ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Question again proposed, "That the Assembly approves the financial policy of the Government for the year 1962."

Mr David Marshall: Sir, this is a standstill Budget of a dying Government. It displays the imagination of a mouse and the promise of a dead rattle. One would have expected, Sir, that knowing that it is dying, the Government would have done it with some grace. Instead we have the Minister for Finance ponderously pontificating on providence and indulging in gibes at the Opposition. He told us, Sir, that it was gracious providence that ordained that the Budget would be introduced in the midst of the debate on merger; the gracious providence being the P.A.P. Government and its own decision to introduce it in the midst of a debate vital to the welfare of this country, a squeezing out of the merger debate in a manner contrary to recognised and accepted traditions of constitutional procedure.

Then, Sir, we have from the Minister for Finance, in a Budget Statement, all that I consider to be inappropriate jeers and smears of the Opposition. According to him, all that we have done in these past days is to indulge in euphoria, wild fantasies, and he fears for our sanity circling in orbit in space. Mr Speaker, Sir, whatever may be the ultimate home of the dead P.A.P., let me assure the Minister for Finance that I shall not be seeking to meet his ghost in space. I shall remain on earth.

Mr Byrne: We are very much alive!

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr David Marshall: They feel hurt, Mr Speaker.

Mr Byrne: We are amused.

Mr David Marshall: I had once before, Sit, to note the curious phenomenon of the Government Front Benchers who squirm and laugh whenever they are hurt. Sir, the Minister for Finance went on to describe us sneeringly as amateur politicians. We are amateur only in so far as it is true that we get paid nothing but our allowance for our service to the State. We do it from an almost masochistic urge to serve where others are prepared to let things go by default. We are not in politics, Mr Speaker, either as a career or to make money, and I am proud of being called an amateur politician from that point of view: a politician who seeks to do his duty to his fellow human beings at his own expense in time, energy, money and agony. The P.A.P. can enjoy their professional status for the little period -

Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

Mr Speaker: Is it on a point of order?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of elucidation.

Mr David Marshall resumed his seat.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I have the feeling that the Member for Anson might have been unduly sensitive -

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of elucidation?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Yes, because if he had read my statement closely, he might have understood that those remarks were really meant for the Barisan Sosialis.

Mr David Marshall: I am obliged to the Minister, and I am a little disappointed. Mr Speaker. I am not a Member of the Barisan Sosialis. I have no brief for them. In my relations with them, they have been courteous. But I do repeat, whether directed to them or directed elsewhere, remarks, sneers, and jeers of that character in a Budget Statement are grossly inappropriate.

Sir, for myself, I believe that when this Government finally ends its death rattle and disappears, the Minister for Finance, of whom so much has been expected, will not be missed. He tells us that we have been indulging in slogans which do not feed empty stomachs. I would ask the Minister for Finance just what does his Budget Statement do about feeding empty stomachs? It shamelessly shirks the issue of making provisions for the unemployed, either by way of creating employment or by way of providing social services.

Finally, Sir, whilst blaming us for wool gathering in orbit, he himself indulges in pipe-dreams of a new independence. It seems we have had an old independence, and we are going to have a new independence. As he puts it, a merger, according to him, will certainly take place at the latest in 1963. I want to say this to the Government - and I trust they will believe me that I say it with a sense of the gravity of what I am saying - that if the Government continue to handle the issue of our relationship with the Federation in the same arrogant and ham-handed manner that they have displayed recently, then the referendum which they have promised will be a slap in the face which will really shock them, negative the proposals for closer relations which they say they seek and which their conduct makes it so difficult to accept.

Sir, the most alarming feature of this Budget without virtue is the fact that it is completely devoid of a dynamic approach to what is recognised as a dynamic situation. We are almost led to believe that, lulled into a sense of security by the so-called closer relations with the Federation, the Government seek to surrender Singapore to the greater priority of Petaling Jaya. Is there then to be an end of a vigorous approach to our unemployment problem, and even to the promise of socialist measures to give our poor the security and a standard of living compatible with human decency? is the socialist concept of security for the individual to give way to the prevailing Federation economic policy? is it to mean unconditional surrender of those very ideals for which this Front Bench stood and in respect of which it was elected - the practical ideal of socialism for the improvement of the lot of the common man? For there is nothing in this Budget Statement that gives even token sympathy for the lot of the poor.

Sir, this Government has in its lifetime made two substantial contributions to our welfare, and I recognise them. One was the vigorous approach displayed in the past 20 months by the Housing and Development Board. That was a magnificent effort for which the Minister for National Development and his Government are entitled to take full credit. I would like to say that as a citizen and as a representative of the people, I want to express my gratitude for the energy and skill displayed by his Ministry in that particular field. I want to say to the Minister for Finance that it will be with pleasure that I will support all loans and assistance necessary to the Ministry of National Development in the field of housing.

I have no doubt the Minister recognises that he owes much to his predecessor, and perhaps even to previous governments, for the ground work laid for this dramatic expansion in housing. But he himself is fully entitled to a hundred per cent credit for bringing those past hopes, plans and efforts to fruition to the extent that he has surpassed all the previous efforts of previous governments, who themselves were seeking, I have no doubt honestly, to make their contribution to those in need of housing in Singapore.

The P.A.P. Government, in 1959 and 1960, started with the sorriest possible record in the field of housing. It is only fair to give credit to those who are now changing the picture. It is my hope that the Minister will not rest on his oars and that we will, in fact, have annually the 10,000 houses necessary not only for those who need housing today but for the increase of our population annually. I am happy to note, Sir, that in that field at least there seems to be no let-up and that the Ministry is being given such tools, both financially and otherwise, as he requires.

Sir, there is one other field of this Government's administration which has attracted, and still attracts, my admiration, and that is in its realistic and energetic approach in making available industrial sites in Singapore. It is not a new idea, but they have taken hold of it well and they have brought about its fruition, or rather they have tried to bring it about in a manner that any of us who travels to Singapore can see, and I for one hope to see a great deal more.

However, Sir, both in the statement by the Minister and, in so far as I can assess, from the Budget, there seems to be a flagging of interest which I find a little alarming. The excuse - it may be a valid excuse - the Minister is giving is that there are inadequate professional men to cope with requirements. This, Sir, is also the excuse that he has given in respect of the promised reclaimation of swamps known as the Kallang Project, where we are told quite bluntly that the detailed design is not being proceeded with. Again and again throughout that Budget Statement, the Minister has put forward this excuse - and when I use the word "excuse" I do not necessarily mean, Sir, that it is not valid - that adequate technical and professional personnel are unavailable. I say to the Minister that the solution of the problem is, and has always been, in the hands of the Government. It is this Government which has chased away technical personnel and which has made it very difficult for us to recruit professional and technical men. It is their arrogant conduct, Sir.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Prove it.

Mr David Marshall: The facts are there in the City Council, in the legal services and throughout the public services. Since this Government took office, the number of resignations of professional and technical men in the medical service - we have had some figures already - and I say it is due to the arrogant conduct of this Government and its complete ruthlessness in its human relations.

Sir, surely this Assembly has not forgotten the notorious Enright letter. The only adjectives that are really applicable to that letter are unparliamentary, and I leave it to the imagination of the decent Members of this House. But this House may well not be aware that that letter of gutter culture had a tremendous damaging effect on the image of Singapore overseas amongst professional men. Their attitude now is why should they, who are respected and responsible men of academic standing and stature in their respective fields, come to Singapore where they have to subject themselves to the humiliations, the insults and the barbaric conduct of the notorious P.A.P. Government? The Minister has told you he has made various approaches to various governments. That is true, Sir, I have some knowledge of it. But I say to you, Sir, that the Government fails because it fails to recognise certain basic principles. The first basic principle, to my mind, is to recognise that our Malayanisation policy requires that as soon as possible, in fact, even where it is impossible, a Malayan should be at the head of every department. Malayans should be in key positions. But otherwise professional and technical personnel may, where necessary, be expatriates. The other principle is that professional and technical men are in tremendous demand throughout the world. The world today is experiencing an expanding need, because in vast areas of the world - not only Singapore, Sir, not only Asia, but Africa and elsewhere - there is a tremendous expansion on the part of people for services which would bring them greater comfort and even what are now recognised as basic needs. Those services are performed mainly by professional men. Those professional men, whether they are engineers or architects, lawyers or doctors, are in very great demand. In order to attract them to Singapore, their conditions of service must be encouraging and attractive. Economy in this field is false economy resulting in a tremendous loss to our people. I urge our Minister for Finance, who is so pedestrian that the word "imagination" repels him, to exercise a little human understanding and, if he cannot, to seek advice from those who have achieved some success in human relations in drawing up a scheme to attract professional and technical personnel from overseas to fulfil our needs. If we approach the problem as a human problem, Sir, you will recognise that, first and foremost, we must destroy the image that in Singapore a professional man will have to suffer P.A.P. insults, P.A.P. humiliations and improper P.A.P. interference in the discharge of his duties. We must also assure him of security of tenure. We must give him conditions of remuneration that would have some relationship with what he can get in private practice. Today the image of Singapore, to professional and technical men overseas, is an image worthy only of their contempt. I say to this Government, which though I believe is dying yet threatens to live one more year, that even in that one year it can do a great deal of damage. I do ask that it seriously reconsider and reorient its policy not only towards expatriate professional man, but also towards Malayan professional and technical men. Sir, these men can earn in private practice incomes considerably in excess of what they have to accept in Government service. You cannot expect to attract good men although you can expect to keep those who are with you because they do not wish to lose the hopes of pensions which are the main attraction for continuity of service. But I do say, Sir, that unless we approach the problem realistically of recruiting both Malayan and expatriate personnel in the professional and technical fields, we will keep having a bumbling budget like this one, where all we can do is vote vast sums that are never spent.

Sir, the arrogance and false sense of economy of this Front Bench has been a clot on the development of this area - a clot that it is time it was dissolved. The Minister for Finance has mentioned the Economic Development Board. I think we are all happy. Sir, that finally it has been set up. The delay has been inordinate and the proud boast that solid progress has already been registered in farcical. The only progress, in so far as I can assess from the Minister's statement, is that a half-million dollar loan to a local ship-building firm has been granted and some 12 industries for pioneer status have been processed. Let us not have empty boasts. The personnel of the Economic Development Board, Sir, do give rise to legitimate hopes of solid progress. Let us not spoil it by cheap boasts. I look forward in the next few months to solid progress. But the solid progress which has been achieved is a statement that comes from outer space where the Minister seeks to send the Opposition.

Sir, the Industrial Research Unit has been promised for more years then I can remember. Finally we are told that it is almost in sight. Let us not drag our feet either in its formation or its functioning. The P.A.P. now knows it has not got eternity to work in to meet the requirements of our pressing employment problem. We are told with pleasure - and it is a pleasure that I share - that the World Bank has agreed to finance our development projects. It is certainly an achievement. I would like to ask the Minister whether this promise of loans will in any way be affected by the fact that in our proposed closer relations with the Federation, we would be only in control of some three-quarters of our annual income. Would Singapore still be in a position to negotiate loans with the World Bank on favourable terms?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The White Paper.

Mr David Marshall: I gather, Mr Speaker, Sir, he tells me that that is so. Well, I am glad to hear it. Sir, you have heard more than one speaker amongst the few speakers today mention the steel mill. The people of Singapore have been treated to a great deal of P.A.P. propaganda about the steel mill - how the Minister has achieved agreement, and with Japanese capital, and we are going to have the steel mill for cert. Next day, the Minister has not reached agreement. Rather I do not think it has ever been published. But I gather today that, in fact, there is no agreement with anybody to establish a steel mill in Singapore and that the propaganda items published by the newspapers came from the fertile brain of the Minister for Culture. It is a pity his imagination does not go with the facts. Sir, the Minister for Finance has mentioned the Schereschewsky Report on steel mills and he has also mentioned the Winsemius Report on industrialisation. I would like to know why these reports have not been tabled. Is there a danger to our security that we should know what is in those reports? Have they anywhere by implication suggested it? Perhaps the P.A.P. Government has not got white wings and a halo? I would ask the Minister to tell us when we may expect to have these reports, as we are entitled to.

Sir, the Minister has congratulated himself on the establishment of a trade representative in Indonesia. I certainly agree with him that that was a good move. Our trade relationship with Indonesia has been deteriorating far too long for entirely artificial reasons, and restoration to a healthier approach would be to both our advantage and Indonesia's. But in view of the repeated questions we have put to him, I would have liked to see an effort on his part - at least a token effort - to send a trade mission, not necessarily residing, but for a trip to Delhi and Peking, to see what could be achieved. I do say, Sir, the money involved would not be great. The advantage may well be great. It is worth the effort. In a country like ours which depends on trade, a little imaginative approach to our problems may well pay far greater dividends than the costs of debentures which are a failure. I do express the hope that even now the Minister will tell us he will consider sending trade missions to those capitals with whom there is a potential of greater trade with Singapore.

The Member for Farrer Park has drawn your attention to the Work Brigade. Sir, I was not here when the Work Brigade was formed. I confess I have not studied the issue whether the Work Brigade is a good thing or not. But there is one aspect of our allotment for the Work Brigade which exercises my mind. It should have definitely come from a trade unionist, but since it has not, Sir, I would like to draw the attention of the House to it. It is my view that the people in the Work Brigade are being grossly underpaid and that their conditions of service are inappropriate. I say that Government must accept the principle that a member of the Work Brigade is entitled to the same remuneration as they would have to pay to a worker who is a trade unionist and can demand a proper remuneration. I recognise that in the Work Brigade they are being housed and fed, and I accept the principle that from the proper remuneration that they should receive there should be a deduction for both housing and feeding. At the same time, I would like an assurance that, in fact, the Government accepts the principle that payments for their services should not be less than payments for the services of outside workers and that it is not a device for cheap and sweated labour.

Next year we will have a television service. It was promised to us six years ago. Other things intervened and we are now told - not by this Government; I do not blame them - that we will be having it next year. Sir, in the light of experience of what has happened to Radio P.A.P., I ask for an assurance that the television service will not be used as an adjunct of the P.A.P. political machine but will be used for the legitimate requirements of the people of Singapore.

The Minister for Culture has proved himself quite an empire builder in the name of the P.A.P. He has no understanding of culture and little understanding of the needs of the people. In so far as I can judge, his activities have been materially directed to the political welfare of his colleagues and his party. I for one, in so far as I can, will resist the expansion of the empire that he seeks by the additional expenditure in the Budget. The so-called expansion of the activities of the Minister for Culture must be justified on the needs of the people, and there must be protection from what we know to have been past political abuse of the Government machinery of propaganda for party political purposes. I do not think it is proper, and, in so far as I can, I will not permit the use of public money for the benefit of the P.A.P. political machine and the whitewashing of the Government Front Bench.

Next we have the petroleum duty. Have you noticed that the petroleum duty has fallen by $2 million? Sir, in a Budget that clearly indicates a buoyant economy, that is surprising; and whilst on the subject of a buoyant economy, let me answer the question of the Minister for Finance who asked, "If we are a bad Government that has not done well with the people of Singapore, how is it that our economy is expanding?" [interruption] Oh, it was an indiscretion. I am so glad he recognises that it is non sequitur, that, in fact, the economy is expanding - no thanks to this Government - but by virtue of the activities of our people and of the area in which we live.

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

Mr David Marshall resumed his seat.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I was engaged in some remarks vis-a-vis what the Member for Hong Lim said. I was trying to correct his statement that the economy was shrinking and I said that it was not so. I never claimed credit for the Government for this. I do not know why the Member for Anson should read through my innocent remarks sentiments and feelings that were not there.

Mr David Marshall: Thank you, Sir. At least we draw two facts from the statement of the Minister for Finance: one, the economy is buoyant and expanding; two, the Government does not take credit for it.

The Prime Minister: On a point of elucidation, Sir.

Mr David Marshall resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: If our economy is buoyant generally, surely there must he many factors, one of which could be the Government.

Mr David Marshall: I am so glad the Prime Minister is seeking to be so precise. He said that it could be the Government. It could, but it is not.

The Prime Minister: Ha!

Mr David Marshall: If we had a Government that understood the real nature of the position of Singapore and recognised the importance of trade missions overseas in order to expand our economy and our trade, we would have had something totally different than this stale Budget. [Laughter] Let us go back to petroleum and our laughing Minister for Finance.

An hon. Member: Zugzwang!

Mr David Marshall: A contraction of petroleum revenue in an expanding and buoyant economy - it is a contradiction. Why? He has said to you that they are switching over to diesel. But why? Because, Sir, he has laid too heavy a burden on the ass. He has broken its hack. He has gone beyond the point of diminishing returns. [Laughter] Sir, for a conservative economist, he has a curious habit of laughing in the wrong places. Sir, even a conservative economist recognises - I trust - the phrase "the point - of diminishing returns. We are taxing petrol at $1.20 for what is being retailed at 72 cents - a duty of 170 per cent. Now that we have reached the point of diminishing returns, I would ask the Minister whether he would consider reducing that duty to something more reasonable -

The Prime Minister: On a point of elucidation, Sir.

Mr David Marshall resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: If the Member for Anson will look up the Schedules of Cmd. Paper 33 of 1961, it is one of the items which will be Pan-Malayan. He knows it. Obviously he has done his homework. The moment there was a slight disparity, cars either started shooting down to Woodlands or Woodlands started shooting up to Johore Bahru. I hope one of these days we shall have the pleasure of hearing him in some other chamber in Kuala Lumpur where no doubt he will castigate the Minister for Finance there.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not like dragging up the past but I would remind the hon. Gentleman who last spoke that we did have the increase of petrol tax nowhere near to $1.20, that there was a disparity until the Government increased the petrol tax and that there were - he is quite right, Sir - I gather a few cats were shooting up and down Woodlands in order to save ten cents (just a few cars - not even a fleabite). Let us not exaggerate. As for its being a Federation responsibility, again let us not exaggerate. We can have - if it pleases the Federation and if and when those closer relations are achieved - a separate taxation. That is neither here nor there. In the same way that we are having today the customs barrier - and I have no doubt it will be maintained for purposes of keeping Singapore a free port - so we can have different taxes. But, Sir, the lack of logic of this tax, where we now see that the point of diminishing returns has been reached and there is not a word of regret and there is a refusal to recognise it, is as amusing - although far more serious to a lot of people - as the stupid tax on professional boxing about which you have heard we got zero dollars and zero cents in 1959, 1960 and in 1961, and the Minister has informed me by letter that he intends to continue that tax and expects to receive zero dollars and zero cents. That is his logic - the logic that can insist on a heavy burden on the taxi-drivers, that can insist on taking away their livelihood, that can -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of elucidation.

Mr David Marshall: A point of elucidation, with respect, Sir, should come at least at the end of a sentence.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Member for Anson is quite correct. If there is to be elucidation, let the Member complete his sentence and then the Minister can rise.

An hon. Member: Yes, after a full-stop.

Mr Speaker: Mr Marshall.

Mr David Marshall: I was saying, Sir, I am no economist - all right, no laughter fortunately! Maybe they recognise that their Minister is not an economist either by now. But the point is, it is simple logic. If a tax is producing nothing, its existence is a dead weight on the administration; and if a tax is producing diminishing returns, then it is a danger to our revenue. Here is a tax which has gone too far and which has now brought in $2 million less than what it brought in last year and is expected to bring in less, why can we not give this $2 million to the taxi-drivers and the lorry-drivers - the $2 million that we are losing anyway and stop this changeover? Does the Minister wish to rise?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Yes.

Mr David Marshall: He can do so.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I was seeking elucidation on the tax on professional boxing. I am not aware that there is any tax on professional boxing as such.

An hon. Member: What about wrestling?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: There is an entertainment tax and surely professional boxing has to pay the same rate of tax on entertainment. For one reason or other, the Member for Anson has developed a very keen interest in this. I do not know -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Minister must concentrate on elucidation only.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The point is this. If we were to give special preference to, professional boxing, We could levy the same rate as in the Federation where it is about 15 per cent against 45 per cent. But there is a similar decline in the Federation; from the fact that professional boxing involves expenses, it does not lead to any increase in this sport at all. How can the Member for Anson expect that if we were to take similar steps there would be a revival of the sport? Before we can make any decision about the tax, we must see the cause for the decline of the tax yield.

An hon. Member: You are talking about a boxer.

Mr David Marshall: I am delighted, Sir, that what I hoped would be an aside is now being made a major issue. I can assure the Minister that I have not up my sleeve any organisation, nor am I a shareholder or organiser of any boxing entertainment, nor do I hope to go in for professional boxing when he has finally defeated me. I have tried to point out that here is a tax that produces zero dollars plus zero cents every year, and yet this entertainment duty is left on the statute book in order to act as an impediment and a punishment to anybody who might like to have professional boxing. I will not insult the Minister by saying that it is feminine logic, but I do not know what Other logic one can call it unless one can say it is a particular brand of his logic, that he maintains on the statue book duties which are a dead weight, which add to the cost of administration, and which have produced zero. I gave, as an example of his logic, a matter that is far more grievous, in respect of the petroleum duty which has its effects. The Government has received representations. It has its effect on the poor. [Laughter] I do not know why every time the poor are mentioned, he laughs. It is so funny, Sir. Yes, from the depths of one's beer glass, one can laugh at the poor. I do not and I will not.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of order, Sir. The Member for Anson looks so fierce and his expression is so angry.

Mr Speaker: I suppose I am now asked to rule on unparliamentary expressions. If the Minister says that he was intimidated by those looks, then the Member for Anson is wrong. He must not intimidate Members of the Assembly.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry for this country if a Minister can be intimidated so lightly.

We come to entertainment duty - I had anticipated boxing - here, Sir, in an expanding and buoyant economy, we have a fall of $1½ million* in Entertainment Duty.

• At page 18, line 18 of the stencilled copy of the Annual Budget Statement, there was a typographical error. "$l½ million" should read "$½ million".

The Prime Minister: Anti-yellow drive!

Mr David Marshall: Ah, that is right, Sir,I checked up and found that in the Appeals Board of Film Censors (or the Appeals Cinematographic Board), out of 19 appointments, 14 were P.A.P. I would like to ask whether it is these 14 pall-bearers who are responsible for the loss of $1½ million in entertainment tax.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of clarification.

Mr Speaker: Elucidation?

Mr David Marshall: Is he making a speech or I? [and resumed his seat.]

Dr Goh Keng Swee: This $1½ million drop in entertainment duty. This is the first time I have heard of it. He may be right, but I am very alarmed.

Mr David Marshall: $1½ million, I said. And you said it is Wrong. I did not say it is wrong.

Mr Speaker: Order. I did not say it.

Mr David Marshall: I am so sorry, Sir. The Minister says it is wrong. [Interruption] I am not a P.A.P.

Sir, would you look at page 18, lines 18 and 19:

'There is also $1½* million decrease in Entertainment Duty.'

• At page 18, line 18 of the stencilled copy of the Annual Budget Statement, there was a typographical error. "$l½ million" should read "$½ million".

I sit down for a minute.

Mr Speaker: Order. Will the Member continue?

Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of elucidation?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I do not know whether the Member is reading from the same text, but page 18 of my draft deals with the Rates Departments of the City Council.

Mr David Marshall: Lines 18 and 19. Sir, if we might go on whilst the Minister catches up with what he said.

Six years ago the foundation stone was laid for one of the most important aspects of the commercial activity of Singapore, and that is the Air Terminal. Today we are told that agreement is about to be reached on equipment. We are told about plans and designs, and about pouring in of tenders.

Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

Dr Toh Chin Chye: He has caught up.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I beseech the Member for Anson to read the text carefully, because the $1½ million refers to Sweepstake revenue.

Mr Speaker: It is the line just before that.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Oh, yes, this refers to the estimates for next year as compared with those for this year. It does not refer to the estimates for the receipts for this year as compared with the estimates of this year. I hope I have made my point clear.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of elucidation, Sir.

'There is also $1½ million decrease in Entertainment Duty.'

Dr Goh Keng Swee: 1962 Estimates.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister is correct in trying to elucidate that point, because that may be misleading. Perhaps the Member for Anson will agree that it is only in connection with the 1962 Estimates.

Mr David Marshall: Sir, these are estimates which we are talking about. "There is an anticipated decrease in Entertainment Duty of $1½ million." And the question Iam asking is: are the 14 pallbearers on the Film Appeals Board responsible for this? He can give his explanation. Let us go back -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Can I -

Mr David Marshall: Oh, no.

Mr Speaker: The Minister may rise it the Member will give way.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I just want to dispose of this point.

Mr David Marshall: I am making the speech, not you! [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. All these interjections, of course, will cut into the time that the Minister hopes to get.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Point of order, Sir. We have arranged that the Government will have half an hour, and if the Minister does not want that half an hour, he is at liberty to interject when Opposition Members are speaking.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have no idea at all that an arrangement has been made. I am very glad an arrangement has been made. Interjections are, in fact, useful if there is some matter which needs elucidation, because that will enable Members to understand what is being said in a debate of this nature. In a debate of this nature, I think Members are entitled to know what is being said, and Assemblymen are expected to understand what has been said.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of order, Sir. As the Member for Hong Lim has said, since he has graciously announced that he has given the Government half an hour for a reply, we are not deterred at all.

Mr Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order, but a point of arrangement. Mr Marshall.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, I do appreciate the courtesy I received from the Front Bench, particularly yesterday in respect of a point of clarification. I hope I am not considered mingy but I have, I think, given ample opportunity to the Minister for Finance and I would appreciate it if he would permit me to continue my argument.

I would like to come next to the business registration tax. Sir, I was not here when it was introduced and I must confess to you that I have not delved into it to ascertain whether it is just or whether it is unjust. But I would like, now that it is being withdrawn, to refer you to the Minister's comments when he introduced it with a flourish on the 29th November, 1960 [Hansard], col. 44, Vol. 14. This is what he had to say about the business registration tax:

'The reason for introducing this form of taxation is apparent. A large majority of small shopkeepers do not contribute whatsoever to the Inland Revenue. Further, if the proprietor is a man of abstemious habits, he does not even contribute to the liquor and tobacco tax. If he lives in a shop premise, as is usually the case, he does not own a motor car and hence does not contribute to the petroleum duty. Such persons are in a truly privileged position. Their children receive education, the cost of which the State pays up to 98 per cent or more. If any member of his family falls ill, he can get free treatment or near free treatment in State hospitals or dispensaries. Further, they enjoy the full protection of law enforcement and public order. It is only equitable that he be called upon to make a contribution towards the cost of providing these benefits.'

Mr Speaker: Order. I have a signal from the interpreters to say that the Member is speaking too fast.

Mr David Marshall: I am sorry:

'Further, they enjoy the full protection of law enforcement and public order. It is only equitable that he be called upon to make a contribution towards the cost of providing these benefits. Nor can it be said that the rates are unduly high. Hawkers' licensing fees are on the average much higher than the rates we are levying on sole proprietorships and partnerships. The yield from this business registration fee is expected to be about $2.0 million per year.'

That was last year, Sir. Now we are told that we do not need this $2 million because of our reunification with the Federation - that is his word - and because the Budget shows a surplus. Sir, what has reunification, even if it comes about, to do with this business registration tax which the Minister, at the time of introducing called a small tax on persons in a privileged position? Are they not any longer persons In a privileged position? And he said it was only equitable that such persons should be called upon to make a contribution. Is it no longer equitable to call upon them to make a contribution? Can we not use this: $2 million in social services, in increasing the allowance to the 90,000 officially starving human beings in Singapore? Is this a socialist government? Or is it the truth that the cloak of socialism is no longer required now that it has hopes of co-operation with the Federation Government? And people in privileged positions, Sir, we must curry favour with them.

This Budget, Mr Speaker, is a shameless confession that all the socialist slogans mouthed by the P.A.P. were a mere facade, just as they now confess that their former protestations - that they had no Communists - was a facade. This Budget is a confession that the Government is, and intends to be, wholly on the side of vested interests and of capital in its approach to our problems. I have made repeated efforts in this Chamber to obtain at least a promise from this Government that they would introduce social legislation. You know to what extent I have been fobbed off repeatedly with "in due course", "when", and "if'. I say to you, Sir, that it is a shameful thing that even in its dying year, this Government is so completely devoid of conscience that it makes not even a small effort towards the ideal for which it was elected, the ideal of social justice. I condemn this Government for its economic policy of supporting the rich and ignoring the poor. Cancel the business registration tax - 90,000 people officially starving, and not a word about them. 40,000 people unemployed and a lot more under-employed - not a word about them. What has he done? I do not know, Sir, how it is possible for this Government to have not even a twinge of conscience in refusing to make provision for unemployment insurance or for social security measures in the field of sickness allowance, widows' allowance, old age pensions. The country is ripe for these measures. Sir, these promises were good for the election when these gentlemen whom you see on the Government Benches used to spit, and spit, and spit at the Government of the Member for Cairnhill.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think it is appropriate in this Assembly for anyone to say that a Member of this Assembly spits and spits and spits at Opposition Members, even metaphorically.

Mr David Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker. They were venomous - much I agree with them - about the shortcomings of their predecessors. I, Sir, who have reason to view with grave suspicion any statement made by any P.A.P. person, actually believed that this Government would genuinely make an effort to achieve a measure of social security if only to maintain their popularity with the populace and keep up the facade of being socialists whilst, in fact, they were Right-wing capitalists. Sir, elementary humanity, if not electoral expediency, should compel them to make an honest effort to introduce measures of social security.

One matter that has been drawn to our attention by the Member for Queenstown, if true, should cause us concern. That is the extensive funnelling of Singapore funds to the United Kingdom to finance United Kingdom enterprises. I have no objection to assisting Britain at all, Sir. But I say, let us help ourselves first. And I would like a full explanation from the Minister as to the reason for not utilising that money in Singapore in order to assist our industries.

Sir, one expects little from the Government that is creditable. This Budget is not. This Budget is a corpse of broken promises and dead hopes.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Dead what?

Mr Byrne: Hopes.

Mr Low Por Tuck (Havelock): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard the Financial Statement for 1962 made by the Minister for Finance. It seems that the current year's economic policy appears to be very simple to the Government. It gives the people the impression that the Government intends to shirk its responsibility in order to cover up its previous errors. I believe all of us have heard the Minister for Finance say that the 1962 Budget would be the last of its kind in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. has said that this year is a year of construction. Looking at the Budget, the word "construction" is very attractive. In fact, according to the Member for Queenstown (the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis) the Budget for 1962 shows that it is only 40 per cent of the performance of the Budget of 1961. We have looked at the Budget. To us, 1962 is a dying year for the P.A.P.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if you compare the 1962 economic policy with the 1961 economic policy, you will note that this is still an old tune. The Financial Statement made by the Minister for Finance on the economic policy has not mentioned the state of unemployment in Singapore. That is, it has not stated whether the Government has tried to solve the problem of unemployment. The Minister for Finance has not stated whether, during its two years of office, the Government has created opportunities for employment and to what extent. During its two years of office, the livelihood of the people has not been improved. The Minister for Finance has not stated to what extent it has been improved. All this has not been mentioned in his Financial Statement. I feel much regret at this omission.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. has often said that its deeds conform to its words. But if you look at the promises which it made in its pamphlet in 1959 - in The Tasks Ahead - Part I under the article "Our Economic Policy" - you will find that it says:

'The objective of the economic policy of a People's Action Party government will be to obtain for the general masses of the people, a happy, full and secure livelihood.'

How confident and how considerate it was! Yet the P.A.P. has been in office for 2½ years. Is there any solution to the problem of unemployment?

There is one point in this article which has attracted the attention of this House. It says:

'The unemployment problem is very serious. If we do not take any step to consolidate and strengthen our economy to create employment opportunities up to 1962, then it will be very serious.'

These were the actual words spoken by the P.A.P. in 1959.

In Singapore there will be about 20,000 to 30,000 people every year looking for work. We feel like asking the P.A.P. this. How many people today are still left unemployed? How many employment opportunities has it created so far?

The Minister for Finance says that he has tried to promote economic expansion, to encourage industrialisation, and to give pioneer status to new industries. He says that up to the end of this year, five pioneer industries will probably be established in this country and will go into production. However, how many employment opportunities can be created in such a manner? It is not clearly stated in the Financial Statement. He says further there have been 27 applications for pioneer industry status and there will be employment for 1,900. If we calculate on this basis - taking for granted that these factories will be put into production - how will these employment opportunities compare with the 20,000 to 30,000 people looking for work every year in Singapore? If we take for granted that these 1,900 people can get jobs by the end of this year, it only constitutes 6 per cent of the total unemployed people.

6.43 p.m.

[Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr John Mammen) in the Chair]

Mr Low Por Tuck (Havelock): If industrialisation is carried out in this manner, how can we solve our unemployment problem? The Finance Minister did not set out the steps for its solution in his statement. The only thing he is proud of is the Four-Year Development Plan. The main objective of this Development Plan is to increase the total national income per capita from 11 per cent to 20 per cent. Let us see whether the Government has raised the standard of living of the people or whether it has raised the per capita income. If we look at the Government estimates, to tell the truth, it is a very attractive and impressive document. The figures are very big. If you study the projects in detail, you will note just how much the Government has done this year. The Member for Queenstown has exposed this just now.

Now I will try to set out the three main features of this Budget. In the 1962 Development Estimates, we have approved $3,690,000. However, the amount that has been spent in 1961 is about $673,000. This is only 20 per cent of the amount allotted. This is the situation in the Ministry of Health.

If we take a look at the Ministry of Education, in spite of the fact that the Ministry of Education has built a number of schools - it has made a promise to build a certain number of schools, and in the 1961 Development Estimates $22 million has been allotted to the Ministry of Education - not enough schools have been built. But the actual sum which is expected to be spent this year is about $6,900,000. This means that development in the field of education shows only 30 per cent performance.

If we take a look at Social Welfare, the original estimate for 1961 is $360,000, but the actual amount expected to be spent at the end of this year is very disappointing. The Department of Social Welfare has spent about $6,000. The Assembly has allotted $360,000, but only $6,000 has been spent. This is only 2 per cent of the amount allotted.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a simple example and an actual fact. The Government has tried to make the Budget figures very impressive and attractive. As a matter of fact, the Government is not firm in its implementation of policies. The Government says it has money and wishes to implement its policies, but is short of technicians and professional men. If you look up the speech of the Minister for Finance with regard to the government's economic policy, you will see a paragraph on the P.W.D. That department is short of engineers. It is a recognised fact that the shortage of technicians is universal. Yet has the P.A.P. Government ever tried to overcome its difficulties? No. We know many technicians have returned from overseas after completing their studies but they have not got jobs yet. There are many local university graduates who have not got employment up till now. This is only one aspect of the problem. The Member for Queenstown has said just now that the attitude of the Government towards professional men with regard to treatment and remuneration is the reason why they have left this country for other places. The Minister for Finance has said that we must look after these technicians and professional men properly because all of us require their services. We do not care what their political stand is so long as they are loyal to the policies of the Government and are able to carry them out properly. What is the result? Well, we can clearly see that experienced professional men and technicians have resigned on a considerable scale.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let us look at the financial policy of the Minister for last year. This has never been mentioned in the current Financial Statement. Last year he said that in a new country that was trying to shake off the shackles of colonial rule, we must try to create equal opportunities so that no class would have a privilege over the other and we must try to march as far as we could towards a socialist objective so that we could have a more just and fair society. "This policy will be able to rectify the unequal relationship between the employers and the employees. In the old country many workers had to suffer a great deal under colonial rule and their opportunities were very strictly restricted. In those days the English-educated were treated very well and they were isolated from the rest of society. But now you can see how the P.A.P. Government is trying to give equal opportunities to the Chinese-educated and graduates of Nanyang University." They continue to say that in a socialist government the government should not only try to give equal opportunities to the various classes of people but must also try to explain the economy of the country so that everybody will be able to make a contribution towards nation building. "Because our population is increasing, we must try to do our best. This is very clear." But in the Financial Statement for this year, the Minister for Finance has said nothing about this. This paragraph has disappeared entirely. Let us look at this year's statement again on what he says about the improvement of the people's livelihood -

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Mammen): Order. Could the Member please inform the House which book he is quoting from regarding last year's financial speech?

Mr Low Por Tuck: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, sir, it is from the Nanyang Digest, reporting the Finance Minister's speech made in this Assembly in regard to the 1960 Financial Statement. He said there were three items of tax increases last year. He said this new taxation would increase the revenue of the Government by $10 million. This burden of taxes is not necessary hut this additional revenue will enable greater development in the building of schools and more hospitals in the interests of the people. That means to say, if you get money from the people, you must spend it on the people themselves, so that they will enjoy a better life. We agree with this principle entirely.

But let us look again at the current Budget estimates. We find that the revenues for this year are quite considerable and we expect the Government to spend a great deal of money out of these revenues for development purposes. But it is regrettable for me to say that this is not the case, because the Government has not spent the people's money properly on the people themselves, as has been promised. Today, frankly speaking, if we compare the current estimates with those of last year, we have a feeling that there has been no foresight as to how much money will be spent for 1961. I wonder how the Minister for Finance can state in the proper column that the amount actually spent is very negligible compared to the amount on expenditure approved by this House. The P.A.P. Government today is very disappointing to the people, because in 1959 it promised to do many things. Although I have broken away from the Government to join the Barisan Sosialis, I feel that the promises we made in 1959 should be carried out as far as possible, and that we must pay attention to the implementation of the policies as laid down according to the promises made to the people. Today, the P.A.P. is trying to boast that 1961 is a year of construction, but I am still wondering how this can be true. I will say that this is the last year of the P.A.P.

6.58 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is a matter for regret that the Budget debate is taking place ahead of the debate on the Negara's speech. The normal parliamentary procedure is that the Negara's speech will provide a debate on the Government's policy for the ensuing year, and the Budget is Government's attempt at implementing that policy. But now we are debating the Budget first instead of the Negara's speech because of the number of days we have spent debating the merger motion.

Sir, for the past two years we have been on this side of the House. We were alone for the first year. There were eight of us here and we criticised the Government most vigorously in regard to their Budgets. In 1959, we were laughed at and ridiculed. Members of the P.A.P. even went to the extent of saying how bad and how wicked the Lim Yew Hock Government was and how clean and how good the P.A.P. Government was. Then in 1960, when we had their second Budget, three Members from the other side came over to this side, and there was a lot of noise going on - in fact, a lot of exposures and counter-exposures - so much so that it resulted in a Commission of Inquiry. Then in their third Budget this year, this side has increased in number and their side has decreased. This, however, is not so bad. But when those who came from the other side now say that what they said to mean at that time was not what they meant to say, and that what they mean to say now is that the P.A.P. Government is a rotten Government and that the sooner it gets out the better for all concerned, and how good the Lim Yew Hock Government was, Sir, I really find it difficult to reconcile these statements. Although we on this side of the House might feel gratified that our strength has increased, it is very hard for me, Sir, to reconcile the statements now made by Members who have come over to this side when they criticise the Government's activities during the past two years, with which activities they were closely connected. Some of them were Parliamentary Secretaries and some were very active Back-Benchers.

7.02 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Apart from that, Sir, what I would like to say is this, before I leave this subject. The Member for Queenstown was most violent in his criticism of the Government for the pay cut. He said that that should not have been done. If I remember rightly, when there were eight of us on this side of the House, we were very vehement in our criticism of the arbitrary action of the Government in imposing the pay cut, and there were the 13 Members who are now on this side of the House and who stood up to say that we were talking rubbish. Now they have learnt the error of their ways and they criticise the Government for its action against the civil servants, to which action they were a party. Well, perhaps they are now saying they are sorry that they had done that and they hope that the Government will learn the error of its ways. It is up to them. I do not know. The Member for Queenstown stood up this time and criticised the Government. I think he said these words, "They blundered in their Budget and in their taxation policy," and it was only last year, when the Minister for Finance introduced eight new forms of taxes, that the Member for Queenstown stood up and said in this Assembly - I think I can remember the words he said - "I unreservedly support the Government." It was then last year. This year, things have changed and maybe they have learnt that the taxation policy of the Government introduced last year with their support should not have their support.

A number of speakers have touched on the cut in the variable allowance. We are glad that the Government has found it necessary to pay back the cut that they imposed arbitrarily, but it would appear that there is still a lot of heartache amongst the civil servants. They maintain - as we have maintained for the past two years - that the cut imposed by the Government was an arbitrary cut and that it was against all trade union principles. Any cut which the Government had wanted to introduce could have been introduced after proper negotiations with the trade union bodies. The unions, I understand, are now asking the Government to negotiate with them with a view to finding a way to heal this sore once and for all. I do urge upon the Government that they should - if there is such a request - negotiate with the unions and bring this matter - which has caused a lot of heartache amongst the civil servants - to an end once and for all.

Sir, we read in the newspapers today that the Work Brigade is going on strike. Members will remember that for the past two years, I have said in this Assembly that the Work Brigade was just an attempt by the P.A.P. to build up a -

An hon. Member: A private army.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: - Frankenstein. Today it has turned out to be an organisation which has come cut openly because it cannot stand it any more. It says that the Government is bad. I did say a year ago that the Work Brigade is nothing but an attempt by the Government to impose slave conditions on those who are unemployed. Before the P.A.P. came into power, the previous Government tried to solve the unemployment problem by giving the unemployed relief work at the rate of $3 a day plus rice and sugar. When the P.A.P. came into power - the workers' government as they claim themselves to be - they cut off the rice and sugar rations and now the members of the Work Brigade are only paid $1.50 a day. I told the Government that if they hoped to make use of the Work Brigade to be present at the Airport to welcome Ministers home when they come back from leave or see them off when they go elsewhere, or to make use of leaders of the community centres to cheer them when they walk from the City Hall to this Assembly, that was not going to help them; they would be creating a Frankenstein. We know today that the People's Association is out against the Government because they say that the P.A.P. is no good. It is the same thing with the Work Brigade.

Sir, let us go through the Budget Statement of the Minister. The Minister rightly says that in order to achieve some success in the industrialisation policy and in the development programme:

'...one of the main objectives of the Plan is to induce an increase in the rate of private capital investment.'

He is quite right. You must induce an increase in the rate of private capital investment.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of order, Sir. We have to close at eight o'clock and I think it is only fair that I should be given an opportunity of replying, being a target -

Mr Speaker: Order. That, of course is not a point of order. It is a waste of time.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, in fact, I will be speaking 25 minutes less than my allotted time agreed among Opposition Members. But just to cut the story short, this is what the Minister says, that in order to increase the rate of private capital, there must be an inducement to see that there is an increase in private investment. But how do they go about it now, Sir? We know in Singapore that there is a trade union war today between the P.A.P.-controlled trade unions and S.A.T.U. - the Barisan Sosialis-controlled trade unions. Each group is trying to go all out to prove that it is the better group. That is why we are having a series of strikes today. The P.A.P. tries to do something to prove that it is better. The Barisan Sosialis might feel that they want to prove that they are better. Therefore, they are creating all this industrial unrest. How are they then going to induce an increase in private investment?

This was touched upon by the Member for Anson - about the World Bank having agreed to finance some of the development projects. The Minister says at page 9 of the Budget Statement:

'It is a source of satisfaction to the Government that the World Bank has agreed to finance our development projects, for a World Bank loan indicates the confidence of the Bank in the financial standing of the Government:

I think it would be more correct to say "the confidence of the Bank in the financial standing of Singapore" and not "of the Government", because the P.A.P. Government is now going bankrupt. It started with 43 Members. It became 40, then 39, and now it is 26. One more less and it will go completely bankrupt. It is just on the verge of bankruptcy.

On the question of the steel mill, there is one point that has not been touched on, and that is, a steel mill is coming into existence in Petaling Jaya, Selangor. One steel mill there is more than enough to cope with the requirements of Malaya as a whole, and even of Malaysia when it takes place. The Japanese steel mill is out. It is no good. It has no chance. There is no water.

Just to prove that there were more imports, the Minister for Finance says that the registration of private motor cars, motor-cycles and scooters increased by 35 per cent, and yet it has been pointed out by the Member for Anson that the revenue from petroleum is going to be $2 million less than is estimated for this year. What is the reason for it? Diesel? I submit, Sir, that the reason why petrol is being used less today is because of this funny car park business that is going on. Sir, there is nowhere to park your car. It is easier for a car-owner not to go by car. It is easier to travel by bus or taxi. That is one of the reasons why the petroleum tax has gone down. It is more convenient to travel by bus or taxi.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Do not shout. Read the Standing Orders.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: This is the final point on which I would like to touch. It has raised a good laugh. I hope the Government side will laugh this one off. The Minister says at page 25:

'Mr Speaker, Sir, I now come to revenue proposals for 1962. It is obvious that this is not the time for new taxes and I do not intend to introduce any new taxes next year nor to raise existing ones.'

It is obvious. Surely it is obvious. They are going out and they hope to come back. Therefore, they will not want to do anything -

Mr Rajah: Going out where?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Going out of the scene. Therefore, they think it is obvious. Surely it is obvious. Who does not know it? Last year, they came along with eight new tax proposals. They thumped their chests. When we stood up on this side of the House and said. "It is not right that you should introduce such and such a tax," they tried to justify them. In fact, they ridiculed us, On the professional tax, the Prime Minister himself said - I will not quote it again because it has been quoted by the Member for Anson - that it was necessary. What was more important to the Government was not to raise money but to explore all local avenues of taxation before they go outside for loans. But now they say they are not going to introduce new taxes because of impending merger.

7.15 p.m.

Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib (Southern Islands): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry that time is short. However, it is necessary that in debating the Budget speech of the Minister for Finance, I should bring up this point that I feel is important, i.e., the surplus that we find today.

I am happy to note that the Minister for Finance says in his speech that all the political slogans have brought about results for the benefit of the people. Mr Speaker, we must face hard realities and find ways and means to improve the livelihood of the people of Singapore. In our efforts to achieve progress for Singapore, we should not forget important problems, such as the composition of a multi-racial society. Each problem has its own difficulties, and our first step must be to get rid of the wall of division. The question of uniting our various peoples is the most important task. If we are unable to break down this communal barrier. I think it will be very difficult for us to solve this problem as a whole.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of my Party, I say again that in the Budget Statement of the Minister for Finance, there is no mention of how we could solve this problem, with particular reference to the section which concerns by industrialists who are non-Malays, and in the effort to bring about a more egalitarian society. There is mention of the field of employment. At present, unemployed Malays have no chance to gain employment in industries or factories, many of which are controlled by industrialists who are non-Malays. If we could suggest to the industrialists to take in Malays, it would be a step towards bringing about closer relationship and mutual understanding between the various communities which live in Singapore; like the step taken in the Federation of Malaya today where industrialists are giving more opportunities to the Malays. This will at least bring about an understanding in the development of industries in our State and also bring about the unity of our peoples in Malaya. So I hope this matter will receive the serious consideration of the Government.

We cannot achieve our political and ideological aims if the various peoples in our country cannot be united. Although it is our aim to bring about a more equal society, if we cannot bring about mutual understanding among the various peoples in all fiel4s, whether it be educational, industrial, etc., I think we cannot achieve socialism. Although my Party is not a socialist Party, we must aim at the unity of our peoples.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Leader of the House wishes to move a business motion.