APPROPRIATION BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [2nd Allotted Day]:

Resumption of debate on Question (15th December, 1958) proposed to Head 25 in the First Schedule of the Bill,

"That the sum to be allotted for Head 25 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 31 therein."-(Mr Lim Cher Kheng).

FIRST SCHEDULE

Head 25-

Question again proposed.

Mr R. Jumabhoy (Telok Ayer): Mr Speaker, Sir, at the close of yesterday's sitting, I started saying that some argued whether Mr and Mrs Singapore should have a fixed limit of children because of economic reasons. Sir, do the majority of Singaporeans believe in this? It is for them to judge. Personally, I would say that anybody for health reasons can take advice; but, on principle if the Government are going to give a donation, it should be a token donation to a private body - as the Government are giving to others - but if the Government are going to be very beneficent, then they should run this department under the General Hospital division or the Health Department. Some say that religious objections should not be respected. I say respect them. Government should not do what is objected by others. But if it were a Government department, no taxpayer would raise a protest that Government is doing this or that. The protest is against giving such a big sum of money to a private body.

Sir, as I said, I do not question the integrity of these welfare workers. Many of us have worked in private bodies and associations for the welfare of the people and they can help the Government in that way.

Now, Sir, I want to ask the Hon, the Financial Secretary some questions. This $100,000 is given from the rate-payers' money, to which many are objecting on religious grounds; first, what voice have the Government got as to how and where the Family Planning Association should spend this money? Secondly, have the Government any financial check as to how the money is being spent, where it is being spent and so on? Thirdly, have the Government any nominee on this Association? If the Government have not got sufficient control, the best thing is to place this Association under the control of the Health Department.

Mr Goh Tong Liang (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I went through the statistics yesterday and I am now going to a different aspect of the question.

It will be interesting to know what is really behind the whole question of family planning. Are those who urge and organise these activities activated by the love for children? If so, it seems a strange expression of that love that they should endeavour to stop the coming of children into the world. Are they inspired with the ambition to procure for everybody a higher standard of living? There are factors in society of far greater importance than a higher standard of living. The Chinese squatter, who tills his little patch of land on the hillside in the island of Singapore, or who raises chickens and tends to his egg-producing hens in the district of Mandai, is a happy man. His standard of living no doubt is not high. He and his family are no drain on the economy of Singapore. He sells his produce to his neighbours and buys theirs in return. Above all, he is a happy man. His children are happy and carefree. Their names are not on the police records. If I am told that in ten years' time Singapore will have another million of such children, I am not worried at all. But when I see one family growing up with the understanding that, when the age of puberty comes, they shall be free to give full rein to their sex instinct, then I will really and truly be worried.

History has shown that with the release of the sex instinct come all sorts of vices. Man's instincts cannot be isolated from one another. Release one and all break their bonds. Release sex and man's principles of right and wrong become confused. His judgment becomes confused. Let sex release become general and the weakness of man becomes a weakness of the community. The delicate balance needed for social adjustment is thrown off and we have confusion - family confusion, social confusion, national and international confusion - all leading eventually to a horrid fear of war, or to actual war, and our total destruction.

On the other hand, what danger are a million babies in ten years from now if they are decent, well-educated babies?

The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee): Where to get the money from?

Mr Goh Tong Liang: It is up to the Government! Might we not direct our efforts towards that direction? Might we not invite our family planning friends to change their names and become character-planners instead?

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Idealist!

Mr Goh Tong Liang: Would the $100,000 not be better spent on advertising the benefit of leading an honest life according to the standard laws of old-time conduct? Have we ever thought of trusting the people of Singapore, of asking them to come forward with ideas on how Singapore may be made morally better? If we have never tried, it is useless to throw up our hands and say that we cannot succeed. Family planning will stop a baby, but it will not stop wars. It will not stop gangsterism in Singapore. It will not relieve the police of one single headache.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng (Changi): Sir, I rise early this morning to endorse every word just delivered by the Member for Bukit Panjang. He has supplied us with many details on the subject which he has touched on so learnedly, especially from the moral point of view. In my opinion, seldom have the speakers touched on the moral point of view in this debate.

Sir, it has been said that the Catholics are only against family planning. I think that is quite wrong. Last night I had a chance to meet many church and community leaders and we discussed this subject. They said they objected not only from the religious point of view, but also from the moral point of view. They said, "Family planning will easily lead our people into becoming irresponsible." Sir, I will quote an example of how irresponsible people can be. For example, the Member for Tanjong Pagar - why has he not turned up this morning? Why did he not yesterday -

The Chairman: Order. That, of course, is touching on the personal conduct of an hon. Member, and no comment can be made as to why a Member is absent, whether we are on family planning or not!

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, what I mean to say is that they make sure as to whether they will have any responsibility or not. For example, in family planning, they teach you a lot of art; how to get everything free without any responsibility, and so sure of getting all the pleasure you want. And there is no burden to shoulder later on. That is why I like to ask, "Why are the P.A.P. representatives not interested in taking part in the debate?" Because, Sir, they are not so sure they will succeed in wooing the support of U.M.N.O.

Some hon. Members: No!

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: But they are so sure that regarding the Constitution the "piggies" are on their side, Sir.

The Chairman: Order. If the hon. Member will not confine himself to the debate, then of course I will have to stop him. We are now on family planning, and not on politics.

The Chief Minister (Tun Lim Yew Hock): Political planning!

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, I am sorry! I beg your pardon! I was only quoting an example to show how human nature can easily be led into irresponsibility. A practical example for this House to consider is the Family Planning Association. If you go to the Family Planning Association, you know you will get everything, any advice you want, and then the danger can arise. Therefore, I purposely quoted an example to show that when a person is not so sure that he can get what he wants, he is not interested at all. I say that the Family Planning Association can easily bring up the divorce rate and cause more mental patients. In the so-called higher developed countries unclaimed children are quite common. But that is not so common in Eastern countries. Why? Because we do not believe in family planning. We believe in morals. We live on a spiritual rather than on a material plane. The Family Planning Association is a contrast to our Eastern culture and beliefs.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Mr Speaker, Sir, we have this morning been assailed with lectures on sociology, sexology and moral standards. Yesterday, we were told to be confident. I had not intended to speak this morning but for the fact that I have been misrepresented as saying that the figure of $975 million I mentioned was the cost of running the Education Department. I wish to make it clear that the figure of $975 million is the capital expenditure required to build the 290 odd schools if we were to absorb one million children under the age of 14.

10.15 a.m.

As regards the estimated cost required to educate all these children, I have taken the present basis and multiplied it by four - that is, we need about four times the teachers. Therefore, the annual recurrent expenditure and personal emoluments will rise by about four times, which means that we will have to spend $256 million on annual recurrent items and on personal emoluments, and that is in excess of the capital expenditure required. That brings me to another point, and that is we have to have about 34,000 to 35,000 teachers. At present, we have about 9,000 teachers and if we have a population of one million children in school, we will have to have about 34,000 to 35,000 teachers. That will again lead to the provision for training of these teachers and the provision of more training colleges. At present, the Training College that we have can take 3,000 teachers at a time for training. That is the maximum. Now, if we are going to have about 34,000 or 35,000 teachers, we will need 12 colleges. Has the Member for Changi suggested any practical means to meet all this expenditure?

Again, with the number of children in school, there will be need for more trade schools, vocational schools, polytechnics and universities. Does the Member for Changi realise that one trade school will cost at least $2 million to build and equip? These are facts staring at us in the face. The speakers who have opposed this grant to the Family Planning Association have not touched on how to deal with such problems. These are the problems that will come and face us, as I said, in about ten years' time. The Members have given nothing but abstract ideas - ideas of confidence and moral standards. I have yet to hear one person say how we are going to face such serious problems in about ten years' time.

The Minister for Health (Mr A. J. Braga): Mr Speaker, Sir, when I rose yesterday to support this motion, I specifically said that all arguments for and against had been fully discussed previously and that there was hardly any necessity for a prolonged debate.

Having heard some of the fallacious arguments put forward yesterday and today - and that by some of my colleagues - I feel it incumbent upon me to answer some of these. Hon. Members will remember that I had previously repeated that on a subject such as this, one voted according to one's conscience, and that religion should not be introduced as a basis for argument.

Unfortunately, my colleague the Minister for Commerce and Industry sought to introduce religion and advanced the argument that although the Muslim religion forbade anything to do with pork, yet money was being spent on pig-rearing.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: On a point of information, Sir, It is very clear that I did not introduce the religion motive in the debate. It was introduced by an Opposition Member and I was only just pointing out that it was all very confusing to introduce religion into this sort of a debate.

Mr Braga: But he did say that although the Muslim religion forbade anything to do with pork, yet money was being spent on pig-rearing. May I remind him that, because Government recognises the fact that anything to do with pork is against the tenets of Islam, a special slaughter house is built for those professing the Muslim faith? Furthermore, although there is a shortage of land, Government does not force cremations.

Another colleague sought to confuse hon. Members by the introduction of figures to show how many schools he thought it was necessary to build to cope with what he again thought would be the increase in school children. He probably based this on the assumption that the present number of school children would remain school children for the next twenty years. Could not an argument on figures be advanced in favour of crematoriums? Every grave occupies a portion of land. At some time or other, if mathematically calculated, every inch of land would be used by the departed with the increase of the death rate. There is nothing more confusing than to introduce mathematics. The same colleague has on many occasions stressed that the Family Planning Association does not, in fact, advocate birth control but only advises when advice is sought on the spacing out of families. Is he not tying himself up in hopeless contradictions? In one voice he proclaims that birth control is necessary, otherwise a large number of schools will have to be built. He then urges support of the Family Planning Association because this body acts only in an advisory capacity and only when advice is sought.

Are Members going to be impressed with the fact that the number of persons seeking advice in the spacing out of families has increased from a few hundred to a thousand or even three thousand? What does it matter whether 5,000 people visit the Family Planning Association? What we who are asked to give money are concerned is how that money is being used. We should have a breakdown of these figures. How many of the 3,000 are from the better placed financially; how many are from the literate class and, most important, how many are from the illiterate and impoverished classes? Does the Hon. the Financial Secretary, whose obsession and pet baby is the Family Planning Association, give a breakdown of these figures when gladly doling out $100,000 of public money? He is so eaten up and enchanted with the idea of family planning that he does not even seek to satisfy the House on this point.

On other matters, as hon. Members know full well, such as the building of another hospital, outdoor clinics, increase of medical staff, the expansion of medical and social services, he is most meticulous and every cent that he spends he justifies - and ruthlessly axes every possible project or increase of staff - but now he so generously offers $100,000 without factual statements.

Many of the hon. Members are naturally impressed with the words "family planning" and therefore quite rightly in their minds agree to help the cause with the firm belief that this will help to prevent an increase of the Singapore population. But do let us be practical and realistic. Have we any genuine evidence, by even a breakdown of figures showing who are benefiting by our money, to satisfy us that our money is being spent in the right direction and the right class of people are being reached? Remember that in the U.K. and the U.S.A. and in fact many countries, the F.P.A. is a voluntary organisation.

And again, if I may be forgiven for repeating what I said before, Sir, when this point was brought up by the World Health Organisation in the House of Commons, the Minister of Health, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, replied:

"The British Government has no intention of imposing birth control on any native territory under its jurisdiction."

And the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health went on to say:

"We have also great responsibilities of our own towards native populations under our jurisdiction. Her Majesty's Government have set themselves against imposing anything of this nature on any territory under our control."

The Chairman: Will the hon. Member identify the document?

Mr Braga: I am reading, Sir, from Hansard, Vol. 1, column 1134.

In Japan where there is only one set of people to deal with, experiments have been carried out in villages where contraceptives are given to married couples and a certain amount of pressure is brought to bear for the use of these. And even abortion is legalised. Although these experiments have shown a reduction of the birth rate in the villages experimented on, there has been no effect whatsoever on the overall birth rate in Japan.

Here in Singapore, no such compulsion could ever be exercised and a drop in the mighty ocean hardly justifies the expenditure of $100,000, particularly at this time when there is a crying need for other projects which have been curtailed.

I refuse to be an ostrich, and I plead for a little sane thinking. I ask Members not to be led away by emotion or enthralled by the nomenclature "family planning" without more sound and convincing proof. That is the reason, Sir, why Government has always allowed a free vote and we on this side are allowed amicably to criticise one another.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no intention of prolonging this debate. We have had a rather lighthearted debate at times on this subject, but some of the remarks made by my colleague call for clarification because they add more confusion to the whole issue. Sir, let me make my stand clear, first of all.

On principle, I am against any forced family planning. However, this is not forced family planning. On principle, Sir, I would say that each man has a right to live his own life, to have a family of a size that he feels he should have. Therefore, I will be the first person to oppose anywhere any talk of any forced family planning. It does not mean that even on this particular issue, I support this grant. As I have expressed myself clearly, I have no views either side.

On the remarks which I made in my speech yesterday about the susceptibilities of Muslims and so on, my hon. colleague says that special slaughterhouses are provided for pigs and that Government does not force the use of crematoriums on those who do not wish their dead to be cremated. That is exactly the point, Sir - that there should be no force in matters in which there are religious susceptibilities, and in this particular case, there is no force. This is purely voluntary work carried out by an Association and I said yesterday that I do not know whether they do their work well or not, and nobody is forced to go to this Association and get advice if he does not want it.

That brings me to the other point and that is - I said it very clearly and I think that I should put it clearer still - I am against family planning in principle; but what I said was that it is not bad as a temporary expedient in our present difficult economic circumstances. I also made it clear that if certain areas of the world, which are underpopulated, were to be opened up so that the surplus population of other areas could be settled there, then family planning would not be necessary at all.

10.30 a.m.

That brings me, Sir, to another point raised by the hon. Member for Telok Ayer who said that if family planning were carried out by Government, no one would raise any objection to it. Sir, that is difficult to reconcile with his objections to family planning as such. Family planning, if carried out by a Government department, would cost more money; and those who object to it on their own grounds or on religious grounds would have stronger objections because, instead of $100,000 which the Government gives as a grant to the F.P.A., probably a million dollars would be spent on it if the work was carried out by a Government department.

The second point, Sir, is that once a Government department does this work and allocation has been made in the Budget for it to spend that vote, it becomes the duty of every Government Back-bencher to pass it through this House and, therefore, there can be no free vote; in which case those on the Government side who are against family planning cannot oppose and those on the Opposition cannot lobby the Government Back-benchers to support them and there can be no free expression of opinion. Sir, free expression of opinion in this House will be curtailed once family planning comes under a Government department. It will be under the Whip then, which means that there will be no hope of a chance for those who oppose family planning to have the decision reversed, because the Government always have a majority in the House and they will have to carry it through under their Whip. As it now is, Sir, this is a grant to a voluntary organization, and it is a free vote, so those who oppose family planning have ample opportunity to try and get sufficient Members on both sides of the House to say "No" to this grant, in which case the grant will not be given. Therefore, Sir, this gives those who are against it a better opportunity to oppose it than it would if it were under a Government Department, and under the Government Whip in that case.

The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee): Mr Chairman, Sir, my eloquent colleague, the Minister for Health, made it out that I invented mathematics and invented figures. Sir, the figures I quoted were not mine. They are in the 1957 Census Report and I read it properly and carefully. He further said that I assumed that many children would stay in school for 20 years. Now, I said that the statistics prove that in about 10 years' time there will be about one million children under the age of 14. I did not for a moment mean to say that the present children will remain in school for another ten years. What I meant to say was that in another 10 years, one million children will need education.

He also accused me of contradicting myself by saying that family planning is merely an institution giving advice when sought, and in another breath saying that I advocate birth control. If I have a say in this policy, Sir, I would advocate birth control to stop the perpetuation of human miseries.

The Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary (Mr M. P. D. Nair): Sir, I did not want to speak on this subject, but was prompted to do so because, of all the debates we have ever heard on family planning, this appears to be the most interesting.

Sir, I have said in this House before that the question of a grant to the Family Planning Association should not be connected with religion, because it would be wrong to argue on religious grounds. I also said, three years ago, that tax-paying Hindus would surely object to the construction of abattoirs where cattle are butchered; likewise the people who believe in various religions are prone to raising objections to all kinds of public expenses.

Sir, I only want to touch on one or two points which were expressed yesterday by Members opposing this grant to the Family Planning Association. The hon. Member for Changi mentioned that this money should not be handed to a private organization. Sir, I am sure the hon. Member is aware that the Association is a registered voluntary organization, having good objects and aims. All its accounts are produced every year to the Financial Secretary when it applies for a fresh grant. I do not think, Sir, that it is right to argue that this money should be handed to an organization like this.

The hon. Member also suggested: why cannot the office-bearers of this Association subsidise it with their own money? He implied that they are rich people and that the rings they wear are valued at about $1,000 each. Sir, I think it is quite wrong to ask the officers of a voluntary organization to pay their own money for a public purpose. This organization exists for the welfare of the people, and it is wrong to say that its officers should spend their own money for the public welfare. Sir, the Family Planning Association has always helped and is still helping people in the lower income group. I am indeed surprised that the champions of the poor in this House are opposing it because, by doing so, they are denying to the poor the privilege which is offered by the Association. Sir, I think it is a very deserving organization and it needs the fervent support of all Members of the Assembly and of all the people of Singapore in general.

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot see why we should be flogging a dead horse year in and year out. This issue appears to me now to be more or less of a routine nature, and every year, when this question of family planning comes up, there must be someone to introduce a debate on the subject. I am very happy that this is the last Budget on which we are debating, because this is the last term of the present Government. Only those who are re-elected to this Assembly under the new Constitution will have an opportunity to introduce this subject, while those who are very much against family planning would be sore that they are not re-elected and will not be able to bring this subject up again.

Last year, I expected this subject to come up again for debate this year, and my expectations have come true. But another surprise to me is why hon. Members cannot accept defeat. Every year that it comes up - this is the third time, I presume - it is defeated, and if we are considered honourable enough to he able to introduce legislation in this country, let us be honourable and sporting enough to accept defeat. Let us not try and flog a dead horse year in and year out.

The second point why I am very glad, Sir, is because the Government have made some changes to the vote to the Association. Last year we were asked to vote for $120,000. This year it has come down to $100,000, a figure which was approved the year before last. This is what I said last year - it appears in the Hansard Vol. 2, No. 44, dated 18th December, 1957 col. 3162:

"But what I notice, Sir, is the question of the increase in the grant. I think we should concentrate more on the increase in the grant rather than on the actual grant itself. In the year before last, the Association was granted $80,000. Last year, it came up to $100,000. It is now $120,000. As one Member pointed out just now, where is this all going to end? Are we going to increase again the grant next year to $140,000, and so on?"

Sir, I am rather happy that the Government have not increased the grant from $120,000 to $140,000, which was the expectation of Members last year. Contrary to that expectation, the Government have now reduced it to $100,000 which was the figure in the previous year's Budget. This was my suggestion and I am very glad that it has been accepted by the Government. Every year I have abstained from voting on this item. This year I am going to vote for it, not because of family planning itself but because Government have accepted my suggestion and stuck to that figure.

Let us not reduce or increase that sum, because this subject has become so controversial that it has been debated every year. Sir, I am voting for it solely because of the figure of $100,000 and not because of the merits of family planning itself, and also not because I have come over to the Government benches and therefore I should vote for the Government.

Mr R. C. H. Lim (Nominated): Mr Chairman, Sir, I hope, after me, only the Chief Minister will speak, because we have gone far too long on this very stale subject. However, I cannot let this debate end without expressing my opinion on family planning.

I believe there are three types of men who find themselves unable to support family planning. The first type is the man - especially if he is a Chinaman - who, having married for the purpose of having a son and heir, finds himself unable to have a son and heir, for every time a child is born to him, it is a girl. Such a man has no use for family planning, because he must try again and again to get a son and heir.

The second type of man, Sir, is a man who has no child at all. I understand one of the objects of family planning is not to help to procreate, but to help not to procreate. The third type of man, Sir, is rather a regrettable type - an old man having reached the age where he finds himself no longer interested in procreation at all.

There is, however, a different type of man - a man like myself - who has suffered great hardships, because at one time, Sir, I had to support four children who, at the same time, were studying abroad. Sir, if family planning had existed thirty or forty years ago, I am quite sure I would have made use of it, especially in view of the experience which I have had. Sir, may I advise the younger generation that they should go to the Family Planning Association and make use of the services offered, so that in the years to come they may not suffer what I have suffered?

10.45 a.m.

The Chief Minister (Tun Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not intended taking part in this debate. I thought yesterday that the best thing for anyone to do was to refer to the Hansards for the past three years and take them as read and then vote as usual! Sir, I have said every year that as this is a matter of conscience, the Government allows a free vote. Every year we have the spectacle of Ministers, who work together under collective responsibility, taking this one opportunity to let their hair down and go at each other's throats!

Sir, I am indeed surprised that every speaker on this motion has not stood up and said, "I have consulted my wife, and this is what we feel!"

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: I have!

The Chief Minister: Sir, my friend there has consulted his wife and he has persuaded her that, according to his calculation, it is cheaper by the dozen! And he admitted that it was cheaper by the dozen.

Some of us here, Sir, talk of morals. I would ask hon. Members to search their own conscience - as this is a matter of conscience - and think of their own morals. Someone has just talked of sexual lust.

When we first started this in 1955, the gallery was packed with women, and the debate which took place then went to the extent of nearly describing the sexual act! Sexual lust! I think it is because women have to satisfy men's sexual lust that they have to be protected! And what is this? Just to protect women? "Mary, thou shalt not have thy sexual lust." But go ahead and have yours! Sir, we want to protect the health of our wives. Have we ever thought of the pains, the fears and worries in the minds of women when they give birth? Have we ever thought of that? We have not. All we think is, "Wonderful, the factory is in full production!" And when the factory is unable to produce, "All right, let us have further factories!" That is not the way to carry on. Family planning is not forced on anyone. If you feel that family planning is going to help you, go ahead and get the benefit. If you feel that it is not going to help you, or if you have any religious opposition to it, do not go to it. Every religion teaches us to be tolerant. Let us all be tolerant of women's pains and tribulations.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to draw the attention of the hon. Mr R. C. H. Lim that there is no such nationality as Chinaman. We are Chinese, and not Chinamen.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, the absence of the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar, who seems to have boycotted this debate has afforded us plenty of time to debate on this subject. So, let us be a little more patient.

Our clever Chief Minister tried to impress us with a wonderful, fluent and emotional speech about protecting women. Sir, his speech cannot move me a bit. Why did he not look at it from another aspect? Is it because the F.P.A. gives the husband a sense of security? If so, what will be the result? Intimacy will increase. The result will be many unwanted children. This is evident even in countries where birth control is much practised. There will be many divorce cases. Why did the Hon. the Chief Minister (who is also the Minister for Labour and Welfare) not think of that? What we want is to maintain our Eastern morals.

Mr Francis Thomas rose -

The Chairman: On a point of order?

Mr Francis Thomas: On a point of elucidation, Sir, I would like to ask the hon. Member for Changi to give the figures of unwanted children and divorce cases.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, when I said "unwanted children" I meant unclaimed children. Nobody dares to claim them. We can take the figures in West Germany, London and New York. Of course, to obtain the exact figures, the Chief Minister will say there are too many complications. Why did he fail to answer the question I put to him? Why did he not consider these two aspects - firstly, unclaimed children; and secondly, morality - before making such an emotional speech which, as you say, is a waste of time?

The Chairman: I never did say that.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: I am so sorry, Sir, but to me the Chief Minister has wasted his efforts and failed to impress anyone at all. Unfortunately, the Minister for Education is not here to challenge me when I say that we should have confidence in being able to provide so many millions of dollars in the years to come.

Sir, I am not a financial expert, but I can say something on the Budget. I want to point out to the Financial Secretary this fact: for the year 1948 on the item of income tax, the then Financial Secretary collected $2,822,524.51. Did the then Financial Secretary ever dream that in 1957 the collection on the same item would be $65,208,000? How much more? I want to say this - if a person is confident, the future is his.

I will quote another example - the revenue from petroleum. In 1948 it was $9,309,507.54. Compare that with 1957, how much, Sir? $25-million. That is enough for me to answer the Minister for Education!

Mr Hart rose -

Mr Lim Cher Kheng resumed his seat.

The Chairman: Mr Hart.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng rose -

The Chairman: The hon. Member gave way!

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: I gave way?

Mr Hart resumed his seat.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, I do not mind answering the question raised by the hon. Member for Seletar. I never said I doubted the integrity of the Family Planning Association. He said I doubted the accounts and the management of affairs. Sir, I categorically deny that I have any doubts at all about its registration, or the integrity of its office-bearers. What I said was that many of the office-bearers belong to the very wealthy class, and it is easier for them to collect $100,000 than anybody else.

Lastly, Sir, the Minister for Commerce and Industry, since he supports the principle of opposing family planning, he will not, I hope, change his mind, but stick to that principle.

The Financial Secretary (Mr T. M. Hart): Sir, I regret deeply that this matter has been raised again and dealt with ad nauseam each time for the last three years. A great deal which might have been better left unsaid has been said. After each deplorable episode in the history of this House, one has thought that perhaps that will be the end of it. But one has always been mistaken, and each year the matter again comes up.

Hon. Members who have passed in a matter of minutes Heads of Expenditure involving many, many millions of dollars suddenly decide to spend hours debating a matter of a hundred thousand dollars for a service which anybody in his senses will realise can only be for the benefit of Singapore. Furthermore. Sir, hon. Members who have remained coyly silent for a year, even hon. Members who are responsible for portfolios in the Government, suddenly find their voices and criticise the conduct of the Financial Secretary in this matter.

I would just like to take this opportunity of expressing, if I may, what might be regarded as the official view about this matter. Speaking for the officials of the Government, I regard family planning as one of the most potent agents available to governments of the present day for the alleviation of one form of human misery and suffering, and for the control of the population. This has been appreciated by all countries, particularly those in Asia where the growth of population presents a serious problem. All possible steps are taken either by the Government themselves, or with their blessing and assistance, financial and otherwise, to propagate a knowledge of the virtues of family planning. It has been appreciated by the Government of Singapore, because the problems raised by the growth of population in Singapore are as serious as, if not more so than, those raised in other countries. It is the policy of the Government to support the principle of family planning and to give it all possible financial assistance. It is with much regret that it was decided to reduce the grant for 1959. This was done because all essential recurrent services had been cut to the bone in an effort to balance the Budget, and it was considered only right and proper that this recurrent service, being no more and no less important than the others, should be cut in the same way. I can assure you, Sir, that the grant would be substantially increased if we had the money. Indeed I am not at all certain that the best solution would not be to take this Association under the wing of, say, the Social Welfare Department, or the Medical Department, provided that this can be done without losing the most valuable voluntary support in terms of cash and services which the Association obtains at the present time. But this is a question for the incoming Government.

The Association, Sir, if I may say so, does an outstandingly good job, and those who give voluntary service to it are a most devoted band. To them, the highest praise is due. As I said last year, the Association is run most efficiently and no fault can be found with its expenditure policy, or the control of its activities and expenditure. We have no representative on the Committee of Management of the Association, but I am perfectly certain that if we ask for one to be appointed, our request will be granted forthwith. But we do not consider it necessary. We are satisfied that the people who are in control of the Association are people of the highest reputation and integrity, and they manage the affairs of the Association in a most efficient way. The Association itself has made very considerable progress over the years, as the statistics contained in its Annual Report will reveal. Nobody ever expected its achievements would be spectacular, but progress has been steady and continuous and would be even more rapid if additional funds could be made available, as undoubtedly they will be in the future.

Lastly, as I think I said last year, hon. Members would be doing a great disservice to Singapore if they voted for a reduction of this grant.

11.00 a.m.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have not spoken last year on this subject, but this year I am prompted to say a few words after hearing so much talk about it. In fact, with so many views that should not have been voiced here, I want to say something on this matter.

My first point is to ask the Financial Secretary about the grant in comparison with assistance to other charitable organizations. Let me read through Head 25, choosing only a few of the more important items:

$ "British Red Cross Society 3,500 Maintenance of St. Andrew's 5,000 Orthopaedic Hospital Red Cross Home for 25,260" Handicapped Children

and for a big hospital -

"St. Andrew's Mission Hospital 119,000" Look at-

"Family Planning Association $100,000"

The sum of money given is as much as Planning Association with that of a full-scale hospital! Talking about the amount of good that is brought to society and humanity as a whole, can we compare the good work, or whatever work you call it, done by the Family Planning Association with that of a full-scale hospital? If we cannot, and, if the people of Singapore cannot agree that it is doing more important work than the hospital, then I do not see why that figure should come so near to that involved in the running of a hospital. Now let us again look at the other items:

$ 'Boy Scouts' Association (1) Handicapped Groups 3,350 After-Care Association 5,000 Little Sisters of the Poor 5,800 Malayan Association for the Blind 2,500".

To cure opium addicts - $3,000. Now when we compare all these figures, we can say that the amount granted to the Family Planning Association is out of proportion to all the work done. It is public money, and it has to be spent wisely. We must give it in proportion to the work it is able to do. I bring up this point, Sir, because I am of the opinion that the Government have not given sufficient money for other welfare organisations. If the Singapore Youth Council, looking after the youth of Singapore were to go to Government for a little increase in the grant, nothing would be given. All other youth movements -

The Chairman: Order. I think the hon. Member is going too far away from the motion before the House, which is confined to family planning. All his present remarks could well be said when we come to the main Head, that is, the whole of Head 25, when he can draw comparisons between other subheads.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Yes, Sir, I am speaking the trend, that this $100,000 (a large proportion of it, in fact) could better be used for the other sections. Sir, I will content myself with that because, having drawn the attention of the House to the varying sums, I can leave them to judge for themselves.

On the point raised by the Chief Minister about the protection of women, that is, helping them not to be bullied by men, I think that is unnecessary. We in this House have always declared that men and women now enjoy equal rights. In fact, in a matter like this, women have more say than men. Furthermore, although we say that men and women are equal, yet we give them a lot of protection! We have many laws that are in their favour.

Sir, I am not happy about this grant of $100,000 to the Family Planning Association for another reason, and the reason was given by the Financial Secretary just now. It is the official policy. The official policy is to cut down, where possible, the growth of population in Singapore. I know why that sentiment has been expressed and why that official policy has been pursued. In the West the population has always been either at a standstill or, as in England, on the decline. In the East the population is always increasing. In the East again, with the increase in population, as we have seen in the last War, land becomes scarce. In Japan, for example, there are more men than land. Japan could not possibly live on their small island, and they have to find land elsewhere in order to feed themselves.

We are living in a very selfish world today. Those who have, say: "We will keep what we have; and if you do not have, try to be contented; try to live within your means; try any method of keeping alive, but do not come to us for anything." People in the West say: "We need manpower to develop the land, but we are not prepared to give it to anybody. We have large tracts of land. We will keep Australia as thinly populated as possible; we shall exclude Asians." If the official policy is going to be in that direction, I certainly see reasons there, and good reasons too! If we can keep the population of the East right down to the bare minimum, then there need not be any giving because there would not be people to ask! There need be no war because people there will not be wanting and, therefore, the official view supports this family planning. For that reason I oppose family planning.

Mr Wong Foo Nam (Pasir Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, there are two significant points I notice in the debate on this subject. One is that no one seems to have criticised the Government for cutting down the sum from $120,000 last year to $100,000 this year. The second point is that the Minister for Health has opposed this grant very strongly, which, I believe, is his primary duty to do so. In spite of the fact that he has represented Singapore at the Family Planning Conference in Tokyo, he has still not learnt his lesson. So I presume his visit is more concerned with the admiration of the snow in Fujiyama and the cherry blossoms in the streets of Tokyo!

Family planning, Sir, is not, as many people think, just trying to prevent babies from coming into the world. Family planning is to plan a family according to the needs of an individual.

Singapore is only an island of 224 square miles. If the population is increasing at this rate, then, I think in ten to fifteen years' time, the problem facing us today will be very much worse. It is very easy to say that the people of the world are selfish. They have the land and they do not help other people. They want to keep it for themselves. But no amount of talk in Singapore can persuade those people who have the land to give it to the people of Singapore.

Singapore is situated in a very difficult position compared with other parts of the world. First, we do not have enough land for us to cultivate and grow food. Then we find we have very little resources to promote industries here, as we are in the midst of the cheap labour area. It is not easy for us to supply only the needs of Singapore.

Many people may argue about the present cost of living in Singapore. They say the cost of living in America is very high; may be ten times as high as Singapore. Yet their industry survives. Why cannot Singapore do the same? They do not realise that America has a population of more than 150 million people, and due to the resources in the land they can provide one of the highest standards of living in the world. Their industry is geared not only to export to other countries, but also to home consumption Take for instance American cars, especially cars in the higher bracket. The motor car companies there are not interested in manufacturing cars with a right-hand drive because the number that can be produced for export is very small compared with what they can produce for home consumption.

Another point raised by the Member for Changi is that family planning is not a policy of Asian countries. I do not know what he is referring to. We know very well that in India there are family planning associations. When I was in India last year, I heard a speech over the radio given by Pandit Nehru. He said that India wants more of everything except an increase in the population. Communist China today has family plan fling, and so has Japan too. I cannot recall seeing any country in the East that is opposing family planning.

As for the remarks made by the Member for Changi that those who are now members of the Family Planning Association and other voluntary workers should contribute to the $100,000 themselves, and that the Government should not spend this money themselves, I can assure him that those people who are working for the Association voluntarily have contributed not only much of their time and labour but have also contributed money to the Association. In this respect, I can say of someone who is very near to me, that he is working hard everyday to achieve the aims of the Association.

I think if there are any criticisms against the present Government, it is that they have not granted enough money to the Family Planning Association.

11.15 a.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was surprised to learn this morning that I had not been spared the ordeal of the debate on family planning. I was alarmed when I looked at the Order Paper that we could well go on until 3.30 this afternoon on this subject. I suddenly thought that somebody must have discovered a magnificent new theory about either how to produce more food with more people, or some revolutionary discovery which makes family planning completely unnecessary! But, unfortunately, no such miracle had taken place. I think we would well be advised just to take the vote. Those who want to say no, let them say no. But to those who want to see some effort at least being made not to let the population of Singapore go out of hand - not because people want more babies, but because they do not know how to stop them - well, let us help them.

Question put, "That the sum to be allotted for Head 25 be reduced by $10 m respect of subhead 31 therein."

11.19 a.m.

Hon. Members: Division, Sir.

The House divided: Ayes 6; Noes, 16; Abstentions, 5; Absent, 4. Ayes Noes Braga, A. J. Chew Swee Kee. Goh Tong Liang. Ede, John. Jumabhoy, R. Goh Chew Chua. Lazarous, A. R. Hart, T. M. Lim Cher Kheng. Lee Choon Eng. Lim Choon Mong. Lee Kuan Yew. Lim, R. C. H. Lim Koon Teck. Lim Yew Hock. Nair, M. P. D. Shanks, E. P. Soh Ghee Soon. Tan Siak Kew. Tan Theng Chiang. Thomas, Francis. Absent Wong Foo Nam. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Abstentions Lim Ching Siong. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Seah Peng Chuan. Jumat. Tan, William. David, E. B. Jumabhoy, J. M. Mak Pak Shee. Mohamed Sidik bin Haji Abdul Hamid.

Question on the amendment accordingly negatived.

Question proposed,

"That the sum of $1,399,230 for Head 25 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, under this Head, I find so many contributions made to different bodies, small and big. May I ask the Hon, the Financial Secretary what has happened to the request of the Chinese Young Men's Christian Association which officially asked for help in writing last year? In the debate on the Budget last year, I remember the Financial Secretary said that he would look into the matter. When so many contributions are made to so many bodies, I do not see why another deserving body like the Ramakrishna Mission has been omitted. A request was made in writing to the Financial Secretary. Why was also a request from the Sultan Mosque for a grant to cover repairs omitted, when I see under subhead 30 "Ecclesiastical Grants... $12,700" which also concern religious institutions?

Sir, hundreds and thousands of dollars have been spent on entertainment and travelling. Should Government not lend a helping hand to these deserving bodies who do a lot of social good for the benefit of the people? They support orphans and subsidize their education. Would it not be more worthwhile for the Government to invest in these bodies rather than spend money on entertainment and travelling?

Mr Hart: Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not have the money at the present time to meet all the requests for assistance which are presented to us. As I said last year, we would consider the application of a grant for a sum of $320,000 from the Chinese Y.M.C.A. That was considered, but we felt that the financial circumstances at the present time did not justify our making a grant. I think the hon. Member for Telok Ayer did raise last year the question of grants to the Ramakrishna Mission and the Sultan Mosque, and the answer I gave on that particular matter, that we did not have the necessary funds to give assistance to all who asked for it, holds good in this case.

As regards the statement that vast sums of money are squandered every year on travelling and entertainment, that, Sir, is quite false.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $1,399,230 for Head 25 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 26-

The sum of $1,233,520 for Head 26 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 27-

The sum of $4,141,260 for Head 27 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 28-

The sum of $133,790 for Head 28 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 29-

Mr A. R. Lazarous (Farrer Park): Mr Speaker, Sir, my intention was to move an amendment to increase the amount of individual relief and also to increase company tax, but this would involve getting the consent of the Governor, and I know that it is not possible. I would not do it. However, I shall state my objection for the record.

In my opinion, the income tax in the lower income group is unreasonable. Personal relief to an individual should be increased from the present $3,000 to $4,000.

The Chairman: Order. I think hon. Members were given a full opportunity to debate personal income tax when the Financial Secretary moved a motion the other day, and it is out of order to reopen that subject in the Committee of Supply.

Mr Lazarous: I do not know whether I can make some observations, Sir.

The Chairman: Order. I think the hon. Member has lost his opportunity. The opportunity was given, as I said, when a motion was moved by the Financial Secretary in regard to personal income tax and when he moved the Second Reading of the Income Tax (Amendment No. 2) Bill, so that those two subjects in so far as this Session is concerned are closed.

Mr Lazarous: Sir, I have given notice of this item and the notice has been accepted. Of course, Sir, when we want to speak on any subject, I understand notice must first be given. Therefore, Sir, I was under the impression that, having given notice of this item, I would be allowed to speak on it.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is perfectly entitled to speak, but what I am trying to tell him is that there are two subjects under the Head of Income Tax which have been dealt with in full. There has been a decision of this Assembly on those two subjects, and, therefore, once there is a decision of the Assembly on a particular subject, that subject cannot be re-opened during the same session. But if the hon. Member has other subjects on which he wishes to speak, he can do so by all means.

Mr Lazarous: I am sorry, Sir, but I am not ashamed to admit that I am not versed in the rules of procedure and I would be very grateful if you would advise me. My intention was just to express my comments - to say that company tax could be increased a little more and personal tax relief could be increased from $3,000 to $4,000. My intention was to speak on that, but if that is out of order, I have no objection to it.

The Chairman: I am very sorry. The rules of procedure are, perhaps, complex. If the hon. Member had the intention of moving amendments to the suggestions of the Government in so far as personal income tax and company tax are concerned, he ought to have done so when those subjects were discussed in the Assembly. Does the hon. Member still wish to move his amendment?

Mr Lazarous: I am sorry. What I understand from you, Mr Speaker, is that it is out of order for me to take this subject at this particular moment. Naturally I cannot say anything about it now.

The Chairman: If there is no other topic under Head 29 on which the hon. Member wishes to discuss, then his amendment* cannot be moved.

• Mr. Lazarous' amendment reads as follows:-

That the sum to be allotted for Head 29 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1 therein.

Question proposed,

"That the sum of $1,953,880 for Head 29 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Speaker, Sir, in this session we have passed two Bills - one to increase the percentage of tax on chargeable income and the other one on company tax.

Today, I am coming back to ask the Government whether it has considered, throughout the years, the plea by so many Members in this House that relief be granted to the parents of taxpayers. I am certain we have heard arguments on this subject for the last three years and I would say that the arguments still stand. If Government can consider granting relief to parents, I am certain that it will be welcomed not only by those who pay tax but also by those who are at present not paying tax. Whether a person is paying tax or not, he looks after his parents. This is the set-up in the East. It is the duty of the children to look after the parents and, as we have heard many times before in this House, in Eastern families the care of the parents is sometimes placed on a higher plane than even that of the care for the children. In the West, we may have the parents sent to the homes for the aged or sent to an institute under the care of the Government. But, in the East, it is unheard of that such a step should be taken by the people.

I would not like to repeat all that was said before. I would ask Government seriously to consider the granting of relief for the parents of taxpayers. Even a small relief - a token - would be accepted by the people as indicating that Government is aware of the request of the people and that it would look into this matter.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Chairman, Sir, in supporting the Member for Serangoon, I must draw the attention of the Financial Secretary and the Government to the fact that this is not the first year that this appeal has been made. Just as in the case of family planning, this question of income tax relief comes into the picture, and appeals have been made by Members of this House for reliefs to be granted to the parents.

As pointed out by the Member for Serangoon, it is traditional for the Chinese - all Eastern people - to look after the parents far more than after the children. The parents, when they grow old, rely on the children to maintain them. It is only by providing full education for the children, providing them with everything, that the old people look forward to the time when it is the children's duty to look after them.

I will again make this appeal to the Government, on behalf of the people of Singapore, an appeal for an allowance for parents. It is most essential and, as the Member for Serangoon has said, it will not only be welcomed by those who pay tax but also will be welcomed by those who do not pay tax. Let me make this appeal once and for all.

11.30 a.m.

Mr Lazarous: My appeal to the Government is to increase the tax relief for individuals from the present $3,000 to $4,000, and the relief in respect of women from the present $2,000 to $3,000.

Now, to make up for the loss by this relief for individual tax, the Government could consider increasing company tax from 40 per cent to 45 per cent.

This 45 per cent could be obtained from chargeable incomes of $100,000 and over.

I hope I am not out of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. It was actually not my intention to speak, but I saw other hon. Members were speaking on this subject, so I thought I would be allowed to speak.

The Chairman: Order. I think the hon. Member is probably treading on very thin ice. If he wishes to debate on company tax (which is 40 per cent) - his suggestion is that it should be increased to 45 per cent - then, of course, he is out of order. But if he is content with what he has said up to now, then he is just in order.

Mr Lazarous: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I know that almost all the Members who spoke on company tax attacked the Government for increasing the tax from 30 per cent to 40 per cent. Well, my appeal is for a further increase of from 40 per cent to 45 per cent. My reason, of course, as I told you, is to make up for the increased tax relief for men and women.

Sir, my argument in favour of raising company tax to 45 per cent is, of course, the same defence as that put forward by the Financial Secretary when he replied to the attack by those Assemblymen who thought that that company tax should not be increased to 40 per cent.

The Chairman: Order. I think the hon. Member is now embarking on a debate on company tax. He must understand that he is out of order. The hon. Member cannot embark on a debate on company tax at this juncture.

Mr Lazarous: I am sorry. Mr Speaker, Sir. You have cautioned me several times. I just do not want to make things look awkward. I really thought it was in order when I gave notice. I thought there would be an opportunity for me to speak, in the first instance, but since it was going into Committee, I thought I could take up this matter by giving notice. Since I know it is very delicate to dwell on a subject that has already been taken up, I do not want to say anything further.

The Chairman: Perhaps I could be of some assistance to the hon. Member. If he will consider, perhaps, sending in a question or questions on the subject of company tax for the next sitting, he could be able to ask a few questions on it.

Mr Lazarous: Thank you, Sir.

Question put and agreed to.

The sum of $1,953,880 for Head 29 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 30-

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr R. Jumabhoy -

That the sum to be allotted for Head 30 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1 therein.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, I have given notice of an amendment but since I have taken up the question of salaries for Ministers as a whole under the Head of Chief Minister, I have nothing further to say on salaries.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is not moving.

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Lim Cher Kheng -

That the sum to be allotted for Head 30 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) (i) of subhead 10 therein.

In Mr Lim Cher Kheng's absence, the amendment was not proceeded with.

Question proposed,

"That the sum of $805,330 for Head 30 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr John Ede (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, if as much time were to be spent in this House in discussing the commerce and industry of Singapore as has been spent on the Family Planning Association, we might perhaps be making some contribution to the future welfare of this country. But I doubt very much whether we shall in fact have a debate of that magnitude on this particular subject.

There is a feeling of concern and anxiety, I am quite certain, on all sides of this House at the position of Singapore as a trading centre and, as we would like to see it, a growing industrial island. As I pointed out last week, we are faced with the position of a declining number of workmen employed in manufacturing and in all industries; and I made the point that in March 1958 there were 51,000 workmen employed in manufacturing, which is almost equal or about equal to the increase in population year by year. That is a most alarming position to be in.

I also pointed out that the yield from income tax does not go up except through the artificial means of increase in rates, and that also reflects the fact that there is no expansion of industry in the way that we would like to see.

We have just recently passed the Pioneer Industries and the Industrial Expansion Bills, and I would like to know from the Minister what effect, even at this early stage, these have had, and how many applications he has received for the setting up of new industries and new factories. We have heard that already the Federation expect 40 new factories to be built next year, although they have only just recently passed similar legislation. We should like to know what indications there are regarding the future of Singapore.

We would also like to know how many industries have been launched through the Industrial Promotion Board. When the Board was formed, this Assembly approved a sum of a million dollars for the promotion of industries. We said it was not enough and the Minister said that more money would be forthcoming if it was required. But the financial situation is such that we do not think that this is so now. In fact, we are spending under the estimates for next year, $68,500 to run the Industrial Promotion Board. We would like to know what success the Board is having and whether we are getting value for money.

We would like to know further what progress the Minister has been able to make with his cigarette factory which has had so much publicity. When it was announced, we assumed that the Minister had already got the support of tobacco companies, but this apparently is not the case, and the cart is being put before the horse. Sir, we would like a review from the Minister of just what progress we are making, as the impression is that we are slipping backwards and not going forwards.

We all know, and we all appreciate, that we are faced with this dilemma of wanting to encourage, or at least maintain, our free entrepot trade on the one hand and at the same time we are faced with the need for protection of our own industries on the other hand. The dilemma as to whether, for example, we should let in torch batteries made in China, selling now in the city at 15 cents, or protect our own production of torch batteries at a higher figure of 20 to 25 cents.

During the life of the present Government, this problem has not been solved. I do not place the blame entirely at the door of the Government. On this side of the House, though we have pressed this matter continually - and I hope that we have made some contribution - it is significant that we have had no single constructive word in this House from the People's Action Party on industrial, commercial and economic matters. If they have a policy, they have never disclosed it. Their interest in the future of Singapore seems to be clearly political.

However it may be, the future of Singapore depends on trade, commerce and industry, and we hope that the Singapore electorate will remember that when the general elections take place.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, this Ministry of Commerce and Industry is most important for the existence of Singapore.

Sir, the other day in my Budget speech I said that the previous Council left $200,000,000 which is now reduced to $83,000,000 in liquid assets. The duty on petrol was 68 cents a gallon when the present Government took over, and it is now $1. Then I went on to the duty on cigarettes. But there is in the Press a story to the effect that the Minister for Commerce quoted me as saying that I liked the previous Government. Why twist statements which a Member has never made? What I only said, Sir, was this. The last Council from which the present Government inherited was this, this and that. I never praised or said anything against or for the previous Council. I hope a person in that responsible position should not twist the statements made by Members.

11.45 a.m.

As I have said, all these three years, Sir, as far as possible, I have refrained from speaking on this subject for obvious reasons, though I, personally, have been the founder and President of the Indian Chamber of Commerce for 12 years. I was twice elected by the Indian Chamber of Commerce to the Legislative Council. With that experience, I would not be talking to injure, but talking something constructive. But if the people concerned are not willing to admit their mistakes, well, what could be said?

The same Minister also made this remark: "Look, the Members opposite are not taking an interest. They are not there."

Sir, the life of the present Government is ending. What we have said has fallen on deaf ears. We are not willing to hear any more bluffs. This is a Ministry on which Singapore depends. Responsible words should be uttered. I am not criticising, Sir, I am asking. During these two or three years, did the Minister not appoint a Select Committee on luxury tax? This caused uncertainty in the minds of small and big traders for months. The Council of Ministers was responsible for this instability in trade. The trader thought, "What items will be taxed or restricted?" He did not know where he was standing for months.

Then also this same Minister made a statement that sooner or later there might have to be some import duties.

Sir, I have been a merchant of 45 years' standing. Though I retired a few years ago from active business, I still could gauge the feelings of the merchants. What are the goods or commodities to be taxed by import duties? Shall we hold on or shall we import? Shall we not do this trade or that? Now, such statements from this Ministry should not have been made in the way they were made.

Sir, take the cigarette factory and the Bill in Select Committee concerning it. Sir, that is a department which is the life-line of Singapore. My remarks are for the incoming Government - that this Ministry should be run in such a way that it should safeguard the interests of trade, on which our existence, employment, and everything depends. I have no further comments than that.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Chairman, Sir, it looks as if I have to repeat the question which I have already asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry. Sir, the question is this: Can we achieve a Pan-Malayan economic policy? Without a Pan-Malayan economic plan, Sir, all the efforts of the Minister for Commerce and Industry, despite his energy and ambition to set up a people's cigarette factory, would be in vain.

I just cannot understand how to reconcile this fact: on the one hand, Singapore should maintain an entrepot status, and, on the other hand, how to solve the unemployment problem of this country and to speed up industrialisation?

Unfortunately, we have been entirely cut away, politically, from the Federation of Malaya. And yet one of the Ministers in the Federation of Malaya has admitted that we must look after their interests, because they are the life-line of the entrepot trade. Sir, the so-called one economic unh for Malaya and Singapore is just on paper only. It is mentioned in political gossip but it is not practised. There is no Pan-Malayan economic plan in practice, which shows that Malaya and Singapore are really and truly one economic unit. Can the Minister for Commerce and Industry honestly tell us how he can maintain Singapore as a prosperous entrepot and, at the same time, his long-time dream of industrialisation in this country? Let us have a firm assurance that he is not coming back to this Assembly and saying: "We failed because we could not get the Federation of Malaya to understand us. We could not get their co-operation." In other words, do not say that everything has failed on account of the failure to merge with the Federation.

Sir, I have purposely emphasised this important topic. It is high time for the elected representatives of the people of Singapore to decide Singapore's future relationship with the Federation of Malaya. Merger seems to be a popular slogan of all the political Parties but only in Singapore. In the Federation of Malaya it has been openly and officially denied. Also it has been opposed by one of the very important Ministers there. The proposed constitution of the M.C.A., the governing Party of the Federation, has a clause to the effect that if Singapore is going to merge with the Federation of Malaya, they say that they are going to cause a split in the Alliance Government.

Sir, it is not sufficient for us, the people of Singapore, to know why the Federation Minister of Commerce, the Hon. Mr Tan Siew Sin, so firmly believes that if there is a move to boost a merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya, they are going to have a serious split. Do you not think that that is a sufficiently serious warning to Singapore, not only to the people but to the Government as well? Hope of a merger is far away from us. So how can our own Minister for Commerce and Industry still come to this House and say, "Yes, we must co-operate with the Federation of Malaya. We must co-ordinate with the Federation of Malaya. We must believe and have confidence in a merger. If there is no merger, we die. Singapore will be finished. If things fail us, it is because we could not get the co-operation of the Federation of Malaya, and because the merger has not arrived yet."

Sir, I said that 1958 has been a year of instability and insecurity - instability in politics and in economy. I also said that 1958 has opened the eyes of the people of Singapore, or at least it has sown some doubts in the minds of the people of Singapore that the merger will really be a reality. What is the cause of the split between Singapore and Malaya? Everybody says it is man-made. Even our Minister for Commerce and Industry has admitted that there is a man-made split between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. Since there is this man-made unnatural separation, bow then can there be a natural merger?

12.00 noon

Why should we not analyse the actual cause of this split, this separation? In one of my speeches, I said that even if Mr Chin Peng, the Secretary-General of the Malayan Communist Party, were to become the Prime Minister of Singapore, the British would have no fear at all, because they have the Lennox-Boyd Constitution and not the Rendel Constitution. That is enough to tell us that the cause of the separation is in the hands of the Rt. Hon. Mr Lennox-Boyd, Secretary of State for the Colonies. So the situation is like this - although we say we are the champions of the people we are genuine nationalists; we must admit that we have earned our so-called national freedom not through a single blow or a single drop of blood or a bullet. So if we expect such a nice gift from a well experienced imperialist colonial power, without any safeguards for their own interests, then we are fools.

Therefore, it is high time for us to tell the people the truth - that a merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya is not by agreement between Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tun Lim Yew Hock, our Chief Minister. We must rely on developments in Asia, even international developments. We can predict, we can say that in ten or 20 years' time as long as the situation in South-East Asia remains much the same as it is today, then a merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya will not be realised. The interim Government, during this period must take a realistic policy - that politically we are separate, but economically we must try our very best to co-operate on equal terms and to our mutual benefit, and not have a one-sided beneficial arrangement as in the past three years. The people of Singapore are getting sick of hearing that the Government of Singapore are always going to Kuala Lumpur to listen to or to receive orders that we can introduce this Bill, but we cannot introduce that Bill. And all to protect whose interests, Sir? If the Federation of Malaya really have the interest of the people of Singapore at heart, they should recognise the importance of Singapore and they should appreciate the continuation of the port of Singapore which renders a great service to the Federation of Malaya. They should not try to build another port in the Federation of Malaya to challenge Singapore. By building Port Swettenham, the people of Singapore have no doubt that the Federation of Malaya have made up their mind to forsake Singapore, to throw away Singapore. Why should the Federation of Malaya dump millions of dollars in building Port Swettenham? Sir, the reason is obvious. If the leaders of the two territories have Pan-Malayan interests at heart, they should realise that a loss to Singapore is also a loss to the Federation.

I remember touching on this subject. If an industry in Singapore is forced to shut down, you simply say, "You apply to the Federation of Malaya. They are going to give a lot of vacant land in Petaling Jaya. That is an industrial area. There is plenty of vacant land for you." Sir, it is very simple to get a piece of vacant land and offer it to Singapore manufacturers, but how about the expenses of installation? Whose loss is it? It is not the common loss of the Federation of Malaya and Singapore. The Federation of Malaya go along with their own economic development. They woo as much as they can Singapore's existing industries to shift to the Federation of Malaya. Do they care what is going on in Singapore? They do not care. They can borrow money much easily from an international body. I am not surprised, Sir, that very soon they are going to seek American aid, Sir, when Port Swettenham is completed. Singapore - where does she stand? She has been an outlet for the tin and rubber in the Federation of Malaya. Piece-goods will not be imported through the Johore Causeway any more.

Sir, I deeply regret that I have touched on such a serious question. The people of Singapore generally have lost faith and confidence of a merger with the Federation of Malaya. Only ambitious and selfish political leaders, as soon as they come into power, try to bluff the people that merger is a must and that it is going to be very soon. Sir, it is very unfair for the people of Singapore who are not well informed of the situation. The actual stumbling block to a merger is not the language problem, to make Melayu the lingua franca. Merger is an economic and political affair.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, on a point of order. I think the hon. Member has spoken at length on the impossibility of merger and backed it up with evidence. But as I have got to answer him, I would like him to say what his suggestion is, or what he expects the Government to do.

The Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, my humble advice to the Minister for Commerce and Industry is this - stand up and fight for our survival. We must not wait and preach, "Merger. Without merger, we die." If I say to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Member for Changi can fly, you will say, "Yes, just show me how you can fly." I will say, "Wait until I feel both my arms have turned into wings, then I can fly." Sir do you believe it? Of course, I can say I can fly. The same also applies to the merger, to this economic problem. Every political leader tries to put every excuse on this merger. They do not try to find their own solution. They simply say, "Wait until there is a merger." And the merger, as I have already analysed, is very, very far away. It is not in the hands of either the Singapore Minister for Commerce and Industry or the Federation Minister of Commerce and Industry, the Hon. Mr Tan Siew Sin. Sir, the merger between the Federation of Malaya and Singapore lies with Whitehall and if we go a little deeper into the matter, even the White House is going to be involved. If the international situation demands that Singapore must remain a military and strategic base, then the merger will be just only in our dreams. And if so, Sir, why do we not choose the right time to tell the truth to our people - that it is time to stop thinking about the merger? I am not for one moment going to deny that it is natural that the Federation of Malaya and Singapore must be one unit, based on historical, economic, political, and especially cultural factors. But what can we have? Our fate is in somebody else's hands. We are a weak and a small nation and we just have to be at somebody's mercy. Let us admit it. Let us tell the people of Singapore that we are at the mercy of some other powers.

The Chairman: Order. I think this is an appropriate time to suspend.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

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

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.15 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Resumption of Debate on Question,

"That the sum of $805,330 for Head 30 stand part of the Schedule."

2.31 p.m.

Question again proposed.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Speaker, Sir, before I continue with my speech this afternoon, I would like to place on record the deep regret over the attitude of certain Members of this House towards the debate on such an important Budget. I stand corrected if I am wrong. I think it is the duty of an elected representative to take a keener and closer interest in the Budget. Yet the turn-out of the Assembly today and even the spectators in the gallery -

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member may just confine his remarks very briefly to Members of this House, but I do not think he should turn to the gallery - he is speaking to the Chair, not to the gallery.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, on such an important debate, I wonder why hon. Members of this House should show a cold attitude towards this debate.

The Chairman: Order. I think the hon. Member has said enough, because now he is approaching the personal conduct of hon. Members of this House, and he knows under Standing Orders he ought not to do so. I think he ought to continue with the debate.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, may it please you, I withdraw. Sir, this morning I touched on the serious point of merger. Many times I have stated in this House that, despite the efforts put up by the energetic, ambitious Minister for Commerce and Industry, he has never achieved what is expected of him or what he had promised us - that he is going to provide a full-grown entrepot trade, a full-grown programme of industrialisation. I have analysed the fundamental dead-lock, and found that the cause of the failure of the Minister for Commerce and Industry is closely linked with merger. As long as we cannot achieve what we want and what we expect - a Pan-Malayan economic plan or policy - then, no matter who is in the Government, no matter who is the Minister for Commerce and Industry, economic instability wilt still overshadow Singapore. Therefore. I now especially wish to emphasize the question of merger. Now is the right time for us to adopt an entirely new approach to the question of merger. It is now time for all the leaders of this country to tell the people the truth - that the question of merger is neither in the hands of Tunku Abdul Rahman nor the Hon. Tun Lim Yew Hock; but, Sir, it is in the hands of the Rt. Hon. Mr Alan Lennox-Boyd, who is so very far away from here.

The Chairman: Is not the hon. Member repeating himself? There is a Standing Order which says that repetition, if it becomes tedious, is not allowed.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: I beg your pardon, Sir. The key to merger is in the hands of Whitehall in London. To go a step further, Sir, the key is shared between the White House in Washington and Whitehall. To go yet a little further, it is in the hands of the whole Commonwealth, the so-called free world. Therefore, if it is so, why are our people not entitled to know the exact position - that merger is very far away, I dare to say in ten or twenty years' time? When will that be, Sir? Until South-East Asia is stabilised; until peace is achieved for the whole world, and the conflict between the East and West is settled; when we can say that the people of this region hold their fate in their hands.

Sir, we must not be hypocrites. A hypocrite fools himself and others. Everyone in this House is fighting for freedom. Were they ever in prison? Had they ever fired a single bullet, or shed a single drop of blood? No, Sir. Therefore, this so-called political freedom, the so-called symbol of national aspiration, is given at a certain discount. And if so, then why should we continue to fool our people and say, "You vote for me. You return me to power, and then I will promise you everything - everything which you can see in the papers, or hear during the election campaign."? But it is not so in practice. No matter which government is in power, the same failure is going to be met with; the same mistake which the present Government has made.

To come to details, Sir, on the entrepot trade. We are lucky to have a few commerical leaders in this House to tell us how badly hit is our entrepot trade. Imports of raw materials from international ports get less and less as time goes on. Has this Government made any attempt to negotiate or find a solution to improve our international trade?

This brings me to the subject of smuggling. With this invisible trade going on, I cannot imagine what kind of a port Singapore is going to be. Why cannot we have regular, normal trade relations with Indonesia? Could the Minister for Commerce and Industry tell us? This already famous invisible trade still continues but the people do not like to hear of smuggling between Singapore and Indonesia.

Any approach to bring in more raw materials is most welcome. Many of our rubber mills have been shut down.

Leading local rubber mills like Lee Rubber, Nam Lee, Kah Hin have had to shut down completely or have been forced to operate part-time just to keep them going and to maintain the minimum employment for its workers.

As for our copra oil mills - when can we secure sufficient copra to supply our coconut oil mills in this country?

In respect of our soap factories, I am very happy indeed to learn that the Minister for Commerce and Industry is going to introduce a Bill to protect our local industries. We have not sufficient raw materials to keep our soap factories running. We are faced with two evils - one is the tariff imposed by the Federation of Malaya; and the other, the bigger evil, is the dumping of soap by our neighbouring brother, the Federation. We know they have a multi-million dollar capital, and their dumping of soap into Singapore is, if I am not mistaken, much worse than the dumping of textiles from China. We quickly placed a ban on Chinese textiles when this happened, even though Singapore is without a single textile factory - if I am not mistaken, these factories have already moved from Singapore to the Federation. Yet no steps have been taken to stop this dumping of soap from the Federation into Singapore, although we have many soap factories of our own.

2.45 p.m.

I take off my hat to the Minister for Commerce and Industry, because he is going to introduce a Bill in time to protect our fast dying soap factories. When we put two and two together, it will be seen that the Minister for Commerce and Industry has very little to boast about in his efforts to improve the trading conditions of Singapore in 1958. I am sure he has not realised his ambition to bring about an improved state of affairs in Singapore.

Early this morning, I asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry whether it is time for him to decide on the question of a merger with the Federation of Malaya, and whether it is possible to evolve a Pan-Malayan economic policy, and how he is going to maintain Singapore's entrepot status. Well, really I do not know myself! It may either be by co-operation with the Federation of Malaya in our trade policy or we go along on our own.

In my speech on the motion for the Adjournment dated 3rd December, 1958. I purposely touched on the importance of trade with China. I am deeply concerned with the new amendments to the Banking Bill in the Federation of Malaya. One result of this new legislation has been the closing down of the Bank of China.

Sir, I wish to ask a straightforward question. Is it not the right time now for the Singapore Government to declare that it will not follow the Federation of Malaya in closing down the Bank of China here? Singapore cannot follow suit, because it must admit that its lifeline is its entrepot trade. Even the Minister of Commerce and Industry in the Federation of Malaya has openly declared that Singapore's lifeline depends on its entrepot trade. Singapore therefore cannot afford to create animosity with any customer who wishes to trade.

I consider the year 1958 as the biggest failure in our commerce, particularly regarding trade with China. Despite the good work done by the Chinese Chamber of Commerce in sending a Trade Mission to China in 1956 to improve our trade relations, all the good results achieved have been shattered, and our trade relationship with China has now reached a dangerous point.

Sir, in my conclusion, I will confine myself to these considerations. First, the Singapore Government should make a clear-cut policy decision as to what it will do in the event of a failure to achieve a Pan-Malayan economic policy. Secondly, how is Singapore going to improve the trade relationship with Indonesia, so that our raw material supplies from that country are not jeopardized? If there is co-operation with our neighbours in the economic field, we can be assured that factories will spring up in Singapore from time to time. There will be sufficient raw material supplies coming from Indonesia; also our exports of piece-goods to Indonesia can flourish as the years pass.

Thirdly, the question of trade with China. Is it the policy of `this Government to follow the drastic action taken by the Federation of Malaya which, in the name of anti-Communism, has closed down the Bank of China? If so, this is tantamount to a breaking of trade relationship with China.

Sir, I am not for a moment against merger with the Federation of Malaya. What I am saying is that now is not the time to talk about merger. It is better to keep quiet. Talking and shouting about merger has not brought about any reaction at all from our brothers over the Causeway. We know that the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya is a sincere and honest national leader. I would like to address him as "Bapak Merdeka", as do the people in the territories of North Borneo, Brunei and Sarawak. We should therefore not embarrass the Tunku by pressing for a merger with the Federation of Malaya now. The people there know too well that Singapore cannot merge with the Federation at this juncture, not with the present unstable conditions prevailing in South-East Asia. However, they feel somewhat reluctant to tell Singapore that they do not want a merger at the present time. The right-hand man of the Federation Prime Minister, the Minister of Commerce and Industry in the Federation, has already given an open warning to the M.C.A. that no merger clause should be included in the M.C.A. Constitution. But it is not sufficient for the Federation to hint that that they do not favour a merger. They should give an official answer to the Singapore Government and the people of Singapore - "No merger."

Sir, based on these points, the Government should face up to the facts courageously and confidently, and then try to find a solution. But do not embarrass the Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman. Do not embarrass the Federation of Malaya. However, do not fall into the error of accepting the popular slogan favoured by those who wish to champion the merger - that we can only achieve a merger if we adopt Melayu as our lingua franca. We must not allow these ambitious and selfish politicians to fool us.

Therefore, Sir, this is the right time for the Singapore Minister for Commerce and Industry to speak from his heart and tell the people whether Singapore can stand alone or not. This morning I have been criticised, "Oh, you only know how to criticise, but you never put up a solution." Sir. I have mentioned this many times - why cannot we declare Singapore an open city? Why cannot we raise money through the issue of industrial bonds? The Minister for Commerce and Industry has had letters referred to him from time to time by the Immigration Department from people in the neighbouring countries of South-East Asia who have plenty of money to invest in Singapore. But they will only invest their money here if we grant them permission to stay here permanently. However, the Minister for Commerce and Industry has always said that, unless these investors first invest in our local industry, he cannot issue a permanent permit to them to stay here. Sir, it is not sufficient simply to ask foreign companies to invest here. Before they invest their money here, they will first want to survey the market. Do you think they will have confidence in Singapore if this Government is half-hearted? Merger or no merger? And they know the Federation do not want a merger at the present time. It is an open secret. It is only our political leaders who try to hide this secret. They say we can achieve merger. We must be patient and keep quiet and not spoil the chances of a merger by rash actions. You just adopt Melayu as the lingua franca and then you will get a merger with the Federation.

It is time for the leaders to tell us once and for all that we can raise money; that we can make Singapore a stable and the safest city in the East. We are going to make the Federation appreciate the value of this great port of Singapore. When this happens, the time will not be too late to say to the Federation that we are ready for a merger. If the Minister for Commerce and Industry has the courage; if he believes in a merger, how and when is he going to achieve it? For without a merger, we cannot have a Pan-Malayan economic policy; and without a Pan-Malayan economic policy, his Ministry is just only an empty trunk.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Mr Speaker, Sir, before replying to the few points raised by the hon. Member for Changi, which he took almost an hour to deliver in today's debate, I will first touch upon the comments made by the hon. Member for Telok Ayer.

Sir, he took me to task for saying at the last Assembly sitting that I could not understand whether he stood up for the old colonial form of government or for the elected form of government. He said that he mentioned only facts. But as I understood him, his whole speech implied that in the old colonial system of government, Singapore had achieved a sound economy. But now, however, we have squandered almost all the money. We have brought this island to the verge of bankruptcy by having spent all the reserves. We have taxed the people higher and so on. That sort of criticism did imply that, comparing the former colonial form of government with the present Government, the former Govvernment was better. But, Sir, the point at issue is this. The old Government might have built up a lot of reserves. They might not have imposed such a high rate of taxation on the people who could be taxed. But had they supplied sufficient social services? Had there been at any time, before this Government took over, sufficient schools for the children of Singapore? Had there been sufficient medical facilities for the people of Singapore? Had there been sufficient unemployment relief schemes and other similar social amenities? Naturally if you do not provide enough social services, you do not have to spend your reserves. Neither have you to impose a higher rate of taxation.

Moreover, in the previous Government, the Chambers of Commerce were represented in the Legislative Council. The Member himself confessed that he was twice returned to the old Council as a representative of the Indian Chamber of Commerce. Well, naturally, if a Councillor was representing a strong Chamber of Commerce, he would see to it that the rich people were not taxed. The people who could afford to pay tax were not taxed heavily, and the Councillors did not care if the poorer section of the community did not enjoy the benefits of social services which they should enjoy in a civilised community.

3.00 p.m.

He then referred to certain remarks made by me. He said that a man in the position of the Minister for Commerce and Industry should be very careful of how he commented on things. Sir, he said that I supported the Luxury Tax Bill. I would say that even now if we had no need for revenue, luxury tax would still be an equitable tax, because it would be a tax that could be collected from those who can afford to buy luxury goods. However, it was not because of my support of luxury tax that the confidence of the merchants had ebbed away, because they did not know when to hold stocks of goods and what items were going to be taxed. Believe me, a merchant is not so frail as to be scared of talks of taxation. What he is scared of is an extreme left-wing government, and when he sees that, then there is no chance of making a profit. But so long as he can make a profit, he is never scared. He will take risks.

Then the hon. Member said that I had talked about import duties. I deny that, Sir. At no time have I ever talked about import duties. What I did was to announce the Government's policy on protection of industries. Protection of industries can be achieved in two ways, as I have expounded in this House, by quantitative restrictions or by the imposition of tariffs. Now, imposition of tariffs cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as import duties because import duties specifically mean duties imposed to earn revenue. And it is not the intention of this Government to use duties as a source of revenue. If we do impose tariffs, they are only for the sake of protecting some of our industries which are in a bad state at the moment.

Then the hon. Member mentioned the cigarette factory and the Bill in Select Committee concerning it. Sir, there is no Bill in the Select Committee about the cigarette factory, and by no stretch of the imagination can I understand how the hon. Member for Telok Ayer could ever think of a Bill in Select Committee which refers to the cigarette factory. In fact, the Bill has not even been introduced yet.

"The Ministry should safeguard the interests of trade," he said. Exactly, and that is what we are doing. In fact, if the Ministry had not worked as hard as it has - I will later on give a bit of recital of what the Ministry has done and is doing - we would have been much worse off than we are today. Behind the scenes, the Ministry does a lot of work - a lot of discussions and negotiations go on, which the members of the public are not aware of, because, at most times, we cannot disclose many of these negotiations. But they do happen. However, I will give later on a small list of some of the things that we have done.

Sir, one main point that the hon. Member raised - and that is that he did not criticise my Ministry, as he said previously, for obvious reasons. I, Sir, have had to exercise a great deal of restraint for obvious reasons too; but I always welcome constructive criticisms because I believe in the democratic system, and constructive and fair criticism is the essence of democracy. And I will always welcome any constructive criticisms - at my policies but not at my person. If any hon. Member thinks that my policies are wrong, he has every right to criticise them, provided the criticism is constructive and not personal.

Then, Sir, going on to the Member for Tanglin. He did quote figures of employment previously, and he also mentioned them today in passing - figures employed in industry - and he pointed out that these figures were diminishing. He asked me what progress had been made in the setting up of industries in Singapore. I will give him some figures which might possibly satisfy him.

Now, these are figures of registration and closure of industrial companies:

In 1955, 74 industrial companies were registered; 75 closed down. In 1956, 93 were registered; 54 closed down. In 1957, 140 were registered; 58 closed down. Then there is a dip. In 1958, 78 were registered, and I have not yet got the figures of those closed down. This is up to 30th November, 1958. But I admit that there has been a dip and I will deal later with the reasons for this downward trend.

Now, some of the industries registered are quite big. They include the manufacture of various items. For instance, there is a company registered with a million dollars, who are going into the manufacturing of educational and advertising films. Probably the hon. Member is aware of that company. There is another company going into the sawmill industry. There is another one with a million dollars dealing in iron foundries and mechanical engineering. A half-million dollar company - brick manufacturers. Another company - chemists and pharmacists - a million-dollar capital. Ice-cream and wafer manufacture, $300,000 capital. Manufacturing ready-mixed concrete - a million-dollar capital, and so on. I could probably go on and on. There are quite a lot of such companies now. There are no multi-million dollar companies that I can quote of, and the reason there, I come again -

Mr Lim Cher Kheng rose-

The Chairman: Point of order?

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Point of clarification, Sir.

The Chairman: If the Minister will give way?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Certainly.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: I wonder if the Minister for Commerce and Industry would be kind enough not only to inform us how many new industries have been built up, but also how many factories and industries have been shut down?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, I have given figures for 1955, 1956, and 1957 of those that were closed down. For 1958 I am afraid I have not had time to get those figures and, therefore. I cannot give the figures. It will be misleading if I just said that there were very few shut downs, because I myself have not got the figures.

Sir, the reason for the decline in industrial development is three-fold, as I explained last week in the Assembly. One is that there has been a recession and that also applies to trade - decline in trade; secondly, there has been this political uncertainty as to which political party will win the next elections and that has acted as a big restraining factor to those who wish to go into industry because they would like to know where they stand with the Government in power when the factories are going up. And the third big factor, of course, as I always have said - and I have never hidden this fact - is the Federation tariff. I said that even two years back.

Now, the hon. Member asked me about the industrial Promotion Board. The Industrial Promotion Board has approved loans to five industries out of which, I think, two have taken the loans; the other three have not yet complied with certain conditions under which loans can be made. I think one of them is probably waiting for machinery, and when it arrives, they will get the loan.

The Industrial Promotion Board has so far not sponsored any new industry, but it will be assisting the Government in the sponsoring of the cigarette factory and other ventures to which I shall come later.

There was another big industry which I had hoped we could have set up last year. In fact, I mentioned two or three at last year's Budget sittings. One was a flour mill. Sir, they have still not made up their minus, because what they want is protection from competing flour imports, and, frankly, I am not prepared to give that protection. Flour is a basic commodity which is used for good purposes and I am not prepared to give a monopoly on flour to anyone, because they could then force the price up and your loaf of bread would cost you more. That is what has been holding them back. Then there was the sugar industry which I had hoped would utilise a big capital of five or six million dollars. The sponsors tried their very best to find local capital to go into partnership, but local capital was not forthcoming, and that was the end of the venture. We had even gone as far as finding suitable land for them, giving them all the facilities, and making arrangements for leasing this land at reasonable terms. But because they could not find local capital to participate, they were not willing to come in with their full foreign capital.

The third one, Sir, is a big tuna project. That I have been doing my best to promote. I have had preliminary talks on this project two or three times. My Permanent Secretary, on his way to Seattle to attend a Colombo Plan conference, also stopped over in Tokyo and had further discussions, and recently they came here and had further discussions. That would be a $2,000,000 scheme with joint local capital. Now, the question is whether local capital can be found. If local private capital is available, that scheme may materialise, probably next year. They will have to build factories, ice plants, and a canning factory. But the whole project revolves round the availability of local private capital. If that is not forthcoming, probably that scheme may not materialise, because they are not keen to go in entirely by themselves.

Coming to the cigarette factory, Sir, the hon. Member asked me what I have done. If the hon. Member had only contained his curiosity for a day longer, he would have seen in tomorrow's Order Paper that I have given notice of a Bill to incorporate the People's Investment Corporation, and it will be introduced tomorrow morning. Therefore, I am afraid since it is going to be the subject of a debate at a later date, I will not be allowed by you, Mr Speaker, Sir, to anticipate the debate at this stage, and therefore I refrain from speaking further on that subject today.

Then, Sir, we come to the hon. Member for Changi. He belaboured the point that a Pan-Malayan economic unit is not possible, and that the Federation is not going to accept the concept of a Pan-Malayan economic unit. I, Sir, am in no position to anticipate what the Federation might do or might not do. At the moment, I agree that they have not accepted the concept of a Pan-Malayan economic unit. But that does not rule out the possibility that in a few months' time or in a year's time, they may come round to believing in the concept of a Pan-Malayan economic unit and accepting it. The fact that they have not done so need not necessarily put us in an antagonistic attitude towards Malaya, because that would not serve anybody's purpose. In fact, it would be detrimental to both. We, Sir, believe in extending to the Federation of Malaya co-operation wherever we can and telling them frankly, whenever we cannot, "We cannot do it."

The co-operation we gave them on the banning of certain Chinese textiles was on the strict understanding that that was for a temporary period, and I said so in my reply; and I repeated it twice in this Assembly two weeks' back. I am going to review the situation at the end of this month, and I do not think, therefore, that any purpose will be served by belabouring that point any further.

Sir, coming to the trade figures. Hon. Members must admit that trade has gone up and up and up and that it is only this year that trade is coming down; and I know the reasons why.

I will just quote the figures first. For 1951, which was the boom year due to the Korean War, the total trade was $7,610,000,000. If hon. Members have not read them, the trade figures are: In 1952, $5,393,000,000; 1953 $4,305,000,000; 1954 $4,505,000,000; 1955 $5,647,000,000; 1956 $5,831,000,000; 1957 $6,050,000,000.

1957 was the best trading year in Singapore's history, barring 1951, and 1956 was the second best, barring 1951. In 1958, trade has taken a dip. January/October 1958 figures show $4,676,000,000 as compared to January/October last year at $5,116,000,000. Trade has taken a dip, and the reason for it is because the effects of the recession in the United States, which were felt world-wide, are being felt in Singapore - but at a later stage. We always feel the effects of any recession, or boom, not immediately but always later, because of our peculiar economic situation.

Secondly, the dip in trade has been due to the fact that exports of tin have been under restriction by the International Tin Agreement. Tin exports are curtailed now.

However, Sir, as I have pointed out to this House on various occasions, what worries me is not that the trade figures have not gone up, but that the export figures have not kept pace. I have drawn the attention of hon. Members many times to this situation, that our deficit is increasing. In 1955 our deficit was $83,000,000; that is, imports were in excess of exports by $83,000,000. In 1956, the deficit was $366,000,000; in 1957 the deficit was $504,000,000. That means that we are consuming more and more. We are importing much more than we are exporting. In 1958, I am sure the deficit will be greater than in 1957. Now that is what I do not like frankly.

3.15 p.m.

That is what I have always been trying to show as a danger mark. I know the hon. Member for Telok Ayer has been President of the Indian Chamber of Commerce for several years. He has always belaboured the point in this House that trade must be free. There should be no restrictions on trade. Sir, with due respect to him, that is an old school of thought, a school of thought which I once described as "those who have not seen the writing on the wall". Sir, there must now be a reorientation of ideas. We know for certain that trade will go on at that level possibly, but there is no possibility of increasing trade, unless there are some emergency circumstances, such as the Korean situation in 1951. Therefore, we have to find some other economic factors which will take care of our increasing population. That is why I am trying to encourage industries.

What do you see in the newspapers every day? Take today's Straits Times, for instance: