APPROPRIATION BILL

Debate resumed.

3.15 p.m.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Sir, I was saying that the Hon. the Minister for Commerce and Industry was blasting at us for nearly half an hour with figures and telling us that hundreds of millions of dollars worth of capital have been registered. He has carefully avoided telling us how much of the $200 million worth of capital has been paid up. It is very easy for anyone to start a company with a $10 million capital and registering it by paying a very small premium on that capital but the main factor is how much of it is paid up? He has not told us how many of these companies which have been registered are really companies, not companies like partnerships and concerns which have been carrying on for a number of years and are now being turned into limited companies and which have to be registered under the Companies Ordinance. That is a crucial factor and not the fact that $200 million worth of capital has been registered.

Sir, he has attacked the Liberal-Socialist Party regarding our wild talk to scare away capital but he has. I do not understand why, not noticed or commented upon the real scare that has been thrown in this House today by the partner whom the Labour Front has hastily married and for which I am sure that they are now repenting at their leisure.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, on a point of order. Is that relevant?

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Sir, he had a quarter of an hour of irrelevance and I fail to see why he should object to it now. Perhaps it hurts him.

Mr Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to give a ruling. I cannot see anything irrelevant about that remark of the hon. Member. It is quite good sometimes to marry.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Now, referring to the wild remarks of the leader for the People's Action Party, he has I declared the stand of his Party and there is no compromise. His policy is that if they get into power, they will scare away capital and "tell them where to hop off". Sir, I must say that we are very grateful to him for letting us know his policy at this stage and it is for all of us in Singapore now to decide on what future for Singapore we would like to have: whether we would have his choice to scare away capital which is so badly needed at the present moment, create unemployment and chaos, inevitably leading us into the position as in Indonesia today, or to adopt the principle which our Party stand for - a co-operation between capital and labour which we think is possible and the only solution for Singapore. If we have to fight like Indonesia for independence, then I would agree with his principle. We have to sacrifice everything so that we can free ourselves and become an independent nation. But when Great Britain has offered to us everything on a platter, I fail to see why there is any necessity to plunge our children and children's children into the depths of misery that must inevitably follow if we follow the footsteps of the countries surrounding us. This is a step which I say is unnecessary and on which we should all - everyone in Singapore - now decide and make up our minds to follow which Party, otherwise we will wake up one day and find ourselves being led into chaos and ruin.

The Minister for Health (Mr A. J. Braga): By the Lib-Socs!

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Sir, that remark makes me say this. At one time, we had the Labour Front as a cushion. Unfortunately now it has disappeared having chosen to leap into the abyss instead of fighting and dying in noble defeat.

Now, I come to the only point in this Budget which I shall deal with, Sir, on a matter of which I have considerable expert knowledge. I refer, Sir, to the statement of the Hon. the Financial Secretary when he said with great pride:

"By all standards, the achievement has been monumental. Since the war, over 15,500 housing units and 600 shops have been built at a cost of $95 million."

Sir, that is indeed monumental, but may I ask what has the present Government done in the way of housing? They have built less than 3,000 houses which were built in 1954, out of a total aim of well over 10,000. That I must describe as an ignoble failure. Sir, we are being given excuses and reasons for not being able to build these houses. The public is not concerned with reasons. We are concerned only with the failure and the consequences that they have brought upon the people of Singapore. We are only concerned with the promises that have been broken. At the elections, we were told that we would have everything and now we get nothing. What do we have? We have 12,000 families now on the waiting list and for them there is no earthly chance of getting houses in the next few years because every house that is going to be completed will have to be given to those living on sites which have to be cleared for building by the Singapore Improvement Trust. Sir, that is a grievous position and what has the Government done to make up for the failure in meeting this what must be the most important platform? Nothing, absolutely nothing! Private development has been held up too. In my experience, it has taken us longer to get a plan passed than to build 500 houses. I am afraid and I am ashamed that I have to say this. Still, that is true and because of this, the Government has created problems everywhere. What has happened? You cannot stop people from finding shelter; they have to live somewhere. That has given the chance to speculators to build wildly all over the country hundreds of houses. That has already caused or is going to cause the collapse of the Master Plan and that has created a problem for any government to solve and it can only be solved with firmness and sympathy. Government could have easily acquired large tracts of land, putting roads, water and light and selling plots to the people who want sites to build their houses on or lease the land out so that they can build themselves a shelter over their heads. Instead of that, everything that goes out to the Planning Department is held up because of the Master Plan - a Master Plan which has never had our sanction but which has been applied during the last three years. And what is the result? Now, there are thousands of illegal houses and what is to be done? Sir, that is the biggest problem before us today.

The same position, Sir, also applies to development schemes. The Hon. the Financial Secretary sighed with relief when he mentioned:

"... it appears likely that, instead of the estimated deficit of $3 million, the Development Fund will show a surplus at the end of the year of the order of $40 million...".

Sir, this is no progress. What it means is that $43 million worth of works which should have been done has not been done and is projected into the future causing more delay and confusion. Would it not be better for us, Sir, to have a realistic Budget than just hopes and aims unachieved?

I do however endorse heartily that more of the Central Provident Fund should be invested locally and also the suggestion of the Hon. the Financial Secretary that a Planning Committee with representatives of the Government, the City Council and other development authorities be set up as quickly as possible. Too often have I noticed roads being torn up, repaired and being torn up again for the water, light and sewerage services and I am sure a Planning Committee like this will avoid all these unnecessary expenses being incurred.

3.25 p.m.

Mr G. A. P. Sutherland (Nominated): Mr Speaker, Sir, contrary to the opinion of some Members on this side of the House, in my opinion, one of the most cheerful things about the review of 1957 which the Hon. the Financial Secretary made in his speech is the record of progress. The Budget has been described by the local Press as "painless" and I think that is a very fair criticism; so also were the Hon. the Financial Secretary's remarks on economic cooperation between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. The future of these two territories, Sir, is so closely linked that one would like to believe that anything other than the closest economic liaison between them would be unthinkable. Nevertheless, I have heard fears expressed from time to time about the future of the currencies of these territories and, in a way, it is a pity that the Hon. the Financial Secretary was unable to tell us more at this stage regarding the issue and control of currency, foreign exchange control, import/export control and other matters which, as he said in his speech, were for the moment sub judice.

Although I do not find myself in agreement with very many of the remarks made by the Member for Tanjong Pagar this morning, I do agree that there must be a large amount of income tax evasion and this is a particularly sore point with the much maligned European community who nobody will deny have always met their obligations in full. It is at least reassuring however to hear the Hon. the Financial Secretary saying that outstanding arrears will be collected.

But the good thing about this Budget, Sir, and indeed about almost every Budget presented to us over the last few years, is that the position remains, as described by the Hon. Minister on more than one occasion when he uses the effective but prosaic word "sound". A small public debt and a general revenue balance equivalent to 3½ months revenue is indeed a sound position. Nevertheless, one cannot help experiencing a little uneasiness at the thought of expenditure growing year by year while revenue is showing signs of levelling out. It is true that the main increases in expenditure are in social services, education and medical services but in the final analysis, the country's expenditure must be related to its revenue capacity and, in view of the Hon. the Financial Secretary's rebuttal of allegations regarding Government's extravagance, it is difficult to see how in the forthcoming years, the gulf of $12 to $15 million annually can be bridged unless there be a considerable increase in taxation. For my own part, I cannot see any reduction in the rate of expansion of the social services, and so on, being lightly undertaken by any socialist Government. Personally, I accept the Hon. the Financial Secretary's statement that there is nothing new or novel in the estimate of expenditure. I should believe that under his supervision and direction, the Treasury may and probably does argue bitterly about expenditure before it is approved. So, Sir, we arrive at an actual estimated deficit of $8 million and the Assembly last week heard, to my mind, the astounding fact that increases in taxation this year would be confined to petrol, diesel vehicles and stamp duty on conveyances, and I doubt, Sir, if any Members on this side of the House were other than greatly surprised. I cannot pay any serious attention to the arguments put forward by certain Members on this side of the House against the introduction of a tax on petrol. It seems to me a tax which is both logical and equitable but while many people must have sighed with relief at the moderation and mildness of the measures introduced, the ineluctable fact remains that much greater taxation is in the offing and that the present is no more than a respite. We have to admit that we are indeed one of the most lightly taxed nations in the world, as the Hon. the Financial Secretary has said, but those countries which are more heavily taxed probably get more for their money. However, if we want more, we must pay more.

I find, Sir, again that I cannot share the Member for Tanjong Pagar's view that the method of presentation of these Estimates is deplorable and inefficient. There is no overt attempt to deceive the people or to secrete large sums away like some mendacious company director or, as we already have had reference to sleight of hand, some prestidigitator such as the Minister for Health. However, perhaps the Government will make an attempt to simplify them so that in the unlikely event of the People's Action Party coming into power, then the great brains of the Party will be able to understand them.

I must say, Sir, that I do not like at all, in the Hon. the Financial Secretary's speech, the sinister references to eventual introduction of import duties. Many businessmen would be dismayed at the thought and even if the tariffs, as, the Minister for Commerce and Industry has indicated, were carefully chosen to avoid items which figure largely in the entrepot trade, I should feel that there is more in the entrepot trade than goods to godown basis.

In a debate such as this, it is inevitable that political Parties will attack one another and it is in a way surprising that they should spare any time at all for nominated Members. I never had such limelight this morning since the days of the ex-Chief Minister. However, one is not impressed by the remarks of the Member for Tanjong Pagar. He rarely makes a speech without reference to perils unseen and people perishing and diving into the sea and such-like remarks but one or two things he said this morning I cannot let go unchallenged. One would have thought to hear him speak that the making of profits is an evil. Far from being an evil, it is indeed the chief object of business and is in itself an entirely laudable one. What is important is how profits are dealt with. An examination.. Sir, of the balance sheets of many local public companies, such as the list read out by the Member for Tanjong Pagar this morning, reveals that far from paying a large percentage of the profits to avaricious shareholders, the shareholders only receive what in business circles is known as a fair return. Frequently a large percentage is ploughed back into the business here in this country permitting the companies to expand and thus creating employment. A dividend of, shall we say, 30 per cent paid on the paid-up capital of a company would be described by the uninitiated and even by the Member for Tanjong Pagar, who in this field shows an obtuseness which he shared with the ex-Member for Cairnhill (Mr D. S. Marshall) probably as "an obscene profit" - that was the expression once used in this House. A 30 per cent dividend, Sir, does not mean that one can invest one's money in a company and obtain 30 per cent on one's money. It is entirely wrong and illogical to consider in isolation dividends paid on paid-up capital and unless one takes into account all the money employed in the business - funds which incidentally belong to the shareholders - one may receive an entirely wrong impression. Any local investor knows very well that he can only expect a certain yield on his investment. Such yield might be 10 per cent although the dividend might be 100 per cent. I would say, Sir, just before I leave this subject that an investor is entitled to a reasonable return on his money especially in an industrial enterprise. He is taking a calculated risk .and he is entitled to a certain return. Out of this return, Government takes a .good slice. The attitude of certain politicians to this is that the workers should share in all this in a bigger way than they do. The wicked capitalist. .of course, supplies them with jobs and their livelihood but he also takes all the risks as all the headaches, pays the taxes, gives his workers annual leave, medical leave, casual leave, maternity leave and virtually runs a welfare state. His motto might very well be Liberty Egalite and maternity. All this he must do so even if his company makes losses and we know full well that if they made losses, the workers would never dream or indeed would be incapable of making them up. But my last word on this subject, Sir, which I am cutting short, is simply this. Let us remember that a large majority of the local companies here may have foreign-sounding names or may have originally been foreign or British entirely in their origin but today a great number of their shareholders and the executives too are not necessarily foreigners. The owners of the company may in fact be the clerks in your office who may have ventured their small capital in order to get a better return than they get in their miserable deposit accounts with banks or the Post Office savings bank.

There is just one other thing I would like to say, Sir, apropos the remarks of the Member for Tanjong Pagar, and that is this: he actually mentioned the corporation I myself serve and I would like to tell him that in the dire circumstances which he envisaged of our being taken over by some unfriendly local set-up, I can assure him that whoever they are, they will probably get less than the Japanese got out of us.

3.41 p.m.

The Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat): Mr Speaker, Sir, I must contradict the statements and the speeches made by two Members in the Assembly today. One was the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) and the other was the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck). They accuse the Government, Sir, for the state of affairs with regard to the housing programme. It is true that I did make a statement earlier this year that between September 1956 and August 1957 not a single housing unit was completed. I hope that both the Members and the other Members of this Assembly would realise that I used the word "completed" and that I did not use the words "under construction". But in actual fact, Sir, during that period, there were more than 4,000 housing units under construction. If Members had taken the trouble to follow some of the statements which I have made both in this House and outside, they would have realised that to have a house completed in 1956, planning should have started way back in 1954 or earlier. That was the time, Sir, when we were not in power. You cannot build a house, less still complete a huge building programme, by the mere stroke of a pen. You need planning, money and vacant land. As for vacant land, Sir, there is hardly any place in Singapore today which is not crowded with squatters. One cannot arbitrarily evict this class of people without giving them alternative accommodation even though Government has taken mandatory orders against them. The resettlement of squatters from land earmarked for the Singapore Improvement Trust building schemes is the most formidable task confronting Government in its housing projects. One non-cooperative squatter can hold up the whole scheme. I hope that Members of this Assembly will realise this when they send their chits and bits of papers to me pleading for an extension of time on behalf of squatters on Crown land against whom action is about to be taken. The Member for Tanglin - fortunately he is not here today - is one of the most distinguished offenders of this habit. If Opposition Members blame Government, then I think a fair measure of the blame should also be placed on the shoulders of the Members themselves.

As for the Housing Authority, I have promised this House that a Bill for this will be introduced at the next session of the Assembly. There has been no delay in tackling this problem. The establishment of a housing and development authority is also inter-dependent on the establishment of a new planning department and a new planning authority since the Singapore Improvement Trust is at present responsible for both housing and planning, and the dissolution of the Trust therefore requires that planning should also be covered besides housing.

One last word, Sir. The Member for Paya Lebar said just now that there had been delays in having plans passed by the authorities because of the Master Plan. As far as I am aware, Sir, this is not quite the case. The question of saving plans passed in Singapore does not necessarily rest entirely with the Master Plan team or the Master Plan itself but you have so many authorities in Singapore which have got to give the green light. Sometimes it may be the City Council and sometimes the Rural Board but inevitably the approval must finally rest with the Singapore Improvement Trust who are not, shall I say, the authority on the Master Plan.

3.45 p.m.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): r Speaker, Sir, in his reply, the Minister for Commerce and Industry has tried to paint a picture to tell us that all is well but from one of his colleagues, the Hon. the Financial Secretary, we have heard that "the boom period is over" and that "money is now tighter". We have also heard with truth from the Hon. the Financial Secretary that in the field of labour relations, there has been labour disputes, strikes and consequential losses of pay and working time. In effect, he has admitted:

"It would be idle to deny that the events of 1955 and 1956 did much to destroy the feeling of stability, security and confidence which is vital for the existence of Singapore as a centre of world trade, services and communications.'

Of the two, I believe that the Hon. the Financial Secretary has spoken the truth. Today, Singapore is losing rapidly its position as a centre of trade.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: How do you know?

Mr Lim Choon Mong: There is no need to explain to the Member for Tanjong Pagar, who is a specialist at strikes and a specialist at riots.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think to accuse an hon. Member of being a specialist at strikes and riots is certainly unparliamentary.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: It was at his invitation, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Please withdraw those remarks.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: I withdraw them, Sir. The Member for Tanjong Pagar will not know anything about this.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Tell us what you know of-

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: I think he is a stranger in business. In Singapore, we all know and we all admit that we have nothing to produce. There is no hinterland as the Minister for Commerce and Industry is dreaming about.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: On a point of explanation, Sir. I did not say that. His own Party member made that remark.

Mr Speaker: It is disorderly to stand unless the hon. Member gives way. Is the hon. Member giving way?

Mr Lim Choon Mong: I think he has explained it even without my giving way, Sir. The Government Benchers have always taken that advantage and I think they take it as a matter of right.

We know that today trade has not been good. The Minister for Commerce and industry will remember that when we met this time last year, there were delegations of traders coming to see him. I would say that there had been people who were manufacturers of beehoon who came along to see him saying that they would have to close down 20 or 30 factories and he said, "We will help you. We will start a corporation." He called that the Industrial Promotion Board with a capital of $1 million. They did what they could and took his advice. Today, they are still in exactly the same position. The manufacturers still find keen competition and many of them are throwing out more and more of their employees. I think the Singapore Standard published a report of some more people calling on him and this time it was the oil-millers who described to him the shortage of copra which was affecting their business. I do not think that he is going to be able to do anything for them in that matter. Again we had the shoemakers headed by Mr Soh Koon Tin seeing him about their difficulties. He told them that he could not do anything for them, that things must take their course, that goods cannot be stopped from coming in and that the free flow of goods must not be stopped - and I should say nor can he stop his salary from getting into his pocket! Last year, we had the soap manufacturers rushing madly about in Singapore and the biscuit manufacturers too and these people have reduced their output; many of them have shifted their factories into the Federation. I suppose this would be described as being an excellent understanding that has been established with the Government of the Federation of Malaya. Yes, in a matter such as this, our Singapore Government has never been in a position to protect its own trade. With the Federation, it is a sovereign state and we must take the heavy end of the stick! Today we are faced with another difficulty. There is a crisis in Indonesia. I think that our Ministers will again fold their arms and say, "Well, you may complain that business has dropped 50 per cent. The import/export business between Indonesia and Singapore has dropped because of this crisis, but we cannot do anything." Local traders are afraid of what will happen to their capital in Indonesia. They will want protection from this Government. I expect the same reply from the Government will be, "We cannot help you. We can do nothing. It will have to take its own course." Of course, Government will claim credit especially during last year when it sent an expensive mission to Indonesia and came back announcing everywhere that it had brought back so many tons of goods and rubber which had incidentally already been negotiated by the traders themselves. All these, Sir, leave me to think that Government has never awakened to the fact that it is their duty to increase trade because it is only with increased trade that we can increase revenue. If we look into the income tax returns right from the beginning when we started to collect tax, we will see that right from 1948 we started collecting $2.8 million, going up to $30 million and going up all the time until in 1956 it was $68 million. This shows, Sir, that expenditure in this colony may rise, we may need more money for our social services, but the most sensible way and the most painless way of collecting revenue would be to increase trade because anybody who makes money will not worry about being taxed. With the same rate of income tax but with increased business, I expect that we should not be collecting just $68 million but should be collecting near $100 million.

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

Mr Speaker: If the hon. Member will give way.

Mr Lim Choon Mong resumed his seat.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I want to know, Mr Speaker, Sir, whether the hon. Member could explain to us what increased trade has got to do with the mounting figures over the years. Does he suggest that the trade has been increasing from 1948 to 1956? Hence, the greater amounts year by year being collected.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: I am glad that I have been asked for an explanation by the Member for Tanjong Pagar. I suppose this time I have a bright student. Income tax, Sir, is collected from profits and if profits rise, we have more income tax; if profits rise, the volume of trade has increased so that with increased trade we should have increased profits and with increased profits we shall have more in the form of revenue by way of income tax.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, may I put a supplementary question? Is the Member aware that the increased amounts collected by way of tax was because the percentage for tax was increased steadily over the years and that that amount collected has no relation whatsoever to the total national income year by year?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: The hon. Member does not know that.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is very sad for the Member for Tanjong Pagar to hint that trade has not increased because it is hitting directly at his partners in the coming elections to say that they have not been able to bring in more trade, but the experts in the Statistics Department which send voluminous stuff to him every month dealing with trading figures should have given him those points. However, I do not think that we should waste time because one Member cannot understand this simple matter.

Mr Braga: Can you?

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Sir, in increasing trade, we must, as the Minister for Commerce and Industry said, create a suitable climate. We must not have wild talk as he said. We must keep Singapore as a free port. Yes, we must keep Singapore as a free port, so said the Minister, but we would have introduced the Luxury Tax Bill and make it not so free, and from what the Government has been trying to tell us, we expect that this freedom will be curtailed soon. This would be very serious indeed. To create a suitable climate, the Minister for Commerce and Industry remarked that they have arrested subversives and that there has been a return of confidence. Yes, they have arrested subversives but at the same time while condemning the Party that produced them they have allied with them in the coming elections in order to create not a good climate but another doubtful climate with black clouds all over the Island.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Because the Lib-Socs are going to be defeated.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Sooner or later, they will find that instead of the hope that they will get capital, capital will flee.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: The Lib-Socs are frightened.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: The Lib-Socs have never been frightened. I was indeed very glad this morning when the leader of the People's Action Party expressed that victory in the present polls would go to the Liberal Socialist Party.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Not in the 14 divisions.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: And he referred to the tarnished gold of the Labour Front which has now vanished since our ex-Chief Minister left them.

Sir, in the matter of trade promotion, there are two types of capital, local capital and foreign capital. Foreign capital needs that "climate" but local capital is in Singapore and local capital should be willing to invest in Singapore but how is that even the local people who have the money refuse to invest it in Singapore? The local people understand things even better and the local people I would say have even advocated that their money be invested in foreign countries. I will give you a very good example, Sir, an example that is, I should say, sponsored by the Government because I again agree with the Hon. the Financial Secretary that this step is wrong: the Central Provident Fund Board insists that 25 per cent of its fund should be invested outside Malaya at a time when Singapore is requiring it and the Central Provident Fund Board is a Board appointed by the present Government! This Board I would say must have the blessings of the Government to give an example to the people of Singapore not to invest all its money in Singapore but elsewhere! This I think is absolutely bad for Singapore. We need that money. We must have confidence in ourselves. All organisations that have money and all capital in Singapore should express confidence in Singapore and invest their money here otherwise how can we attract the people in foreign countries to invest their money here? However let me now turn to what Singapore can supply in the matter of its facilities. Singapore produces nothing but she can produce the service and we just do not produce the service by folding our arms or by leaving things to take their own course. We must train our men. In one of the -

The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas): The Singapore Standard.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Yes, in the Standard again, you will find that they referred to the large number of students who are leaving schools this year in search of jobs and they referred to them as aspiring to be clerks - Singapore as a country or as a land that is turning out people fit to be clerks. In this country, we produce nothing and if we just produce clerks, we will not progress. I compare Singapore with countries like Britain and Japan with limited land but which make use of their services for their livelihood. In these countries, the Governments should plan to give the people facilities so that students will not only get training to be clerks, but they can be trained in technical jobs too. They should be trained in all lines of professions to fit them in with the requirements of their country. I know in the Estimates that there is a Head for-

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Boys' clubs.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: - Defence.

We will come to that. There is a big Head for Defence. We are spending a lot of money on our Navy. I wonder how big a Navy we can create, whether that Navy will be big enough to withstand any one of our neighbours. At best it can be said that the Navy we can create will be a coastal patrol against smugglers. Why can we not put that sum of money into something more useful? Why can we not train our people to become mariners and navigators? We have a lot of seamen in Singapore but we do not have people who are trained to take over the control of boats. That money, I think, is utterly wasted. Of course the Hon. the Financial Secretary assured us that should the Federation of Malaya take over our Navy then we must provide further regiments. I again ask why further regiments? Are we going to war? Even if the whole population of Singapore become soldiers, can we fight any of our neighbours? We will have to rely on other factors than our own strength and that money could be usefully spent in training our own people. The regiment is needed to help the Police in keeping internal peace but we do not want to overspend on that.

Now even turning to Education, we know that we have provided nothing to train technical people to fit them into the various positions in trade and industry. The Government has even failed to implement its policy of giving a place to every child before the age of 12 or 14 years. Again I find this reference in the speech by the Hon. the Financial Secretary:

"It is the aim of the Government to give primary education to all children between the ages of 6 and 14.".

But today we find that many of the students have been thrown out of school because they failed to pass the Std. V or Primary VI examination, and they have not attained the age of 14. Even some of those who passed have not been given places because the Government's policy seems to be that for every secondary school there must be two or three primary schools. I think under this Development Head on Education you will find that on the schools planned by the Government

Mr Speaker: Order. This is the same point raised earlier on when other hon. Members were speaking, that possibly if the hon. Member wishes to embark on a detailed criticism of the Government's education policy, the right moment would be in the Committee of Supply.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: I agree with you, Sir. This is only fleeting criticism and I am not dealing with it in detail; I am only making a rapid reference to it.

I was referring to this Head, Sir, D 45, in order to point out that even Government itself, in the matter of building schools, would be building something like 66 primary schools to 20 secondary schools. This again, Sir, will be contrary to the promise of the Labour Front and children between the ages of 6 and 14 will not have a place in school. Of course, if the Government is pursuing such a policy and knows that it cannot sufficiently provide for all students and all the children, then it should help young people in other ways. Today we find that because of insufficient educational facilities young people have been thrown out into the streets, too young to be employed, and not educated enough to be employed, and nobody will ever employ them because of these factors; and when they are out in the streets, they become a problem to the police. We have heard a great deal of juvenile delinquency. Government has not been helping these people much. The Member for Tanjong Pagar referred to boys' clubs. At least the boys' club movement has tried to help the young people of Singapore. What has the P.A.P. to offer to the young people of Singapore? I certainly feel that with organisations and movements such as this they should get encouragement from leaders like the P.A.P. leader, instead of having cold water poured on them. If he would do a stroke of work to lift the young people up from their idleness and uselessness, I would have taken my hat off to him.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew rose -

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Elucidation, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the hon. Member will give way.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Yes, Sir.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I am full of admiration for boys' clubs properly run without government aid. I am not so full of admiration for boys' clubs not so properly run with government aid. So far as the youths of the P.A.P. are concerned they are very active indeed.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think an intervention of that nature is not quite in order. It should be just to elucidate what an hon. Member is saying.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: We can always forgive the P.A.P. for their rudeness.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Sir, on the problem of the young people, with so little assistance coming from Government, I cannot help feeling that young criminals will grow up to be old and hardened criminals. Today we find there is a general feeling of insecurity in Singapore. This feeling is expressed by one of the most important organisations in Singapore - the Chinese Chamber of Commerce. They have downright condemned the inactivity of the Government in matters such as this. We must be able to live in peace and security, and if Government cannot offer us that, then it is not doing its job.

I must now, Sir, touch on some of the points raised by other speakers this morning during the debate. I was most surprised to hear the P.A.P. leader talking of the Labour Front being hoodwinked by the past colonial government and again offering to its partner a wreath for its early demise. This seems to be bad. I am referring to this because the Minister for Commerce and Industry mentioned stability. I wonder how stability can be brought about when one of its own partners is accusing it of being led by the nose by the colonial government and that the millions of dollars that was approved for payment to the expatriates is going to be poured down the drain. I find it most illogical for the young brother to criticise the big brother.

Coming to the question of taxation, Sir, when the Labour Front presented this Budget, I would say it was presenting a Budget meant for the election. We shall call it an election budget- with an eye to persuading the people of Singapore that it is going to be a painless budget, that it is not going to hurt them, and that the best way not to hurt them is to tax them very little. The Labour Front seems to think that a tax on petrol would do the job. I was thinking that it will have its repercussions and I think I am not wrong because the newspapers have reported that the increase of 20 cents a gallon on petrol will increase the fares of taxis. The taxi drivers have protested against it and they are thinking of increasing the fares. The lorry owners' association, bringing in rice and daily necessities for the people, have also thought of increasing haulage fees. These increases in haulage fees and in taxi fares will certainly not hit those who own the vehicles, but they will usually be passed on to the consumers. As the Chinese say, "If the sheep wants more wool, then it has to be pulled out of its own body." If the poor people want more social services, then the Government will get the money for them out of their own pocket. This method of taxation is not only directed at the people who have money but is also directed at those who have to travel by public conveyances and who rely on shopkeepers or lorries to supply them with food. A newspaper article says that the increase in petrol will also affect fishermen who use motorised sampans. It will also affect those industries that have anything to do with petrol. So on this taxation, I find that the Government has again placed it on those people who would want to have facilities from the rich but have now to pay for them out of their own pocket. On the question of promotion of trade, the Government has failed. On housing, it has not built sufficient houses. On education, it is well known that the people of Singapore have never been satisfied with what Government has done. So all in all, I find that this last Budget of the Labour Front is not at all a Budget for the people. It presents a programme that is cock-eyed, and one that will not benefit the people one iota.

4.16 p.m.

Mr Francis Thomas: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I sometimes get rather bored when I am travelling in my car, and I try to find something to do. One little thing I did recently was to take a count of the taxis I met on the road. I think the hon. Member for Serangoon and other hon. Members might be interested to know the result. I took a count extending over nine days and over a total of 12 trips. These were mostly at rush hours, at 8.30 in the morning or at 5.30 to 6.00 in the evening which are the hours when I am going to and from my office. There were other trips as well. I counted only those taxis which were actually in the traffic stream, not parked taxis or taxis at the stands or drawn up by the side of the road because the driver was going to get a cup of coffee. I found that there were 334 taxis travelling along with no passengers on board and 236 had passengers on board. My deduction from that is that the 236 passengers who were travelling were paying not only for their own 2 miles or so, but they were going to pay for the 3 miles during which the vehicle was travelling empty. If that is true of all taxis in Singapore, then that means, of course, that by and large, out of every 5 miles they travel, 3 are unpaid miles during which they are travelling empty looking for a fare. If that is true - I do not say it is, it is not a sufficient sample, but it is an interesting one - then the taxis have a very considerable margin which they can still absorb in the way of taxation before they have to put up their fares.

Moreover, there is another margin which can well be absorbed by taxis before their fares are driven up by increased petrol costs, and that of course is the fact that about 50 per cent of the taxis are still capitalist-owned, for which a worker has to pay a rent to the capitalist. After he has paid the rent, he is then free to make his own personal living. The number of taxis has gone up by about 40 per cent. There are roughly 600 more taxis on the roads since the delimitation which we have secured on taxis. Of the 2,300 operating, I am told that half of them are owner-operated and the other half are still capitalist-owned rented ones. The man who rents a taxi, I am told, has to pay about $10 a day; or $7 or $8 if it is a night rental. That means that this $7, $8, or $10 is an available margin which can still be absorbed by the industry. The capitalists can go out of business and sell their taxis to the good men who are driving them and there is still an ample margin before fares have to go up. At present, the largest amount of the earnings in the industry are going to idle people who are sitting back and making a noise. I think it is highly desirable that we should have owner-operated taxis and I think, in so far as this increase in petrol costs, or diesel costs for that matter, has an effect on the taxi industry, it will be to turn it into an owner-operated industry and not a capitalist-controlled one.

We have not heard much about the diesel-engine tax. Everyone seems to think in terms of the petrol engine, but it is worth noting that the diesel engine has hitherto had a very marked favourable margin in comparison with the petrol engine in the past. A diesel motor-car - not many of them, but such as there are - has been paying $168 in tax before compared to $364 paid by a 14 h.p. petrol car doing a thousand miles a month. That gap is still a wide one with the new tax. The figure is $456 for petrol and $336 for diesel, and there is still a big advantage in having a diesel-engine vehicle if you can get one. The same sort of margin applies to buses or lorries, but I will not take up the time of the House because the debate has already gone on too long.

I must point out also that in the bus industry - there are some 1,200 vehicles - about two-thirds are diesel buses and one-third are petrol buses, and the diesel buses have had a marked advantage in relation to petrol buses, and still have it after tax. The number of passengers carried in buses is probably about 200,000,000 a year, possibly more, and I do not think that the amount of tax distributed amongst them is going to affect the bus fares.

I have one little point to make about the lorries, and that is that the Registrar of Vehicles is at present unable to impose a load limit on them, so that they do carry very heavy loads for the time being.

Now I would like to turn, quite briefly, to one or two other points made by Members of the Opposition. One of their favourite tricks is to say that we have said things which we have not said and then to attempt to shoot us down. Mr Lim Choon Mong remarked of the Minister for Commerce that he had said that all was well in industrial development. He did not say that; he said there had been progress.

Mr John Ede remarked about myself that I said I had no faith in experts.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: On a point of order, Sir, Is it in order for the Minister to call an hon. Member by name?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr R. C. H. Lim): Perhaps the Minister should have referred to him as the Member for Tanglin.

Mr Francis Thomas: I do apologise, Sir, I was looking at my notes and "J. Ede" is shorter than "Member for Tanglin". The Member's point was that I said I had no faith in experts. I did not say so. What I said was that when we got experts we had to stick to them. We have had expert after expert coming in and putting up schemes all of which have been admirable, but they do not agree with each other, so when we have to get an expert, we have to work on his advice. This sort of misrepresentation is damaging, Sir, because it leads off into a general inaccuracy of mind and misrepresentation which is carried to quite absurd lengths in Singapore. We know that there are some difficulties and troubles in Singapore but there are a great many more signs of hope and prospects of success and it is of no service at all to this country to pretend that Singapore is a bad place or a foolish place or a weak place, because it is not. It is a very good place indeed and it is very far ahead of many other territories in this part of the world, and even of territories with a very much longer history of development; and no service is done to Singapore by misrepresentation of the facts. Particularly a very bad case of this is where the hon. Member for Serangoon - he has gone out for his tea - chose to say that the trade of Singapore has fallen. It has not fallen. I will read out the figures to the House to get them on the record: 1954 $ Imports 3,024,000,000 Exports 2,685,000,000 1955 Imports 3,849,000,000 Exports 3,369,000,000 1956 Imports 3,929,000,000 Exports 3,429,000,000 In other words, trade has gone up in value year after year, $5,700,000,000 in 1954 to $7,350,000,000 in 1956. And when an hon. Member stands up in this House and hopes to get himself quoted in the Press with a completely inaccurate statement that trade has fallen, I regard it as doing no service at all to Singapore but doing considerable harm, because he may find that his incorrect figures and views are quoted and the truth is ignored and the good name of Singapore is damaged. Luckily I do not think the words of this particular Member will carry very great weight with any section of the community.

4.30 p.m.

Another attempt was made by the same Member. He quoted various industries - beehoon and oil-milling, I think, footwear and so on - and said that the Minister for Commerce and Industry had not done much. Well, there again that is a misrepresentation. What they asked for of course were protective tariffs, throwing away our free port status in order to give them protection. Well, that is a very big thing to ask for. In view of the fact that Members of the Opposition have laid great stress on the free port status of Singapore, they can hardly say that we have been wrong in denying the beehoon factories protective tariffs.

These are just some of the points which, I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, ought to be referred to. Even though the hon. Members concerned are not here, I wish to get them on the record, to see the facts of the case are there for those who wish to find them out in future.

I think I might make one further reference, Mr Deputy Speaker, and that is to the unification of the transport system. We have in fact been told by one or two Members of the Opposition that we have not yet unified the transport system. There have been difficulties and delays and I think the public is entitled to know what these difficulties and delays have been.

I am far from having lost my faith in experts. I have a transport expert who has been helping us - Mr Hawkins - and he was here a year ago. Unfortunately, he fell sick early this year and had to get back to England for an operation and has not been available to us, although he is now restored to health and will be available, I hope, in the near future. Well that is an act of a misfortune on which no government can provide. We cannot ensure that an expert whom we have relied on will not get sudden and serious illness which may cost him his life; and if he gets ill, we shall have to wait till he gets well again before we can go forward.

Another factor is that last year when I went to England one of the points which I managed to secure was an agreement by the Singapore Traction Company that we should have full access to their records and accounts for the purpose of getting an accountant's professional report, so that if we consider taking them over we should be able to go ahead with an accountant's report as a guide and a basis for negotiation. I got that agreement and we then discussed with them in detail precisely what they were making available and what we would do, with various arrangements. In February this year we were able definitely to employ accountants both here and in London, and to put them to work on the Traction Company's accounts. We hoped to have the report from the accountants, I think it was last June. Unfortunately, for one reason or another, the accountants have not been able to produce their report and I have still not got it. So there again I had to get an expert or experts to do the survey of accounts and the experts unfortunately have not yet been able to keep to their due date.

Moreover, we are operating in Singapore at a time of financial stringency with very great calls on our capital, and I have been anxious to devise, if possible, a method of unifying our transport system which would minimise the amount of capital which had to be found from public funds and therefore which would employ as far as possible private funds at present in the industry. This is of course one of the points made in the Hawkins Report, one on which we have been working. I particularly refer at the moment to the Chinese Bus Owners' Association, the 12 companies run by Chinese firms of varying sizes. I had hoped very much that we should retain the skill, capital and initiative which those Chinese bus owners have shown in the industry, because if we lose them we will have to find somebody else - and that is also a troublesome and maybe costly business.

Well, they have not shown any enthusiasm for unification but, in the process of negotiation and discussion extending over a very long period, we finally - a little earlier this year, a month or two ago - got them to agree that they would he unified, they would be prepared to amalgamate. We have on the files the general lines of what they had in their minds and we were waiting for further progress on that. But unfortunately I am told (I do not read the Chinese papers myself) that now the President of that Association has come out with a further statement saying that, on second thoughts, he thinks amalgamation would be a mistake. Consequently, I am back where I started. After seeking to get the co-operation of the bus owners, I am not quite sure where I stand now in relation to them, and it may be that we may have to think again, and on different lines. As to that again, I cannot say, but these are factors which do not lie under the control of Ministers or the Government.

I cannot control the sickness or health of an expert nor, having engaged a very highly reputed firm of accountants, can I compel production of a report in time; or if not, to get another firm of accountants and start all over again; having engaged an expert, I have to stick to him. For these reasons, there have been delays. I have wished very much to avoid them and I think the House will be interested to know the reasons why Government has not been able to avoid delay.

4.37 p.m.

The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think the most ignorant speech I have heard this afternoon was the one delivered by the hon. Member for Serangoon, who styles himself leader of the Opposition. I suppose the Liberal-Socialists can never produce any better man of calibre. He went on attacking the Government for failures, piled on it one criticism after another, and said that Government had failed to increase trade. On the other hand, he failed to tell us how to increase trade. He failed to give us any constructive means or ways by which Government can increase the trade of the Colony. All he did was to criticise.

He also gave us a false impression by saying that Government was not do, ing its part in providing adequate educational facilities for the vast population. He said that Government had no plan to provide technical education for over-aged students. It is extremely mischievous - I am sorry he is not here to hear this, although I do not think he has the courage to hear this-it is mischievous to say that there is no plan for over-aged students, or that they are being neglected. Even at the present moment, there are large numbers of over-aged students in the schools. There is no intention to throw them out to make space (which would be proper) for children of the correct age group, of whom there are many clamouring for places. So long as these over-aged students can make the grade, they will be allowed to continue, and to assist them to make the grade, schools have been asked to separate them from those of the proper age, so that teachers can pay special attention to and assist them where there is no need to do so.

There is under the Adult Education Council a large number of over-aged students or young adults, who receive some sort of education. Government gave the Council a grant of $500,000 this year and I have no doubt that this amount will increase as the need arises. There are evening classes run by Government which will cost Government an estimated $360,000 next year. Recently, I have noted that voluntary bodies want to run night schools or classes for over-aged students. I would like to take this opportunity to say that I note this with satisfaction and that officers in my Ministry will be instructed to give all assistance to such a scheme which may be submitted for approval.

In this respect I want to stress that there is no shirking of responsibility, but Members must be reminded that Government resources - such as finance and personnel - are limited, and that it will therefore fall on the shoulders of public-spirited people to come and assist Government in this gigantic task.

On the question of school buildings, I think it was the hon. Member for Tanglin who said that Government did not provide any technical education to fight Communism, and that only one technical school had been built. Well, two technical schools have been operating for a year now. I wish to remind the Member that during our term of office, 54 primary schools have been built, as against 42 during the period between 1949 and 1954. And of 12 new secondary school buildings planned, some have been completed and others will be completed within the next 12 months. The peak for secondary school buildings has yet to be reached, but it will not be long before the big increase in the post-war primary school population will be felt.

At the moment, the biggest challenge is provision of more schools for Chinese education. The Government is committed to this and will see it through. The next four secondary school buildings completed will be used to house the present four Government Chinese middle schools. Indeed, two of the four have already been completed and will be used next month.

The ten-year plan, augmented by the previous five-year plan, is based on the need of the English schools system. Now that the full grant-in-aid scheme is in operation and Government is committed to Chinese education side by side with English, Malay and Tamil, I can assure the House that a new phase in planning has begun and that this will be pursued vigorously by my Ministry.

4.43 p.m.

The Acting Chief Secretary (Mr S. T. \): Sir, I do not propose to take up the time of this House for more than a few minutes but I would like to touch on one or two points which has arisen out of the debate.

The first one is in connection with Malayanisation. I think when the hon. Member for Kampong Kapor touched on it, he was under the impression that an officer, on being promoted to a higher post, can, under the Malayanisation scheme, retire with higher compensation after occupying that post for just more than a few months. For the purpose of clarification, Sir, I would like to point out the fact that if an entitled officer is promoted, it does not necessarily mean an increase in his compensation. Officers are required to serve in a promotion post for a minimum period of two years inclusive of leave before they are entitled to compensation based on the salary of the higher promotion post.

Sir, reference was made this morning to the present problem of crime and gangsterism in Singapore. The police, Sir, have already taken certain steps in this direction, but I am sure its work in combating crime and gangsterism can be made much more effective if it receives an increasing measure of support, information and co-operation, from the public. I can assure the House that the Government is giving active consideration to other measures to meet the situation.

I think the hon. Member for Serangoon touched on the need to expend money on our regular Battalions. I think the short answer to that, Sir, is that we must have our local forces; we would like to have them to support the police in maintaining law and order should the need arise.

I think the hon. Member for Changi seemed to have adopted the attitude that in this H-bomb and sputnik age, we should not bother about defence at all. I think this attitude would be all right, Sir, if we could get an undertaking from all potential enemies that they would never attack us except with an all-annihilating H-bomb! As well say, 'Why bother to buy and carry a payong? It would be no good if you are struck by lightning!' Yet a payong will protect you completely from light showers and, to a limited extent, from the heaviest rain.

I think the truth, Sir, is that, unfortunately, there are many forms of warfare and aggression short of all-out attack with the most devastating weapons. I think the atomic and hydrogen bombs, Sir, have not lessened the destructive force of what is euphemistically called conventional high explosives; and nuclear weapons can be used in a tactical (that is limited objective) as well as strategic (that is blanketing) role. And whilst Singapore wishes nothing but peace to all, Sir, we must have local forces to support our police in maintaining law and order within our borders which (Singapore being an island) include large tracts of sea.

4.47 p.m.

Mr Braga: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member for Tanglin, in the course of a rather feeble effort to belittle the achievements of Government,, amongst other things suggested that the Coalition Government has not achieved anything in combating tuberculosis. I think he picked on TB because our achievements in practically all fields have been so substantial that he could not think of anything else, but even in this, his appreciation of the true situation is in error.

The conquest of TB is not one of those things which can be achieved overnight. Tuberculosis has been with mankind for as long as history can recall. Even in countries where medical facilities and advances have been considerable, it has taken a very long time to come to a state where the incidence of the disease is under control.

Before I assumed office, what was the situation in regard to TB? A small body of hard-working men were trying to cope with the demands of thousands, in a hospital which could not accommodate more than 500 persons, and a part of which was for the chronically sick other than TB. I refer to the Tan Tock Seng Hospital.

The position is very much otherwise today, Sir. The bed accommodation has been increased to nearly 1,000 and, before the first half of next year is over, we will see a further increase of another 400 beds.

In addition, the school medical service's has expanded its programme of contact-tracing and detection of cases amongst pupils and teachers. Substantial financial assistance, far in excess of that which the previous Government provided or thought of providing, has been made available to another body which is attempting to combat TB, and that is the Royal Singapore Tuberculosis Association. Government is also making a contribution towards the capital expenditure of a hospital which SATA will manage.

In addition, under the Colombo Plan, we have come to arrangements with the Australian Government for the initiation of a case-finding programme. That programme will develop and soon become a reality. Registrars and radiographers have been trained overseas, officers to man it have been appointed, the unit is ready and Australia will be able, I am told (unless something absolutely unforeseen develops) to initiate the programme here in the second half of 1958.

I suggest to you, Sir, that these are not small achievements. They are real achievements when viewed against the background of indifference which the Members of the former Progressive Party who adorned the Legislative Council, displayed over and again, a sprinkling of whom I see today, who have made vain attempts to grasp power, and who have lost their identity in a marriage with lion dancers and former independent capitalists.

4.51 p.m.

The Financial Secretary (Mr T. M. Hart): It falls to my lot, Sir, to wind up this rather lengthy debate. I will try to make my remarks as short as possible. The criticisms and comments on the presentation of the budget, Sir, appeared to fall into three main categories. One was criticism of the method of presentation and compilation of the Estimates; the second was criticism of the measures of taxation proposed; and the third was general criticism of the policies of Government.

With regard to the first, Sir-criticisms of the method of presentation and compilation of the Budget-colonial officials were accused by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar of inefficiency and worse. I do not think I need reply to this criticism, Sir. The record of colonial officials in the Colony of Singapore speaks for itself and requires no support from me.

With regard to the other criticisms made by the Member for Tanjong Pagar, I feel sure, Sir, that he was carried away by the exuberance of his own verbosity when he said that my presentation of the Budget was glib to the point of dishonesty. I doubt whether Members of the Assembly will require me to contradict that statement. However, if it is felt that I must for the record, of course I deny-

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Hon. the Financial Secretary must have heard me over-rule that expression.

Mr Hart: Perhaps then, Sir, I may be allowed to say that, if I were a practitioner of the art of glibness - which I am not - I would not fail to avail myself of this opportunity to make deep obeisance to the high priest of the art, who is unfortunately now absent from his seat!

On the question of the compilation of the Budget - this vexed question of estimated deficits being converted in the event into surpluses - I should say first of all, Sir, that we are to a certain extent bound by precedent in the method of compilation of the Estimates. The form in which they are presented has stood the test of time. It has been used for many years. It has been shaped and amended as conditions have demanded, and I think it does represent the best possible way of presenting the Estimates of a Government under the present Constitution.

It is extraordinarily difficult, Sir, to estimate actual expenditure with any degree of accuracy in conditions of an expanding economy and where departments are growing rapidly. We take every possible step to ensure that nothing is entered in the Estimates which is not required for the efficient conduct of Government business and for the implementation of plans for the expansion of social services, but it is difficult if not impossible to say what will be spent in the event. If I may take the example of Personal Emoluments, Sir, we examine every application for new appointments with extreme care because, if approved, not only will it mean an increase in Government expenditure for the period of the officer's service, but it will also increase the bill for pensions. We examine these applications with very great care and we only enter in the Estimates those new appointments which are required for the efficient conduct of Government business. But we cannot say when we make up the Estimates how many of the new posts will be filled, what will be the state of the recruitment market, how many officers will be promoted to vacant posts, or when they will be promoted, or what savings will eventuate at the end of the year.

Similarly in the case of Other Charges Annually Recurrent and Other Charges Special Expenditure, we may provide recurrent expenditure for a new launch or a new building, or some similar service, but the launch or building may not be completed on schedule and savings result. I think Sir, that explains how these savings do occur.

There is, of course, a solution of the kind whereby over-estimating might be avoided. It might be possible to make a very rough guess under each head of expenditure of what under-expenditure might be at the end of the year, and then make a corresponding deduction from the total of that head. But that is a purely arbitrary approach to the matter, Sir, and any guess made in that way is as likely to prove wrong as to prove right.

I personally prefer the course which we have followed for many years in Singapore. That is to let the Estimates stand and then to try, on the basis of experience and the record of the past, to give some estimate of what actual expenditure is likely to be when presenting the Budget. That is what we have done in the past, Sir, and what I have done this year. I have endeavoured, on the basis of past experience, to estimate what actual expenditure for 1958 will be, and I think that my estimates will not be very wide of the mark. I cannot believe, Sir, that this is a glib presentation.

If I may continue, Sir, on the subject of the speech of the Member for Tanjong Pagar, he touched on a matter of Malayanisation which I think illustrated very clearly his facile manner of speech. He said - if my memory serves me right - that the total bill for Malayanisation, taking this at $25 million would take approximately 200 years to wipe off. I would like to refer him to the Interim Report of the Malayanisation Commission and to Chapter VI which is entitled the "Financial Aspect", in which he will see that the members of the Commission estimated that, when Malayanisation was complete, the savings on expatriation pay, passages and allowances would amount to approximately $34 million per year. That being so, the total cost of Malayanisation would, according to my calculations, be wiped off within a period of eight years.

The Member also made, Sir, some rather facile references to income tax, to the inability of the Income Tax Department to collect tax, and he also made what I regard as rather facile suggestions as to how we might collect $108 million in a full year. He quickly passed from the matter - perhaps he did not have time to explain how it could be achieved - but I hope, Sir, that before the matter comes up in the Committee of Supply he will give me an opportunity to consider his suggestion by showing me his calculations.

As Minister responsible for the Department of Income Tax, I must protest most vigorously against the accusations which are constantly levelled against it. The Department has been in existence for a little more than nine years. It now collects 27 per cent of the revenue of the Colony. I am satisfied, on investigations which I myself have made in connection with criticisms made in this Assembly, that most of the people who are liable to tax are known to the Department. To assess 20,000 individuals in a year, 60,000 cases are examined. As I say, Sir, I think that most of the people who are liable to tax are known to the Department. It is, however, an extremely difficult matter, in a complex society such as that of Singapore, to make certain that everybody pays the amount of tax which he is liable to pay.

Moreover, Sir, in the matter of the assessment and collection of tax, we have been hampered to a certain extent by the fact that the officers of the Department started as it were from scratch in 1948. But we have, over a period of 9 years, Sir, built up what I regard as a quite extraordinary volume of experience in tax assessment and collection. And I am confident that the efficiency of the Department will increase and as this efficiency increases, so the amount of tax collected will increase, and the number of evaders of tax be substantially reduced.

Passing now, Sir, to the question of taxation, it has been suggested that this was an election Budget and I would like to deny this most stoutly. The fact of the matter is that, on my calculations, no more than $8 million will be required to balance the actual expenditure and revenue next year. Had more been required, the Government would not have hesitated to impose further taxation. I would like to make that quite clear.

It was also suggested, Sir, that in choosing petrol, we were following the lead of the Federation. That of course is not correct. It was stated when presenting the Budget for 1956 that the policy of this Government wherever items in the tariffs of the two territories coincided, was to bring the rates in Singapore to the same level as those in the Federation. The necessity for such action is of course obvious and I need not elaborate to any extent. The existence of different rates of tax in the two territories creates administrative difficulties and results in a considerable loss of revenue. It was said by, I think, the Member for Queenstown (Mr Lee Choon Eng) that it would be a very good thing if, for a change, the Federation Government followed the Government of Singapore but I would point out that this has indeed happened this year. The Government of the Federation of Malaya has raised its rate of estate duty to the same level as that of Singapore.

On the question of the increase in petrol duty, we went into this with very great care, Sir, and quite apart from the desirability of having the same rate here as in the Federation, we are convinced that an increase of 20 cents per gallon would cause no hardship to any category of society in Singapore.

Certain remarks were made during the course of the debate on the statement which I made in my speech, and which my hon, friend the Minister for Commerce and Industry made in his speech,, to the effect that import duties might be imposed in Singapore. I would however like to draw attention to the fact that I merely mentioned this as a possibility which would only be considered after all other possible means of increasing revenue had been explored - you might say, as a last resort. As I said, I hope sincerely that it will never be necessary to impose import duties and thus undermine the free port status of Singapore.

I think the Member for Telok Ayer (Mr R. Jumabhoy) expressed a desire that all possible steps should be taken to reduce expenditure and I can only assure him, as I did when presenting the Budget, that we are very conscious of the need. It is our constant preoccupation, Sir, to take every possible step to reduce expenditure. We examine every proposal for increased expenditure and new appointments with very great care and I think that most heads of departments will agree that it is an extremely hard matter to persuade the Treasury that any new appointment or increased expenditure is essential.

Lastly, on the question of the general policies of Government, attention has been drawn to the fact that I said that it was idle to deny that confidence in Singapore was less at the moment than it had been prior to 1955. I should point out that my statement referred to the fact that events in 1955 and in the early part of 1956 had done much to destroy external confidence in the future of Singapore. What I also said in my speech, Sir - and here I would like to speak, if I may, as a colonial official - was that a feature of the last two years was the extent to which confidence in Singapore has been restored by the Lim Yew Hock Government. This has been due to the quiet and commonsense approach to all economic and financial matters which has characterized its work. I would like to stress that I speak not as a politician but as a civil servant of some years experience. We are all aware that Singapore has been built up by trade, that the future of Singapore depends on trade, that trade cannot exist or flourish unless there is confidence in the policies, organisation and the constitution of the place in which trade takes place. Traders must be certain that their contracts will be honoured and that, if they are not honoured, they can obtain redress in the courts. It is with these facts in mind that I say that the efforts of this Government in connection with the suppression of subversion, and the action which it has taken to pursue commonsense and realistic economic and financial policies, have done a very, very great deal to restore confidence in Singapore.

My friend the Minister for Commerce and Industry spoke at considerable length on the question of industrialisation. On this particular point, Sir, I must congratulate the Member for Telok Ayer (Mr R. Jumabhoy) for setting out so succinctly the various conditions which have to be fulfilled if industry is to flourish in Singapore. As for the criticisms of the action of the Government in this matter, I think these have been answered very fully by the Minister for Commerce, but I would like to say, Sir, before I leave this particular subject, that we should free our minds from any misapprehensions about this question of industrialisation of Singapore. Industrialise we must, but it must be realised that our main source of livelihood has always been and always will remain trade, and industry can only be at the very best a second line of defence. All this talk about industrial expansion must not be allowed to distract the minds of our traders from what must be their main preoccupation, that is, the prosecution of trade and the preservation of their ability to be competitive, to offer immediately the best possible terms to anybody who comes to buy or sell in Singapore. Singapore can never be a Birmingham. We will never see a pall of smoke above Singapore indicating a range of factories turning out manufactured goods. We are already fairly highly industrialised in an Asian context. There are very few places in Asia which are more heavily industrialised than we are at the moment, and any expansion of industry in Singapore, as I see it, can only be by small advances along the very wide existing range of secondary industries. We cannot hope for steel mills or thread mills or anything like that on a highly industrialised scale. What we can hope for is the replacement of existing machinery by better machinery, the reorganisation of the capital structure of the family firm to allow expansion, the employment of more capable managers and the examination and exploitation of overseas markets. But that could amount to a very great deal.

The hon. Mr Sutherland touched upon the question of the Central Bank. As I explained in my speech when presenting the Budget, this matter is sub judice at the present time. I should say quite clearly however that it is the concern of the Government of Singapore to preserve a stable, strong and an automatically convertible currency, because a currency of that nature is vital to Singapore as a trading centre, and I may say that we are prepared to go to very great lengths indeed to achieve the aim. I hope that, in the future, it will be possible to reach some compromise whereby, over a period of time, we can, on the one side, learn to appreciate the value of a Central Bank and on the other side learn to appreciate to the full the great advantages of a currency such as we have at the moment.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Mr Speaker: Committee of Supply, what day?

Mr Hart: Monday, 16th December, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Is the Government allotting five days for the Committee of Supply?

Mr Hart: Yes, five days.

Mr Speaker: In accordance with Standing Order 69 (4), I have fixed the time on each allotted day at which consideration of each head of expenditure in the Schedules to the Bill and of the clauses of the Bill, if not previously disposed of, shall be concluded. Details will be circulated and will also appear in the Official Report. In fixing the times, I have of course taken into consideration, as far as possible, the indica tions given to me by hon. Members at the conference held on Monday, 9th December, 1957; but in passing I might mention that the claims totalled 2,876 minutes and we will have only 975 minutes for the five days of the Committee of Supply.

Following are the times allotted Time fixed by Mr Speaker at which the consideration of each head of expenditure in the Schedules to the Bill and of the clauses of the Bill, if not previously disposed of, shall be concluded (S.O. 69 (4)). FIRST SCHEDULE(Cols 2987-2989)