DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1961-1964

7.22 p.m.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, listening to the speeches today and yesterday of the Members opposite, and, in particular, of the Member for Tanglin and the Member for Cairnhill on the Four-Year Development Plan, one got the distinct impression that they were in a quandary. The Four-Year Development Plan has had them stumped. They could not refute the cold logic and practicability of the Plan because, in order to do so, they would have to produce facts and arguments to expose its inadequacies and shortcomings.

So they took the easy way out and at least the Member for Cairnhill said that the Plan was a good one, though his colleague, the Member for Farrer Park, is of the opinion that the Plan has practically collapsed. Perhaps the Member for Cairnhill, when he said that the Plan was a good one, felt that perhaps he was conceding too much and so he qualified his approval by saying that though the Plan was good, the P.A.P. Government which put the Plan into shape was not as good as the Plan it fathered.

The Member for Tanglin, in particular, excelled himself in the art of running in all directions at the same time. The Plan was all right simply because it showed, according to his argument, that the P.A.P. Government in the 22 or 23 months it has been in power had rectified its errors. The Plan, so hinted by the Member for Tanglin, was good simply because it was a repudiation of the P.A.P. election programme as contained in The Tasks Ahead. So I waited hopefully for the Member for Tanglin to substantiate this startling analysis by comparing the programme outlined in The Tasks Ahead with the Four-Year Development Plan to show how and where both differ.

In our view, the Member's claim was startling simply because the Four-Year Plan is in intention and in fact an elaboration, in economic terms, of the broad principles outlined in The Tasks Ahead. This being so, we on the Government side expected the Member for Tanglin to show in what way the Four-Year Plan was a repudiation of the basic principles and intentions stated in The Tasks Ahead.

It is not always easy to follow the verbal meanderings of the Member for Tanglin even at the best of moments - and yesterday certainly was not one of his best moments. One got the impression that he was trying very hard, like the pursued octopus, to conceal his thoughts behind an unusually inky cloud of confusion.

So if I have missed out some telling piece of confused logic on his part, I hope the Member for Tanglin will realise that at least I did my best to follow what he was trying to say.

If I remember correctly, he remarked with a triumphant glint in his eye that during the elections the P.A.P. had promised to establish an Utopia, but now, wiser with experience, it was offering something less than an Utopia in the Four-Year Plan.

Now I would not like to suggest to the Member for Tanglin that he is deliberately inventing something which is not true. I can only attribute it to too much reliance on his somewhat playful memory which deliberately misleads him into believing things which are not factually correct. People who have reached retirement age should be a little bit wary of trusting their memory too much.

The allegations that the P.A.P. Government has departed from its election programme has been repeated so often not only by the Member for Tanglin, but also by his S.P.A. colleagues and by the former Member for Hong Lim, that perhaps it would not be a waste of time to expose the falsity of his calculated misinformation.

Those who make such allegations are perhaps banking on the fact that the public by and large would not bother to look up our political and economic intentions as proclaimed in The Tasks Ahead and find out for themselves whether, in fact, there has been a radical departure.

For example, yesterday the Member for Tanglin expressed satisfaction that the P.A.P., having promised to set up an Utopia before the elections, has now settled for something less glamorous in its Four-Year Plan.

Can the Member for Tanglin therefore quote chapter and verse to justify his allegation that the P.A.P. promised to set up an Utopia? On the contrary, if he has read The Tasks Ahead carefully, he would have discovered how careful we were not to rouse false expectations.

For example, I refer to Part I of The Tasks Ahead, page 6, paragraph 3, which states:

`The plans we have laid down are not over-ambitious ones. They are realistic and are based on actual existing political and economic social conditions and circumstances. In drafting our plans we recognise that an internally self-governing Singapore is not an independent Singapore because control of our foreign affairs remains in the hands of the colonial office and so in this sense we are a semi-colony; we recognise the severe restriction of land space, a mere 210 square miles, and the pressure of a population now numbering 1� million and still growing at the rate of 65,000 a year.'

Then again on page 7, we attempted to pitch our objectives very low. We say:

`It is obvious that existing conditions are not favourable to the immediate attainment of a socialist society, and that a fully-developed socialist economy cannot be achieved as long as Singapore is separated from the Federation mainland.'

Similarly on pages 20 and 21 we outlined some of the difficulties in the way of our economic development. All this judged by what we stated in The Tasks Ahead is a clear indication that there was no promise of Utopia and there has been no retreat from Utopia simply because the P.A.P. never promised an Utopia.

Another argument produced by the Opposition to show that the P.A.P. had retreated from the spirit and purpose of the The Tasks Ahead was the claim that there was now a changed attitude on the part of the P.A.P. towards private enterprise. There was also an immodest hint that the Member for Tanglin and the S.P.A. were somehow responsible for persuading the P.A.P to change its views about private enterprise.

This again, I am afraid, is another bit of self-induced fantasy on the part of the Member for Tanglin. The P.A.P. attitude is exactly as stated in The Tasks Ahead and the Four-Year Plan reflects the same attitude towards private enterprise as contained in The Tasks Ahead.

I refer the Members of the Opposition to Part I of The Tasks Ahead on page 8, paragraph 6. This is what it states:

`The planned industrial enterprises will be run either by the Board [i.e., the Economic Development Board] or in co-operation with private capital. Purely private capital enterprises will also receive the co-operation of the Board. Although we disagree that the survival of Singapore depends on foreign capital and foreign capitalists, nevertheless foreign capital business concerns that wish to establish factories in Singapore will be given encouragement and assistance.'

And the role allotted to private enterprise in the Four-Year Plan is neither more nor less than what was stated in The Tasks Ahead. The Four-Year Plan is essentially a description of the activities the State will take in order to foster economic development arid stimulate activity by private enterprise. And the State's functions in economic development, if Members of the Opposition will read the Plan carefully, are as great as, if not greater than, those likely to be undertaken by private enterprise.

7.36 p.m.

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

Mr Rajaratnam: The Member for Tanglin appears to be suffering from the delusion that the Four-Year Plan is a private enterprise Plan. It is not. It is a Plan of what the Government is going to spend in the public sector, one of whose effects would be to stimulate investment by private enterprise.

The sum that is to be invested in the public sector is very substantial some $871 million during the next four years. It may or may not be that investment by private enterprise will equal this figure. For example, private investment in new industries has to be in the region of $600 million to provide 30,000 jobs. This will be a considerable sum for private enterprise to invest, but as against this the State will invest $871 million and will increase employment opportunities by 40,000, i.e. 20,000 in public construction and Government service and another 20,000 arising as a result of this vast expenditure by the State.

What I want to stress is that the Government is not relying only on private enterprise to stimulate economic development. The contrary is the case. The Government is giving private enterprise a lead by imaginative, realistic and coherent and planned utilisation of resources. Without this massive intervention of the State in the economic field, there will be no opportunities for private enterprise to undertake rational economic development and, in particular, industrial development. Without this massive State intervention and panning, private enterprise will embark on chaotic economic activities which may profit a few individuals while driving the country as a whole to economic ruin and bankruptcy. Under the P.A.P. type of planning, private enterprise is encouraged to play a constructive and socially desirable function. Economic development will proceed not in terms of unfettered exploitation of the weak but also along lines that will be socially beneficial.

Another piece of misinformation the Member for Tanglin uttered is the claim that the P.A.P. has now suddenly realised the need to encourage foreign investments.

Here again let me quote relevant passages from The Tasks Ahead to show that the role allotted to foreign investments in the Four-Year Plan is not a new departure.

In Part I, page 9 of The Tasks Ahead, this is what we say of the role of foreign capital:

`Although we disagree that the survival of Singapore depends on foreign capital and foreign capitalists, nevertheless foreign capital business concerns that wish to establish factories in Singapore will be given encouragement and assistance.'

On page 25 we outlined the role of foreign capital in economic development.

After reiterating our disbelief that the economic survival depended wholly or even substantially on foreign capital, we said that we would welcome foreign capital as an addition to our capital resources. We said:

`Foreign business concerns which wish to establish factories in Singapore will be given all the encouragement and assistance they needed. 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. But it would be foolish to imagine that, whatever we do, foreign capital will come in on a scale needed to solve our problems. Our salvation lies in our hands. There are no benevolent foreigners knocking around the world, anxious to discharge these duties and responsibilities which are rightly our own.'

So the Four-Year Plan has not in any way departed from this view. If the Members of the Opposition will look at the simple table on page 49 of the report, they will realise that the bulk of the $871 million for the Plan will come from our own resources.

As far as private investments are concerned, we have at no time said that we would dispense with foreign investments. The Member for Cairnhill yesterday made great play of the warnings that were issued during the elections to foreign firms. Only he forgot to tell us the context in which the warning was issued and the nature of the warning. During the elections and before, a number of foreign firms decided to enter the political arena and back the S.P.A. Government against the P.A.P. We had even obscure Archbishops contributing to the election funds of Labour Front politicians.

We said then that while we welcomed foreign capital and foreign enterprises which wished to do legitimate trade, we would not tolerate foreign capital which comes here as a prelude to political control. That was the context in which the warning to foreign capital and firms was issued. And that warning still stands. If foreign investors or foreign capitalists involve themselves in local politics, then they will be asking for trouble. But if they confine themselves to legitimate trade, they will get all protection and encouragement. That is clear from what was said in The Tasks Ahead, and that is implied in the Four-Year Development Plan.

If the S.P.A. Members will read The Tasks Ahead and the Four-Year Plan carefully, they will discover that the Four-Year Plan is, essentially, an attempt to give economic flesh and bones to the broad principles outlined in The Tasks Ahead.

Admittedly, the Plan is not a completely socialist Plan, but then even before the elections we said that a socialist society could not be realised within the confines of Singapore. But within the limitations of our peculiar economic structure we have attempted to introduce some of the elements traditionally associated with a socialist economy.

One of these is the active and important role played by the State in the direction of our economy. The Plan, as I said a little while ago, shows the readiness of the State to intervene on a massive scale in the economic process and guide private enterprise.

The other socialist element is the introduction of planning, though that planning is not as total as under a completely socialised economy. Nevertheless, there is a significant amount of planning. In the past, planning was done, by and large, annually by means of an annual Budget. For the first time in the history of Singapore, we have now a concrete Plan to cover a period of four years. The Plan has made a systematic and realistic survey of the extent of resources available during the next four years and planned its objectives in terms of these available resources.

Within this context, we have said, as the motion states, that we exhort capital and labour to play a part in maintaining a fair balance between their respective interests. This term "fair balance" appears to have upset the Member for Tanglin who said that the Government should have laid more stress on increased productivity and speed in economic development. We believe in increased productivity and economic development, but we also believe in a fair balance between interests. It may be that the Member for Tanglin wants us to preserve an unfair balance, that is, to the disadvantage presumably of the workers.

Mr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): I never said that.

Mr Rajaratnam: The Member for Tanglin insisted that the Government is placing undue stress on the need to preserve a fair balance.

An hon. Member: You can have reference to an arbitrator!

Mr Rajaratnam: Both the Member for Tanglin and the Member for Cairnhill complained yesterday that the Government did not care two hoots for their views. That all depends on the views expressed. If they are intelligent views, they will be given every careful consideration. But if they are not, the hon. Members must not expect us to treat them as anything more than silly views.

However, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill made a speech which struck me very much as though he was acting as a propaganda agent for the former Member for Hong Lim. He has brought in a new line. In fact, today, he was arguing very much that he hoped that the Government would not lose the by-election in Hong Lim, because if it did so, it would be disastrous not only for the country but also for the Development Plan. For the last three or four hours, I was wondering what reasons prompted this new political approach, because, if I remember correctly, until then the line of the S.P.A. was that Mr Ong Eng Guan was fighting the Opposition's battle in Hong Lim. But now the Member for Cairnhill has taken the line that he would not want Mr Ong Eng Guan to win the Hong Lim by-election. It strikes me that Mr Ong has been rather embarrassed by all this effusive support for his cause and he has perhaps found it necessary to indicate that it would be most embarrassing for a self-proclaimed revolutionary to enjoy the support of the S.P.A. So that now the Member for Cairnhill takes a new line by saying that a victory for Mr Ong in Hong Lim would be a disaster. But having disavowed sympathy for Mr Ong, the Member for Cairnhill then took to repeating in this Assembly the propaganda line Mr Ong has been taking at his street meetings and public rallies. For example, Mr Ong has always maintained that he was sacked from the Party so that the Government would have its chances of getting a loan better enhanced. Today, the Member for Cairnhill in a somewhat different fashion congratulated the Government for rectifying its errors and expelling Mr Ong from the Government. But he went on to say that he would not like to suggest that the expulsion of Mr Ong had anything to do with the Finance Minister's trip to London. He said that he personally did not believe it to be so, but he felt he could not help repeating this sort of rumour that has been spreading, and though he thought it highly improbable he felt that it was necessary to say so, so that tomorrow's papers will publish the line that there are other people who think that perhaps Mr Ong was expelled and, since his expulsion, the chances of the Minister for Finance and the P.A.P. Government of getting a loan are far better enhanced.

Again, Mr Ong has always maintained that the Work Brigade is a device for cheering Ministers. The Member for Cairnhill said that he had heard that the Work Brigade was paid by Government and that it was used to cheer the Minister for Labour and Law when he returned to Singapore. Of course, the Member for Cairnhill said that he did not believe it but that was what he heard and he repeats it here. He hopes that tomorrow's papers will probably misquote the fact that he does not believe in it himself but will quote the rest of the passage to the effect that the Work Brigade is being used to cheer Ministers.

Again, Mr Ong has suggested that Political Secretaries who talk on the P.A.P. by-election platform did so because they are being paid a salary out of public funds amounting to $1,100 a month each. The Member for Cairnhill took the opportunity to repeat here - in fact, he repeatedly stressed-that we are using Political Secretaries who each receive a salary of $1,100 a month. It might be pure coincidence that the Member for Cairnhill is echoing precisely the same thing that the former Member for Hong Lim is saying. The Member for Cairnhill says that he hopes the former Member for Hong Lim will not win the Hong Lim by-election, but he feels that the propaganda of the former Member for Hong Lim is worth repeating in this Assembly.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: There you are!

Mr Rajaratnam: Again, Mr Ong has made play of the issue of detainees. The Member for Cairnhill today brought up the question of detainees although this motion has nothing to do with it. He saw fit to bring up this issue again saying, "Here are the Political Secretaries pleading for their comrades in Changi," and therefore highlighting for the benefit of Mr Ong the question of detainees.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: You are putting the blame on the Federation Government. It is wrong.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Ong claims that the Trade Union Congress consists of Government stooges. The Member for Cairnhill dutifully repeats this in this Chamber today. Mr Ong has always maintained that the Government back-benchers do not see eye to eye with the Ministers, and the Member for Cairnhill spent a great deal of time yesterday and today saying, "Here is the Minister for Finance who is a very reasonable man. But the terrible Back-benchers do not follow the Government line," in the hope that the Minister for Finance would be in the bad books of the Back-benchers, which is precisely the same strategy that the former Member for Hong Lim had been following in this Chamber. The former Member for Hong Lim had said, "It is only the Ministers who are the wicked people. But there are very good Assemblymen on the back benches."

Tun Lim Yew Hock: You have spoiled the soup!

Mr Rajaratnam: The Member for Cairnhill has adopted a far more subtle, clever and adroit strategy than the rather naive Member for Tanglin. He comes to say, "I do not believe that So and So is a crook. But then I heard he is a crook." And then he looks up and he hopes that it would be published. He said, "No, the Minister for Finance is a very reasonable man. But the Back-benchers are really the ones who are really spoiling the soup for the Minister for Finance." Sir, this is a new strategy. Let us make one thing clear. If the Member for Cairnhill is expecting that, as a result of publicly stating that he hoped that the P.A.P. would win the by-election, he is going to administer the kiss of death to the Government Party, he is very much mistaken, because we know quite clearly that Mr Ong has the support and blessing of the Opposition. Let it remain there. Whatever subterfuges may be indulged in this Assembly, they would not cut very much ice certainly with the Government and certainly with members of the public. Mr Speaker, Sir-

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Some more.

Mr Rajaratnam: I fear that the Member for Cairnhill is a little bit anxious as to what line of argument he has to follow to help in the by-election, in view of the fact that this Assembly will be sitting on 26th April, a few days before Polling Day.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Kandasamy): Dr Goh, in reply?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: In reply, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir,I wish to start my remarks by replying to the allegation made by the Member for Farrer Park that the Opposition did not have sufficient notice to make a proper and adequate study of the Development Plan. They claimed that the document itself went to them some 13 days ago with a notice of debate just three days ago and that therefore until they received the notice of debate they were completely unaware that this matter would be discussed in the Legislative Assembly.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I remind them that at the last sitting of the Assembly on 22nd March. I made it a point to state that at the next sitting of the Assembly I would present this Development Plan for the approval of the Assembly? Therefore, if the Opposition who were probably absent as usual during serious sessions of the Assembly did not take notice of what I stated, then all I can say is that they have themselves to blame.

Sir, coming to the arguments on the substantive motion, I may start on a light tone by commenting on the remarks of the Member for Tanglin, who never ceases to astonish me by his progress as a most assiduous student of political tracts published by the People's Action Party. Sir, it is my hope that the time and effort that he has spent in studying the publications of the P.A.P. would be duly rewarded by enlightenment and by an advance in political understanding. Although I can see some progress in this direction, I cannot say that he would quite make the grade now because, as understanding glimmers and dawns upon his mind, he does not attribute that to an improvement of his political understanding but to a change in our Party stand.

An hon. Member: Very subtle!

8.00 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, you will remember that during the general election, the Member for Tanglin said at a mass meeting, and he was reported in the Straits Times - unfortunately I do not have a copy of it today, not being systematic as the Member for Tanglin is - as saying, "Your house is on fire. It has been struck by lightning." I thought that this was just a figure of speech and that maybe the Member for Tanglin was just having a private joke by himself. But I am now convinced that he really believed that statement - that the P.A.P., when it came into power, would be out to ruin the country, burn the houses down, massacre the people, and God knows what. Therefore, when we came into power and had done none of these things, and had never acted like backwoodsmen - on the contrary, we are the most reasonable of reasonable people - he said, "You have changed!" Where? What has happened is that he now says, "Yes. They are reasonable people. They said these things. It was quite reasonable." But he thought that there is not quite that exact correspondence between our campaign speeches and our performance today.

My colleague, the Minister for Culture, has gone into some detail on this subject, and I do not want to dwell too much on it. But may I say this: he said that whereas this Development Plan would be dependent on overseas capital and overseas know-how to give us the impetus to our industrialisation programme, there was no such acceptance in the Party's Five-Year Plan when we met the electorate. We said - and he quoted a section of the Party's Five-Year Plan - that "Singapore does not depend on foreign capitalists for its survival." We said that in 1959, and we say it today. The Plan never said that Singapore depends on foreign capitalists for its survival. If the Member for Tanglin disputes this proposition, it is open to him to quote any section. He quoted that part of the Plan which says to the contrary.

Mr Speaker, Sir, you must remember that in May 1959, when we were campaigning, we were in the situation that whenever the former S.P.A. Government made any public declaration of economic policy, their main emphasis was this: that the P.A.P. was driving away foreign capital and therefore Singapore would die. We then had to tell the people, "Your main survival depends on your own efforts, and not on what outsiders (foreign capitalists) do for Singapore." And even today we say that the overseas manufacturer has no responsibility whatsoever to come here. That remains true. And if you stake your existence on this, then I say that you are living in a dreamworld. We have never said, and this Plan never claims to assert, that the livelihood of the people of Singapore depends on foreign capitalists. We say that we make the main effort; and having developed the strength of the economy, and having produced by our own efforts, by our own self-discipline, the proper climate for investment, then we will have a good chance of attracting a substantial amount of overseas investment and technical know-how with which to give us that first impetus to our industrialisation programme. That is all we have said. What we say now in the Development Plan is in no way inconsistent with what we said in May 1959 before the electorate.

Sir, time does not allow me to answer all the statements made by Members of the Opposition, and I wish to confine my remarks to criticisms - carping criticisms, if I may say so - put forward by the Member for Farrer Park. I shall deal with his comments on the Development Plan point by point.

First, he said that this Plan is not all that it is cracked up to be, because, after all, it is only a rehash of what Government departments want to do. Based on his perhaps not so brief but certainly an inglorious experience in the colonial City Council, he presumes to pronounce judgment on the mechanics whereby we created this Plan, and to say that the way it was done was inadequate. Inadequate, because it is no more than a rehash of dribs and drabs sent in by the departments of the Government. Sir, I will be the first to admit that in certain fields of government activity, the all expansion programme must depend on what the civil servants in the departments concerned tell you. That is the first approach. Take departments like the Post Office, Telecommunications, or Veterinary, or what have you. These are technical departments of Government. And if the head of department is at all worthy of his pay, he must think forward in his normal routine work. Therefore, if the department says, "Yes, this is the way. The Post Office must always know where they are going to site the new post offices over the next five years." And in respect of the programme for such technical departments, I should say that the Member for Farrer Park is correct. But to say that the whole Plan has been conceived, worked out and developed in this way is absolutely monstrous.

I have explained, in the first instance, that although there are plans of some sort available in departments, it is necessary to develop them, to reappraise them, and to get a certain assessment of their consequences or revenue and expenditure if these projects are to be implemented. And this is a time-consuming effort because the departments' estimates have to be checked, rechecked, for consistency, for possibility of other factors arising. Apart from the rather mechanical work of assessing the implications and consequences of the Plan, it is necessary that the Government should be guided by a scale of priorities, because if you just add up whatever is dished out to you and swallow the whole thing, you are likely to end up with an awful tummy-ache, a completely indigestible rehash of what has been put into the sausage machine of the administrative system. And in setting out the scale of priorities - and this is the determining factor - we are not guided by the pet schemes of departments, because if you allow every department to do whatever it likes, then I can assure you, Mr Speaker, Sir, we shall not need $871 million for the next four years, but something nearer $3,000 million. You must have a scale of priorities and that scale of priorities is determined by your political programme - the programme that you put before the electorate - which gives you the direction in which you want to propel the economic system, taking into account the promises you have given to the electorate, the type of political and social advance, you think desirable and possible at this stage of Singapore's development.

It is here that we find the crucial element of the Plan. It is here that the Ministry of Finance, as the central planning authority in this instance, has to balance the counter claims of the other Ministries competing for a limited amount of resources. That was the initiative that was taken by the planning organisation in consultation with Ministers in the different Ministries as regards priorities between social and economic development, and between different fields, different projects within each of its major fields. We were at once struck by what is sometimes termed, in contemporary economic terminology, "the inadequacy of Singapore's industrial intra-structure", that is to say, the basic services such as roads, port facilities, power, water, light, telecommunications, land, industrial sites, and so forth which are necessary-if you want rapid industrialisation-in order to have any chance whatsoever of succeeding. It is here that the initiative of the Government has been revealed in the Plan before the Assembly. I can assure you that if you allow the administrative machine to submit plans and projects and put them all into some sort of shape, you will have a completely different Plan from the one before the Assembly.

It was necessary, while the preparation of this Plan took place, to give as much preparation in detail as was possible to projects such as Kallang, Jurong, the Economic Development Board, and so forth. As I have explained in my opening address, this Plan was first worked out in October 1959. The first draft was completed six months after. At the time when we started work on the Plan, which was nearly a year and a half ago, the technical details available for these major projects which were intended to speed up industrialisation progress were in a very rudimentary form. They were no more than vague ideas. Therefore, we had to spend a long time during the few months at our disposal to work them out in some suitable form. Since the completion of the first draft, considerable progress has been made, and I will refer to it in due course. But it is in the nature of things that you must have a dead-line somewhere and say, "All right. Whatever is ready at that time goes." After the first half of 1960, although further details were available, we decided not to incorporate them into this Plan because we were certain that there would be further revision.

The Member for Farrer Park also challenged the adequacy of our plans for the development of electricity. He asked whether they were just the ideas of the Electricity Engineer. The Electricity Engineer thought that this should be done and therefore we accepted it. In point of fact, the problem of the expansion of electric power was posed by the planning authority and submitted to the Electricity Engineer for his consideration. We made a number of projections of possible expansion in the demand of electricity, given various assumptions about the growth of industry. Finally, after discussions with him, we decided on a certain projection which we thought to be the most probable. Based on that, it was up to him to produce a plan whereby this growth of electricity could be achieved.

The Member for Farrer Park considers the Jurong Scheme to be an ill-conceived one and that it is not likely to lead to any success. He thinks the details of this plan to be completely inadequate. As I have said, the details of the Jurong industrial site as entered in the Plan are the ones that were available at the time when we decided to say, "So far and no farther." This is a living project. After the closing date of the plan revision, we have had a visit from a Japanese team of industrial planners. Since then, the Singapore Government has established a team of its own technical experts, consisting of engineers from the P.W.D., members of the Singapore Harbour Board, engineers from the Water Department, the Electricity Department, the Town-planners and so forth, to examine these factors in great detail. We have completed a large-scale topographic mapping of the area. The Marine Department has completed a hydrographic survey of the waters around Jurong. Boring tests have been completed and technical data are in the process of being sent to Tokyo for evaluation by the Japanese industrial planners. It is in the nature of things that, in working on a substantial long-term project such as Jurong, it is not possible to have all the final details completed in the first six or ten months of our office. That was the time when the main part of the Plan was conceived and written. We have, therefore, gone out of our way to stress that this is a flexible Plan, in itself developing from time to time as we collect more technical data and as we make a further appraisal of the economic situation.

The Member for Farrer Park's remarks about the Kallang project, I think, can be dealt with very briefly. It is obvious that if it takes four to five years to fill up the swamp, then you are not going to get any revenue during that period. I would have thought that to be a self-evident proposition. And indeed it is likely that you are not going to get any revenue for a long time after that, because, having filled the swamp, you have to allow the land to settle down. But land being one of the most scarce resources in Singapore, and the Kallang swamp occupying such a central area, we consider this project is worth examining and proceeding with. If the Member for Farrer Park had read the latter part of this plan dealing in detail with the Kallang project, he would have known that what appeared in the first half was really the recommendations of some years ago when engineers decided that we could fill the swamp by moving earth from Paya Lebar. Now we are having a new look at the problem to find out whether or not we cannot fill up the swamp cheaper, such as by suction pumping of mud in the Singapore harbour. Here again technical work is in progress, and I will not say more about that.

The Member for Farrer Park says, with a considerable amount of glee, that this Plan will fail if there is no private investment. Surely nobody is going to dispute that. The whole emphasis of my opening address was to stress the hope that the substantial amount of investment in the public sector would have the effect of inducing correspondingly large investments in the private sector. I am not quite sure what was the point the Member for Farrer Park was making. If his point was that the Plan should have contained some targets for private investment - and in the plans of some countries targets for private investments are set out - then I say it is not possible in an open economy such as ours to say that there shall be X million dollars of private investment in the building industry; Y million dollars' worth of investment in the chemical industry, and so forth. Such planning targets of investment in industry are possible only in two circumstances. One is when you have a completely collectivised economy, where the Government itself establishes its industries. In fact, the Government is the sole source of industrial progress. That is possible. It is also possible where you have a very substantial economy with a very large population and a closed market, that is to say, in countries such as India where you can decide not to import electric fans. Then you know that you have to produce so many hundreds of thousands of electric fans that will require private investment of so many lakhs of rupees, and you decide that such investments would be left to the private sector. Then you can set up this target and so arrange a system of licensing of new industries that it means something. But in an open economy such as ours, planning along these lines is not, at any rate at this stage, possible.

The Member for Farrer Park goes to some length to refer to page 35. He says that many items in the Plan have no effect on industrialisation. For instance, the Animal Husbandry and Agricultural Stations at Sembawang are not related to industrialisation. No one will dispute that. He says that the swamp reclamation scheme intended to produce prawn ponds and reclaim land for farms has no direct relevance to industry. Nobody disputes that. But surely he is not making the point that the whole Plan should be concentrated on the development of industry to the exclusion of all other activities. That is an unacceptable proposition. Surely in a long-term development plan you must so balance your resources that all sectors of the economy have a fair share of development expenditure.

Then the Member enters on a discussion of page 38 of the Plan. He disputes that roads, bridges and drains could be considered as increasing the national income. How is it that roads, drains and bridges do not increase the national income? Surely they do. You find that as an axiom in all development plans. Take the Federation Development Plan, for instance. Substantial sums of money are spent on building new roads so that new areas can be opened up for cultivation, thereby increasing the national income, so that transportation of your agricultural produce can be made more easy, so that farmers could increase their income and increase their output. If you have irrigation drains and ditches to drain out flood water, you increase your national income to the extent that you avoid losses of crops through flood damage. I would have thought that this proposition would have been self-evident. Perhaps the Member for Farrer Park was confusing the growth of national income with the growth of Government revenue. I agree that these projects do not directly contribute to the Government revenue. But they do encourage and induce the growth of output in trade, and in agriculture especially, and to that extent can be considered as contributing to the growth of the national income.

Now, Sir, one last crack from the Member for Farrer Park; a rather witty one, I thought, because he said that as a result of bad management by the P.A.P. Government, we should really have a water famine by now. But luckily the rain fell and saved us from this calamity. Sir, is the Member for Farrer Park aware that far from Providence being kind to the P.A.P. Government, it has been most unkind so far as the water supply goes? I am told that last year the total annual rainfall was just over 60 inches as compared with the normal average of 92 inches a year. And in fact, last year's rainfall was one of the lowest on record. Sir, I am not going to be so presumptuous as to say that it was the result of good government that we weathered the drought. All I can say is that in the matter of water supply we did at least do a great deal to undo the horrible mistake made by the City Council when they built this famous Murnane Reservoir at a cost of $5 million and found that that Reservoir leaked.

Mr Rajah: The water supply has nothing to do with it.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I disagree absolutely, Mr Speaker, Sir, If you have a reservoir, that reservoir holds water and is available in any emergency when you are short of water.

Sir, I only want to mention in passing, since the Member for Farrer Park has raised the subject, that we are checking on the development plan of the Water Engineer. An Israeli expert has come recently to have a look at it and we have also applied to the World Bank for a revaluation of the development proposals in regard to the water supply.

Sir, I have perhaps ranged over a wide field and taken much of your patience at this late hour of the night. If I have not been as logical in the development of my field in this concluding speech, it is because I have to meet arguments on a large number of disparate points. In my concluding remarks, I think I should not miss out the Member for Cairnhill.

He said that one of the besetting sins of the P.A.P. is its arrogance, particularly the arrogance of the Ministers. Sir, I have always considered myself a humble person and my colleagues the most reasonable of persons. I am unable to trace any tinge of arrogance in them, nor have I heard this complaint from other people. Therefore, I am wondering what is the source - why does the Member for Cairnhill-

Mr Rajah: It was the first time!

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Not the first time. He has been repeating this for a long time. I cannot see any reason why he says so. Why does he think so? He has said it so often that I am convinced he believes that I am arrogant. Some months ago, Sir, I went to see a film. It was the first film I had seen for years. The film was entitled, "The School for Scoundrels". And it preached the doctrine of "one-upmanship". The principal actor propounded this theory: either you are one up, or you are one down. And he urged upon everybody to be one up. Now, I rather suspect that the Member for Cairnhill is a believer of this proposition - that either you are one up, or you are one down. And he, being a Member of the Opposition and therefore one down, thinks that those who are one up are unduly arrogant.

Sir, quite frankly, I cannot accept the allegations that we are a bunch of arrogant twirps because we have gone out of our way in this Development Plan to play down the benefits which will accrue to the people of Singapore as a result of successful P.A.P. implementation-

Mr Speaker: Order. I was wondering whether the Minister for Finance has used an unparliamentary word about his own Ministers. Did he call them "twirps"? If he did, it was unparliamentary.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, that was, in fact, a phrase which - I mean, that is the trouble with going to films! That was the word which I think I heard in this film, and if it is unparliamentary, Mr Speaker, Sir, I withdraw it without any reservation, because it has no bearing whatsoever on the conduct of the Government front bench.

Sir, after having throughout my opening address played down and minimised the importance and the significance of this Plan, if I may be permitted for one moment to give a word of praise about the Plan and what we proposed to do about it, we can say that as the Government we have worked hard and to the best of our ability. The position is difficult and our resources are scarce. But we have never failed for want of trying, and in the implementation of this Development Plan we can assure you, Mr Speaker, Sir, and Members of the Assembly that we shall press forward in this spirit.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly, after careful deliberation of the acute problems of unemployment caused by Singapore's rapid population increase which is not accompanied by corresponding increase in economic expansion,

ALERTS our people to the paramount need to expand employment opportunities, and to this end

APPROVES the State Development Plan 1961-1964, and

CALLS on all sections of the people to unite in their effort to fulfil the plan, and in particular

EXHORTS the workers and trade union movement and the businessmen and industrialists to play, their part in maintaining a fair balance of their respective interests so essential to success.