ESTIMATES AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES FOR 1963 (Statement by the Minister for Finance)

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

Mr Speaker: Dr Goh. The object being?

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): The object being to make a statement on the Estimates for the year 1963 and the Development Estimates for 1963 which I have presented to the Assembly. Members might be interested to have an explanation before it is made public in the Press.

Mr Speaker: The Hon. the Minister, of course, is out of time according to our Standing Orders. But he can always make a statement if he has the assent of all Members present.

Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the Minister makes his ministerial statement now? [Interruption]

I just want "ayes" or "nays".

Dr Goh Keng Swee: It is about 10 or 15 minutes.

Some hon. Members: Aye.

Mr Speaker: Dr Goh.

5.37 p.m.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, in accordance with Standing Orders. I presented to the Assembly the "Estimates containing a vote on account for part of the year 1963 for the State of Singapore" and the "Development Estimates for the State of Singapore for the year 1963". Notice required under Standing Orders of the first allotted day has been submitted to the Clerk of the-Assembly at 3.20 p.m. today.

The Estimates containing a Vote on Account for six months' expenditure in 1963 were presented in accordance with section 98 (3) of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, which reads as follows:

'The Assembly may, by resolution approving estimates containing a vote on account, authorise expenditure for part of any year before the passing of the Appropriation law for that year, but the aggregate amount so voted shall be included, under the appropriate heads, in the Appropriation Bill for that year.'

The Estimates are calculated at 55 per cent of the expenditure appearing in the 1962 Estimates shown as expenditure to be voted by the Assembly. This means an increase of 10 per cent is provided in 1963 over 1962 estimated expenditure as allowance for normal expansion.

These Estimates containing a Vote on Account were presented to the Assembly in accordance with Standing Order 89.

Section 98 (3) of the Constitution to which I referred earlier does not apply to the Development Estimates. For the Development Estimates for 1963, contained in this Paper, it is necessary therefore to follow section 4 of the Development Fund Ordinance, 1959. Under section 4 (1) of this Ordinance, it is necessary for the estimates for the full year to be shown. Also the sums necessary to meet each head and sub-head of expenditure have to be shown. This explains why the Development Estimates for 1963 show expenditure for 12 months as compared with the estimates containing a Vote on Account which show expenditure for six months only. It also explains why the Development Estimates for 1963 show both heads and sub-heads of expenditure, whereas the Estimates containing a Vote on Account show only heads of expenditure.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must explain why the Government had decided upon these steps. In recent months, it had become obvious that progress towards merger has been achieved at a rate which has exceeded all expectations. With the support of the vast majority of the peoples of the Federation, Singapore and the Borneo territories, the movement towards reunification of these territories has gathered momentum and has be-come an irresistible force.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. We have given permission for him to make factual statement. Is it appropriate for him to introduce matters of political inferences and political propaganda?

Mr Speaker: I have indicated in the past, of course, that a ministerial statement should be factual and should not be such as to invite a debate. If the ministerial statement is such as to invite a debate, I did indicate that the proper procedure would be for the Minister, after making his statement, to move the adjournment of the House to enable the House to debate the statement.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I am quite happy for this statement to be debated. But if the Member for Anson will bear with me for a while and reflect on what I actually said, there is absolutely nothing here that is controversial, because all sides of the House are agreed that merger is desirable. It is nothing controversial at all, as I said.

Very well, to continue, Mr Speaker, Sir. It is important that we in Singapore must not allow lack of preparation to hold up the implementation of merger plans because of possible hold-ups in the administrative machinery. We must not only look at what is likely to happen in 1962, we must also try to visualise events in 1963. The Prime Ministers of the Federation and Singapore, in a joint statement made in September this year, have set the target date for merger in or before June 1963. The way events are moving, there is little reason for doubt that it would be realised. The Government anticipates that the preparation of a budget for 1963 will encounter numerous technical problems of details.

The budget of any government is not something that is prepared just before Budget Day. As I have mentioned in a previous budget statement, the preparation of a budget is a continuing and a continuous process. No sooner has one budget been approved in the Assembly than the Treasury gets down to the task of preparing for the next one.

The preparation for the budget for 1963 must normally therefore begin in a month or two. At the same time we expect that all Ministries of the Singapore Govermnent, especially the Ministry of Finance, will have to bend their minds to the many intricate details of implementing the White Paper proposals on merger. The strain on the Treasury Division of my Ministry will be particularly heavy. We have had experience of one exercise in the preparation of a budget when the whole basis of the administration is radically changed. I refer, of course, to the current year's budget which integrated certain City Council departments into the Central Government both in respect of its revenue and expenditure proposals.

The preparation of the budget for the new State of Singapore, as a constituent member of the Federation, will be even more complicated and onerous. It is well, therefore, that the situation should be explained now and that both the Assembly and the general public be made aware of it.

To settle the details of allocation of votes and revenue between State and Central Government, additional work will devolve on Treasury officials and those Ministries affected by transfers of responsibility, and it is not likely that the 1963 Budget will be ready in time. This may well expose the Government to criticism. There might even be a loss of confidence in the administration. For this reason and in fairness to the administration, I will be asking the House to approve a vote on account for the first six months of 1963. I also intend to ask approval for the Development Estimates for the whole of 1963.

These requests are only in accordance with the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, and with the Development Fund Ordinance. The Development Fund Ordinance, as I said a moment ago, requires that approval for development expenditure should be passed by the Assembly in respect of a full year while the (Constitution) Order in Council allows a vote on ac-count for part of the year. This provision of the law is quite reasonable. The vote on account is asked in respect of annually recurrent expenditure. Such expenditure is incurred in regular amounts each month being payments for salaries of staff, regular services used by the Government such as water, light, electricity, stationery, telephone, rents of offices and so forth. Development expenditures on the other hand is paid for in block amounts as and when a project is completed. Payments are therefore not regular throughout the year.

The vote on account, as I said earlier, provides for expenditure for the first six months of 1963 at 55 per cent of the expenditure appearing in the 1962 Estimates now before the House. As regards the Development Estimates, no new items have been introduced. They were all projects entered in the Four-Year Development Plan which had been approved by this Assembly earlier this year as well as a few new projects which I have discussed in my Budget Statement last week. I should perhaps refer to one difficulty in the preparation of the Development Estimates for 1963. This is the problem of forecasting the date of completion of projects. Some projects which are scheduled to be completed in 1962 and therefore paid for from the funds to be voted for that year, may incur some delay owing to circumstances beyond the control of the Government. In such cases, financial provisions must be made in 1963 to pay for the completion of such projects.

But let me add that the Treasury will, in spite of the heavy duties which the administration would have to undertake in the coming months, try to prepare the estimates in time. If it can be done, the Government would then present these estimates to the Assembly in the normal way. But ex abundantae cautela we consider it prudent to ask the Assembly's approval for expenditure in the first six months of 1963. Everyone will agree that in matters of State finance, the cautious approach has much to commend it.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, to allow a debate on the statement that has been made, particularly in view of the remarks by the Member for Anson, may I now move the motion for the adjournment?

Mr Speaker: I would suggest that perhaps the more opportune moment will be 2.30 p.m. tomorrow when hon. Members will have had an opportunity to study that statement. Copies of the statement will be made available. Any Minister could then move the adjournment to enable a debate to take place. Does that satisfy hon Members? I might add, of course, that at 2.30 p.m. tomorrow, if hon. Members think they do not wish further debate they could indicate, and then the motion need not be moved.