ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [7th June, 1963],

"That the Assembly approves the financial policy of the Government for the year 1963."

Question again proposed.

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, first, let me point out that this is the most unusual Time to have a Budget debate in Singapore. Half the year has already gone by and we are now asked to approve only the Budget for the second half of 1963. The first half year's Budget was passed in 1961, and according to the P.A.P., there would be "numerous complicated and onerous technical problems of details" involved because of the P.A.P. merger with the Federation on or before June 1963. But June has come by and there is still no merger. Where are the "complicated and onerous technical problems of details" involved in the present Budget that necessitate the present procedure? And how is the present Budget different in essence from the usual Budgets that we see year after year, that it could not have been prepared earlier in December 1962? The reason for the present procedure is, of course, that the P.A.P. has no use of the Legislative Assembly other than to use it as a rubber stamp for P.A.P. machinations. Passing the Budget early in 1961 made it unnecessary for the P.A.P. to hold Legislative Assembly sittings again for a long period. And indeed, there has been no Assembly sitting for months at a stretch. This unprecedented parliamentary procedure, like the telescoping of the time-table for the present Budget debate, shows what parliamentary practice we have in Singapore today. We have already had a long Assembly holiday of eight months and an Assembly seat vacant for ten months. Today, the P.A.P. merely wears the garb of parliamentary democracy for the convenience of deceiving the people both inside and outside Singapore.

There is hardly anything that one can enthuse about in the Budget statement of the Minister for Finance. As usual he talks of P.A.P. successes. But take away the grease, the paint and the make-up. What is there left to show? Like the previous years, the year 1962 has been another year of dismal failure. Funds had been voted for use by the Government on development projects in order that they may benefit the people. But what development projects do we see in 1962? Until today, the people of Singapore have not been told as to how funds had been spent on the development projects in 1962. A sum of $207 million had been voted in December 1961 for the 1962 Development Estimates. The whole of Singapore can see that the money has not been spent as was budgeted for. As the Minister himself has admitted in the statement, in 1962 there was a huge surplus of $97 million, just as there was a huge surplus of $110 million in 1961. What has happened to the surplus of $97 million in 1962? Why does the Minister not inform the House and the people of Singapore as to what he has done with the money - the people's money and not P.A.P.'s money?

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Not Barisan money either!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Minister may try to hide all the ugly facts behind a mass of verbiage, but the people have the right to know the state of financial affairs of Singapore. It is the duty and responsibility of the Government to inform them of what it has done to their money - not P.A.P. money!

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): When did we say "P.A.P. money"?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Let the P.A.P. tell the people why there is repeated under-performance, and let the P.A.P. openly admit its own inefficiency and incompetence and even negligence in the matter. There has been too much boasting about this surplus which the Prime Minister claims is the result of P.A.P. efficiency and good government. We say that it is nothing of the sort, and let the P.A.P. admit this tact. If the surplus had come about as a result of unexpected windfalls due to a more efficient collection of revenue, then there would have been something to crow about. But if the surplus had come about as a result of funds voted for and passed in the Legislative Assembly not being used, then it could only have meant incompetent and bad government. It could only have been a source of shame to the P.A.P. and not a source of boasting and bragging. For the P.A.P. to go about telling the people that the surplus is due to the good government of the P.A.P. is therefore sheer deception. The people, of course, are not so easily deceived; nevertheless, the P.A.P. must be condemned for such attempted deception of the people, and we ask the P.A.P. not to repeat this deception. The Prime Minister goes round the constituencies. Let the Ministers here tell him not to brag about this surplus anymore.

From all this, Sir, we can also see that the P.A.P. Ministers do not mean what they say. When they say success, they in fact mean failure. But however much slick talk the Minister may indulge in, he will not be able to get this past the people.

The P.A.P. called the year 1961 the year of construction. But now we know that there is nothing constructive about 1961. It was a year of sell-out as far as we know ---

Dr Goh Keng Swee: How?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: --- and there was a surplus of $110 million of work not done and money not used on the people ---

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Lee Khoon Choy): You must be blind.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The P.A.P. did not give a name to the year 1962. We can help them.

Mr Rajaratnam: The year of fulfilment.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: It is quite clear that the year 1962 was a year of P.A.P. deceit and coercion. That is how they managed their 70 per cent in the referendum. If the 70 per cent was correct ---

Dr Goh Keng Swee: 71 per cent.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: But what of 1963? What shall we call it?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The year of the Rabbit.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: We shall call it the year of surrender - abject surrender - in spite of all the brave talk of the Minister for Finance and the Prime Minister.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: Barisan finance.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Four years of P.A.P. misrule have passed, and the time will come for the people to pass judgment on the Government. In the first two years, the P.A.P. Ministers spent most of their Time throwing their weight about with habitual arrogance. They abused civil servants, -

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chan Chee Seng): You were one of them.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: --- instituted pay cuts and generally insulted, threatened and intimidated people all around. To make things worse, taxes were raised on petrol and tobacco and the P.A.P. persisted in taking a tough line because at that Time the P.A.P. thought that it was an indispensable force. Today, with popular support gone, ---

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Really?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: --- the P.A.P. Ministers have to resort to the buying of votes in preparation for the coming elections. In fact, they are ready to do almost anything, and they are already bending themselves backwards to please every Tom, Dick and Harry. The Prime Minister has to run around attending dinner functions of clan associations and other private functions. He wears all sorts of head gears including turbans, and he is ready to do almost anything in order to ingratiate himself with all those whom he used to despise and ridicule not so very long ago. Pictures in the Straits Times showed the Prime Minister openly hugging the Minister for Farrer Park ---

Dr Goh Keng Swee: What?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Member for Farrer Park.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: You have not had enough sleep.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: And today, they have even gone to the extent of giving medals and what-not to the civil servants ---

Mr Rajaratnam: You did not get any.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: --- the very people whom the P.A.P. despised and bullied but yesterday!

In all the years of P.A.P. misrule, we see broken promises, underfulfilment of projects, shortages in staff and equipment in the various Government departments. The Prime Minister wants to give the impression that he is concerned about the hospitals. Does he know that today all the various departments in the hospitals are short of equipment? The essential drugs are missing ---

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You pinched them,

Dr Lee Siew Choh: --- and there is increasing hardship for the people. The unemployment problem is worsening. In addition, of course, there is repression and the deprivation of the basic rights and freedoms of the people. Only in one department do the P.A.P. Ministers excel in, and that is the department of malicious distortion, deception and treachery. The P.A.P. excels in sell-outs. That is the only thing they are good in, nothing else.

In the matter of the financial merger talks, in spite of all the brave talk of the Prime Minister, it is clear that the P.A.P. is already getting ready to surrender in toto to the Federation. This talk of limited common market terms is only meant to save the face of the Prime Minister in his abject surrender. The Minister for Finance still talks of independence through merger. But he cannot be serious. He was talking with his tongue in his cheek because there is no independence with the P.A.P. merger and the P.A.P. itself has admitted as much in the financial talks tussle with the Federation. If it really thinks that there is independence, why should it fight or pretend to fight? Therefore, let us get rid of this nonsense about independence through merger.

The Minister also talks of finding the money to pay for new schools and houses. But although we had the money in hand in 1962, we nevertheless did not have the many new schools and hospitals. Nor the equipment and staff for them. We have surpluses which have merely been sent overseas for investment. In 1959, the surplus funds invested overseas amounted to $139 million. The sum increased to $249 million in 1960 and by 1961 the amount invested overseas had increased to $316 million. I do not wish to repeat what I have already said only two months ago in the debate on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. It can always be found in the Hansard. Unfortunately, the figures for 1962 have not come out yet. But I am sure that the figure for 1962 will be much higher than for 1961. The P.A.P.'s Five-Year Plan advocates the use of local funds for investment in Singapore. Today, we see that the P.A.P. has not only not brought back to Singapore money invested overseas, but, on the contrary, it has increased the investment abroad. What good will money invested abroad do to the people of Singapore?

The main problem in Singapore's economy remains the problem of unemployment. How are we to get enough jobs for the increasing number of unemployed in Singapore? Every year, more than 30,000 students leave school. What has the P.A.P. done to obtain jobs for all these job-seekers? How does the P.A.P. deal with this problem of - according to the Minister - sustaining the economic growth of Singapore to keep pace with the yearly increase in population? For four years, the P.A.P. has been playing politics. Although the Five-Year Plan in The Tasks Ahead was announced to the people before 1959, and the Four-Year Development Plan was prepared more than two years ago, no appreciable concrete results have been shown.

The industrialisation programme has been left stagnating as a result of the P.A.P. playing politics and the Ministers' obsession to fix their political opponents. The Minister boasts of pioneer certificates for industries, that they will soon commence operation and provide jobs for 3,500 people, and of a range of goods, which if and when they go into production, will provide employment for 1,620 people. Even if these figures were realised, for the sake of argument, it still would not help the situation. In four years of P.A.P. misrule. 30,000 times 4, that is, 120,000 young men and women have left school to look for jobs. Where are the 120,000 jobs for these 120,000 people? There have not been enough jobs, and the only result so far is that there is a steady increase in the already large number of hawkers and other under-employed people. So what is there for the P.A.P. to crow about?

There is yet another aspect of this industrialisation scheme of the P.A.P. which is not so well known. It is that Singapore has to spend millions in the provision of the basic services for the industrial site, namely, roads, railways, post offices, power, water, telephones and other services. Now, if this money had been spent on these services for the benefit of our local businessmen, then it would have been money well spent. But our fear, Sir, is that this money will benefit mostly the foreign capitalists. The present trends are that all the benefit will go to the foreign capitalists and not to the people of Singapore.

Industrialisation has always been linked with the formation of the common market between Singapore and the Federation. Yet from the financial merger talks between the two Governments, we learn that the subject of the common market has never actually been discussed until very recently. This tells us one very important thing, that during the crisis of the chicken and egg war in November and December of last year and January of this year, the Prime Minister was merely deceiving the people when he told diem that there would be a common market. Why should the people be deceived in this manner? As we have all the Time pointed out, the Causeway will remain a barrier between Singapore and the Federation even after the P.A.P. merger. We still do not know what sort of common market arrangements there will be, Rueff Report or no Rueff Report, we must hear in mind that, with overall control in the hands of the Federation, Singapore will he treated as and will remain, a very junior and unequal partner. In which ease, all the major industries will have to be approved first by the Federation before they will be allowed to be set up in Singapore. This is a far cry from the common market originally envisaged, which would permit joint Federation / Singapore control and planning of industrial programme for all Malaya. Now without even proportional representation to exert the appropriate influence on the Central Parliament. Singapore will not be able to set up industries that may compete with similar industries in the Federation, whether they be in actual operation or still under planning.

P.A.P. industrialisation has obviously failed so far as local businessmen are concerned. The Ministers cannot even persuade importers and traders to take a serious interest in industrialisation. Why are these importers and traders reluctant to change to industry? There are various reasons. But a very important one is that there has never been political stability in the country. Of course, the P.A.P. would like to pass the buck on to the workers and their unions. But the facts cannot be hidden so easily. The Government has only 25 seats in an Assembly of 51, and is so afraid of meeting the people that it has not even dared to face them in the Sembawang constituency, now vacant for more than ten months. The P.A.P. today exists as a Government only because all the P.A.P. Assemblymen have a vested interest in keeping a wobbling Government going, and, of course, because the S.P.A./ U.M.N.O. Alliance for the Time being, for their own reasons, want to keep it going. But already a new crisis is looming. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture has resigned from his post of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister, and the question arises as to whether or not he will cross the Floor. Whether or not he crosses the Floor, the new crisis merely confirms what all Singapore already knows, namely, that the P.A.P. Government is soon going under. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture believes that it is safer to depend on the nurses and P.T. workers than on the Government itself.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture should now be referred to as the Member for Kampong Kapor.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Yes, Sir. The Member for Kampong Kapor finds it safer to depend on the union organisations than on the P.A.P. Government itself. He knows that the P.A.P. is already sinking. He does not have to sink together with it, if he can help it. Hence, he is breaking away from the P.A.P. If the people on the Benches opposite still persist in their dreams, it is Time that they realised ---

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: Nightmare!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Nightmare? There are not many people who have brothers who profit from their brothers holding positions in the Government. Let those people who are talking realise all this. The P.A.P. always talks of its cleanliness and purity. Corruption can be seen everywhere.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: On a point of order. May I ask the Member for Queenstown to produce evidence instead of alleging corruption?

Mr Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. The Member for Queenstown is making serious allegations, and if the allegations are false, he, of course, takes the risk of facing the Committee of Privileges. It is his statement and he is privileged to make that statement here.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: All the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education need do is to institute a Commission of Inquiry since they are so fond of Commissions of Inquiry, and then they will get at the truth. It is very easy.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: Repeat it outside the House!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Anyway, there is no political stability in Singapore with the P.A.P. Government, and arrests of political opponents cannot give stability to the Government. On the contrary, they merely show the death throes of desperate politicians about to drown.

The Minister says that the common market is the most decisive single factor in accelerating industrial growth. But from all that we can see, political instability is the most decisive factor here in Singapore. The sham referendum on the 1st September, 1962, has not helped to stabilise the shaky P.A.P. Government. Even the Prime Minister of the Federation said that the sham referendum did not show the strength of the pro-Malaysian forces. So fearful, Sir, are the investors of Singapore's political instability that not so very long ago Newsweek gave prominence to $20 million fleeing from Singapore to Hong Kong for investment. I remember the Minister for Finance saying that Hong Kong has succeeded in industrialisation because there are no trade unions in Hong Kong. But he conveniently forgets that few people today trust the P.A.P. Government. Even the Federation does not trust the P.A.P. But from that small remark by the Minister for Finance, we can also see that, in fact, the Minister secretly harbours hopes of doing away with unions that are opposed to the P.A.P.

It is curious, Sir, that with so much money around, we still need to borrow money from the World Bank. A loan from the World Bank does not mean confidence in the Government as the Minister claims. All sorts of conditions are imposed. The interest is not low either. 5½ per cent plus incidentals comes to about 7 per cent. Why should we pay 7 per cent? The Minister should follow what he himself had advocated long ago, and make use of local funds for whatever we want to do in Singapore. Why does he not do so? It would be interesting to learn from the Minister who are the people who subscribe to the loans floated by the Government in Singapore. Are they local citizens or are they foreigners? Are the subscribers mostly banks and insurance companies and, if so, are they local banks or foreign banks? We must warn the P.A.P. of unnecessarily getting deeper and deeper into the clutches of neo-colonialism. For the benefit of the P.A.P. Members, neo-colonialism is economic and military domination after political independence has been apparently granted to the people. As far as possible, it is our policy that the people of Singapore should rely on the people of Singapore themselves.

The Minister refers to the increased volume of trade. But it has not brought with it a corresponding increase in national income. In fact, with the falling prices of our raw materials and products and the rising prices of imported manufactured goods and foodstuffs, the loss to us of national income becomes greater and greater every year. The end result of it all is that Singapore will sink further and further into the clutches of neo-colonialism. The present economic policy of the Government with its pro-colonial bias can only lead us to be under tighter and tighter foreign indirect control which, in effect, will mean that the rich in Singapore will get richer, and the poor will get poorer, with a daily widening of the economic gap. This is what we must ask the P.A.P. to avoid.

The P.A.P. was elected to office by the people in 1959. All we ask of it is that it should admit its mistakes of the past and immediately attend more to the needs of the poor. Of course, with the approach of election time, the P.A.P. is fast putting up an appearance of attending to the needs of the poor. The Minister crows of so-called concessions made to owner-occupied attap houses. But these are not true and sincere concessions. The P.A.P. has the intention of collecting as much money as possible from whatever source there is, regardless of whether it is from the poor or the rich. It is only the fear of loss of whatever support there is left for the P.A.P. amongst the attap dwellers that the Minister has been forced to grant so-called concessions. We urge the P.A.P. to change the error of its ways and stop taxing the poor.

The P.A.P. takes great pride in its so-called housing achievements. Thousands of housing units have been built, but they are built in such an unplanned manner that they have, in fact, become white elephants. Thousands of flats are still vacant, unsuitable in site and in rent, for the vast majority of the people of Singapore. The question then arises: for whom are the housing flats built? For the comparatively well-to-do or for the poor? A big show was made of Selegie House. We just want to ask the Minister a simple question: how does he expect a poor man to stay in such expensive flats at rents of $60, $90, and $120? All that a poor man can earn will not be enough to pay for the rent. Is that the way to build houses? Is money collected in taxes from the poor and the exploited to be used as subsidy for the comparatively well-to-do? Are these flats subsidised with taxes from the poor to he used as barracks for military troops brought into Singapore to suppress the legitimate hopes and aspirations of the people?

Mr Rajaratnam: To suppress the Communists.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: What has happened to the promises of cheap housing in the P.A.P.'s Five-Year Plan? Is the Housing Board building flats for the people or barracks for the troops? We know there are a few housing units at cheap rentals, but they are only a mere handful. The majority of the Housing units are too expensive for the ordinary worker. Therefore, let the P.A.P. remember this: we must not build merely for the sake of building. The Government must build for the use of the poor, and let the P.A.P. amend its housing policy immediately.

We support the decision of subsidy for housing, but let the subsidy be really used for housing for the poor and not for the comparatively well-to-do. We still remember, Sir, the adamant attitude of the P.A.P. Ministers in their wanting to raise the rentals of all the Housing Board flats, beginning with the flats at the Kallang Airport, in spite of strong protests and opposition from us who are now in the Barisan Sosialis. And we are glad that our strong protests have borne fruit and that the P.A.P. has not dared to raise the rents any further. In fact, they have done an about-turn and are trying to gain the goodwill of the people by telling them of Government subsidies.

We urge the Government also to spend more on improving public amenities in the rural areas. Let the P.A.P. not just concentrate on community centres and T.V. for the sake of forcing its propaganda on the people. Let more rural roads be built. Let electric lights and pipe water, the essentials of a modern society, reach the tens of thousands in the rural areas and in the kampongs, whose people still do not enjoy these essential amenities. In order to buy votes, the Prime Minister announces the so-called improvements for the rural constituencies during his week-end visits. But the unfortunate thing about it all is that these improvements have come three years too late. We object to the delay in the implementation of these projects which should have been carried out more than three years ago. But for the coming elections, these projects might never even been thought of again by the arrogant and self-centred Ministers, so busy are they in playing politics to fix their political opponents.

Sir, there is also much talk of increased expenditure on Education. But until today the Nanyang University question has not been settled. This question cannot be settled by just ignoring it. It is there, and it must be settled. The Government should stop playing politics on the question of aid to Nanyang University, and until adequate aid is given to Nantah, the P.A.P. need not put up any further pretence of pursuing a policy of equal treatment of the four streams of education. There is no question of not having the money. Millions of dollars are in the Singapore kitty. Let us use the money taken from the people on a seat of learning that has been built by the sweat and toil of the people, for the people, not only of Singapore but also of the Federation and surrounding territories in South-East Asia.

Lastly, Sir, just a word about Malaysia. Malaysia is not something that comes from the spontaneous desire of the people to have national unity. On the contrary, Sir, it is designed to be a strategic and an aggressive bloc for the use of imperialist powers to suppress the legitimate hopes and aspirations of the people in the whole of South-East Asia. More than two-thirds of the people in the world condemn Malaysia. The wrangle for finance from Singapore for the expansion of Malaysian armed forces tells us what we can expect with the formation of Malaysia. It will not do Singapore any good. The P.A.P. must realise that the future of Singapore is not tied up with the Borneo territories and so with the present Malaysia plan. Our future is with the Federation. All this talk of Malaysian prosperity sounds very hollow when genuine job opportunities for the people of Singapore are restricted to the island of Singapore. People from all the surrounding territories can come into Singapore and compete with the people here for jobs. On the contrary we in Singapore cannot freely go to the other so-called Malaysian territories for jobs because of immigration restrictions and our inferior citizenship status.

Mr Rajaratnam: Do you want to go there yourself?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Minister talks of golden geese and golden eggs. I am glad the Minister admits that Singapore is golden. We do not have to worry about whether the egg or the goose comes first. But whether goose or egg, both are golden. Singapore, therefore, need not have to go in as a junior and unequal partner with its citizens becoming second-class citizens. The P.A.P. need not have to sell Singapore down the river. Let them remember that gold matches gold and, therefore, negotiations between Singapore and the Federation must be on the basis of justice, equality, mutual respect and mutual benefit.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Oh, please stop talking.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Thank you.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Thank God for that.

3.44 p.m.

Dr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have noticed that the Minister for Finance in his Budget speech this year has spoken with a surprisingly new voice. His language is so moderate and reasonable that it is almost like a lullaby. He is trying to soothe the Opposition and the nerves of nervous merchants, traders, and workers, so that they think that they now have a new Minister for Finance and a new Party ruling over them.

Sir, the statements are so different from the days of 1959 and 1960 when the P.A.P. wielded the big axe and the big stick that the Barisan Sosialis say that they have sold themselves out to somebody somewhere. To quote an example from paragraph 28 of the Minister's speech, beginning with the second sentence in page 10 ---

Mr Speaker: Order. If possible, I ask hon. Members to use our Official Report, which has come into the hands of Members - the Official Report which has been produced overnight.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: I am sorry, Sir,I have been using the other copy. I am unable to locate in the Official Report the particular paragraph* that I wish to quote from the other copy.

• Page 51 of the unrevised transcript, first paragraph - Hansard, Vol 20, No. 5, dated 7th June, 1963, col.558.

Mr Speaker: Please continue from the previous copy of the speech.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: ---

`This being the case, our plan of industrial expansion must be more circumspect and judicious.'

It implies here, Sir, that previously there was less circumspection and maybe measures that were not so judicious were undertaken.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of explanation, Sir. The Member has misunderstood me.

Dr Thio Chan Bee resumed his seat.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: When I said that our policy must be more circumspect and more judicious, this was in comparison with larger countries with large natural resources and large population. I think if the Member will read the preceding paragraph, he will get the comparison clear enough. I was not comparing present policy with past policy.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Sir, that might have been the Finance Minister's intention, but in the Singapore context it happen to be an accurate description - that in the first year the P.A.P. was so over-confident that they took measures that were so drastic that they frightened away the capitalists who were meant to help them. Now, of course, they have learnt from bitter experience that there are other people with other wills of their own and who cannot be ridden roughshod over, and I am glad that they have learnt that they must be more circumspect and judicious in their ways. But at least we all live and learn and I am glad that they have learnt. Time has taught them.

Then again, Sir, in the concluding paragraph of his speech, indirectly he praised the approach which we in the Alliance have been advocating from the very start. Our policy has been one of co-operation rather than one of confrontation and strife between races and between labour and management. In the second sentence of that concluding paragraph, he said:

`In Singapore, the history of the last ten scars have been full of strife, tumult and excitement.'

It sounds like a speech from one of us, Sir:

`There are many people who consider that we have had more than our share of strife and that it is about Time that the energies and effervescence of our youthful society be diverted towards constructive endeavours. There is much wisdom in this approach.'

Sir, I am glad that they too have learnt that there is wisdom from this side of the House.

Having said all this in appreciation of their change of tone and stand, I must also place on record the doubts of many people in Singapore regarding this change. They ask: "Is this a sincere change on the part of the P.A.P., or is this a calculated move, a pose, because of the coming general elections? Having lost their support from the extreme Left, have they therefore decided to confuse the Centre and Right, so that they can take away votes that would otherwise belong to the Alliance group?" Sir, this is a common form of strategy taught by the Communists. Three steps forward and two steps backwards will mean in the end an advance. I for one welcome the change revealed in the Finance Minister's speech if it is sincere, if it denotes a change of heart and not a change of the skin for the sake of the people of Singapore. But I regret that I have to be realistic, and if the people of Singapore are to believe that this change is sincere and going to be lasting, there is much in the past that the People's Action Party will have to live down.

Sir, they have to be consistent. In the past, along the road of their political progress to the pinnacle of success, they have left behind them wounded bodies ---

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): Mangled bodies.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: I will not say "mangled"; some of them are not mangled - just the wounded bodies of their friends, comrades and allies. To name just a few, Sir, for whom the People's Action Party will have to make some kind of sacrifice to recognise that they have learnt their lesson and have changed deeply, there was the late Mr John Laycock, who appointed, as his trusted election agent, the present Prime Minister. The present Prime Minister was then a lawyer in his office. And his trusted election agent, Sir, turned out later on to be his bitter foe. I think I can say honestly that the old man died of a broken heart. Another victim, Sir, was the Member for Anson, the then Chief Minister, who found too late to his cost that being too friendly with the P.A.P. meant his being misled. Similarly, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill, the then leader of the Labour Front. He agreed that the Labour Front should be in alliance with the P.A.P. to contest the City Council elections ---

Mr Rajaratnam: What about you now?

Dr Thio Chan Bee: --- but too late, he found that the Labour Front and he were just being exploited and they suffered terribly. Now, what happened to the Member for Hong Lim and to Messrs. Lim Ching Siong and company is well known. Therefore, Sir, with that record behind them, this new tone in the voice of the Finance Minister does not convince the people unless the P.A.P. can outlive this record of a Party with the kiss of Judas. That is the fear of many people, the fear of the Tunku, the fear of many in Singapore, that if they support the P.A.P. again, they will be betrayed after the general elections. I sincerely hope that my words are not true, that this change of heart is a deep one, that they can be trusted, regardless of the result of the coming elections, to be consistent with this new line, this new approach.

Sir, we now come to the question of new jobs. All political Parties in Singapore are agreed that there must be more and more jobs because there are more and more people in Singapore, and because the rate of increase of the population in Singapore is so tremendous, then the rate of increase of employment opportunities must also be rapid. In 1959, the P.A.P. said the same thing and today they say the same thing. In that, they are consistent. All Parties have been consistent in that. So they say, [Page 49 of the unrevised transcript - Hansard, Vol. 20, No. 5, dated 7th June, 1963, col. 556]:

`Recognising that the creation of new jobs is of over-riding importance, the Government believes that the attack must be mounted on s broad front.'

The objectives are the same. What we believe has been wrong, has been the method of achieving these objectives with the result that today the mistakes made have nullified even the efforts of previous governments. I will come to that with statistics, Sir. We cannot ignore ideologies. In Singapore any Party which is short-sighted will adopt the policy of the class struggle. But in the light of the situation in Singapore, and the Finance Minister knows it, and in this nuclear age, the ideology of the class struggle and of class hatred will lead Singapore to disaster and the world to a nuclear war. We have got to face those facts. If we are realistic, we must not allow any resentments from the past to obscure the fact that for the sake of the future of Singapore and of humanity, we must rise above our resentments and learn to co-operate. Now, Sir, if the P.A.P. fully believe in this new approach of co-operation, then there is a chance that all Parties working together instead of being at loggerheads with one another can produce a new tempo, a new productivity which will help us to solve our serious unemployment problem. We know that hitherto the P.A.P. has played a double game with labour and management. They have shown one face to the employer and another face to the trade union. It tells one union to go on strike; then it tells the employer to hold on. Sir, politics have entered into the field of labour - the Barisan for certain unions, the P.A.P. for certain unions - and the result, I think, is considerable labour unrest and strikes, and the number of jobs available in Singapore has not only increased commensurately with the population, but has diminished. Sir, in September 1957, the Labour Ministry Report recorded that there were 123,000 workers in employment; in September 1960, there were 105,600; in September 1961, there were 109,286. So after four years of P.A.P. rule, Singapore has less jobs for workmen than in 1957. That is our present position, that with increasing population we have a situation where there are less and less jobs. I would like to inform the Finance Minister of some of the reasons. I asked one employer why, since this is a period of expansion, he does not expand and take in new hands. His reply was, "We dare not expand because we do not know what the labour situation will be like later, and if we take in new hands we cannot dismiss them if they are found to be unsatisfactory. So we have found that the best thing to do is to remain as we are." Sir, that is a defeatist attitude for Singapore because we must have a climate of confidence so that there is rapid expansion and therefore a corresponding increase in the number of jobs. I think the Finance Minister himself realises that.

Sir, we come now to surpluses. It is expected that this year will end with a surplus of nearly $100 million. The figure given, Sir, is $97.1 million ---

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Last year.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Last year. This year's surplus may even be bigger because that has been the record so far.

Sir, the question of budget surpluses, I find, is linked up very closely with the problem of unemployment. Finance Ministers all over the world would like to have large surpluses just as private individuals like to have large savings. But economists say that there is such a thing as excessive surpluses, and excessive surpluses are bad for the people's welfare ---

Mr Rajaratnam: Talking about socialism?

Dr Thio Chan Bee: If the surplus is excessive, then either the people are being overtaxed or there is under-expenditure depriving the people of benefits they should have or depriving them of more jobs. The remedy then could be reducing some of the taxes, like the taxes on petrol or providing more tax reliefs or spending more on projects to give more employment to the people.

Sir, lest I be regarded as just guessing, took the trouble to consult an economist ---

Mr Rajaratnam: Your daughter?

Dr Thio Chan Bee: No. And I took the trouble to read a book on Principles of Public Finance by Hugh Dalton, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer in the United Kingdom ---

Some hon. Members: He is dead.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: He may be dead, Sir, but his thoughts are still relevant. He talks of overbalanced and underbalanced budgets. He says that public policy may sometimes require deliberately that temporary budget deficits be incurred in pursuit of larger aims, notably an increase of employment through an expansion of credit. Therefore, when Singapore has large surpluses, although the Government may take great pride in them and look forward to more surpluses, this achievement may have been at the expense of the people of Singapore. More jobs could have been produced if more money had been spent.

Sir, there is also conscience money in that big bag. Now, as the Finance Minister is interested in income tax payers being honest and not cheating the Income Tax Department by keeping back some facts about their incomes, in the same way I think the Government should set a good example and not keep in their surplus bags money which really does not belong to them.

Sir, when we were young we learnt some poetry which is relevant, I think, in this situation because these are words of wisdom which can be remembered and applied even when we are old: 'I'll fares the land, To hastening ills a prey, Where wealth accumulates, And men decay.' And the wealth can accumulate also in a government.

Sir, whenever anybody talks of his successes he shows the real spirit of humility if he also acknowledges the debt he owes to the past, to his predecessors. Now, one mistake which the P.A.P. have made and which they have not admitted so far is that they assume that everything that has happened in Singapore to the credit of Singapore belongs to them. Nothing good came from those past governments, from the government of the Labour Front, of the imperialists - nothing. [Laughter] Everything good began from 1959 onwards. I see, Sir, that the Barisan friends are enjoying themselves. Maybe they appreciate that point too ---

Mr Rajaratnam: They are behind it.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: The Finance Minister said in [page 48 of the Un-revised Transcript-Hansard, Vol. 20, No. 5 dated 7th June, 1963, col. 554]:

`We both possessed and still so far have retained all the pre-requisites of economic growth. We have a strong and stable currency. There is a firm legal framework in which contracts are enforceable, thereby making future business relations predictable. There is also an effective administration and reasonable supply of experienced managerial skills.'

"We possessed and have" - to be accurate, Sir, it should have been "We inherited and have so far retained all the pre-requisites of growth." A "strong and stable currency" was here before the P.A.P. came into existence. "Firm legal framework", the same. So I am glad the Finance Minister admits that.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Concede, concede.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Yes. Same with the Polytechnic. Will he concede that also?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Concede.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: In page 49 [Unrevised Transcript] (Hansard, col. 555), when talking about trade and expansion, they spoke about the previous laissez faire policy. They said that it could not be relied upon to generate economic growth. I agree that we cannot depend on that alone. But we have heard time and again reference made to the entrepreneur spirit of the people of Singapore, and that is a great asset. But the mistake made by the P.A.P., Sir, is that they went to the other extreme. They said they must remedy this by some form of positive State action. Sir, I want to say here that they took so much State action that it became almost gross interference with individual enterprise and the people said that if :we have no freedom and we are bound by this and that, we would have to go to the Federation and Hongkong. I am glad that today they have come in between. They admit that laissez faire and the trade of the entrepreneur is important because it develops enterprise in each man who has got initiative, and there must also be State encouragement and State help. The reason why we are in difficulty is that with the Jurong scheme well advanced, the sites ready, the Government find that there is not enough response from the industrialists and they have to give some advice to the local merchants saying that the local merchants had better transfer some of their investments to industries. I am sure the local merchants are keen on making profits. But if what they put in is going to disappear because of the uncertain labour situation, or because of a possible change in the policy of the People's Action Party after the general elections, so many of them say, "We will wait until after the general elections."

Dr Goh Keng Swee: That is right.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think I ought to remind the Member for Tanglin that the Speaker is seated in this Chair and not in the Minister's Chair.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Thank you for reminding me, Sir. There were so many interruptions coming from there that my attention was drawn to that direction.

Regarding tariff barriers, I made a point when the Bill went to Select Committee, Sir, and I am glad that the Finance Minister accepted it that we must not sacrifice our entrepot trade for any new industry unless the result is an increase in employment for our people. An increase in profit for any particular company or individual is not going to be the criterion. The criterion is an increase in the number of people employed. If by introducing a tariff, we thereby cause firms and organisations to be closed for the sake of a new factory, then we have got to calculate whether the number of workers thrown out of employment would be less or more. Even then, Sir, it should be done in such a way that they should not be suddenly thrown out of employment.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You are right.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Sir, the integration of the City Council is still a moot point. In theory, we agree that it leads to economy if we prevent conflicts between the City Council and the Government. But in practice, it sometimes means over-centralisation in the hands of a few. In fact, there is talk now that the City Council is the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister is the City Council. In fact, certain decisions cannot be made by officers, who before could make decisions, because the Prime Minister is the one and only one who can give the directives. Sir, we hope that this experiment will succeed. But if it does not succeed, then it may be that we have to think again in future of introducing some kind of decentralisation, so that there can be more participation democratically by the people's representatives at lower levels.

Sir, on the whole, we say that the Budget speech of the Finance Minister is unusually moderate, and we can only hope that what he says he means, and that the future will show no more double-crossing by the P.A.P. of its friends and allies. But already we see, Sir, one Parliamentary Secretary resigning his job, and we wonder what is happening inside the P.A.P. at this time.

4.14 p.m.

Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): Mr Speaker, Sir, after four years and one week of the P.A.P. management, we can say with confidence that the P.A.P. is on the last stage of winding up. As nothing in the crucial months before the general elections in 1959 could stem the tide of the P.A.P. victory, today no power on earth can save the P.A.P. from extinction as a political force. Hundreds of Canutes cannot forestall this inevitability. As the P.A.P. had wanted the Malaysia Plan to save its skin, so will the Malaysia Plan like a Frankenstein scratch out the P.A.P. from the political arena. The P.A.P. leaders might entertain high hopes and, Sir, let us not forget that they are capable of projecting their minds into impossible flights of fanciful imagination, like during the counting in the Hong Lim by-election at the Victoria Memorial Hall, they were all ready with lion and dragon dances hidden behind the Victoria Memorial Theatre, and I understand two lorry-loads of fire-crackers were also ready, for a P.A.P. victory celebration to be followed by a victory march into Anson, where a by-election was pending at the Time. Sir, if I may say so, nobody on this side of the House knows the P.A.P. leaders, their tactics, their organisation, their support, better than I do. And I say that they are finished. I must admit that I am partly responsible for their downfall. [Interruption] You see, Sir, without us, a person like the Minister for Finance, on his own, would not have been able to get even 200 votes in Kreta Ayer in April 1959. The Minister for Education would not even get 100 votes in Geylang West. Who knows him there? But, Sir, why has it led to all this? It is because the P.A.P. has betrayed the people, has departed from its objectives, and deviated from its principles. Why should the P.A.P. leaders be so bitter, as they are today? They should not he so, for they have not lost anything. Most of them, or almost all of them here, came into the picture at a Time when the going was good - never so good in the history of any political Party in the world - when the P.A.P. was sure of victory, when it was sure of forming the Government. They have by now enjoyed for four years and one week, Sir - and I have counted 1,467 luscious days - and if at the end of it all they are not returned again, they should not complain. They should he grateful to me for the lovely Time I have given them. Sir, half of the blame for the downfall of the P.A.P. should be apportioned to the policies of the Minister for Finance. We are not concerned in today's Budget debate with the Minister's political plots, which, though misfired, would be more appropriate subjects for debate on some other occasion. It is sufficient for today's debate to say that the Minister for Finance, more than anybody else in the Government, has served to alienate the people from the P.A.P.

Mr Speaker, Sir, from the word go, the Minister's financial policies were a flop. Every scheme, every new measure he introduced turned more and more sections of the people against the P.A.P. Everything that his magic wand touched turned into cold lead, generating the anger and hostility of the people against the P.A.P. Government. The Hong Lim by-election was the water-shed of the P.A.P. policies, in particular its financial policy. Before Hong Lim, we had so many new taxes introduced, new fees, new contrivances to squeeze the masses of the people. During that period, the big European firms were never asked to share the additional burden of taxation on a fair, just and equitable basis. The weight of the Government's onslaught fell mainly and heavily on the poor people and the middle class. After Hong Lim, of course, there was a moratorium. No new taxes were introduced. Some old ones were even repealed. The middle class was let off.

The most significant feature in this change of policy is that despite the change or the shift in emphasis, the basic position has not altered, either before or after Hong Lim. The P.A.P. Government sees to it that the interest of and the big profits earned and reaped by the big European firms are not only well protected but further advanced by it. Sir, the Hong Lim by-election was also the water-shed of the P.A.P. Government's industrial policy. Before Hong Lim, the Minister was only interested in one huge industry, a giant steel mill with $600 million capital covering almost half the area of Singapore, and when I was in the P.A.P., I remember an occasion when he told me that this giant steel mill of his could create employment for 80,000 people.

Now, Sir, in those days, all his mind was bent on the fruition of this laudable project. His great ambition was to turn Singapore into a Newcastle or an Anshan. We know that it was a mirage. It was like building castles in the air. I told him so in those days, but he turned a deaf ear. Therefore, the first two years of the P.A.P. Government were wasted.

After the defeat in Hong Lim, the change came about. The shift in emphasis came. The P.A.P. Government gradually began to understand that Singapore can only accommodate small and medium scale type of light industries. However, to cover up the failure in the impracticability of a genuine steel mill in Singapore, the P.A.P. Government went out of its way to give away millions to a scrap plant. One had already existed in Bukit Timah Road for many years. I understand that this scrap plant in Bukit Timah Road was established under the Lim Yew Hock Government and that it was struggling along and finding it very difficult to carry on. This plant was forced to close down. And I believe it did approach the Government for aid. But the Government for some reason or other did not come forward to help an existing scrap plant. Instead, the Government gave away millions to a new scrap plant. Sir, why was this so? The answer is simple. It is because, by establishing a new scrap plant, the P.A.P. Government can claim that it has established a new industry- a new steel mill. It can claim that its programme of a steel mill has been realised. Sir, what nonsense! The difference between a steel mill and a scrap plant is like the difference between a motor-car factory and a motor-car assembly plant; between the Yang-tze River and the Tebrau River: (the Tebrau River is about six feet wide and it is about six feet deep); between the Prime Minister of a country like India and the Prime Minister of a small semi-colonial State like Singapore.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You were the Mayor!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no need to ridicule that I was Mayor of Singapore. Without that phase in history, these persons on the Front benches will never be here today.

Mr Rajaratnam: Superman!

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mighty Mouse!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: None of them, on their own, could have got more than 200 votes in 1959.

An hon. Member: How many did you get?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: I had over 7,000 votes on my own, and I got them again!

Mr Speaker: Order. There is a very interesting conversation going on across the Floor. The Speaker is just being overlooked. Shall we just carry on with the debate?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Sir, after Hong Lim, the emphasis on the industrial policy of the P.A.P. Government was shifted on to small and medium-sized light industries. And they were wise to do so. These past mistakes were realised after so many years at the expense of our economy and the deteriorating unemployment situation. The P.A.P. Government is to be blamed for the increasing number of people who have swelled the ranks of the unemployed today. For the first Time in the history of Singapore and under P.A.P. rule, a new phenomenon has emerged. There are now hundreds of graduates from the Universities of Singapore and Nanyang, the Polytechnic, and overseas educational institutions who are wanting jobs.

Sir, all this is because of the failure of the P.A.P.'s industrial policy. Despite the change of emphasis, the basic feature of the P.A.P. Government's industrial policy remains unaltered. The encouragement and the support given by Government has been concentrated on foreign capital.

4.32 p.m.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr John Mammen) in the Chair]

Mr Ong Eng Guan: The P.A.P. Government does not bother with and is not interested in tapping the national resources at our disposal, our local entrepreneurs, our local capital, and divert all of them into industry. The P.A.P. has deviated from its enunciation of economic principles in its election manifesto, The Tasks Ahead, where it has solemnly declared that local businessmen can help in the industrialisation of our economy and our country and we do not need to depend solely on foreign capitalists. What has happened to the P.A.P. Government's industrial policy is the same as the Lim Yew Hock Government's. In fact, even worse. Foreign capitalists are now given every encouragement which is denied to local men.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Example, example.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, take the Shell Company. There is no need to give a pioneer certificate to Shell. They will have to build an oil refinery in Singapore because one has already been built, and I have said in this Assembly that by giving a pioneer certificate, for instance, to one of Shell subsidiary companies, they can play if they want to with the accounting in such a way that they do not have to pay tax in other Shell subsidiary companies which are not granted pioneer certificates.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Point of information, Sir.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: I will carry on. The Minister will have a chance to reply. Pioneer certificates are given to those who will set up industries here and are denied to those industries which require support.

Sir, the Minister for Finance's industrialisation and taxation policy is basically to preserve and advance the interests of foreign capital. It is this blatant, open and consistent championing of foreign economic interests which is one of the main contributing factors which have brought about the downfall of the P.A.P.

We are not against foreign capital coming in to invest in this country, but we must give incentives to our local businessmen, give them support and encouragement, show them how to start industries, give them more liberal pioneer certificates, instead of giving these certificates liberally to foreign firms.

Sir, as I have said at the beginning of my speech, the economic policies of the Minister for Finance have served more than anything else to alienate many people from the P.A.P. Today the P.A.P. is no more a political organisation, but a mere grouping of individuals hanging on together in their last days of office.

Sir, from the humble trishaw-rider to the civil servants and the local businessmen, from every race and in every walk of life except foreign businessmen, no section of the people has not been harassed and oppressed by the P.A.P. Government. The petrol tax, the cigarette tax, the increase in traffic and hawkers' fines, the twakow tax, all forms of new taxes and many new fees have been introduced and have made the masses of the people bitter. Their attempts to introduce the shopkeepers' tax, although cancelled after the Hong Lim by-election, have annoyed the shopkeepers. The rise in assessment rates on huts in rural areas has antagonised the rural dwellers and farmers. The pay cuts, though restored after Hong Lim, have, in conjunction with P.A.P. arrogance, completely alienated the civil servants from the P.A.P. Government. Where is the P.A.P. going to draw its future support? From the Work Brigade? From the community centres? I do not think that those who work in the Work Brigade and those who go to the community centres will support the P.A.P. when the Time for decision comes. Even the last vestiges of P.A.P. support in Singapore - the foreign capitalists and the local compradores - are now switching their support to the M.C.A., which has made the P.A.P. so bitter in the past few months. Sir, the P.A.P. is finished.

You will remember, Sir, that in the first two years of P.A.P. rule, how tight was the money circulation in Singapore. The economy was in a very bad condition. Taxis switched away from their meters to collecting passengers at as low as five cents each on some routes. What was the cause of all this?

Sir, in the last year of the Lim Yew Hock Government, there was a stop in new Government construction and development programmes. I understand there is also a standstill now - that the P.A.P. Government is no more initiating new projects, so that `the next government will not reap the benefits of opening them. This is, of course, playing party politics without the interest of the people at heart. From June 1959 until about May 1961, when the P.A.P. Government took over the legacy of the Lim Yew Hock Government, when there was a standstill in the economy, the Minister for Finance embarked on the suicidal policy of deflation by pressing even lower the already depressed economy. He did it with his pay cuts and his new taxes on the poor, which immediately reduced spending power in the country; floating new loans at six per cent interest and keeping the money presumably in the banks at a loss with lower interest; freezing all major Government expenditure. All this and other sundry measures to tighten credit and money circulation have helped to bring down 1959 and 1960 as the darkest years in Singapore's economic history. There were curses everywhere. In those days, the policy of injecting more money and more credit into the economy should have been embarked upon. On the contrary, the Minister for Finance ventured into the self-destruction policy of deflation and it was only due to the catastrophic defeat of the P.A.P. in Hong Lim, where one of our main planks is the P.A.P.'s financial policy, that the Prime Minister realised the mistakes of his Minister for Finance and put a brake to it.

Sir, if one does not have the interest of the people at heart, one can never learn. The P.A.P. Government does not have the interest of the people at heart and whatever, it embarks upon is for its self-interest. Any worthwhile things they might have done during the past one year or so were meant merely to capture votes or to play party politics. It is not sincere and the people know it.

Sir, you will remember the Four-Year Plan in a blue-coloured book - the Four-Year Development Plan 1961-1964 of the State of Singapore - which was introduced into this Assembly at the height of the Hong Lim by-election. Everybody knew it was for the purpose of capturing votes. After three years have elapsed, it is very evident that the so-called Four-Year Plan was a bluff.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in page 35 of the Four-Year Development Plan the Government promised to spend $650 million in 1961, 1962 and 1963 on capital development projects. I do not think the Government has fulfilled even a small quota of the Plan. The P.A.P. Ministers cannot organise the whole government machinery into fulfilling the many projects envisaged in the Plan; and that explains the $400 million surplus which the Government is now boasting of. If I were on the P.A.P. Front bench, I would really be ashamed of it. This is another example of the P.A.P. twisting.

The only item in the Four-Year Plan where the P.A.P. Government has made some headway is in housing. Sir, when the P.A.P. Ministers search their conscience in the dark of night - if they ever do so [Laughter] - they know why that is so. If I may put it, the Four-Year Plan, which was printed on high quality, first-class glossy paper, bound in thick blue covers at much expense to the State, took a much shorter Time to travel into this Chamber than this flimsy 1963 Budget which is nothing but a routine job.

Sir, this Budget has come in by the slow way, by a bullock-cart, but the Four-Year Development Plan has come in by a jet plane. It took the P.A.P. Government only a few weeks to cook up this Four-Year Plan, but it took them one and a half years to frame, prepare and submit this 1963 Budget.

Sir, let me give you one instance which will serve to expose P.A.P. cheat. Since at present we are experiencing the worst water rationing in Singapore for many years, it is perhaps appropriate to refer to only one item in the Four-Year Plan, the item on water. Page 77 of the Four-Year Plan has one paragraph to say about providing additional supplies of water to Singapore. The Plan reads:

`To provide additional supplies of water, it is proposed to have a new waterwork, the Johore River project, which will, when completed, produce 25 million gallons per day. Pending its completion, it is proposed to have a stop-gap scheme, the Scudai River project by means of which water will be drawn from the Scudai River to meet increased demands, especially during spells of dry weather when the water supply would be in a precarious position. At the same Time, it is intended to augment the storage facilities. In this respect, it is proposed to construct the Seletar Dam which will increase the storage capacity of the present Seletar Reservoir. This dam will replace the existing dam which is too low resulting in low storage and less effective utilisation of total rainfall. Further, it is proposed to construct another two Service Reservoirs, one at Telok Blangah and the other at Jurong, to increase storage of treated water to balance the peak and idle low pressures, since the pressure variations in these areas tend to be marked.'

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, so many schemes to augment our water supply. None of these schemes have been carried out. Only the Scudai River Scheme - one out of so many, a stop-gap scheme due to P.A.P. inefficiency where millions of dollars were spent and would be wasted - a scheme which had merely been scratched on the surface. By this month, in June 1963, according to the Four-Year Plan, it is proposed to spend $13 million on another more important scheme - the Johore River project. From what we can read in the papers, the Government is still debating on this project, and therefore not even within smelling distance of initiating the project. Nothing has been done.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Johore River project - not done; the Scudai River - just only scratched; the Seletar Dam - has not been done; Telok Blangah Reservoir - not done; Jurong Reservoir - not done. Five schemes - all not done. Only the Scudai River scheme has been scratched.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it shows that the Four-Year Plan is nothing but a device to deceive the people for the purpose of electioneering. Sir, every Time I hear about this $400 million surplus, which was repeated in this Chamber again yesterday, I laugh. The moral of it is like that of a father sending his son with $3 to a shop to buy ten katties of rice. The son played truant and, instead of going to the shop, had a game of marbles. The shop having closed after the boy had finished his game, he returned home without rice for the evening meal. Being a very smart boy - and the P.A.P. Ministers are very smart boys, there is no doubt about it - and before the father could scold and cane him, he jumped up and exclaimed to his father, "Daddy, daddy, I have saved $3 for you." The family went without rice.

Further, if I remember rightly, the Minister for Finance once said that this surplus money has been invested mostly in countries overseas. Sir, on the one hand, we are investing hundreds of millions of dollars overseas, but, on the other hand, we are borrowing, begging a few tens of millions of dollars from the World Bank at a higher rate of interest and with all sorts of conditions attached.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Low interest.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: This is P.A.P. finance. If you borrow money from the World Bank, you must get American consultants at a very high fee, you must buy American equipment at a much higher cost than in the world market.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Rubbish!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: This is P.A.P. finance.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker: If the Member will give way? He will not.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: The Minister will have his time in due course.

This is P.A.P. finance, as in the early days when the P.A.P. Government floated loans, paying six per cent interest and keeping the money safely in the bank.

Mr Deputy Speaker, after four years of P.A.P. government, the people are already fed up. Even their Parliamentary Secretaries are getting fed up and quitting one by one. They have no more confidence in whatever the Government says or does. For instance, in the past few weeks the people were not jubilant over the announcement that the principle of a common market has been reached between the Governments of Singapore and the Federation. They have seen too many sell-outs by the P.A.P. Government. They are only watching the situation closely until the details are known. Could it be another attempt to cover up P.A.P. sins and P.A.P. sell-outs?

Sir, we have reached the stage that whatever the P.A.P. Government says is never believed, is always distrusted. Can a Party, arriving at such a predicament and such a situation, still hold out hopes of staging a come-back? It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for the P.A.P. to stage a political come-back. The P.A.P. could very soon only interest students of history It is finished. There is no use to stifle the Opposition Members in this Chamber. By its manoeuvres during the past few days, each of us was given so little Time to study the Budget. But, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the opposition to the P.A.P. is not only found in this Assembly Chamber, but there are more than a million of them outside the House.

4.50 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we had a very interesting half-hour just now when the Member for Hong Lim was on his feet. He claimed that he of all persons in the Opposition knows best the way the minds of the P.A.P. Ministers are working, and he would like to take credit for having helped to put them in power.

Sir, it is only when comrades fall out that we can get at the truth of the situation.

This Budget speech of the Minister for Finance provides interesting reading because it is quite a toning down of all his previous speeches. He tries to explain in his Budget Speech the manner in which the P.A.P. Government is going about to ensure that there is greater industrialisation in Singapore, so that more and more employment opportunities could be offered to the mass of unemployed.

Sir, let me tackle his Budget speech in the sequence that it has been presented. On the first page of his Budget speech he says there are only two outstanding issues remaining to be settled in regard to the financial talks which the Singapore Government has been having with the Federation Government.

Yesterday we had a very lengthy debate on the progress that these talks have taken, and the Prime Minister considered it to be such a good tactical move that he moved an amendment in order to nail the Opposition, particularly us, whom he rudely described as the agents of principals in Kuala Lumpur. Sir, we gave our support to the amendment because we feel, in the same manner as the P.A.P. feel (if they honestly feel), that the financial talks in Kuala Lumpur have been dragged on for too long and that some finality must be reached so that Malaysia can come into existence on the 31st of August. He did disclose in his speech last night that if we were to give him our support in his representations to the Federation Government, his Government would feel greatly strengthened in its representations in the talks that will be resumed early next week. We gladly give him that support and we hope that with it he will be able to secure for the people of Singapore terms that will be in the best interest of the people of Singapore.

Sir, the Minister for Finance in his speech has said that the most important pursuit in Singapore is trade and its related occupations - banking, shipping and transportation. We agree with him, and we also agree with him when he says that it would be an error to take measures harmful to established economic functions in the quest of something new and uncertain. Not only should we maintain and improve our efficiency as a trading centre, but we should also do so in other established lines. This then brings me to the industrialisation policy of the Government and to their claim that a common market for Malaysia would be in the best interests of industrialisation in Singapore and would help to build up the economy of Singapore. I will touch on that when I come to his speech on industrialisation and the common market.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: It is nearly five o'clock.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: It would seem that the Minister for Finance wants a tea-break. Sir, the Minister for Finance would feel obliged if he could have a tea-break. [Laughter] I have at least another half-hour or more to speak. Pardon, Sir. No tea-break for the Minister for Finance.

Industrialisation. Other speakers have touched on the industrialisation policy of the Government. The Minister for Finance is very fond of crowing that the P.A.P. has the right approach to industrialisation; that the Government has done all it could to induce local capital as well as foreign capital to open up industries in Kuala Lumpur.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I suspend this sitting until half-past five. Order, order.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.