ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have already remarked that the Government Whip does not seem to be doing his job. It is one of his duties to see that a quorum is present, especially when Government business is being conducted or carried out. Does anybody wish to call for a quorum?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I would like to refer to Standing Orders, and draw your attention to the fact that there is no quorum in the House.

Mr Speaker: Ring the Division bells.

Notice taken that thirteen Members were not present, Members summoned as if for a division pursuant to the Standing Order, and meeting resumed upon a quorum being then present.

Mr Speaker: I had occasion to remark in the past that it is one of the duties of the Government Whip to see that a quorum is present, especially when Government business is being conducted. The fact that we start after a break without a quorum, I think, must bring this Assembly into disrespect by members of the public. Tun Lim.

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

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, before the tea break, I was touching on the industrialization programme of the Government, but before I proceed on this subject, Sir, may I touch on the more important issue, that is, that Budget Time is Opposition Time and that despite the fact that Budget Time is Opposition Time, the Government has felt it imperative that it should make an inroad into Opposition Time. Not contented with that, the Government is treating Budget day as an unimportant day, so much so that the Government Front benches were totally empty when this sitting was reconvened after the tea break. The Opposition cannot but take very strong objection to the manner in which the Government is treating this Budget debate.

Sir, the P.A.P. Government says that it has a wonderful industrialization programme. It must be admitted that it tried all it could to implement its industrialization policy, and, in this implementation, it did adopt certain of the important measures that were introduced by the previous Government, such as the granting of pioneer certificates, tax holidays, inducements by offering industrial sites at very attractive rates. But one thing the P.A.P. has done which has damaged the industrialization policy is that it has actively participated in the trade union war. It is useless to offer all kinds of inducements such as pioneer status, tax holidays and sites at economic rents if there is industrial unrest. What is more reprehensible is that such industrial unrest arose as a result of P.A.P. manoeuvres.

Sir, the P.A.P. has been in office for the past four years and all its industrialization policy and its claim to having industrialized Singapore is just nothing but a paper claim. I have heard, and even the Minister has himself said, that the Government has set aside large sums of money to lend to would-be industrialists. That would be a very big draw, lending money to would-be industrialists to open up factories. Despite this very attractive offer, there have been very, very few industrialists taking advantage of it. The reason is obvious. The labour situation is out of hand. The Government claims that these politically inspired labour troubles are happily now under control. Where is the control? The number of strikes keeps mounting up, and even an ex-Parliamentary Secretary of the Government is now with the pickets on strike.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: That is democracy.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, the Leader of the House calls it "democracy", but I say that it is a P.A.P. twist of the meaning of "democracy" to pay money out of public funds to a Member, to make him a Parliamentary Secretary, to make use of him to try and control the civil service for the benefit of the P.A.P. But, as there is a God above us, it has boomeranged. What they hoped to control has now got out of hand. And yet the Government says that the politically-inspired labour troubles are now under control. It is because of this labour unrest that industrialists are rather hesitant to come to Singapore and open up factories, and it is also because of this unhealthy climate that there have been more and more factories opening up in the Federation. And now to beat this labour unrest which has come about as a result of P.A.P. manoeuvres, the Government thought of another way to induce capital to come into Singapore.

Sir, when the P.A.P. Government took office in 1959, and in order to lay claim that new industries had been set up almost overnight, they gave a British-owned tobacco company, known as the Malayan Tobacco Distributors Limited, the opportunity to re-start its factory in Tanjong Pagar with 100 per cent British capital. When we were in the Government, this Company approached us with a view to reopening that tobacco factory. We did not allow it to reopen except with the acceptance of our condition that local capital participation must be accepted by the company to the extent of 51 per cent local capital. We felt that this condition was imperative in the interests of Singapore, especially as we knew that the very minute the well-known brands of this company like "Players", "Capstan" and other popular brands were manufactured in Singapore, they would knock out all the other local brands manufactured by factories owned by local capital. But the P.A.P., in their wisdom to show that they had new factories opening up, allowed this tobacco company to re-open with 100 per cent British capital and, as we knew, the local factories of other brands that were making good business had to close down.

The P.A.P. Government are very fond of claiming that they are the true socialists of Singapore, and yet they sold away the rights of local capital to British vested interests. Yet the Minister for Finance in his speech says that local capital need not worry, that there is a place for them, that they can divert their capital from trade and commerce to industry. But when there was an opportunity for local capital to have a proper share of the profits of the manufacture of popular brands of cigarettes in Singapore, the Government just gave them away to British vested interests.

Another example, Sir, of the P.A.P. Government's desire to produce results, whatever the cost, is this oil refinery at Pasir Panjang. During our time the Shell Company negotiated with us for occupation of that piece of land. We were adamant. We were quite firm in our attitude towards the Shell Company, because our view was that as they were making good money, there was no reason why there should be special concession rates offered to them for that piece of land at Pasir Panjang, Labrador. We were firm. We demanded economic rates. The Shell Company hummed and hawed and did their best to persuade us to give in at concession rates. We did not give in. But the very minute the P.A.P. came to power, what did they do? They gave that land away to a Japanese company at rates which were very attractive.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Rubbish.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, there is another point to which the Minister would say rubbish too. It is up to him. Sir, we see in the papers today, "Singapore to get third refinery: $39m plan." This is in the Straits Times of today. Would the Minister say "rubbish" if I say here that all the capital for this oil refinery is going to be American?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: We do not want that rubbish.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Say "rubbish". Why is it in an oil refinery where money is to be made for jam that local capital should have no right of participation? Whereas in the Federation the Federation Government has never claimed that it is a true socialist, yet the refineries in the Federation before they could open up must invite local participation.

I am glad that the Minister for Finance did not say rubbish - that this oil refinery is to be built out of 100 per cent foreign capital. And as it is an oil refinery, it is going to make good money, money to be taken out of Singapore. And what is all this pious talk about local capital? "Do not worry, you will have your share in the profits out of industrialisation of Singapore."

But what is more heinous is this, Sir. They have not yet settled the terms of the common market. But for the Singapore Government to go and encourage 100 per cent foreign capital to come in and then go and talk to the Federation, "Ah, common market. Our oil must go in easy, your oil can come down easy, therefore let us talk terms." Is this the right way to go about it? An oil refinery in Singapore built with 100 per cent foreign capital, to get special treatment or equal treatment with oil refineries in the Federation built with local capital participation.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: How much participation?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, the Minister for Finance is just concerned with the percentage. He is not concerned with the principle The principle can go overboard. P.A.P.! What is the principle of democracy? What is the principle of Budget Time being Opposition Time? Al! that can be rubbed off. The P.A.P. can do it. The principle is involved, What is the use of expressing a pious wish that local capital will have its share of the profits of industrialisation when by its very act it denies local capital a share in the profits that are to be derived by an oil industry that is bound to make money? The greater the percentage, the greater will be the crime of the P.A.P. Whatever the percentage may be, it is still a crime. The degree is to be measured by the percentage of participation.

What is the use of offering incentives, as I say, when there is labour unrest? And because the Government must produce some results, that there are industries opening up in Singapore. It is going against their own declared principles of socialism. I only hope, Sir, that when they go to Kuala Lumpur next week to talk about the common market, they will realise and admit the error of their ways and try to get a deal that is fair and square in the circumstances.

The Minister for Finance fathers the common market idea. When the Government took office in its very first stage, "Ah, we must have a common commodity market." He seems to think that that is a wonderful thing and he ran down the previous Government. He said, "Ah, the previous Government never thought of that idea." The pros and cons of the common market have not yet been debated in this House, but the way this Government is going about trying to secure a common market is making it more difficult. A common market is meant for the good of all the participants. A common market is not meant for serious competition between participants. The previous Government had thought and discussed with the Federation Government that a better way of protecting industry on a Pan-Malayan basis - at that Time it was Pan-Malayan, there was no thought of Pan-Malaysian - was for a Joint Committee to advise both Governments on the types of industries that could be set up. If it was felt that because there is rubber in the Federation it is better for them to manufacture rubber shoes and rubber slippers, then no rubber shoes and rubber slippers need be made in Singapore. And if it was felt that it was better for textiles and shirts to be manufactured in Singapore, then there need not be a factory in the Federation to manufacture textiles and shirts. So in this way there would be a fair distribution. There would not be that element of competition. And if the Singapore Government want to enter into competition with the Federation Government, can we expect the two competitors will sit down to think of a way out whereby both competitors can go to town? It cannot be done that way. Here they have oil refineries in the Federation - you know we have oil refineries here all right. But now rush on to another oil refinery.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: It is not the Government's refinery.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, it is not the Government's refinery but it is the Government that is going to grant all the facilities for this refinery to be started in Singapore.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: If they want to.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: And in fact this company, if I read it correctly, is also demanding certain assurances from the Government. I do not know what those assurances are, but anyway, unless those assurances are satisfied by a Government that claims to be socialist, by a Government that tells local capital that their interests will be protected, that company may not start. But the fact that it has come out in the papers means that assurances have already been given. What those assurances are is always done in the P.A.P. style, never disclose. What will be the effect on the common market talks? Not knowing what the recommendations of the Rueff Commission are, we cannot debate on that. But there is one point that has been brought out by the Minister for Finance. He says, "You know, we have this common market. Therefore, we have to have bonded warehouses for goods manufactured either in Singapore or in Malaysia where there is this common market. Never mind the people oil Singapore will benefit." But how will it benefit the people of Singapore if they have to pay more for goods which they are used to having as a result of tariffs?

Sir, Singapore is a free port and therefore goods manufactured in the Federation or elsewhere can come freely into Singapore. The Singapore market is already open to the Federation, but the Federation market is not open to Singapore goods. Therefore, this common market is aimed at allowing Singapore goods to flow freely into the Federation. But surely, Sir, the price that has to be paid for that free flow of Singapore manufactured goods to the Federation is going to be a price the people of Singapore will have to pay. Suppose shirts were manufactured here, because of this common market agreement, the local people would have to pay an extra tax for all foreign-made shirts.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: What is yours?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Tooth paste is one of the commodities in this common market agreement. Therefore, tooth paste manufactured outside and sold in Singapore will be sold at a higher price. Of course, the Government can say the people of Singapore can buy locally manufactured tooth paste, but the Government cannot ride roughshod over the fact that there is such a thing as consumer's prejudice. It is strange that although a certain thing is manufactured locally and there is a known similar product manufactured outside, a product which we are used to, we keep on buying that product. Therefore, the people will have to pay a higher price for what they are used to getting. It depends on what the common market is for. We keep on talking about the common market without the Minister for Finance letting us know what the terms of the common market are. We do not know the terms, so we cannot debate them. But I want to point out that no matter What it is, a Common Market may result in higher prices of goods which the people of Singapore are used to having. There is one sentence here that has got me tickled about this Common Market on page 55 [Unrevised Transcript] (Hansard, col. 564). The Minister for Finance says in his speech:

`For nearly four years we have strained every resource and ingenuity to achieve it,'.

For nearly four years they have strained every resource and ingenuity. Ingenuity! What kind of ingenuity? Just to show that they are cleverer than the Federation! Is it ingenuity to allow a hundred per cent foreign capital to start a refinery here in Singapore? Ingenuity indeed! Is it ingenuity to go about telling the people of Singapore how bad the Government of the Federation was? Is that ingenuity?

Sir, if they call that ingenuity, they are entitled to call it, but I call it nothing but P.A.P. twist and double talk.

On page 56 [Unrevised Transcript] (Hansard, col. 566) we see the Minister for Finance crowing that the Housing and Development Board completed 12,230 houses, but during the debate on the Negara's speech I pointed out to the Government that there were 4,000 units unoccupied-vacant-resulting in a loss of revenue to the Housing and Development Board of a few hundred thousand dollars a month.

Is that the way to look after the economy of the country? What the P.A.P. is interested in is to try to put up more and more buildings and then if it cannot get anybody to go and stay in the buildings, it might find some way whereby it can force people to occupy Housing and Development Board houses.

Sir, the Member for Hong Lim has touched on the water shortage. Although the Government in its Four-Year Development Programme has stated very, very categorically that it would proceed with the water scheme more than two years ago, it has failed in this important task. Singapore is facing a water shortage for the second time since the P.A.P. took office. Why was there a delay in implementing this scheme? It was because the Government wants to borrow $50 million from the World Bank.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Rubbish.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, the Minister for Finance is fond of saying rubbish, but did the Prime Minister not say that when we were debating the Bill to enable the Government to enter into a loan agreement? He did disclose that the Government wanted $50 million from the World Bank to develop the Johore River Scheme.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of explanation. Sir, we did inform this House that any loan negotiation with the World Bank or any development project will not mean slowing down of work on this particular project. For instance, work on the Johore River Scheme is already afoot. Plans and specifications for tenders are being drawn up, and regardless of the final details of the terms of the loan, work proceeds. The same thing happened to the power station, as I have explained so often in the past. I cannot understand how is it that the Member for Cairnhill cannot grasp this elementary point.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, the Minister for Finance cannot grasp his own elementary statement that the Johore River Project will be completed by the end of 1963. That is what his Government said in this Assembly.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: No, no. Quote.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Right, we will quote.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: How can we complete the Johore River Project in 1963?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: That was said in 1961, two years ago, when they had a Four-Year Development Plan just for the Hong Lim by-election.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of order, Sir. When the Leader of the Opposition makes such serious charges, surely it is incumbent upon him to produce evidence.

Mr Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. The responsibility is the Member for Cairnhill's. If he makes a statement like that and he is proved wrong, he takes the responsibility for being wrong.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: The Member for Cairnhill will remain standing until the Member for Farrer Park brings that Hansard and show it to the Minister for Finance when, in reply to a question by the Member for Farrer Park, the Government said that the Johore River Project would be completed within a stipulated Time. And I hope that when this confrontation takes place, the Minister for Finance would be cultured enough to admit that he was wrong, but I do not expect that of him, Sir, I do not expect such things of him. Sir, the Minister for Finance seems to feel the strain. It is only when he feels the strain that he jumps up now and then on points of order, points of explanation.

I will come to the water project when I have the Hansard with me. But there is another sentence here as I go through this on page 58 [unrevised transcript] (Hansard, col. 569) about the Work Brigade:

`The main reason was that the Work Brigade did not expand to the full extent we provided for. This was principally due to better economic conditions which resulted in a smaller number of applicants joining the Work Brigade.'

Better economic conditions! Less and less people join the Work Brigade. Is it because of better economic conditions? It is because more and more unemployed have come to the realisation that they will not be made use of by the P.A.P. for a beggarly $1.50 a day.

An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: That is the reason. More and more people have woken up to this manipulation of the P.A.P. to make members of the Work Brigade attend their rallies, to bring members of the Work Brigade to visit rural constituencies - almost the same faces every time - welcoming the great Prime Minister.

Sir, that is why more and more people do not want to join the Work Brigade for $1.50 per day.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: You can join if you want to.

[The Member for Farrer Park handed to Tun Lim Yew Hock the Hansard].

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, he says Scudai River - poor Finance Minister. Sir, Hansard, Volume 12, No. 1 dated 13th January, 1960, column 3: Oral Answers to Questions. Johore River Scheme (not Scudai River):

`Mr A. P. Rajah asked the Prime Minister when the Johore River Scheme will be completed to meet the additional water supplies required for Singapore.'

On the 13th January, 1960, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Mr Chan Sun Wing, now on this side of the House [Laughter] (for the Prime Minister):

`Mr Speaker. Sir, I have been asked by the Prime Minister to reply.

The Johore River Scheme will take about four years to complete. On completion it will be able to supply Singapore with an additional 25 million gallons of water a day.

This Scheme is expected to ensure an adequate water supply for the island's population over a period of five to ten years.'

Four years to complete! 1964! One year out!

Dr Goh Keng Swee: No, no.

Mr Speaker: Order. Can I have the column?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Column 4. 13th January, 1960. Four years from January 1960, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963. Yes, like a little boy in school I started - 1960, 1961, 1962 ---

Mr Speaker: Order. The passage reads:

`The Johore River Scheme will take about four years to complete.'

It does not say it has already been started there. Tun Lim.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: This is the whole answer:

`This Scheme is expected to ensure an adequate water supply for the island's population over a period of five to ten years. Should the consumption increase beyond what is expected at present, the Scheme would be extended. The minimum yield from the Johore River is approximately 300 million gallons a day.

In the foreseeable future Singapore's consumption of water cannot exceed the potential supply from the Johore River.'

Foreseeable future!

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Yes, true. What is wrong?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, it is not the foresight but rather the hind sight of the P.A.P. That is why they say "foreseeable future".

An hon. Member: Come, come!

Mr Speaker: Perhaps the Member for Cairnhill would like to carry on reading right up to the end. It will throw a little more light on the subject.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Yes, yes. Supplement. Mr Rajah:

`Mr Speaker, Sir, am I to understand that the first supply from the Johore River cannot be expected in Singapore before four years?

Mr Chan Sun Wing: The answer is yes.'

Before four years? The answer is yes. So, it means in 4 years. It cannot be earlier than 4 years, but the latest is 4 years.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: On a point of explanation.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Explanation? Oh, he is in charge!

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, the important thing to note is this. The Member for Cairnhill has been alleging in his speech that we promised that the Johore River Scheme would be completed by 1963. Now, nowhere is it stated in the records of Hansard that the scheme would really be completed in 1963 or 1964. All it says is that the scheme will take four years from its commencement. Now how could it be possible for the Johore River Scheme to be ready - [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Mr Deputy is now embarking on a speech. He wanted some elucidation. I think he has already elucidated the position. Tun Lim.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Using the elucidation now given by the Leader of the House, it takes four years to complete. Right. They have just started. So only in 1968 can we get the water. What kind of a Government is this? 1968 - before the water shortage ---

Mr Speaker: Order, order. I do not see any reason why the Member for Cairnhill should now raise his voice. He has been very calm, very cool, very collected, even under pressure up till now.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I apologise, Sir. [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: This shortage of water is making every one parched. Four years more from 1964.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: There is the Scudai scheme now coming up.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Now the Scudai scheme.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Yes.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Never mind. The people have put up with all this P.A.P. nonsense about water shortage for such a long Time. Sir, I was saying just now I was attracted by one paragraph of the speech.

Mr Rajaratnam: Get on to your next point.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: This is a very important point. This is on page 60 [unrevised transcript] (Hansard, col. 572):

`At the same time, we must not forget how much we owe to the dedicated corps of teachers and school principals whose hands will mould the future generations of Malaysians.'

But we must not forget that the Government have immorally cut down their total emoluments. And if the Government really feel that they must not forget the good work done by these people "whose hands will mould the future.". I call on them to express their thoughts in a more constructive and understandable form: that they refund back to these people the money which they extorted from them when they came into office in 1959. Sweet words butter no parsnips. We must not forget, indeed, but I am sure these people do not forget the arbitrary act of the Government.

Now, coming to housing again. They tried to claim that the budgeting of a subsidy to the Housing and Development Board is an innovation introduced by them. This is not correct. The previous Government had already started this. That there should be no hidden subsidies in the S.I.T. it was arranged that every year the S.I.T. would have to apply to the Government for a Vote for the subsidy in rents. Now they try to run down the previous Government by saying this, and I could not allow this to go without challenge. And this is what the Minister says, on page 61 of the unrevised transcript [Hansard, col. 574]:

`I should mention here that a substantial subsidy arose from the uneconomic rents which the previous administration had fixed in 1958/59 shortly before the general elections.'

That is an allegation which I cannot accept. The previous Government gave them special rights because these were fire victims. They lost everything. And they were given the specially reduced rents for a certain period. Not like this hard-hearted P.A.P. Government during whose Time there were a number of fires, shortage of water-all sorts of disasters during the P.A.P. Time. They did not treat the fire victims with the same sympathy and understanding that the previous Government extended to them.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You are an amateur fire fighter - [Interruption].

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Amateur fire fighter? Sir, it is funny that the Minister for Finance should bring this up. In fact, it has been even said outside that the fires that took place were set by the P.A.P. He gave me an opportunity to say this: that in order to ---

Mr Rajaratnam: On a point of information, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Point of information.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, the Member for Cairnhill yesterday admitted to having heard rumours. Is it a fact or a rumour?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, if it is a fact, I will have nailed the P.A.P. Government. They have heard it. I would not have said it if he had not said I am a fire fighter or something or other. If the Government Front Benchers, as you have pointed out, Sir, had been a little bit more respectful to the Opposition, such exchanges of harsh words would not have taken place.

Oh, and another wonderful thing I have on page 63 [Hansard, col. 577] is this. Something about "pro-Communist elements who are now being kept under control." I will ask the Government, "Who keeps them under control?" The Internal Security Council? Laughable. It is the P.A.P. Government that has taken this action. Of course, I can understand it is a little embarrassing to the P.A.P. Government to have to take action against their ex-comrades. But they should not shirk their responsibility. The fact that this sentence has crept into the speech of the Minister for Finance is a clear indication that the Government feels that it has put pro-Communist elements under control. If they have not done it, why have they put it in here? The Government have put the pro-Communist elements under control, and for that we are with them. But we find it difficult to forgive the Prime Minister, who still hides the identity of the "Plen". And that we can never forgive. And if we do come back, when the Prime Minister is just a citizen of Singapore, we - [Interruption]

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You will lock him up?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: We will ask him to tell us. He will have to disclose who the Plen is, or face the consequences.

Sir, there is one subject which I want to touch on, and I want the Government - the Minister for Finance particularly - to give serious consideration to this. We support and congratulate the Government on making life a little bit easier for old-age pensioners by having their pensions paid out to them at Post Offices near their homes. That is a good move and a good thing. It helps the aged pensioners. But there is one complaint that has arisen, and I hope the Minister for Finance will look into this. Previously, when they went to the Treasury to get their pensions, they got them on time. But now because payment is made by Post Offices, there has been a delay of a week or ten days. I am sure that is not the intention of the Government, and I hope the Minister for Finance will look into the matter and see that aged pensioners get their pensions on the first of the month, as they used to previously.

Mr Rajaratnam rose ---

Mr Speaker: Opposition time.

Mr Chan Sun Wing (Upper Serangoon) rose ---

Mr Speaker: Is it in Mandarin?

Mr Chan Sun Wing: Yes.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, may I draw your attention to the fact that you were away from this Chamber for some time? All the speakers so far this evening have been from the Opposition. You may be under the impression that while you were away, some Members from the Government Benches spoke, but that in fact is not the case. You will recollect that in previous years - although we concede it is Opposition time, at the same time, there must be some balance, say, two from the Opposition Benches and one from here, or three to one, but so far there has been a complete run of Opposition speakers.

Mr Rajaratnam: In other words, the debate has been one-sided.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Resolute as we are on this side of the Floor, nevertheless, if some equitable balance in time is given, it will be appreciated.

Mr Speaker: The position is quite clear, as indicated by the Standing Orders. One day has been allotted for the debate on the Budget speech, and it is the parliamentary practice that that one day is Opposition time; except for this very important proviso, that sufficient time must be allowed the Government to answer any points raised by the Opposition. And when I say Government, it does not mean necessarily only the Minister for Finance, but there may be other Ministers who may wish to answer points affecting their Ministries. Therefore, I shall watch the time very carefully, and if Ministers could indicate to me how many minutes they require, I shall try to control the debate in such a way that they will have their opportunity.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Thank you.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chan Sun Wing, in Mandarin.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, on the 7th of June the Minister for Finance, on the occasion of making his financial speech, described the financial situation of this year as compared with that of last year as very smooth and very satisfactory. He said that this year has been a very good financial year. There is no problem except that the question of the common market has not been resolved yet. In his speech when he reviewed the economic situation of Singapore, he said that in 1962 the people of Singapore bought more cars, more refrigerators, more radio sets and more cameras. He also said that more people went to the cinemas to enjoy the pictures. That was why, he said, the people of Singapore had been enjoying better amenities and had more enjoyment in this particular year. If it had been true, then there must have been peace and prosperity in Singapore. I believe that the picture as presented by the Minister for Finance is true. But the question is, who bought the cars? Which class of people bought those things, such as cameras? Who enjoyed these luxuries of life? The Minister for Finance did not point that out. We say that for the past one year there were many symptoms, facts and phenomena which go to show that the labouring class and the poorer class of Singapore have been worse off.

Mr Speaker, you have seen that there are increasing numbers of hawkers. Why is that so? In the Press every day, we can read lots of news concerning more and more robberies, thefts and all sorts of crimes. If the people have been enjoying a better livelihood and have been enjoying a more prosperous year, how is that there have been so many criminal activities?

The Housing Board has built a good number of housing units with all sorts of sanitary amenities. How is that that there are so many units vacant - 4,000 units are still vacant? It is because the people have not been able to afford to pay the rents. If there had been opportunities for employment, then why should there be such phenomena?

The incidence of gambling has also increased. We read also from the Press that more and more graduates of secondary schools as well as universities and higher institutes of learning advertise in the newspapers for jobs as private tutors. They have been looking everywhere for jobs. All these go to show one aspect of the true picture which the Minister for Finance has not been daring enough to point out to the people of Singapore. It is that the working people of Singapore are becoming worse off and their livelihood is becoming more difficult day by day.

The Minister for Finance, in his speech, said that if the volume of Singapore's exports increased, then the employment opportunities and the income of the people would accordingly increase. Perhaps statistics clearly show that in the past one year the volume of exports in tonnage has increased, but the Minister for Finance has not been able to cover one aspect of it, which is that in the past one year the prices of the basic local produce have fallen. The price of rubber has also fallen. The price of coconut oil has also dropped. The prices for pepper and coffee have also dropped in the past one year. Why is that? And why did the Minister for Finance not dare to point out these facts? The fall in price has increased the profits of the industrialised countries.

From the figures of exports and imports given by the Minister for Finance, we can see that under the P.A.P. rule, Singapore's colonial economic system, which is subjected to foreign exploitation, has not changed. For the foreign industrialised countries profits have increased more. These foreign countries could therefore benefit more from Singapore and thus benefit the bourgeois and they can throw out more crumbs. Now can we say that it is a merit to the P.A.P.? It is not. The Minister for Finance seems to be satisfied with last year's final results and has credited this to the P.A.P. Government and P.A.P. policy. But I think it is very shameful. The P.A.P. has left the socialist line and stand. That is why it has been expelled by all socialist parties.

As a socialist political Party, with a socialist platform, the main concern of such a Party should be how to distribute wealth, the profits from Singapore's entrepot trade. In their distribution of the profits, have the P.A.P. changed? We have seen that during P.A.P. rule, the total number of employed workers has not increased. Even the Member for Tanglin has pointed this out just now. The Minister for Finance knows this very well. That is why at rallies and on various other occasions he has dared not point out these facts.

In his speech he has only pointed out that there have been larger surpluses in the previous year which have been derived from such taxes as customs tax, property tax, tobacco tax, petrol tax and others. But who has paid most of these taxes? I can say the labouring class. From this we can see that the P.A.P. Government have squeezed a great deal of taxes from the large masses of the labouring class, but they have not used the taxation derived from them for the benefit of these people. The Jurong industrial site, the making of roads, the supply of electricity, water-all these projects and social amenities depend on money derived from the poor people in various forms of taxes. Therefore, we can see that the so-called Development Plans of the P.A.P. have nothing to be praised about because they use revenue derived from the poor people to benefit foreign capitalists and to give them more concessions and better terms to make more money locally.

The P.A.P. Government have been boasting about their housing plan, but they dare not point out that behind these buildings there are poor people living in houses which are in a very bad condition. They talk about the Toa Payoh Housing Plan. Why is it that the people living in that area have not been willing to remove especially when the Government are going to provide them with very good housing accommodation? The Government blame this on Communist instigation, but, in fact, it is because the P.A.P. Government do not have a proper plan to carry out the project in that area and have not paid sufficient attention to the immediate interests of the people staying there.

For instance, in Toa Payoh there are many poor people who, in addition to growing vegetables, are also engaged in many other sidelines, such as making bean curd, bean shoots, rattan work and things like that, the so-called cottage or family industries. But the Government have not paid attention to these other means of livelihood. That is why these people are not willing to move out. When they remove, how are they to maintain their livelihood and earn money? The Government have not paid sufficient attention to these people. Therefore, do the so-called industrialisation, economic development, and the Economic Development Board and all these other things mean that they can boast about them? But these poor people have not been paid sufficient attention by the PAP. Government. The P.A.P. Government want to show their achievements, such as building houses; but, on the other hand, they are ignoring the livelihood of these people. How can you explain away this sort of policy?

Recently, we have been able to see the building of bridges and the installation of street lights and stand-pipes in the rural areas. The Government has done a lot in this respect. One thing I do not understand is this. They have put up all these things, e.g. in the Ponggol and Serangoon areas, but for the things that they have failed to do, they put all the blame on my shoulders. This is one of the things that I do not understand.

Mr Speaker. Sir, perhaps you will remember when I was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, I was appointed Chairman of the Rural and Urban Services Consultative Committee. I believe there are many Backbenchers in the Government who know how much money the Committee had at its disposal when I was the Chairman. The Minister for Finance refused to provide us with money. Because of the refusal of the Treasury to provide us with money, many of the programmes approved by the Committee were not implemented. At that time, the City Council Treasurer wrote to us saying that this Committee had no legal rights to ask for money from the Treasury because the Committee was not a statutory body.

The facts are these. The P.A.P. Government is installing these stand-pipes and street lights because of the coming general election. That is why they are trying to do something. And the Minister for Finance, in order to further his own interests, has seen fit to give some money in order to improve the amenities in the rural areas so as to deceive the people.

When the Member for Bras Basah left the .P.A.P. she pointed out in this House that, when she was a member of the Rural and Urban Services Consultative Committee, the Committee threatened to resign if it was not provided with money. Sir, from this, we can see that the economic policy of the Finance Minister was not aimed at bettering the lot of the people. This blame should not fall on the P.A.P. but on the Minister for Finance alone.

In his speech, the Minister for Finance also mentioned the stability on the industrial front, and that this was attributed to the repressive action taken by the P.A.P. I say that this is all wrong. The fact is that the progressive workers' organisations have matured in the past few years. As long as they are safeguarded in their organisations and they have the right to organise themselves, they will be able to look after the interests of the nation, provided their legitimate rights are looked after. The decrease in the number of strikes was not because of the Government policy. This was brought about as a result of the co-operation between employers and employees. It was also because of the confidence the local employers had in the Left-wing trade unions. That is why we have been able to see quite stable industrial relations between employers and employees in the past years.

The P.A.P. thinks that it can make use of repressive actions and the Police to reduce the number of strikes. I say that this is a very wrong approach. If the working class have genuine grievances they will not kow-tow or succumb to this high-handed action. The glowing picture painted by the Minister for Finance about Singapore's economic activities cannot conceal this fact. Although the Government has been able to accumulate surpluses, these surpluses have not been equally distributed among the population. The overall increase in the Government surpluses points to one thing: the people in Singapore can maintain their prosperity through maintaining its entrepot trade. In the next five or ten years they can depend on themselves to expand their prosperity without help from the Federation. But the P.A.P., because of their attempt to prolong their political life, have sold out the rights of economic independence of the people in Singapore. The P.A.P. Government intend to deceive the people by saying that after merger there will be very good conditions in respect of industrialisation and that there will be a common market.

From the speech of the Minister for Finance and the statement delivered by the Prime Minister on the progress on the financial talks, we are able to see that the whole picture of a common market is not very clear. All the terms are not finalised yet. The P.A.P. Government try to deceive the people in the matter of economy by saying that after Malaysia all our economic problems can be resolved. All this talk cannot deceive the people. We have a very grave and serious unemployment problem, and so has the Federation Government. I do not understand how the Minister for Finance can come to this conclusion, that is, unemployment plus unemployment equals prosperity. He also mentioned in his speech about Government's effort on technical education. He also boastfully said that we have a Polytechnic and the Faculty of Science in the University of Singapore which can cater for the training of professional personnel and that the courses which are not provided locally for the training of our local people will be provided by other countries under the Colombo Plan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to remind the Minister for Finance of one thing. The P.A.P.'s so-called technical education is biased in favour of English education. In the Polytechnic, the University of Singapore and the so-called Secondary Technical School, in all these institutes of learning, the medium of instruction is English. That is to say, those who are not educated in English are deprived of an opportunity to receive technical education. If the P.A.P. does not want to change this policy - even if they want to change it now, it is too late - the problem of unemployment in Singapore will get worse especially for those who come from Chinese schools; then there will be grave problems in the future. Therefore, the P.A.P.'s support of the English-educated in the matter of technical education can only ensure the English-educated an opportunity to get technical education. This is a very dangerous and risky approach.

I fully agree with one point raised by the Member for Cairnhill, which is about the Work Brigade. In his speech the Minister for Finance pointed out that the Work Brigade was not expanded according to the original plan because there had been a reduction of applicants into the Work Brigade. The original intention of setting up the Work Brigade is to alleviate the unemployment problem in the form of public assistance. With increasing unemployment, why is it that the Work Brigade, as a social relief work, is not able to attract more people? The correct inference is that, being controlled by the P.A.P., it is no more than a party piece of machinery. That is why they are not willing, for the sake of half a bowl of rice, to become lackeys of the P.A.P.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on economic problems the fundamental thing is the economic system of a country. In the manifesto of the P.A.P., it is clearly stated that the P.A.P. was determined to alter the system of distribution of wealth. However, the P.A.P. has forgotten about this pledge of eliminating the system of exploitation of man by man according to the socialist platform. The Minister's speech is a confession that the P.A.P. is now working for the vested interests of cosmopolitan countries. They have now lost all their revolutionary fervour. They shout about industrialisation and foreign investment, but today everyone of us can see that although Britain and the U.S. are highly industrialised countries, there are millions of unemployed people there. How can they come here to help the people in the colonial territories when they have millions of people in their own countries who have no jobs? Because of Singapore's unique geographical position, that is why when the colonialist countries intend to carry out exploitation in this area, they must do something for the benefit of the people here. Because of their connections with British interests, that is why the civil service here is all along under stricter control. Because of Singapore's economic position and its importance to the British, they are willing to throw more crumbs to the people here. That is why although Singapore is still a colonial country, outwardly the people here seem to be better off than the people in the surrounding countries.

Mr Speaker: I do not know how much longer the Member intends to speak. I did indicate that reasonable Time should be given to the Government to reply.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: Five minutes.

Mr Speaker: Five minutes, yes.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): The P.A.P. do not look at the development problems of the neighbouring countries from the historical point of view. They do not understand because of their long exploitation by the colonialist countries in the past. Although they have become independent, yet they are not able to solve their economic problems and to raise their living standards in a short Time. This is not to the credit of the P.A.P. This is because of Singapore's unique geographical position as a centre of British exploitation, and that is why the British are willing to give more crumbs and benefits to the people here. Now, we can see the P.A.P., which professes to be a revolutionary Party, is complacent and satisfied with the crumbs dealt out by the British imperialists and laughs at the sufferings of the people in our neighbouring countries. The P.A.P. Government does not make use of the surplus which was accumulated in the past few years and distribute it to the labouring masses. On the contrary, because of its shaky position and its desire to enter Malaysia, the P.A.P. is now willing to hand over control of economic affairs to a pro-capitalist Government in the Federation. Although the speech of the Minister for Finance is a very beautifully written one, it is hollow. The P.A.P. Government should not forget the fact that it is not the P.A.P. alone who can look after the welfare of the people. Even the past colonial Government did something for the benefit of the people. The Lim Yew Hock Government also carried out some measures, but they were very foolish because they did not make use of publicity or do propaganda work. Before I left the P.A.P., I told the P.A.P. Ministers that the people of Singapore would not be satisfied with the small amount of social welfare work. What they demanded was political emancipation and economic freedom from foreign control.

The Minister for Health and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): Mr Speaker, Sir, the S.P.A.'s economic plans envisaged that industry could be promoted locally by compelling local capitalists to put up 51 per cent of the investments and getting foreign capitalists to put up the balance of the 49 per cent of the money required, the reason being that they wished local capitalists to have a controlling interest in the industries to be started up. They found that no foreign investors were prepared to invest and contribute their skill and expertise if the controlling interest was in local hands. That is why they were not able to get foreign participation for any of the industries they thought of setting up. Nor have they been able to get any local capitalists to be interested in any of their industrial schemes. This was mainly because local capitalists distrusted them as they did not like the idea of well-connected outsiders being given nominee shares in undertakings in which they were expected to put up the money. Because we did not try to do the same foolish and unclean things as the S.P.A. Government did, they now charge us with favouring foreign capitalists at the expense of local capitalists. Is it not better for us to have three foreign oil companies - one British, one Japanese and one American - than to allow one foreign well-established oil company to expand its activities so that it gets a local monopoly in oil? The S.P.A. thinking was that if they could get an economic price for the new site in which a well-established foreign oil company was interested, they were quite prepared to let it have a perpetual monopoly in oil. Is it not very much cleaner and more in accord with socialist principles to stimulate keen competition amongst foreign capitalists as we have done? The Member for Cairnhill spoke about the Inter-Governmental Joint Committee of Federation and Singapore Ministers which the SPA. Government set up to co-ordinate industrial development in both territories. Except for the fact that once or twice it met, nothing else happened.

Compare all this, Sir, with the massive schemes of the P.A.P. Government in the public sector of industrial development. All that the S.P.A. Government could think of doing was to set up sites for small industries and set up a puny Industrial Promotion Board to make coffee-shop loans, many of which were written off. One such loan which had to be written off was to the owner of a piece of land for the development of a quarry who did not even possess the title deeds to the land. The S.P.A. Government was incapable of looking at the industrial development of Singapore with anything like the depth of vision and acumen that our Minister for Finance possesses; nor could they conceive of an industrial complex like that to be sited at Jurong. The Member for Cairn-hill's criticism of the P.A.P. industrial development programme is in keeping with the conscribed thinking of which he and the S.P.A. leaders are only capable.

7.15 p.m.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, since this is Opposition time, I will not take up too much ---

Mr Speaker: It is now Government time!

Mr Rajaratnam: Anyway, I shall not take up too much of the Opposition time. But I want to point out that in this debate the Opposition obviously had great difficulty in coming to grips with the speech of the Minister for Finance. They went through the motions of trying to pick holes in his speech. There were facts and figures which they could not refute and, therefore, they launched out into rumours, conjectures, and so on. But what should be made quite clear, Sir, is that it is all too easy for Opposition Members to say, "Yes, but I could have done better." If we had done better, it is always possible for them to say, "I could have done still better." We should go by what each of the three Opposition groups had done when they had the power to do something for the country. Take, for example, the Labour Front Government, now called the S.P.A. [Interruption] The Labour Front was a relative, somewhat a cousin of the S.P.A., because at that time they could not agree with the family but since then there has been a family reconciliation and the S.P.A. and the Labour Front are all in the same clique. So there was the Labour Front Government representing the Right-wing. They were given the opportunity to show what they could

Dr Thio Chan Bee: More employment.

Mr Rajaratnam: The only monumental and constructive effort, as I understand it, was an iron mine in the Federation. That is their testimony. That was the last stage of the Labour Front Government, because towards the end of their term, they ended up in political corruption and in general melee. They had the chance to show what they could do, and they failed. Therefore today, every Time they see concrete evidence of what a social democratic government can do, it naturally annoys them. They even have to refute that these achievements are either not there, or that if they are there, that they are not as good as they could have been.

For example, Sir, the Member for Tanglin. His speech always reminds me of a gentleman who has been to a gay party and goes back meandering home but never quite getting home. The hon. Member's speech was something like this, it went on and on, and I was not quite sure whether he approved of the achievements of the Government or disapproved of them. He meandered on and on, but what he did say was that he claimed to have read Dalton, and in between he spouted poetry. But where have we gone wrong in our policy? What suggestions has he got to show us how we could have done better? The two important essentials for economic development are, first, political stability, and second, a clean, honest and efficient government. No capitalist is going to put money into any venture if he thinks that the government is not efficient, is not clean and is not incorruptible. Therefore, ill the first year of the P.A.P. Government, we were just trying ourselves out - studying the lie of the land. In the second year, everybody knows that it was a fight with the Communists because the Communists had other reasons for halting and sabotaging the economic plans of a non-Communist Government. The Communists believe, and they tell their followers - like the Member for Upper Serangoon who spent a great deal of time speaking - that you cannot give the people anything but crumbs unless you change society. The Member kept on referring to a socialist society, but we know that he was talking of a Communist society. Therefore, any advance made under a non-Communist government is one more nail in the Communist propaganda that unless you overthrow this system, you cannot improve the lot of the people.

Therefore, after two years when the Communists could not get their was with us, they realised that the most important thing, as far as the economic development of Singapore was concerned, was the achievement of merger. For four years, the then Labour Front kept on saying, "In the 1959 elections, you vote for us and we will get you merger." But they never got merger. Today, they say, "Yes" but at that Time, they said. "Don't if you vote for the P.A.P., there will be no common market and no merger." We have proved that we can get merger and common market. I think the S.P.A. was the Party that offered the third alternative in the last referendum. They did not want merger. They said that they wanted something like Sarawak and North Borneo. Just before the eve of the referendum, they told their own followers. "Switch, and vote for Alternative A." These are the people who switch and change their attitude. But we said. "This is what we want - merger on the basis of the White Paper which we have approved and which we are quite convinced that the people of Singapore want, not complete merger or merger on the same terms as Sarawak and North Borneo but the kind of merger that we have put through." We have got merger and therefore we are waiting for the prospects for economic advancement. The only fly in the ointment were the Communists. When they knew that merger was about to be achieved, that the prospects for economic advancement were good and that there would be less people unemployed, less discontent. they knew that they had to fight merger not only for political but for economic reasons. That is why today you will notice that after the Communists have been conscribed and contained, stability is achieved, industrial disputes lessen, and that in the last eight or nine months there is an air of prosperity and confidence.

But unfortunately, we are now having trouble from the Right-wing. These same people - this time the M.C.A. and certain Senators from the Federation - decided to upset the merger arrangements because they felt that the Communists were out and that therefore the Right-wing had a chance. Therefore, they tried to discredit us because we got merger on certain terms. And they went round to local merchants and said, "Well, now that the Communists are on the way out, there is a good chance of an election comeback." Therefore, they tried to upset our merger terms, to change them and to give economic control to the Federation - in fact, to certain M.C.A. Senators and so on. So that they can manipulate things and tell the merchants, "Well, there you are. After merger, you must deal with us. We have got the financial strings." They attempted it, but fortunately for us we fought them out in the open. And the two Senators were quiet. In fact, one of them challenged to he named. We named him and lie has been keeping quiet. The other Senator entered into an argument, but again he is quiet.

Therefore, Sir, today the prospects for merger are good and the prospects for economic advancement are also good. The people know that there have been concrete achievements under the P.A.P. Government. There are facts and figures. The fact is that the buildings are there; the schools, roads, lights, and standpipes are there. This you cannot deny. We are not saying that we have created a Utopia. There is a lot of room for improvement, but what we say is that the S.P.A. - the former Labour Front Government - were given a chance but they failed. The Communists are not interested in economic construction and advancement. Therefore, we have every reason to say that what we have done has been something for the cause of socialism and democracy in Singapore.

7.26 p.m.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, Budget time, as recognised by everybody, is Opposition time. Unfortunately, the Opposition got to a bad start when the Member for Queenstown opened the innings. The Member for Queenstown, as every Member in this Assembly knows, is a person who aspires to great public oratory. But unfortunately, he labours under the mistaken impression that quantity is a sufficient substitute for quality. He holds the record in the Assembly for the longest speech ever. And not only that, he also holds the runner's-up record. But in his present state of mind, with the stresses and troubles which are now afflicting his Party, he has been reduced to a state where his mind is unable to distinguish between fact and fantasy. So I think it would be a sheer waste of my Time to rebut at all the fantastic statements and assertions that he has made.

The second speaker was the Member for Tanglin. Sir, everyone in this House acknowledges the Member for Tanglin as a man with many sterling qualities. His performance today has given mc some hopes that he may yet move on to great things. Sir, he is under the curious illusion that the P.A.P. is changing for the better - I mean, thank goodness, he believes that we are improving, we are being rnoderate. But I believe that his standards of judgment are changing - we have been consistent, but he has modified the way he looks at us - his approach to our political problems. I see great hopes in this. He passed many complimentary remarks about our Government. I do wish to thank him most warmly for his kind remarks, and I think he means well. We are very glad that we have on the Opposition Bench a man who, when he thinks that the Government has done well, openly gives the Government a pat on the back. We do accept his kind remarks in the spirit that it was offered. I would say that the trouble is this: the Member for Tanglin, in assessing the actions of the Government in the context of the Party, is unable at the present moment to realise that when conditions change your tactics must change although your basic strategy remains consistent. It is only after the Party had come to an open clash with the pro-Communists and got rid of the Communists and their stooges from our ranks that the differences between the social democrats in the Party and the Communists who were clinging on to us became very clear and self-evident. And so all the virtue that he is now seeing in the Party and in the Government is more evident than before. I will not argue at all in any detail about some of the proposals he makes. I think on most matters we see eye to eye, although in the little matter of deficit financing by credit creation, I think I will reserve my position there, because under the present Currency Board system it is just impossible to do so. But when he says that we accepted his point of view in the deliberations on the Tariff Board, may I say that it was just the other way round? We have always held the position that if you want to impose protective tariffs, then you must do the necessary calculations. There will be some effect on trade especially the re-export trade. It may diminish: it certainly will diminish if tariffs are too high. There will be some inconvenience to the entrepot trade. You have to balance that against the gain to the country through employment in new industries that could be established as a result of tariff. That was, if you will recollect, Mr Speaker. Sir, exactly the point that I was trying to make in the Select Committee on the Tariff Advisory Bill. I am very glad to hear that the Member for Tanglin has now come all that way with us.

Sir, the third speaker was the Member for Hong Lim. He is a curious gentleman, a very ambitious man. Even when lie was in the Party I remember that when we prepared our Sixth Anniversary Souvenir number, and we asked various Ministers - he was a Minister then - to contribute an article, we all did our little hit, and, of course, the Member for Hong Lim sent an article entitled "When I was Mayor". Sir, in the history of mankind, important events occur which serve as landmarks to historians. For instance, the great flood before which Noah brought animals in twos into his ark ---

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Adam and Eve.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Adam and Eve. For the Member for Hong Lim, the great event in the history of mankind was the Hong Lim by-election. Before then all was darkness, chaos and confusion. After that, light, progress. Sir, this is so absurd a proposition that I do not think anybody in Singapore will take him at all seriously when he said that before Hong Lim we wanted one big steel mill, and after Hong Lim we saw the light and decided to have many small-scale industries. It is too fantastic a proposition. It was not the Hong Lim by-election nor what he said to us. Our industrial policy was influenced by the advice we received from several expert missions which the United Nations and the World Bank sent to Singapore at our request. The Member for Hong Lim sometimes reminds me of Russian emigres after the October Revolution in 1917 in Russia. You will recollect that many landed aristocrats fled the country. Many of them landed in London, impecunious. But they had two great assets. They had an imposing physique, a tall figure, blond hair, nice features and plenty of medals. This quality qualified them for the post of commissionaires in London hotels. Of course, these Russian emigres always hark back to the great days before the October Revolution in the same way that the Member for Hong Lim harks back to the great days of the Hong Lim by-election.

Sir, I must most vigorously refute him, not on all his inaccuracies, because that will take me well past midnight, but at least on the subject of water expansion schemes. This is a subject of great topical interest in Singapore today because of the shortage of water. The Member for Hong Lim, in castigating the present Government for neglect in providing early enough these water expansion schemes, forgot that he was Mayor of the City Council from 1957; in 1959, he graduated from Mayor of the City Council to the City Council itself, which august office he held until May 1960, when we decided we had had enough of it. Sir, during these three to four years, he was responsible for the water supply and for the expansion of the water supply in Singapore. He was fully aware that there was one factor that prevented any steps towards expanding the water supply, and that was that the agreement to draw water from Johore, the agreement which Singapore signed with the Johore Government to draw water for Singapore, had lapsed and it must be renewed if there was to be any expansion to draw more water from Johore. He knew that. He took no steps at all when he was Mayor, when he was the City Council, to renew negotiations with the Johore Government so that water expansion schemes could be set afoot. And if there is one man in Singapore who is responsible for our present plight, it is none other than the former Mayor of Singapore, the Member for Hong Lim, and the former City Council.

Sir, the Member for Hong Lim is one of the most audacious men it has been, my misfortune to meet for the spreading of deliberate untruths, untruths which he knows to be completely untrue, to be false. The Member for Anson is a different kettle of fish. He does have his moods of euphoria, sometimes in moments of rage when facts and fantasies merge into each other. The Member for Hong Lim is not of that type. He is cold and he is calculating. And when he says that nothing had been done at all to press on with our water expansion schemes as set out in the Development Plan, he knows that what he said was absolutely untrue. He cited four instances and claimed that beyond scratching the surface of the Scudai River nothing whatsoever had been done. First, the Johore River scheme, the Scudai River scheme, the scheme to raise the height of the dam at the Seletar Reservoir and the scheme to provide more fresh water at Jurong. His indictment of the Government is that beyond minor works at Scudai nothing whatsoever had been done.

Sir, the facts are just the reverse. The Johore River scheme, which is the biggest water expansion scheme to be undertaken by Singapore, is well on foot - detailed design, planning, specification of contract now being undertaken. In this work we have the benefit of advice from one of the foremost firms of water engineers in the world. As I have said, we shall be applying for a World Bank loan to finance part of this scheme, but the loan itself is not of the essence, Mr Speaker, as the Member for Farrer Park has said. It is to pay for the foreign exchange counterpart cost of imported materials; that is not of importance. But work is in full swing. The Scudai River project has gone a long way and the date of completion is expected to be May next year. The scheme to raise the Seletar Reservoir dam has been abandoned on the advice of our water consultants. The Jurong River scheme has been extended not only to provide what is called a service reservoir, raising it to some height so that water pressure can be through gravitation to help in the distribution of water, but also, by damming the Johore River, to build a substantial reservoir on what was formerly the Jurong River to provide a substantial supply of fresh water for industries in Jurong.

Sir, the next speaker was the Member for Cairnhill. He always likes to perform in this Assembly. Sometimes I am in doubt whether I should take him seriously or whether I should sit back and enjoy the performance. So I am not going through all the points he raised. But he and the Member for Hong Lim and the Member for Upper Serangoon stated, in their various ways, that our industrialisation programme has one great shortcoming, and that is that we favour the foreign investor as against local capital. Sir, my colleague the Minister for Health has given some gruesome details of how industrial promotion took place during his Government and I do not want to repeat them. But there was one point which the Member for Cairnhill was at great pains to stress, and that is that whereas his Government insisted on 51 per cent participation by local capital and 49 per cent by overseas capital, the P.A.P. Government is more lax in this respect. In fact, in a number of undertakings, particularly the oil refineries, we were prepared to see the whole of the capital investment coming from abroad. He thought this was a very reprehensible and unpatriotic practice. Sir, my colleague, the Minister for Health, has explained that this policy of his had led to a complete cessation of industrial expansion between 1958 and 1959. When we took office there was obviously no prospect at all of industrial growth, for the simple reason that if you want an overseas firm to come to Singapore and contribute their know-how, their techniques and their capital, they must he in a position of control in regard to the management of the business. It is common sense and apparently self-evident. Maybe what the former Government wanted was for overseas manufacturers to make all the necessary contribution, but for local businessmen to have the final say in management. Mr Speaker, this is an excellent state of affairs. I have no quarrel with that policy provided they could deliver the goods, and the experience was that they had failed to deliver the goods. Not only that. Between 1957 and 1959 there was a contraction of industrial output in Singapore.

The Member for Tanglin quoted labour statistics to bear out this point. That is quite true. There was a contraction of employment in industry in Singapore during that period. Why was it so, Mr Speaker, Sir? The answer is simple. In 1957 the Federation of Malaya achieved independence and they decided that they must have their own policy. They put up tariffs for products manufactured in Singapore purely on nationalist grounds. That is quite understandable. The net result was that whereas before 1957 we had something like 1,500 workers employed in the industries making rubber shoes, two or three years after that the number was reduced to less than a third because the management of these factories decided that they should site them in Johore, Kuala Lumpur, Kiang or elsewhere. The same thing happened to other industries. The biscuit industry is an outstanding example. The result of the Inter-Governmental Committee to advise both Governments on industrial expansion - the committee which the Member for Cairnhill was so proud of - the net result to Singapore was extremely damaging. It was because we saw an unhealthy trend before the general elections that we decided that unless we had a common market whereby one territory on one side of the Causeway does not try to pinch industry from the other side of the Causeway, we can never get a genuine and balanced industrial growth either in Singapore or in the Federation of Malaya.

Sir, I think I have given sufficient details of our general proposals on the common market in my Budget speech. I do not think I can go much further than that without breaking confidence, or without bringing in details of the Report of the World Bank Mission. But I do wish to stress that the Singapore Government is in deadly earnest about industrialisation. It sees the common market as the vital missing factor in our drive for industrialisation. We are determined that, as part of the terms of merger of Singapore into Malaysia, we shall have fair and legitimate terms on the common market.

Sir, it is not our intention, as has been suggested by the Member for Cairnhill, to compete as a Government with the Government of the Federation of Malaya. Governments do not compete in industry, because they do not establish industries. Industries are established by private enterprise in Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. I have explained the reasons why this must be so.

The Member for Upper Serangoon disagrees with the policy. He considers the policy of allowing foreign firms to establish industries in Singapore to be intensifying the exploitation of the country by foreign capital. But I will deal with that matter later.

Now, so far as the point raised by the Member for Cairnhill, that Singapore is trying to compete with Kuala Lumpur in the matter of establishing industries, is concerned, may I say that that is a most harmful and mischievous statement to make? Towards the end of my Budget speech, in the concluding paragraphs, I particularly stressed the point that after Malaysia we are likely to prosper as a result of the common market, and it would be quite wrong for us, wrong ethically, wrong morally and wrong from the point of view of our own self-interest, to hog the whole prosperity for ourselves. I have no doubt that there will be fair and reasonable means of co-ordinating industrial growth in the whole of the Malaysian territories. In fact, not merely in Singapore and the Federation but also in Borneo and Sarawak, a reasonable and effective method of co-ordinating industrial growth in Malaysia can be found.

Now, Sir, the last speaker was the Member for Upper Serangoon who, unfortunately, is not with us today. I am not going to reply to the various nagging complaints and the minor belly aching that he has indulged in his speech. But I would say that the basis of his approach to the economic problems facing us in Singapore is a clearly recognisable approach to me. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have studied the Marxist classics, from Das Kapital to the selected works of Stalin and Mao Tse-tung, and I immediately recognise his approach. First, he says that we have lost our revolutionary fervour - mind you, he says we lost it only after he hopped out, not before that! - particularly in our economic policy.

Sir, The Tasks Ahead, the Five-Year Plan on which we were elected to office, is available for reference. In our election platform, it is stated quite clearly that in the entrepot trading economy of Singapore, you cannot have socialism. Socialism is not possible. Anybody who thinks that you can establish a socialist society in an isolated Singapore needs to have his head examined. If he has any pretence to being a Marxist or a revolutionary, he will do well to study some of Lenin's more serious works on the subject. Lenin has got one epithet for such types. He said, "These are not revolutionaries. They are only chatterboxes."

Sir, the Member deplored the fact that I had sought to draw a comparison in my Budget speech between the modest but nevertheless significant prosperity which Singapore and Malaya are now enjoying, and have enjoyed for the last two years or so, with the economic depression and the economic troubles in our neighbouring countries. He said the reason is simple. They have gone through colonial exploitation for a longer Time than Singapore or Malaya had. We have been colonised in Singapore really since 1819, whereas in the case of other neighbouring countries, colonisation, of course, dated much earlier - from the 17th century, in fact, if my history serves me right. But the trouble with this Marxist dogmatic approach is that there are countries which have never been colonised in this part of the world - Thailand, for instance - or have never been colonised at all in other parts of the world, like parts of Melanesia. They have never been colonised. They are not richer than us. In fact, they are poorer than us. So how does he square up these hard facts of life, which cannot be contested, with his dogmatic approach? He sees in our efforts to industrialise through openly inviting overseas capital as an attempt to use the poor people's money to pave the way for more intensive exploitation by foreign capital.

Sir, in The Tasks Ahead we have already stated openly before the electorate that we shall welcome foreign capital and foreign know-how and give them all the assistance that they require in order to establish industries in Singapore and give more jobs to our people. That was the programme on which not only we were elected but he was elected. How then can he complain of the loss of revolutionary fervour, the betrayal of the socialist revolution, hobnobbing with the colonial exploiters and all the rest of Marxist claptrap and rubbish?

I do not ever imagine I would succeed in convincing him of the error of his ways. But I do warn his other colleagues that the tone and the beliefs that this great theoretician of theirs is espousing in public and in this Assembly is quite unmistakable. If they lend their support to these policies and to this ideology, then I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, after 31st of August, they will not have a tolerant, democratic non-Communist socialist Government in the Internal Security Council with at least one hand on the steering wheel - not only that, but there are three hands on the steering wheel, and one of them is ours. But after 31st of August, Mr Speaker, Sir, I say, "Well, chum, you are on your own and if you come a cropper, please do not say we have not warned you."

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

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