IMPORTANCE OF UNRESTRICTED TRADE BETWEEN SINGAPORE AND CHINA (Statement by the Minister for Commerce and Industry)

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

10.01 a.m.

The Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy): Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek this opportunity to clarify certain points made by the Member for Changi in his adjournment speech yesterday on trade with China.

I am in complete agreement with the hon. Member that the separation of the Federation and Singapore is artificial and that we are one economic unit and must ultimately merge.

I therefore cannot reconcile this with his desire that we ignore the request of the Federation in this matter of temporarily assisting one of its new industries. He questioned whether it is more important to us to keep a Federation factory running than our trade with China.

My statement yesterday morning expressed clearly why a temporary ban on certain textiles from China only was considered necessary in the interest of the Malayan economy as a whole. Whether the particular industry in the Federation in this case merits this protection is a question which I suggest the Federation Government is more competent to judge than the Member for Changi is.

It is to be deplored that the hon. Member seeks to confuse a purely domestic economic action by dragging in extraneous issues such as the Federation's proposed action against the Bank of China or cold wars between the East and the West, and even by the absurd suggestion that we are trying to assist Japanese industry.

All actions on matters pertaining to our economy are taken solely with our own economic advantage in mind -

Mr Lim Cher Kheng (Changi): Not Singapore.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: - and not confused with extraneous issues that the hon. Member has absurdly suggested.

The hon. Member contended that exports to China have gone up by 600 per cent since 1954. The reason, of course, is because the embargo on exports of rubber was lifted in 1956. However, the hon. Member's conclusions drawn from figures quoted by him are rather confused. Percentages are very good indeed for comparative purposes, but in the final analysis, it is the actual amount that counts for evaluating trading balances.

I therefore quote the Singapore/China trade figures: 1954 Imports $68 million Exports $14 " ----- Deficit $54 million ----- 1957 Imports $123.7 million Exports $ 45.7 " ------ Deficit $ 78 million ------

It will be clearly seen therefore that our trading deficit with China has increased by $24 million as compared between 1954 and 1957 - that though our exports increased by $31.7 million, our imports increased by $55.7 million.

These are hard facts that cannot be denied and the hon. Member would do well to study the facts and causes before launching into emotionalism.

Sir, I wish to reiterate what I said yesterday, and that is that the Singapore Government has no intention or wish to hamper trade between China and Singapore but that it has got to give its first attention to the Malayan economy as a whole. Perhaps I might as well, with your permission, Sir, quote my reply to the Member for Kampong Kapor (Mr Seah Peng Chuan) which was sent the day before yesterday when he asked me whether the Government would consider lifting the ban on the import of certain Chinese textiles. The reply, Sir, I gave to the hon. Member was dated 2nd December, before the Member for Changi made his emotional speech yesterday, and I quote:

"It will be recalled that when the Federation requested our co-operation in this matter, it was for a period of three months pending the finalisation of the Federation's anti-dumping law to protect its industries. It was on this basis that the Singapore Government agreed to the Federation's request.

The Singapore Government will therefore review this suspension at the end of the year in the light of the circumstances then existing and the progress of the Federation's anti-dumping legislation.

Meanwhile, import licences which have been issued up to the date of the ban are confirmed without hindrance on proof of commitment before the ban."

I hope, Sir, that this statement will help to clarify the issues.

10.06 a.m.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, I just want to ask the Minister for Commerce and Industry one question.

As regards my speech yesterday, I admit that the figures are not in our favour, but what I want to point out is that the goods we import from China are mostly foodstuffs and Chinese medicinal herbs, and if we are forced to import these foodstuffs from other territories, can the Minister answer whether that will be in our favour or not? Can we get much cheaper foodstuffs from sources other than China? Can he also assure us that we can get Chinese medicinal herbs from places other than China?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, the hon. Member has forgotten one thing, and that is the reported ban on exports from China to Singapore is not of our making. Secondly, we have no official intimation of such a ban. Thirdly, according to Press reports, these goods can be available if payment is made in cash in Hongkong. Fourthly, according to this morning's Press reports which probably will come out in the afternoon papers, it is likely that this reported ban on exports from China - of which I have had no official information - may be lifted shortly. However, on the point he made about the effect it might have on us, I made that very clear in my statement yesterday, and that is:

"The suspension of export of certain preserves, salted vegetables and fruits could create some difficulty in supplies for those who prefer these articles but it is unlikely to have any significant effect on the cost of living as a whole. It might perhaps be beneficial by switching the taste preference of consumers to similar locally produced articles."