TRADE MISSIONS IN PEKING AND NEW DELHI

Mr David Marshall asked the Minister for Finance whether it is Government's intention to establish Trade Missions in Peking and New Delhi.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Not at present, since it is considered doubtful if any significant value to Singapore's economy would be derived from the establishment of trade representatives in either city.

Mr David Marshall: Would the Minister concede that the unofficial trade delega tion of the Federation and Singapore in 1956 to Japan and China did contribute materially to our economic welfare?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, think that is a matter for the particular trade mission to establish. But I am not sure whether I have not misunderstood the Member for Anson. My understand ing of his question is that he is asking for some form of permanent trade representation in these two countries. In my view, there is very little that we would gain. Perhaps I could elaborate on this issue. In fact, the most important duty of any trade representation abroad is to help the country he is representing to increase its export trade, to make it easier for domestic industrialists and traders to sell to that country. That is basic. All foreign trade missions are there to advance and promote the interests of their domestic producers.

Sir, if we are to inquire into the nature of our trade with the two countries, namely, China and India, we will find that the goods that we are exporting to them are what you might call tropical raw materials in one form or the other. For instance, we exported to China in 1960 $73 million of crude rubber, $6 million worth of mineral fuels, and nearly $4 million worth of animal and vegetable oils. They are not manufactured goods; they are not branded articles; and a trade mission cannot help in any way. The trade representative will not be able either to induce or persuade China to increase her imports of these goods.

Similarly with India. We exported in 1960 to India $36 million worth of crude rubber, $11 million worth of oil seeds, $7� million worth of vegetable and animal oils, and $4 million worth of petroleum. On the other hand, we import from these two countries very substantial amounts of consumer goods - textiles principally - a certain amount of foodstuffs, fruits and vegetables and, by and large, it is not the responsibility of trade representatives in either of these countries to promote the exports of other countries to ours. That is something which is the duty of that country to do. So, as I have said, going through the nature of our trade with these two countries, very little is to be gained at the present moment by stationing permanent trade missions there. It is quite different with Indonesia for whom we are the supply base, so to speak, for substantial parts of the Indonesian Archipelago. Moreover, in some instances, our merchants and shippers are meeting with considerable difficulty. Therefore, the need for a trade mission in Indonesia is a very urgent one.

Mr David Marshall: I appreciate what the Minister indicates as regards the reasons for not establishing missions, Sir. But I have reason to believe that we could, with little difficulty, induce at least one of the governments concerned to import from us at least as much as we import from them. Would he not consider at least sending out a small trade delegation for a short period to both these capitals to investigate the potential?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I will bear that proposal in mind, Mr Speaker, Sir.