ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [28th November, 1961], "That the Assembly approves the financial policy of the Government for the year 1962."

Question again proposed.

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance has found it fit to refer to the Barisan Sosialis in his speech on the financial policy of the Government for the year 1962.

Mr Rajah: You should have been honoured!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: He has suggested that we should not be unmindful of the hard economic facts facing the people of Singapore. Sir, we are not only conversant with the stern economic realities confronting us, but we are also acutely conscious of the need to put up with them and to make the best possible job of it. We are well aware of the entrepot nature of Singapore's economy. We are aware of Singapore's growing population. We are aware and are keenly desirable of industrial peace, because this is closely tied up with the need for industrialisation upon which so much of our population would depend for jobs in the near future. Sir, it is because of our consciousness of the delicate nature of our economy and the magnitude of our problem we have to face that we feel the co-operation of the entire people is a prerequisite for the success of any government.

Sir, it is here that I have to remind the P.A.P. Government where they have blundered, namely, that in their budgeting, in their taxation policy, in their efforts to work out a policy of collection of revenue, and in their order of priorities in respect of expenditure of public needs, they do not seem to have taken into account the feelings and desires of the people. Sir, it is here that we have to teach the P.A.P. Government a simple but nevertheless grim fact amongst all other objective economic realities. That is, that we have a politically conscious people and an educated populace who could be persuaded to accept policies, and even hardships that may follow from these policies, if they are satisfied that Government is in sympathy with their basic problems and aspirations. Sir, the necessity of the people's co-operation is fundamental, especially when the people of Singapore are politically volatile. I would ask the Minister for Finance to remember this reality. It is a particularly pertinent reminder, for he and most of his ministerial colleagues have been extremely ham-fisted in the application of their policies.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I must remind the Minister for Finance that he cannot treat people like pawns on the chessboard, and that policies which hurt the people or even appear to do so are ultimately going to be rejected by the people.

Sir, the speech of the Minister has given no great comfort to the people of Singapore. He justifies his proposed Budget by the assertion that expenditure on various items has been greater than that of preceding years. Sir, this is a rather naive way of trying to get acceptance of Government's financial policy. Our revenues have increased, and so expenditure of our various social services has also increased together with the expenditure on various other items. There is nothing new or startling in this simple fact. There is no reason for the Minister for Finance to make a special point of it.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I would.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, let me examine certain main features of the Minister's speech. The Minister says that the development expenditure for the year 1961 would amount to $100-$110 million and, according to the Minister, this is an all-time record in Singapore. Sir, is this really true? I do not think he dares even answer that.

In page 8 of the Development Estimates for 1962, the grand total for 1961 quoted for development was $166.2 million. Of this, how much is really going to be spent by the end of the year? The estimated expenditure is to be $107.8 million. Therefore, the Government is going to spend only 65 per cent of what has been allocated for development. But, unfortunately, even this amount would not be spent. Of the $107.8 million. $40 million is, in fact, a paper transfer. So actually the amount to be spent by the end of 1962, if indeed that amount will be spent, will be $107.8 million minus $40 million, that is $67.8 million. If you are to work it out, this is only 41 per cent performance.

Sir, it is interesting to note that this $67.8 million is much lower than the pre-P.A.P. years. It is much lower than what the Lim Yew Hock Government had spent. If you turn to page 25 of the Development Plan, Sir, in Table 2.11, under the title "Capital Expenditure 1955-1960", you will see under column 1955, (at the bottom of it); $89.2 million; 1956, $83.9 million; 1957, $118.4 million; 1958, the figure is also $118.4 million. But when it comes to 1959 and 1960, there are only $73.5 million for 1959 and $66.6 million for 1960.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of elucidation, Sir.

Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker: Dr Gob, point of elucidation, if it is not too lengthy.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Yes, Sir. I would ask the Member whether he is aware that the total he is reading included capital expenditure on public utilities, transport and communications - things like the railways, the Harbour Board, the power station and so on. These are not included in the Government's Development Estimates. The grand total includes various items. Let us take the first two lines of Table 2.11, for instance. "Transport and Communications" includes the Telephone Board. We are spending millions of dollars on such items. "Public utilities" will include the Power Station at Pasir Panjang. This is not development expenditure of the Central Government with which we are concerned in the Development Estimates before us. You are not comparing similar things.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: My colleague has pointed out to me, Sir, that if you turn to the next page, at Table 2.12, the amount spent under the Singapore Harbour Board and the Singapore Telephone Board is only a comparatively small sum. Anyway, the point is that the expenditure by the P.A.P. Government has fallen far short of what it should have been.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Again, of the $67.8 million, which I mentioned a little while ago, $34 million is to be spent on housing. Therefore, the actual amount spent on social services and public amenities is $67.8 million minus $34 million; that is, $33.8 million, Sir. If you work it out, Sir, this is only 25 per cent of the estimated expenditure. It is simple arithmetic. You do not have to be an economist to know all this.

The Minister for Health and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): You should go back to medicine.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: It is time you learnt something, my boy!

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Queenstown should talk across the Chamber to the Speaker but not towards the Government Benches.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: My apology, Sir. In the last Budget, 1961 was to be called the year of construction. We do not mind if slogans are used by political Parties or individuals so long as they reflect the real sentiments or the intentions of the people who use them. The year of construction! But has it really been so? Can the P.A.P. Government stand up and say proudly that it has been a year of construction?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Yes.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: On the contrary, Sir, this assertion about the year of construction is a dismal failure. The people in the P.A.P. Government simply do not mean what they say. They are men who believe in slick talk. They are men who believe that by the use of attractive words and phrases they will be able to get anything past the people. Sir, we had occasion in this Assembly to mention that the first year of the P.A.P. was the year of excitement.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: There were many others. Most of the first year was spent by the Ministers in throwing their weight about.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: They saw themselves as a lot of mighty men who could get away with almost anything on earth - abuse of civil servants, pay cuts, threats and insults galore. That was the essence of the P.A.P. Government talk. They became a lot of self-fancying people.

In the second year, when they were running into political difficulties, when they realised that they had to show something for having been elected into office, they called it the year of construction. We have already said that it was more a year of confusion. The taxes on petrol and tobacco, increased rents and numerous other hardships brought them little sympathy. Instead, they persisted in their so-called tough line in the belief that everybody would support them, as there was no other viable Left-wing force.

Sir, the Four-Year Development Plan was rushed through in view of the Hong Lim by-election. Sir, any plan that advances the interest of the people, any plan that brings greater amenities and comforts, must be supported. Sir, the trade unions and many others supported this plan. But it is one thing to draw up a plan and another thing to implement it. The Government had to draw up the plan if only to prove to the people of Singapore that it was doing something for them. But unfortunately, at the same time, it was also carrying out policies which made it difficult for the people, especially for the poor men, in Singapore.

The overall picture is as follows. The P.A.P. plans to spend in the year of construction $166.4 million. Of this amount, $40 million was to be a grant to the Economic Development Board. This $40 million, we are told, is the amount spent. But, in fact, it is a mere paper transfer. It has only been effected on paper. It has not been translated into terms of actual development. That is, it has not been used for the purpose it was given. Nothing of this money has been spent in the sense used. The money re-means invested in Britain. The only difference is that, instead of this money being held in the name of the Accountant-General, it is now probably held in the name of the Economic Development Board. Therefore, to get a correct measure of the achievements of the P.A.P. in its so-called year of construction, one has to deduct the $40 million which is still invested in Britain. You will therefore see, Mr Speaker, that only $67.8 million would be used by the end of the year, giving the P.A.P. Government approximately a 41 per cent fulfilment. Is this not a true reflection of what has been carried out by the Government? As I have said, Mr Speaker, of this $67.8 million, $34 million was a grant to the Housing Development Board. Even if we are to assume that all the money has been used or will be used by the end of the year, the achievements of the P.A.P., in services other than public housing, are a complete and utter failure.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Why?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Of the $92.2 million budgeted for use in 1961, only $33.8 million is expected to be used. That is, calculated at the very most, a 37 per cent fulfilment of what was expected. By any test, Mr Speaker, this is a failure. Any honest government will admit that it is a failure.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think the Member for Queenstown should provoke the Ministerial bench by pointing at them. I think if he points at the Speaker, the Speaker will be quite happy. He is allowed to do so.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I do not mind it.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I will bear that in mind, Sir. Here we have a steady record of under-fulfilment and continuing under-fulfilment. But skilful Ministers with their ingenuity are able to find words to hide this failure, words that make unprecedented failures into all-time records of success.

Mr Speaker, Sir, by the end of this month, which brings to an end this so-called year of construction, the P.A.P. Government can show only meagre efforts that do not deserve the praise of anyone. The fact is that the P.A.P. in 1961 has failed, and failed dismally. In 1959, when the P.A.P. took office, there was a collapse of development expenditure. The Government and statutory bodies spent $45 million less than in 1958, when the Labour Front was in office. This can easily be seen from the Development Plan, page 25. You take the columns 1958 and 1959. Subtract 73.5 from 118.4, and you get 45. If you go further from the figure in the 1960 estimates, you will see that only $11.1 million of the $41.7 million was spent. This only constitutes 21 per cent of the development expenditure in 1959. Most of this was probably spent before the P.A.P. took office. In 1960, the supposed year of construction of the P.A.P., development expenditure was supposed to be $105.8 million. That can be seen in the Development Budget of 1960, page 467. State Development Projects - $105.8 million. The 1961 Estimates presented to the House are very significantly silent on the performance of 1960. There is no column, Sir, which gives you the expenditure for 1960. We have been told of acute needs. One has only to read the first chapter of the Government Four-Year Development Plan to see that year after year, very little has happened. All we get is how much better than others the P.A.P. is in doing nothing.

Mr Byrne: You must be blind!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: What has happened to the money that is not being used?

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Put into his pocket!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: All that has happened is that our investments in Britain are increasing. Money belonging to the people is used in Britain for housing and other social and economic purposes, and all our people get are words, words and more words. At the end of 1958, the Singapore Government's Sterling Securities in the Surplus Funds Account were $70.6 million. This is in the Financial Statements for the year 1958, page 15 - "Surplus Funds Sterling Securities - $70,663,941.04". At the end of 1959, Sir, it has risen to $93.6 million. Development fund investments in Britain had increased by $46.1 million. Our investments in Britain doubled in 1959.

Mr David Marshall: What is wrong with Singapore?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: That you must ask our Finance Minister. I refer you, Sir, to the Financial Statements for the year 1959, pages 44 and 48. At page 44, you will see at the bottom of the right-hand column $93.5 million; and on page 48, at the bottom of the column, $46 million. In 1960 and 1961, the P.A.P. went on investing in Britain. I will be surprised if the investment from these two funds alone is not between $250 million and $300 million.

What were the P.A.P. election promises on this matter, Sir? Let me quote The Tasks Ahead, Part 1, page 25:

'A P.A.P. government will make sure that a part of Singapore investments in foreign countries will be channelled back into local industrial development.'

Sir, not only have they not got back the money, but more has been sent away. How has this been done? A large part of this has been borrowed from the public, particularly the workers, at low interest and sent to England to earn higher interest?

Mr Byrne: From the workers?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Central Provident Fund, do you not know that?

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must ignore those interjections and address the Speaker.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The P.A.P.'s much published economic policy, in fact, is that of a - I am sure the Ministry of Home Affairs will be interested - moneylender. This is the policy of political bankruptcy of the P.A.P., and this bankruptcy is even more manifest in their economic policy, and they cannot expect -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, on a point of elucidation.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, how can -

Mr Speaker: No. The Member will not give way.

An hon. Member: Too bad!

Mr Speaker: Order. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: You can see from this alone, Sir, that - [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - they cannot possibly expect - [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. Please continue.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I am continuing my speech, Sir. [Laughter] I was going to say that now that you have heard all these revelations and facts you cannot possibly expect anyone of us here to support -

An hon. Member: Give way then!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - the policy statement of the P.A.P.

Mr Speaker, Sir, aside from certain information given to us by the Minister for Finance about the status of pioneer industries, one does not hear a word of what the Government has done to encourage investment from local resources. It has been a cardinal principle of the P.A.P.'s election platform to try and encourage investment in industries from capital available from local sources. Let me quote again The Tasks Ahead, Part 1, page 25 - I will read this little bit; it is very interesting:

'The P.A.P. profoundly disagrees that the survival of Singapore depends on foreign capital and foreign capitalists. We say that there are more than adequate capital resources initially available locally. Indeed, the position is that large sums of local capital are being invested in foreign countries, often in unprofitable investments. The total amount of Singapore capital invested by banks, insurance companies, central government, local authorities and the public boards is not known with certainty. It is probably in the region of $800,000,000. It is absolute nonsense to say that our survival depends on foreigners when so much of our own capital is invested in foreign countries.'

And one more paragraph, Sir:

'Foreign business concerns which wish to establish factories in Singapore will be given all the encouragement and assistance they need. We shall give them guarantees in regard to security of capital, remittance of dividends and other matters which all modern governments regard as normal practice. But [and this is the significant paragraph] it would be foolish to imagine that, whatever we do, foreign capital will come in on the scale needed to solve our problems. Our salvation lies in our own hands.'

I will finish the paragraph, Sir:

'There are no benevolent foreigners knocking around the world, anxious to discharge these duties and responsibilities which are rightly our own. Let us not face the economic problems in the era of freedom with the mental attitudes appropriate to colonial servitude. Let us never forget that self-government is not possible without self-reliance. This is true both in politics as well as in economics.'

That is the quotation.

Now, what has the Government done to encourage local business to invest in industry? There is hardly any mention of this fact in the speech of the Minister for Finance. Are we to understand that the P.A.P. no longer believes that capital for investment is to be made available from local sources?

Sir, the Budget that has been presented to us here has been a balanced one. Government is not expected to have a deficit and, in fact, deficit financing is not part of Government's policy. In fact, I will even go further and say that with savings that would be made in each Ministry every year we would again have a surplus. Sir, being in this comfortable position of having a surplus, I would urge that the Government should concentrate on providing greater amenities to the poorer sections of the community - water, electricity, health services to the city population, and similar amenities and better transport facilities to the rural population. We have been told that development projects have been held back because of the shortage of engineers, architects and quantity surveyors. Sir, the P.A.P. suffered a loss of trained personnel when it came into office. A greater loss was suffered as a result of the cut in the variable allowances which was, Sir, a naive political gimmick on the part of the Minister for Finance trying to convince the people of Singapore that the upper strata of the civil service were overpaid. Sir, I do not wish to enter into arguments about whether they are or they are not overpaid, but the simple fact is that, as a result, we have had a shortage of technicians, which in turn has affected our development programme. In other words, it is the workers and the ordinary people of Singapore who have suffered from this blind and narrow-minded policy effected by the Minister for Finance who was himself once a civil servant.

Sir, the Minister for Finance has admitted that delays in implementing the development programme have been due to the shortage of these architects, engineers and quantity surveyors. He should have foreseen the result of his own actions. He should have foreseen that the people of Singapore are the ones who would suffer by this naive and shortsighted policy of his. He is a man who talks about realities and he has shown a complete lack of a sense of realism in his previous conduct. Only now, Sir, is there some glimmer of responsibility and realism.

An hon. Member: After you have left them!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I am glad, as said by the Member who interjected, that we in the Barisan Sosialis have compelled him to move in the direction of realism. Similarly, we note the sort of delays and inadequacy in the Ministry of Health resulting in under-expenditure - something like $3.7 million less than the Estimates. I am glad to note that the Minister for Finance admits that this is principally due to unfilled posts - the senior and ancillary grades.

Sir, this situation would never have arisen if the Government had adopted a more enlightened policy from the beginning and had foreseen the effects of the pay cuts upon the civil servants. The P.A.P. is supposed to be a socialist Government. But a socialist government, Sir, is sensitive to the feelings of trade unions. Yet not the slightest respect was shown to unions representing the civil servants. But the end result of it all was that, in the case of the Ministry of Health, doctors and nurses left the medical service in substantial numbers, causing serious dislocations from time to time. I am glad to say that the ex-Parliamentary Secretary and ex-Political Secretary to the Minister for Health had made repeated representations to the Government to revise its attitude and improve the terms and conditions of service of the staff in the medical service. But this probably only met with increasing resistance from the Minister for Finance.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I never refused them.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Fortunately, political events have driven the Government into a position where it is now compelled to revise its whole thinking towards the civil service. Sir, we are proud to say that the representations of the Barisan Sosialis to the Government have had a salutary effect.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Government that once condemned the civil service in the most vulgar tones today literally -

Tun Lim Yew Hock: On bended knees.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - bends backwards to please the civil service. We are glad that at last our civil servants have been restored their self-respect. We are glad that the Government has been startled into realising the folly of its past ways.

Sir, it is not my intention to dwell at any length on the policy speech of the Minister for Finance. It is a rather colourless speech and there is nothing in the Budget that can possibly generate enthusiasm. It is as flat and stale - if I may say so, Sir -

Mr Byrne: As the speech we are listening to now.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - as the Minister himself is. The Minister himself seems to confess that this may be his last Budget -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Oh, no!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - he knows it for the State of Singapore under its present Constitution. He will not be presenting any more Budgets after this. It is little wonder -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of order, Sir.

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: [Interruption] - patience.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: That is not a point of order.

Mr Speaker: I do not think that is a point

Dr Goh Keng Swee: He is grossly misrepresenting -

Mr Speaker: I do not think that is a point -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I thought that -

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister is getting too excited. I do not think that is a point of order. It is perhaps a hope expressed by the Member for Queenstown that the Minister for Finance has presented his last Budget. That is all. It might not be realised.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: No, but he went further. He said that I said it may be my last Budget. I had assumed that the hon. Member was literate and could understand simple English, but I have grave doubts now, Sir.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, may I quote what he himself has said?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: He does not mean what he says!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Of course, if he does not mean what he says -

Mr Speaker: Order. Let us have the page.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: On page 26, the fifth paragraph, he said:

'Mr Speaker, Sir, this may be the last Budget of the State of Singapore under its present Constitution as a self-governing State.'

An hon. Member: So what?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: To be presented by the Minister for Finance.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: No.

Mr Speaker: Order. Please quote the exact paragraph carefully and slowly so that we will understand what is being said.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: It says here:

'Mr Speaker, Sir, this may be the last Budget of the State of Singapore under its present Constitution as a self-governing State.'

Dr Goh Keng Swee: There is nothing about me.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: It is little wonder, Sir, that the Minister for Finance himself should show so little interest in the whole matter.

Sir, I would ask the Minister to, consider carefully the question of reducing rents and of spending more on public amenities so that the larger sections of the community may benefit by this expenditure of public funds. As I have said, there is no fear of our running into a deficit. Even if this concentration of assisting the lower income groups of our society should entail a little mare generous policy to the professional groups of our society who will assist us in our development plans, then I think this should be done. For, after all, development is of basic interest to the people and this should be carried out in the swiftest possible time.

3.58 p.m.

Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has given a name to its first year term of office. They call its first year term of office a year of consolidation, its second year term of office a year of construction. But in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech and in the Budget Statement, it is strange that the Government did not give a name to its third year term of office.

Mr David Marshall: The year of the dead rat!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: This year has been a year of construction. But I would beg leave to call its third year term of office a year of contraction.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Lee Khoon Choy): Liquidation!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Not so fast. It was consolidation and construction, and now it is contraction.

Mr Speaker, Sir, exactly a year ago, when we debated the second Budget policy of this Government, we went into some trouble. But I hope, after all these disputes and adversities of the Government, it has learnt to be more tolerant to our comments and sound criticisms. No doubt our criticisms last year on the Government's Budget policy were valid because due to our criticisms, many of the taxes which were to be imposed were never imposed at all. The business registration tax, the profession-al tax and a few other minor taxes were never carried out. The pay cuts were restored.

Sir, perhaps it is pertinent at this juncture for me to make a brief comment on the financial and economic policies of this Government.

First, we will talk about the fiscal policies of this Government. From the beginning when the Government assumed office, it was quite clear to us that it was bent on a taxation policy of soaking the poor. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have a very good economist who never bothers to take advice from his colleagues on his financial policies, and that is why he lands himself in such a mess today.

Mr Speaker, Sir, many of the measures introduced - the taxes introduced - were to soak the rich, were to soak the poor. [Laughter]

Dr Goh Keng Swee: That is right!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: For instance, the petrol tax, the cigarettes tax, the lotteries tax, which were meant for the very poor classes of our community. The pay cuts, the increase in registration fees of twakohs, and several other taxes - the business registration tax - are meant for the lower middle class and the middle class.

As I have mentioned in my speech last year - I crave indulgence to repeat a small section of what I said last year [Hansard, 8th December, 1960, col. 101]:

'Mr Speaker, Sir, the taxation policy of this Government has been calculated to tax the people of Singapore for the benefit of foreign business. Since June 1959, this Government has introduced 12 new taxes. In the 1961 Budget these 12 new taxes in my estimation will yield approximately $45 million. Most of these millions will be squeezed, cent by cent, dollar by dollar, from the poor, from the wage earners, from the shopkeepers, from the taxi-drivers and the hawkers, from the working population, from the small private companies run by local merchants. An estimated $100,000 out of the $45 million is all the contribution this Government has asked from the big European firms which control our economy and make most of the profits. These European firms in my opinion make at least half of the profits of Singapore, and are asked by this [so-called] "Socialist" Government to contribute less than 1 per cent of the $45 million; to be exact .002 per cent.'

Sir, that is, in essence, the taxation policy of this Government. During the past 2½ years, its taxation policy was a failure and that is why now it dare not introduce any more new taxes. Its economic policy was also a failure. We see very few industries being set up. We see the growing problem of unemployment. We see a shrinking economy, and that is partly due to the failings of the financial and economic policies of the Government.

When the P.A.P. assumed office, we were faced with a deflationary situation, i.e. business was bad and economic conditions were bad. Normally, during such times, what the government should do is not to impose any new taxes but to use whatever reserves it has - up to a reasonable safe margin - and spend it on capital projects or other projects. Because the Minister for Finance refused to give the money, and I cannot print the currency notes myself -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You chased away all the architects!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will come to the point of architects later.

Instead of not imposing new taxes and investing more in the economy and encouraging the volume of spending in the country, what the Government did was to squeeze more from the public, particularly from the poorer sections of the community to whom one cent means one cent. And on top of that, to stop spending. We could see, during the first two years before the Hong Lim by election, there was very little construction - not to say S.I.T. houses, but schools and other projects which were very few. The Hong Lim by-election was the watershed of Government's economic and fiscal policies. Only then did it realise that it had made mistakes in those policies.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to explain, briefly, the effect of the failing of the policies of the Government. For instance, if a taxi-driver earns $200 a month and if the Government takes $20 from him, he would have $20 less to spend. This would affect the hawkers and would, in turn, affect the vegetable farmers, the shopkeepers and the wholesale dealers. The reaction would be more than the $20 which the Government is taking from the poor taxi-driver. Instead, the Government, in addition to that, not only imposes a tax on the poor, but also restricts additional expenditure on the building of houses and schools. For instance, if the Government had spent money on the building of houses, schools and other capital projects, this money would have been circulated in the community. There would have been more jobs for the unemployed. The unemployed would have been able to buy more vegetables so that the money would go to the hawkers and shops, and more money would have been circulated.

Sir, this is not all. In addition what the Minister for Finance did was to borrow, and borrow at 6 per cent interest; and if I am not wrong, just keep the money in the bank.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You are wrong. Sir, on a point of elucidation.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: If things were as bad as he made out - that everyone is suffering - could he explain why tax returns are better this year than expected - in revenue, income tax, customs and excise? I have spent a long time in my Budget speech to say that 1960 was a good year. How does he reconcile that?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, these are the normal tricks of a statistician, and as an accountant I will expose that trick.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Do it now.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Here is page 13 of his speech:

'The 1961 revenue position is satisfactory. The yield from most of the main items of revenue exceeded expectations. 1960 by all accounts must have been a good business year, for the yield from Income Tax surpassed the estimated amount of $75 million by $5 million.'

Very impressive, Mr Speaker, Sir,It would be even more impressive if, in last year's Budget, the Minister for Finance did not put $75 million but just $10 million. Then it would be surpassed by $70 million.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: That is your logic.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Yes. The normal Budget that is presented year after year since 1945 has been presented in the same way - always under-estimate revenue and always over-estimate expenditure. Year after year, the income tax yield will be more than what has been estimated. Expenditure will always be less than what has been estimated and provided for in the Budget.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of elucidation.

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Can the Member explain why there were more cargoes and more ships, and more trade was done? [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance should have asked another question: why should there be more children? Business is bad. A four per cent increase. Sir, these are normal increases in our economy. There is no need even for this Government to stay on. Still there would be increases. Because there are more people in the world, more cargoes are carried, more ships pass by to get water, so there will be increases. Let us look at page 10 of the Budget Statement, paragraph 2:

'Now to turn to the general economic picture of the State. The value of Singapore's trade in 1961 has not been as large as that of the previous year.'

Is that sufficient?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Go on.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: 'For the first three-quarters of 1961, the value of our total trade amounted to $5,473 million as compared with $5,700 million last year.'

$5,473 million as compared with $5,700 million - a decrease of about 7½ per cent.

'Our imports fell by $72 million and, more seriously, our exports by $155 million.'

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, on a point of elucidation.

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: If the trade would increase because of population growth - we had a population growth - how was it that trade increased in 1961 as compared with 1960?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, there are two reasons. One reason was as the Minister for Finance has said - the price of rubber went down. The second reason was the failing of the Government's economic policy. The government did not do whatever it could to encourage more trade to come in from Indonesia, the Federation of Malaya, and the surrounding territories.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: We have more trade from Indonesia. You cannot ignore that fact.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has failed in its fiscal and economic policies. Has it been successful in its policy of industrialisation? We all know of the complete flop of the Industrial Promotion Board. I think we must pass a law to make sure that persons who are to promote industries must at least have the minimum practical experience of running a small kachang puteh shop.

Mr Speaker, Sir, armchair theoreticians who do not know how to operate a cash register are not good for the promotion of industries. In my view, there are three basic conditions for the industrialisation of a country. First of all, we must have the entrepreneurs and skilled labour. Second, we must have the available capital. And third, we must have a wide enough market for the goods to be sold. In this respect, it must be admitted that Hongkong was and is in a better and more advantageous position than Singapore. On the first condition of skilled entrepreneurs and skilled workmen, Hongkong has an advantage of having an influx of people from Shanghai, which is an industrially developed country, and other cities of China when the Nationalist regime fell in China. These people went to Hong-Kong with their available capital. The entrepreneurs in Singapore are not industrial entrepreneurs but commercial entrepreneurs. It is very difficult to convince the commercial entrepreneurs, who want quick returns, to invest their money in industry.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the second problem is the question of capital. We know there is enough capital in this country to start new industries. As a matter of fact, much of this capital has gone over to the Federation, or even overseas, to be invested in commercial enterprises or stocks and shares. There is no shortage of capital in Singapore to be channelled into any industrial enterprises, if sufficient inducement is given..

Thirdly, Sir, it is the question of market. Unless there is a sufficiently big market for the sale of our manufactured products, few industries will start enterprises in Singapore. If an industry starts in Malaya, it is assured of at least an eight million to ten million population as its market. But if the same industry is operated in Singapore, it can be assured of only two or three million population as its market.

The Government has not been successful in its common market talks. During the merger debate, the Government has not convinced us that its so-called merger proposals will bring the common market to fruition. We hope that later, when the Minister for Finance gives his reply, he will tell us what has happened to the common market proposals in the White Paper. Will there be a common market?

Sir, three basic conditions are necessary for the successful operation of industries. Firstly, available capital. What has the Government done? Has it done anything to induce it to go into these industries? No. Secondly, a common market. Has the Government been successful in achieving a common market? As far as we can see, also no. Thirdly, skilled entrepreneurs and skilled workmen. Has the Government been trying to obtain skilled entrepreneurs and skilled workmen from other places in order to fill the gap? Mr Speaker, Sir, it is no use telling a businessman who has been a commission agent or who runs a trading house to start a factory because he does not know how a factory operates. The Government must provide him with the requisite industrial entrepreneurs and the requisite skilled workmen - at least the foreman - to start the factory.

What the Government has done is not industrialisation but producing paper plans, blue prints and United Nations missions. I do not say they are valueless. But too many missions without practical results, or fantastic schemes like the iron and steel mill do not lead us anywhere.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a known fact that if we can have a steel mill in Singapore, we can create employment for perhaps 80,000 people. That is more than-the figure of the present unemployed and under-employed. But let us face facts. Is a steel mill a reality? Can it be successful? Mr Speaker, Sir, where are we going to get the coal? Is it from Indonesia? Where can we get the iron ore? Is it from Kota Tinggi?

An hon. Member: Singapore!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Pardon?

Mr Speaker: Please continue.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Where are we going to get the iron ore? Kota Tinggi is the nearest place. But we know that the transport cost of taking iron ore from Kota Tinggi to Jurong in Singapore or even from Batu Pahat to Jurong would be not much less than taking it from there to Japan where steel mills have been established for ages and where the operation, cost is cheap. They do not have to spend $800 million or a few hundred million dollars on the steel mill. Mr Speaker, Sir, where is the coal? Indonesia? How much would it cost to transport a ton of coal from Indonesia for the steel furnace in Jurong? Even if we can overcome these difficulties - of iron, coal, water supply, electricity supply, skilled mechanics - even if all the problems can be overcome, Mr Speaker, Sir, where is the market? Are we going to sell our steel plates and steel wire to Australia where there is a big mill, the Broken Hills Proprietary Ltd. They are exporting steel to us. Are we going to sell the steel to India, when at present the Tata Mills are selling to us? Are we going to sell the steel to the Yawata Mills of Japan? Or are we going to sell the steel to the steel mills in Anshan in China? Mr Speaker. Sir, except for the Federation of Malaya, I do not see any sources or any place which is going to buy our steel. The Federation of Malaya and Singapore together are not a big enough market for a steel mill. What should be done is that, instead of having preposterous schemes, we should come down to hard facts, we should come down to earth, and the practical realities of industrialisation. Concentrate on small industries - cottage industry, small industry or medium industry. But not on gigantic proposals as steel mills.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government's taxation policy has been a failure. The Government's economic policy has been a failure. The Government's industrialisation policy has also been a failure.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we will now come to the architects. In the 1961 Budget, at page 23 of the transcript, on housing, the Minister for Finance said:

'The number of homes expected to be completed this year is therefore 7,454. The Board expects to meet its future target of 10,000 homes a year well in advance of its time-table. The end of next year will see the end of the long and frustrating years of waiting for decent homes by more than 10,000 families on the register of applicants. Some have waited for six or even eight years. By next year there will be a home for each one of these families, and at rents they can afford. This is a record achievement in the provision of public housing and can be claimed as a major success of the P.A.P. Government. The achievement is all the more remarkable if we bear in mind that the Housing and Development Board had to start with what was left of the wreckage of the former S.I.T.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must admit that the only sphere of public construction where the Government has been successful in the past one year or since the Hong Lim by-election has been in the construction of S.I.T. flats.

Let us look at the Four-Year Plan. Mr Speaker, Sir, according to the Four-Year Plan, at page 35, the Government has provided $206.86 million for 1961. In the Budget speech of the Minister for Finance, he says that in 1961 the Government will spend only between $100 and $110 million. Mr Speaker, Sir, $110 million out of $206 million. This is about half of it. The Government can spend only half of what it has provided. Now, Sir, this is a very clear example that the Government cannot satisfactorily carry out the public projects it has announced. The only sphere of operation where it was relatively successful was in public housing.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of clarification.

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I rather suspect that Members have not understood the figures with which they are dealing. May I explain that the $206.86 million on page 35 of the Development Plan refers to development projects in the whole State, including those undertaken by the public utilities, such as electricity, water, gas, the Telephone Board, the Harbour Board and so on? What we are discussing now are the Government's Development Estimates. They are two different things. I pointed this out when the Member for Queenstown raised some queries. I think the Member for Hong Lim too has fallen into the same error.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, if we deduct those items which the Minister for Finance has stated just now, I think it will come to about $166 million. Mr Speaker, Sir, it must be admitted that housing has been quite successfully completed in 1961 by the Government. Why is this so? Just now the Minister said that there were no architects. Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know that the main architects who are now building houses for the Government are the architects I recruited when I took over the S.I.T. The basic plans which they are at present working on are about the same basic plans, with some slight alterations here and there, which I and those architects drafted in the early days.

Mr Byrne: You chased them away!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: We did not run away. The Minister for Labour and Law ran away from Hong Lim. He forgot about it.

Mr Byrne: I never ran away from Hong Lim.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Sir, we prepared the basic plans, the basic organisation and machinery on which the present Government can build those houses.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Do you believe that?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, we are known for our targets. We never failed to reach our targets in the City Council in the 15 months of our history. The Government has never successfully completed any of its projects, even in housing, which is 7,454 out of 10,000 units expected.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are glad this Government is not imposing any more taxes for 1962. We are also glad the Government has seen its errors and has decided to withdraw the business registration tax and other taxes. But we feel that these measures in themselves are not sufficient. Sir, we feel that there are many measures which the Government must take to remedy the mistakes they have made during the past two years. We feel that the Government's promise of a $1 million scheme for the taxi-drivers which they themselves promised because they said the scheme was to take the place of coupons should lx, immediately instituted. We wish that the Government will also consider the reduction of hawkers licence fees, which should not be a source of revenue, but should only be for purposes of administrative control. There are many other taxes which the Government has imposed during its two years of office. We hope the Minister for Finance will review some of them and see what measures can be taken to rectify some of the mistakes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we also hope that in the construction of these S.I.T. houses (the Government have said that these will be constructed at rents that people can afford), they will carry out what has been promised, because, as far as we know, many of the present flats are being offered to the public at too high rents. If I am not mistaken, there are still many flats at present vacant and the Government is going out of its way to offer them to other applicants. Sir, we hope the Government will not only introduce a standstill Budget, but will take certain measures to rectify some of its past mistakes.

4.35 p.m.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the first time the Government has presented to the House an integrated Budget. When I say an integrated Budget, I mean a Budget which concerns not only what normally is accepted as Government items but also includes items which were in the City Council Budget. Unfortunately, Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Water, Gas and Electricity Departments, being the trading departments, still remain technically and legally with the City Council, it has not been possible for the Minister to include them in the State Budget. However, I have been trying to find out whether the City Council has published its 1962 Budget. The sources of my information - I hope they are correct, Mr Speaker, Sir - say that such a budget has not yet been published. I hope I am right in that surmise. I was hoping, Mr Speaker, Sir, that something would have been said by the City Council on what it is going to do for the year 1962, because, in my opinion, what the City Council does in the matter of electricity and water is particularly pertinent to what the Government hopes to achieve in the years 1962 and 1963, and thereafter in matters of industrialisation, housing and such other public projects.

The Government hopes to start its Jurong project, if I remember correctly, sometime towards the end of 1962. It thinks something in the way of industrialisation should be started in Jurong. If I remember the Minister for Finance correctly, his scheme for Jurong was that a steel mill would initially be established and around that a steel mill would centre private enterprise which would base its activities on the products of the mill itself. I understand, Mr Speaker, Sir, that before a steel mill can operate satisfactorily, it needs quite a supply of water. Unless this supply is readily available, and available on all possible occasions - whether it is a dry spell or a wet spell - the activities of this mill cannot be carried on. If ever a period of months during the year the mill had to cease to operate because of a water shortage, the whole project would become uneconomic. Therefore, it is pertinent to know what the Government intends to do in the matter of water supply. I believe water and electricity are now the ministerial responsibility of the Hon, the Prime Minister. I hope he will, in his reply, tell the House what is Government's intention. If I remember correctly again, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister, in answer to one of the questions put in this House, said that it was the intention of Government to go to the Scudai River before it goes to the Johore River and that it hopes to spend $20 million on the Scudai River scheme, as a result of which it hopes to bring water to Singapore within two years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is unfortunate that that scheme is not in the Budget. If it had been in the Budget it would have been subject to the scrutiny of the Estimates Committee where the whole scheme could have been carefully examined on the basis of whether it was, in fact, necessary for such a scheme to be implemented before the Government goes to the Johore River. I have a little experience of these matters, Mr Speaker, Sir, and my own considered opinion is that it is an absolute waste of public money to go to Scudai now and spend $20 million there, while going to Johore at the same time. I sincerely hope that before the Government embarks on such a scheme, it will reconsider the position. From the point of view of the Opposition - at least from the point of view of the Alliance - I hope it will be possible for the Government to consult the Opposition before it embarks on such a scheme.

Mr Speaker, Sir, part of our trouble over the water supply has been due to the fact that during the dry weather the flow of these rivers dries up. We get quite a bit of our supply from the Tebrau River. Now, when the dry weather sets in, the flow of the Tebrau River comes almost to a standstill, and naturally water is scarce. Scudai, Mr Speaker, Sir, is another stream which is subject to a dry weather flow. During the wet weather, of course, it runs fast and high. But during the dry seasons, it runs dry and slow. I am suggesting to the Government that the water supply of Singapore should not be dependent on streams which are subject to a dry weather flow. The expert advice is that if we go to Johore even at its driest, it will carry a sufficient capacity for it to give a sufficient supply of water to Singapore, both for domestic and industrial uses.

Sir, the City Council would have gone to the Johore River long ago, but unfortunately it was not possible for the City Council to do so because the Johore River Scheme was then centred in an area which was subject to military control. Because of Communist and other activities in that area, the City Council was not allowed to go in there to carry out the scheme. When it became possible to carry out the Johore River Scheme, the Council had already embarked on Tebrau, and, therefore, was committed to Tebrau. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, let us not make the same mistake - it was not a mistake then. We had to do it then. Let us therefore not go to Scudai now to supplement Tebrau and then go to Johore which will give us a full supply all the time for all the years yet to come. I do hope, Mr Speaker, Sir, that before the Government goes to Scudai, it will consider the scheme very carefully before it spends $20 million on such a scheme which eventually must come to nought after the Johore River Scheme has come to fruition.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would also like to hear from the Minister for Finance what definite plans the Government has afoot in the matter of going to the Johore River for a supply of water. My own information, Sir, for what it is worth - it may be incorrect - is that the Government is not ready even now on the Johore River Scheme. It is still floundering. Did it sent the Water Engineer to Europe to look for water or to look for money. I think it might have done better for itself if it had sent him to the Johore River to see how best and how quickly he could carry out that scheme. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Government is sincerely interested in getting water from Johore within two years, I will tell the Government how to do it. It can be done.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Mr Rajah: It can be done, Sir. This is not a joke. There are people in Singapore who have told me they can bring water into Singapore within two years if only they go to the proper quarters. The people who are in charge of the water supply of Singapore know it, but will not go to them for that advice and for that help. If that is correct, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is criminal.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the other point on which I wish to touch is the question of the electricity supply of Singapore. I also understand - here again I speak without absolute knowledge; this is what I hear from sources which I think can be relied upon - that so far as our electricity supply is concerned, we have reached the end. The peak load is now such that with all our generators going at Pasir Panjang, we can just about make it. I also understand that for some reason or other St. James Power Station is not working. Why that is so, I do not know. I have been told the reasons, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I have not confirmed them, so I do not want to mention them to the House. Perhaps the Finance Minister might tell us why it is that after so many millions of dollars have been spent on St. James Power Station, it is not operating today, hereby placing a heavier burden on Pasir Panjang. The position in Pasir Panjang is that one generator is always out of function - it has to be. And if one generator should fail accidentally, then we would be in for blackouts again. So perhaps the Minister for Finance will let us know what the position is with regard to the future supply of electricity in Singapore.

On the question of housing, which rightly affects the people of Singapore, here again, Mr Speaker, Sir, the question of water and electricity supply is important. Sir, we know that during the last year or so the Government has not done very much in the way of physical construction of houses, but during the last six months they have accelerated construction and are getting on with the job. But I do not think, Mr Speaker. Sir, that the Government can maintain this rate of development if they do not develop the capacity of water supply and electrical energy in Singapore. There is no point, to my mind, in building houses in Singapore if we cannot give to those houses an adequate supply of water and electric light. Electricity may be unimportant: we might be able to use candles or kerosene. But in a modern city such as ours, where the sewage is dependent for its carriage on an adequate supply of water, you will realise, Mr Speaker, Sir, how important it is that we have a safe and adequate water supply. If we have no water supply, then houses will be left unoccupied, if the Housing Board say, "We have constructed 3,000 units for this year," it is a meaningless statement because those 3,000 units will remain unoccupied merely because the Government has fallen down on its job of providing an adequate water supply.

Again on the question of housing, Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that the Housing Board depend for their sources of money on the Government. I have read through the Budget Statement of the Minister for Finance. We know that the money is on loan, but in no place does he say the terms and conditions under which the loans are made. I think this House will be interested to hear from the Minister for Finance the percentage rate of interest, the manner of repayment, and how the loans are effected. He has also said that he is considering a housing subsidy, and has told the House that when he has definitely made up his mind on this, he will let the House know all about it. If he is now in a position to tell us the quantum of the subsidy and how and why it is going to be used - whether it is going to be used to reduce rentals all round, or whether there is going to be a scheme by way of a means test - I think this House will be very much obliged to him.

Sir, the other point on which I wish to touch is the question of a tax on properties in Singapore. The Minister for Finance has done very well out of the property tax. I notice he has had a windfall of $12 million more on property tax than he expected. Now I ask him to reconsider the position which I advocated to this House some months ago when the property tax was being discussed - the question of remitting assessments on vacant houses. The Minister then indicated that it was not a practical problem, because there was such a housing shortage in Singapore that it was impossible to have a shortage of houses! I would urge upon him again to reconsider the position because it is not a matter of houses which are built and available to be let being vacant. On that I agree with him entirely. Unless he makes it possible for property owners to claim a remission on unoccupied properties, property developers are going to be very hesitant about developing a housing estate. This is the point, Mr Speaker, Sir. As soon as a certificate of fitness is obtained by the developer, the property tax automatically attaches to the property. Unfortunately it attaches to the property by operation of law. Now if a property owner develops a hundred houses simultaneously - and I believe they have to develop them simultaneously if they want to keep the cost down - and if they do not sell them simultaneously before this operation of law attaches a tax to them, and if they sell Only 50 per cent of the houses, then assessments on the rest of the 50 per cent of the houses is raised. Instead of housing development becoming a paying proposition, one can imagine a set of circumstances where it could be a loss to the developer. With these thoughts in mind, he is shy of developing houses. Therefore, the position is that, because of this difficulty, housing developers are being precluded from developing housing estates in the manner they would do if they know that ii is possible in law to go for a waiver of tax on vacant houses. I think that will be a greater impetus to housing developers. Sir, this is such a small matter from the point of view of raising tax, and such a big point in the way of an inducement to housing developers, that I think the Minister for Finance will do well to reconsider his policy on vacant houses. If he reconsiders the position and favourably considers vacant houses, then it might be necessary to introduce amending legislation to the Property Tax Ordinance.

Sir, there is another point I wish to touch upon. I see that in the Minister's Budget Statement he has said that he is going to give a gift of houses which belong to the Municipal Rate Fund to the Trading Departments. I do not see why he should be so generous with the ratepayer's money. I think he should not make a gift to the Trading Departments. If the Trading Departments were to make a gift to the Municipal Rate Fund, I would gladly accept that because then it would inure for the benefit of the Fund which is the taxpayer's money. The Trading Departments are purely trading concerns of the City Council. They are purely commercial projects. I cannot understand why the Municipal Rate Fund should subsidise trading projects. I would suggest that is wrong in principle. If the Minister thinks of handing them over, I would ask him to ask the new Board to hand over an equivalent sum of money to him when he makes the handover to this Board. Perhaps I might refer him to this passage in page 15 of the Annual Budget Statement:

'Certain houses and buildings which are the property of the Rate Fund Departments will be handed over to the new Board in order that it may be properly equipped to carry on its functions economically in the interests of consumers of water, gas and electricity.'

By the phrase "handed over", Mr Speaker, Sir - I hope I am not doing the Minister an injustice - when a chap hands over something to me, I hope he hands it over to me as a gift; but if the handover is for a consideration, for an adequate proper market value, then I have no objection.

Again, I wish to have elucidation from the Minister for Finance on another point. He has made a statement that quite recently a loan of $50 million has been floated which has been fully subscribed. I think the House would like to- know who the persons were who subscribed to it, whether they were local or foreign subscribers, or whether it was mostly taken up by the banks or by private individuals, and the extent to which private individuals, banks, trustees and people in that category contributed to it.

The other point on which I would like to touch, quite cursorily now but I would like to enlarge on it when coming to debate the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, is the question of income tax. I am not asking the Minister to reduce income tax, but he has taken unto himself and his Department certain powers of raising assessments whereupon the tax immediately becomes payable: and if any argument ensues on the correctness of the assessment and the Income Tax Department subsequently concedes that is has been wrong, then there must be a remission of the tax. Having arrived at the stage where a remission is accepted by the Comptroller, its payment takes a long, long time - almost an indecently long time, I am told by the people who are waiting for it. This is one of the difficulties which I expected would happen in this case. It is purely an administrative matter, Mr Speaker, Sir. If the Comptroller has said, "Yes, I have assessed you too much. I must remit you X dollars," and the money has been received by the Government, I see no difficulty in repayment.

An hon. Member: Human nature!

Mr Rajah: It is not human nature, Sir. The Government is inhuman. It is the inhuman nature of the Government.

Mr Speaker: Order. I would like to inform hon. Members what is in my mind. The encroachment by the Fifth Supplementary Estimates was a matter of seven minutes. Perhaps if I do not use for the tea break until about seven minutes past five, that will meet the case of the time being taken up by the Fifth Supplementary Estimates.

Mr Rajah: Sir, I was saying that the difficulty was not about the humanity of the Government in this matter. Where an institution becomes so large that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing; the Minister for Finance wants a thing to be implemented straightaway, but he has a Comptroller who has so many vassals under him, and in the pressure of work and in the computation of incomes which they want to gather - and I am told by the Minister he has caught up on the backlog - and while they are catching up on their backlog, Mr Speaker, Sir, they have forgotten the people who are waiting to receive their money which Government should not have had in the first place. That is the position. Sir, one of the reasons why I suggested that an interest should be paid by the Government for withholding the money for the period of the withholdment was this. If an interest was charged on that money, the Comptroller would see to it that it was quickly returned - at least the Minister for Finance would see to it that it was quickly returned. The point now is that his Comptroller is so concerned about gathering in the tax that he forgets to pay out the money that he has over-gathered, and the Minister for Finance does not know anything about it. The only chance of getting this to the ears of the Minister is an occasion such as this.

Mr Byrne: He is very efficient.

Mr Rajah: I do hope that the Minister for Finance will issue adequate and explicit instructions to his Comptroller to see that these remissions should be made expeditiously, otherwise it brings into contempt the whole of the taxing system, and we do not want to do that.

Sir, the other point on which I wish to congratulate the Government is this. For a long time, City Council employees were in doubt as to what was going to happen to their future and their terms of employment. I now understand from the financial statement that it is proposed not to alter their terms and conditions of service one iota. They were most worried about what was going to happen to their Municipal Provident Fund. And I am very glad to see, Sir, that Government has made up its mind to carry on with the Municipal Provident Fund and to let the employees who are now contributing to that fund to remain on that fund and to retire on that fund.

The last point that I want to touch upon is the question of the Work Brigade. This Work Brigade, Mr Speaker, Sir, is an emotional matter, if I may put it that way. From the point of view of the Government, when they started it, it was an emotional institution, not a practical institution. For reasons best known to the Government it started this Work Brigade. On principle, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it was wrong to do that - to have this small Work Brigade do these little jobs all over the place. In a commercial and trading city such as ours, it is wrong. There are lots of people in Singapore whose livelihood depends on these little odd jobs which the Government, the City Council, the Housing Board, and such like institutions provide. The institution of this Work Brigade meant that those people whose livelihood depended on that type of work were deprived of it.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Mr Rajah: That, I think, Mr Speaker, was absolutely wrong. I do recommend most heartily the dissolution of the Work Brigade. If the Government had a political purpose, it seems to have overdone it. Members of the Work Brigade are on strike now! Anyway, leaving aside the political implications, the rightness or wrongness of the strike, and whether people like them should be allowed to form a trade union, if they go on strike and sit down there, public projects are held up: and these could easily have been done by people who live in cubicles in Chinatown, whose livelihood depended on these things, and are now being deprived of them. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, if we talk about first-class citizens and second-class citizens, we get to the stage where a Work Brigade member is a first-class citizen, and the people who live in Chinatown and who are deprived of their normal livelihood by these people are second-class citizens. And we do not want first- and second-class citizens in this city anyway. Certainly the Barisan Sosialis do not want it.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: And you suggest to dissolve it.

Mr Rajah: If we dissolve it, then we will all become first-class citizens!

The difficulty started when the ex-Minister for National Development - I believe that was his brain-child - had the Work Brigade in his Ministry; for reasons best known to the Government they transferred it to the Labour Ministry because I think it was getting out of hand under the ex-Minister.

The Minister for Education (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): I think he was raising a private army.

Mr Rajah: I do not know of any private army, Mr Speaker, Sir. But anyway it was quickly transferred to the Ministry of Law so that the Minister for Law could keep law and order. But now it seems that they want to send it back to the Ministry of National Development again. It is a pity the Minister is not here as I want to ask him whether he is going to start a private army of his own! Really, Mr Speaker, Sir, I really do think the Work Brigade is played out. Let us get back to the old system. This old system. Mr Speaker, Sir, has been established over a period of time, has been tested by time, and has not been found wanting. So let us not change an accepted institution merely for the sake of change. There is no virtue in changing: it does not bring anything good commensurate with the change. Therefore, let us abolish the Work Brigade. And it is even more heinous to the public of Singapore when they look at the composition of the Work Brigade. Members of the Work Brigade get jobs when decent normal citizens cannot get them. Government may have good intentions when they bring gangsters into the Work Brigade and put them under discipline, instead of Pulau Senang, they keep them in the Work Brigade.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Banyak susah lah!

Mr Rajah: It may be a good social experiment, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not doubt it. It is a good social experiment to put them under discipline, put them in uniform and make them undergo rigorous training. Discipline is a good thing. The Barisan Sosialis understand it. The P.A.P. understand it. We all understand it.

Now the point is this. There seems to be no purpose in the Work Brigade, and the sooner we abolish it I think the better for all of us.

Mr David Marshall rose -

Mr Speaker: Is it a convenient time to suspend? Only two minutes.

Mr David Marshall: Very well, Sir.

Mr Speaker: I hope there will not be a claim for two minutes afterwards! So I suspend. I will take this Chair again at 5.30 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.05 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 pin.