CUSTOMS (AMENDMENT NO. 3) BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [21st January, 1959], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

10.01 a.m.

The Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy): Mr Speaker, Sir, at the suspension of the debate yesterday, I was making the point that we made approaches to the Federation to recognise a Pan-Malayan economic unit concept, but we have not been successful so far and, in the interim period before we or the next government can succeed to power, we have to take measures to protect our economy by creating a second basis for our economy.

Sir, when we consider this point, we have got to divide our approach into three distinct groups. The first is: what is the ideal that is desirable, reasonably? The ideal desirable is a political merger with the Federation. Failing that, of course, the ideal desirable is to have a Pan-Malayan economic unit concept accepted by the Federation.

The next point you have to consider is: if the ideal is unattainable within the foreseeable future, what can be done within the realms of possibilities and when can such possibilities come to fruition? For my part, Sir, I have not the slightest doubt that the day will come when, by force of circumstances, Singapore and the Federation will have to recognise that economically they cannot stand alone, each by itself. But again, I have not the slightest doubt that that day will not come quickly and that, before such a day comes, we shall have to convince the Federation that the benefit from such a concept will not only accrue to Singapore but that the benefit is also mutual - that the Federation will stand to benefit as much. It is only when we can prove this to the Federation or when the Federation can learn this because of force of circumstance or by trial and error, that we can be in a position to make them accept that concept of one economic unit. Therefore, the time factor is anybody's guess. For my part, I do not think it would be possible to have this concept accepted by them in the next year or two.

Therefore, we come to the third point and that is to accept what is facing us now and to do what we can about it. What is facing us now is that we are unnaturally divided and that we are in a position where, if politicians on both sides are not careful, we could try to destroy each other economically, and possibly go further than that. That is why I have always resisted the Member for Changi and others who have indicated that they would like to fight it out with the Federation. I would say "No". Short of fighting out an economic war with the Federation, in which I have no hesitation in saying that we will come out the worse-

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: On a point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: No, Sir, I think the hon. Member has had enough opportunity. Short of fighting it out, I think we should make all efforts to try to create some things here in Singapore which could counterbalance the difficulties that we are facing now. I know, Sir, it could be said that we promise on our Party platform that we would try to get a merger, but that should not preclude acceptance of the fact, as it stands, that merger is still a faraway dream. But again, this does not mean that we refuse to try to get a merger.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: How?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, now I come to the main points raised by the Members of the Opposition in the debate.

The first is the point over which there has been quite a lot of Press publicity and to which many Members have referred in different terms - the Member for Tanjong Pagar has put it rather emphatically - and that is this. I refer to the report as it appears in today's Straits Times:

"Referring to tax relief measures for pioneer industries approved earlier in today's session, Mr Lee said the tariff Bill was the third major measure in one day. But there was hardly time for the schemes to be brought to fruition before the government went out of office.

Mr Lee said the government was producing a spate of legislation in its last few weeks of office." The same comment was made by the Member for Telok Ayer, the Member for Tiong Bahru and various other Members. I want, Sir, to dispel the impression that this is something that has been hurriedly thought of-again in the words of the Member for Tanjong Pagar, "Too many clever things are thought out, spoken out even before they are put down on paper, quoted and then quickly retracted." That is not so. If hon. Members care to stretch their memories back to 1956, they will remember that it was in this House that I made a policy statement on 7th November, 1956, on the Government's economic policy, just as the Mayor made his statement at the beginning of his term of office and said, "We want to put up 200 standpipes." Whether the water goes into the standpipes or not is another matter, but they are there! But mine was a thought-out policy statement. What does this statement say besides assuring foreign capital about freedom of repatriation of profits, creating a suitable climate, giving immigration facilities to skilled workers, technicians, administrative personnel, and so on, giving facilities for the importation of raw materials, even from dollar areas? It goes on to:

"(e) Government intends that a survey of the colony's industrial potential and markets be carried out. Inquiries are now being made in order to obtain the services of experts to undertake this survey."

Sir, a survey of the Colony's industrial potential and markets is not a thing that can be done overnight. At the moment, we are carrying out a survey of the factories and the present industries obtaining in Singapore and that survey will show how Government can assist. Then it goes on to:

"(f) Government intends to establish an Institute of Scientific and Industrial Research for the purpose of investigating and giving advice on the technological and economic aspects of industry. Arrangements have been made to obtain the advice of an expert on the setting up of this Institute."

An expert was obtained under the Colombo Plan. The expert made his recommendations to the Government and they were that the Institute should be Pan-Malayan. Negotiations are still going on with the Federation of Malaya and therefore the scheme has not come to fruition.

"(g) Government has decided to set up an Industrial Promotion Board with a $1,000,000 revolving fund to give financial assistance to small industries."

That has been done.

"(h) Government is investigating the question of making tax concessions to industries whose expansion or establishment it is desired to encourage."

That was done yesterday.

Sir, between announcing the policy and bringing it to fruition, there must be a lapse of time if you have a reasonable democratic government. If you have a dictatorial form of government, they just use the Whip and carry things through. But with a democratic setup, you cannot have that and therefore you have got to give consideration to all the issues that are involved; the revenue issue is involved because income tax is Pan-Malayan. But we passed the Industrial Expansion (Relief from Income Tax) Bill and the Pioneer Industries (Relief from Income Tax) Bill yesterday. These two Bills and the Bill we are debating now were not hurriedly thought of.

"Consideration of the extremely difficult and complex problem of tariff protection will be deferred until the industrial potential and markets survey has been completed and studied."

Sir, on 7th November, 1956, this programme was thought out. It is not something that the Minister has cleverly thought of overnight and "rushed through", in the words of the Member for Tanjong Pagar.

An hon. Member: The Member for Telok Ayer.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: "Too many things were spoken out even before they are put on paper." It is preposterous, Sir, to suggest that. It is already the announced policy of the Government. Now, why have two years elapsed before the implementation of this announced policy? The answer lies in the fact that this is a democratic Government. This Government does not do things on the lines of the City Council in Singapore. We do things after getting proper public reaction. We do things after looking into each and every angle, because, to tamper with the economy, Sir, is not, as the Malays put it, a "main-main" business. It is not a business that you just do as the whim and fancy seizes you. And then again, the Member for Tanjong Pagar blithely goes on to say that though he does not oppose protection-

"Whilst we [his Party] recognise the changing facets of our economy and that of the surrounding territories, primarily Indonesia and the Federation, we do not think it wise or prudent to have any sudden switches in economic policy."

What he means is whether they want to have any switches at all. The switch has come, of course, in the Party policy of the People's Action Party, and that is away from the extreme Left Wing. There is an element now which is trying to woo foreign capital, because they realise that, whilst in the opposition, the extreme Left Wing was the thing to play upon; now that they see that they have a chance to become the Government, they have now got to change the way of thinking of the people and say, "Extreme Left Wingism is bad." So:

"While the Party does not oppose what the Minister has termed selected protection for industry, it recognises that the Singapore market consists of only 1½ million people to provide the necessary attraction."

That fact we have recognised too, but then where the Member for Tanjong Pagar goes wrong is when he says that while Singapore could give protection to 1.5 million people, the Federation could give it to 7 million people. In numbers, yes, but if anybody wishes to analyse reports, in purchasing power, it is not a ratio of 7 : 1.5. but it is a ratio of 2 : 1. Our consumption is one-third Pan-Malayan. The Federation's consumption is two-thirds Pan Malayan, and to all intents and purposes, for the industrialists, it is the purchasing power ratio that matters and not the population ratio that matters.

Then the hon. Member attacks me, Sir, by saying, "The Minister appears to be a man crying out for recognition." Sir, the fact that I quoted my speech at Seattle in the Colombo Plan meeting indicated to him that I was crying out for recognition. Sir, no such thing was in my mind. Why I went to the length of putting up a full case to this House was because I recognise that this House is democratically constituted. I could have spoken a formal sentence "That I beg to move", and sat down and got the Whip to pass the Bill through. It could have been done, as far as the Government side was concerned, with a speech lasting three minutes. Let the Opposition take two hours if they wish to. But, Sir, we recognise that this House is democratically constituted and we would not fetter the democratic expression of opinion. Therefore I went to great lengths to put down on record why Government was doing these things.

The other fact is that in law you cannot express intentions. You only express facts, but the intentions are also important for the future, because the facts as put in the law can be malad-ministered by a future government. It is then that the intentions which are on record can be brought out and the battle can be fought. That is why I went to these lengths. It is not to get recognition that I was a clever man trying to put something across the House.

Then the Member for Tanjong Pagar said of me, "The reason why nobody paid any attention to him was that they knew what he said did not count." That indicates the ego in the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar. Only what he says counts and what other people say does not count.

It is, Sir, the bad fortune of Singapore that there are politicians who are ready to ignore the realities of the economic situation for their own political ends. The Member for Tanjong Pagar criticised the Government when he said that after thinking out clever things they were quickly retracted. It is no such thing, Sir. The policy was announced on 13th August last and the Government intends to carry out that policy as announced by me. If the law in its drafting can be brought to a state where that policy could be expressed clearly, this Government is not going to stand in the way of such clear expression in the law. There is no question of retraction or withdrawal of policy. The Bill is going through. If it is a matter of quibbling over words in the law, if the law can be more clearly defined, I am not going to stand in the way so long as the policy that we want can be carried out.

Then, Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar talked of managerial and technical skills. Sir, we have recognised technical skill. We have the Polytechnic running now to provide technical skill. It is not something that is now freshly thought out, but the curious thing, Sir, is this, and this is found in the People's Action Party's fourth Anniversary Celebrations Souvenir, "Our Economic Future" by Dr Goh Keng Swee:

"In order to do this [that is, to industrialise] we must train a cadre of managerial and technical personnel to the highest standard of professional skill as well as in Socialist principles."

First, the Party cannot get away from cadres. We had the cadres that started the fires in 1955 and 1956. Now the Party is going to have another set of cadres to quell the fires which have frightened capital away. Another set of cadres to go down on their knees to foreign capital and say, "No, we are good boys." Then you are going to have a third set of cadres to train them in managerial and technical skills as well as in Socialist principles. Yet here they say that Socialist principles cannot be applied to Singapore. It is there also. I do not know, Sir, whether this going around in various cadres is going to help Singapore, but it evidently shows the confused way of thinking of the Party. Sir, the advanced technical and managerial skills are not the final answer, as is suggested by the Member for Tanjong Pagar. The final answer, Sir, if you want to be competitive, is automation. Even with a hundred trained technical men, if you have hand production, you cannot be competitive. A high degree of mechanisation is the answer and that means that Singapore has to look out not for five industries employing fifty persons each, but a hundred industries employing five persons each. That is the ultimate answer. Just having the technical knowledge is not the ultimate answer. What is happening in Europe? They have all the technical skill, and yet they are highly mechanized. Sir, I now leave the Member for Tanjong Pagar. I had hoped that he would be here in the House.

We go on to the Member for Tiong Bahru. When I quoted all those restrictions, he asked why I did not do anything to abolish those restrictions. If he had gone into the constitutional aspects of Singapore, he would have noticed that defence under the new Constitution still remains in the hands of the British Government. There are certain aspects of trade which are related to defence and, frankly, I think the position will be forced in the next Constitution. If there is an unreasonable government, they will force the position to an issue where either Britain will have to suspend the Constitution to see that its economic obligations, as far as Communist countries are concerned, are not flouted, or something new will have to come out. But that is a matter that this Government cannot touch.

Then he asked me whether tariffs would apply to goods coming from the Federation. The answer is that they would. Just as tariffs apply to Singapore goods going to the Federation, they would apply to goods coming from the Federation.

Then a lot of talk took place about Hongkong. "Hongkong has 3,300 factories and cheap production. Why cannot the Singapore Government do the same for Singapore?" Now, Sir, it is only little children not versed in the situation obtaining in the world, who do not understand the difference between Hongkong and Singapore.

Mr Speaker: Order. If the expression "little children" is meant to refer to honourable Members of the Assembly, then I think that expression is unparliamentary and I ask the Minister to withdraw it.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, I thought I was paying a compliment as far as age is concerned! Ladies will be flattered if we refer to them as-

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not want any debate on my ruling. I ask the Minister to withdraw the expression.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: I withdraw it, Sir, I defer to your ruling.

When China was taken over by the Communist Government, there was a flight of capital and people, who had industrial experience, to Hongkong. So what you had was an accumulation in Hongkong around 1950 of technical skill and knowhow, and idle capital lying there. Then on top of that came the flight of refugees. And so you have the third factor, and that is cheap refugee labour available by the thousands. Now a combination of these three factors gave Hongkong a windfall. The same conditions do not obtain here.

Then again, Sir - and this is in reply not only to the Member for Tiong Bahru but also to the Member for Telok Ayer who said that the Government had spent most of the reserves, and taxation had gone up - this Government is an elected Socialist Government. This Government is pledged to the electorate to do things in their interests, to bring about social legislation. If you compare the number of social legislative measures that this Government has brought about with the number during the last 140 years of the Colony - you will find that ours outnumber them all: the Clerks Employment Bill, the Factories Bill, the Shop Assistants Employment Bill and so many others. This Government has put up cheap public housing by the thousands. In fact, the housing that has been put up during the three years of the life of this Government exceeds the housing put up by the S.I.T. during all its previous ten years. About half the rents are subsidised. This Government has built schools by the hundreds. I remember, Sir, offhand, in 1956, we built 23 schools against 7 that were built in the previous years of 1954 or 1955. The amount given to Chinese education, I believe - if I am not wrong - rose from $3 million to $13 million. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot save money, keep your taxation down and yet provide all these services. They do not come out of the air. But if the hon. Member wants to have the same conditions as those obtaining in Hongkong, where human beings live a sub-human life, let him put it up publicly on his platform when he stands for election and then see. Let the people decide whether they want to live like animals in hovels and in shacks, with their children running about half-naked in the streets, playing in the ditches, with no hope of getting education; and whether they want to work for a sub-standard wage of a couple of Hongkong dollars, toiling and striving with no holidays, no freedom and no leisure, and the children dying if they catch a sickness, because there are not enough medical facilities. Let the people decide whether they want all this, or whether they want what is obtaining in Singapore, where people sometimes are spoilt to the extent that if a bus stop is 200 yards away they say they want the bus stop removed nearer to their houses. That again is the other extreme.

The Member for Tiong Bahru also alleged that Singapore earns more dollars than any other country. I have refuted that last month and I would ask him to look up the Hansard. It is dollars arising from the Federation and other countries that we earn and not our own dollars.

The other big point which arose was referred to, I think, by the Member for Tiong Bahru, the Member for Tanjong Pagar and by some other Members. "Industries established in Singapore will produce goods at a higher cost than industries established in Europe and other places." The Member for Telok Ayer used the words "penalising the whole population to buy at a higher price". That is not true, Sir. He must recognise the fact that we are buying mostly European goods at the moment, and that labour in Europe is much more expensive than labour here, even though Singapore's labour may be expensive compared with Hongkong, China, Japan and India. But European and American labour is much more expensive. A country like England has very little raw materials of its own. It imports all the raw materials just as we will have to do. There is no question that we can produce cheaper goods than Europe. If we are as mechanised as they are, and if our methods of production are as streamlined as theirs are, then we can probably enter the export market. Sir, these Members seem to have taken it for granted that Singapore cannot produce anything cheap, and yet if you take any consumer goods, say the baby's Gripe Water, for instance, you pay $1.10 for a bottle; the stuff that goes into the bottle could probably be bought in any condiment shop for ten cents, and you distil it and so on. During the Japanese Occupation, I remember one person who made gripe water which was almost similar to the imported brand and he sold it at forty or fifty cents a bottle. Now, what are you paying $1.10 a bottle for? It is for the brand, because the people of Singapore have been accustomed to use the brand for 140 years. They go for the brand and they pay the price for the brand - not for the stuff that goes into the bottle. I do not say that the stuff is bad. I say that the stuff is excellent, but it does not mean that we cannot produce the same excellent stuff if we wish to at a cheaper cost? What are you paying for when you buy foreign goods? You are paying for foreign labour. You are not helping your own men to gain employment. You are paying for foreign production. You are paying for foreign economy.

Col. Lyle's report is enlightening, Sir. It says at page 8:

"In short, until economic union is achieved a tyre factory is not a good risk and the people of Malaya for some time will probably continue to sell rubber at 90 cents per pound and buy back tyres at $3.60 per pound, the difference going abroad to support the labour of foreign countries."

Sir, we have been blinded by a lot of propaganda in the past - propaganda that colonialism is good; foreign goods are better than ours; we are an inferior people, and therefore we cannot produce; today China is a producing country, and it can produce. I do not say it out of spite, but it is a fact. Japan too has in the past shown that it can produce as well, and I do not see why we cannot.

"In fact, three-quarters of everything a Singaporean owns and three-quarters of all he consumes is imported and thereby three-quarters of his income has gone in the past and is going in the present to support labour and capital in foreign countries."

That statement appears at page 15 of Col. Lyle's Report.

Sir, there are people like the Member for Telok Ayer - and other titled gentry, who look for more titles - who in the past would not even murmur when the Government put an embargo on 200 items of trade with certain countries, but would cry their loudest if an elected government tried to help local people to set up some industries so as to increase production, so that our imports could be cut down. They are the type of' people who pose as champions of the people.

"A 140-year policy", says the Member for Telok Ayer, "is to be changed in a rush". It is not in a rush. Two years ago I said that the question would be considered. It cannot be in a rush, and that is why the delay has occurred, and that is why this Bill has come at such a late stage.

The Member for Telok Ayer seems to endorse the 140-year policy - a colonial policy. He seems to live in the colonial era still. Then he says that we will kill all the entrepot trade and people will become unemployed. Sir, a man can cry "Fire", or "Tiger", or "Wolf" and so on, but what are the facts? I have explained the facts and I hope the people will understand that it is not just because a man shouts that the Government will kill trade, that the entrepot trade will go, that everything will be finished, that they will all become unemployed, all this will take place. The fact is that the Government wants to put people into employment, not to create unemployment. Therefore, the administration of this law will only be where it is advantageous to Singapore. I have repeated that hundreds of times until I am blue in the face.

Then the Member say, "Taxes have gone up. Who foots the bill? The taxpayers; the voters." It is not the voters. The voters have got the benefit of cheap education and hospitals. The bill is footed by the man who makes a profit. This is not an anti-social measure - I can understand the Member for Telok Ayer objecting to this measure. He has used words like "suicidal", "throttle", "ruin", "scrap", "madness" - possibly hoping that the newspapers would have big headlines for these words. Unfortunately for him, Sir, they have not. But these are the common tactics of politicians to make propaganda capital. I do not blame him for that, Sir, nor would I blame the Member for Tanjong Pagar. I do not blame the P.A.P. for having somersaulted in their policies.

And then the Member for Telok Ayer says I gave flimsy excuses for other restrictions which were no excuse for passing this Bill. Sir, I did not give flimsy excuses that because of the other restrictions, we are putting, in this Bill, more restrictions. No. What I gave was to justify that there are people who would not shout when certain things were done by the colonial government, but who would shout their loudest if an elected government tried to do things that are good for the people. Sir, though he says that the next government has to plan, I say that the present Government must govern till the last day of its life, and that government is continuous and cannot pause. Economic conditions do not wait for the changes of government or for party politicians to manoeuvre.

Then he says, "Corruption might creep in. So why have a law that might give way to corruption?" Sir, there are hundreds of laws that we have in which the chance for corruption exists, and it is public knowledge that corruption exists to a certain extent in many places. It is a matter of pinpointing it. The fact that corruption exists is not a reason for not passing laws. If that were so, then I think all our laws should be scrapped.

Then, Sir, the big attack he makes is that certain Ministers in this Government have changed parties and therefore have no mandate. Sir, he himself first stood as an Independent, then he joined the Liberal-Socialists Party, and therefore his mandate, by the same reasoning, ceases.

The Member for Changi posed two questions. I have answered one question as to whether an approach has been made to the Federation Government, and the second question was, "Has the Government accepted Col. Lyle's Report?" No, because Col. Lyle's Report came out recently and the Government was anxious that since it has so much that the public should understand, it should be tabled and that consideration could be given later. It is being considered, but it was not held back, because Government might take time to consider it. It is of the utmost importance that the economic position of today be made known to the public and that is why it was tabled and published.

Mr Tan Siak Kew said I was trying to justify this move by saying that it is the Labour Front's platform. It is not a question of my trying to justify the move, Sir. What I was trying was to answer the criticism that I have no mandate. It is not justifying because it was a Labour Front platform, but rather saying that I have a mandate. It was on my platform when I stood for the election. And so was it on all the Labour Fronters' who stood for the elections. Coming to Mr Tan Siak Kew, he referred to cigarettes as an example - and what an unfounded criticism he made on cigarettes! First, he said that a lot of people would lose trade if cigarettes were taken over by government factories. There is no intention of establishing government factories unless foreign interests do not play ball with us. I said so - 49 per cent foreign capital will be invited to participate. 49 per cent local private capital, not government capital, and 2 per cent only government capital. But if foreign interests do not play ball, then I would say 51 per cent will be government capital. So his criticism is wrong. Secondly, he said a lot of persons would become unemployed because there are a lot of people dealing in cigarettes. Sir, the import of cigarettes is the monopoly of three or four firms here at the moment. The biggest import of cigarettes is made by one firm and that is seen by the answer the Hon. the Acting Financial Secretary supplied to this House yesterday. Therefore, it will be a matter of taking away the business of one importing firm and giving it to one manufacturing firm. It is common sense that when you manufacture, you employ more people than when you import. The distribution machinery required for local manufacture will still remain the same as that for the distribution of imported cigarettes - the same number of wholesalers (I do not say the same people, in order to distinguish them) and the same number of retailers will be required for the distribution of locally manufactured cigarettes if the imports are stopped. So the retailers will not be harmed, the wholesalers will not be harmed, and the number engaged in the retail or wholesale cigarettes trade will not be affected. The only harm would fall on the importing monopoly. Against that would be the benefit of employment to the local people, the profits remaining in local hands or that percentage of the profits which is local capital, or related to the local capital. remaining in local hands, and cutting down on imports to a certain extent - not cutting down entirely, because tobacco will have to be imported from the same countries, from America and from Rhodesia, it will be the same quality of cigarettes, and cigarettes are not a complicated thing to manufacture; I have studied the process. Today, Thailand is producing exact replicas of well-known brands and they have been accepted. It is a Thai Government monopoly there. The profit margin is very big in cigarettes and therefore that profit, or the major part of it, will remain here. We will have to import the tobacco and therefore pay for it, but then we do not pay for the labour; we do not pay for the extra freight charges on cigarettes which is more than what you pay for the compressed bales of tobacco. And so how unfounded this criticism could be, Sir - this is a case in point.

Mr William Tan (Tiong Bahru): It will reduce revenue.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: It will not reduce revenue, Sir, I have said, "You replace your import revenue by putting an excise revenue duty in the same proportion." And you do not pay higher for your cigarettes; you sell it at the same price. I have studied the case - a medium type straight Virginia cigarettes costs about a cent per stick; today it is being sold wholesale to the wholesalers at 1.6 cents - the profit factor is half a cent - and duty is added, after which it reaches the public. If you take the duty element away, you will find that the profit factor will still be the same whether you manufacture it here or overseas.

An hon. Member: Time will tell.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: You do not lose! The same duty element, instead of being put on the import of cigarettes, will be applied to the manufacture of cigarettes as an excise. And therefore your revenue is the same. There is not the slightest question of loss of revenue. That is again another piece of propaganda that is being publicised by affected foreign interests. Of course, I can understand the desire of certain political parties to fall head over heels at the feet of foreign interests. They would not care to look as to which foreign interest is advantageous to us and which is not. I differentiate - what is advantageous, I keep; what is not advantageous, I say that we must try and push ourselves into it.

Mr William Tan: Suicide!

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: And that is the point about politics. God help the people of Singapore! I think, Sir, I have answered the Opposition in sufficient detail. I am sorry the Member for Tanjong Pagar was not here earliest, but I am not going to repeat it; he can look up the Hansard.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): Read it back on a future occasion!

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, yesterday in replying to the Member for Tanjong Pagar on one of his criticisms - I forgot what it was. But now that he is here, I might as well take the opportunity of answering him. He said that I react very quickly to criticism. His definition of a politician should be a cold, hard, calculating, and scheming person. Sir, I think we can be cold, hard, calculating and scheming [Interruption]-

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: -but we do not calculate and do not scheme where the rice bowl of the people is concerned. That is more important than filling seats and becoming Ministers. I consider that is more important, and that the rice bowl of the people should not be placed in jeopardy because certain politicians are scheming to get into power.

Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker: The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." As many as are of the opinion say, "Aye".

Some hon. Members: Aye.

Mr Speaker: To the contrary, say "No".

Mr William Tan: No.

Mr Speaker: I think the Ayes have it? The Ayes have it.

Mr William Tan: Division, Sir!

Mr Speaker: I have declared the result of the voting. The Ayes have it.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill-[Mr J. M. Jumabhoy].

Bill considered in Committee.

10.44 a.m.

Clause 1-

The Chairman: There is a note,

In page 1, line 5, (1) to leave out "No. 3"; (2) to leave out "1958" and insert "1959".

That will be done.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2-

10.45 a.m.

The Chairman: Hon. Members will have noticed in the Supplementary Order Paper that there are two amendments which are to a certain extent allied. One is in the name of the Minister:

In page 1, line 11, to leave out "all" and insert "any".

The other is in the name of the Member for Farrer Park, which inter alia proposes to leave out "all goods" and insert the words* as shown in the Supplementary Order Paper. This will bring into play paragraph 4 (d) of Standing Order 28. Hon. Members will find that at page 13 of the Standing Orders. I will read the Standing Order to refresh the minds of hon. Members. It reads:

• The words are as follows-

"those goods recommended by a Tariff Board to be constituted by the Minister under the chairmanship of an economic expert and which shall consist of equal number of members representing the local manufacturers, entrepot traders and consumers."

"If the Speaker or Chairman, before putting a question to leave out certain words, is informed that a Member wishes to move an amendment to leave out part only of these words and if he is of opinion that the proposed amendment of which he is so informed is substantially a new amendment, he shall, if possible, put the question to leave out only so much of the original amendment as is unaffected by the second amendment; but if that question is agreed to, the whole of the words proposed in the original amendment to be left out shall be deemed to have been ordered to be left out." I shall therefore call the amendment in the name of the Member for Farrer Park first, and then propose at the appropriate time that the word "goods" proposed to be left out, be left out. If that is agreed, then in the words of the Standing Order, "the whole of the words" - that is both words, "all goods" - "shall be deemed to have been ordered to be left out", and the question on the words to be inserted will be proceeded with. If the hon. Member's proposal fails, then the Minister's amendment will be proceeded with. I therefore call upon the hon. Member for Farrer Park to move his amendment.

Mr A. R. Lazarous (Farrer Park): Sir, to fit in with my amendment the Hon. Minister's amendment will read:

'by deleting from the definition of "dutiable goods" appearing therein the words "intoxicating liquors, tobacco or petroleum" and substituting therefor the words "any goods" instead of "all goods"'.

Sir, based on that amendment, I will move my amendment,

In page 1, line 11, to leave out '"any goods"' and insert-

'"those goods recommended by a Tariff Board to be constituted by the Minister under the chairmanship of an economic expert and which shall consist of equal number of members representing the local manufacturers, entrepot traders and consumers" '.

The Chairman: Order. The Minister's amendment has not as yet been put to the House, and therefore has not as yet been carried. So the hon. Member's amendment is the amendment as shown in the Supplementary Order Paper, that is, to leave out "all goods" and insert the words as shown.

Mr Lazarous: Sir, my amendment to this Bill is, in fact, in sympathy with the aims now declared by this Bill. But it seeks to ensure that protection tariff is enforced without undue hardship to the consumers and without great damage to the entrepot trade. If protection is to be granted to any local industry, that claim must come from the industry itself. Secondly, that claim must be thoroughly investigated in the interests of the consumers, the entrepot traders and the local manufacturers. Sir, the Minister has almost agreed in principle to the need for such a body and has created a Protection Advisory Committee. But the Committee is purely a departmental committee and it is not embodied in any permanent laws of the Island. I am referring, Sir, to this Committee. This is an Advisory Committee to protect local manufacturing industries. Paragraph 2:

"To investigate individual applications by manufacturers and potential manufacturers in Singapore for protection and to advise the Minister for Commerce and industry on the necessity for protection and the method of protection whether by tariff or quantitative restrictions and extensive protective measures having due regard to-

(a) the principles of the Industrial Development policy of the Government as set out from time to time;

(b) the need to ensure the minimum dislocation and damage to entrepot trade; and

(c) the economic benefits to Singapore acquiring from the industry thus protected, outweighing any possible loss to the entrepot trade."

Sir, as I said, the Hon. Minister has already accepted the principle, and has formed the Advisory Committee to carry out its work. But this Committee is purely a departmental committee. My amendment is more or less the same as the Minister's except that it would give this body a legal status. In the Advisory Committee, Sir, there is no representation of the consumers' interests. In imposing duties of any kind, we, the elected representatives of the public, must ensure that the interests of the consumers, particularly the poorer class of consumers, must be safeguarded, not destroyed. My view is this - it may be a difficult question - to represent the consumers, you can call the representatives of various unions and co-operative societies to represent the consumers; these people would be able to represent the consumers' interests.

The setting up of a Tariff Board in Singapore would facilitate the setting up later of a Joint Tariff Board of Singapore and the Federation. We may not be very hopeful at present of a political union with the Federation of Malaya, and we are even less hopeful of a concurrency of an economic unit with them; but a Joint Tariff Board is a proposition which may attract the Federation of Malaya because of its limited aims, and the advantages that this could have in a Pan-Malayan market for industries, while retaining their autonomy in all other respects. If we are to hope at least for a common tariff policy of Singapore and the Federation, it will be in my opinion a sound idea to begin with one Tariff Board in Singapore.

Sir, I beg to move.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, I rise to oppose this amendment. It is true that I have voluntarily implemented the system of having a Tariff Protection Committee. I have named a panel of persons from whom I will draw the Committee on each particular case. I have fixed the terms of reference as indicated by the Member for Farrer Park -(a), (b) and (c) - which he has read out just now. It is also true that I have stated publicly that this Committee will gazette all the cases that they are going to consider and that representations will be called for from all sides - something on the lines that a Select Committee of the Assembly works on. But the fundamental difference, Sir, between the machinery I have set up and what is proposed by the Member for Farrer Park is this: that he wants to make the Government a mere puppet. The original Bill says the Governor in Council can levy duty on any goods. My new amendment, of course, would tie it down further. This clause in the definition would have the effect of the Governor in Council having tied themselves to levying duty only on goods that are recommended by the Tariff Board, which means that the Government becomes a mere puppet.

Sir, on an issue of this sort, it is the Government that is responsible to the people. It is inherent in the democratic system that Government's powers cannot be delegated to a non-elected Board, a Board which is subsidiary because it is nominated by the Government or by the Minister. Therefore it is the Government that has to take the credit or shoulder the blame for any duties that it imposes. And that fundamental principle of the democratic system cannot be ignored. This amendment would seek to change that principle by giving the powers to a Tariff Board.

Secondly, Sir, my new amendment as proposed by me which will come up later on seeks to restrict the powers of the Governor in Council to levying duties only for protective purposes and taking into consideration the interests of the entrepot trade, but only on manufactured goods; and even in manufactured goods not on textiles. This amendment could give the Tariff Board the power to recommend the levying of duties on any goods, which means that the Tariff Board could recommend to the Governor to impose a duty on copra or raw rubber coming from Indonesia. The Governor in Council then has no power to say "No", because those goods are recommended by the Tariff Board. That is the fundamental difference. My Committee is an advisory one. But this would be one that supersedes the Governor in Council, and that cannot be accepted.

11.00 a.m.

Mr R. Jumabhoy (Telok Ayer): Mr Speaker, Sir, it was not my intention to speak on this subject because the whole show, as I described it yesterday, is a bad one. I am sure the incoming Government will scrap what we are passing today.

However, in any country where duties are levied, there is a Tariff Board. The members of this Board are selected from various interested organisations so that their interests are protected, and the affairs are administered by responsible persons. Of course, the final choice is with the Government whether to accept or reject their recommendations. That would be a wise move, if at all any Committee is appointed. It would not restrict the Government or over-ride the Committee or Tariff Board, or whatever you call it. But whatever that may be named, the representatives should be selected from those who have an interest in this matter, and also those who have opposing interests, so that both sides could give their views and then recommendations could be made to the Minister or to the Government. I have no strong views on this, but the idea underlying this suggestion is quite good, because this body will be representing the manufacturers, entrepot traders and consumers.

It is not correct to say that the Tariff Board will recommend items on which duties will be levied, like textiles or produce. It has been definitely said that they will not, and they cannot interfere in that. This aspect of the argument on the part of the Minister is quite wrong, but, at the same time, I do insist not only on this Government but any other Government committee to ensure that the responsible bodies should nominate persons representing particular interests, and that the final authority lies with the Minister or the Government.

Mr Lazarous: Sir, the Minister has just said that in his next amendment he is going to change "all" goods to "any" goods. But "any goods" could be "all goods". If you want to tax "all goods", it is possible to tax "any goods", and "any goods" could be "all goods". So that the amendment from "all goods" to "any goods" is really not very encouraging. My amendment reads "those goods recommended by a Tariff Board to be constituted by the Minister. . .". I have never suggested that the Government should be the puppet of this body. It should be constituted by the Minister, and if the recommendation of the Tariff Board is against the interest of the Minister or the Government, the Minister or the Government need not accept it. Moreover, this Advisory Committee as set up by the Minister could be dismissed at any time. It is not represented by any particular interest. The Minister simply calls for certain traders and forms a Committee. That Committee is obligatory to the Minister, and is not responsible to any particular interest.

I am quoting one paragraph at page 27 of Col. Lyle's Report. There are two recommendations given regarding this Tariff Board. The first one is:

"I would suggest that you establish the Legislative framework for your Anti-Dumping Regulations at the earliest possible date. These, of course, are complementary and an integral part of any protection granted to industry. One has little effect without the other so, if you will soon be in a position to grant protection to certain industries, it is imperative that the appropriate Anti-Dumping Regulations can be applied simultaneously."

Of course, the Minister for Commerce and Industry has very faithfully followed this particular recommendation. He has applied some restrictions on Chinese textiles.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: They have been lifted.

Mr Lazarous: The second one is:

"I would suggest that you include four or five representatives from industry on the roster of your Protection Advisory Committee. I have called on at least ten firms interested in securing Protection and without exception they have made this suggestion forcefully. They submit that the present roster, for business reasons, is import minded and that a balancing industrial point of view on the Committee is a necessity if the applications are to receive fair consideration."

This makes my point clearer. Of the two recommendations, the Minister has accepted one. The second recommendation in the Report particularly says that the roster - that is the Committee - which he has formed is import minded. That shows that they have only one interest. The Hon. Minister just calls for certain importers and forms a panel, and he says that they are the Advisory Committee, and they are going to decide the fate of Singapore. We do not know whether they represent the consumers' interests, the local industrialists or the entrepot traders. What I suggest is that if you have a panel, that panel should at least be represented by various sections of the people. That would be satisfactory. But your Advisory Committee is only a Committee composed of certain importers, and they would never work in the interests of other people.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Dealing with the Member for Telok Ayer again, Sir, he is in love with the incoming Government. I hope we will be returned, and he can be in love with us then! The final choice, he says, is with the Government. But according to this amendment, it is not, and that is what I have been trying to point out. Sir, the Member for Farrer Park's amendment came in before mine did. Therefore, he intended section 11 - clause 3 of the original amending Bill - to stand. That would have made section 11 read as follows:

"There shall be charged, levied and paid such duties in the Colony as may be prescribed from time to time by the Governor in Council . . . on goods...".

Something like that. This means that the Governor in Council would have the power to prescribe and to levy duties on any goods. The effect of the original amending Bill would have been that.

Now under the definition of "goods", the hon. Member for Farrer Park seeks to define it in such a way that those goods shall be only those that are recommended, and therefore if the Governor in Council wants to impose duties on tobacco, petroleum or liquor, he cannot do so without a recommendation from the Tariff Board. Now that is the position - it is a complete somersault to what we have now.

Secondly, the Member for Telok Ayer said the Tariff Board will recommend. That is exactly what I have proposed - that the Tariff Advisory Committee will recommend to the Minister.

The allegation which the Member for Farrer Park made just now is that the Committee does not represent the interests as set out here. I see a danger there. I would love to get on the Tariff Advisory Board in this fashion. You get three Chambers of Commerce inevidently that is what the Member for Telok Ayer has in mind, that they should represent some groups like the Chambers of Commerce and so on. We get the three Chambers of Commerce; we get three manufacturers, and we get three consumers. I do not know whom we can find from the consumers. There is no representative body, and it is anybody's guess who is a consumer and who is not. The same claim could be put up by the Chambers of Commerce. Now, what will happen? You will get a tug-of-war between the importing interests (three representatives) and the manufacturing interests (three representatives) with the consumers sitting on the fence to be lobbied about.

Then you will see that unless it is recommended by the Tariff Board, the Governor in Council will impose no duty. He can, of course, refuse because the law does not say "he shall" but "he may". But the chances are that if the Governor in Council wants to impose duties on any goods, he has to refer to the Tariff Advisory Board. Now the Tariff Advisory Board knows full well that the Minister has it in mind to impose such duties, and therefore he will not refuse if they recommend. So they consider the case and they recommend. As soon as the recommendation goes through - it will take probably a week or two before the Governor in Council meets and puts it through-then all the rich people, who sit on the Tariff Board and who know that duties are coming, would love to hoard those goods and become millionaires overnight. I would like to get on to such a Committee if I am not a Minister! This House should see the danger of such a position-

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): On a point of information, Sir, Is it proper for the Minister so frankly to reveal his baser instincts in this House?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: I am not revealing my baser instincts, Sir, I am just expressing to the House how businessmen would feel when there are opportunities for making money like that. It is, therefore, dangerous to have a Board which has interested parties. The ideal would be to have persons who are independent in their judgment. Therefore, they should not be drawn from any representative body but from people who are able to balance the good and the bad - the importing interests and manufacturing interests - and to come to conclusions which are most beneficial to the economy of Singapore, as set down in the terms of reference. Their deliberations should be independent of affiliation to any side - the importing or the manufacturing side. That is what I have set up and I have given the terms of reference. I have picked out individuals who I consider have integrity and who will be capable of exercising their judgment impartially.

I was bullied by the Manufacturers' Association: "most of these people are merchants, they are not manufacturers." I said to them, "I am not going to put you manufacturers in, because you are the people who would apply. I cannot make you judge your own cases." I have not chosen them as importers, but I have chosen them as persons who I think have integrity and who will consider the cases impartially.

Now, I have indicated to the hon. Sir Ewen Fergusson what I have done and set out in my statement. If that can be incorporated into the law, I have no objection to accepting such an amendment. But this is something that goes beyond that and therefore I cannot accept it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, I move,

In page 1, line 11, to leave out "all" and insert "any".

This is a drafting amendment, Sir, in order to do away with the impression created by the word "all". In fact, the definition reads: "dutiable goods" means "all goods" in the old one or "any goods" now, as I have proposed, which are subject to the levy of a duty. Therefore, the definition is one that is referred to later in the Bill where the context requires the definition to be applied. For instance; a man with dutiable goods without authority or without having paid duty will be fined, and so on and so forth. The definition is not one that gives the Government power to exercise any duty imposing functions. But in order to remove the misunderstanding, I thought it would be better if the word "any" were inserted, and therefore I made this amendment.

11.15 a.m.

Sir Ewen Fergusson (Nominated): Sir, the explanatory statement giving the objects and reasons says that "this Bill amends the Customs Ordinance to extend, the power to impose duties to cover all goods". Would it be fair to say, if the word "any" had occurred to the Minister before, that it would now read "to extend the power to impose duties to cover any goods" and whether the change makes any real difference.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, the explanatory statement is always in the Bill that is tabled for First Reading as the Bill stands then. The explanatory statement does not become part of the law when the Bill has had its Third Reading, and therefore it is to be ignored.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I was intrigued to hear the Minister say just now that he thought it would be better to change the word "all' to "any". Sir, when I was a student, I was told that one of the most important functions of a legislature is to legislate accurately and precisely, and there are very highly paid and highly skilled persons who make it their lifetime task to decide whether the word "all" or the word "any" should be put in each particular context. May I ask the Minister whether it was, as he stated, his own thought that it was better, or had he taken advice on that thought?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, the word "all" is as suitable as the word "any". I had no objection to the drafting of the original amendment when it read "all", because it was a perfectly suitable word, and there could be no misunderstanding on that. But because of the impression that was created in certain Chinese papers when they read the word "all", I suggested to the Attorney-General whether it would not be better if we could put some other word. I asked what about "any"? And he said that "any" was as good as "all" in this context.

Mr Lazarous: Sir, I am still doubtful. Let us suppose there are twenty items of goods. The Hon. Minister comes in with this Ordinance and says "all goods". Even if he has amended it to read "any goods", these twenty items could be taxed. Am I right in assuming that "any goods" could also mean "all goods"?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Would the Attorney-General care to express his opinion on this technical matter?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: I am sure the Attorney-General would like to take this opportunity to express his opinion. I would like to take this opportunity to dispel this wrong impression. I think the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar understands full well, as a lawyer, that this clause is one relating to the definition in this Bill, unless the context otherwise requires.

The original expression "dutiable goods" means intoxicating liquors, tobacco or petroleum on which duty has not been paid. But my first amendment in the amending Bill was that "dutiable goods" means all goods on which duty has not been paid. It does not mean that because it is there in the definition that the Governor in Council can impose duties. It means that where the context requires, the definition will be used. It means, in short, that "dutiable goods" shall mean any goods on which duty has not been paid, and therefore, if you come to a clause later on which says that "any person having in his possession dutiable goods without having paid duty shall be liable to prosecution", then the word "dutiable goods" could apply to any goods on which duty has been imposed under section 11 of the Ordinance. It is just a matter of definition. I do not see the difficulty there.

Sir Ewen Fergusson: Just to make it clear, Sir, that the definition, by leaving out "dutiable goods", which is restricted to intoxicating liquors, tobacco and petroleum and now covers all goods or any goods, which we agree seems to be exactly the same thing - does it mean that section 11 is the only operative section in the Customs Ordinance and that this definition does not mean that the law will now be that the administration can impose duty on all goods because of that definition?

The Attorney-General (Mr E. P. Shanks): No, Sir, It does not. Sir Ewen Fergusson is right in thinking that the important, operative, section will still remain section 11.

On this curious business between "all" and "any", although I personally was not consulted, I have thought about it, and in my opinion "any" is a much better word to use in this particular context. I cannot take credit for the making of the change, because I was not myself involved.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, I move,

In page 1, to leave out lines 12 to 16.

This, Sir, is now not necessary. In the original amending Bill this was put in because section 11 was going to be amended by the inclusion of the word "goods", which would have given the Governor in Council the power to levy duty on any goods - this, of course, should be read in conjunction with the past definition on which we have been debating. Sir, section 11 is going to be more defined as to the type of goods on which the Governor in Council can impose duty, that is, manufactured goods needing protection and so on, and not textiles. I think the definition of "goods" is not necessary any more, and therefore it is deleted.

Amendment agreed to.

The Chairman: There are consequential amendments*. They will be made as shown on the Supplementary Order Paper.

• The consequential amendments are as follows:

(1) In page 1, line 8, to leave out "(a) ";

(2) In page 1, line 11, to leave out "; and" and insert a full-stop.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3-

The Chairman: There is in page 32 of the Supplementary Order Paper a notice of an amendment in the name of the Member for Farrer Park. I take it that he is not moving? Perhaps the Member for Farrer Park will indicate? The mind of the Member for Farrer Park is far away! Will the Member for Farrer Park indicate whether he is moving his amendment to clause 3?

[In page 2, line 6, to leave out '"goods"' and insert '"dutiable goods" '.]

Mr Lazarous: No, Sir.

The Chairman: His amendment is then taken out of the Supplementary Order Paper.

Question proposed, "That clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, I propose to negative the inclusion of the present clause 3. As hon. Members will have seen in the Notices of Amendments, I propose, when the clause is negatived, to insert a new clause to supersede the present one. The present clause, as it stands, gives the Governor in Council the power to impose a duty on anything he likes; but, in accordance with the intention declared in my statement, and because of the fear expressed by the trade that there might be a misuse of the powers by the Governor in Council, I am now going to substitute the present clause by a new clause which gives the Governor in Council more clearly defined powers.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause 3 accordingly disagreed to.

New clause 3- 'Amendment of 3. Section 11 of the Customs Ordinance is hereby amended-section 11 (a) by deleting subsections (2) to (5) inclusive thereof and substituting therefor the following: - "(2) Where it appears to the Governor in Council that, having regard to the need for protecting any industry which is established or is about to be established for the manufacture of any goods in the Colony and to the interests of the entrepot trade of the Colony in respect of such goods, it is expedient to impose duties on the import of such goods, he may by order published in the Gazette prescribe the duties to be levied and paid on such goods imported into the Colony and such duties shall thereupon be charged, levied and paid: Provided that no duties shall be charged or levied under this subsection on any textiles imported into the Colony. (3) Any order made by the Governor in Council under subsection (1) of this section shall be presented to the Legislative Assembly as soon as may be after publication and if a resolution is passed pursuant to a motion notice whereof has been given for a sitting day not later than the first available sitting day of the Assembly next after the expiry of one month from the date when such order is so presented annulling the order or any part thereof as from a specified date, such order or such part thereof, as the case may be, shall thereupon become void as from such date but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new order."; and (b) by renumbering the existing subsection (6) thereof as subsection (4).'.-[Mr J. M. Jumabhoy].

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, I move, "That the clause be read a Second time."

I think I have given sufficient reasons for the inclusion of this clause, and therefore, it is not necessary for me to elaborate further.

Sir Ewen Fergusson: Sir, I beg to move,

In line 5, after "Where", to insert "on consideration of the report of a committee of not less than three persons appointed for the purpose by the Minister by notification in the Gazette in respect of any goods specified in that notification".

The Chairman: May I have that in writing, please?

Amendment handed in.

The Chairman: The hon. Member does not have extra copies by any chance?

Sir Ewen Fergusson: Yes, Sir.

Copies of the amendment handed in.

Sir Ewen Fergusson: Sir, most people who give serious thought to the future of Singapore must have sighed with some relief when the Minister gave notice of an amendment to his original proposal under the Customs Ordinance. Many were startled at the overwhelming powers which were sought and which would have armed any Council of Ministers with the right to change the economic structure of Singapore overnight. I do not think it is enough to state in a speech that the powers would never be used for any such suicidal purpose, for how binding on future legislatures are the present good intentions?

When powers are needed, they should be restricted to the minimum necessary. I congratulate the Minister on having bowed to responsible public opinion and produced a measure which goes some way to restricting interference with the free movement of trade to those goods which might be capable of manufacture - and, we hope, efficient manufacture in Singapore. Nevertheless, there will be certain interference with the movement of trade, and one is concerned about the restrictions and with the difficulties which there will be of policing any goods which come under control in an island like Singapore.

11.30 a.m.

By restrictions, I mean, Sir, not just duties. It is a fact that once controls are imposed they tend to need expansion, because evasions are encouraged and then something else has got to be policed. If the administration, no matter how well-meaning, is armed with too great powers, they can be ill-used, because frequently it is the easy way out. Because the introduction of protective tariffs is a far more serious matter, in my opinion, than some of the other measures which have been introduced to encourage new manufactures in Singapore, I am anxious that full opportunity should be given to the public to consider tariffs before they are introduced. That is why I was prepared to move an amendment making the introduction of duties for this purpose subject to it being passed first by the Legislature and not, as under the present proposals, that you put the tariffs on first and then argue about them afterwards; because, even if they were thrown out by the Legislature afterwards, a considerable amount of trouble and interruption to trade will have taken place.

I know that in the case of revenue duties such as those imposed on tobacco and spirits, it is absolutely necessary for the administration to be able to move quickly, suddenly and unexpectedly, because there are large quantities of these goods in bonded warehouses, and the moment there is any hint of an increase in duty, they can be moved immediately.

The same considerations do not arise with goods which are being protected for the purpose of manufacture. Nobody is likely to be carrying large stocks just ready to defeat the revenue collectors.

In his speech, the Hon. the Minister when introducing the Bill indicated he had set up a Tariff Advisory Committee and that they would examine any of these proposals. That being the case, I feel that, if we are examined by this Committee and that enough notice is given to the public before the matter is considered by the Governor in Council, that would help me to feel that the administration is tied down to certain limits. For that reason I move this amendment.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, this puts into the law the machinery that is exactly as I have set out. Therefore, I have no objection to this going into the law as such.

There is one point that Sir Ewen Fergusson has made in his speech, and that is the change to the economic structure of Singapore overnight. I already made it clear that it was not overnight. I declared it in 1956 that we were considering it. It was thoroughly considered. Also there is no change in the economic structure by the mere changing in the law. A change to an economic structure can only come by factual changes in the economy. However, Sir, I am prepared to accept this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, "That the new clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, before this is passed, I would like to make this comment. While I understand perfectly what was the fear and anxiety behind Sir Ewen Ferguson's mind, I do not see how this adds to the elegance of the clause. It becomes an extremely unwieldy piece of legislation. Before it becomes enshrined in our law, the Attorney-General should prune it carefully. If he wants to give effect to the intention in this phrase, it should at least be put elegantly and succinctly.

The Chairman: I think the hon. Member late. We have passed that. We are now on the Question, "That the new clause, as amended, be to the Bill."

Question put, and agreed to.

New clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

Clauses 4 to 8 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause (after clause 1)- 'Amendment The long title of the Customs Ordinance is hereby amended of long by inserting immediately after the word "gas" appearing at title. the end thereof the words "and to impose protective duties on manufactured goods".'.-[Mr J. M. Jumabhoy.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, I move, "That the new clause be read a Second time."

Sir, this amendment is to make it clear that the law henceforth will not be a law for the purpose of raising revenue only, but a law that could be used for protecting industries too.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

The Chairman: Consequential amendments will be made to the numbers of the clauses in the Bill.

Bill reported with amendments; read the Third time and passed.