ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Order read for resumption of debate on Question, "That the Assembly approves the financial policy of the Government for the year 1960."

Question again proposed.

5.31 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Dr Sheng Nam Chin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I must congratulate the Members on the Opposition Bench for their extremely well-polished attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill in this debate on the budget.

They have quite obviously shown their political bankruptcy, and have to rely on political eloquence to lead them out of their quandary. Like all empty vessels, they make the most noise. And in doing so, they have echoed the emptiness of their ideas and ideals.

The Member for Mountbatten, in particular, should ascertain the accuracy of her statements before bringing wild allegations against the Government benches. I speak of her allegations that Government has cut tuberculosis allowances to aggravate the situation of tuberculosis in Singapore. This, I feel, is a calculated move on her part to discredit the Government on false premises. I would like to clarify the situation here, and perhaps give the hon. Member here some accurate information.

The tuberculosis allowance was instituted some few years ago to remedy the rapidly deteriorating circumstances created by the dreadful disease. The allowance is given especially for patients who have been certified by medical experts of their curability. The recipient of this allowance must have a good prognosis - a good chance of recovery, and this allowance is only given to people who, in the opinion of the chest physician, will benefit from a rest from work. As soon as the chest physician feels that the patient is well enough to go back to work, his T.B. allowance will be discontinued. The People's Action Party Government has never cut these allowances as implied by the Member for Mountbatten. What the People's Action Party Government did in September was to impose a maximum on these allowances because the way in which these allowances were given was subject to abuse. It was known that certain sufferers of tuberculosis in Singapore were receiving a T.B. allowance of over $300 per month, a really fantastic figure in comparison with the salary given to the working class. The Government fixed this maximum at $180 per month as from September this year and there were no cuts whatsoever imposed on the T.B. allowances except the removal of the 10 per cent C.O.L. allowance which was added to the T.B. allowance in 1951 due to the inflation then. The Government has on no occasion cut any allowances on tuberculosis. In fact, the Government is well aware that tuberculosis is a big problem in this country, and the Ministry of Health in particular has planned schemes to provide compulsory B.C.G. vaccination for all the people of Singapore vulnerable to the scourge of this dreadful disease.

I like to ask the Opposition Members at present not to make wild allegations and frighten the people of Singapore with speeches in this Assembly.

As far as the Ministry of Health is concerned, in accordance with the declared policy of the P.A.P. Government, we are spending more money next year so as to provide the people of Singapore with better facilities for health and medical care. In the Development Estimates alone, a sum of more than $8 million has been allotted to cope with the planned expansion of the medical and health services for the benefit of the people of Singapore. Though the sum is only $2,825,000 more than the Development Estimates for 1959, we are confident of achieving a much better result by careful and realistic planning. The Ministry of Health has always received substantial grants for development in the past years. But the previous Government stressed on the architectural beauty of hospital buildings rather than realistic needs. This was perhaps a scheme on the part of the previous Government to pull the wool over the people's eyes. Let us take a look at the white elephant of the S.P.A. Government at the Thomson Road Hospital for the chronic sick. The buildings alone were erected at a cost of some $4,650,000 to house just 396 chronic patients. It is pertinent here, Sir, to mention that chronic patients once admitted to a hospital are unlikely to be discharged at all. That is to say the turnover of the chronic hospital will be almost nil, or at any rate very, very small once it has been filled up initially. This shows the failure of the previous Government to grasp the problem socially and economically, much less politically. The previous Government was prepared to sink a capital expenditure of $12,000 per patient in buildings alone to solve the problem of the chronic sick. This kind of shortsightedness on the part of the previous Government resulted in the deprivation of medical care for many of those needy and sick.

The first thing the Minister for Health did when he assumed office was to make a thorough and overall inspection of all hospitals and institutions in the Ministry of Health. We were aghast to see an impressive building beautifully laid out, perhaps, to rest in peace, if the previous Government had its way, at Thomson Road. It was declared open by the previous Government just before the elections as an election stunt, and left empty to stand as a monument of masterly inactivity on the part of the S.P.A. Government.

This new Government is not interested in window dressing. We are interested only in resolving the needs of our people. The $8� million will be spent in realistic expansion of the health services commensurate with the economical capacity of our country. New economical and utility types of medical units will be designed and built all over the island in an attempt to decentralise the out-patient services in order to really and truly bring health to the door steps of all the people in Singapore.

The main item of expenditure in the Health Ministry falls on personal emoluments, which account for some $22� million. Singapore is fortunate in having a medical school for more than half a century. This has resulted in the Ministry of Health being almost Malayanised. But there is no denying the fact that there is still a shortage of doctors in Singapore. This shortage has adversely affected our doctors in two ways. Firstly, the doctors were overworked to cope with the demands of the health service, and secondly, due to the inability of the service to spare the doctors to go abroad, they were unable to go overseas for higher qualifications which are so essential today in the face of rapid scientific advance and increasing medical specialisation. Our medical school, which maintains a very high standard, is unable to double its student intake at short notice. Government has, therefore, decided to send some 80 to 120 students annually abroad for medical training. However, it takes at least six years to train a doctor. Therefore, to meet the present needs, we have decided to recruit doctors from overseas on short-term contract. This probably answers the point raised by the Member for Cairnhill on the situation of the doctors in Singapore.

Since the People's Action Party formed the Government, the standard of hospital care has improved tremendously, particularly at the Woodbridge Hospital and at the Trafalgar Home. At the Kandang Kerbau Hospital too, improvement has taken place.

The out-patient services still remain congested and overcrowded, despite new extensions and added staff. This is because we are treating more than double the number of patients daily as compared with the number at the beginning of the year. It is expected that the present congestion will only be eased by complete decentralisation of the outpatient services in the future. The same applies to the Kandang Kerbau Hospital. And it is the Government's intention to build large maternity homes to solve the congestion at Kandang Kerbau Hospital in Singapore.

Singapore boasts of a very high standard of health in South East Asia. A rapidly decreasing death rate and a fast increasing birth rate have brought us new problems. The population is growing at the rate of 70,000 a year. This Government is planning a campaign to reduce the birth rate in Singapore early next year. Many of us here feel that family planning should be easy to implement. But I would like to mention here that from the social-medical point of view, it is not so. It must not be forgotten that to many of the poor, sexual relationship remains perhaps the only form of recreation they can afford. After all, the Government takes care of the pregnant mother and the infant baby completely free of charge.

5.43 p.m.

Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib (Southern Islands): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, in the debate on the Singapore budget, I wish to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that it is the responsibility of the Opposition Members to criticise constructively in the interest of all the people of Singapore. What I am surprised at is the fact that the Government considers that only the P.A.P. Government is sincere, and that it is the only Government who wish to help the poor masses: and that other than the P.A.P. Government, others do not have the interests of the people at heart.

In the speeches made by the Government backbenchers, the facts are contradictory to what has already been explained by the Minister for Finance in his Budget speech. For instance, Mr Speaker, the speech by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, who stated that there are two ways to improve the budget position of the State - by a reduction of administrative expenditure so that the masses will benefit, or by means of borrowing money, whether from the people of Singapore or from countries outside Singapore. We admit that these are two ways which can help Singapore to attain a state of peace and prosperity, so that the people will be able to taste the good things in life and there will be assurances for their children and their future. However, what we are concerned with, as I said earlier on, is that the Government assume that they alone can bring about an improvement to the masses, but the ways and means by which they spend the State's money is a matter with which we too are concerned. Indiscriminate spending, or spending to suit their own political ends - this is our concern, too.

Mr Speaker, we have just received an answer from the relevant ministry to which a question was posed, concerning the formation of voluntary contingents the members of which were given $3 per day. That was done without consultation with the Ministry of Labour. This we consider is a big matter for Singapore in regard to the unemployment problem. The Government also admits that the members of the contingent comprised P.A.P. members, or at least the great majority of them comprised P.A.P. members. Here it is obvious and apparent that the whispers circulating among ths masses do indeed have substance. The general opinion of the masses is that if you are looking for employment you have got to be a member of the P.A.P. This is an act which I consider disappointing and disgusting to the tax payers who contribute much to the State. That kind of attitude is basically wrong, because the Government, constitutionally formed, should protect the interests of the population as a whole, irrespective of whether they are following the ideologies of the party in power or otherwise.

Another point which I would like to make on this budget issue is this. After the P.A.P. assumed office, the Prime Minister issued many announcements, which were the same statements made during the election period, that is to say, to raise the standard of living of those who were neglected and ignored by the previous government. I wish to remind the House and to stress here, that the position of the past Government differed from that of the present government which is under a different constitution altogether. The powers of the past Government and those of the present Government under the new constitution also differ. I am here not to defend the past government. But I have stressed on many occasions that we are heading for a definite objective, that is to say, to shape a nation without discriminating between one community and another, and I find that the attitude or action taken by the present Government is disgusting. The Government should realise that the aim of building our nation is a big task. Hence a socialist ideology, I fear, will be a deterrent towards the shaping of a common nation.

Mr Speaker, once again I stress that it is up to the P.A.P. Government to make good. Before they assumed office, they made promises to the poor masses, for instance, to the fishermen and the farmers, because they considered that these were the people who were oppressed by the capitalists. But what I find in the Budget submitted is that such matters as affect these particular sections of the masses are not mentioned. As I have said concerning the fishermen, they are oppressed by middlemen. Therefore, it is indeed necessary that their problem should be given prime consideration. The Government should help by giving these fishermen assistance in the form of capital loans to enable them to buy new equipment or gear. However, I am of the opinion that this will not really solve the crux of their problem. They can still catch fish, but the real problem they are faced with is that after the catch, where are they going to dispose of their catch? If they are encouraged to form a co-operative society, they will find it difficult to dispose of their catch. The prices offered for their catch in the market are very low indeed. The prices offered to people who bring in the fish vary. For instance, Mr Speaker, if the fish is brought to the market by the regular persons these people will be offered fixed or regular prices. However, if the fishermen themselves bring their catch to the market, the prices offered them will be considerably lower or half of what has been offered to the middlemen. Therefore, I consider there is no other way to help the fishermen than by establishing a central marketing board, administered by the Government, for the purpose of fixing the prices of fish irrespective of who brings it in, and then the catch can be sold to the retailers. There is no other way I can think of to help the fishermen out there. I am not saying that the other ways are not practical, but it is important to help the fishermen living in the islands to solve their real problems and to improve their living standards. Not much purpose can be achieved by providing them with community centres or clinics alone if we do not look into their economic aspect as well.

Aside from that, Mr Speaker, concerning the civil servants mentioned in the speech by the Minister for Finance, originally it was decided to change the system. In column 802 of the Hansard, he says (I will read it in English):

"It is intended next year to make a review of the staffing position to ensure that there is a hard core of experienced officers in all Departments, and that opportunities will be provided for accelerated promotion to those local officers of merit and ability who are prepared to give of their best."

(Continued in Malay): Mr Speaker, in the last sentence which reads, "who are prepared to give of their best" I think that is incomplete. This is a matter about which we are uneasy. From that speech there are rumours that the civil servants wonder how they are to receive assurances from the Government, when in point of fact they are being carefully watched and they are in an embarrassing position. We have asked for assurances from the Government that, in the case of civil servants who are not able to offer themselves for voluntary services over the week-ends, nothing will be done to them and that their promotion or other rights will not be affected. We have asked for an assurance and the Prime Minister himself has given us an assurance to this effect. What the civil servants are concerned about is that, in spite of the assurance, and in order to protect their rice-bowl, they feel that they have no alternative but to offer themselves, not voluntarily, but on the pretext of being voluntary. Although such people are qualified for promotion, it has been feared that the Government would give special attention to them. Why I said this, Mr Speaker, is because they are constantly plagued with fear in their everyday livelihood, and the Government should do everything possible to allay the fears of the civil servants in the interests of all the people of Singapore.

6.05 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr Low Por Tuck): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, it has been six months since we took office and we have arrived at such a Budget. It can be said that we have tried our best to reach this Budget. Although externally this Budget is similar to that of the previous Government, if we analyse it carefully, we will see that the content is entirely different. Let us compare our Budget with the Lim Yew Hock Government's Budget. In the 1958 Budget, Government expenditure was $124 million. This was the greatest expenditure in the history of Singapore. On the contrary, our next year's Estimates amount to only $111 million. This clearly explains the economic expenditure of the Government. Six months ago we stated our economic policy. We said that we would economise in the matter of expenditure. We can now see in our Budget for 1960 the amount of our expenditure. On the other hand, our proposed $105 million Development Fund is also the greatest amount in the history of Singapore.

Just now the Member for Cairnhill criticised our Budget. We can excuse others who criticise, but not him, the Member for Cairnhill. We have to answer his criticism because he himself was still the Chief Minister six months ago. He was rather proud and happy to say that his 1958 Budget had still several million dollars remained. But if we investigate it carefully - we would know that the Estimates Expenditure for 1958 was $267 million and the Estimates revenue was $271 million - we will find that they have sold Christmas Island for $20 million. Therefore, there could have been some remainder. Otherwise we will find in the 1958 Budget a deficit of $15.5 million. But our Budget is basically different from the previous one.

Our friends on the opposite side always quote from some books. I remember that a few months ago they quoted the Five-Year Plan of the People's Action Party. But now the Member for Tanglin quoted something from Western Germany. But he has forgotten that Singapore is in the East. We are always proud to say that the P.A.P. Government is the only Government that acts on what it says. Our Budget is worked out from our Five-Year Plan which the Opposition considers as their Bible. Let us see the financial policy outlined in the Five-Year Plan. If the Member for Tanglin will read the Financial Minister's speech on the common market at page 21 of the English edition `The Tasks Ahead', he will see whether that is contradictory to the promises we had made during the election campaign.

Regarding the development plans between Singapore and the Federation given in the Budget speech, they are in line with the promises we gave in our election campaign.

On enterprise and capital investment, that has been very clearly stated in the Budget speech. We pay special attention to the economic development of our country. We are trying our best to solve the problem of the increase of population. We are not just criticising only. Apart from the statements made in the Budget speech, we have also done certain things. For instance, last month we in the Finance Ministry visited many local factories. We have paid attention to the present conditions. From our visit, we have found out that the Lim Yew Hock Government had never before visited these factories. How could they know where the problems lie? Therefore our Budget can be said to be a very proper one. It is agreeable with the promises which we gave during our election campaign. It is unlike those given by the Opposition Members who, during the election campaign, made promises but when they were elected they forgot what they had said.

Since the announcement of our Budget policy in the Press, we know, from the response of the people, that it is agreeable with the interests of the people of Singapore.

6.16 p.m.

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): Mr Speaker, Sir, in his speech, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister said that the prosperity of Singapore has been due to the tension created by international circumstances, and he also said that we do not want to be influenced by outside sources. I am at a loss to understand exactly what was in the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary when he said it. Could it be that he meant that the post-war prosperity, and indeed, the possibility to be able to stay alive in Singapore, was entirely due to tension caused by warring nations outside Singapore? If he meant that, I would, with respect, suggest to him that he has entirely misconceived the reason for the prosperity of Singapore, and the reasons which have enabled Singapore to prosper. And if by "but we do not want to be influenced by outside sources" he means that he does not want to be influenced by political factors from outside sources, I entirely agree with him. But if by that he meant (and as we are on a discussion of the Budget, be must, I think, have meant that) that we do not want to be influenced by outside sources in so far as our economy is concerned, it seems that in this matter, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and the Hon. Minister for Finance do not seem to see eye to eye. If I had understood the Minister's speech, I understood him to mean that Singapore being what it is, our prosperity and indeed our economic life is dependent on our neighbours, particularly the Federation of Malaya, and secondly, Indonesia.

I cannot believe that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister had intended to contradict the Minister for Finance on this matter. Perhaps he had political considerations in mind when he said that.

Another subject touched upon by the Parliamentary Secretary was Christmas Island. The point and purpose of touching upon Christmas Island is lost on me. What does he suggest should have been done with Christmas Island? Does he suggest that it should have been handed over by the previous Government to the P.A.P. Government as a colony? In the events that have since happened, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister had better thank his stars that that problem was taken off his plate, and that his government has got $20 million to boot.

The Parliamentary Secretary also said that the P.A.P. Government has reduced the expenditure of Government on every possible head of expenditure it could think of. Undoubtedly it has done. On some of the larger items of expenditure in the Government budget, they have done it quite well - quite effectively - by unilaterally reducing total emoluments of Government servants. They have done that very well. On other matters, they have increased expenditure rather than diminished it. The cost of ministerial government, Mr Speaker, Sir, has increased and not decreased. And by an increase in the cost of ministerial government, I mean that the salaries paid to Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries to Ministers, and Political Secretaries to Ministers have increased over those paid to Ministers and Assistant Ministers in the previous Government.

An analysis of the budget will indicate that for the previous government, the cost of Ministers was $317,000 approximately, whereas the cost under the present Government is 515,000 approximately. So that the cost, Mr Speaker, Sir, is easily deducible. The increase in cost of ministerial government under the present P.A.P. Government has gone well over $190,000. It is not a very big sum possibly, but when a government goes out of its way to boast that it has cut down on government expenditure by reducing the personal emoluments of civil servants, then this increase in the cost of ministerial government does not exactly seem to be in keeping with their avowed policy of keeping down expenditure on personal emoluments.

The Parliamentary Secretary then said that in a short time, the Minister for Finance was able to balance the somewhat unbalanced budget of the previous Government. Whilst not for one moment detracting from what the Hon. Minister for Finance did to balance the budget, might I say that it was not an operation that presented very great difficulty to a man of the calibre of our Minister for Finance? All he had to do was arbitrarily to impose cuts on the salary of civil servants and to stop expenditure on special services. It was as simple as that, Mr Speaker, and yet, we are asked to believe by the supporters of the P.A.P. Government that the Minister for Finance had done something quite wonderful, and that he and only he could have done it; and in trying to persuade us to believe that it was only he who could have done it, they tell us what a wonderful economist he is. Let me hasten to assure them that I am the first to agree with them that he is a wonderful economist.

An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr Rajah: Now, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health - he is not here.

An hon. Member: Look for a bigger one!

Mr Rajah: He warned the Opposition Members not to frighten the people of Singapore with speeches in the Assembly. It is strange that this warning should come from a member of the P.A.P. To warn the Opposition Members! - Poor, isolated Members on this side of the House - that we could frighten the people of Singapore with speeches in this Assembly. If anybody has frightened the people of Singapore with speeches, it is not the Opposition Members, but it is the members of the P.A.P. Government who, during their vigorous campaigning, had frightened the people of Singapore.

The Prime Minister: We won!

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I must congratulate the Hon, the Minister for Finance for presenting such a balanced budget. In the particular circumstances in which the Minister for Finance found himself when he was called upon to present his Budget, I suggest that his Budget was the only thing that he could have presented. And we must pay tribute to his genius for not giving way to the more difficult elements in his party in the matter of the Budget, and in placing the interests of the country before any other interest. Any other budget at this particular juncture in the economic life of Singapore would have hastened its decadence.

Let us assess the circumstances as they now prevail in the light of what the P.A.P. Government have done over the last six months, and even before, and what they intend to do in the future as revealed in the budget which they have proposed to this House. The most important problem that is now worrying the parents of Singapore is education. The Ministry of Education has such revolutionary plans for seeking to change the way of life and the way of thought of the children of Singapore. They wish to achieve all their objectives in the five years they hope to be in for. Mr Speaker, Sir, the objective of being able to understand one another in a common language without the difficulty of having interpreters by one's side to translate one's fellow citizens' speech is a laudable objective, and is one which must be achieved in the least possible time. But one must not hasten these rather difficult processes in human development merely because the Government wants to attain that objective within a given period of time. No one quarrels with the Government over its education objective, but the quarrel with the Government is in respect of the manner in which it seeks to put forward these experiments in education, hoping to achieve their objective within their term of office. The first thing the Government did when it came into power was to declare that it would have a six-day week. Perhaps it is a good thing. I do not know. I am not an educational expert, Sir. But we seem to have survived over the years with the five-day week. We have produced a Prime Minister of the calibre of our present one, and we have produced a Finance Minister of the calibre of our present Minister for Finance, and I believe they grew to this intellectual stature on the five-day week.

An hon. Member: Not leisure.

Mr Rajah: And yet our Education Minister would have us believe that, to build a better nation and to produce a better lot of Prime Ministers, Finance Ministers (who can say that we could get better ones than what we have today, even with a six-day week) it is necessary to impose the six-day week?

The Prime Minister: What about the language situation?

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, the most important thing to Singapore is for us all to think like Malayans and act like Malayans. I believe the Prime Minister in one of his speeches said that, when he was in the United Kingdom for further studies (I believe it was post-war) and that whenever he met a Chinese from Singapore in London, he could see the difference between that Chinese and other Chinese from China. Might I say to the Prime Minister, Mr Speaker, Sir, that when I was in England pre-war - that was in the year 1929-

The Prime Minister: Hyde Park!

Mr Rajah: I also experienced the same feelings that the Prime Minister himself did experience. That when we from Malaya - be he a Malay, Chinese, Indian, Ceylonese or anybody else who had been born and bred here - met in London we were able to understand each other readily; but when we met Chinese from China or Indians from India or Ceylonese from Ceylon, we found that we could not take to them. In fact, we found them alien to us. Mr Speaker, Sir, the tendency was always for Malayans to stick together with Malayans in London. What does that indicate? Does that not indicate, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the way of thought, the way of life, the way of approach to problems were similar and that we could all understand one another irrespective of race or pigmentation? Might I suggest, with respect to the Minister for Education, that the most important thing for us in Singapore is to develop a Malayan outlook? And to develop a Malayan outlook, what better way is there than of putting all our children in one school irrespective of race rather than do what is now becoming known as "segregation" in schools? I know the Education Minister has vehemently denied it. I am very appreciative of that fact. But the people of Singapore are still worried about what they call segregation of the races. If the objective is for all of us to be bilingual or trilingual within five years' time, that in itself is an objective worthy of attainment, Mr Speaker. But I put it to the Education Minister that even more worthy of attainment is a Malayan outlook. Anything that will detract from the creation of a Malayan outlook is something which the Government should discourage. And I am telling the Ministry of Education that this so-called taking away of Indian boys and Malay boys and putting them in certain schools, merely because the teaching situation is difficult and it might add to the costs of Government, is, in my opinion, a policy which will not pay this country in the long run. If it is going to cost the Government more, well then let it cost the Government more because the main objective should be to build a common Malayan outlook.

Under the heading Education on page 152 of the Singapore Annual Report for 1958 certain figures are given which show that so far as English schools are concerned, there were 99,000 pupils in Government schools and 33,482 pupils in Government-aided schools, making a total of about 120,000 pupils in all Government schools. In a further section on page 145, there is a statement which says that in 1958, there were 14,719 candidates for the entrance examination of which approximately 750 were from Malay schools. From that, it appears to me, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the percentage of pupils in secondary schools is about 10 to 11 per cent of the total student population in Government and Government-aided English schools. So that 90 per cent of our children, Mr Speaker, Sir, go to primary schools and the other 10 per cent find themselves in secondary schools. May I put a proposition to the Ministry of Education for consideration? I understand that the introduction of the six-day week, Mr Speaker, has not added very much to the actual amount of school hours in school so far as primary schools are concerned. It is negligible. The five-day week and the six-day week provide the same number of school hours for the primary schools. Would not the Ministry of Education consider introducing only a six-day week for secondary schools and stop the six-day week for the primary schools? This would release a number of teachers, and Saturdays would be free for the primary schools, and could not Saturdays be utilised for the purpose of language tuition for the primary schools? I understand that the difficulty confronting the Ministry is the lack of teachers in Malay, and in Tamil and Chinese possibly. Now, instead of taking the children to the teachers, could not the teachers be taken to the children? Could not the teachers be provided with some form of transport to go from school to school and there teach Tamil or Malay as the case may be, rather than to dragoon all Malay and Tamil school children into some schools merely to cut down the cost in education? These are thoughts, Mr Speaker, which have passed through my mind and which I place before the Hon, the Minister for Education for his consideration.

6.39 p.m.

[Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Kandasamy) in the Chair]

Mr Rajah: The next item that concerns the people of Singapore is the question of housing. The Development Estimates provide a sum of $25 million for the Ministry of National Development for the erection of houses. We have not heard what exactly the plans are and how the Minister for National Development hopes to utilise this $25 million during the space of 12 short months. We had also been promised a lot of houses for the year 1959. So far as I can make out, not one housing unit has been completed by the Trust. The question therefore pertinently arises, Mr Deputy Speaker, will the Ministry of National Development be able fully to utilise this $25 million which has been allocated to that Ministry, or is it merely a paper vote which, owing to the conditions prevailing in the Singapore Improvement Trust, the Minister for Finance knows that the Trust cannot fulfil? I understand there are no architects in the Trust, or such architects as there are have so little experience in building, that they do not know which way to site buildings - east, west, left or centre. If that is the position in the Singapore Improvement Trust, can they utilise the $25 million? We understand that one housing unit is going to cost $4,000. That means the Ministry will erect well over 6,000 housing units during 1960. I do not know what plans have been laid now, whether the sites have been earmarked, whether contracts have been let out, whether plans have been put on paper and contracts have been signed. If none of these has been done, I am suggesting, Mr Deputy Speaker, that building operations cannot start on the site for another four to five months and that the Minister for Finance will, at the end of 1960, find himself with, instead of a deficit budget, a surplus budget. And this will not be through any stroke of genius on his part, not this time.

Now, the other factor - if you want to build houses, not only must you have architects and engineers, but you must also have a building trade fit, ready and willing to receive the grand plans of the Minister for Housing. I understand the building trade in Singapore is in the doldrums and the builders are slowly but surely trekking their way up to the Federation where there is a building boom. And if the Minister for National Development does not hurry on with his plans, he will not have the builders or the workers to construct them.

No Government can hope to provide a sufficiency of houses for everyone in Singapore, and for that reason it is vital that Government encourage building also on the private sector. What has the P.A.P. Government done to encourage this? Since December 1957, the Mayor of the City Council - he is now with us as the Minister for National Development - did everything possible not only to discourage but to kill private enterprise in the private sector of building. The Mayor was unable to appreciate that revenue from assessments is the backbone of municipal finance, and that if you kill the building trade and private building, you destroy municipal finance. If there is one thing in respect of which the Mayor will go down in the history of Singapore, he will certainly go down as the one who most effectively destroyed the main sinews of municipal finance.

The next point, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to touch on is the professional services in Government. The Finance Minister in his speech said that he was offering allowances staggered in three categories - $100, $200 and $300. $100 for professional and technical people with under seven years' experience; $200 for professional and technical people of over seven years' experience; and $300 for those who give the Government true and faithful service. Whether this only includes (this faithful category, I mean) the technicians and professional men, the Minister did not make quite clear. Or whether he wanted to take within his embrace the whole of the Civil Service by offering the $300 bounty to all the civil servants who are good, true, loyal and work hard, even perhaps on Sundays, that was not made quite clear. Perhaps the Minister might clarify that point. Now, I wonder what the Minister for Labour and Law has to say on a matter like that. What reactions will a genuine trade union movement have to the offer by an employer to his employees who work so hard that the employer of his own free will gives $300 each? I have always understood from good trade unionists that this is one of the ways in which employers seek to split trade unionists. I am sure the Minister for Finance-

Dr Goh Keng Swee: It is an incentive.

Mr Rajah: These are incentives. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to the Minister for Finance - these are incentives to break wide open the trade union movement.

Mr Byrne: No. It is to encourage good unionists!

Mr Rajah: Do you remember in the bad old days when posts carried "Allowances, Special to the Holder" - that. I believe, was the technical term in the bad old days. The unions fought against it. Oh yes, they fought tooth and nail. They said, "The post must be paid according to what it is worth." "Special to the Holder" merely means the blue-eyed boy gets everything and the rest get nothing. Does the Finance Minister want to do a thing like that? I am sure he does not.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: We will cut out the $300.

Mr Rajah: On the question of income tax. I am somewhat disappointed with the cursory statement of the Minister for Finance that there was tax evasion and that he was going to tighten up the tax machinery in order that it might effectively collect more. I think it is public knowledge, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there has been tax evasion on a mass scale in Singapore, if I may put it that way, with the result that a lot of people, who should be paying taxes and thus pulling their financial weight behind the State, have been evading it.

I have with me, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Hansard of 13th December, 1957. This is the official report on the 1958 Budget; col. 2921. Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who was then the Member for Tanjong Pagar, said:

"We are just indicating, Mr Speaker, Sir, as a matter of general government policy that if and when the P.A.P. runs this government, we shall see that the Income Tax Department does its duty. The way to do it is the way it is done in all civilized countries. If you think that Mr Goldsmith has not been paying his tax, then judging from the number of cars and the number of diamond solitaires his wife exhibits, you just put in an estimate of what you think he ought to pay and let him disprove it. If he pays it, next year double the estimate; then let him disprove it. If he pays again, quadruple it, and so we go on until we make everybody in the community pay their fair share of taxation or become barrow-boys or hawkers, in which case they do not have to pay any taxes at all. It might well be, as a result of just rounding off this computation, Mr Speaker, Sir, at 12,300 employers, as I said, on the mean average of $50,000 chargeable profits, that ought to bring $8,630 per employer, which means $106,149,000 per year just from employers alone. I could develop this argument, and I will, all about this property tax both in the city area and the Rural Board. But a conservative estimate of what could be collected on present rates is somewhere in the region of $128 million per year; in other words, double what the Hon. the Financial Secretary estimates for next year. The tragedy of the situation is this, that although this is what should be the case, whatever Government comes into power next year it will be saddled with the same apparatus with which to extract the tax. Unless we have a ruthless Minister for Finance who will deal with inept and bureaucratic civil servants and will improve the running of the machinery of state, we will be back in the same position."

Now, Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not know what "the same position" means, but if the collection of the same amount of tax must necessarily indicate the same position, then we are in "the same position" today as when the Member for Tanjong Pagar, who happily is now the Prime Minister, addressed the Assembly on the 1958 Budget. So that if one can place any weight on the speech of the Member for Tanjong Pagar - and I am not the one to say that no one should not - then I think the position is that even today, with drastic measures, the provision of $65 million by way of income tax for the year 1960 is certainly inadequate and very much below the paying capacity of the tax-paying public in Singapore. Whether we have a ruthless Minister for Finance, I do not know, but he certainly is not lacking in courage - that we know. Therefore, he is the man for the job and we hope that when the final accounts for the year 1960 are written, instead of an amount of $65 million by way of income tax we shall have $120 million collected in the way of income tax, which will mean then, of course, instead of a $6 million deficit we shall have a surplus budget of $60 million; and the P.A.P. Government will have found all the monies they want for all the development projects over the next four years or so.

Now, turning to the Medical Services. I remember the Minister for Health, whilst making a statement to the Press - I wonder if it was correctly reported, but this is what I read - that so far as the doctors were concerned, he was not worried, they could go. But he was worried about his nurses! He was wondering whether his nurses would stay with him, but if the doctors were to go, "let them go; so long as I have my nurses." Within six months of that report "we expanded so much that we are now going abroad to recruit 60 doctors." That seems to be an appropriate comment on the Minister's references to the Press about his Medical Services. Quite frankly, Mr Deputy Speaker, we are not running a government service composed of morons or donkeys. We are running a government service composed of human beings, and if you treat them like human beings they will give you good, true, honest, efficient service like human beings. What the doctors are worried about is not so much that they are being called upon to do the work that two doctors should be doing. Most of them are doing it now, and most of them are doing it willingly. But what they object to is the manner in which they are being pushed around by the Ministry and its officials, and no appreciation is given them for the amount of hard work, long hours, and no holidays which they are now doing. If the Government could only treat its servants as human beings, they will get much better results.

With regard to the development programme envisaged by this Government, as set out in the Budget, a close inspection of it, Mr Deputy Speaker, seems to indicate - to me at least - that very little is going to be done. Most of the development projects are subject to financial control and by that I understand it to mean that no plans have yet been formulated, and when they are formulated, it will be subject to the most agonising scrutiny by the Minister for Finance; and by the time the Estimates have got through the agonising scrutiny of the Minister for Finance, the year might be over. So we end up in this happy position - that if the Minister for Finance, who it is suggested should be ruthless in his income tax collections, does in fact get ruthless and rake in another $60 million and if the development projects have not been advanced further over the next six months than they are today, the $60 million estimated to be spent on development projects will not be spent, and we shall end up our final accounts for the year 1960 with a $150 million surplus.

6.55 p.m.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Deputy Speaker, may I start by quoting a very well-known Chinese proverb, which is Tsuo ma k'an hua, meaning "Riding on horses and looking at flowers"? The Budget is an extremely complicated piece of work on which several minds have been turned for several months. For the Opposition to stand up and in a few minutes blast it to smithereens, shows I think a tendency to be superficial and just to denigrate whatever effort the Government is trying to make with the limited financial means at its disposal. It is fortunate that the P.A.P. came into power at the end of May last, because we found very soon that there was going to be a $14 million deficit for 1959. Quite rightly, when you are faced with empty coffers, the important thing to do is to tighten your belts - pay cuts have to be imposed and all of us shared in them. It is not because we did not wish to consult anybody or that we were arbitrary in our action, but a firm and quick decision had to be made before the situation deteriorated. And I would say that the industry at large appreciates this action - that we are honestly trying to balance our budget.

We also discovered that the reserves had fallen from $320 million to $87 million in the short space of five years. What did the old S.P.A. Government do to stop the running down of the reserves? They sold Christmas Island for a song - $20 million to be exact. In 1957 the revenue expected from Christmas Island was $1.2 million. They have a further lease for 32 years and, on that estimate, would have earned us an estimated $38.4 million. Instead, the old government sold it for $20 million - half that price.

The Member for Farrer Park brought an attack on the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister - that he has no argument for talking on Christmas Island - and suggested that we would want to colonise Christmas Island. But may I quote here what has been said by the last Government on Christmas Island:

"No useful purpose would be served by a Minister visiting, apart from the practical difficulty getting there."

that is Christmas Island:

"...and back. The Island clearly cannot be part of a self-governing Singapore and it would be wrong to let the inhabitants think that they are in a position to reopen H.M.G.'s decision."

And who are the inhabitants, Mr Deputy Speaker? The inhabitants are 1,810 Chinese, 489 Malaysians, 9 Indians, 136 Europeans, making a total of 2,444. That was the census, Mr Deputy Speaker, in 1956.

Mr Deputy Speaker, when the P.A.P. Government found that financially we were faced with a critical situation, we did the right thing. It was lucky that we came in time, otherwise we would have found that the S.P.A. Government would have sold Singapore to somebody else.

But may I reply to the Member for Mountbatten who has shown her interest in aeroplanes? She has asked us for the Government policy on the Airport. Here I would like to state that the present potential capacity of our single runway is far greater than the existing traffic. The Airport is estimated to lose $2.8 million in 1960, and it has been regularly losing about $2 million every year. Let us remember, before we talk about extending the runway, that there are altogether four aerodromes in a little island of 220 square miles - three military airports at Changi, Seletar and Tengah, and one civil airport. Extending an airport would mean displacing people who are living in that area. Extending your airport is not in any way going to increase your revenue. What is important is that more aircraft should be permitted to use the Airport. More airline operators should be allowed to use the Airport. Only in this way can we increase our landing fees and, therefore, help to cover the expenses paid to the Airport.

At the moment the Government is not in a position to control any air traffic rights in Singapore. That is because, from my understanding of letters exchanged, the old Government had agreed that civil aviation comes under foreign affairs, and that being so, it is in the hands of the United Kingdom. That is all I wish to say, Mr Deputy Speaker.

7.04 p.m.

Miss Chan Choy Siong (Delta): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, first of all, I want to reply to the two respectable Opposition Member - the Member for Cairnhill and the Member for Farrer Park.

They said that the Ministry of National Development had during the past few months sacked many engineers. Mr Speaker, many engineers have resigned. We can tell them directly that under the P.A.P. Government, and also when we were in the City Council, we want an efficient Government. When we were in the City Council and when we saw them working in our departments, the engineers were irresponsible and did not work for the people. At the time when we were in the City Council, we carried out a revolutionary project, and that is how to make those engineers work well and effectively and with responsibility. But, unfortunately, our project was frustrated by the Opposition. Today the P.A.P. Government is supported and elected by the people. I can tell you why during the past six months many engineers have resigned from the Ministry of National Development. There are many engineers who had not been sacked. They had gone to foreign countries by air and they had sent a letter saying that they were going to resign. They had their motives. Now we can tell you why the engineers in the Ministry of National Development had resigned. We have recruited many local engineers, because we have full confidence in local engineers. They are able to work with responsibility. Today with the P.A.P. in the Ministry of National Development, we have completed a lot of work during the past six months.

Regarding our 1960 Budget, the Member for Mountbatten has said that the Ministry of National Development did not build any houses. There were no projects like those in Kuala Lumpur. She must realise that the reason why there is development in Kuala Lumpur is because they are going to build a capital. They must build a capital city there. In Singapore at present we must take care of the interest of the people - the people's housing problem. The Member for Farrer Park said that he does not know what we can do within a period of 12 months. But strangely enough we have taken office for only six months, and not twelve months. Whether it is six months or twelve months our work will be completed. That we will tell the Opposition Members.

Much improvement in the reorganisation of the Ministry of National Development and S.I.T. has been made during the past six months. The old S.I.T. complaints of corruption against the allocation of flats, the passing of plans and the construction of S.I.T. houses plus the transfer of T.O.L.s or State reverted properties are now no more.

There are 1,800 houses of more than 99 years lease belonging to the Government. They have been a source of much corruption. Work has been started to reorganise these 2,000 units of Government State reverted houses.

At the same time the Rent Conciliation Board is being reconstituted to represent more equitably the interests of the poor tenants. The previous Board was mostly composed of members of the Landlord class.

The Land Office is undergoing a thorough reorganisation and a study is now being made of a revision of our land policies so that the little land available to us in Singapore would be made use of to the maximum advantage.

As soon as the S.I.T. was reorganised we started on building for the two fire sites namely the Kampong Tiong Bahru and Kampong Koo Chye sites. Work would be completed very soon and with the finance available to the S.I.T. in 1959 we are embarking on the use of all available funds we have to build up another 2,000 units of flats in the Kampong Tiong Bahru fire site. This will be the first time that the S.I.T. is building really low cost housing and the rent of these flats would be within the means of the lower income groups. Next year, when the $25 million is made available to the Housing Authority we hope that with the checks in corruption, the drafting of plans on a rational basis and the useful employment of local architects instead of expatriate architects we can build about 8,000 units of flats. $25 million if used by the old S.I.T. would only build 4,000 units of flats.

Corruption in the passing of plans was well known and since the S.I.T. was reorganised all such allegations have stopped. The passing of plans is most susceptible to temptations of corruption by unscrupulous people who can make millions of dollars from the passing of plans each year.

7.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed): (In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, today is the first day in the history of Singapore when a programme concerning the economic policy framed by a people's government is being discussed. In opening the debate, the Member for Cairnhill said that, after hearing and reading the Government's financial policy for 1960, there was nothing for the present Government to crow about. Admittedly the P.A.P. Government does not make it its policy to crow, because we do not wish to be the cock that crows. It is the hen that lays the eggs. Indirectly the Member said that, from the speech made by the Minister for Finance, it was apparent that there was a split in the Party hierarchy. I think this is irrelevant and, in point of fact, it is only people who suffer from nightmares and people who are faced with a split in their own party who are themselves full of wishful thinking. Foreign capital, he said, has no confidence in the present Government. This is most unreasonable, because Singapore has now become one of the biggest and busiest harbours in the world.

Certain Members from the Opposition made a hue and cry about the reduction of the variable allowances and they have accused Government of being dictatorial and that no opportunity and no mercy were shown to the civil servants. This is a wild accusation which was made in a moment of emotion and sentiment.

The Member for Kampong Kembangan in his speech touched on the preamble contained in the Constitution of Singapore. I think I am quite sure the Member had in mind the special privileges for the Malays as the indigenous people of the country. He also touched on the appointments for 1960 about which no specific mention was made by the Minister for Finance. He also mentioned the Economic Development Board. Again the Member warned that if in this matter the Government has no specific policy, then U.M.N.O. will determine the shape of the government in the future.

During the election, there were people who were prepared to tear down manifestos in the presence of huge crowds. Actually, as the people's government, we are fully conscious of the fate of the neglected and the downtrodden in this country. It is our responsibility to help raise their standard of living, whether they are Malays, Chinese or Indians. Today, we had the opportunity to receive a course on economics from a Member of the Opposition who produced various booklets and made the accusation that the P.A.P. Government worked subject to capitalist interest and to the party interest - that is to say, that at one time it is for the left and at another it is for the right. It is fortunate the Member did not say that the P.A.P. Government worked for three interests - party interest, capitalist interest and also self-interest. If the P.A.P. Government support the demands of the people and, at the same time, respect the interests of the capitalists, this is because we should know the situation in which Singapore is placed. It is lacking in raw materials and dependent mainly on its entrep�t. But what we oppose are the capitalist groups who oppress the downtrodden. We do not wish to adopt the attitude of taking away one man's credit and depriving him of it. The Member for Tanglin also said that social democracy, which is being carried out by the P.A.P. Government, differs from that in England. Yes, it is different. Because the circumstances between those obtaining in England and those in Singapore are different. He also suggested that we should follow the examples of the economic policy pursued by Western Germany. I do not know which socialist ideology he follows, whether it is that of West Germany or of England. I think putting forward theories is an easy matter.

7.22 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed): You buy at one cent, sell at three cents and you can make a profit of two cents. But the position of the buying public must be considered. Just by putting forward theories I think if the Member for Tanglin becomes the Minister for Finance, the economic position will change every other day.

To the Member for Southern Islands, I would like to stress that it is the responsibility of the Opposition to criticise. As for his accusation that the P.A.P. Government has claimed that it is the only sincere party, we have not made such a claim. But we have said that we are the only party which can carry out its pledges.

The worry and the fear that money is being spent wastefully is unfounded. We will not betray the trust of the people. As an example, mention was made of the Minister for National Development recruiting workers without consulting the Ministry of Labour and Law. I think what is being done is better than what had been done by the previous Government. Against the P.A.P. Government, there was also the accusation that if you are unemployed, in order to get a job you have to be a member of the P.A.P. This is not true. If there are P.A.P. members in the squad, what of it? The Minister for National Development has admitted openly that there are P.A.P. members in the squad. It is not true to say that as it is the Party in power, all the top posts are being held by P.A.P. members. It is not fair for the Member for Southern Islands to make wild charges. If he wants to know what the Opposition is doing, he must ask his Opposition friends. Concerning the promise to raise the standard of living of those who were neglected by the past government, it is true that the Government is giving serious consideration to this matter. They do not make promises every other day, but once we make a promise, we will see to it that it is carried out.

In regard to promotion, which is a matter of concern to the Member for Southern Islands, I think the civil servants should realise that they need not have any doubt in their minds that the P.A.P. Government is constantly paying attention to the safety and interest of the civil servants. And we hope that they will not work only when they are asked to. Mr Speaker, I think all the other charges will be answered by my colleagues. If I were to reply to them one by one, it will take me two hours or so.

7.25 p.m.

The Minister for Education (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): Mr Speaker, I find it rather difficult to reply to the Opposition Members when they are not in the House to listen to what I have to say. Yet time is catching on, and one could not possibly allow wild statements to go unanswered. I shall therefore have to speak my piece and allow the Opposition Members to read it in Hansard, or perhaps the hon. Member for Tanglin would kindly pass the word round.

Firstly, replying to the Member for Cairnhill, former Chief Minister and last Minister for Education of the now dead Government. He has raised the point that this Government should very quickly publish the Report of Dr Gwee Ah Leng. He was the Chairman of the Committee that was appointed to review the Prescott Commission's Report on Nanyang University. It is, I think, important to mention that the Prescott Commission's Report was handed to the last Minister for Education who is now the Member for Cairnhill on the 12th of March, 1959. He did not have the courage to publish the Report, but allowed it to hang fire for 2� months, till his Government lost miserably at the last elections. And this Government, under two months, published the Prescott Commission's Report and also decided to appoint a Review Committee headed by Dr Gwee Ah Leng to go into that Report. Dr Gwee Ah Leng's Report was handed to me on 20th of November - just three weeks ago. The Report is now under consideration by the Government and will be published after due consideration.

We are aware of the anxiety of the people over Nanyang University and the graduates who are soon to be produced. The Prime Minister himself has already announced the fact that the Education Ministry will be employing at least 50 of the graduates from Nanyang University for the next year subject to selection by the Public Service Commission. While on this subject, it is pertinent to ask what has happened to the so-called $5 million that was promised by the last Government. It was stated publicly and it was published in the Press, under the name of Mr Tan Lark Sye some weeks ago, that the last Deputy Speaker had suggested this $5 million grant which had the support of the former Chief Minister, Mr Lim Yew Hock, and his colleagues. Since there had been no public denial, we can only say that wild promises had been made by responsible members of the last Government and they have run away from those promises.

Mr Speaker, if it had been a case of breach of promise I think it would have gone to court and serious penalties would have been imposed. So you can see for yourselves the type of politicians who made wild promises and who ran away from them when the time of reckoning came. Even at this very moment, they are not present to listen to my reply. There is talk of development of schools which the former Minister for Education was proud to talk about. Yes, we see wasteful expenditure of Government money in that there are parquet floors in science laboratories; parquet floors for school halls. I suppose the former Minister for Education and now Member for Cairnhill is very interested in dancing so that all these facilities are available. We are not.

I must go on now to answer the Member for Farrer Park, when he said that we are attempting to do too much in too short a time. Mr Speaker, the problems facing this country, especially in respect of trying to bring about unity out of a diversity of four educational streams which have developed in four different ways, and trying to integrate them into one to form the basis of the future nation of Singapore, do not permit of lazy or usual methods of solution. We must have courage if we want to build a nation. We must be prepared to experiment. If we fear to experiment, we might as well turn the clock back and choose to be under colonial government.

The Member for Farrer Park brings up the subject of the six-day week. Little does he realise that one-half of education in Singapore comes under the Chinese stream.

I am glad the Member for Farrer Park is back, because I am answering his queries. One-half of the educational system in Singapore is the Chinese stream. Because of his fears of a six-day week, he seems to be oblivious of the fact that there is such a thing as a Chinese stream existing in Singapore. Does he realise that in both the elementary and secondary schools in the Chinese stream, a six-day week is common and normal? They have had it, but of course it was not quite a full six-day week. They used to stop their classes at 11 on Saturday mornings. Only the English schools which were accustomed to a five-day week regarded the six-day week as an extra day of hard labour!

The Member then talked about a Malayan outlook. Surely that is the last thing that he could possibly level against the People's Action Party - that we do not know what is a Malayan outlook, and how we are to proceed about it. His suggestion, which was for a five-day week, but to allow the sixth day to be taken up with pure language teaching, is very simple to put forward. But surely it is not beyond his comprehension to realise that you do not learn languages one day in a week. Language is taught day in and day out, hour after hour, before it gets right into your system. Only then can language be part of yourself! It is necessary, therefore, that there should be adequate language teaching facilities during the course of the week and for so many periods a day. We hope to put in at least 44 hours per week for language teaching. But he rears the ugly head of segregation. We have already stated, Mr Speaker, that this is optional. It is not compulsory. Parents have a right to refuse; and if they do, their children stay where they are.

One of the most important tenets of a democratic society is to ensure that the rights of the minority are respected. Which is exactly what this Government is trying to do in Singapore, which has largely a Chinese population. It is important that we must give in a little to the Malay and Tamil sections of the public who form the minority.

As things stand in the English schools, I should like now to inform the Member for Farrer Park what present conditions are like for the purpose of teaching Malay and Tamil in English schools. The numbers are too small to form a class because we have perhaps five, or three, or one Malay pupil or Tamil in a class. Almost every class in most schools is perhaps 90 per cent Chinese. When the Chinese have their Chinese classes in an English school, what happens? The Malays and Tamils could have their classes if they can get the teachers. But they will have to have their classes in make-shift classrooms, verandahs, tiffin sheds, bicycle parks, even in the open, and sometimes next to the school lavatories. If you call that segregation, I throw my hands. Here is a case of wanting to provide the minority with as good facilities as the majority.

I feel, Mr Speaker, that perhaps there will be more time for me during the period in the Committee of Supply to answer other questions, since time is the limiting factor tonight.

7.35 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Mr Speaker, Sir, had the tables been turned, we would, I think, have given the Opposition a much more rousing time than they have given us.

It is very difficult to take seriously opponents who cannot stand up to your punches. One gets a feeling of being cruel to people who, when you knock them down once, stay down for an indefinite length of time.

The pay cuts, the pay cuts, the pay cuts! Round and round the mulberry bush! There was nothing other than the pay cuts. Then there was the Member for Cairnhill's favourite technique of fishing in troubled waters. I have told him on several occasions in the past that the least profitable thing is to try and exploit differences real or supposed in the P.A.P. We are a democratic Party with a tremendous amount of guts and gusto. We have our differences of opinion, and we settle them in the Party. And believe me, those who go fishing in troubled waters will find that it is not a tadpole which will take the bait, but a big whale that will take the fisherman into the water.

From the Sunday School teacher who ventured into the fields of economics and high finance - I do not know whether we ought to take him seriously, or whether we should sit down and laugh our heads off. The bits of ill-digested, ill-understood economic titbits do not make up for an economic philosophy, and that is what is in this document produced by the P.A.P. Government through its Minister for Finance. There is a political philosophy underlying an economic treatise. I thought today, if they had some people who could help them do their thinking - as was suggested by the Member for Tanglin that he had some friends whom he had consulted on these high economic matters - that they would have propounded a counter-economic theory. All we had was a lot of rather sour and not very clever witticisms. That was what the Opposition choose to believe is a throttle attack on the P.A.P. Budget.

I was not in this House when I was being quoted from Hansard, and I therefore reserve the opportunity to deal with the quotation later. But I would remind the Member for Farrer Park that when the P.A.P. says something, there is usually sufficient circumspection to provide for all kinds of contingencies. The art of political leadership lies not in making reckless, irresponsible and sweeping generalisations. It lies in the art of prophecy with sufficient of the enigma of oracles to meet all eventualities. Indeed, Sir, for that reason, I think he must have been the most surprised person to find himself here because I do not think he expected it.

Now, may I meet the only point made by the Member for Farrer Park that is worthy of any consideration, this pet theme of his - that the cost of ministerial government has gone up from $300,000 to $500,000? In the course of the five days in Committee of Supply, I shall take him to task on this. First of all, on the basis of the computation; secondly, on this point - is he really suggesting that it would have been good government had he and his friends (in those halcyon days in 1955 when they had ambitions of winning the election under the Rendel Constitution) won and formed the Government? This is a Government that is prepared to put its cards on the table - that is the first function of the Government in this Asian situation. A government that shilly-shallies is one that perishes. We take our views out into the open, thrash them out, and establish what we consider to be right. That is the secret of the strength of the P.A.P. Those who seek political longevity should do well to dwell on this: that the art of long, political life is the art of being honest and being prepared to meet all corners on the level, in the open. That we intend to do for the next five days.

Mr Speaker: Is there nobody else who wishes to speak? Dr Goh, in reply?

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Mr Speaker, Sir, human beings, when they find themselves in an extraordinary situation, are liable to behave in extraordinary ways. For instance, in a shipwreck and in critical situations of that nature, the normal pattern of behaviour is often abandoned and we see the basic characteristics or basic qualities of a person emerging. Somerset Maugham is the one writer whose main theme is to dwell on the unusual behaviour of human beings in critical or extraordinary or unusual circumstances. But, I think, not even Somerset Maugham's deep understanding of human nature would have enabled him to forecast with any accuracy how Members of the Opposition in the Singapore Legislative Assembly will react and behave when they are faced with the task of criticising the first Budget of the People's Action Party Government.

We find, much to our delight, that the Member for Mountbatten is a staunch champion of taxi-drivers and hawkers. The Member for Tanglin has revealed a hitherto unsuspected predilection for out-of-date socialist literature, and the Member for Cairnhill emerges as a Gallahad in shining armour in defence of the Nanyang University. Sir, I put it to you as a simple and straightforward proposition that these are attitudes that have been adopted with the general elections four and a half years hence in mind, and that they do not reflect any genuine philosophical conviction when they set out on the task of commenting on the Budget.

I am afraid I am now engaged in a race against time. Within a period of about fifteen minutes I have to review the comments made by Members of the Opposition. I shall start with the Member for Cairnhill. He stated that he found difficulty in adding up figures which I gave in my budget statement. I am sorry I have to go over this ground all over again. But I realise that elementary arithmetic may be beyond the capacity of some people. When the Government came into office, the budget deficit as stated in the Ordinary Estimates was $4 million. That is correct. That is quite true. But there was a deficit of $18 million in the Development budget, and I think the Member for Cairnhill did not understand that, in the calculation of a possible budget deficit for this year, I had to take into account not only the deficit in the Ordinary Estimates but the large deficit in the Development Estimates.

As I have explained in the budget statement, if things were left to go on as planned by the previous Government, we would be faced with an overall deficit of $42 million, to which the late supplementary estimates made in May this year contributed $10 million. These late estimates were put up clearly with the general elections in mind. More important and more basic are the Member for Cairnhill's comments on the P.A.P. policy towards capital and trade in this country. He has the audacity to say that-

Mr Speaker: Order. I think I have over-ruled the word "audacity" in the past. Perhaps the Minister will withdraw the word.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I withdraw that word, Sir, I intended to convey to you that he was sufficiently misguided to come to the conclusion that it was the P.A.P. that was responsible for frightening business by what he termed silly utterances. Now, I wish to recall some of the statements made by the Opposition Members during the election campaign.

Unfortunately I do not have the Press cuttings with me, and therefore I can only speak from memory. The Member for Cairnhill himself said that if the P.A.P. were to come to power, Singapore would be a dead city. The homes would be empty and the streets would be deserted. Well, Mr Speaker, Sir, everyone knows that during the last week the streets could not be more full than they were, with the people rejoicing in the Loyalty Week celebrations.

The Member for Mountbatten stated at a meeting at Fullerton Square that if the P.A.P. came to power, they would confiscate jewellery. Now, I have noticed very carefully her attire, and as you can see for yourself, she is quite gaily bedecked with jewellery. Obviously, therefore, she did not believe what she had said in her speech at the election campaign!

Mr Speaker: Order. I think that perhaps can be termed as personal conduct, and the personal conduct of a Member wearing jewellery cannot be referred to.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I certainly did not intend to be ungallant, and if you think it is improper, I certainly withdraw.

The Member for Tanglin in another election rally stated, doubtless in the heat of the moment, "The lightning has struck Singapore, and your house is on fire." Now, Sir, if these are not statements calculated to frighten the people, may I know exactly what would scare business and trade away? It is the irresponsible and mischievous statements made by the Opposition Members that had set off a sort of nuclear chain reaction in the psychology of businessmen. Regardless of what the Member for Farrer Park said, about the harmlessness and inability of his colleagues to frighten people, I say that that was the effect, and that the decline in trade preceding the election was due to a systematic scare campaign conducted by Opposition Members.

Now, against their absurd and irresponsible statements, may I quote the P.A.P. policy statement as contained in "The Tasks Ahead", Part 1, page 25? This refers to a policy on foreign investment:

"Foreign business concerns which wish to establish factories in Singapore will be given all the encouragement and assistance they need. We shall give them guarantees in regard to security of capital, remittance of dividends and other matters which all modern governments regard as normal practice."

Therefore, when Members of the Opposition tried to make out that there had been a deviation or change from the previous P.A.P. policy, I would say to them that the evidence is quite to the contrary. We do not change our policy overnight. What we do now we have announced during the election campaign. In particular, I would refer to the comments of the Member for Tanglin when he described what he thought is our dilemma today, that we are under pressure from the membership to go what he called the extreme left, whatever that maybe, and the need to assess the real position in business. He then quoted my budget speech in respect of two points. One, that the Government would see to it that the exploitation of men by men which had been regarded as habitual and normal as a result of toleration by the previous Government, will cease; and the second point he drew attention to was that if we want to have an expansion of business and investment of capital we must see to it that suitable conditions prevail. And the Member for Cairnhill, doubtless as a result of his diligent perusal of socialist literature, came to the conclusion that there was a contradiction in these two objectives. Our Government sees no contradiction whatsoever. In fact, if the Member for Cairnhill insists that there is a contradiction-

Mr Speaker: The Member for Tanglin.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: If the Member for Tanglin insists that there is a contradiction, I can only conclude that, by suitable conditions for business expansion, he meant that the exploiters must be encouraged to do their worst.

There are a number of items, Mr Speaker, to which I can only now cursorily refer. The Member for Cairnhill was greatly agitated that, by the transfer of the Department of Tourism to the Ministry of Culture, the effect would be to reduce the appeal of Singapore to foreign tourists. Now, let me describe some of the attempts by the Department of Tourism to attract tourists. Under the previous dispensation, we all know that there was an establishment named "Toby's Paradise" whose proprietor had to leave the country in a hurry and under a cloud when the P.A.P. took over. This was one of the distinguished efforts of the previous Government to attract tourists. Then we found, to our horror, that an arrangement had been made to invite the winner of a competition in Australia who had the biggest chest to come to Singapore. Accordingly, arrangements were made to invite Mr Chest to come and parade him round the country in the interest of attracting tourism. Mr Speaker, Sir, I suggest that this kind of action will not only fail to attract tourists but will hold the country up to ridicule and contempt.

The Member for Mountbatten made a number of comments in defence of her proposal to restore the variable allowances. She refuted my conclusion that the effect of the cuts in variable allowances was comparatively negligible. She said that the fact that liquor revenue and the cinema attendances were well maintained had, in fact, increased proved nothing, because these were forms of enjoyment catering only to, if I may quote her, "rich magnates". Now, we know that the number of seats in a cinema total several thousands and I would be astonished to learn that it is the rich magnates and the business tycoons who swamped the $1 and 50 cent-seats in the cinemas!

Then the Member for Tanglin quoted at length a book published in 1925 to advise me on financial prudence. I am afraid I cannot be persuaded to fall in with his point of view and, in any case, he failed to realise that there is a basic difference between Singapore, which has an automatic currency, and the United Kingdom, which has a central bank, and it is possible for the United Kingdom Government to budget for a deficit and get finance from the central bank. But these are technical matters which I will not pursue now.

As regards the variable allowances, everyone says: "Why not pay them more? This would help to make taxi-drivers and hawkers more prosperous, and we may assist local industry." The Member for Mountbatten presumes that if we were to restore the variable allowances, the purchase of soap manufactured in Singapore would increase to such an extent that it would solve the problem of industry. But let me come to the point. If you want to pay them more, where will you get the money from? Among the Opposition Members, one detects a lack of unanimity because the Member for Farrer Park, who has a lot of experience in financial matters, has concluded that no other budget is possible in the general interest of the country, and therefore-

Mr Speaker: Order. It is 8.00 p.m.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Assembly approves the financial policy of the Government for the year 1960.