APPROPRIATION BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order for Second and Third Readings read.

2.31 p.m.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation that this Bill be proceeded with.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Main Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for the year 1963 have been considered and approved by the Assembly as Command Paper 14 of 1963. It is now necessary to give legislative approval to the expenditure of the sums shown in these Estimates, and the Appropriation Bill tow before Members is intended so to provide. Under section 97 (1) of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, an Appropriation Bill containing, under appropriate heads of expenditure, sums of money which are required for the several services of the Government shall be introduced to the Assembly.

The Appropriation Bill sets out all the amounts approved by the Assembly in the Estimates of Expenditure and arranged under the heads of expenditure shown on pares 35 and 36 of Command Paper 14 of 1963. Once the Appropriation Bill has been approved, I will be empowered to issue warrants authorising expenditure up to the amount under each head in the Appropriation Bill to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

2.34 p.m.

Dr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, during the course of the debate on the Budget Estimates, some surprising facts and statements of principle have come out. Yesterday the Minister for Culture claimed that once the People's Action Party was elected, its policy became national policy and therefore the Party in power could spend money as it liked for propaganda purposes using government machinery. Sir,I think that concept of democracy is not really parliamentary democracy but totalitarian democracy. Let mc explain, Sir. They were elected on the basis of 54 per cent of the votes. They have the right, as the majority Party in control of the Government, to pass on their views for the acceptance and obedience of the people. But they have no right to say that they therefore claim to represent 100 per cent of the people. If that is the policy accepted by the nation, in that case, there would have to be a national coalition. Then only you could say that those are the views of the nation and then you could implement it on behalf of the nation. But when it is only a majority Party in control, they can say they are doing it on behalf of the nation and on behalf of the people as a majority Party. But they cannot on that basis over-ride the rights of the Opposition, because if they do, then, I think, the concept has been wrongly described as parliamentary democracy. It should really be described as a totalitarian democracy.

Sir, it was for this reason that we said the Government machinery for propaganda like television and radio should be used in such a way that there could be a division. People could say, well, this is being done by the Party in power for the Government. That is all right. But when they are doing it in the interests of the Party preparing for an election, the people are not deceived. There has been confusion here. When I asked the Prime Minister whether he was going round as the Prime Minister or the Secretary-General of the People's Action Party, he said that he considered it right to use the opportunity to attack another political Party. Sir,I think that principle is not the principle that could be applied to parliamentary democracy.

Another thing that came out is this. We are not defending the rights of the United People's Party. But we have heard in this Chamber the possible cancellation of the symbol of the United People's Party ---

Mr Speaker: Order. We are now on the Appropriation Bill and Standing Order 88, paragraph (2) says:

`the debate., shall be confined to the general principles of Government policy and administration as indicated in the Bill.'

That, of course, means as indicated in the contents of the Bill, which, in fact, repeats the contents of the Estimates. It must be on general lines and not on particular lines.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Sir, I am talking in reference to the item in the Estimates involving expenditure for elections, and so on.

In the course of the debate, Sir, the principle was interpreted in such a way that we on the Opposition side feel that it would be wrong for the Government to get the vote, to get an election on the basis of fair play to be done in such a way that a symbol that has been recognised all these months is in danger of being cancelled.

Mr Speaker: Order. That is a matter of detail which has been and should have been debated and was debated in the Estimates. It is a matter of detail. Let us go on general principles.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: The other point is this. We are voting money for the Government to spend for the remaining half of the year. We hope this will not be their aim: of increasing the surplus in the Government Treasury at the end of the year. We hope that is quite clear and that the Government will make sure that the money will be spent, because if at the end of the year again they report a big surplus, then we think there has been under-expenditure at the expense of the people's welfare or that too much money has been extracted from the people which would mean that there should be more relief or that there should have been more money spent.

For instance, Sir, in the Education Ministry, time and again the Minister has said that he could not do this or do that because there was no money in the Treasury and ---

The Minister for Education (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): I never said that.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: --- there must be strict economy; a deficit was being faced. The result is that the schools are understaffed, whereas if they could spend more money there would be more employment. Therefore, Sir, we trust that knowing there are big reserves, the Government would use the chance to engage more teachers and provide more employment.

Sir, money is an important weapon and the Party in power during election time has an advantage. We only hope that the money will be used fairly for the people without unfairness to the other Parties during and before an election.

2.41 p.m.

Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): Mr Speaker, Sir, the 1963 Budget is a part of the Four-Year Plan and dove-tails into the P.A.P.'s Four-Year Economic Plan for the betterment of Singapore. But when we come to the Appropriation Bill today, we are being asked to vote for a further supply of $373 million. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is little doubt in the minds of the people that the P.A.P. Government is making full use of public funds for party purposes. By denying it, the Government has made matters worse by creating more doubts in the minds of the people.

The Prime Minister believes that by propaganda alone his Government can deceive us. No, Sir. There must be something to "propaganda" about, and for that, the Government has little to advertise. Making empty Press statements, hurling abuses and cynical remarks at Opposition Members could not help the P.A.P. very much. Last-minute dressings by any government could not help to save that government from collapse. It is now widely known that elections are coming as prophesied by our Party organ, Bersatu, more than two weeks ago. If the Singapore Government can have its way, elections may be held in July, anyhow before 31st August, 1963. After that date elections to the Federal States will come under the control of the Federation Elections Commission. Sir, last-minute dressings as what the P.A.P. Government is doing now in its rural visits, its so-called rural development programme, are nothing but to capture the votes in exactly the same way as the Lim Yew Hock Government did during its last months of office. The people cannot be deceived by all these electioneering stunts. The people now do not believe what the P.A.P. Government says. See what happens to the Four-Year Plan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope you will pardon me if I dwell a little bit more in detail on the Four-Year Plan. Because the Four-Year Plan is the most ---

Mr Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member goes into detail into this Four-Year Development Plan, then he will be in danger of going out of order because we are not dealing with the Development Estimates. We are dealing now with the Appropriation Bill which takes in the Ordinary Estimates for 1963. There is nothing to prevent him, of course, from just touching on the Development Plan.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker. Sir, I will only dwell on the Four-Year Plan as it affects the 1963 Budget. You see. Sir, the 1963 Budget is only part and parcel of the Four-Year Plan. And unless I gloss over it, I will not go into cents. I will go into tens of millions of dollars of development projects. Unless I touch on the Development Plan, I am unable to explain or to give my views on the Appropriation Bill today.

The Four-Year Plan is the most important document ever prepared and submitted by the P.A.P. to the Assembly and to the people. The people knew it was a bluff. But that is another matter. Having promised the people, it is its bounden duty to carry out its election promise. The Four-Year Plan promises us a radical transformation in our economy, a new life to the people, a ray of hope to many of the unemployed. The Government said that it is an attainable plan. Then why was the Four-Year Plan not accomplished? What went wrong? Where are the scapegoats?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will just dwell on the few important projects of the Four-Year Plan. When I pass through it, I am basing it on things which I know, as I could not get any information from elsewhere. In other countries when the Government has a plan, what it does is to submit regular progress reports to the people on details of targets under-fulfilled and over-fulfilled. That is what I was doing when I was in the City Council. The P.A.P. Four-Year Plan gives us a new vision of a new Singapore, albeit it was a false and deceptive vision.

$871 million was to be used to achieve the target. By the end of 1963 $650 million should have been spent. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will only comment on the major item of the plan. We can knock out $270 million earmarked for 1964 because it will not be spent, for two reasons. Firstly, the P.A.P. Government, even if it wants to, cannot last till 1964. One obvious reason is that more chaps will follow the example of the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, and more so after 31st August when the P.A.P. has no more control of the Special Branch and the C.I.D. Again, once Malaysia is pushed through, the PAP, which is neither Left nor Right but capable of placing the Communists and the British at the same time - and, Mr Speaker, Sir,I was told an iguana has two tongues - will be scratched out from the political arena despite their great ambition of a free middle school education system which will be used as a propaganda weapon 10 win support in the Federation and the Borneo territories through their new proposed powerful short-wave radio transmitters. Of course, Sir, a P.A.P. Prime Minister of Malaysia is only a conceited fancy - a dream. The P.A.P should be happy if in the next elections they are returned with just a few seats to keep the P.A.P. flag flying.

Sir, the second reason why the money earmarked under the Four-Year Plan for 1964 would not be spent is that the P.A.P. Government has, I believe, stopped all new construction projects.

The Four-Year Plan groups various development projects under various headings. First of all, their scheme of land and agricultural developments. Four thousand acres of swamp land are to be reclaimed costing $4 million. Sir, as far as I know, this project has been a complete failure.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Completed already!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, only a small Sungei Poyang project. $11.8 million is to be spent on alleviating flood problem in four areas, namely, Geylang, Sungei Ulu Pandan and the Singapore River, Bukit Timah and Bedok. As far as I know, none of the projects has been started and completed. By 1963 the Government promise to build $20 million worth of rural roads, bridges, markets, amenities, electricity and water, drainage and other rural development. I do not know how much has been spent, but I think it is only a small fraction.

Then their scheme for industrial development. The Economic Development Board has been set up to take the place of the Labour Front's Industrial Promotion Board, The difference is only in the change of names. Time and energy was wasted to draft and pass the legislation of the new Board. When the P.A.P. want to do something, they always want a new name so that others or predecessors cannot share any credit. This inability to think and act big has cost them a heavy price. The people are only interested in seeing new factories coming up, which means more jobs. The P.A.P. can set up 100 Economic Development Boards with fat salaries for sycophants and time-servers, but what for? What benefit do the people get? The Government intends to spend nearly $140 million by the end of 1963. which this Budget covers, on the various industrial projects. But, Sir, if you go to Jurong - and this is after four years of P.A.P. bungling - where are the factories? The P.A.P. used to condemn the. Labour Front Government for inefficiency, but I think the present P.A.P. Government is worse. Can the P.A.P. boast that there are less people unemployed now than in 1959?

Mr Speaker, Sir, $100 million has been earmarked by 1963, by the end of this Budget, for the expansion of our water supply, power stations and gas works. $100 million! The P.A.P. grandiose scheme of building five projects to augment our water supply has been a complete flop. The Minister for Finance wants to use me as a scapegoat. He puts the blame on me, I was Minister in charge of water supply for only three months, and I was told that the Prime Minister wants to take over the City Council. He thinks he can run it better. He has four years to himself. Why should he blame me? He has four full years with a Deputy Secretary, with special duties, to assist him. And, Sir, this Four-Year Plan was presented to the people in 1961 when I was no more in the Government.,when the Prime Minister had more than one and a half years of experience in running the Water Department, and when he knew that the Johore water agreement had not yet been signed. But based on all this knowledge, we are promised in the Four-Year Plan the Johore River Scheme and four other projects. None has been completed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, $55 million has been earmarked by the end of 1963 for the extension of electricity. I think the amount spent is very little. There has also been little expansion in the gas works where nearly $9 million has been earmarked. Under the main heading of economic development, under the $92 million ---

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of order.

Mr Speaker: Point of order? Yes.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: These are all the details of the Development Estimates, and I say this is completely out of order.

Mr Speaker: I have been watching the speech very carefully. At the moment, the Member for Hong Lim has touched on the fringe of the Development Plan. I have indicated that the debate must go on general principles. These items can only be mentioned in passing.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, another $92 million has been earmarked for the development of transport and communications. There will be major improvements in the Singapore River costing $7.7 million. We are promised this. What has happened? Nothing. Nearly $21 million for roads ---

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of order.

Mr Speaker: Point of order.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: He is not touching on the principles of the Ordinary Estimates, but he is going into the details of the performance of the Four-Year Plan and the Development Estimates. I say that if any Member wants to do that, if he intends to bring up these extraneous matters, he should give due notice to the House so that the Government can come fully prepared to answer all his allegations which are completely baseless.

Mr Speaker: I think I had better draw the attention of the Minister and `Members to the Standing Orders again:

`The debate shall be confined to the general principles of Government policy and administration.'

It is very difficult, I must admit, to draw a line somewhere, and perhaps the Member for Hong Lim is now touching on the fringe of what he alleges are failures in the Government administration. I am watching him very carefully. I cannot say he is completely out of order yet.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I assure you of my best co-operation. I have read the, relevant Standing Orders and I am doing my best to confine myself to the Standing Orders.

Nearly $21 million for roads. How much has been spent? It is only a small fraction. $13 million for drains and bridges. Little has been done. The rest of the $92 million on wharf development, telecommunications, post office and telephone facilities. With the P.A.P. not boasting about their achievements in all those fields, we can safely assume that the answer is no.

Sir, $11 million has been earmarked for district hospitals and other hospital facilities. I think not much has been done. The Government promised ---

Mr Speaker: Order. I think that possibly the Minister for Finance is more correct than I thought he was. If the Member for Hong Lim carried on in this strain, then we will have to go right back to the debate on the Development Estimates which has been held and on the Ordinary Estimates. An allegation that $11 million has not been spent, just like that, has been mentioned, 1 think, when we debated the Development Estimates and the Estimates for 1963. If I were to allow that in this debate, we would have every Minister standing up and possibly refuting the vague allegations which have been made. I think from now on we must confine ourselves to the general principles and not details.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker. Sir, there are two items in the Four-Year Plan which were successfully completed. They are housing and community centres. On housing, it was successful because I gave the policy on 21st February, 1959. I prepared the organisation and gave the plan. On community centres it is because they are necessary substitutes for P.A.P. branches and P.A.P. cultural and educational ---

Mr Speaker: Order. That is not general policy. Now we are going on to the community centres. We have dealt with community centres ad nauseam when we debated the 1963 Estimates. Let us have general principles of what the plans were of the Government in so far us the welfare of the people is concerned, and so on and so forth.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, we have seen after four years of performance by the P.A.P. Government that they do not have the interest of the people at heart Because of the way the P.A.P. Government have been deceiving the people, their twists and turns, we have no more confidence in them any more. The Four-Year Plan was, only another electioneering device. History has proved that it is nothing but a piece of cunning propaganda.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as we come to the last limb of the P.A.P. Government, we want to ask, what other ruses can the P.A.P. Government think of to keep themselves in power? They want so many millions of dollars from us; giving more money to the Harbour Board workers at the last minute after four long years of waiting with a view to ---

Mr Speaker: Order. That is not general policy. That is a matter of detail. And if there was a grievance, the hon. Member for Hong Lim should have brought it up when we dealt with the Estimates.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, no development project. Nothing the P.A.P. is doing now can save it from destruction. Even getting police informers, pimps and gangsters to make statements on political rivals and detaining them under section 55, locking up political opponents under the P.P.S.O. ---

Mr Speaker: Order. Again the hon. Member is touching on details. Those were grievances which were aired in the Committee of Supply. That is the place to air grievances in detail, not in an open meeting when we are debating the Appropriation Bill dealing with general principles.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think this Budget has not been well prepared. On some items, I think what the Government requires is a bigger vote. For instance, community centres, the Ministry of Culture, entertainment expenses of the Prime Minister. We do not require so big votes in some others because the Government is unable to spend them. It will also be another surplus. Therefore, this Budget has not been very well prepared. It is too late now for the P.A.P. to do anything. A further meeting with the "Plen" might help. But, Sir, could the Plen trust them any more? That, of course, will be left to history.

3.00 p.m.

Mr Ong Chang Sam (Choa Chu Kang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, this year is a year of the Confusing Musical Orchestra performing for the last time. This Budget for 1963, I think, is the last one of the P.A.P. There will not any more be a 1964 Budget prepared by the P.AP.

Taking this Appropriation Bill as a whole, we can see that in respect of social services, the vote asked for Is decreasing, and that public assistance given by the Social Welfare Department is also decreasing.

Mr Speaker: Order. That again is a grievance which should have been aired in Committee of Supply. If the vote was not sufficient, it should have been criticised on that ground. It is a detail which must be debated in Supply. We are now on the Appropriation Bill which deals with general principles. If the hon. Member thinks that generally the policy of the Government is wrong, in relation to the poor, then he can say so. But he cannot go into the figures and say that the Government has not supplied sufficient money for that purpose.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): All that I wish to say is that the Budget of the Government for this year is more concerned with the political future of the P.A.P. rather than the livelihood of the poor people. The whole Budget, therefore, is only prepared for the future of the P.A.P. and not for the future of the people of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, the economic policy of the Government has been a matter which the Government is always boasting about. The Government says that it is trying to create more and more employment opportunities, carrying out development plans and industrial projects. But we say that although the Jurong industrial project is being carried out. from the present performance of the Government, one will get the impression that the Government itself is not quite confident about this project.

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is going into details. The general policy of industrialisation can be debated but not in specific detail, The Member had the opportunity at the appropriate time - when we debated the Development Estimates and the Main Estimates. That was the time to debate details. Now we are on general principles - the general policy of industrialisation.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Minister for Finance talked about his financial surpluses every day, but we see that the Government is not investing its surpluses in the Jurong project. Instead it is making use of these surpluses for investment abroad. From this we can see that the Government itself has no confidence in the Jurong project.

In 1963, what do the people of Singapore get? I can say with certainty that what they should have paid by way of taxes has been collected, but what they should have enjoyed by way of privileges has been decreasing from time to time. The number of opportunities for employment is decreasing as more and more pupils leave school year by year. But the Government is unable to solve all these problems in 1963, and is unable to create more employment opportunities in 1963.

Mr Speaker, if at all the Minister for Finance wants to bring the livelihood of the people of Singapore to a higher level of security and stability, then he should have paid more attention in this Budget to the creation of more employment opportunities than to extending the propaganda of the P.A.P.

Mr Speaker, the reorganisation of the various Government departments was supposed to have taken place sometime during the last four years, but during the course of this period it has not been done with any satisfaction. That is why in this Budget before us, there are many, many points which are confusing and ambiguous. In 1959 ---

Mr Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Member will not go further on that track, because if there was confusion in the Budget, it should have been cleared, or at least the Member should have tried to clear that confusion in the Committee of Supply. We are now in open meeting debating the Appropriation Bill, and I must have a debate on some general principles. This business of wandering over the whole of the administration will not do with the Appropriation Bill. There must be some specific policy of the Government chosen and debated to the point.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I hope the Government will keep its promise and fulfil it in the course of this year, and also to carry out its merger proposals.

Mr Speaker, no matter what the Government tries to do to cover up or to pretend, we can see from the Budget for this year that the people will bury them at the right time.

Mr Speaker: Dr Goh, in reply.

3.08 p.m.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I do not propose to reply to the last speaker because I think what he says reflects the great dreams of an untutored, uncultured, ill-educated, and immature mind. But I think the Member for Tanglin and the Member for Hong Lim deserve some reply.

Sir, at the beginning of the proceedings of the financial Estimates, I had great hopes when the Member for Tanglin was going on from one phase of understanding to a higher phase of understanding. He acknowledged the Government is now on the right track. He thought we had changed. But we thought we were on the right track all the time, that he had advanced in political knowledge to get the truth. Now I am afraid he has somewhat reverted. Retrogression has set in in a matter of a few days. Mr Speaker, Sir ---

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): Too many late nights.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: --- possibly as a result of undue strain. His main point is this, if I got him right and I am trying to get him right: he objected to our policy, particularly to the monies that are allocated to the Ministry of Culture, because he says that it is wrong of the Minister for Culture to claim that what he is propagating through the mass media is national policy. He still maintains that the propaganda that is carried out by the Minister for Culture is propaganda in the interests of the Party. He does not accept that if a Government is elected to a particular policy and during its term of office it tries to get the policy understood and accepted on a larger scale of the electorate; he says that is still not national policy. I have a feeling that if I were to try to debate this point at length, we should really be quibbling over the meaning of words - what is "national", what is "Party", what is "in the interests of the Party", and so on and so forth. But I thought that my colleague, the Minister for Culture, did make it clear that there are certain basic and fundamental objectives on which we were elected: (1) merger with the Federation of Malaya. I think even the Member for Tanglin will accept that reunification with the Federation of Malaya is a national policy, in the sense that all Parties accept that - there are differences of opinion on the details of merger - but certainly that will be accepted. Then, Sir, we stated that it is our objective to improve the living conditions of our population, particularly the working class as far as the restricted economic situation allows. We build houses, schools, roads, and other services for them. And I think it is quite legitimate that the achievements of the Government in this respect - fulfilment of its election promises - should be given publicity. Whether we call it "national" or he calls it "Party", we can differ as to the tag we put on it, but I think he will accept it as legitimate.

So apart from these two objectives, the third, of course, is the great objective of nation building - getting people of different races, different religions, different cultures to see eye to eye with one another, to give and take and to work towards an integrated Malayan or Malaysian culture of the future; I think that he would accept as legitimate, and is not in the interests of either the P.A.P. or the S.P.A. or the Barisan Sosialis.

As far as I can see, these are the three important classes of propaganda emanating from the Ministry of Culture. Apart from these, I think there is hardly any other. I will show you. These three categories would have exhausted all the activities. Therefore, to say that we were using the instruments of State for the interests of the Party, I somehow feel that it is an uncharitable interpretation, quite unworthy of the Member for Tanglin in his now progressive frame of mind. I am sure he will agree with me. However, he says no, Sir, but obviously I have not exhausted ---

Dr Thio Chan Bee: On a point of elucidation, Sir.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Yes, certainly.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: What I was trying to stress, Sir, was not the objecting. The objecting is "national", where we all Parties agree supplying jobs to the people and so on. But the way it is done and the "how" it is done - the use of community centres and so on - is for party purposes, Sir. That I say is wrong.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, the community centres are for the use of the people in the area. We give them certain amenities.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Controlled by the P.A.P.

Mr Speaker: Order. I hope the Minister will not be tempted to go into a debate in detail. At the moment, the Minister is quite correct. We are on general policy. Let us not deviate and go into detail in spite of the temptation afforded by the Member for Tanglin.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I think we have flogged this particular horse to death in the Committee of Estimates.

Sir, the Member for Hong Lim raced on to a detailed recital of the performance of the Four-Year Plan. Obviously, the object is not to inform the House of the truth but to get as much of his scripts in the newspapers before he is hauled up under Standing Orders to disparage and denigrate the performance of the Government. He says that we have little to show in our four years of office.

Sir, is he a man in his right senses, or is he a man not in his right senses? Every month now, between ---

Mr Ong Eng Guan: On a point of order, Sir. Mr Speaker. Sir,I can assure you that I am in my right senses. I remember in the Commission of Inquiry he got his medical superintendent ---

Mr Speaker: Order. I take it that the hon. Member is rising on a point of order because he alleges that the phrases used by the Minister for Finance are offensive. If that is so, then I ask the Minister to withdraw those phrases alleging that the Member for Hong Lim is out of his mind.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: It is not at all intended to be offensive, Mr Speaker, Sir, because I am really puzzled that any man in possession of his rational faculties can come to the same conclusion of the Member for Hong Lim. Therefore ---

Mr Speaker: Order. My duty here as Speaker is to see that nothing offensive is said. Offence has been taken, and I ask the Minister to withdraw those expressions which have caused offence. Let us get on with the debate.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Then I must withdraw. The Member for Hong Lim on this occasion has shown a delicacy of skin which is not ---

Mr Speaker: Order. A withdrawal must not be embellished and must not be conditional.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Now, Sir. 1,200 houses a month is no mean performance. Jurong is pressing on. But the hon. Member says that he has not seen factories there. That is an obvious untruth. We are very familiar with untruths whenever we have to deal with what the Member for Hong Lim says. The power station is carrying on: the loans are in the pocket: the airport runway is being extended: the airport terminal building will he completed in a few months' time; one school is being completed every three weeks; T.V. is now an established service in Singapore, and a second channel will be set up soon - all this to the great consternation indignation and demoralisation of the Barisan Opposition.

So to say we have little to show is obviously a point unworthy of consideration.

Now the second untruth, he says, is that the Economic Development Board is exactly the same as the Industrial Promotion Board, and that the only difference is that a new Ordinance has been passed by this Assembly, but that except for the parts of the Ordinance and the difference in name, it is exactly the same. Sir, in my Budget statement, I went to great lengths to explain that this is now a new and powerful agency of the Government to promote industrial growth, that it has now no less than six international experts in various lines as well as more than 30 local experts. The results of their endeavours are becoming more and more apparent day by day. As I have said, the work of the Economic Development Board is showing results which are apparent day by day. In fact, now when a new factory or a major industrial venture is established, it no longer hits the headlines. For instance, in the Malay Mail of two days ago, there was a small paragraph tucked somewhere to say that an oil refinery was to be set up in Jurong. On another page, there was another small item to say that a new pipe factory was to be set up in Jurong and that the first polyvineal chloride pipe factory in Singapore was to be set up this year with a 30-ton output. Then there was a reference to five more secondary technical schools to be set up.

The Opposition Members have maintained that there has been no improvement in the economic situation. In fact, some of them say there has been a deterioration. For example, at page 10 of the Malay Mail dated 13th June - two days ago - we have the views of an international expert - one of the United Nations experts - who was here in 1960 and who has come back here again. I think the views of an international expert - completely disinterested, unbiased in Singapore carry more weight than the views of certain Members of the Opposition. He said that Singapore's economic position had shown considerable improvement since his first visit to the State in 1960. And he said. "Today, I see that employment is going up." Now there are other references in the newspaper, and if you will allow me some time to get to the right page, I think it will he here. Well, I have not got the actual date. I think it might be here. Anyway. I am not going to waste the time of the House in going through the papers because the items are all tucked away, as I have said in odd corners. But I remember distinctly that on the day I delivered my Budget speech, there was a reference to no less than six industrial projects that are due to go up in Singapore this year. One was the oil refinery, there were three major factories to be established by a group of industrialists from Formosa - a plywood factory, a chemical plant and a plastics plant; three factories which will give employment to 900 persons. There were also references to some other industrial ventures.

Sir, all these are the direct results of the efforts of the Economic Development Board, and to dismiss their activities as being of no account either shows a state of mind that refuses to acknowledge the truth, or betrays a colossal ignorance of what is really going on in the State today of the enormous progress that we have made in the last 18 months.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker: Third Reading. Mr Minister.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.