Government that if it increases the duty on petrol, it will only soak the rich and will not affect the poor, because only the rich can afford to own cars. How can you expect poor people to own cars? But it is rather surprising, Sir, that we have so many vehicles on the road today. I wonder if every owner of a vehicle that is on the road is in fact a rich man. Does the Government know that most of the Government clerks also own cars? Are they rich people or are they working class people earning a few hundred dollars a month? I leave that to the Financial Secretary to answer.

The Financial Secretary in his speech also said that this small increase of 20 cents a gallon on petrol will not affect the ordinary people at all. As I have said, it will only affect the rich. I will quote his speech again, Sir, in col. 2831.

"This rate of $1 a gallon has been in force in the Federation since November of last year and its imposition is unlikely to cause any hardship in Singapore. It has caused none in the Federation."

Sir, every time the Government has something to say, "Oh, we must follow the Federation. We must fall in line with the Federation." Why? Why cannot the Federation for once follow us rather than that we follow the Federation? Let us set an example and let the Federation follow us for once. I quote again the Financial Secretary:

"The new rate of duty will result in cars which do 20 miles to the gallon costing 1 cent a mile more to run. Those which do 30 miles to the gallon will cost 2/3rd of a cent a mile more to run, those doing 40 miles to the gallon, ½ a cent more, and so on. If 1,000 miles a month, or 30 miles a day, is taken as a fair average mileage for private cars in Singapore. cars doing 20 miles per gallon will cost $10 a month more to run, . . . These additional sums can be of no consequence to people who can afford to run cars for pleasure...".

Now what about those who cannot afford to run cars for pleasure? What about the clerks working in Government offices, Sir? They do not own cars for the sake of running them for pleasure. They own cars so that they can go to work. I quote again from the Financial Secretary's speech:

"Nor will the increase in duty be of much consequence to haulers. A round trip to Penang will cost about $10 more. I do not think that the increase in duty will affect consumption. The number of new cars, and the total number of cars registered, tend to increase each year and the consumption of petrol increases accordingly. I doubt if the increase will tend to make people use their cars less than they have done in the past."

I will certainly try to take shortcuts or walk, if possible, so as to economise on petrol consumption. But if I do not, Sir, it is going to cost me $10 more a month. Is my employer going to pay me $10 more a month? I do not know where to get the extra $10. My income will be the same as it is now. Where can the Government expect me to get that extra $10? Beg, borrow or steal? Is the Government trying to encourage car owners to try and beg, borrow or steal to get the extra $10 a month? I leave it again to the Financial Secretary.

In the 1956 Budget the petrol tax was increased by 5 cents. That was a very small figure. In the 1957 Budget the Government said they had to increase the petrol tax again by another 7 cents, just to meet the deficit. Now in the 1958 Budget all of a sudden there is a jump of 20 cents. What will be the fate of the car owners then when the Financial Secretary puts up his 1959 Budget? Will the petrol tax go up by another 40 or 50 cents or even more? The Financial Secretary might bear in mind that a Member of the Assembly has suggested an increase of 50 cents.

Sir, the Government has also increased the tax on heavy oil engine vehicles, and again the Financial Secretary has said that this will not affect anybody. Will that not affect the bus companies? Not the car owners, but the bus companies? Now who travel in buses? Do the rich travel in buses? Are the owners of bus companies in the least worried about this increase? I doubt they are. Whatever increase in tax they have to pay will ultimately fall back on the people that travel in their buses. If the bus companies find that their budget cannot balance, they will certainly put up their fares to meet the increased expenses. Ultimately it will all come back to those who travel in buses. It is more or less a merry-go-round. As the Member for Kampong Kapor said, it is like robbing Peter to pay Paul. I think that was the phrase he used. It goes round and round.

The Member for Telok Ayer, who is a businessman, has said that we should have some stability in the country rather than an increase of taxation. Let us encourage new industries. The Minister for Commerce and Industry has always tried to encourage more industries. He has said that quite a number of small industries have been established during this year. That might have been correct, but the Member for Kampong Kapor has pointed out that many big companies have closed down. I think he has quoted a figure of about 4,000 people who have lost their employment. Is that stability? I doubt it is. Now let us encourage local industries so that we can buy local goods and we can have more employment for our own people here.

The next comment I wish to make on the Budget is the creation of new posts. I went through the whole Draft Estimates - it is so thick - and to my surprise I found more than 1,300 new posts being created for next year. Now is this necessary? As I again went through it carefully I found most of the posts overlap one another. Is that necessary, Sir? Cannot we try to economise on the money that will be spent on these new posts? It is rather surprising, Sir, that the Financial Secretary in his speech gave no word at all about the creation of new posts which will increase government expenditure. He never told us anything about it. That is one of the reasons for the deficit. The Financial Secretary does not bother to mention the 1,300 new posts at all.

The Financial Secretary (Mr T. M. Hart) rose - Mr Lee Choon Eng: Sir, I believe the Financial Secretary is calling me to order, and if he is I will give way.

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order, Mr Financial Secretary?

Mr Hart: It is a point of explanation, Sir.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: I will certainly give way, Sir.

Mr Hart: The list of new posts is given as an appendix to the memorandum which accompanied the Estimates.

Mr Speaker: Is it Command Paper 48 of 1957?

Mr Hart: Yes, Sir.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: I think I will proceed rather than argue with the Financial Secretary! He is a man of figures and I am not, so I do not think I will argue with him!

Sir, turning to page 122 of the 1958 Draft Estimates, I find there is an increase in expenditure in the Police Department of roughly $600,000. For the Police Department, this figure appears to be very small.

Mr Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member is developing that argument, I suggest that that development take place in the Committee of Supply, when he comes to the appropriate Head.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: I am much obliged, Mr Speaker, but I am not trying to quote actual figures. I am speaking on the policy of the Police Department as a whole.

Mr Speaker: Order. That is exactly what the hon. Member can do in the Committee of Supply.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Thank you, Sir, I will then reserve that for the Committee of Supply. But what I may say, Sir, on this subject of stability, the Government has not taken steps to prevent riots and, as has been mentioned by an hon. Member, kidnappings, extortion, burglaries and so on. In the Singapore Standard I find almost every day that they publish a special column on the first page showing the kidnappings, thefts and other crimes in Singapore. Sir, where is the stability? Where is the security for the people? If we are going to vote for more money, we must have some form of security in return. If there is no security, why should we vote for more money for next year? As law abiding citizens, I am sure all of us expect to have freedom of movement either in the day or at night. But as it stands, I know quite a number of people who are not prepared to go out at night, because they are afraid of being kidnapped. Then where is the security to the people? We must have law and order. Unless we have law and order, there is no stability at all. The Government introduced "Operation Dagger" sometime ago, and I wonder what happened to that operation. No news has been heard about it but I understand that it is still continuing. Whether it is really continuing is left to be seen. Now if we have security, then we will achieve our goal of having control over our internal security and self-government will come much earlier. Unless we have internal security, I doubt if we can have self-government; and if we cannot have self-government, when can we gain independence? So let the Government pay particular attention to this question of security so that we can have our independence. At the moment, Sir, under the Defence and Security Council, we have a Member from the Federation presiding over us. In that Council his casting vote will decide the destiny of this country. It is not we Singaporeans who are to decide the destiny of our country. It is the casting vote of a Member of the Federation, and he is an outsider who has nothing to do with us; or, as the Tunku said, "We do not want you at all." The Federation does not want us. Why should we have a Member of the Federation to preside over this Council? If Government can provide security, then we do not need him at all and we will have our own people on the Defence and Security Council. Let us then look forward to self-government and independence. Majula Singapura!

11.00 a.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): Sir, I had not intended to speak so early in the debate, but I fear that if I had to sit through another two hours of this minor heckling, we might all go nuts before the debate is over. Quite frankly, Mr Speaker, Sir, I used to believe that when we met the mobs we talked more nonsense than when we met the legislators. After this morning's debate I have decided that we talk more sense when we meet the mobs than when we meet the legislators of Singapore. I do not propose to touch on the remarks made by Members who sit on the same side of the House as I do, because their approach to this problem has nothing in common with ours.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the last Labour Front Budget and I think that it should not be allowed to pass unnoticed. I remember the first Budget when it came in with all the pomp and fury which we have since learnt to associate with the ex-Member for Cairnhill and the ex-Chief Minister. However, all that grandiose talk has left the Labour Front and this Party is now left only with the tarnished gilt with which it was once adorned.

The P.A.P. is in a quandary regarding this Budget. Though we have no love for the Labour Front, we should hate to see the Liberal-Socialist Party beat it at the polls. It is therefore our duty to see that, whatever the weaknesses and deficiencies of the Labour Front Coalition Government, it should not result in a Liberal-Socialist victory at the City Council polls on 21st December, because we have been throwing stones at them.

Sir, that has decided us to take a much more matter-of-fact approach to this Budget. It could have been worse. After all, petrol has gone up 20 cents and nobody is going to be better off. The chances are that nobody is going to be much worse off, except the pirate taxi, drivers who will be seeing the Member for Kampong Kapor, and the licensed taxi drivers who will come and see the P.A.P., and we might have to change the taxi meters. Instead of 40 cents showing on the meter when the flag comes down, we might have to put it up to 50 cents. But I do not expect the economy of Singapore would be very much dislocated on that account.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Lower the petrol tax first.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: But what really is alarming is the carefree way in which the Financial Secretary has put forward his Budget Estimates. Those who have to contemplate having to use the apparatus of this government one day must be dismayed at the complete inefficiency of the Government departments when they come to work out their estimates. This is not the fault of the Labour Front. It is the fault of the colonial government machinery which the Labour Front has to manipulate at the moment, and which succeeding governments will also have to work. I think it is glib to the point of dishonesty to put forward figures which the Financial Secretary knows-

Mr Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the expression "glib to the point of dishonesty".

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought if I did not say it was dishonest it would not be objectionable. However, since you have ruled that that is not a complimentary way of expressing my thoughts, I will put it in this way: that it is an inept way of handling government finance. When we are presented with a budget, we must be sure that every figure that has been budgeted for is one which that department intends to spend and can spend. If that department cannot spend it, then let it say in the remarks column that this was an amount which would have been budgeted for if it could have spent it, but as it could not spend it, it was therefore not budgeting for this figure.

The 1957 Budget estimate for revenue was $235.9 million. The actual revenue is now expected to be $235.7. There is quite a drop in the Income Tax collection although there have been some gains in other directions. The 1957 Budget estimate for expenditure was $254 million, but the actual expenditure is $241 million, including $9 million for abolition terms to expatriates. In other words, if we knock off the $9 million to expatriates, which was not budgeted for in the 1957 Budget, then we have $232 million, i.e. $22 million short in expenditure. The 1958 Budget estimate for expenditure is $277 million, i.e. a rise of $23 million on last year's estimate of $254 million. Then this very glib, this real sleight of hand on page-

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member should choose his words a little more carefully. "Sleight of hand", I think, is unparliamentary.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, I do not know what they call a clever company promoter who presents a prospectus in such a way that everything appears to be all right. These slick company promoters are very good at presenting figures, but I should have thought the Financial Secretary would at least have allowed us to see the movement as he folds the handkerchief from his sleeve and then make sure that he says that there is nothing in it before he puts it back. He says:

"There is no formula which indicates what actual expenditure will be. We make our estimate in the light of past experience and results and anticipated future requirements and capacity. We know that, for the past two years, actual recurrent expenditure has tended to increase on the average by about $18 million a year. In this connection, I invite attention to the tables which were given in the Memorandum which accompanied the Draft Estimates. It seems likely that this rate of increase will be maintained in 1958. If that should prove to be the case, actual expenditure, excluding any compensation in respect of Malayanisation which may have to be brought to account, should be of the order of $250 million."

In other words, having gone to the trouble of working out the estimate for each item in this voluminous Budget, he says, "Well, actually all this is a lot of rubbish. Do not believe it. The way we are going to budget is this: last year we spent $241 million - never mind about what we said we were going to spend - we spent $241 million. From our past experience, not based on any length of time, but based on the last two years, we found that expenditure kept on increasing by $18 million a year. In 1955 and 1956 it went up by a few million dollars; in 1957 and 1958 it went up by $18 million. So let us forget all about it. It is all rubbish. Plus another $18 million, that is the way to work out the Budget - $241 million plus $18 million. But knock off $9 million first, that makes it $232 million. Then plus $18 million. That is the figure we should have budgeted for." Sir, then why present it? Why are we not told that for each individual item we are going to approve this expenditure? Let this be said honestly and plainly against each individual item, if this is supposed to be a serious Budget: "This is what we hope to spend. Our intentions are good intentions. This is our capacity." And then we will know what we are passing. As it is, we have all these good intentions here and the Financial Secretary has the audacity to come to this House and say, "Well, I do not know how all this is going to work out. I take last year's figure of $241 million, minus $9 million for expatriates, which really should not be in the Budget. It is one of those sudden capital losses which we will have to bear. So it is $232 million plus $18 million - $250 million. The revenue, if it goes on unchanged, and if none of the rates of taxation change, will be $242 million. Therefore," says the Financial Secretary, "let us find where the $8 million is going to come from." I quote the Financial Secretary:

"If that should prove to be the case, actual expenditure, excluding any compensation in respect of Malayanisation which may have to be brought into account, should be of the order of $250 million. In the circumstances, assuming that the estimate of revenue is achieved, it is possible that the actual deficit would be of the order of $8 million,"-

and these are the operative words

"and it is this sum which we must endeavour to cover by means of additional taxation."

Sir, this is not a rebuke to the Labour Front Ministers or of the U.M.N.O. Minister. We do not expect them to come into power and bring their own apparatus of state with them. The democratic system does not work that way. Political Parties compete on political policy, not on the effectiveness of political bureaucracy. What is alarming is that we may be saddled with a machinery of state which cannot tell us at the end of each year what exactly happened last year and what we can do for next year. The Financial Secretary - next year it will be the Minister for Finance elected by the people - will have to come again to this House and say, "Well, gentlemen....". Having heard some of the speeches this morning, I think "gentlemen" is to too kind a word. But if next year we have the same kind of legislators as we have had in the last two years, then I say they deserve the kind of figures they will again get next year. I do not see how, unless we have a real shake, up in the civil service administration, we can improve the situation. The instruments of policy are blunt and ineffective, and whoever has to use them must be dismayed at the prospect of not being able to sharpen them in the space of time that is left for popular democracy to operate effectively in this part of the world. We view the position in South-east Asia as a whole. I would like Members of this House, particularly the Member for Queenstown - he reads the Singapore Standard (I myself never read that rag) but nevertheless if he wants to torment himself by reading it every morning, especially the thefts and the kidnapping column, then let him do so. But I would like him to look at what is happening in some other parts of the world. We have to view our position from the context of the whole of South-east Asia. We want to escape the fate that has befallen some of the other countries in South-east Asia, because they also took over from colonial regimes which were effete and ineffective and which packed up because they were effete and ineffective. So we have to consider seriously how we are going to sharpen those instruments of policy, because whoever comes in will have to work through the same bureaucratic machinery. Without any slight at our newly-promoted Permanent Secretaries, let them remember this: that their pensions and their future depend upon the bureaucracy being an effective bureaucracy. If it is not an effective bureaucracy, it is not just the politicians who will be going. They, the Permanent Secretaries, themselves will also go to the limbo of all forgotten men, and the whole society will be swept away and a new dictatorship will take its place.

Sir, I cannot allow this Budget to go without making some reference to the expatriates. They are a much-abused and maligned group of people, but I think they deserve every bit of the abuse that has been heaped upon them. But today I do not intend to join the Member for Kampong Kapor - I have a sneaking feeling that somebody else wrote his speech for him [Interruption]. I am quite sure the P.A.P. would not be involved in such a nefarious scheme as to write the speech for the Member for Kampong Kapor. We say what we think openly and frankly. We do not seek to hide our views under the cover of the Member for Kampong Kapor. But I would like to have this thrown at the Financial Secretary. He said last year they spent - this is another one of those glib things - $9 million on expatriate compensation. "It is well worth it. There will be savings in allowances and all kinds of things when we get rid of the expatriates." Now they agree with us that there will be savings. But the rate of compensation and the rate of savings - let us work them out.

$9 million was paid out last year. The expatriate allowance budgeted for the next year is $1.04 million. This year it is $1.42. In other words, the saving is $0.38 million, i.e. $380,000. It looks as if it will take 30 years to recover this $9 million. When I was talking about this to an accountant, he said, "Ah, yes, but you cannot have $9 million and not pay interest." Now, if we add interest and we calculate the interest running on $9 million - I will not go through the laborious counting process - I am told the $9 million will not be recovered in less than a generation. So $9 million has gone down the drain and we are saving $380,000 a year. We are not likely to recover in one generation the $9 million if we have to pay interest, as we have to, according to the accountant.

$21 million - that is the total we have to pay for Malayanisation. If $21 million were paid out all of a sudden, then we would have to wait till the next century to recover it at the rate we are recovering the $9 million. Something has gone wrong somewhere. This is the gloomiest prospect of them all which we will have to consider one of these days; doing to the Chartered Bank and Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank what they have been doing in Djakarta, and that is to put a banner up at these two establishments and say, "Taken over by the people of Singapore in order to pay for the compensation terms that we paid to the expatriates." Because $21 million plus interest - to be recovered at the rate of $380,000 on $9 million - will take two centuries to recover. The right way to do this is to write the whole thing off. But, however, I do not want to alarm any foreign capital away because-

Mr G. A. P. Sutherland (Nominated): You will not.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: No, we will not. We would be able - and let us put it bluntly and simply - to tell them exactly where they stood, and they would know that what we say we mean. The first thing the political Parties, particularly the political leadership in this country, have to learn is this: do not bluff anybody. You cannot bluff people more than once. The best thing to do is to tell them what is in your mind before you do it. Tell the electorate quite clearly and frankly what you intend to do before they vote you in, so that there is no danger of your early demise six months after election, because you cannot do what you said you were going to do. Having got in, tell your opponents exactly where they stand, particularly vested interests, so that they will know how to plan in order to recoup what they hope to invest in this country. If you can assure them that you say what you mean and they work on that basis, then let me tell the Nominated Member Mr Sutherland, even he would be pleased to deal with the P.A.P. Government because he would know when to hop it in time. With the Labour Front Government or a Liberal-Socialist Government, he might be caught napping.

Mr Sutherland: Never!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Has the hon. Member booked his airplane ticket yet?

Mr Sutherland: Yes.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: That is what we think of the extra $9 million on expatriates, Sir, It is a shocking way to work this Budget and we should not have been bothered with it.

Now about taxation. Sir, no one is more conscious than the P.A.P. of the limitations on fiscal policy in Singapore as a result of the peculiar economic and political situation of Singapore vis-a-vis the Federation of Malaya. To those in the Federation who are not so conversant with political leaders or so-called political heroes in Singapore and political stars, let me say this: what was said by the Member for Queenstown is not what the people of Singapore say. If the Member for Queenstown does not believe it, then I will invite him to attend the next P.A.P. rally - he is not here, but nevertheless let it be conveyed to him that the people of Singapore do not share his opinion. It is because of the stupidity and the irresponsibility of opportunist politicians in Singapore that, from time to time, silly statements are made which not only do themselves a lot of harm - we like to see them heap more and more harm and humiliation upon themselves - but which might adversely affect temper and feeling between large groups of people who may not be aware of the unworthiness of the source of these statements. We understand these limitations on fiscal policy and therefore I do not wish to ask awkward questions like, "Why was not company tax put up to recover this $8 million deficit? Why on petrol? But, anyway, it has to be done on petrol, but why not company tax first? Why not income tax, why not a lot of other things?"

Sir, we were further alarmed at the light-hearted way in which the Financial Secretary said, "Oh, well, the Income Tax Department has not collected its full quota because it lost a few expert Europeans." One or two of them pocketed a large sum of money and then switched round to the Telephone Board and climbed on to another cushy and comfortable job. All these personal things aside, we do not understand why only $65 million is expected to be collected next year. I am not an expert on Income Tax figures, Sir, but I put forward this proposition as one which is sound and reasonable and one which I think merits serious consideration in this House. Everybody knows that tax evasion goes on everywhere in the world. In fact. great democracies like America, when they cannot get kidnappers for kidnapping, get them for income tax evasion. The Income Tax people here should look up these things. They might be able to profit from the American system. If you cannot get our local Al Capone for kidnapping Tan Lark Sye's nephew, then get him for dodging the income tax or do something about it. Here are figures which, in my estimation, prove that if we have a tough and efficient Income Tax Department, not less than $100 million should be collected on the present rates. Sir, the figures are quite useful. There are no less than 12,300 employers-

Mr Speaker: Order. I was just wondering whether a detailed argument of this nature should not be properly pursued in the Committee of Supply. The hon. Member can, of course, touch on the subject, but not in detail.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: What I am intending to do is to give an illustration of the ineffectiveness of the instruments of policy of the state of Singapore. Here is an example where we have a machine which did not do its job. If it had done its job, there would have been an increase of revenue in this country of no less than 35 per cent. The figures to support this proposition briefly are these. There are 12,300 employers, according to the 1955 Annual Report of Singapore, and these are the profit figures published by some companies and distributed by them in 1956. They are big employers, Sir:

Federal Dispensary Ltd.-20 per cent-$200,000.

Fraser & Neave-25 per cent- $2,025,000.

Gammon (Malaya) Ltd.-20 per cent-$780,000.

William Jacks & Company (Malaya) Ltd.-40 per cent-$2,400,000.

All this distributed in one year--1956.

Malayan Breweries Ltd.-31 per cent-$3,960,000.

Overseas Chinese Bank-20 per cent-$3 million.

Robinson & Company Ltd.-22 per cent---$880,000.

Straits Trading Ltd.-17½ per cent-$1,! 75,000.

United Engineers-15 per cent- $1,043,700.

Wearne Brothers Ltd.-30 per cent-$2,400,900.

We can go on, although there are companies like the Chartered Bank which do not publish their figures here, so we do not know what they distributed [Interruption]. I do not know what that was supposed to mean unless Mr Sutherland is quite prepared to tell me that he pays no less than 30 per cent, shall we say - for an average efficient European company?

Mr Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member addressed the Chair, he would not have seen Mr Sutherland, but I do urge that possibly the hon. Member is going too much into detail because the Standing Order itself says:

"The debate on the motion for the second reading of the Bill shall be confined to the general principles of Government policy and administration ...". And the argument that the hon. Member is developing, I think, could best be developed in the Committee of Supply.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: We are just indicating, Mr Speaker, Sir, as a matter of general government policy that if and when the P.A.P. runs this government, we shall see that the Income Tax Department does its duty. The way to do it is the way it is done in all civilized countries. If you think that Mr Goldsmith has not been paying his tax, then judging from the number of cars and the number of diamond solitaires his wife exhibits, you just put in an estimate of what you think he ought to pay and let him disprove it. If he pays it, next year double the estimate; then let him disprove it. If he pays again, quadruple it, and so we go on until we make everybody in the community pay their fair share of taxation or become barrow-boys or hawkers, in which case they do not have to pay any taxes at all. It might well be, as a result of just rounding off this computation, Mr Speaker, Sir, at 12,300 employers, as I said, on the mean average of $50,000 chargeable profits, that ought to bring $8,630 per employer, which means $106,149,000 per year just from employers alone. I could develop this argument, and I will, all about this property tax both in the city area and the Rural Board. But a conservative estimate of what could be collected on present rates is somewhere in the region of $128 million per year; in other words, double what the Hon. the Financial Secretary estimates for next year. The tragedy of the situation is this, that although this is what should be the case, what, ever Government comes into power next year it will be saddled with the same apparatus with which to extract the tax. Unless we have a ruthless Minister for Finance who will deal with inept and bureaucratic civil servants and will improve the running of the machinery of state, we will be back in the same position.

But to wind up, it is only fair to say that the Budget could have been worse. The Labour Front took the easiest course out for its last year of office. It has forgotten all the big paper promises. I remember the first Budget debate when there was at least a spirited defence. Mr R. C. H. Lim (Nominated) reminded the P.A.P. that this was a four-year Labour Front programme and that it was only one-quarter of the way. Now this is the last year of three years and it has given up trying to pretend that it can implement them. It cannot. That is one of the reasons why it will be in the soup in the next elections, because it could not implement the programme on which it got elected. It said all kinds of foolish things and I hope that all other political Parties and would be politicians will benefit from this.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng (Changi): Including you.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Indeed I have. I have taken this very much into account and the P.A.P. programme for the next elections will be a programme which will be implemented after the elections. But there was one politician who I see is still running around the place like a mad dog and he has not learned from all this; he has started a new Party. He wants to start the concertina all over again - try again with a big high bid and wind up once more in the gutter. Sir, I send out my formal condolences to the Labour Front Ministers opposite. Theirs is a very unhappy position and I have to tender to them my formal sympathies. But I hope that they have served a useful purpose if only to be an example to all political leaders in Malaya of how not to win the elections and how not to run a government.

11.35 a.m.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng (Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is quite unusual in the debate on this important Budget that, except for the leader of the P.A.P., the other speakers are Independents. I must confess that I have never listened to the speeches of the leader of the P.A.P., the Member for Tanjong Pagar, so carefully as today. I think we must congratulate him in that at last, with God's blessing, he realises that the responsibility lies on his shoulders, and the advice which he has given to this House I should recommend sincerely to the P.A.P. itself.

Sir, for Members to argue with statistics and figures is, I think, a waste of time. I wish to recall the remarks and recommendations which I made to the Government in last year's Budget debate. We should adopt an old Chinese saying: "Open more fountains and restrict the outflow." In other words, we should try to find more sources to collect money and restrict the spending of money. I do not oppose the principle of taxation. I was not surprised at all when the Member for Queenstown (Mr Lee Choon Eng) said that we are taxing the poor but I am surprised that the Government has not the courage to impose new taxes on companies, which means taxing the rich. Sir, it shows a lack of confidence in the prosperity of this country. If this country's prosperity can be assured, then the Hon. the Financial Secretary be the first one to try to get money from that source.

Sir, I am not satisfied with the argument which is put up that the reason why the Government refuse to increase the company tax is because they want to attract foreign investment. Sir, I cannot deny that that is partly the reason but how can we expect foreign investment when we are faced today with such instability - politically and socially? Therefore the fundamental remedy to solve this problem is to bring stability to this colony. The Member for Tanjong Pagar said that he was not playing party politics but I would like to point out that even on the first page of this Budget the phrase "Colony of Singapore" appears and the P.A.P. leader went on to attack it as a colonial Budget. Yes, it is a colonial Budget. What is wrong with that? Such an outlook shows that we are not approaching the problem seriously and practically. He still plays a great part in politics.

Sir, my views are these: first of all, the Government has failed to increase company tax; secondly, the Government has refused to heed the public demand to increase the parental allowances on personal relief. All that shows that the future of Singapore is not very bright.

Again, Sir, the Member for Queens-town mentioned kidnappings and extortions in connection with the stability of this country. I wish to add it is not only the rich who are affected; pupils, hawkers and dance hostesses are in the grip of gangsters. They must pay a monthly rate of extortion or protection fee to certain groups of gangsters. So I wonder why, with all the power in his hands, the Chief Secretary considers that the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance should only apply to those who are subversive elements but not to gangsters. Since the implementation of the Citizenship Bill, does the Banishment Ordinance still serve any purpose? I hope that the Chief Secretary and the Government will take all this into consideration. The stability of this country is in their hands, and if they want to attract foreign investment, the stability of society is, first and foremost, important, and not merely the maintenance of a low rate of company tax.

The Hon. the Financial Secretary said that the complicated education problem has at last been solved. Sir, to me, it is still not solved but only halfway. Some days ago I read - I cannot remember which paper it was - that two parents were arguing in a market. One of them asked, "To which school do you want to send your children?" The other one said. "No, I will not send my children to any school." The former asked, "Why?" The answer was, "If I send John to an English school, he is bound to be a delinquent. If I send Mary to a high school, she is going to be a subversive element." That, of course, cannot be a true picture, but if that is part of public opinion, then it shows that the people have no faith and have lost confidence in our education system for which we provide and spend so much money. Sir, I would like the Hon. the Minister for Education to consider this question: how is he going to solve the problem of the over-age students who are thrown out from Standard V and the many more we expect from the Chinese Junior middle schools?

Mr Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member will agree that that question could best be answered in the Committee of Supply.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am just on the problem of education. The Hon. the Financial Secretary has said that the problem has been settled but to me it is only half-way solved.

Sir, I wish to touch on the subject of expenditure on the Defence Services. All of us have to work under the constitution and the constitution, whether it is the Rendel Constitution or the one which is proposed, clearly states that defence is solely in the hands of the British Government. Yet we are now to have a battalion and a navy. Sir, I would like to ask this question. Is it necessary, in this new age of sputniks and the hydrogen bomb, to be talking about defence in the form of creating new battalions, purchasing minesweepers and bolstering up our military forces to protect our soil? Sir, I want to ask another question. Is there anyone in this House who opposes or does hot believe in the stand taken at the Afro-Asian Conference held in Bandung that Afro-Asian nations should unite into a solid front and should stop and oppose any form of war through the banning of nuclear weapons? Therefore from which prospective enemy of this country can we expect an attack? With full confidence and full support in a lasting peace for the whole world, there is then no necessity for building up a defence force to defend our territory. That is the first argument.

The second argument is: for whom is this defence necessary? We cannot deny that we are a chain in the British Commonwealth defence strategy. But we are a small island, just only 224 square miles, with a population of just over 1¼ million. And when we say that we must have a navy, an army-

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not like interrupting so frequently but I am doing so today because I have to remind hon. Members that we have only one day for the debate on the Second Reading, and the debate must be confined to general principles. Details of the Defence Services can always be debated in the Committee of Supply and there is time allotted for that debate. I would ask the hon. Member then to confine himself to general principles.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: I am sorry, Sir. Therefore, I strongly suggest that the expenditure shown under the Head of Defence Services should, if possible, be scrapped.

Now, let us come to commerce and industry. We are very happy to have such an able and experienced businessman as Minister for Commerce and Industry. I would like to touch on the expansion and promotion of trade and industry. I deeply regret that the Member for Tanjong Pagar is not here. I think he could contribute a great deal more, instead of a lot of rubbish talk, if he were to advise the mass of workers who follow him to increase the output of industry, and not to demand higher wages only, because if the output of industry can be increased, it will indirectly increase the national output. If we are faced with high wages and low production, how can we compete with our neighbouring countries like Hong Kong and Japan which are highly industrialised? If any leaders of workers are in the gallery, I would say, "Please, for the sake of the country, do let us-

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member is now playing to the gallery. I would ask the hon. Member to address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, I said that if there are any leaders of workers in the gallery, I wish to remind them to advise the workers sincerely and truly to increase the industrial output which will indirectly increase the national output. Then the stability of our country can be assured and the Government - any government, even a P.A.P. government - can carry on smoothly with industrialisation and to achieve our ultimate aim - a welfare state.

Sir, I wish to point this out. I regret that under the Development Estimates, I fail to trace any plan for the development of the fishing industry. I wish to go into details on this at a later stage.

Now, we come to the Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing. We are very happy to look at the report that the rural residents, farmers and fishermen, who are producing more food and increasing the export of eggs and poultry (which brings a lot of income to this country), should be encouraged. I hope that the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing will help the farmers and fishermen to enjoy a certain security of tenure of land, because the Master Plan and private building developments involve them in great difficulties. The resettlement plan should be a long-term policy in order to ensure that the farmers will not only be able to maintain their livelihood but also to produce more food for this country.

11.55 a.m.

Mr John Ede (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, my colleagues of the Liberal-Socialist Party will be covering many of our grounds of dissatisfaction with the policies and performances of the Government, and I will therefore limit myself to a few comments. I hope, Sir, that I shall have permission to quote a few facts and figures to substantiate the arguments I put forward.

Sir, one of our greatest causes for dissatisfaction is the Government's failure to expand industry which is essential if we are to absorb our growing population in employment. It is a subject on which the Hon. the Financial Secretary was almost completely silent, as might be expected, as he could have had nothing good to say. The only reference he did make was indirectly through the mention of income tax returns: $68 million was collected in 1956; $65 million is the anticipated sum for 1957, and the amount budgeted for in 1958 is again $65 million, despite the fact that personal income tax was increased last year from 30 per cent to 40 per cent. Those, I submit, are confessions of failure by the Government to expand industry because if industry had expanded, it would be reflected in income tax revenues. But there are other barometers to indicate this. While our population is increasing by 50,000 a year from 940,000 in 1947 to 1,463,000 estimated in 1957, the number of labourers employed in manufacturing dropped from 57,332 in March 1956 to 55,011 in March 1957 and in all industries from 124,645 to 123,263 in the same period. Since the general elections, 125,000 roughly have been added to the population, and yet less are employed in industry. That is the Government's record. In existing industries, to take only two examples, the manufacture of biscuits has dropped from 196,000 cwt, for the period January to September 1956 to 136,000 cwt, for the same period in this year. Production of rubber sheeting has dropped from 277,000 lbs, from January to September 1954 to 112,000 last year and 79,000 for the same period in this year - a drop of something like 60 per cent. I mention these points in view of the Financial Secretary's statement that an excellent understanding had been reached with the Federation Government and that there has been a return of confidence in the future of Singapore-unusual exaggeration for a usually cautious Financial Secretary to make. The fact of the matter is that hardly a single new major industry has been established and developed in Singapore in the 2½ years of the Government's life; hardly a single big factory of any consequence has been opened. When questioned in this House or by newspaper reporters, the Minister for Commerce and Industry has always hinted mysteriously at large developments impending and behind-the-scene negotiations with large industrial concerns which cannot be disclosed, but nothing concrete has emerged. In the Governor's speech on 22nd April, 1955, when the present Government first announced its policy, it was stated that it would be "the policy of the Government to encourage in all practical ways the development of local industries". On 29th June of the same year, I asked:

"What plans the Government has in view for the carrying out of its declared aim of attracting private capital from both local and overseas investors for the purpose of expanding trade and industry."

I obtained from the Minister the reply:

"...assistance in the industrial and commercial fields is taking the form of attention to individual applications on their merits..."-

an extremely nebulous answer. In November 1955, in the debate on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill - two years ago - I said that I had hoped in vain to hear that the Government-

"will carry out its declared policy of encouraging investment, both locally and from overseas, by such methods as allowing income tax relief's, both initial and annual, on the cost of factory construction and initial plant and ensuring that such construction goes ahead with the least possible administrative delay."

Mr Speaker: Will the hon. Member identify that passage?

Mr John Ede: Yes, Sir. Col. 988 of Vol. 1, No. 19.

Despite my own enquiries in this House at intervals during the past 2½ weary and fruitless years, there has been no firm policy laid down and announced to the world regarding tax exemptions or relief's for new industries or new factories or on capital equipment. A week ago, the Minister announced in a feeble bleat that industrial concerns can apply for exemptions-

Mr Speaker: Order. I think that the words "feeble bleat" are probably unparliamentary.

Mr John Ede: Mr Speaker, that is uncomplimentary to the Minister and it was of course not intended to be so but I will perhaps reduce it to a "whisper".

Mr John Ede: He said that each application would be considered on its merits but that legislation would have to be introduced before concessions could be granted - 2½ years, and the Government is still toying with the measure we advocated in our election manifesto three years ago. That is the sort of announcement expected of run-of-the-mill civil servants trained in caution and the avoidance of decisions, not the trumpet blast of the Minister determined to tackle with energy, drive and imagination one of the most urgent problems affecting this country's welfare. But the Government machine is tired and worn out; it never had much drive or efficiency but now it has run down and lost so much confidence in itself that some of the Ministers have to go off on various pretexts to Tokyo or Delhi, while those who remained behind threw themselves into the arms of the P.A.P. to get them to fight their election battles for them. And so, Sir, there is no sign from the Financial Secretary's speech or from the Estimates of any sign of improvement on the industrial horizon during the life of the present Government, nor have we found, in turning the pages of the Estimates, that there is any sign of important decisions in any other direction. Commissions and experts have come, made their reports and gone at enormous public expense, but nothing has been implemented. The unified public transport system, free legal aid, minimum standards of living, Singapore's port, television, a housing authority, the drive against tuberculosis, a public corporation for broadcasting, the results of a Commission to investigate corruption - all these are empty promises or paper proposals or recommendations, and nothing is done. The Minister for Communications and Works in weary cynicism has said that he no longer trusts experts because experts always differ. So the Government which is barren of ideas of its own mistrusts the ideas which it pays highly at public expense for experts to supply. An example of the inefficiency of the Government is the fact that the present session has been allowed to run on from August 1956 beyond the usual period of a year to January 1958 presumably in the hope that something will turn up.

The Government expects bouquets for two reasons. Firstly, it has through a firm policy towards subversive elements removed an immediate Communist threat to Singapore. We have supported the Government stand but we would remind the opposite side that it is only a negative policy. While stamping out subversion on the one hand, what has been done to create conditions which will make Communism impossible? Not only do we need more industries for our young people, but more secondary and technical education to train them for industry, and cheap housing for them to live in, but what do we find? - employment in industry declining, as I have already quoted, only one secondary school or technical school being built for every three primary schools as the Estimates show, an increase of only $20,000 in the grants for evening classes which could help to bridge the educational gap between the primary school and fitness for employment, and the deplorable failure to build houses to the extent that between September 1956 and August 1957 not one single S.I.T. housing unit was completed. Sir, I feel that I must elaborate to a little extent on this deplorable failure regarding housing. In the Governor's speech on 22nd April, 1955, the Government's policy was stated as follows in column 8, Volume 1:

"The imperative and pressing need for adequate housing for those in the lower income group, including the solution of the problem of the attap dwellers and the clearance of slum areas is a challenge which the Government appreciates can only be met by the most vigorous and in some cases drastic measures."

Four days later, the Minister for Housing in the first flush of enthusiasm in his first few weeks in office stated, and I quote from column 40 of Volume 1:

".... it is proposed to tackle the housing problem more vigorously and efficiently by setting up a statutory Housing Authority, solely responsible to Government, to replace the present Singapore Improvement Trust. It is hoped that such a Housing Authority would be able in a comparatively short time to bridge the increasing gap between public housing programmes and the needs of the people."

With what vigour has the housing problem been tackled? The Minister gave this answer on 21st August of this year when he informed us in reply to a question of mine that whereas the number of applicants on the waiting list for S.I.T. accommodation on 30th June, 1955, was 9,571, the number on 30th June. 1957 was 11,547; no housing units having been completed since September 1956. So much for the Government's vigour - 2,000 more families on the waiting list for houses after two years' vigorous effort! And where is the Housing Authority? There is no sign of it. Let us hear the opinion of a Member of this House on housing given in the debate on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill two years ago, appearing in column 1047 of Volume 1:

"Housing is a very, very essential social service. It is almost basic in the social service programme because, unless you get your housing done, you are going to have a slum population and a slum population is a political and economic liability. Some slum dwellers in Singapore - a remarkable number of them manage to rise above their environment and maintain proper standards of behaviour and cleanliness, character formation and so on, but by and large, the pressure of life in the slum is such that, scientifically speaking, it does cause the population to deteriorate as human material. You get an irresponsible, unemployable, uneducable, dull, backward, and criminal population which is a permanent liability to that part of the population which is employable and productive and it is most important that you should get rid of your slums as a matter of first priority."

Those are the words, Sir, of the Minister for Communications and Works - words spoken doubtless with great emotion, but sounding horribly hollow now. If the Government felt really sincerely like this, why have they failed so miserably?

Sir, we recall with some cynicism paragraph 50 of the Governor's speech opening this session from 29th August of last year when it was stated:

"The Government has been gravely concerned by the danger to the public welfare from gangsters, from secret societies, from armed violence, and from corruption.".

No doubt the Government is still gravely concerned in its own platitudinous way 16 months later, but what has been done to improve the situation? We see no sign of a vigorous housing policy or educational policy or industrial policy, all of which would have undermined the disorders, gang-fights, and kidnappings which have become an almost daily occurrence.

Another bouquet which the Government expects is regarding the small $8 million gap between revenue and expenditure, which has to be filled by taxation. We submit that greater industrial activity, more vigour in the Income Tax Department and more vigour in the Rural Board offices where there is a figure of anything up to $3 million in rates to be collected, as Members of the Public Accounts Committee discovered, could have bridged this gap without extra taxation at all. If a result of the rise in the higher charges of haulage is an increase in the cost of living because of the petrol tax and diesel tax going up, then the Government must take the blame. At best, the cost of living will not drop. The price index for the lower income group in September of this year was 319.8 as against 313.1 in September 1956, 317 in October of this year as against 311.4 in October last year. The price of rice in October this year was $1.54 per gantang against $1.35 a year previously. So much for the Government's boast that it has helped to increase wages by ten per cent! This has been swallowed up in the increased cost of living.

The only bouquet I will permit the Government is their realisation, though belated, that economic co-operation with the Federation Government is more important than political co-operation, and that the success in the former may lead in time to understanding in the latter. Singapore and the Federation must operate as one economic unit and the sooner that is accepted as axiomatic on both sides of the Causeway the better chances there are of reasonable prosperity. We hope that this policy will be pursued with tact and imagination.

In conclusion. Sir, I would like to say how heartily I agree with the Hon. the Financial Secretary when he said in the course of his speech:

"It is undeniable that there is at the present time a certain amount of pessimism about the future.".

That pessimism will continue so long as the present Government remains in office and leans on the P.A.P. for its survival.

Mr Speaker: It seems to me that hon. Members wish to suspend?

Hon. Members indicated assent.

Mr Speaker: In that case, I will take the Chair again at half-past two.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.14 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

2.31 p.m.

The Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy): Mr Speaker, Sir, there is an old English saying that a drowning man clutches at the last straw.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Like the Labour Front!

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: That has been proved in this morning's debate when the hon. Members for Kampong Kapor and Queenstown spoke. Since they could not find any taxation which they could really say would be detrimental to the poor man-in-the-street, they had no other way but to pick holes in this increase in the petrol tax. However, Sir, their reasoning is not according to the logic that a normal man would pursue, and I am not going to comment at length on what they said because their arguments are not of such great importance.

There is another English saying, Sir, and that is that a little knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge, and that was proved when the hon. Member for Tanglin was speaking. But before I comment on his arguments, I would say that there are other hon. Members who put up various other arguments on the Budget that is before the House today deserving comment.

I am particularly glad, Sir, to notice that certain members of the Liberal-Socialist Party have now fallen in line with the trend of thought which I put to this House as far back as last year, and that is that wild talk is detrimental and does harm to Singapore and its economic position, and that politicians should refrain from wild talk. I sounded that warning at a similar sitting of this House last year when we discussed the Budget, and I sounded it before, when I opened the office of a local insurance company. And when I said that, probably certain Members who sit smugly now thought I meant only those irresponsible elements in our society. But I also meant others, Sir,I am clarifying it now for the information of certain members of the Liberal-Socialist Party who have always been saying. 'Capital has flown away from Singapore. What have we got to attract capital here?', and this and that. That also is wild talk - talk that is calculated to harm us in the long run.

I am also glad. Sir, that we have also found support in the Liberal-Socialist Party for Singapore's free port policy but here again, they are a little behind the times. In fact, the Singapore Standard of the day before yesterday contained this headline:

"Government's free trade policy to stay - Commerce Minister. Singapore's Commerce and Industry Minister, Mr J. M. Jumabhoy, yesterday gave the assurance that Government would maintain a free trade policy and keep the island a free port as far as possible."

We, Sir, on this side, realise the importance of the free port policy. At the same time. Sir, we must make an effort to develop our industries. And in industrial matters there are always conflicting interests. To develop industries, there are certain times when certain industries would require a certain amount of protection. On the other hand, the merchants who predominate today in Singapore are all for the free port policy, and therefore we have a conflict of interests.

At the moment the merchant class predominates in Singapore: the industrial class is much less. But we have to get a balance between the two and to see whether both views cannot be brought together. I stated earlier in this House - I think it was last year - that there was a possibility that in future we might have to have tariffs to protect certain industries. I specifically mentioned that if that does come about, we should see that the entrepot trade is not hampered, in other words, that if we ever impose tariffs, they should be selective tariffs on such items as would benefit us in the industrial field but at the same time would not take away our entrepot trade. That means those items that do not enter into the entrepot trade and which we could manufacture locally to advantage.

I therefore used that word particularly, Sir - it is "selective" tariff. But of course, Sir, when Members want to interpret it to their own advantage they conveniently forget certain words - like the Member for Tanglin has when he quoted statistics (I shall come to that later) and then put out a one-sided version for the consumption of the public. That, I suppose, Sir, is quite a common practice with Members of the Liberal-Socialist Party.

Now, Sir, the hon. Member for Telok Ayer gave us the points which would have to apply here in Singapore if industries are to function. I will deal with them one by one.

He said that, first, capital was required. No doubt capital formation is the chief of the requirements. Without capital we cannot have industry - and we have set up the Industrial Promotion Board to help the small man with capital. But we have to rely to a great extent on imported capital. Why? The reason, Sir, is that our local millionaires do not believe in long-term investment. They want to get quick returns in a short time. They go in for the rubber market, the share market, the tin market and other such markets which give them quick returns in a short time. In spite of a lot of speeches to the contrary by people outside this House, these facts still remain so. Even this afternoon's Free Press has this to say, "Slight interest in loans" - referring to the City Council loan of $13 million floated in October last. It says:

"... The City Treasurer yesterday reported that only $9,000,000 had been subscribed so far. Most of it came from the Central Provident Fund...".

This loan, Sir, is offering a very good rate of interest and good returns compared with similar loans floated previously and with the general interest rate prevailing at the moment, and yet we find that local investors are not interested in investing in it. They want to go in for quicker returns. So that is the trouble with us; we cannot blame anyone particularly. It is a thing that will have to be realised slowly by our own investors and be rectified by them.

Then Sir, the Member referred to cheap labour. Now it is not necessary just to have cheap labour. We can have very cheap labour but labour that is inefficient and ineffective. What is required is not cheap labour or the cutting down of the wages of labour and thereby reducing their standard of living (because every country wants to raise the standard of living of its people), but higher productivity from labour. If labour can produce more, if it acts in a responsible manner while it does its job, and gives full value for the money it is paid, you can step up productivity and therefore make goods at a cheaper price. You can be more competitive in your final product.

The Member for Telok Ayer also says that one of the requirements is low cost of living. Cost of living in Singapore, Sir, is a matter which is beyond our hands. We depend on our food supplies, like rice, on our neighbours. We do not produce much of our food and therefore the cost of living, where food items, textiles and wearing apparel, and most of the necessities of life are concerned, depends on the market trends operating in the countries from which we import those goods. Therefore it is beyond our control. Later on, however, I will prove with figures that the cost of living has not gone up - in fact in certain cases it has come down slightly.

A vast hinterland is required; no doubt about that. A vast hinterland is always useful but it is not something that we can get for the asking. In fact our policy to merge with the Federation of Malaya will provide that the economy of both territories will operate as one. Therefore there would be no question of a hinterland for us - we would be part of Malaya with a population of seven or eight million people.

Political stability, Sir - that is a thing which you cannot have overnight. That is a thing which is in the hands of certain Members of the Opposition.

Cheap power - I think we already have cheap power available in Singapore.

Lower taxation - Sir, compared with those in many other countries, our taxation rates are quite low; except perhaps those of Hong Kong; but then in Hong Kong you do not have a government responsible to the people and therefore does not have to give the social services to them. You can find thousands of refugees in Hong Kong living in appalling conditions. Here, if you build an Improvement Trust house and charge $30 in rent, you have the Opposition Members shouting, "$30! How can the poor man afford it?" - in spite of the fact that half of the appropriate rent is a subsidy from Government derived from taxation. If you have such irresponsible Opposition Members, Sir, what can you do with them?

Raw materials - Hong Kong has no raw materials and yet it has got first-class industries.

Now, Sir, a question was asked by the Member for Tanglin, "What has the Government done about industries? Government has no definite policy or interest in industries." The Member conveniently forgets, Sir, that on 7th November, 1956, I made a statement to this House in which I outlined Government's policy in regard to the encouragement of foreign capital and industries. I would like to say that most of that policy has been carried out.

I will go through it point by point. First of all, a suitable climate for investment - Government's action against subversive elements is intended to create a suitable climate, but this is not something that can come overnight.

Then repatriation of profits or capital - that is in force now. We are not refusing repatriation of capital, or remittances of profits, to any foreign enterprise.

Entry into Singapore of skilled workers, technicians and so on who are not available here - that is in operation now, Any foreign investor can say that he needs so many skilled workers or higher managerial staff and we give him permission to bring them in provided he can not get similar types of persons locally.

Importation from competitive markets of raw materials, machinery and technical equipment - there again even though hard currency is really hard, we do allow hard currency to a manufacturer where he can prove that he can get an advantage by buying from a hard currency source.

Then I said, "Government intends that a survey of the Colony's industrial potential and markets should be carried out"; and, "enquiries are being made to obtain the services of an expert". I think at the last sitting of the Assembly, Sir, I made a statement in which I said that we had obtained an expert from Canada under the Colombo Plan for this purpose. Now Members will ask, 'Why did you take a year?' Sir, experts are not produced from our pockets; we have to get a suitable man from a friendly country, and that is something which we have to wait and try and try until we get him, and no amount of shouting across the floor can accelerate getting that man. And experts are also in short supply.

"Government intends to establish an Institute of Scientific and Industrial Research" - we had Dr Godwin here to make a report on that. That report is now with the Federation Government for consultation with them, and until these consultations are finalised, we cannot move in that direction. And if the Member asks, 'Why wait for Kuala Lumpur? Why don't you do it here?', he will be belying his own statement just now that economically we must be in step with the Federation - we must have one policy.

Then I said that an Industrial Promotion Board with a capital of $1 million would be set up - that has been done already.

Then "Government is investigating the question of making tax concessions to industries..". I said further, "The outcome of this investigation will be reported in due course" to the House. Now, Sir, that is again a pan-Malayan matter - income tax is a pan-Malayan matter and any time we want to move in that direction we have to get agreement from the Federation. Therefore this is something in which we cannot move unilaterally.

Sir, hon. Members seem to be impatient at the slowness at which industrial development is proceeding, and I can understand that-

Mr Speaker: Will the Hon. Minister identify the document he is reading from?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: The quotations are from a statement I made on 7th November, 1956, and included in the Official Report of that day.

As I said, hon. Members seem to be impatient at the slowness of industrial development and I can well understand that. But when a man wants to invest even a thousand dollars he thinks ten times before he puts in the money. This is a question of people coming from other parts of the world to invest millions, in a country of which probably they have heard a lot about adversely because of certain politicians on the opposite Benches. Therefore it takes time to convince them that all is not bad with us; that we have good people - even though they may not be in a big majority - on the Government side.

I said also that Government intends to carry out a survey of the Colony's industrial potential and markets which will, for the first time, reveal the possibilities for industrial development. This is a process you cannot expedite. The findings will act as a basis for future industrial development and be a useful guide to prospective investors who are desirous of ascertaining the industrial possibilities of Singapore.

And about tariffs I said that the question would be deferred until the industrial potential and market survey had been completed. It is no use running headlong into such a thing. When you plan your industrial development or economic future, you have got to be very certain that you are not damaging anything, that what you plan will give you added benefits but not take away from your existing resources. And therefore you cannot rush headlong into it.

Mention was made, Sir, of 4,000 workers going out of jobs in the footwear industry. Sir, as soon as I received an appeal from the rubber footwear manufacturers, I said we would investigate, and I referred the matter to the Industrial Promotion Board, which is the competent authority to examine this. But they took their own time. It was only yesterday, Sir, that they approached the Board and you will find in today's papers a reference to the fact that they have now set up a Working Committee.

Sir, before we rush headlong into giving tariff protection to every Tom, Dick and Harry who asks for it, we have got to make certain that there are no other possibilities by which we could save an industry. If we are absolutely certain that there is no other way for the survival of that industry, then we can think of tariff protection, but not before. It is no use rushing precipitously into giving tariff protection.

The Member for Tanglin also said, 'Where is the trumpet blast of Ministers?' -referring to me, Sir. He forgets that about a year back we had trumpet blasts every day from the ex-Chief Minister which were not to the liking of Members. Now when we have no trumpet blasts, they bemoan the fact that we have no trumpet blasts.

It is interesting to see, Sir, how facts can be put in a one-sided manner, when the Member for Tanglin referred to labour and said that in March 1956. 124,645 labourers were employed, in March 1957, 123,263 - a short fall of just over a thousand. Sir, what he did not mention were figures previous to those years. The figures for 1954 (when we were not in power) and early in 1955 (when we were not in power) he omitted to mention. He also omitted to mention another significant fact, that is that these returns were obtained from employers. The 1956 returns were obtained from 5,470 employers, whereas the 1957 returns (which show about a thousand less) were obtained from 5,155 employers - 300 less of them. I do not know why the remaining employers did not give their returns but these figures represent returns from employers, of whom 300 have not given returns. So both figures are not fully given and even in the ones given you might get slight variations. You do not look at a particular month in a particular year and quote that as an example; you have got to look at the graph over a long period to gauge the trend. Not to do that, of course, comes out of immature understanding.

Then the Member quoted some figures, about rubber. I have some figures here. January! September 1955, remilled rubber including smoked rubber except on estates, Singapore production, 56.2 thousand tons; January/September 1956, 59 thousand tons; January/September 1957, 62.5 thousand tons - a gradual increase over the three years.

Rubber footwear, over which there has been a lot of bemoaning in this House this morning: January/September 1954, Singapore production 2,141 thousand pairs; January / September 1955, 2,832 thousand; January / September 1956, 2,919.7 thousand; January! September 1957, 2,784 thousand. So from 1954 to 1957 there has been an increase in production of roughly over 600 thousand pairs, if I am not mistaken.

He also quoted figures about rice prices and said the price had gone up. There again I said it was beyond our control if the price went up because the market had gone up in Thailand or in Burma due to delayed rains or some other causes.

An hon. Member: Stockpile.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: It is not due to stockpile. That is an absurd argument, Sir,In 1954 the rice price per gantang was $1.65; in 1955 it was $1.36, in 1956 it was $1.38-a sharp reduction from $1.65 to $1.38. Of course, Sir, the Member will pick out a particular month which is to his advantage and quote.

Flour, wheaten, Australian - in 1954 it was 27 cents per pound and it has gone do wn until now it is 25 cents. For the last two years it has been 25 cents. Mee - in 1954 it was 28 cents; now it is 25 cents. Sir, these figures show that the situation is not as bad as the Member for Tanglin wishes to make out.

Then we come to the main part of his speech, in which he said that the Minister had hinted mysteriously in newspaper reports about industries being opened but nothing concrete was being done. Sir, that was almost a hint that the Minister did not understand what truth was. I have figures here which may surprise the House. In 1955, 74 new industrial companies were registered; in 1956, 93; in 1957, 129 - these are industrial companies. Of these industrial companies, you have a vegetable oil refinery with a capital of $1½ million. The Member mentioned small industries, not big ones, having been registered; I am giving the big ones - with $1½ million capital - a vegetable oil refinery. Then you have industries with $1 million capital - a biscuit and confectionery manufacturer, cotton spinner, linen maker, rubber miller - each with $1 million capital. In the half a million dollar capital class you have a box manufacturer, gramophone record maker, latex foam products maker and pineapple canner.

All these industries have been registered in the 11 months of this year, from January to November. In these 11 months, 2,154 businesses were registered of which 165 were limited liability companies of all types with a total capital of $225 million.

Now that shows that Opposition Party members can always talk at random, generalise and ask, `Where is the evidence of industrial progress?', but they cannot quote figures. I have here proved that they are far from the truth when they make such allegations.

In 1955 and 1956 there were $2 million capital companies operating canneries, sauce factories, rubber goods manufacturers; and of course we have a steel and iron mill plus other manufacturers with a million dollar capital.

An hon. Member: On paper.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: They are not on paper; they are operating. All these companies are working.

Now. Sir, what are the new industries which are not in this list but which are coming? I am going to tell the House now - the ones that I have been `hinting mysteriously' about. Unfortunately, Sir, I have had to hint mysteriously because as Minister for Commerce and Industry I am in a responsible position and cannot divulge secret information; the companies concerned would not like me to do so. It is against business interests and business etiquette to give out secret information which is in my possession and which I do not have the authority from them to divulge. Therefore I have had no recourse but to generalise without making special reference to what they are. Now, however, I can tell the House something.

Plans are now finalised for the establishment of a flour mill which, in the final stages, will involve a capital of $5 million. The company will be operated by Hong Kong capital. Approval in principle has also been given for another big enterprise with about $2 million capital the nature of which I am still not allowed to disclose. However, I can say that one-third of its capital will be local and two-thirds foreign. The Shell Company, as I have stated in the Press, is planning to build a big oil-bulking plant with a total expenditure of about $3 million. Then negotiations are now going on for the establishment of a tuna industry using Singapore as a base for the fishing vessels, and the ancillary industries of canning and others connected with tuna fishing. We have also received enquiries and are negotiating for various other ventures. I am sorry that even if hon. Members tax me to the extent of raising my temper, I cannot disclose the nature of these enterprises because I am not allowed to do so yet. They are, however, coming up and if only Members will have patience, they will see them established.

An hon. Member: How long?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, the capital is not owned by me or by hon. Members on the Opposition side. If it were, I could probably tell the people concerned to hurry up. The capital is owned by outside interests, they will take their own time and nothing can be done about it. We cannot force them to hurry. We do not want to hurry them.

Sir, I have today given to the House figures to prove that this grouse about slowness in industrial development has no justification. There are many other points on which I would like to comment but I see that time is getting short and I do not want to take up the time of the House unduly. Therefore I will comment on each particular item at a later stage as they come up for discussion in Committee.

3.01 p.m.

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been blasted with figures and-