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 1961."

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker: Hon. Members, of course, do appreciate that this debate will end at 8.00 p.m., unless the Leader of the House moves otherwise. The debate is scheduled to end at 8.00 p.m. tonight, and although Budget time is, of course, Opposition time, the Members of the Opposition will appreciate that the Minister for Finance should be given a reasonable opportunity to reply.

5.46 p.m.

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi (Kampong Kembangan): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, concerning the Government financial policy which is being discussed today, I would like to emphasise, as has, been explained just now by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, that I do not wish to speak at length because I understand the contents of the Annual Budget Statement. There is a shortage of doctors and their posts have not been filled. This is one of the many points stated therein.

Mr Speaker, with regard to the Government's financial policy on the whole, we know clearly that the question of trade with Indonesia - import and export - could be said to be slackening. This is what the Members of the Opposition have talked about earlier. Although there is a surplus in the Government financial estimates, I am completely surprised why the Government has failed to spend money in the public interest, with particular reference to the rural areas. There are many services which could be provided to the public if the expenditure provided for is utilised. But from what I can see, the monies provided for these services are not spent but are put into the Estimates so that the so-called inefficient Government can balance expenditure and income with a view to having a surplus for the year 1961. Mr Speaker, I am unable to understand the reasons for the vacant posts not being filled. The reason given is that persons from abroad, such as engineers, doctors and others, cannot be obtained. I do not know whether local officers in Government Departments are given an allowance when they hold such posts. Is this one of the main reasons why such posts cannot be filled, so that these officers can carry on their tasks without the necessity of recruiting people from abroad?

Mr Speaker, I hope the Minister for Finance can clarify the question of revenue for the State. We know that the Government, or the Minister concerned, has recently issued regulations in regard to our National Anthem and also the national flag of Singapore. Those who contravene these regulations or who default will be fined. Has the Government estimated the yield from such fines?

Mr Speaker, I still remember the Prime Minister's reply to the Member for Cairnhill when the latter challenged the Government to hold by-elections in Singapore in a number of constituencies. The Prime Minister said that no useful purpose would be served because there was no need to waste public funds, which had been collected from the people of Singapore, on holding such by-elections. Whether the Government was afraid of the challenge or whether it wanted to save money, it is left to all Members to decide for themselves. But I am surprised, Mr Speaker, since it seems that - although unofficially in this Chamber - the People's Action Party, through its official organ and through the medium of local newspapers has challenged three U.M.N.O. Members in this Assembly to contest the by-elections because they say we are no longer representing our Party. I am shocked that, on the one hand, they are making an effort to save money, but, on the other hand, they have challenged U.M.N.O. Members to stand for by-elections. It is clear that the P.A.P. is challenging the U.M.N.O. Members to prove to the Malays whether or not they are, in fact, representing the Malays. So I am at a loss to understand this, Mr Speaker. But our faith is still firm, and God Almighty will have compassion on us and our Organisation will go back to normal. Although the challenge has not been voiced in this House, I hope, not because we want to preserve our seats but because -

Mr Speaker: Order. My difficulty now is to relate the hon. Member's speech to the provisions of the Standing Order which perhaps I ought to read. Standing Order 83, paragraph (1), inter alia, reads:

`... the debate ... shall stand adjourned for not less than seven clear days and, when resumed, shall be confined to the general principles of Government policy and administration as set forth by the Minister in moving the motion and as indicated in the Main Estimates.'

So, in so far as this challenge to the U.M.N.O. is concerned, I have up till now failed to see how that is related to the provisions of the Standing Order.

Inche Mohd. Ali: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I merely wish to clarify the financial position as it stands. However, Mr Speaker, the question which I have raised just now could be related to another matter.

Mr Speaker, the Singapore Government in 1954, that is, the then Colonial Government, had loaned money to the tune of $30 million to the Federation of Malaya to fight Communism. That loan is to be paid by the latest in ten years' time. Therefore, the surplus which is indicated here includes the $30 million paid by the Federation of Malaya to the Singapore Government. I pay tribute to the Federation Government who is sympathising with the Government of Singapore by repaying the loan before the time is due. I believe, Mr Speaker, Sir, the reason for the Government asking for the $30 million loan to be repaid during the life-time of the People's Action Party is that it could be used for various aspects for the benefit of the State. It means that before the forthcoming elections, the $30 million will have been spent by the P.A.P. Government to defend its ability in the matter of the financial state of affairs of Singapore. We on the Opposition are not surprised. If the view of the present P.A.P. Government is to ask for the repayment of the $30 million so that victory could be achieved in the next elections, it does not matter. But it is clear that the solution to the question of finance is still lagging behind, whereas the population is on the increase and unemployment is also on the increase. This is another major problem which has not yet been resolved.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Ministry of Culture there is also a surplus to the amount of $400,000. Good, well done! The Ministry is efficient in the performance of its tasks. But I feel that to use millions of dollars for the propaganda purpose of creating one culture in Singapore on the basis of Government's concept of a Malayan culture is most unsatisfactory. The Minister for Health, who has elucidated on the question of culture, is absent from the Chamber today. He has accused me and has alleged that I am conservative and am afraid that this House will be dissolved. But outside this Chamber, a different version was told in the newspapers. So I do not know whether the Government is wrong in giving an answer that is motivated by sentiment. We from the Opposition, however, bring forward the opinion of the electorate we represent. Mr Speaker, whether the Government, especially the Ministry of Culture, in spending millions of dollars, could evolve a culture or whether it could accept Malay culture as the basis of a Malayan culture, it is left to it to decide.

Mr Speaker, I am not a member of the P.A.P., but I have been presented with a booklet entitled "The Tasks Ahead" by the Hon. Minister. But it may be that our Minister for Health has forgotten that in "The Tasks Ahead" there have been mentioned topics dealing with such things as "Economic Roots of Communalism", "Racialism and Economic Status Quo" and "Poverty Knows No Race" and many other topics. I have gone over them carefully. I admit that the writer is efficient, wise and smart, but I am surprised at the mention in the Budget speech that the People's Action Party has been elected by the people and is on the side of the workers by protecting and safeguarding their interests.

Mr Speaker, it is not my intention to speak outside the confines of this debate, but I wish to stress this: will the Government be able to recruit personnel with such a financial policy? Recently it also accused communal parties without first making investigations into the question of labour relations. I am sure that such an accusation is levelled at the Opposition and particularly at U.M.N.O. I wish to say that if there are among us those who indulge in such matters, I hope the Government with the power and complete State machinery at its disposal will take the necessary action. But it should not just point an accusing finger at us. We on our side realise that before a common identity can be established, it is difficult to depart from the policy of our Party. I hope, Mr Speaker, it can be said in this Chamber whether U.M.N.O. has ever done such a thing.

Mr Speaker, to cut short my speech, I wish to say that I do not know what is going to happen to the Malays as they are governed by a socialist Government. There are Malays who represent Socialist Parties. But I hope what is enunciated in the Singapore Constitution of 1958, which was promulgated and tabled in the English Parliament and which became effective since then, will be discharged. If the Estimates are based on the Constitution, I cannot really see what help the Government will be able to give to the Malays as the indigenous people of the island State of Singapore. Mr Speaker, if it is said that I am a communalist, I accept that. But that cannot be eradicated until there is positive proof that monetary help will be given to the Malays in Singapore. I fail to see in the Government's plans the methods by which the Government is going to help the Malays in the economic field. However, if they are compared with the plans of the People's Action Party, they are directed entirely towards the Federation of Malaya. But I cannot see why they are not being implemented in Singapore today. If the Government wishes to do it, there is nothing to prevent it from doing so. I note, Mr Speaker, that there are Malay settlements, low-cost houses, and their allocation, and so on, but I think, aside from all this, that the question of raising the economic status of the Malays should be fully encouraged.

6.09 p.m.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, Sir, in col. 10 of Hansard, Volume 14, No. 1 of 29th November, 1960, the Minister for Finance said:

`... during election campaigning, irresponsible Right-wing Parties worked themselves into a fright.'.

Mr Byrne: That is true.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: `It would not have mattered if the hysteria they generated confined itself to those parties and their few well-wishers. But in the nature of things, the fright campaign must have further repercussions.'.

Sir, you will remember that on several occasions Ministers have referred to my statement during the election that if the P.A.P. Government came into power women would lose their jewels. This has been referred to as wild rumour. Sir, it is not a rumour; neither is it wild because-

Mr Byrne: They got richer?

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: No.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Take the case of one couple who are working for the Government. They have had their pay slashed, anything from $200 to $400. Now, this couple have saved up for years and have at last budgeted their pay so that they can afford to buy a house that they can call their home. When the P.A.P. came into power, and dropped the axe on their variable allowances, they could no longer pay the monthly instalments on their house. What happens? Sell the woman's jewels, of course. When there are no more jewels to sell, sell the car. When there is no more to sell, sell the house; and the amah goes also. When the amah goes, unemployment is increased. Then what happens? After the house is sold, the amah sacked, the couple go back to Mum and Dad. These two old people are very sweet, helpful, well-meaning and very kind. Sir, I am old myself, so I know what old folks are like. Due to their age, they are inclined to be a little interfering. They are well-meaning but interfering, and they lack understanding of the minds and the ways of young people. So the young couple have to tolerate it, whether they like it or not. And then what happens to the baby? The baby can no longer be brought up according to the mother's ideas of child psychology or child upbringing. The baby is now grandma's darling and is brought up in exactly the way the father and the mother have been brought up. Sir, is this fulfilling the promise that the P.A.P. made during the elections - to give women an equal opportunity and an improved status, of relief from drudgery and slavery of house work?

The Prime Minister: We have never promised to reform mothers-in-law!

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: They have forced young women into the hands of mothers-in-law.

Continuing, the Finance Minister said in col. 13:

`In my last budget speech, I referred to the necessity for establishing some form of common market arrangements with the Federation.'.

Can I refer you, Sir, to something he said earlier on? It is in col. 10. He said:

`... a government is judged not so much by its expressions of good intentions but by its concrete achievements...'.

This is exactly what the public of Singapore would like to see - that the Government achieves the common market - and not hear about it year after year in the Budget.

I cannot agree more with the Minister. Sir, when he said that "without the firm financial base of a sound currency, no underdeveloped region can hope to tackle the immense problems of economic development."

Mr Speaker: What is the column number?

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: It is in column 14 of the same Hansard.

Mr Speaker: I have not found it. Could the Member indicate which line?

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: It is in the first paragraph of column 14, Sir, I quote from Hansard of 29th November, 1960, Vol. 14, No. 1, column 14:

`But without the firm financial base of a sound currency, no underdeveloped region can hope to tackle the immense problems of economic development.'

And also, Sir:

`A strong currency is something we enjoyed for so long in the past...'.

I cannot agree more with that; but what the Opposition is not so happy about is why the Minister for Finance has found it necessary to express the hope of his Government that it would be possible to retain the present co-operative arrangement between the five territories. Does he have any apprehension that it might not, or is it guilty conscience?

Referring to the depression suffered by the construction industry, the Minister said in column 17 of the same Hansard:

`The Board lost no time in getting down to work and pulling itself out of the difficulties created in the S.I.T. by the mismanagement of the former Minister for National Development.'.

Sir, when the Opposition tried to bring this "mismanagement" to the notice of the Government and the people, the P.A.P. Ministers, including the Prime Minister himself, called us names and shielded their ex-comrade and prevented the public from knowing the truth. Had the Member for Hong Lim not annoyed the Hon, the Prime Minister with his 16 resolutions, the mismanagement would have perhaps up to this date been hidden from the public, and the ex-Minister for National Development might have been permitted to continue mismanaging and Singapore allowed to deteriorate and the people would have continued suffering. Thanks to the 16 resolutions - whatever value they may have in other ways - the people of Singapore have now learned about this mismanagement. Although the Member for Hong Lim is no longer able to mismanage the affairs in the S.I.T., mismanagement seems to continue and, what is worse, Government seems bent on leading the public up the wrong path. May I quote Hansard of 16th November, 1960, Volume 13, No. 11, column 836:

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Hon. Minister tell us why these 91 terrace houses have not been occupied?

Mr Tan Kia Gan: Mr Speaker, some delay has resulted because of wanton damage done to the fittings by vandals in the area, and repair work has had to be done.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask whether the high rent has anything to do with the vacancy of those houses?

Mr Tan Kia Gan: Mr Speaker, at the moment, the Board has arrangements in hand to offer the first option for accommodation in the Kampong Tiong Bahru Fire Site to fire victim families. It has nothing to do with high rent.'

I naturally, Sir, never doubted the correctness of this statement, but on Tuesday, 135 housewives came to my `meet-the-people' session -

Mr Byrne: Where?

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: - with these forms. It was a pitiful sight, Sir. Some of them were in tears. They are the people who have lost all that they possessed in the fire at Kampong Tiong Bahru. When that took place, the previous Government brought them in lorries to the Old Airport-

The Prime Minister: In buses.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: -and housed them. Well, they told me that they were brought in lorries. They were exempted from paying rent for three months. After the three months were up, they paid $25 for a one-room flat with kitchen and bathroom; $35 for a two-room flat with kitchen and bathroom. They told me, Sir, that during the election campaign, P.A.P. canvassers knocked at their doors and told them that if they voted P.A.P., they would be put back in houses at the fire site at a rent much lower than what they were paying.

Mr Speaker: Order. I did read the relevant Standing Order. I must remind the Member for Mountbatten that this is a debate which must be confined to the general principles of Government policy and administration. I think the hon. Member is probably going into too many details. It will take the speech away from the general principles to which she is supposed to keep.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am trying to show the general policy of letting out S.I.T. flats.

These people experience great hardship in having to send their children right down to Tiong Bahru to schools.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have not said that the hon. Member is out of order in just touching on this incident, but if she goes into details, like travelling in buses and sending children to schools, and so on, she is inviting a debate on details, which I think is out of order in so far as this present debate is concerned. The debate must be on general principles.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Sir, these people have now been offered by the Government to return to the fire site but at a rent of $68 per month for a three-room house, $55 for a two-room house and $40 for a one-room house with only a common kitchen and common bathroom facilities. All these rooms are smaller than the rooms they are occupying and the partitions are made of celotex. I am not trying to go into details, but I am trying to show that, on the whole, those rooms are much inferior and smaller accommodation with less facilities and are rented out at a much higher rate for the fire victims who have lost all that they had. When they went to No. 332. Alexandra Road - the address given in this form that they received - they were told to go to Pickering Street; and when they went to Pickering Street, they had to go up and down to find the place until they were fed up and fagged out.

Sir, this is what I am driving at. Is this the way that this Government, which claims to be the people's Government, which claims to be the Government for the poor, treats the fire victims of Singapore? Sir, I have here in this book [Indicating] 135 names, addresses and particulars, and each of them is the head of family of four to eight children.

Mr Speaker: Order. May I suggest to the Member for Mountbatten that this might be a very ideal subject for a motion in this House perhaps censuring the Government for its policy on the fire victims? I think I must stop the hon. Member from going into details of this nature, because she is in fact inviting a debate on details. That is what she cannot do in this debate.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Budget Statement made by the Minister for Finance, he said (Hansard dated 29th November, 1960, Vol. 14 No. 1, at column 23:

`A right-wing government would view this [increasing unemployment] not with alarm but with delight.'

How irresponsible can a Government statement be? Does the Minister for Finance suggest that the Government across the Causeway - because they are a Right-wing Government - would view their increasing unemployment with delight? Moreover, I am sure that the public would like to know who are the Right-wing and who form the Left-wing! The Government say that the Opposition is Right of them and then they claim that there is a group that is Left of them. Sir, relatively they are Right of that group and they can still be called a Right-wing Government. Sir, instead of telling the House how the Government intend to solve the unemployment problem, the Minister is more interested in predicting the reaction that increasing unemployment would have on a Rightist Government, and all that the Minister has to offer is employment for 2,500 out of nearly 60,000 unemployed - and that too if the progress is what the Minister expects.

On income tax, Sir, the Minister goes on to say:

`A socialist Government will get the money through taxation in such a way that those who can afford to pay taxes share the greatest responsibility.'

Therefore, Sir, the question arises as to whether the P.A.P. is a socialist Government. If we judge them by their proposal of the new income tax, we would say that they are not, because in the new proposal, the poor and the lower middle classes are the hardest hit. The Minister proposes to lower the personal allowance from $3,000 to $2,000, and from $2,000 to $1,000 so that the rates between Singapore and the Federation would not differ substantially. We cannot hope to imitate the Federation. In the Federation where there is a boom, it could be easily expected that a family of three or four grown-up children would all be working; but in Singapore where 60,000 are unemployed a family with three or four grown-up children and a few small children may have only one son working and supporting the whole family. It is a common thing in Singapore to find a bachelor working to support his father, mother, brothers, sisters, and grandparents sometimes, and because of his many dependants, he is forced to remain a bachelor and be penalised by Government for being one by having his relief reduced to $2,000 with no relief whatsoever for his dependants. This is not the case in England. Worse hit than the bachelor is the married woman. Immediately she gets married, her relief goes down to $1,000 and the rate of her tax goes up because her income is pooled with that of her husband's. Sir, this is the price that Singapore's young people pay for a legal marriage. When a couple live in sin they escape all these penalties, because in so far as the Government are concerned they are separate individuals. Surely, Government are not encouraging people to live in sin in view of their policy against yellow culture. Or, on second thoughts, could that be the reason for their delay in reintroducing the Women's Charter?

With regard to the question of a deficit, the Minister for Finance had this to say in Hansard of 29th November, 1960, Vol. 14, No. 1 at column 25:

`It may also be noted that total expenditure never does keep up with the Estimates... For instance, from 1950 to 1958, total expenditure had never exceeded total estimates except in 1954... it was only in 1951 and 1952 that estimates were nearly achieved by actual expenditure. For the rest, expenditure fell short of estimates...'.

Sir, when the Member for Tanglin tried to point this outlast year, he was ridiculed by the Minister for Finance, who is now saying exactly the same thing in almost the same words. Surely an economist who is able to change an $8 million deficit into a $37 million surplus never needs to panic at a threatened deficit of $6 million that was budgeted for. It is commonly believed, Sir, that this panic was whipped up for the following purposes:-

1. To justify the slash in pay of civil servants who perhaps have been suspected of not having voted for the P.A.P.

2. To scare the public and antagonise them against the civil servants who dare object to the slash.

3. To antagonise the public against the previous government.

The slashing of pay by Government and this arrangement of a Member of the Government Bench to fight against the Government for the restitution of the pay and Government's dramatic gesture of restoring part of the cut - Sir, all these performances are signs of an immature and an amateur government. However, for the sake of the civil servants who have suffered enough hardships, we too will join the "let's pretend" game and wish the Government Member "Good luck and success!" in his negotiations with the Government on behalf of the civil servants. We hope that he will succeed in getting not only a partial restoration, but a full restoration.

Sir, I would like to point out that when considering the proposals of income tax and assessments, it is necessary to bear in mind that a million dollars may seem very small to a millionaire. But the last mite is very great to a, widow. So when Government says. "It is only a few dollars that the poor have to pay", well, those few dollars mean much more to them than the millions mean to a millionaire. The Minister further promised to return all taxes garnered by the Government to the people in the form of schools, hospitals, etc. May I be so bold, Sir, as to remind him that 18 months have gone by and the Government has built neither a hospital nor a school? And with due respect, Sir, to the Minister, may I again quote what he said at the beginning of his speech, that "a government is judged not so much by its expressions of good intentions but by its concrete achievements"?

6.34 p.m.

Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib (Southern Islands): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the debate on the Minister's Annual Budget Statement for the year 1961, I take this opportunity to express my views because of the importance of the Government's financial policy, since it will determine whether it will be good or bad for the State of Singapore. From what we have been able to gather from the statement of the Minister for Finance, it cannot be said to be a progressive statement which one can be proud of, especially for its surpluses and programmes formulated for 1961. There is no need for me to go into detail on the surpluses, because this point has been touched upon by my colleagues on this side of the House. But when we plan for progress for Singapore and its people in the future, it is important to consider the reasons for the present condition and the difficult situation that exists. Mr Speaker, the Party which is now in office, during the general elections in Singapore, hoping to be returned to power, formulated a programme to attract the masses without going deeply into the question of its ability to fulfil its promises. Apart from that, Mr Speaker, the modus operandi of the Government shocked many important sections in Singapore.

I would like to touch upon the speech which is being strongly defended in Hansard, at col. 20, when it said, "The P.A.P. Government is a Government elected by the people and is one that is partial to the working class." I think that as a government, it cannot take sides, but it should be impartial to all and not merely to side the workers or businessmen or Government workers. If we take sides, as has been mentioned, it means, in effect, that that section of the community which the Government is unable to side with will not receive a guarantee that they can live in peace in Singapore. For instance, we know that although imports of commodities are on the increase, business is declining. Mr Speaker, if we study the lives of the trishaw riders and the taxi drivers, we will find that they are frustrated and worried.

In connection with the plan to industrialise in the year to come, it is indeed a good programme. It is a programme in which we can have faith and in which certain sections of the unemployed could find employment. But the possibility of such industrialisation being carried out still remains a question mark, because, Mr Speaker, we in the State of Singapore are exactly like the waiter who, if he is unable to serve his patrons properly, will cause dissatisfaction among his patrons, and so cannot expect a good business. Therefore, what has been achieved during the past one and a half years has brought about dissatisfaction among the people. Can we be proud of our ability to govern the people? We can do this; we can do that; but all the means of doing them should come from the people.

Mr Speaker, I feel that the Government has somewhat slowed down in their momentum. Previously their hatred for the capitalists has been great, but today the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has blamed the capitalist countries for not giving assistance to Singapore. It looks as though we in Singapore are going down on our knees to the capitalists for aid. On the question of how to live, Mr Speaker, we could do wonders. Today we say one thing, and tomorrow another thing. This shows our inconsistent attitude, our tendency to distort facts. We do not practise what we preach. We should put a stop to this. On the other hand, we must rectify our mistakes made during the past one and a half years. It is hoped that the State of Singapore will give impartial treatment to all the people of Singapore so that all sections of the population may benefit. That is all that I have to say in the debate on the Government's fiscal policy for the year 1961.

6.43 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker, Sir, as we are approaching the time for the moment of interruption, I do not propose to take much time for my speech on the Finance Minister's Budget statement. But there are a few important points in that statement which require me to make some remarks.

Sir, it is obvious to us that the Budget statement of the Minister for Finance is specifically meant for foreign consumption. The Minister recently went a-begging overseas, and we are informed that he has been told that we must show what we are prepared to do for ourselves before overseas assistance can be forthcoming. With an eye to this, Sir, the Minister has therefore injected into his Budget statement a synthetic buoyancy. The Minister claims that 1960 has been a better year than 1959 and that there has been considerable improvement all round. He quotes statistics, Sir, to prove his contention. We know that figures can sometimes give the wrong picture. Take, for instance, Sir, the figures for bank advances. It is claimed that because September bank advances were very much more than January advances, therefore, the trade position has improved.

6.46 p.m.

[Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (MR G. KANDASAMY) in the Chair]

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Sir, a totally different interpretation can also hold good. The fact that bank advances in September were very much higher than advances in January could be due to the fact that businesses financed by bank loans were having difficulty in meeting their commitments. I know for a fact, Sir, that many rice and sugar merchants have suffered considerable losses, and that they are having difficulty in meeting their bank bills. We know, Sir, that it is a common practice in Singapore for banks not to take drastic action against businesses to whom they have lent large advances in the hope that, if given time, these businesses would be able to pull through and, therefore, cut their losses.

In Singapore, Sir, there is a common barometer to gauge the economic circumstances of the population. I refer to coffee shops, Sir. Sir, it has never happened in Singapore before for a coffee shop to close down business. And yet in the year 1960 many coffee shops have closed down, a year which has been claimed by the Minister for Finance to be a good year, a year in which he says there has been considerable improvement.

Moreover, a number of goldsmiths of long established reputation have also closed down in 1960. If there is considerable improvement in 1960, why is it that the unemployment figures have increased? If 1960 has been a good year, why is it that hawkers, taxi-drivers and businessmen are groaning, and a large number of workers are earning much less?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Rubbish!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: If 1960 is better than 1959, why is that the T.U.C. is more concerned with working out a scheme for retrenchment of workers than concerning itself with the placing of new employees in employment? Sir, there has been grumbling in lots of places that business is bad. The Minister should not place too much reliance on statistics. And I have heard just now. Sir, the Minister interjecting that what I have been saying is rubbish. I would, therefore, ask him, and his Ministerial colleagues, just to go out to their constituencies and ask the people there - the people whom they represent. Ask the hawkers, the taxi drivers, the shopkeepers whether they are having a better time this year than they had last year. And if they were to tell the Minister and his Ministerial colleagues that they have a better year this year, then I will say assure him that these people will put up a tale of woe.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of clarification.

Mr Deputy Speaker: If the Member for Cairnhill will give way.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: The Minister will be able to answer later.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Member does not give way.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Since the Minister is prepared to answer, then surely he can answer when the time comes. We will give him every opportunity to answer, and I hope that the answer will be that he will go out among his people in his area, and so will his Ministers go out among their people in their areas; and not with bodyguards around them, protecting them against the masses whom they claim to have a great love and affection for them.

Mr Rajaratnam: You have to run away from them! [Laughter]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: It would appear, Sir, that the Government Front Benchers, in spite of the fact that there is a Ministry of Culture, are not so cultured as they would have the people of Singapore believe. Sir, again, the Minister had this to say about cargoes handled by the Singapore Harbour Board. I quote Hansard, Vol. 14, No. 1, col. 15, at about the bottom of the column.

`From January to July this year the general cargo discharged at the Harbour Board wharves was 1.215 million tons compared with 1.132 million tons last year, representing an increase of 7.3 per cent. Cargo loaded rose from 1.035 million tons last year to 1.074 million tons this year.'

Against this, Sir, let me quote the report of the Singapore Harbour Board which appeared in the Sunday Mail of 23rd October, 1960, on page 18. This reads:

`Cargo, excluding coal, fuel and vegetable oil, handled at S.H.B. wharves during the half year ended June 30, 1960, totalled 2,057,643 tons, representing a decrease of 6,788 tons or 0.3 per cent compared with the previous six months. The tonnage of cargo handled, including coal, fuel and vegetable oil, was 2,807,907 tons, representing a decrease of 34,585 tons or 1.2 per cent. The number of vessels berthed alongside cargo working wharves was 1,968, representing a decrease of 61 compared with the previous six months.'

Sir, I leave it to hon. Members to read between the lines.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: It is a simple explanation. I will give it to you.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, a word about the cigarette industry. I quote the same Hansard, at col. 16:

`The cigarette industry continues to make great strides, the quantity produced in the first nine months of the year increasing from 1.6 million pounds in 1959 to 2.1 million pounds this year, an increase of 28 per cent.'

I wonder, Sir, whether this increase of 28 per cent is on the credit side or on the debit side of Government's economic policy. The Minister has stated, Sir, that as a result of this change in consumer habits, there will be a shortfall of $3 million this year. In this connection, Sir, let us see what the Minister said in his Budget speech last year. I quote Hansard, volume 11, No. 13, col. 805, at the bottom of the column:

`There may be adjustments to the tax on tobacco, depending on factors which I have previously discussed.'

And what are these facts, Sir? The same Hansard, col. 791, gives the answer. What are these facts? At the middle of the column:

`The duty on tobacco goes up from $34.2 million to $43.1 million. But this item needs close watching. It is based on certain assumptions about consumer preferences between locally produced cigarettes and imported cigarettes. It remains to be seen whether these assumptions will, in fact, be justified.'

Sir, the Minister quotes the cigarette industry as an expanding industry. And if this industry keeps on expanding, as it is bound to do, because the people will have to smoke locally manufactured cigarettes which are cheaper than imported cigarettes, then said the Minister, "there may be adjustments to the tax on tobacco". What do we want? Do we want an expanding cigarette industry or do we want more money out of tobacco revenue?

Sir, the Minister for Finance took great pains to reiterate the economic policy of the Government, and two significant facts emerged from this dissertation. The first significant fact is that it is the Government's desire to adjust themselves in the eyes of those supporters who hold the belief that the Government are committed to pursuing a more vigorous socialist policy. The second significant fact is the Government's anxiety to impress on capital that they are not so bad after all, that they have done a lot of barking but that there will be no biting.

Sir, we have all along said that Singapore cannot survive without giving capital as well as labour its due part to play in the economic development of Singapore. And we see that the Government today are getting more and more friendly with capital. The Minister made mention of persons in left-wing organisations, trade unions, political parties and so forth, and I do not know what is meant by this. The Prime Minister has said in no uncertain terms that anything left of the P.A.P. are the Communists. Is the Minister for Finance referring to the Communists? I do not think so. What I think he is referring to is that group in the P.A.P. which is more left, which is hoping for a more vigorous socialist policy than the group that is in power today. Therefore, if there is such a group in the P.A.P. today, that group which the Minister has described as left, then the Party in power today could justly be described as a Right-wing Government. After all, Sir, what is Left-wing or Right-wing? It is just relative. When one is less left than the left, one becomes right; and when one is more left than the Left-wing, then the Left-wing becomes the Right-wing. We really do not care what the P.A.P. describes itself-Left-wing, Right-wing, non-Communist, democratic socialist political party. We do not care what they describe themselves. But we do wish to point out that what they claim they are going to do for the economic development of Singapore is based on the legislation introduced and brought into being by the previous so-called Right-wing Government. It was the previous Government that introduced legislation to enable the present Government to put up plans for the industrialization of Singapore.

Mr Byrne: You need money!

The Prime Minister: Tin mines!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, now I come to the tax proposals. I would not like to mention it again after such a short interval, that there seems to be so little culture, in a Government that has a Ministry of Culture and a Government that wants so many millions of dollars to spend on culture.

Mr Byrne: The truth hurts!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, honi soit qui mal y pense.

The Prime Minister: What does that mean, please?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, I see the Government intends to increase taxation rates in the rural areas.

The Prime Minister: Is he allowed to speak in some other language?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I wonder whether this is in keeping with the utterances of P.A.P. candidates and supporters during the 1959 general elections. I heard it said that P.A.P. candidates and supporters had gone round to the rural areas and said, "Vote us in and we will see to it that with the P.A.P. Government there shall be less tax."

Dr Goh Keng Swee: That is evident!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Today we are told that we have been informed a week ago by the Minister for Finance that there will be increased taxation in the rural areas.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On landlords.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: The property tax?

Some hon. Members: Yes, on landlords.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, assurances were given at the election campaign, and the P.A.P. always means what it says-

Mr Byrne: It says what it means.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Or does it? Sir, in regard to industrial establishments in the rural areas, the Minister has this to say in Hansard, volume 14, No. 1 of 29th November, 1960, at column 43.

`It is, however, proposed that property tax on industrial establishments in the rural areas will not be increased beyond the present rates. The reason for providing industry with this inducement is obvious.'.

An hon. Member: What is it?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sure, Sir, it is obvious. The Government is now going down on its knees telling capital, "Boys, we ain't so bad." That is it. "We are no longer that bad. We are prepared to slap those that brought us into power, so that you can come back and help us to develop this country." That is it. People in dwelling houses, Sir, and others in the rural areas are to be called upon to pay increased taxation, but industrial establishments in the rural areas may not be called upon to do so because the reason is obvious. Much, much too obvious. The P.A.P. is now all geared towards making its great appeal to capital. As far as we know, Sir, industry is not so concerned with the payment of rates and taxes. What it is most concerned about is the fact that there should be industrial peace and that there should be confidence in the Government. If these two factors are lacking, then no amount of inducement can prevail.

The Business Registration Tax. In regard to this tax, I find it difficult to say what is in the minds of the Government, because the Government have not yet defined what a business is. When is a business not a business, we do not know yet.

An hon. Member: Gone bankrupt!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Is a little business in a building selling nuts, a business? Then again, in the case of a person having a stall on the pavement and again selling nuts, is that a business?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: It depends on the type of nuts!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: So it all depends on the type of nuts [Laughter] and not on the type of business that is carried out. If that is the kind of interpretation that the Hon. the Leader of the House is going to give to "business", I think maybe the other side may soon be getting nutty! [Laughter].

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, although we do not know what the definition of "business" is going to be, there is one thing we can say, and that is, that the tax to be paid by limited companies has our support. But we do say that in the case of small businesses, they should not be called upon to pay this registration tax.

Private lotteries - I had thought that the Government's drive against slot machines would have driven the one-armed bandit out of existence!

Mr Byrne: To rob the rich!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I now find, Sir, that this form of gambling is quite all right with the Government so long as they have a cut. Now, the one-armed bandit has become a two-armed bandit, the other arm being provided by the Minister for Finance to rake in 30 per cent of the net takings. So long as Government can cash in on gambling, they say, "Go ahead, have as much gambling as you want; but let us have our 30 per cent blood money."

Fees levied on the practice of certain professions. In his speech, the Minister says that he has consulted the professional associations. But I have been told, Sir, that there has been no such consultation. I do not know who is right, but if there had been such consultations, surely the Minister would have been informed by these associations that there are objections to the introduction of such professional levies.

The Prime Minister: Are you still hoping to be a lawyer?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: The newspapers, Sir, have given reports that there are associations which are objecting to this. Sir, we do not worry nor seriously oppose the levying of a fee on professional people, but it is not improbable, Sir, that with the imposition of this levy the charge may be passed on to the public in the form of increased charges.

Passenger tax on embarking air travellers. There can be no objection to this, but I would ask the Government to reconsider its proposal to introduce a passenger tax on internal air travel. Travel from Singapore to Malacca, Kuala Lumpur, Ipoh and Penang should, we think, Sir, be treated as internal travel and not travel to a different land, whereby a passenger tax is necessary. However, Sir, it is left to the Government whether they want to consider Malaya as what Malaya has been considered in the past, or whether they now wish to consider Malaya as a different land.

Sir, as to Income tax we support the proposed increase in the maximum rate of tax on personal income, but we will not support the decrease in rates of personal allowances. In 1956, the previous Government, in conjunction with the Federation Government, proposed to introduce this reduction in personal allowances and it was because of strong opposition not only from the people, but from the T.U.C. and from members of the P.A.P. that that proposal had to be withdrawn.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You got cold feet!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: And now, Sir, it is the P.A.P. Government that proposes to introduce this kind of a tax. Sir, it is the P.A.P.-controlled T.U.C. that, to use the words of the Minister, had "got cold feet" and had not protested against this increase, this incursion into the earnings of the wage-earners who are earning less today and who, by reason of the growing unemployment, have a greater burden to bear by having to look after relatives who are unemployed.

Sir, what is the reason given for imposing this tax? It is that there should be no difference in the rates of taxation between Singapore and the Federation. But then, Sir, that is not correct. There is already a difference. Singapore is having a 55 per cent tax on personal income as against 45 per cent in the Federation. Therefore, the argument that we must have the same rates with the Federation does not hold good.

Sir, I would like to congratulate the Minister for Finance for doing his utmost to encourage and promote industrial expansion. The economic well-being of Singapore is dependent on the success of this plan, and it is the duty of every citizen, be he rich, be he poor, be he an employer, be he a worker, be he a Minister, be he an Assemblyman, to do all he can to help the Government to see to it that the industrial plan succeeds; otherwise Singapore may perish. But there are certain things which the Government, and the Government only, can and should do to create an atmosphere of goodwill, confidence and tolerance. Singapore is not a poor country. It would have got enough capital to finance its own developments had it not been for the fact that local capital had flown away to Kuala Lumpur, to Hong Kong, to the Bornean territories and elsewhere since last year. The Government, Sir, cannot deny that they have made mistakes. And I do not relish using this forum here to try and make it more difficult-

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Rubbish!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: -for the Government. What we all hope, Sir, is that the Ministers will profit by their mistakes and that they will learn fast - very, very fast. In the immediate past, the Federation has been very friendly towards Singapore, and to regain this very friendly relationship is of the utmost importance if our industrialisation programme is to succeed. Last year, the Minister in his Budget speech touched on the necessity for establishing a common commodity market with the Federation. One year has passed, and we are told that discussions are still continuing. One year has passed and the Minister has not given this House even a hint of some hope that there may be good news for Singapore. One year has passed, Sir, and during the course of that year, while discussions were progressing, the Minister had found it necessary to impose, for the first time, an import duty on soap, which import duty directly hits at the Federation, because there is no soap imported into Singapore other than from the Federation. What do we see today? We see that only a week ago, the Federation Government has found it necessary to take action to bring the position back to status quo in so far as the Federation soap manufacturers are concerned. Sir, has the imposition of this import duty benefited Singapore in any way? Surely the Government in its talks with the Federation Government on a common commodity market could have made out a case for soap to be classified as a common commodity? Or surely the Minister for Finance could have consulted the Minister for Finance in the Federation on his proposal to impose an import duty on soap and sound his views on it; and if the Minister for Finance were to hear from the Minister for Finance in the Federation that any imposition of an import duty would result in an increased import duty on the part of the Federation, then surely there would have been no need for both Governments to do something which is now giving the impression outside that there will soon be a tariff war between Singapore and the Federation. Surely these two things could have been done. What a foolish way of going about winning friends for Singapore!

Sir, the common commodity market is of some importance to the industrialsation plan of Singapore; but a common currency is of vital importance to Singapore and we are told that the Federation Bank Negara will presently be issuing and managing the Federation's own currency. We were told by the Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement last week that it was the hope of his Government that the currency agreement would continue. I would urge the Government to do more than hope that the currency agreement would continue. They should do everything in their power to persuade the Federation Government not to break away from the agreement.

Sir, as time is getting short, I will therefore end my speech.