"LESS BUSINESS DONE ON LOCAL SHARE MARKET NOW"

Now, Sir, the Sin Chew Jit Poh of 22nd November, reads:

"The stoppage of sending goods from China has shaped the whole market."

Another one, 23rd November, Sir:

"Customers line up in front of the food stalls. The prices of textiles have increased by 5 per cent; foodstuffs from China have increased 20 per cent."

It is an economic report from the Sin Chew Jit Poh of 23rd November. Taking another, 25th November, Sir:

"Importers in Hongkong have raised their prices owing to the stoppage of sending goods from China to Singapore."

Mr Speaker: Is that the Sin Chew Jit Poh?

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Yes, Sir. I am quoting all these extracts in support of my motion on the importance of trade with China.

Sir, as we all know, Singapore's life blood depends on its entrepot trade. It is essential to develop strong and friendly trade relations with all countries, particularly our neighbour - China. Because of her geographical position and her growing ability to produce a wide range of products at very competitive prices, she is becoming an increasingly important factor in our entrepot trade. Trade statistics for the past few years reflect her growing importance, and I will quote some figures. Exports to China increased from a mere $12.9 million in 1954 to $74.3 million in 1957. Imports from China increased from $87.1 million in 1954 to $159.9 million in 1957. Sir, these figures clearly indicate an increase of nearly 100 per cent in imports from China, and an increase of 600 per cent in exports to China. There is therefore no doubt that China has now become a very serious competitor with other producing countries. We need to buy cheap goods and it will be much easier for us to sell them at a high price. This will perhaps smooth down our entrepot trade a great deal, especially our external trade. This competition will help us to procure more business and keep our entrepot trade going smoothly. It will help to lower our cost of living and, in return, raise the standard of living of our people.

If China were to stop sending us her foodstuffs, such as vegetables, eggs and fruits, particularly Chinese herbs and medicines which no other country can supply in substituted form, and we were forced to purchase them from other countries, I do not know how much more we would have to pay for them. Assuming that we cut off supplies from this particular source. What do we gain? Nothing, Sir, absolutely nothing. On the contrary, our pattern of trade would be disrupted. Our volume of external trade would go down, because our customers would turn to China or any other direct source to get the goods they want. And, of course, our people here would have to pay unnecessarily high prices for the goods they want, and that will add to their hardships. But I must emphasise, Sir, that I do not for a moment favour the importation of any goods from any source if such importation will endanger our infant industries. Let us, however, be rational and impartial and treat all countries alike. We definitely cannot pinpoint any one country and say that its export of certain articles is detrimental to our economy and yet at the same time allow other countries to do that very thing. Naturally in the circumstances, Sir, we would be accused of showing discrimination and being unfriendly.

I would like to quote two specific examples on this aspect. First, the banning of certain publications and textiles from China. The books were imported in accordance with Government regulations and with the sanction of a censorship board. But now we turn round and tell them that all these books are undesirable and should be totally banned. How are we going to gain or retain the confidence of the public? Sir, when the Government takes such inexplicable action, it easily destroys the faith of the public. How can the Government convince the public that the knowledge gained from reading such books as the Dream of the Red Chamber and the Romance of the Three Kingdoms poses a subversive threat to our country, when it takes such action? The real danger by taking such action is this: that it will lead the masses into believing that the banning of such books is part of a campaign launched by certain neighbouring countries which are ready to crush down Chinese culture and economic potentialities. I am sorry to say that S.E.AT.O. has an influence on this action to ban books and textiles from China.

Coming to the second specific example, Sir - the banning of Chinese textiles. I will quote from the editorial of the Straits Times of 5th November. It says:

"Up to the end of July piecegoods imported from China totalled approximately $12 million, which is less than the Chinese vegetable trade and about one-eighth of Japanese textile imports into Malaya."

Sir, it is not sufficient for us to believe that such a ban on Chinese textiles is going to help the Japanese directly. Let us see what the Japanese delegation to Seattle had to say. It was reported in the Free Press on 12th November.

"Mr H. Ikeda, Japanese Minister of State, said in Seattle yesterday:

'We cannot sit back and let the less developed countries in South-East Asia be influenced and swayed by the intensified economic drive of Communist China.

For that purpose, free nations, especially the United States and Japan, must work together to give more vigorous and well-organised economic assistance to these countries.'"

Sir, we read about the Russians starting to dump their tin and the Japanese openly saying, "No, sorry, we do not buy Malayan tin. We can get some cheap tin from somewhere else." Sir, whatever action the Government takes, is it merely to respond to the call and wishes of the Japanese? Or is it an obligation on our part? Is it the responsibility of this Government to antagonise our no less powerful neighbour, China? Sir, not for a moment do I think the Government is that. I cannot imagine it is, because the Japanese are already backed by the American capitalists. Any person who has ever paid the slightest attention to our trade relations with China will agree that the time has now come - and it is a crucial moment.

Sir, I am even more unhappy about the political interpretation of the banning of Chinese goods. In fact, by being the only country discriminated against, that can be construed unmistakably as a hostile attitude towards her. We have to face the fact, whether we like it or not, that Red China is here to stay; that her power, with her 600 million people behind her, cannot be totally ignored. It is in our interest to adopt a policy of treating all nations alike and to live harmoniously with our neighbours, for we are a small country and our livelihood depends on our entrepot trade.

I would like to warn the House that we are now facing a most dangerous state of affairs - the danger of being dragged into the cold war between the East and the West, between the Russians and the Americans. We may be in danger of losing the valuable independence which we have been striving for, for so long.

There is no doubt that the present separation of Malaya and Singapore is absolutely artificial, because geographically, culturally and economically Malaya and Singapore consist of one unit. Although the people of Singapore are crying out loudly to the skies that we must all strive for ultimate unification with the Federation of Malaya, there is silence from the other side of the Causeway. As long as we remain separate, we have to find a solution to our problem of a merger with the Federation. We cannot just be blind and obediently follow what the Federation tells us, unless Singapore's interests are well looked after, well considered and well protected by it.

Sir, let me now quote from the statement made by the Hon. the Minister for Commerce and Industry to this House on 13th August, 1958:

"After careful consideration Government has come to the conclusion that the principle of protection must be recognised for our industries and Government will therefore commence taking immediately all such steps as are necessary for this policy to be implemented. Government recognises that entrepot trade will always continue to play a major part in our economy and is therefore determined that the operation of protection should be carried out with the minimum possible damage to, or dislocation of, the entrepot trade."

Let us look at what the Minister has done since then. He has banned books and textiles from China. When you ask him to look after the entrepot trade, he says, "No, we must look after the interests of the Federation's industrial projects." And when we ask him to look after our local industry, he replies, "No, we must look after our entrepot trade status." Sir, I do not know when the Minister can decide how he is going to find a wonderful solution. On the one hand, he wants to maintain the entrepot status of Singapore and, on the other hand, he wants to carry out his policy of industrialisation.

Now we have been asked by the Federation to protect a single textiles mill - the Malayan Textile Mills Ltd. If I am not wrong, it was first established in Singapore. Sir, as we know, the Malayan Textile Mills, until this very moment, is still unable to supply our home market. How can it supply sufficient quantities to feed our entrepot stomach? Therefore, I wish to ask the Minister this. Are we maintaining the entrepot trade, or are we protecting the interests of industry by this action? I say no, we are not doing either one of them, because this Government is giving more importance to protecting the Federation's industry than to maintain our entrepot trade; and, more important, it is more concerned to keep the Federation's factories running than to solve Singapore's growing unemployment problem. I must, of course, make it clear, especially after the row I had with the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, that I am not suggesting for one moment that we must not have the interests of the Federation of Malaya at heart. I just want to plead that the Federation should also look after Singapore's interests.

Mr Speaker: Order. I hate interrupting the hon. Member, but I must remind him that the time of termination of the sitting is half-past four, and if he wishes the Minister to answer, he should give some time to the Minister.

The Chief Minister: rose -

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order?

The Chief Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is obvious that the hon. Member is under the impression that the Government can have half an hour to answer after the hon. Member has his half an hour!

Mr Speaker: Let me disabuse the mind of the hon. Member. The time for termination of the sitting is half-past four and not later.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: There is one further controversial point which I must mention. I have tried to avoid as far as possible commenting on the present political activities in spite of the harmful effect they have on Singapore's future development. I do not wish to widen the gap and increase the misunderstanding between the Federation and Singapore, but I must warn the Singapore Government, in the gravest possible terms, that any attempt by it to follow the Federation's example in banning the Bank of China would have serious and harmful repercussions of a permanent nature. I want the Government to assure us that it is not going to follow the example of the Federation in banning the Bank of China. Sir, we cannot afford to ignore the role that the Bank of China has been playing. It is financing our local industries and important business houses to a great extent, and it is only natural to let the trade with China be done through this Bank.

Now I call upon the Government to answer some questions. First, is it not wise to extend an official invitation to Red China to send a trade delegation here in order to clear up any misunderstanding and to heal the wounds that have been caused? Since we are a British colony and since Britain herself has normal trade relations with Red China, I do not think there is anything wrong in doing so. It only needs a little courage.

Secondly, Tunku Abdul Rahman is one of the few national leaders who win wide support. The people not only of Singapore and the Federation but also in Borneo regard him as the only person who is eligible to be addressed as "Bapak Merdeka",, and he is "Bapak Merdeka" not only to Malaya but to Singapore and Borneo as well. We have full confidence that he will be prepared to reconsider the measures that have been taken by the Federation.

(1) There is now less confidence in merger. Singapore's entrepot trade status and industrialisation are seriously threatened by a series of trade measures taken against us by the Federation.

(2) There is the fear of racial discrimination. There is also the ban on textiles and books from China and this is considered by the people as being part of the move organised by S.E.A.T.O. to mislead the people as being anti-Chinese culture and anti-Chinese economic potentialities.

(3) Furthermore, there is the fear of being dragged into the cold war. As we know, the Tunku has taken the stand of not joining S.E.A.T.O. and it is sufficient that we also should not join this Organisation and be involved in the cold war. But now, it seems the picture has changed.

In conclusion, Sir, let me repeat what I have said to both the Russians and Americans alike. Hands off Asia! Let the Asians rule and manage themselves!

Mr Speaker: Before the hon. Minister rises to reply, may I take it that item 2, Pioneer Industries (Relief from Income Tax) Bill, Second Reading, will be further considered tomorrow?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Yes, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Now, Mr Minister.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: As the hon. Member has given me only one minute to reply, I must in that minute assure the House that many of the statements made by the hon. Member have been misconceived and based on false premises. It would be futile for me to attempt to reply to him in detail now. I am not, however, going to accept the situation with complacency, as he did not extend to me the courtesy of leaving me time to reply. I may give him a reply in the Press or perhaps during the debate on the Pioneer industry legislation, if Mr Speaker will give me latitude.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Minister may have an opportunity of doing so by making a Ministerial statement. It is half-past four. We have arrived at the time of termination of the sitting.

The Question having been proposed at Four o'clock p.m. and the Debate having continued until the time appointed for the termination of a sitting, Mr Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Four o'clock p.m.