"S.P.A. will press for independence.

Departure From The Belief That Merger With The Federation Must Come First".

Sir, it at least brings us hope that the Labour Front Coalition Government has admitted its mistakes and has now, after 3 years and 9 months, produced a programme for the people to decide. They are faced with these questions:

(1) Are we separated from the Federation of Malaya?

(2) Is it good for us to merge with the Federation of Malaya?

(3) Even if we want to, will the Federation agree?

(4) When will the people of Malaya and Singapore really begin to have a genuine interest or show a combined determination to merge?

Sir, I would like to quote what a famous ancient Chinese poet said, "You want to advance, you must pretend to retreat." Don Juan, when courting a beautiful lady never said, "I love you, I love you!" So if we really want to merge with the Federation of Malaya, we must not follow the line practised today. It only frightens the Tunku and I would also like to say that surely creates a bad impression on the people of Singapore.

Although the S.P.A. has been called a Rojak Party, the S.P.A. should be proud. Rojak is a very popular national dish, and it is much better to have it than Dr Toh and the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar to have salad in the beautiful Island Club. Salad is an imported dish, but rojak, Sir, is a truly popular national dish. So good luck to you, S.P.A.!

In past years we have wasted time in creating unnecessary misunderstandings which actually deepen the differences between the Federation of Malaya and Singapore. Why, Sir? How many times have I said that we are lucky to have such an experienced businessman as our Minister for Commerce and Industry. He is young, eager, enthusiastic, hard-working and industrious. But Sir, as long as there is no Pan-Malayan economic policy - and I would like to repeat it a million times - we are only wasting time and public money. The Financial Secretary, of course, is very smart. He only quoted a line or two regarding our industry:

"In the field of industrial development, an Industrial Promotion Board has been established, legislation giving tax relief to selected industries is in the process of being introduced, arrangements are being made for the protection of selected industries, and a `Buy Singapore' campaign is about to be started. A Tourist Promotion Bureau has been established."

A 28-page Budget speech but regarding industrialisation and trade just only that part! I am sure that the Financial Secretary will explain why he said, "Oh! there is no confidence to attract more industrialisation in this country." Deep down in his heart, Sir, I am sure he knows what I know regarding merger. The Financial Secretary cannot expect a Pan-Malayan economic development plan although economically we are one unit.

Sir, I wonder why the Minister for Commerce and Industry has not answered my question. Has he ever consulted the Federation Government as to what type of industries they want to promote? What type of industries they are prepared to give to Singapore? We could come to some arrangement on that. But at present, Sir, the Federation apparently wants industrialisation in every sector and wants to leave no room for Singapore. Sir, what is the use of this so-called Industrial Promotion Board? What type of industries can the Director of this Board have confidence in? Can he say to any industry "Yes, you go ahead. I will subsidise you. I will subsidise your land. I will even give you technical advice."? It is useless! Take soap factories. When you buy 10 cases from a Federation soap factory, you are given 3 cases free of charge. They have big capital and a major share of this capital is, I believe, owned by Europeans. Yet, because they operate in the Federation they are protected. In Singapore, although a soap factory is run by genuine local nationals, it is not protected.

Coming to education, Sir, I want to criticise it. We know how courageous and determined the Minister for Education must be in taking the risk to disagree with his colleagues in many respects. But, Sir, if we believe in a merger with the Federation we must have a Pan-Malayan unification of education policy. But we do not have! Chinese schools and Malay schools are termed vernacular schools. Yet the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar championed the cause of Malay as the lingua franca! And he is a learned, well-informed and intelligent person! If you have travelled to India, Switzerland or Canada, Sir, I do not think you will find the genuine national aspiration in the last two countries as strong as Mr Nehru's. Yet Mr Nehru has admitted that there is no likelihood of making Hindustani the lingua franca of India in 50 years. And look at the language row that has occurred so many times in Ceylon and India! Why should political capital be made out of the language issue in this country? The main stumbling block to a merger between Singapore :and the Federation is not because' Malaya is to be made or not to be made the lingua franca and therefore our Malay brothers from across the Causeway say, "I do not want to merge". Sir, let us face the facts. We do not have a unified Pan-Malayan education policy and, therefore, the people are going to be as ignorant as they are now. Over 80 schools have applied for grant-in-aid but the Budget shows only 26. And I do not know how many Malay schools have applied for such aid - I have not yet checked the figures. If we sincerely believe that Malay must be the lingua franca in this country, how can we prepare such a Budget? There is not even a Malay secondary school being constructed.

Sir, everything is linked with merger. The question of merger has become a nightmare not only to politicians - useless and selfish politicians - but also to the ordinary citizens. They are worried about the word "merger". They are afraid: they are excited; they do not know what to do! Sir, where are our political leaders going to lead us!

Sir, it is useless for me to go into detail regarding this "dead" Budget as I have termed it. 1958 is a year of instability and insecurity and although there have been no riots and no industrial disputes, yet the employment situation and the business recession worsen day by day.

Although the Financial Secretary has had the courage to increase company tax and personal tax, yet he shows a reasonableness in his estimate - he only expects $65-million in 1959 as compared to the estimate of $68-million in 1958. Why, knowing that next year business will not be good and it is going to collect much less than in the year 1958, has the Government increased the tax especially the personal income tax? The Financial Secretary said, "All right, if you earn $4,000, you only pay $20 more; $7,000, you only pay $60 more." Sir, that $20 or $60 to a wage-earner, say a clerk, means something.

Also I will point out one more strange thing - it is the first time that the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar has in his Budget speech failed to criticise the Hon, the Chief Secretary who I think is the one who should come under heavy fire. The crime wave is increasing day by day. In broad daylight, just opposite a police station there was a cold-blooded murder - two persons were killed. The crime wave is so high, and yet many responsible leaders including the great leader of the people, the Member for Tanjong Pagar himself, have failed to touch on this subject. I would like to know why.

In conclusion, Sir, this Budget is a P.A.P./colonial Budget. The colonial Government is preparing a smooth way for the P.A.P. to come into power, by sabotaging the existing governing Party which is so unpopular, so useless, and so high-handed. And when the P.A.P. comes into power, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara might receive orders from Mr Lennox-Boyd saying, "Dissolve the Assembly because the state of affairs in Singapore is so chaotic and because you people do not know how to run your country." I have heard this from the people many times, "As soon as the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar becomes Prime Minister, we will take a slow boat to somewhere else, maybe Ulu Pandan !

Sir, this Budget is neither good for the people nor for the Government.

Mr Speaker: I think this is an appropriate time .to suspend?

An hon. Member: I think so, Sir.

Mr Speaker: The Assembly is suspended. I will take the Chair again at half-past two.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.16 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

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

2.31 p.m.

Mr R. Jumabhoy (Telok Ayer): Mr Speaker, Sir, I must first of all wish the Hon, the Financial Secretary well in his retirement, as this will be his last Budget speech. As you know, he was once my colleague in the old Council. He has worked very hard and honestly for the benefit of the Government. My criticism will not be levelled against him personally, but against the Council of Ministers. He is only one of them. It is the elected Ministers who make the final decision.

The Hon. the Financial Secretary has painted a very gloomy picture of Singapore. Let us see why it is so. Sir, the present Government inherited from the former Council a very sound economy and enough money in their coffers. The Government have, from time to time and year by year, been warned that if they want to remain economically sound, they must practise economy in administration. But unfortunately, they nave blundered. They have betrayed the voters who have put them into power. When the Labour Front took office in 1955, the position was: liquid reserves, over $200 million; duty on cigarettes - full rate $6.70, and preferential rate $6.26 per pound; duty on petrol 68 cents per gallon; income tax 30 per cent. Now that they are vacating their office, what are they leaving to the incoming Government? Liquid reserves, about $83 million; duty on cigarettes - full rate $10.50, preferential rate $10; duty on petrol $1 per gallon; income tax, 40 per cent on companies and 50 per cent maximum on personal incomes.

Sir, in these three and a half years, the Government have ruined the economy of this great city. This is proved from the figures. It is the figures that count, not propaganda and talk.

Now, Sir, the higher the taxation, the higher the cost of living will be. Each and every one of us - the trader, the worker, the shop assistant or the clerical class - will suffer in the same way. If the cost of living is high, the result is that Singapore as a free trade centre and entrepot cannot exist. A manufacturer in Singapore cannot compete with others outside because his cost of production will be very high.

Sir, the problem of growing population is not new. Only a foolish Government will attribute this position of high living cost to the growth of population. The population has been increasing since 1945. This Government came into office in 1955.

It is said that income tax will be payable by those who are best able to pay. That is quite true. But Singapore as a city is in a very peculiar position, and has got to provide bread and butter for its workers, labourers and others through trade or industry. Now, if the tax is so high, - I am not grumbling, personally; many of us here do not grumble personally about the increase in tax - it is the people as a whole who are going to suffer. How? Will an investor come to Singapore if be has got to pay such a high rate of taxation? Why should anyone try to have factories in Singapore when the returns are poor? The investor wants to find maximum security for his money and also maximum returns. Now, many politicians in this House agree that we need foreign capital, but the actions of the Labour Front Coalition Government - now under a different label possibly, I do not know - have created such a position that they are driving away the capital.

Sir, look at Hongkong. The income tax there is only 12� per cent. Look at our sister territory Borneo. Their income tax is 20 per cent. Even the Federation's income tax is lower. As my friends sitting on my side have pointed out, and pointed out rightly, the head offices of many companies and factories here will migrate to some other places; first to the Federation, otherwise elsewhere. That is true.

Sir, the tax on petrol has been increased from 68 cents to $1 per gallon. To day, a group of three or four assistants might jointly own a car. They themselves drive the car. But the increased tax on petrol has hit them. What will these people say to the present Ministers? "We have put you in office and what have you done to us?" The same thing applies to the smokers. Of course, the Ministers will say that we have locally - manufactured cigarettes. But why should we deprive these smokers of the chance to smoke whatever brand they like?

Sir, the question arises as to how the extra money is to be found to meet the deficit in the Budget. The reply is very simple. It has been given time and time again. Cut down the administration costs. The administration costs absorb about 55 to 60 per cent of the total revenue. A small city like Singapore is swallowing, in administration costs alone, so much of the total revenue. The Government should cut down travelling and entertainment allowances, and even salaries.

Singapore has no natural resources of its own. It has a population of 1� million, and the number is growing bigger. It has therefore to live on its wits. The householder must live within his income. If he lives by borrowing, he will go to bankruptcy. Singapore is but a bigger house. The Ministers should similarly behave in a proper way so Singapore should live or exist within its income.

Sir, the Government has misruled the city during these three and a half years. The results are higher taxation, widespread unemployment and misery. The Government's expenditure has been very extravagant. The Ministers' salaries alone cost about $1� million. Travelling, amusement and entertainment allowances cost about $1 million, including the cost of bringing experts over here. Some might describe this expenditure of $2� million as chicken feed. It is indeed so to those who sit on the Government side. But even half of it could have been saved to help the unemployed and their children in buying bread and milk. The Government have never thought of their welfare. They have no time to think about them. During their rule of three and a half years (about 1,270 days), the Ministers have been out of Singapore, absent from their duties, for 1,100 days! It is astonishing that in a city of the size of Singapore, each and every Minister and Assistant Minister should have spent so much of the taxpayers' money on travelling! Was it really necessary? I say no.

In the preceding seven years, unofficials who had to go to conferences overseas at the request of the Government had to sacrifice their own income, their business profits or vacation leave in order to do so. They had been to these places before. They did not go there for sight-seeing or anything of that sort. They were asked to go there to oblige the Government. During these seven years, their total travelling costs did not come up to even the cost of one trip of an elected Minister today. Those who doubt this can look at the facts. One ministerial trip today has cost much more than all the trips of the unofficials made during these seven years.

Sir, an unscrupulous merchant, when he is unable to pay his debts, will just declare himself a bankrupt and change his name. Today the Labour Front's elected Ministers are politically bankrupt. They have changed their name. But those whom they have taxed are not going to be fooled. They know the Ministers are not attending to their duties, that they have been absent from their office. Today's voter is not a fool. The Labour Front Ministers will be sadly mistaken if they think that, by changing their names, they will be returned to office again or even to this Assembly.

Sir, Singapore is quite well known as a central city in South-East Asia and an entrepot trade centre. What publicity does it want for travelling? If only $10,000 or $15,000 is spent on publicity printing and through the Press, it will bring more results. The Council of Ministers go out and when they come back, they report, "Sorry, we cannot get the capital unless there is stability here." Sir, the right thing for them to do would have been to resign in June 1956 when the ex-Chief Minister gave up his portfolio. They were a minority Government and they had to pull along with the help of ex-officios and nominated Members, plus favours from this side, from one or the other Party. Their resignations would have brought stability.

Sir, the Hon. the Financial Secretary touched on loans, that it will be very difficult in future to get loans subscribed from outside. This is quite true. But why has the position arisen that the Government have to seek loans, when they were placed in a financially sound position when they assumed office? They have finished our money. They are worried. But even now we need not go out to find loans. We have in Singapore enough money. The only thing lacking is a good Government responsible to the voters. We do not want a Government which, once they get elected, change their seats and their Parties. A good government inspires loyalty from its partners. Such a government can bring stability and inspire confidence in the public. Loans could be obtained, Sir. We have the Central Provident Fund. The currency fund surpluses can be invested in Singapore in land development or some sort of Singapore security? Why `should we invest overseas? What for? Of course, the reply would be to keep our dollar strong and stable, but the same money could be invested here soundly and we need not go out and find money at a higher rate.

Then, Sir, the insurance companies - they drain away premiums in millions. Why can we not nationalise life insurance companies? Why should my premium be invested in any other country? Why not in Singapore? The Government say they will think about it; but they do not do it because they are too busy planning their trips.

Sir, the policy of future governments should be at least to have one man employed in a family so that there will be less expenditure to the Government, no worry and less burden on the Social Welfare Department.

Sir, people talk of merger and independence. Independence cannot be won by taking trips. It is to be won by ourselves in Singapore, not from outside. No tom-tom business is necessary. You have got to sacrifice. Everybody wants merger. Many have spoken about it.

Sir, projects like the International Airport, the formation of the Singapore Telephone Board, the construction of Nicoll Highway and Merdeka Bridge, the Polytechnic, housing development, and so on, were planned by the previous Legislative Council. Most of these items were in the 1955 Budget. Nothing that this Government has done is new.

Sir, as far as education is concerned, I have to give this advice, not, of course, to the present government but to the one which is coming in, and that is that they should formulate a policy whereby they should produce craftsmen and mechanics and not persons qualified only for clerical jobs. The clerical service is saturated, and if the incoming government's policy is not on these lines, then Singapore will be heading for trouble.

Sir, at the end of the life of this present Government, I will be failing in my duty if I do not say a few words about the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. I attach the blame on the Council of Ministers - not on a particular person. It is the Council of Ministers who make the decision. Sir, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry is the only Ministry - possibly Finance is the second Ministry - on which Singapore has got to exist. Trade and industry are the two things on which Singapore has got to exist. Therefore, the Ministry of Commerce has to be guided by experienced persons. In former years they had a Trade Advisory Council and Govern ment seldom rejected their advice. A sound policy would follow from their advice. If that is followed, our trade will brighten up.

Then, Sir, I have always been telling the Government that, in order to reduce unemployment, encouragement should be given to handicraft and cottage industries. Sir, in other countries, big or small, this has priority. Women and children and old pensioners, those who cannot actively work, can do something in the house and sell their products and thereby make a living out of that. I have said from year to year in this Assembly that you can always get experts from E.C.A.F.E. to give assistance in this. What you have to do is to establish a Marketing Board. A poor man produces something; but he cannot keep it for days in his house. If there is a Marketing Board, he goes to the Board and the Board either buys it or gives him a little in advance and then sells it later. Sir, where are we going to sell all that is produced? There are, thousands of people visiting Singapore. So many articles made in other countries are being sold in this City. Why not our own? The only thing necessary is trading initiative. A Marketing Board is necessary. But the Government will say that they have tried, but with no results at all. If you go to Burma, India, Pakistan, or Ceylon, handicraft and cottage industries are given priority. Those who stay at home work at them and they have some income from that.

Sir, I now come to Defence. I remember at the last Budget sitting. I fought hard to scrap the Navy. The Government has been sleeping over it for more than three years. At last, at the end of their term of office, they are now doing it, or have done it. Now, a small city like Singapore is vulnerable to any attack. Should we spend thousands or millions of dollars on defence? And defence against whom and for whom? Defence is not in our hands. It is the United Kingdom Government's responsibility. That does not mean that we should not build up some sort of defence internally. I think we ought to do that. There is no question about it, but there is a limit. What is wanted? Those of you who were here during the fall of Singapore will agree that the only defence which could have been useful was against air attacks. Even today, if this could be developed, the money spent on that will be rightly spent. All other means of defence are useless and we should not unnecessarily waste money on them.

Sir, there are other subjects which I will take up in the Committee of Supply, but I will say this to the voters: elect your Ministers correctly, not like the Labour Front Ministers who have brought misery and ruin to Singapore even under its changed name.

Mr William Tan (Tiong Bahru): rose -

Mr Speaker: Mr William Tan.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, I forgot about -

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr William Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon, the Financial Secretary in his Budget speech - I am referring to column 1063 of the Hansard - said:

"Security and confidence in Singapore as one of the main trading centres of the world have been maintained."

Sir, I entirely disagree with that statement. If we want Singapore to be one of the trading centres of the world, I think that we should adopt an open door policy for all types of goods to flow in here freely and regard Singapore as an entrepot centre for goods to Indonesia, Burma, Thailand, Sarawak and Borneo. Singapore is in a unique position in this part of the world to handle this type of big business. The Government have been in office for nearly four years, and only talk and talk of Singapore as an entrepot centre and its effects on the people of Singapore and the wor1d. What we want is action and not just words.

With your permission, Sir, I would like to quote a statement made by the Ministry of Commerce to the Straits Times on 6th January, 1958: