ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [25th November, 1959], "That the Assembly approves the financial policy of the Government for the year 1960."

Question again proposed.

2.56 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the first Budget of the P.A.P. Government, but there is nothing in it for the P.A.P. to crow about. In fact, any other Government would have made the same, if not better, provisions for improvement in the social services.

There is, however, Sir, one fundamental difference, and this is the manner in which the tools of Government machinery are put to use. They believe, Sir, that to give better service to the people, civil servants should have their total emoluments reduced arbitrarily. They believe, Sir, that to give better education to the children, teachers should be treated in such a manner that many have now resigned. They believe too, Sir, that to give better medical attention to the people, doctors should be treated in such a manner that many doctors have now resigned. And they believe that, to give better housing to the people, architects, engineers and others should be treated in such a shameful way that many architects, engineers and others have resigned. They believe that, to give the workers a better deal, trade unions should be brought under firm control so that they will not behave in the manner that the P.A.P. -dominated unions in the past were wont to behave. They believe that, to win over the confidence of capital for the economic development of Singapore, capital should be first frightened away by the utterances of threats during election campaigns and later coaxed by assurances that there would be no increased taxation, and that the Government would, by the exercise of firm control on trade unions, see that there is no industrial strife when the Party got into power.

Sir, we do not subscribe to these beliefs. In fact, we abhor such beliefs because they are damaging to the interests of the people of Singapore.

Sir, the Minister for Finance said, and I quote from Hansard, column 772:

"An elected Government which enjoys the support of the mass of the people must have objectives basically different from the Government that it replaced."

Sir, if by objective is meant the many beliefs that I have just related, then they can have this claim without challenge. But I think the Minister means it to mean the provisions in his Budget. In this I can see no basic difference, apart from one important aspect. He has submitted a deficit budget of $6 million; he has indicated in his speech of applications for supplementary votes in the coming months, thereby increasing the deficit; and yet he has taken no step whatsoever to meet this deficit by increasing taxation on those who can bear it.

It is clear, Sir, that they have now come to the realisation that to save Singapore from economic disaster, they have to re-adjust their attitude towards capital to repair the great damage which they did by the utterances of their threats during the election campaign. They are now anxious - very, very anxious indeed - Sir, to win over the confidence of capital to help them to run the government.

Sir, in the 1959 standstill budget, there was a deficit of about $4 million, and yet we, who had been accused by the P.A.P. as capitalist stooges, introduced increased income tax in the higher brackets and company tax in order to meet this deficit. This was done at a time when we had to face the impending general elections.

Sir, the Minister for Finance has announced one tax proposal. That is the imposition of port dues. About this, let us see what he has to say. Column 805 of the Hansard reads:

"The port dues envisaged, however, will be modest ones and shipping interests will be fully consulted before they are implemented."

I repeat, Sir:

"Shipping interests will be fully consulted before they are implemented."

This is the right step and is another indication that they do not want to offend capital any more. It would have been a good thing, Sir, for all concerned, if they had only followed this same step by consulting fully the Staff Side instead of imposing arbitrarily the cuts in variable allowances. Capital must be treated gently, but civil servants - they are after all wage earners - should go on their bended knees that worse has not befallen upon them.

Sir, the Minister for Finance in the earlier part of his speech devoted six paragraphs to his appraisal of the economic situation in the Federation of Malaya. We all know that the Federation is now enjoying a period of steady progress. But this cannot be said of Singapore. There seems to be a spirit of despondency, not only in business circles -

An hon. Member: But in the Opposition!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: -but throughout the country. Therefore, Sir, any move by the Government to inject confidence and a buoyant spirit into the economic life of Singapore is to be welcomed even by the Opposition. The proposal to form a commodity common market with the Federation of Malaya is indeed a good one and I wish the Minister every success.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Why did you not try to do it?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: In regard to Indonesia, Sir, I am glad that relations with Indonesia have immensely improved. This is all to the good and I hope that it will lead to the early removal of the severe restrictions on imports imposed by the Indonesian Government.

Sir, the Minister for Finance said that there was a major building boom in Kuala Lumpur. But the building trade in Singapore, however, went through a difficult period. Surely, the Minister knows where the blame lies.

In his financial review of 1959, the Minister has quoted figures which I find it difficult to reconcile. On the one hand, he said that a shortfall of $10 million on the tobacco revenue was expected. He made no mention of other shortfalls. On the other hand, he said that if the Government had not acted as promptly and as decisively as it did - and this, of course, refers, among other things, to the increased tobacco and petrol duties and the imposition of a tax on the hire of films - there would be $4 million in revenue shortfall. First, the Minister said that there would be a shortfall of $10 million and in just under two minutes I think, this shortfall had been reduced to $4 million. Sir, the 1959 budget estimated a total revenue of $265 million. The Minister in his speech said that the revised estimates showed that the 1959 revenue would amount to $258 million, whereas on page 16 of Cmd. (New Series) 32, the revised estimated total revenue is given as $259.2 million. Sir, accepting the Minister's statement of $258 million as correct, although it is actually $259.2 million, there is, therefore, a shortfall of $7 million. The Minister said that if the Government had not acted as promptly and as decisively as it did, the shortfalls would amount to $4 million. We know that the Government did act promptly and decisively by increasing the tobacco and petrol duties and by imposing a tax on the hire of films. But what I cannot understand is why, in spite of this prompt and decisive action, the shortfall is estimated to be $7 million. If they had taken no action, it is $4 million. Because they had taken this decisive and prompt action, it rose to $7 million! Perhaps the Minister will try to explain.

Sir, I base my speech not on what is in the budget but on what the Minister himself said in presenting the budget. I would urge upon the Minister that when he moves any motion in this House, he should be more attentive to the facts and figures and not expect the Opposition to wade through a mass of figures in order to find out where he has gone wrong.

Sir, the Minister said in col. 776 of Hansard:

"For Singapore, the year 1959 had been a period of some uncertainty. The first half of the year was notable for a general attitude of wait-and-see adopted by business enterprises. It was a period of comparative stagnation. The reason was of course the impending general elections, scheduled to take place in May."

Sir, nothing can be more true. But let us examine the real reason for this stagnation and for this wait-and-see policy. This was because of the silly utterances of threats issued by P.A.P. leaders during the election campaign. And it is because of these silly utterances that business enterprises called a halt and some of them even removed to Kuala Lumpur. Now the Government is making strenuous efforts to repair this damage by giving assurances of no increased taxation. I have found, Sir, that capital is less concerned with making more profits; what it desires most of all is a healthy political climate, and so long as the climate is right, business enterprises will remain and will expand.

Sir, I see that the task of promoting the visitor industry has been transferred from the Ministry of Finance to the Ministry of Culture. The Minister for Finance describes this particular important and growing industry as "the task of luring tourists to our shores". And because he considers that tourists have to be lured and not attracted, it is but right that it should be transferred to the Ministry of Culture. I do not think, Sir, that Government is serious about the promotion of the tourist industry. The budget provisions do not provide for a senior officer who knows this particular job and I would urge upon the Government that, as the tourist industry is a growing and profitable one, it should look into and strengthen this particular section in the Ministry of Culture.

Sir, as regards the estimated revenue for 1960, the Minister is rather optimistic as this is based on the same rates of taxation in all fields. He has estimated the yield from Income Tax to be $65 million, and although this is $11 million less than that collected for 1959, I feel, Sir, that he has underestimated the adverse trading conditions this year. The economy of Singapore has suffered a great blow as a result of loss of confidence among business circles.

Sir, as regards revenue from petrol, although the duty is now 20 cents a gallon higher than it was a few months ago, there is a downward trend of consumption brought about by economic circumstances. Less and less people are using their motor-cars for rides.

Sir, the Minister expects to collect $43.1 million from tobacco, and this figure is about $9 million more than in 1959. The Minister has said that this is based on certain assumptions about consumer preferences but he is not so confident that these assumptions will be justified. He is not so sure of the types of cigarettes people will smoke in 1960. Will they smoke more imported cigarettes which are dearer, or will they smoke more locally manufactured cigarettes which are cheaper? That is the question. Sir, I say that the Minister is rather optimistic, but then, who knows, trade may pick up next year, particularly as the Government is now repenting the silly utterances of threats during the election campaign and is going all out to win over the confidence of capital.

Sir, I am glad to see that the Prime Minister has taken over the direction of the City Council. This has caused a great measure of relief to the suffering public, and I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister for taking this move. It is a matter for regret that he did not do it earlier.

Sir, I agree with the Minister for Finance when he said that the process of integration must be carried out in stages, and that the help of outside experts should be sought. I am anxious, Sir, that the gradual integration will not be to the detriment of the City Council employees. I would like to receive an assurance from the Government, in the same manner as the Honourable the Minister for Finance has hastened to assure the Civil Service, that such integration would not lead to an extensive retrenchment of personnel and that holders of posts found redundant and thereby abolished will be given every opportunity for transfer without loss of emoluments.

Sir, in regard to that part of the Minister's speech on the Development Estimates. I will touch upon this during the Committee stage; but there are certain points in his speech I would like to mention now. It is clear, Sir, from his speech that there is no possibility that the Development Estimates will be put to full use in 1960, bearing in mind that engineers, architects and others have been driven to resign, leaving the Public Works Department and the S.I.T. with only a handful. This is indeed a setback to the Government, but this is of their own seeking.

Sir, the building of more schools, more hospitals, more clinics, more houses, and so on, if done by the P.A.P., is described by the Minister for Finance as adding to the accumulation of wealth in this country and strengthening the sinews of economy. But when the same kind of development was carried out by a non-P.A.P. government, it is described as wasteful expenditure and a strain on the economy of the country.

The Prime Minister: That proves you are wrong!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: The Minister, Sir, admits that the Government has to go overseas to recruit the expert know-how to help them run the Economic Development Board. I can see nothing wrong in this. It is indeed a very wise move to recruit the expert knowhow from overseas to help them run this very important Board, but I cannot understand, Sir, why the Minister should have spent so much time to explain why this Government has found it necessary to do so. It would appear from his speech that there is a group of people in the P.A.P. perhaps, Sir, who are against this sensible and realistic policy, and in this connection the Minister said (col. 797):

"To these people, we can say with perfect candour that members of the P.A.P. political leadership are not lacking in talent, vigour or self-confidence. A combination of these qualities, however, may well lead to recklessness bred out of arrogance and ignorance if it is not tempered with a sense of realism."

"A combination of these qualities, however, may well lead to recklessness bred out of arrogance and ignorance if it is not tempered with a sense of realism." Sir, the cat is out of the bag. Recklessness has been displayed by some Party leaders, bred out of arrogance and ignorance not tempered with any sense of realism!

Sir, the Minister for Finance has indicated that there will be further claims on the revenue next year by way of applications for supplementary votes. One of these foreseen items of expenditure is the question of a grant to the Nanyang University. I would urge upon the Government to expedite consideration of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry under the chairmanship of Dr Gwee Ah Leng. It is important that an early decision be reached. Sir, we did not appoint Dr Gwee Ah Leng. Dr Gwee Ah Leng was appointed during this session [Interruption]-

Mr Speaker: Order. I think honourable Members on the Front Bench of the Government side should give a lead in this debate and refrain from interruptions.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, I said I urge upon the Government that they should expedite consideration of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry under the chairmanship of Dr Gwee Ah Leng, for I know they are very anxious, just as we are, that a decision should be reached with regard to the question of a grant to the Nanyang University.

Sir, there is another foreseen item of expenditure, and that is the payment of scientific and professional allowances which the Government has proposed to the Associations concerned. The Minister, Sir, has found it necessary to make a statement on this in his speech, but he has failed to give us greater details. For instance, what classes of officers qualify for such allowances? We can think of some, but we do not know the full range. It is not improbable that anomalies may arise and what steps, if any, does the Minister propose to take to correct such anomalies? For instance, if Legal Officers get this allowance, what about legally qualified men doing administrative jobs? And if such men get the allowance, what about those administrative officers in similar or more responsible positions who are not required to possess a legal qualification? The Permanent Secretaries are at the top of the Civil Service, but if they are not professional men, maybe the officers working under them may get more than what they get when they receive this allowance. It is an anomaly and has to be corrected.

Sir, the Minister says that there are three grades of allowances proposed. The highest is, of course, that to be paid to officers who have shown exceptional merit in their work. We do not quarrel with that grading. But what we would like to ask the Minister to inform this House is this: who will be entrusted with the duty of assessing this question of "exceptional merit"?

For the general run of Government employees we are told "the Government is prepared to present a scheme" to relieve hardship. I can understand and sympathise with the attitude of the Staff Side on this question. Surely, Sir, trade unions are not in existence to help run an agency to assist their members to borrow money to tide them over any period of hardship. Trade unions are in existence for the fundamental purpose of protecting the interest of their members, and of seeing to it that their members get paid a fair and adequate wage. It is evident that the Staff Side is not challenging the rights of the Government to impose a cut in variable allowances. What the Staff Side challenged, and this is a question which has been repeated time and time again, is the manner in which these cuts have been introduced. What they are fighting for is their right to negotiate with their employers on a matter which adversely affects the pay packets of their members. Sir, will the Government, in keeping with their declared policy of referring industrial disputes to arbitration, implement this policy in regard to their own employees?

Sir, the Minister has explained the economic steps taken and has described the recent steps as the use of the big knife and the broad axe. He went on to say, Sir, In column 803:

"They have been simple ones in that they do not require detailed examination of each and every item of expenditure. They could be justified only on a temporary basis . . .".

"They could be justified only on a temporary basis", said the Minister for Finance. Does he mean that the cut in variable allowances, Sir, is on a temporary basis? Or will the Minister please confirm that he does not mean what he says?

Sir, the Minister said, in col. 802:

"It is to be regretted that a number of officers in administrative and technical posts have resigned. Some of these have chosen to leave the Government service for a more lucrative private practice. It must not be forgotten, however, that service in Government provides officers with special opportunities for advanced training, which are not available elsewhere."

It is indeed, Sir, to be regretted that these officers have by force of circumstances resigned. I do not think it right to say some have left "for a more lucrative private practice". If this were so, Sir, then they would have left before the P.A.P. came into power; for then was the time when private practice was really lucrative. All these officers who have resigned, Sir, have resigned because they could not tolerate the injustices that have been piled upon them. Sir, I agree with the Minister when he said, "It must not be forgotten, however, that service in Government provides officers with special opportunities for advanced training, which are not available elsewhere." I must remind the Government also, Sir, that it must equally not be forgotten that the Civil Service is there to carry out the policy of the Government of the day and is not there to be kicked about to satisfy the recklessness bred out of arrogance and ignorance of some sections of the political leadership of the Government of the day.

Sir, in concluding his speech, the Honourable the Minister for Finance paid tribute to the Treasury officials and the Government Printer. We are with the Government on this, but I must say the Minister overlooked the fact that it was not the Government Printer who did the printing, proof reading, etc, but his technical men, and these men should not be forgotten too - that to them, we too owe due thanks.

3.30 p.m.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, the Hon. Minister for Finance in his Budget statement said [col. 7761:

"...the scare about the decline in business generated by the cuts in variable allowances was largely unfounded."

Sir, this is true if he is referring to business that concerns the big magnates and the very big businesses of the millionaires. But for businesses of small tradesmen we read in the papers that taxis had to lower their fares to the level of the fares of the buses because of lack of business. They had to engage girls, it seems, to lure passengers, and when this did not work, they employed runners to campaign for passengers. Some motor firms, we were told, threatened to close down if business went on as badly as it did. Why, even the Minister for Finance himself admitted that there was a decline in the building trade.

Every hawker I have met has said or complained about bad business. Unemployment is ever on the increase. Yet the Minister thinks that the scare about the decline in business generated by the variable allowance cuts was unfounded! He argued that receipts from entertainment duty and liquor revenue showed no decline. Of course, it did not, Sir. As I have said, the magnates and the millionaires have not been hit. People with big business - big money - have not been hit. That is the point.

The P.A.P. claims to be a Government of the people - a Government of the masses. But it was not the rich that had been hit. It was the middle and the lower income groups that had been hit. The cut in variable allowances has hit civil servants and below.

According to the Minister for Finance, the building trade went through a difficult period. Who and what was responsible for this? The Minister himself admitted that there was a building boom in Kuala Lumpur; and since, in the words of the Minister himself, prosperity in the Federation inevitably brings with it an increase in business in Singapore, how is it, Sir, that Kuala Lumpur is enjoying a building boom and Singapore is suffering the reverse fate? Perhaps in Kuala Lumpur they did everything to encourage developers. But certainly not here, Sir.

In Singapore, barriers have been placed before developers. Whereas in the old days electric cables and pipe lines were put in development estates for developers because such investments eventually brought revenue to the City Council, it is now up to the developers to pay for these. In the old days, if after five years - I stand open to correction in the number of years - if the money for installation was recovered, the developers, if they had put in the deposit, were allowed to claim the refund. This is no longer the practice.

Again on this point - the third point that I shall be giving - I open myself to correction - it is said that the City Council now, when working out charges for connections and installations, allow a profit for themselves - a very high percentage of profit - and this is not subject to query.

The threat to close down the brick-works is sufficient warning, Sir, that if unemployment in Singapore is not to be substantially increased, these impositions should be lifted, because far from hitting the developers, it will hit the small purchaser - the wage earner, who perhaps in all his earning life has put aside some money hoping to provide a roof over his and his family's heads. Any charge that the Government forces on the developers is going to be passed on to the purchaser. It is understandable that no developer will run a losing business. Eventually it is the purchaser who has to pay for all these extra charges.

The Minister believes that local industry was adversely affected for a variety of reasons. A variety of reasons was forwarded. But I think there is one important reason that has been overlooked. Local products are cheaper than imported products and, therefore, consumed by the middle and lower income groups. And these people, as I have mentioned before, having been hit by the pay cuts, consumed less and, therefore, it has affected local industry; whereas imported goods are expensive and consumed by the rich and as the rich has not directly or indirectly been hit, naturally that explains why trading conditions have shown an improvement of about ten per cent in respect of imports.

Sir, as a common market with the Federation will benefit Singapore, I shall not make any comments in case they prejudice the chances of the Government. All I wish to say is - I wish the Minister luck in this project, for, he will need plenty of it if he is to see it through.

The Minister seems to be pessimistic concerning the revenue increase for 1960. He gives, as the reason for this, the fact that revenue has lost the buoyancy of the post-Korean war years. One wonders what part the transfer of firms, factories and head offices from Singapore to the Federation plays in the loss of this buoyancy. The Minister has prophesied prosperity for the Federation for 1960, and he has also stated, as I have quoted before, that prosperity in the Federation inevitably brings with it an increase in business in Singapore. It is difficult then to understand why he should not be optimistic about the increase of revenue in Singapore for 1960 also.

On the question of population, the Minister promised to make every effort to slow down the rate of population growth. No one denies the necessity for this, Sir, It is hoped, however, that the Government will find means and ways of carrying this out without offending religions like those of the Catholics and the Muslims.

Of the 1,109 new posts created for 1960, 80 are against the deletion of existing posts, leaving 1,029 for the Health and the Education Ministries. We shall be obliged, Sir, if the Government can give us a breakdown of these figures. For instance, how many specialists, doctors, nurses, etc, for the Ministry of Health and how many lecturers, teachers, inspectors of schools, etc. for the Ministry of Education.

With regard to the absorption of City Council departments by the Government, can the Government enlighten us, Sir, on the question of retiring benefits? Will the City Council employees, after being absorbed by the Government, be eligible for pensions that are enjoyed by Government servants? If so, what happens to their provident fund?

For the last few months, Sir, aids to T.B. patients have been reduced by over $30,000 monthly. Will they be increased in 1960, seeing that the Social Welfare and the Health Department expenditures have been increased by $2.3 million and $1.9 million respectively? Sir, it is not wise to cut down the aids of the T.B. patients because this will bring more worry to the patients. Less food means less nourishment and, therefore, a delay in recovery, which eventually will cost Government more money. The Minister stated that costs for the Survey Department and Trade Marks Registry must be met. I wonder whether it will be possible to make these departments self-supporting like the Telecommunications Department.

And can the Government tell us whether they have any plans in mind with regard to means and ways of increasing the earnings of the Airport, of improving efficiency and cutting down the cost of the Airport?

Referring to Government's new development proposals, the Minister said [col. 794]:

"It may be that, taking into account the vast amount of planning and preparation that will be required in relation to the availability of engineers, architects and others, there will be some difficulty in completing all the works envisaged."

Can the Government tell us, Sir, how available are qualified and experienced engineers and architects in, let us say, the P.W.D., S.I.T. and the City Council? Secondly, what Government intends to do about the extensive resignations of qualified and experienced engineers and architects, and what they intend to do to prevent further resignations?

The Minister stated that $7 million has been allotted to the Ministry of Labour and Law and that this will provide employment for a residual of unemployed. This gives the impression that the rest of the 45,000 unemployed would have already been given employment, leaving a residual of a few thousand who would be catered for by the $7 million. Will the Minister confirm that, with this $106 million allotted for development, and the $7 million allocated to the Ministry of Labour and Law for unemployment relief works, the problem of unemployment in Singapore will be solved?

The Minister stated that work brigades will be grouped in residential units. May I suggest, Sir, that this may not be the best plan, because in areas where construction work on roads and bridges is necessary, there may not be sufficient skilled and experienced workers in that particular area and the conditions might be vice versa in the other areas. Would it not be better to allow an overflow of skilled and experienced workers of one area into another? Would it not be better to divide them according to experience or qualifications rather than do it on the basis of residential qualification?

The Minister announced that an allowance of $300 will be paid monthly to officers who show exceptional merit in their work. May I venture to ask what would be the yardstick of measuring this "exceptional merit", and who is to measure this "exceptional merit"? If it is the Public Service Commission, who will put up recommendations to the P.S.C.? Who are deemed to be the technicians and professionals who qualify for this allowance?

There has already been an open charge of banal disguise of individual motives, such as putting friends in office in the name of efficiency and counting on their support. This appeared in the Press. There must be some truth in this because it has not been denied and this charge has not been made by disgruntled workers or Members of the Opposition. It has been made by a very important person holding a very important post in Government - a very prominent member of the P.A.P. The fact that there has been a racket in the matter of appointments and that victimisation was practised in order to create vacancies for political supporters, is common knowledge amongst the people of Singapore.

The public in general, and in particular the civil servant who has been living in fear of being the next victim, would be very grateful to the Minister or to the Government if they would give them the assurance that this gross injustice will not be repeated when measuring the exceptional merits of the civil servants.

The Minister also promised that Government employees who do not qualify for this allowance can obtain assistance to tide them over for the period of their financial difficulties. Sir, many Government employees have been faced with hardship due to the variable allowance cut. Some have been forced into debt. I wonder what the Government plan to do with regard to the assistance promised. Are they planning to give them interest-free loans to pay up their debts, and to do this on a long-term basis so that the monthly deductions from their salaries would not bring about undue hardship?

The Minister also accused the Staff Side of taking the attitude that further discussions should only deal with the restoration of variable allowances. Sir, surely this is understandable. The employees felt that it was not fair that only a certain section of the population should be made to bear the burden of the State budget deficit indefinitely. After all, the Minister himself admitted in his Budget speech that this method of effecting economies can only be justified on a temporary basis. At a time when Government felt that immediate action was imperative, the broad axe was dropped.

But now that they had six months to plan a new budget, is it not logical that those victimised should expect to be relieved of the burden which they felt had been unjustly forced on them?

The Minister admitted that there is little doubt that the civil service is going through a difficult period. I would go further, Sir, and say that the civil service has gone through a six-month period of misery. The fact that there have been innumerable resignations from several Government departments - of doctors, specialists, teachers, senior officers, engineers and architects - show that Government servants are far from happy.

However, this unhappy state of affairs has not been brought about, as the Minister believes it to be, by the exacting standards expected by the Minister of the Civil Service or the speed of Malayanisation. Sir, as I said before, in my adjournment speech on the 2nd of September, the civil servants have always risen to the occasion, and if they are given fair and just treatment, they will no doubt again rise to the occasion and give the Government their loyal, their efficient and their valuable services.

3.52 p.m.

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi (Kampong Kembangan): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, in our debate today I certainly welcome one of the many speeches made by the Minister for Finance. I have no hesitation in saying that the time has come when we should realise and understand full well the fact that this Government, elected by the people under the constitution of self-government, will not deny that they will do anything for the benefit of all sections of the population. It may perhaps be that they will explain the mistakes which I am going to point out. But I would like to remind them that if we wish to have confidence that Singapore will prosper from year to year, then the Minister for Finance should say specifically what is mentioned in the preamble to the constitution.

Mr Speaker, although we are considered a minority group, there are many other minorities composed of foreigners domiciled here who consider that their allegiance is undivided in order to determine our every-day fate for the achievement of something good. In my opinion, Mr Speaker, we do need to get money from time to time to swell our Treasury so that our Budget will fulfil the needs of the youth in Singapore who will be looking for employment and those who need assistance. The fact that such a statement is made makes it necessary, therefore, that we consider the situation in which Singapore is placed. And, as has been explained by the Minister for Finance, that is, constantly to improve the trade relations with Indonesia and matters connected with finance in the Federation of Malaya. But we cannot deny this matter or that our Treasury can be boosted if the Minister for Finance had stated in his speech as to how we can give assistance, as I mentioned just now, to the indigenous people of Singapore. In our constitution there is provision for that. But there is no mention whatsoever in the speech by the Minister for Finance. Therefore, I am doubtful. If we study his speech carefully, Mr Speaker, vacant posts for 1960 total 1,109, but will these posts help the people, who I have mentioned just now need help? What are the means whereby we can help them? Can we render assistance to them merely by way of social aid without giving any aid to raising their standard of living? Such posts, it can be said, in my opinion, are high posts. If we are going to take a census one by one, I do not think there will be many opportunities for people like myself. Mr Speaker, I hope we all are for prosperity, but here I wish to emphasise that whenever I speak I am accused of being communal. But as to who is being communal, only time will tell. Whatever be the methods they must help the lower strata. I wish to bring this point to the attention of the proper authorities, so that they will know what is really wanted by U.M.N.O. which is also represented in this Assembly. Based on such matters as appointments for 1960 - and surely the emoluments are big and the qualifications required are high-there is no clear-cut policy on what I have said just now concerning the Malays in Singapore.

Continuing, Mr Speaker, I also wish to be enlightened by Government on the Economic Development Board. From what has been emphasised by the Minister for Finance concerning the $20 million which will be handed to the Economic Development Board, it could be said that it will be far from being of help to that section of the people whom I mentioned earlier on. The Malays, Mr Speaker, are not communal, because we agreed recently to send our delegation to sit on the Opposition side, because we do, in fact, need help from our own Government and we did take part in the promulgation of the Constitution. There is no ground therefore to charge me as being communal. The past Government did what little it could towards the Malays in Singapore. Therefore, I am greatly shocked, Mr Speaker. I wish to remind the House that I was accused of communalism by the Prime Minister when I spoke on the subject of internal security matters, in relation to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I hope that enlightenment will be forthcoming from the Prime Minister who had accused me before of being a communalist; but, in my opinion, what we need is to be able to stand on the same footing as the others. However, this matter will take time. We had hoped that mention would be made in the first Budget - what assistance would be given to the Malays - and not only to the Malays but also to the other minorities in Singapore. I take this opportunity to bring this point home because, although we number only eight in the Opposition, there will be a time when we will work hand-in-hand with the Government. Under our new status as a self-governing State of Singapore, this is the first time that we are debating the first Budget and U.M.N.O. wishes to draw particular attention to the Malays who are in need of help. I say that it is not possible now but it is our intention to free Singapore totally from colonial yoke in the future. I appeal particularly to the Prime Minister who had said before that I was a communalist, this and that. I say that here is the opportunity, a golden opportunity, for the Prime Minister to prove his attitude on the 1960 Budget. It could be mentioned in the scheme for the Economic Development Board, amounting to $20 million how assistance could be given to help the Malays and also other minorities who really need help. If they receive help, I am quite sure it will be very much appreciated since no opportunity whatsoever was given to them to improve their day-to-day standard of living. Therefore, Mr Speaker, such being the circumstances, I would not speak at length on other matters, but this is what we hope. I wish to reiterate in this Assembly once again that although we, particularly U.M.N.O., may be charged as being communalist in the course of the present Constitution, we will continue to call upon the Government to state in no uncertain terms the amount of assistance that will be given to the Malays in conformity with what is contained in the Constitution. Otherwise, it will be left to U.M.N.O. in Singapore to consider whether we will go forward or otherwise.

4.07 p.m.

Mr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Budget speech of the Finance Minister shows how difficult it is to try to serve two masters, to try to look in two opposite directions at one and the same time, to try to please on the one hand Party supporters and on the other hand mercantile interests in Singapore. I must say, however, that he has made a very skilful attempt.

Mr Byrne: He will be squint.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: However, beneath the learned phrases and sentences, there is visible a distinct conflict of ideas or sentiments. It is not easy to try to balance on a see-saw, and present to the public an economic policy that see-saws now to the left and now to the right. The public have a feeling of uncertainty and instability that this may be but a temporary respite, a lull before the storm, before the big axe and the big knife fall again; this time on the mercantile interests.

Mr Byrne: The Member for Cairnhill said they were now being coaxed.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Sir, I notice three instances where this conflict of sentiments becomes visible. From Hansard, col. 772, paragraph 2, we read the following (the Finance Minister says):

"We are a democratic socialist Government..."

and a few lines below that, "it" (meaning the Government):

"...will seek to eliminate the forms of exploitation of men by men which the exploiters, through being tolerated over the years, have come to regard as customary and, indeed, normal."

Now, Sir, who are the exploiters referred to? Doubtless, the employers and the capitalists. However, Sir, the Finance Minister realised that he must go to the right - so in col. 798, paragraph 2, he tries to coax the people by saying:

"Business people do not embark on new ventures for political objectives, such as the defence of the democratic system. They do so on a calculation of profits and if we want to induce them to develop new industrial enterprises, we must make the economic setting suitable for the promotion of these activities."

I can imagine their saying, "Hear, hear!" However, Sir, these two statements or sentiments contradict each other and cancel each other.

Next, on the subject of taxation. He says of the future, in col. 785, paragraph 2:

"For there is a limit to the tax capacity of any economic system."

Then, thinking that he has committed himself too far perhaps, he says:

"I am not saying that we have reached this limit in Singapore." meaning that there is promise of further taxation. He confirms this in col. 804, paragraph 5, when he says:

"The taxpayer must therefore be called upon to bear his burden of responsibility."

He realised that he must go back a bit now to keep the balance on the see-saw:

"However, I hasten to assure the taxpayer that there will be no unduly heavy claims on his purse. It is not proposed to make any changes to the rates of income tax next year."

"Next year"? That is the rub. Thereafter, what happens?

Then, Sir, a third instance. In col. 776, paragraph 4-

Mr Byrne: You have got a bible now.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: -he says:

"After the Government assumed office, trade has picked up".

Then he contradicts himself - in col. 798, paragraph 5 - when he refers to the present state as a "state of stagnation".

Sir, what are the reasons why the Finance Minister has to try to please both the extreme left and the extreme right? Because he has realised that extreme socialism is not suitable for a place like Singapore, and the effects of six months' rule on that basis have produced a Singapore economy which is not only stagnating but literally dying. So something must be done by the Honorary Doctor to help the patient to recover!

Mr Byrne: Moral rearmament!

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Sir, we all know that capital - a great deal of it - has flown to other countries. It has gone to enrich and to help in the industrial development of other places. It has gone to the Federation, Borneo, Sarawak, even back to Hong Kong. But I am afraid, Sir, the Finance Minister is now trying to lock up the doors after the horses, or many of the horses, have flown away.

Mr Byrne: Run away or have flown away?

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Or have run away. Sir, the climate of Singapore, economically, has become too hot for property investments. Stability has been spoiled, and so now a sugar-coated pill must be given to the patient. I believe that these steps, although temporarily they may be good, will never bring conviction to the mercantile interests unless and until the Government basically will say that they have abandoned and will abandon their ideology of the class war or the class struggle. Singapore's economy cannot be rebuilt that way. We cannot have a Government that every time pledges itself to be on the side of one section against another section. It must base its philosophy on the welfare

The Prime Minister: Of the people!

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Of the people, of all the people.

The Prime Minister: Against the minority who exploit the people.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: By the people, we mean all sections of the people, and not only one side against another side, because that will never bring about unity in this country or a merger with the Federation. Sir, a very interesting thing is the fact that the Government keeps on saying that they stand for a democratic, socialist form of Government. I therefore decided, Sir, that the words "democratic socialism" should be clarified so as to make us understand whether the Singapore brand is really the article as understood in other free countries. I have here, Sir, an official booklet issued in 1950 with the authority of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party on a statement of the policy and principles of British democratic socialism, and I find, Sir, that in Singapore-

The Prime Minister: What date is it?

Mr Thio Chan Bee: It was issued in 1950.

The Prime Minister: That is out of date!

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Well, it may be out of date, but it is a definition of a term that is not out of date. I find that in Singapore in its financial policy, the so-called democratic socialist Government has departed from the democratic socialism of free countries like Great Britain. Let me quote, Sir, extracts from pages 26 and 27 of this booklet under the head "Planning for Full Employment":

"If people do not have enough money to buy all the goods that can be produced, unemployment is inevitable."

And one paragraph after that:

"The Government must always [I want to emphasise that, Sir - must always] be prepared to increase [I will emphasise the word again - to increase] purchasing power in order to prevent any drift towards slump.

The first method is to expand public investment at the first sign of depression."

I am glad that the Government, after this, is going to do this part. The second one, Sir, I am sorry to say, is where they slipped up.

"The second way of increasing purchasing houses become full of goods which the people cannot afford to buy, the Government must increase spending power."

The emphasis, Sir, is on increased income so as to increase spending power, power is to increase incomes. If the ware -

But this Government saw fit to reduce the income of its workers by $12 million and thereby reduce their purchasing power.

Sir, on another issue, on local government, the Singapore brand of democratic socialism has gone astray. In page 38 of this booklet it says here:

"Democracy will flourish best when power is spread throughout the community. No more power should ever be concentrated at the centre than is reasonably necessary for efficient government. This principle determines our attitude to all forms of government."

Therefore, they are against totalitarian government in any form.

The Prime Minister: Is that in the book?

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Somewhere in the book. You can look it up.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member must realise that if he takes too much notice of interruptions from the other side of the House, he must expect more interruptions to arise. I would also ask Members on the Government bench to try - I know it is a little bit difficult when the hon. Member speaks - as much as possible not to interrupt.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: To continue, Sir:

"It is in accord with this principle that there should be local management of local affairs."

Now, what has this Government done? They have abolished the City Council and the Rural Board. Both of these bodies are now in the process of being integrated with the Government so that there will be just one central authority, and everybody must obey.

Sir, this is contrary to democratic socialism as known in Great Britain.

The Federation has been referred to by the Finance Minister, I noticed, with envy. He pointed out that in the Federation they have a prosperity budget. There is a big building boom-

Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Point of order. Would it be in order for the hon. Member to impute an evil motive on the part of a Member of the Assembly, an undesirable, shall we say, attitude towards our neighbour across the causeway?

Mr Speaker: Order. I am afraid the Chair is a little puzzled about what is the motive imputed. Will Dr Goh please elaborate?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, the Member for Cairnhill-

Mr Speaker: The Member for Tanglin.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Yes, I beg your pardon. The Member is even more-

Mr Speaker: More democratic!

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I was about to say more exclusive. But the Member for Tanglin did say that I look upon the Federation with envy, and I was just enquiring whether it would be in order to impute such an undesirable attitude of mind, an evil intent on the part of a Member of this House.

Mr Speaker: I expect the Minister for Finance is really talking with his tongue in his cheek, because I cannot imagine it is improper to impute such a laudable idea of envying the Federation for what they have. Please continue, Mr Thio.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Maybe the Minister for Finance would rather prefer that I use the word "jealousy".

Sir, we admit, and he has admitted, that there is a major building boom in Kuala Lumpur. In addition, there is in motion there a successful programme of industrial development. Then he went on to express the following hopes. He said that in spite of political differences he hoped that the Federation would co-operate with Singapore as one economic unit. We on this side of the House, Sir, share with him in this hope. He also hoped that the Federation, having welcomed the transfer of commercial head offices from Singapore, would not pursue a policy designed to isolate Singapore.

Sir, these are natural fears which we hope will never materialise. But on the question of a merger with the Federation, we already know the answer - nil - because the Singapore Government has decided to go left, or extreme left, whereas the Federation Government has decided to go right.

The Prime Minister: You really believe that?

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Sir, I believe that some new basis for reconciliation and unity must be found. I do not believe personally that you can work out unity and co-operate with Singapore on the basis of left and right. It has got to be on the basis of right and wrong. What is right for the welfare of the people of Singapore, let us do it together.

Sir, then he went on to talk about the common market with the Federation. Singapore is enthusiastic, but the Federation is cold. So with that kind of prospect, what can we foresee for the future of Singapore? I foresee that we are going to face difficult times.

Here too, Sir, the Singapore Government has followed a policy known as restrictionism. They are making things difficult for private capital to invest in housing. Reference has been made to the difficulty in getting plans passed. At one time it was thought that, with Malayans in charge of the S.I.T., plans would be passed more quickly and more easily. But we have heard that things are not as we have expected. There is greater difficulty in having plans passed now than before. Then there is the demand of the City Council. Before housing estates can be developed, the developers must deposit the full cost of laying the service plus 35 per cent surcharge. One company has decided to build in Johore Bahru, not in Singapore. Even a school is called upon to pay the full cost plus 35 per cent surcharge. How can we expect foreign capital to be interested in investing further in Singapore when there are all these difficulties and all these restrictions? And yet we are facing, as the Minister for Finance has said, the nightmarish problem of population - a rapidly increasing population with a rapidly increasing problem of mass unemployment. The Government has been very wise in providing $7 million for work brigades for the young unemployed. But we know that this is only relief, a temporary relief. At the rate we are going to do it, $7 million for 5,000, just to help the present unemployed of 45,000, plus the annual increase of about 30,000, Government must be prepared to spend on relief measures $105 million rising by $42 million a year. Economically, the task is almost impossible.

Sir, I am not an economic expert, but having read several books, and having had also the experience of studying budgets for quite a number of years, I know that in Singapore, we cannot follow either the extreme left kind of economy or the extreme right kind of economy. I suggest that the Government sceptics look beyond their noses, beyond Singapore, and look at West Germany. West Germany after the war suffered one thousand times or more than Singapore suffered with the pressure of 12 million refugees. They had a stupendous problem, but what do we find there today? Full employment and more than that. 104,000 foreign workers and 25,000 people from Italy were brought in. Today 350,000 jobs go abegging. Sir, wherein lies the secret of this post-war German recovery? I have here, Sir, a book issued by the Federal German Government Information Office entitled "Facts about Germany". In 1949 they faced two alternatives. They could adopt a planned economy - planned by the State and controlled by the State - or they could adopt a free economy. They had to study the question, weighing the pros and cons, and they decided for a free economy, which they described as "social market economy". In page 93 and onwards of this book there are certain statements over which, I feel, the Government experts could well ponder:

"The growth of the West Germany economy took place under the German `social market economy' which means the free development of markets."

And the next part to satisfy their socialist mind:

"with due consideration for both private initiative and social progress.

The exponents of free social market economy realised that the state has the essential duty of maintaining order in the economic realm as well as in others. But the basic principle of free market economy is free competition. These exponents are, however, aware of today's social demand and it is for that very reason that the term `social market economy' has been chosen. It signifies that the underlying principle of free market economy is not a fact dogmatically. Its limits are reached where social or cultural questions begin to clash either permanently or temporarily with the principle of unrestricted supply and demand. Now, an undeniable success has been achieved."

Sir, I commend that type of economy for the consideration of the Government experts because, unless we find a solution to our mass unemployment problem, we shall not remain on the economic plateau but go further down into the ravine.

Sir, today there is too much planned economy from the Government. It looks wonderful on paper, but in Singapore it will not work. They will find difficulties. People will not know what laws will be passed on a certificate of emergency.

There are two theories on how to cope with a deficit in the budget. There is the theory of expansionism and there is the theory of restrictionism. Sir, I am not an expert, so I have to call on somebody who is an expert. I want to quote from a book on the "Principles of Public Finance" by Dr Hugh Dalton, formerly Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Labour Party Government in England and for some time reader in economics in the London School of Economics.

The Prime Minister rose -

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order?

The Prime Minister: On a point of information.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: No. I will not give way, Sir.

The Prime Minister: He does not want to be involved.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Dr Dalton asked the question: "Should the budget be balanced?" and he answered-

The Prime Minister: No.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: -"Clearly in the long run it must be . But in the short run, measured in terms of a year or two, the budget need not be balanced."

An hon. Member: Hear, Hear!

Mr Thio Chan Bee: "Public policy may sometimes deliberately and legitimately incur temporary deficits in the pursuit of larger aims, notably an increase of employment through an expansion of credit."

He goes on:

"It is a fallacy that an unbalanced budget necessarily leads to inflation. It will only do this if the Government resorts to the printing press to cover the deficit either directly to meet its own expenditure or indirectly to support inflationary bank loans to itself. To stop budget deficits or at least to keep them within reasonable bounds, there are indeed two possible types of policy which may be adopted. The first accepts the fall in prices together with the possibility of further falls, and on this basis seeks to reduce expenditure and increase revenue."

Sir, this is the policy adopted by the Finance Minister until this budget time.

"The second seeks to reverse the fall in prices and relies less on economies than on stimulating trade and thus increasing revenue."

Then he makes his comments on these two policies.

"The first policy has been pursued under orthodox financial guidance in many countries. It has involved, in its most drastic forms, a wholesale breakage of contracts, both public and private, by legal process including the compulsory conversion of public debts and the revision of established expectations, including cuts in the salaries and wages of public servants."

May I draw the attention of the Government to this particular statement, Sir.

"...in pensions and many other social service benefits."

Then he gave his opinion:

"It is doubtful whether it has anywhere..."

I repeat:

"anywhere succeeded in its object."

He further said:

"Since it has sought to balance the state budget by unbalancing the budgets of private persons, the deflationary policy has caused great immediate privations and aroused deep popular resentment."

That, Sir, was the verdict of another expert.

"The second policy is expansionist' as the first is restrictionist'. It has been tried by fewer countries, [Sir, because this was written in 1935 or so] and affords less evidence, as yet, either of practical success or failure."

Since then, Sir, I have consulted several other people and they have pointed out that this second theory has been tried out in West Germany and in America lately when there was talk of the coming world depression that never came.

He continues:

"On closer examination, each has its own difficulties. But, given the actual institutions and temper of the present age, the second seems the less difficult."

I am glad, Sir, that the Finance Minister has decided from this budget time to follow the second policy, but only when it comes to state expenditure. May I suggest that he extends that policy not only with regard to state expenditure but also to private enterprise, and by every means he should encourage private investors to invest in Singapore? Sir, this is the policy that can save Singapore. The see-saw policy followed previously will never do. It will never give Singapore the economic stability and prosperity that we need to save the masses from unemployment.

Sir, whether we are in the Opposition or in the Government, we are all interested in the future of Singapore. We do not want our children to grow up in a place where they face the spectre of unemployment all the time. I do hope, Sir, that the Government will not be self-satisfied and not be arrogant, as has been pointed out by one of their own Members, but be humble enough to consider suggestions from whatever source they come.

4.40 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr Chan Sun Wing): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, actually I was not prepared to give a speech here. But when I heard the Opposition Members speak on the Government's financial policy, the childishness and incapacity in their speeches interested me, and therefore I am going to say a few words here.

Everyone knows that Singapore was a British Colony. Previously, the Colony's financial prosperity was due to the tension created by international circumstances. If the international situation were settled and the price of rubber came down, there would be no prosperity in the Colony. Such prosperity in the post-war years was not due to the encouragement or the endeavours of the previous Government, but due to the industrial prosperity created by international tensions such as the Korean war.

Since our Party has come into office, we are going to improve the social situation. We want to place our finances on a stable basis. We do not depend upon international circumstances to do so. From our Finance Minister's speech it is very clear that we are a Government with constructive and vigorous energy. Our economic policy is to bring happiness to the people and not depend upon international circumstances. Since our Party came into power, we have been faced with difficulties. We inherited from the previous Government a very great deficit. The Finance Minister has pointed out very clearly that if the Government wants to meet the budget deficit, there are three ways of doing this. One is to borrow money from foreign countries, the second is that the Government itself must reduce administrative expenses, and the third is to print more currency notes. The Lim Yew Hock Government sold Christmas Island in order to balance the budget. If his Government had continued to remain in office, they would have to borrow more money from America or other countries. But our Government cannot adopt such a policy. We must, first of all, try our best. We have adopted the second method. We have reduced the expenditure of the Government. The Member for Cairnhill had just now strongly attacked the reduction of variable allowances for teachers, doctors and engineers. They have criticised our cutting down of their pay and therefore gave them cause for grievance. But actually what are the facts? The important thing is not whether the cutting down of allowances is fair or not, but what is important is how they live after their pay-cut. We have merely asked those who were in a privileged position under colonial rule to make a little sacrifice now. If they have three cars, they could use one car, if they have three servants, they could have one only, and the money spent on the maintenance of the other cars and servants could thereby be saved. We can make use of this money to improve the standard of living of the poor people which needs to be improved. When the majority of the people in our society are living in poor condition, it is not reasonable to let a small number enjoy luxury.

The Member for Cairnhill has attacked us, the P.A.P. Government, that since it came into office it has controlled the trade unions very strictly. The minds of the workers are very clear on this point: in this society, the new Government is quite different from the old one. The P.A.P. Government wants to strengthen the influence of the trade unions and not to suppress them. We want them to realise that improvement of their living conditions is connected with the fate of this country. We want them to understand that if they want their standard of living to improve, they should understand the financial conditions of this country. What we are trying to do in the trade union movement is to let trade union leaders and workers realise more fully the situation of the country.

Mr Speaker, Sir, you can see very clearly that the Finance Minister is a very capable man. Under his leadership, our Government has in a very short time balanced the Budget. He has also made many constructive suggestions.

Regarding external affairs, the Member for Cairnhill just now praised the improvement we have made, particularly the many things we have done to improve relationships with Indonesia. What was the relation like between the old government and Indonesia? What did the previous Government do to improve relations with Indonesia? Under the Lim Yew Hock Government, Singapore became a base for subversive elements of Indonesia. This is a wellknown fact.

Just now, the Member for Cairnhill said he agreed to our creating a common market with the Federation of Malaya, and he hoped that it would succeed. When he was Chief Minister, why did he not think of this plan?

Regarding internal affairs, first of all, we want to integrate all the departments of the City Council into the Government administration. This is being very smoothly done. In future, when the Public Utilities Board has been set up, we can distribute the work of the Rural Board to other departments; then the Government will become more efficient and save much more money.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the position set out in the Budget for 1960 is clear. In the development plan for next year, our Finance Minister has not only balanced the Budget, but has acquired for the first time in the history of Singapore large sums of money for development. Tun Lim Yew Hock said that he also had a building development plan. If every person studies carefully the geography of Singapore and how the building contractors build their houses, in one or two years' time there will be no space left for building projects. The Member for Cairnhill has praised our Industrial Development Board. Why had he not mentioned his own Development Board? Because he had only $1 million for development, and even then no progress has been made in the few years. The P.A.P. Government, however, has been clear on this point. We have more vigour to improve the industry of Singapore.

The Member for Cairnhill has reminded us to promote the tourist trade in Singapore. In the past, the previous Government used public funds to give free advertisement for the big hotels, restaurants and cinemas. We will never do such a thing.

The Member for Cairnhill also touched on the Report of Dr Gwee Ah Leng, and has asked us to show our attitude towards it. He seems very concerned about this matter. I do not know whether he knows the damaging effects caused by his Government saying that it wanted to give $5 million to Nanyang University. We are going to help the Nanyang University, but the point is whether it is practicable as far as finances are concerned. We have to use the money reasonably with regard to Nanyang University. This is a very complicated question and needs careful consideration.

The Opposition Members criticised us and said that the Civil servants are afraid of us and many have resigned. This is not a fact. The achievement of the Government in its six months' of office could not have been realised only through its 43 Members here. Without the civil servants these achievements would not have been possible. The Finance Minister has thanked his staff for helping him to prepare a balanced Budget. This clearly shows their faith in the Government. Public servants are not as described by Opposition Members.

They are not afraid of the P.A.P. Government. They work very hard, and so are confident of the Government. In the past week, the Government celebrated National Loyalty Week and the Civil servants in Radio Singapore and the Ministry of Culture have helped a lot to make it a success. Those who are afraid of the P.A.P. Government are those who are anti the people of Singapore and whose activities are questionable. When they are brought under the new rule, they are afraid because they cannot escape from it. The fact that Opposition Members defended them clearly shows that they are of the same type.

Since our financial policy was announced to the public, businessmen and others in all walks of life have expected 1960 to be a prosperous year. We are still not satisfied with this. We are not over-optimistic because, in the long run, we may be faced with many difficulties due to over-population and the lack of land. If we want to better our social circumstances, we have to depend upon a merger with the Federation. We have to rid ourselves of this semi-colonialism in order to solve our financial problems. Fundamentally, it is a difficult task, but our Government has presented a favourable financial Budget in our first year. It tells all the people of Singapore that our Government is a responsible, logical, reasonable, and a talented Government.

Mr Speaker: I think it is a convenient time to suspend. I shall take the Chair again at half-past five.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.