ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [28th November, 1963], "That the Assembly approves the financial policy of the Government for the year 1964.".-[The Minister for Finance].

Question again proposed.

2.50 p.m.

Mr Kow Kee Seng (Paya Lebar): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to give my views on the Budget statement of the Minister for Finance. We note that this year's Budget statement, like those of previous years, is yet another piece of P.A.P. propaganda. Because of Malaysia and Indonesian confrontation, there appears to be a more realistic note this time. At least the P.A.P. admits that confrontation sets back Singapore's progress by two years and that trade severance will have important and far-reaching effects on Singapore's economy. Nevertheless, the P.A.P. makes claims on Singapore being in a strong financial position and predicts that the future, notwithstanding confrontation, holds great promise and opportunity for the people and that achievements in the next four years should exceed those of the last four years. I think the Finance Minister must be saying this with his tongue in his cheek. He knows the serious crisis facing Singapore. Yet he tries to minimise the far-reaching effects of confrontation - I quote the Finance Minister's own words - by injecting an unjustifiable note of over-confidence in the Budget statement. What are the P.A.P.'s reasons for this apparent confidence? Because, says the Minister, the gross domestic product for national income has increased by 26 per cent and the per capita national income has increased by 15 per cent from 1959 to 1962. He further claims that "most of the growth occurred in the years 1961 and 1962 since the implementation of the State's Development Plan". Let us ask: how has this increase in national income helped to raise the standard of living of the poor? And how has this helped to solve the pressing unemployment problem in the State of Singapore? The P.A.P. boasts of its achievements in housing and in industrialisation, and many people are given the impression by one-sided P.A.P. propaganda that there is a phenomenal economic growth and development in the country. What are the facts? Going by the figures given by the Minister, we can immediately see that there is gross under-expenditure in land, agricultural development, transport and communications, and social development. Indeed much of the surplus funds accumulated over the last few years have been due to gross under-expenditure, inefficiency, and incompetence of the P.A.P. Government. And however much the P.A.P. may like to crow over its so-called achievements, it will not be able to hide the fact that certain essential services in Singapore have been grossly neglected. I will come to them by and by.

This is the first Budget under neo-colonialist Malaysia, and today all in Singapore can see the great inequalities and injustices that have been done to Singapore under the P.A.P.'s merger terms. Originally a lump sum of $78 million was to be given to the Federation for Federal services in Singapore. Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister, told the people that Singapore must have control over finance. Now control is firmly in the hands of the Central Government and, in addition, we pay 40 per cent of our national revenue to the Federation. This 40 per cent works out to $117 million according to the 1964 Budget. We have to pay for Federal development projects in Singapore, and the sum amounts to $9.5 million. We also have to pay for the running of the departments that are controlled by the Central Government, viz., the departments of Customs and Inland Revenue, Broadcasting, etc. The amount involved is not easily worked out, but it is probably in the region of $15 million. If we add $117 million to $9.5 million and $15 million, the total comes to $141.5 million. If we further add to this total, the $30 million that we give, the so-called loan to the Federation for the so-called development of the Borneo territories, then we find that we are giving to the Federation $171.5 million next year. This is the price Singapore has to pay as a result of the P.A.P.'s merger and Malaysia. Money which is today vitally needed for the relief of the sufferings and hardships that have been brought to the people of Singapore by Malaysia, is all given away.

What causes the Indonesian confrontation? However the Minister may care to interpret why Indonesian confrontation has come about, he will not be able to deny the fact that without Malaysia there would not have been Indonesian confrontation. It is clear, therefore, that it is Malaysia that has caused this confrontation. The Finance Minister has given an account of the far-reaching effects of confrontation on Singapore. According to him, we have already lost the earnings of our import and export trade with Indonesia which, in 1962, amounted to a total of $209 million and which works out to about 8.7 per cent of our national income for that year. Some 8,200 workers are also directly affected. But the Minister is under-assessing the gravity of the situation. The situation is much more serious than that. Malaya's trade with Indonesia amounted to $1,325 million in 1962. Of this Singapore's share was $1,100 million, viz., more than 80 per cent. This $1,100 million also works out to about 16 to 20 per cent of the total trade of Singapore. Mr Speaker, the mere withdrawal from circulation of a few million dollars following the pay-cuts imposed on the civil servants by the P.A.P in 1959 had a great depressing effect on the economy of Singapore. Now the loss of $209 million earnings - and this is an under-assessment of the loss - will most certainly affect very severely the economy of Singapore. We can say that practically every person in Singapore will be affected directly or indirectly. For instance, the textile business is 60 to 70 per cent down, the general provisions business is 30 to 50 per cent down, and even banks that have nothing to do with Indonesian trade complain of a 30 to 40 per cent drop in business. The import and export business is at a standstill and trade in general is fast slowing down. Those most directly affected as a result of Malaysia and confrontation are, of course, industries connected with shipping, rubber, coconut oil, sago, coffee, rattan, pepper and timber. Not only is it a loss of business and trade for Singapore, but what is more important is that there is a greater loss of jobs and livelihood for thousands and thousands of workers in Singapore. The Minister mentioned the figure of 10,800. Any man in the street will be able to tell the Minister that the number is easily many times that. Moreover, there is no estimate of the actual number of those affected who are in partial or irregular employment and who are on contract labour. Waterfront workers, boat transport, taxis, hawkers and small businessmen, all are similarly affected. Ships lie idle in the harbour and even now our fishermen cannot go out to sea with safety. Mr Speaker, in addition, certain essential foodstuffs like sugar, coffee, fish have gone up in price. This already means a small rise in the cost of living, which in turn means extra burden and extra hardships for workers who are already finding it difficult to make both ends meet. Confrontation, therefore, is having a terrible effect on Singapore. Even Singapore's trade with other areas like Hong Kong and Bangkok is indirectly affected.

We are glad indeed that the Government has made provision for economic defence to help the tens of thousands who have been hard hit by Malaysia and confrontation. The Government has suggested that a worker who is laid off as a result of the closure of his factory is to receive six months' income at two-thirds his normal earnings. This is a commendable move. But we must warn the Government that the amount provided for economic defence is completely inadequate. Only $1 million per month will not be able to help many people. Moreover, there are many loopholes in the scheme which work to the disadvantage of the workers. Certain employers have already shown that they merely intend to give lip service support to the scheme. For instance, certain categories of workers, like water transport workers and the so-called temporary workers, are not included in the scheme. And certain employers and contractors do not give true reports to the Government. They reduce the workers' normal earnings to the lowest possible average for computation of relief. We would say that a period of six months for the grant of relief is too short. What happens after six months? Or what happens when the employers say that they are not in a position to help further? Moreover, the proposal that all reliefs paid during the six months by the employers will be taken into account in respect of obligations under the law when the final payment is made to workers for closure of business after six months is grossly unfair to the workers, it amounts to no relief being given at all during the six-month period from the Government and the employers. We would urge the Government to study the memoranda submitted by workers and their unions carefully. Their hardships are real. Whether Government gives a subsidy or reduction in rent, light and water charges for workers affected as a result of Malaysia and confrontation must be given serious consideration. We further urge the Government in matters concerning the workers' welfare to consult all workers' unions irrespective of whether or not they support the P.A.P. and not only the National Trade Union Congress. It is the duty and responsibility of the Government to help all workers. The direction of employment can be of help if there is much alternative employment to go to. But the multiplier economic effect is such that all other spheres of employment will be bound to be affected. Confrontation affects mainly the local business. It is correct, therefore, that local businessmen be given all assistance by the Government. The giving of active encouragement and assistance to the local businessmen is what, in fact, the Government should have done long ago. The industrialisation programme of the P.A.P. has benefited only the foreign capitalists. We understand that about 70 per cent of the capital so far invested in the pioneer industries has come from foreign capital. Instead of wooing British, Japanese, Australian and American capital, the P.A.P. should instead make strenuous efforts to help local capital. But the prospect of industrialisation is not bright. With Indonesian confrontation, a huge market of 100 million is lost to Singapore. Without the large Indonesian market, no big industry can succeed in Singapore. Already the new flour mill, so I hear, is only working at one-quarter capacity because of confrontation. How is industrialisation to succeed under such circumstances? Moreover, Indonesia is opening free ports and free zones in Sumatra to take away the entrepot trade of Singapore. She is now also trading direct with Western countries. The P.A.P.'s threat to close our market to countries that deal direct with Indonesia instead of through Singapore will only mean the deprivation of more workers of their livelihood. It is like cutting one's nose to spite one's face. [Laughter] Mr Speaker, Sir, now we are talking about the hardships and the difficulties experienced by the people of Singapore. Yet the Ministers there are laughing.[Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): So all the proposals put forward by the Government are only palliatives. Some can do more harm than good. The only way to solve the present economic crisis is to get to the root of the problem, namely, to negotiate immediately with the Indonesian Government to resolve all existing differences. Calling Indonesia "hungerland", "blunderland" and "plunderland"; shouting jingoism and the expansion of the armed forces and rousing the people with so-called patriotic rallies and further increasing the tension in the area by registration and mobilisation - all this will not resolve the basic problem facing the people of Malaya and Singapore and Penang in particular today. The only way is friendly negotiation with the Indonesian Government, and that is why we moved the amendment to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech two days ago.

1963 being the year in which feverish preparations were made by the P.A.P. for a snap general election, it is not surprising that there is a steep rise in Government expenditure for the year. But in spite of the steep rise in expenditure of $60 million in 1963 as against 1962 largely on Police and television, all for the use of repression and P.A.P. propaganda, there is still a surplus of $47 million plus $9 million to the Federation, amounting to $56 million. If we take away the $44 million of revenue collected in excess of estimates, there is still an under-expenditure of $12 million for the year 1963. If there had not been special expenditure on the building of stand-pipes, electric lights and roads to deceive the people that the P.A.P. was doing some good work during the Prime Minister's so-called constituency visits, which were in fact electioneering by the P.A.P. and using State funds for party purposes, there would have been greater under-expenditure in 1963. Year after year under-expenditure by the P.A.P. has contributed to an accumulation of sizable surpluses. We should now put this surplus to good use in Singapore. The Minister has budgeted for a surplus for 1964. Of course, the Budget was based on the normal year of 1963. However, 1963 is not a normal year. The loss of trade in the last three and a half months of the year may well offset the major part of the profits and earning already made in the first eight and a half months of the year. Therefore, will the estimated revenue of 1964 come up to expectations? I am sure the Finance Minister knows that the estimated revenue in 1963 will fall short of expectations. In view of the need for extra expenditure as a result of Malaysia and confrontation, it is very unlikely that there will be any surplus again in 1964, unless Government underspends on development again. I have already spoken of the large chunk of our revenue which will be given away to the Federation in 1964 as a result of the Malaysia agreement. The sum given away amounts to nearly $171.5 million. The extent of the financial sell-out of the P.A.P. can now be seen by all. We can see also how much the 40 per cent national revenue means to Singapore. According to the 1964 Federal estimates for Singapore, the amount to be spent on Federal services in Singapore is estimated to be $78 million, but the 40 per cent national revenue which we give to the Federation amounts to $117 million. The difference between percentage payment and lump sum payment amounting to $117 million minus $78 million equals to $39 million - the extra which the Prime Minister has given away to the Federation! And for what - the expansion of the armed forces for the suppression of the people! This is what the perfidious P.A.P. has done with the money earned by the sweat and toil of our people. This means cutting a big slice of funds for expenditure in Singapore, especially funds for the use of development projects and social services.

The P.A.P. repeatedly boasts of its Four-Year Development Plan. We might as well find out what rates of performance the P.A.P. has really put up. In the matter of housing, the Government claims that it has broken the back of the housing shortage. I do not wish to repeat what has already been said on the subject in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. The so-called 119 per cent performance of the P.A.P. on housing is not 119 per cent on low-cost housing that is badly needed by the people of Singapore. If the rentals on housing units that are built are rentals which the people cannot afford, then they are of no use to the people. Take, for instance, the rehousing of fire victims. It is true that the unfortunate fire victims have been very promptly provided with housing flats. There are many such flats lying vacant because they are unsuitable and unwanted by many people though such people really need flats. Now these re-housed fire victims are wondering how they are to get the money to pay the high rentals charged. This is one of the many headaches of the re-housed fire victims. How does the Minister intend to remedy this state of affairs? The only solution is in building really low-cost houses and not expensive flats. We ask the Government to help the poor immediately by reducing the high rentals now charged by the Housing Board and to build only low-cost housing in future.

The Four-Year Plan on health states:

`The need for maintaining a high standard of health services is not purely based on a humane and civilized recognition of the values of human life nor is it purely a desire to alleviate human sufferings. It is also based on economic considerations.'

This is what the P.A.P. said. Where are the public dispensaries, the new hospitals, the new specialised departments and extensions to the hospitals? Why is the Medical Department permanently under-staffed? And why has there been this neglect in the public health of Singapore? The P.A.P. will not be able to deny that development in this field has fallen far behind schedule, to say nothing of keeping pace with the population growth. There is nothing for the P.A.P. to crow over in this sphere. The cholera epidemic is the direct result of P.A.P. incompetence and inefficiency. Page 77, section 7.81, 7.82 and 7.83 of the Four-Year Development Plan envisaged the construction of the Seletar dam and two service reservoirs together with the tapping of water from the Johore River and the Scudai River. Very regrettably much of this field is still in the planning stage. Meanwhile the people of Singapore have to suffer the inconvenience of ten hours of water rationing every day, which started from April this year. We doubt if the Government performance rate in this department even comes up to 54.4 per cent as claimed by the Minister. We ask the Government to start crash programmes to get water from the Scudai and Johore Rivers as quickly as possible. The people of Singapore have put up with water rationing long enough and their health is already dangerously affected. It is high time that the P.A.P. put in more work and play less politics. It is ridiculous that the people of Singapore should still be short of water supply when we are in the midst of torrential rains and floods. Yet this is another instance of poverty in the midst of plenty.

This brings me to the Development Plan on flood alleviation. This is the time of monsoon rains in Singapore and floods have already caused serious disruption to road communications especially along the main arterial roads in Singapore. After all the years of P.A.P. rule, what has been done in flood alleviation? According to the Minister, the Government has so far put up only 18.8 per cent performance. Therefore, the various schemes to alleviate floods in Bukit Timah, Queenstown, Alexandra, Orchard Road, Geylang and Toa Payoh seem to have been forgotten to all intents and purposes. Is this not another instance of P.A.P. neglect and incompetence? The swamp reclamation scheme is, of course, far behind schedule. Only nine per cent performance can be recorded. But what about rural development? According to Table III given by the Minister, there is a record of 97.5 per cent performance. However, that refers only to a sum of $1.64 million. The actual amount that should have been spent on rural development for the three years 1961 to 1963 according to Table 7.3 in page 66 of the Four-Year Development Plan should be $20 million. The P.A.P. has therefore put up only a rate of seven per cent performance in rural development. We urge the P.A.P. not to neglect the poor people in the rural areas. Promises were made to help raise the standard of living of the rural people, but they have not been kept. We hope more effort will be made in this direction in the future, not just a few rural tracks and standpipes, but complete electrification and extensions of pipe water supply to all the rural areas. In addition, genuine efforts must be made to help rural workers and farmers to fight poverty and exploitation.

In the matter of education, the Government is again far behind its schedule especially in vocational and technical education. I do not intend to say much on Nanyang University now, but it is clear to all that the Government is playing too much politics on the question of aid to Nanyang University. Singapore has the money. Therefore, let aid be immediately given to Nanyang University so that it may freely develop in accordance with the wishes of the people, The Government has, in fact, made promises to implement free secondary education in 1964. The Minister says that this has now to be postponed. Is it really because of the confrontation? There have been annual surpluses over the last few years and we have now $400 million in the kitty. What is holding the P.A.P. back? Was it merely an electioneering stunt to be forgotten after the elections have been won? Or could it be that the so-called postponement is again linked up with politics? Let the Finance Minister inform the House when the P.A.P. will implement its promise to give free secondary education to the people of Singapore.

Sir, I have touched on but a few of the dismal failures and poor performances of the P.A.P.; but as usual the P.A.P. blames the Communists for all its failures. Thus the failure to implement the scheme for flood alleviation and for the development of Toa Payoh is blamed on the obstruction put up by squatters who have been specially engineered and encouraged by pro-Communist elements. How ridiculous can the P.A.P. get? This is, of course, part of the P.A.P. tactics to pass the buck to other people whenever possible. It hopes thus to create the impression that the P.A.P. is all efficiency, all correctness and all competence. But such name-calling and passing the buck will not be able to deceive the people. Similarly, P.A.P. attempts to absolve itself from blame and to pass the buck to the Federation Government for all the sufferings and hardships in Singapore as a result of Malaysia and confrontation will not succeed. The people know that the P.A.P. has promoted Malaysia.

The P.A.P. has made provision for a so-called Youth Training Centre in the Budget for 1964. We tell the P.A.P. this: stop using State funds to train Party cadres for the building of a P.A.P. empire. The funds of the people must be put to use for the interests of the people as a whole. State funds must not be used for party purposes. Enough money is already spent on the so-called People's Association and the Work Brigade both of which are but State arms of the P.A.P. Let the money budgeted for this Youth Leadership Training Centre be used instead on the relief of workers who have been deprived of jobs as a result of P.A.P.'s promotion of Malaysia.

The P.A.P. has always boasted of its industrialisation programme. But unfortunately until today, there is still nothing much to show. Only 10 enterprises are in production or in an advanced stage of production, says the Minister. Is not this more or less the same as what the Finance Minister has been saying all these years?

But what of the employment opportunities for our rapidly growing population? How many jobs have been provided so far by all the P.A.P. industrial enterprises? The number of unemployed has not been given by the P.A.P. for quite some time. What is the actual unemployment figure in Singapore today? Can the P.A.P. deny that the unemployment problem is becoming more acute with each passing day? In 1959, the total of unemployed was 46,000. If the under-employed be also included, the total would have been much higher. Let us put the total of unemployed and under-employed at approximately 70,000 in 1959. 30,000 to 40,000 young men and women join the throng of job-seekers every year. In four years the total number of young men and women job-seekers must number at least 120,000. If we should take only the figure given in the Four-Year Development Plan it is still 52,000. Using only official figures the number of job-seekers will be 70,000 plus 52,000 equal to 122,000. And this does not include the migratory increase of a few thousand due to people moving into Singapore from the Federation every year. How many jobs have been provided by the 10 odd enterprises the Minister crows over? Has P.A.P. industrialisation scratched the surface of the unemployment problem so far? This fact alone should show how incompetent the P.A.P. is. The industrialisation of the P.A.P. is only to allow foreign capitalists to exploit the pioneer industry and tax holiday laws of the country to extract bigger profits from the people. Local capital has not been given its proper role in the P.A.P.'s scheme of things. Then what of investments of surplus funds overseas? In the previous years, the P.A.P. has been increasing investments overseas. The amount of surplus funds invested abroad amounted to $316 million in 1961. The 1962 figures are not yet available. Let the Minister tell us. But we are pretty sure that the amount invested abroad must have again been further increased. We ask the Government, get back the funds from abroad. We can put our own money to good use in Singapore.

We cannot pass by without mention of the increase in petrol duty of 10 cents per gallon that has already been imposed on the people. This is the beginning of harmonisation of duties with Malaysia which will ultimately cover duties on all items that are lightly taxed or free of tax today in Singapore. This extra duty of 10 cents on petrol will mean an increase of burden and hardship on the people of Singapore, especially now that that they are feeling more and more the effects of Malaysia and confrontation. It may be argued that the petrol duty is easily borne by those most able to bear it. But Government must not forget that those who run non-diesel taxis, lorries, fishing boats, motor-boats, etc., are also affected. Moreover, the amount of revenue obtainable by the tax is only $3.2 million out of which $1.3 million has to be given away to the Federation. The small extra revenue will not make much difference to the estimates. Is this extra tax absolutely necessary at the present time? Is there not a budget surplus already? Mr Speaker, Sir, today Singapore faces a grave economic crisis. All the rosy pictures of the P.A.P. will not hide the fact that more and more people are facing a bleak future as a result of Malaysia and the Indonesian confrontation. The propaganda lie of the P.A.P. that Malaysia brings stability and peace, happiness and prosperity is completely exposed. All can see now that instead of stability and peace, there is strife, tension and threat of war. Instead of happiness and prosperity, there is misery and sorrow. Extra burdens and extra taxes, loss of business and loss of employment. The P.A.P. may have high hopes of industrialisation, but until today P.A.P. industrialisation has not succeeded in providing jobs for the people. Nevertheless, it is imperative that we pursue industrialisation energetically. But a new difficulty has arisen - the loss of trade and the loss of a market of 100 million is bound to have adverse effects on industrialisation in Singapore.

To cushion the terrible effects of Malaysia and confrontation, we urge the Government to increase expenditure on public work projects and on public assistance to the thousands and thousands who have been deprived of their livelihood through no fault of their own. An expenditure of $1 million per month on assistance is definitely insufficient. The amount must be substantially increased. Aid must be given to every person generally affected, whether directly or indirectly, and not merely to certain categories of workers. The solution to our present economic crisis lies not in the wooing of U.S. or Australian or Italian capital or in the palliative measures suggested by the Government. It lies in persuading the Federation Government to get rid of all foreign influence and interference, stop all action that tends to increase tension and even provocation, stop all warlike preparations of registration and mobilisation, go to the conference table and negotiate with the Indonesian Government and resolve all existing differences between the two countries amicably and to our mutual benefit. Only thus will tension be dissolved and peace, happiness and prosperity guaranteed in South-East Asia.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Fong Kim Heng) in the Chair]

3.41 p.m.

The Minister for Social Affairs (Inche Othman Bin Wok): (In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, the estimates put forward by the P.A.P. Government for the year 1964 clearly show that we will continue to give priority to social services for the welfare and interests of the people of Singapore as a whole. The estimate of $204,301,070 which has been allocated in the Budget is the biggest sum, which is two-thirds of the whole estimate of $326,779,000. This proves that the Government is constantly giving prior attention to the interests of the people and giving them many facilities.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the estimates put up in this House have been put up after giving consideration to the effects of confrontation launched by Indonesia. I am confident that without confrontation the P.A.P. Government will definitely be able to allocate more sums of money for its social services in order to meet the needs of the people. Confrontation has been launched because of misunderstanding on the part of our neighbour - Indonesia - as a result of the stupidity of the anti-national and the Communist group, like the Barisan, which have spread false propaganda. They are adament in claiming that the people here are against Malaysia, whereas in point of fact we are all aware that in the referendum, which was held in a democratic manner, the people freely chose merger and Malaysia. Therefore, all the accusations that the P.A.P. Government was solely responsible for the hardships of the people and the workers in Singapore as a result of confrontation are unfounded and based on the stupidity and ignorance of the Barisan Sosialis Members. The blame should be put squarely on the Barisan Sosialis. They are guilty because the people are suffering as the result of confrontation. They claim that they are representing the people. In fact, they are the hirelings of the Communists and they have been used for subversive purposes to divide and split the people so that we will accept a new kind of colonialism. Mr Deputy Speaker, although we are faced with the effects of confrontation, we are not shirking our responsibility and duty. On the contrary, we will continue to strive to achieve our objectives to implement our programmes for the benefit of the people. It is our desire to make Singapore a peaceful and prosperous country where the multi-racial population can live in peace and harmony. It is also our objective to establish a more equal society where everyone can live in peace.

Mr Deputy Speaker, during the four years of P.A.P. Government, the social services have been intensified to cover all aspects. There are 17 creches where children between five and six years of age are given free education. These children come from poor families who cannot afford to send them to kindergarten classes for which they have to pay fees. In addition, there are creches where children up to five years of age are looked after when their parents go to work. Along with these services we have plans for the adoption of children who are orphans or who are faced with domestic difficulties. The decision is made to have adopted mothers and expenses will be borne by the Government. To accommodate juvenile delinquents, the Government has built two schools and two welfare homes. In addition, there is a department to look after their welfare when they have completed their studies. The boys from 5 to 19 years of age are given vocational education like auto-mechanics, carpentry, and others, to enable them to obtain jobs. With the passing of the Women's Charter, efforts to look after the women have been carried out. Now there are four welfare homes for girls including one home specially for Muslim women situated at Jalan Eunos. Just as for the boys, these girls are given similar training so that when they leave they can lead a new life in society.

Mr Deputy Speaker, our services are not only confined to youths and children but they also cover the aged. There are two homes for them. One is at Bushey Park for men and the other is at Woodstock for women. Every social welfare home is administered by the staff of the Social Welfare. The inmates are given training, and although they are old they can do useful work during their spare time. In addition, their health is well looked after. For their entertainment film shows are given every week. They are permitted to leave the home to visit their relatives. Television and radio sets are also provided, in addition to the services I have mentioned, the Department of Social Welfare also provides general services. These services have made Singapore the most advanced social State in South-East Asia. I believe there is no other country so realistic as to give aid to the poor and the unemployed as what we are doing in Singapore. Families of the poor who are eligible for aid receive $90 per month. The sum to be spent on relieving such families amounts to an average of $800,000 per month, or about $10 million per year. For those who are suffering from T.B., there is a special allowance totalling $180 for each family. Both these services over the years have confirmed the Government's policy to achieve its aim of a more equal society where the poor can live in peace and harmony.

Over the past four years our efforts to consolidate and expand the social services have been implemented and in the next five years the task of the P.A.P. Government is to further improve these social services. Now work on the construction of a further home for the aged is in progress. This home when completed next year will have complete equipment to accommodate 500 aged males, it is estimated that in the next five years the Government must have homes to accommodate between 5,000 and 8,000 aged, and plans to build several more homes for these people are still under consideration. For the children two further creches are being built in the Tanjong Pagar area and Anson Road. Plans are also being prepared to have a new welfare school for boys who, for the time being, are accommodated at Keppel Road Welfare Home. This school when completed will have an administration room, dormitory, classes, one workshop complete with equipment and quarters for the staff. Another two hostels for boys, each of which will accommodate 50, will be built. In these hostels the boys will be trained in vocational education to prepare them for jobs.

In addition to the social services for the poor, the P.A.P. Government also provides services for all. When we were in office in 1959 Singapore had only 24 community centres. Over the past four years the People's Association has built altogether 160 community centres, including those which were built in rural areas. These community centres, in addition to being places where the people can meet and exchange views and hold adult classes, also serve as places for inoculation of poultry and for paying licences. All these community centres are provided with radio and television sets, sports equipment, adult classes, film shows, and activities for the children. The latest facility provided in these centres are television sets where electricity is available. Mr Deputy Speaker, these community centres, in fact, provide various services for the entertainment of the people in addition to their acting as liaison with the Government. The People's Association, in conjunction with the Social Welfare Department, proposes to hold kindergarten classes in these community centres for children according to the proper methods, and not like those conducted by the Barisan Sosialis for the purpose of inculcating Communism into them. These community centres provide useful services to the people and will not be used for false propaganda as has been claimed by the Barisan Sosialis.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to say that under the P.A.P. Government development and rapid progress has been achieved in the field of social services. I would like to make a few brief remarks in connection with the fire services in Singapore. We have a Fire Brigade Department headed by a Chief Fire Officer. Our fire services are at par with the other fire services in South-East Asia. Our Central Fire Station is at Hill Street, with branches at Alexandra, Bukit Timah and Geylang. With the expansion of these services, it is necessary that the fire services be expanded to look after property. The building of two more fire stations will be planned at Toa Payoh and at the industrial site at Jurong. A difficult problem faces the fire services in putting out fires in kampongs where attap houses are built close together. A clear example was the fire which broke out from Lorong 5 to Lorong 9 in Geylang recently. The fire engines could not approach these areas where there are crowded attap houses. Therefore, all efforts to extinguish the fire were blocked. As a temporary measure to overcome this difficulty, the Auxiliary Fire Brigade has been established, There are now 70 voluntary fire units and they have done excellent services in fighting fires. The Fire Brigade also looks after the ambulance for accidents. There are 11 ambulances in the State. For this year, this service, which is looked after by more than 30 personnel, has answered more than 18,000 calls. The services of the Fire Brigade will be maintained.

Mr Deputy Speaker, just now a Member of the Barisan Sosialis claimed that the fire victims were not given proper treatment. He also claimed that the victims were neglected. I wish to say in this House that all fire victims have been offered Housing Board flats if they so desire. In order to enable them to pay rentals, each family is given up to a maximum of $35 per month or $7 per head per month. This is one of the aids given by the Government to those fire victims. In addition, these fire victims are given aid in the form of clothing and food whilst they are temporarily put up in relief centres before they accept the flats. Many of the fire victims are given low-cost flats, the rental of which is $20 per month. There is no country in South-East Asia which has given such a facility. I am happy to say that when the fire broke out in Lorongs 5 to 9, Geylang, we were able to give the fire victims housing flats within a short space of 24 hours. The spirit of co-operation can be clearly seen whenever there is a fire. People of all races work together and give all kinds of help and make contributions. This spirit of gotong royong will be maintained so that in future the people will not just be spectators on the projects which are meant for their benefit. On the contrary, they will work hand in hand with the Government. The Government looks after the people from birth until death. I wish to say that under the P.A.P. Government the progress which has been achieved in the field of social services has increased greatly. Our object, I reiterate, is for the welfare and benefit of the people so that they will have more faith in our Government. We will continue to pursue our efforts to achieve our social revolution. With these aims, it is easy for us to eliminate and isolate the Communists who claim that they alone can look after the interest of the people. As a socialist, democratic and non-Communist Government, it is our aim to make Singapore peaceful and prosperous and in which the multi-racial society can live together in happiness.

Mr Poh Ber Liak (Tampines): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance has spent a great deal of time to deliver his financial statement. I think everyone is anxious to know what repercussions this financial statement has on the people of Singapore. I am now airing some of the views of the people so as to enable the public to know the real state of affairs. In the eyes of the great majority of the people, the state of affairs is somewhat different from that as described by the P.A.P. Anyone who has made a careful study of this financial statement, if he is not over-awed by the statistics, will realise that our analysis of the question of Malaysia and the economics of the P.A.P. is correct. Therefore, it will be seen that those who accuse us of lying are twisting the facts. On the whole, the Budget statement has enabled the people to see that Malaysia has brought about greater difficulties and hardships on them. Inevitably the Budget statement has received a certain reaction from the people. The P.A.P. Government has also realised the evil consequences. All will be able to know that the people are meeting with more difficulties, more taxes and more hardships. Secondly, this Budget statement provides good material for educating the people to enable them to see through the P.A.P.'s Budget statement. The P.A.P. has made use of the Budget statement to fish money out of the pockets of the people in order to help the foreign capitalists.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to go into this Budget statement and its significance in detail. According to the Minister for Finance, in the first few months of this year there has been an economic expansion in Singapore. This is only a superficial phenomenon. We will look behind it and see the true picture. According to us, this superficial phenomenon does not really prove that the standard of living of the people has been raised. This is because it only shows the amount of money spent and the figures of trade - nothing else. It is also because all the money spent is derived from the people themselves. So whatever money the Government wants will have to be obtained from the people. This will reduce the amount of money in the possession of the people and cause them further hardship. This kind of economic control by the P.A.P. is adverse to all concerned. From the long-term view, this is detrimental to Singapore. But because the P.A.P. is anti the people and anti-worker in nature, it is engaged in this kind of policy. The national income has only increased a little in the last three years, in fact, by only 6 per cent. The population growth, however, is up by 9 per cent. In our society there are those who are very rich and those who are very poor. The poor people cannot have anything to eat. Most of them are living from hand to mouth. There is a great distinction between the two classes. There is no actual improvement in the living standard in our society. Everybody who is clear minded can see this. There are many poor people who live in the Minister for Finance's own constituency of Kreta Ayer who are living in pigeon-hole huts. We can also see this everywhere in Singapore. This is the result of the Government's so-called equal and fair economic policy. This is because the wealth is being shared by only a small minority of the people. Only those who cannot see the realities of the situation will be fooled by the P.A.P.'s economic statement.

With regard to the national income, we can judge it from another angle. I am pleased to see that the Finance Minister has not forgotten to remind us that from 1960 to 1961 the price of rubber has risen. But he has not told us that our national income has increased proportionally. As a result of the economic situation, I would like to tell the House about the structure of the national income. Singapore is engaged in entrepot trade. Therefore, it is dependent on trade with other countries. Our economy - our well-being and prosperity - is lined up with this. If other countries experience a prosperity in their economy, we will also experience the same thing. But when they have a depression, we will suffer as a consequence. We will have to bear the sufferings of others as well. From this we can see that our entrepot economy will subject our national income to a passive role and status. We should have a long-term policy on the national income and not just a temporary one which will fluctuate according to the economic circumstances in other countries. Today Malaysia, which has been imposed on the people of Singapore, has brought great suffering on them. It is because of Malaysia that the economy of Singapore has also suffered. We can see all this from the Budget statement.

Let me now talk about this in detail. According to the Malaysia Agreement, there are certain provisions regarding harmonisation in tariffs. Singapore will have to raise its taxes to the level prevailing in Malaya. This means that there will he higher taxes in Singapore. This will in turn mean that the cost of living in Singapore will be accordingly raised. For instance, when today $2 may be able to feed a family for one day, in future the $2 will not be enough to feed it for a whole day, because the prices of all essential goods will have risen. Whatever statistics you may produce, you cannot explain this away to the people. They can make their own calculations. They can also see clearly that this suffering has been brought about by the P.A.P. Government. In the Budget statement there is mention of an increase of petrol tax. But in future we can foresee more taxes on other things. The P.A.P., on the one hand, increases the petrol tax and, on the other hand, reduces the tax on entertainment in order to give the facade that the people have more benefits than taxes. The concessions in owner-occupied attap houses only affect a few people. Many people living in houses with zinc roofs in the rural areas will not be benefited. In the end, when there is a general increase in taxes and the cost of living goes up, the poor people will suffer. We agree with any policy that will bring about a better economic situation to benefit the majority. But the P.A.P., on the one hand, exercises an economic squeeze, and on the other hand, they ask people not to spend so much on certain things. They give the people something with one hand but they take away more from them with the other hand.

Malaysia has brought about difficulties to Singapore's entrepot trade. Singapore has all along been depending on entrepot trade with Indonesia. As a result, this trade now suffers. The losses are great. The effects of economic fluctuations are seen in a chain reaction, and other multiplyer effects will arise. The severance of trade will bring about long-term effects which are more serious than the P.A.P. have made out to be. But worse days brought about by Malaysia are to come. At present the losses are not too extensive but we can see that they are mounting. We can see a few things. Because of the severance of trade, Singapore has suffered a loss of $9 million, about 8.7 per cent according to the calculations by the Minister. About 8,200 workers will lose their jobs because of the loss of imports of agricultural and other products. The loss of about $209 million will mean that our loss of annual Budget expenditure will be about two-thirds per year. It will bring about a worse economic situation in Singapore and more people will be jobless.

According to the Minister's calculations, there are 8,200 who are out of job as a consequence of confrontation. But this is under-assessment. There are more workers who find it difficult to maintain their livelihood. These workers are mainly connected with processing in factories and other related trades. There are about tens of thousands including their families - very many more than the Minister's calculations. There are hawkers, workers and others indirectly affected. So the significance is more than what the Minister has made it out to be. There are tens of thousands of people thus affected by this chain reaction.

Everybody is concerned about the way the P.A.P. is resolving the present difficulties. Whenever the Government faces any economic difficulty, it will possibly adopt one of two methods, as follows:

(1) To sacrifice the interests of the majority in order to tide over the difficulties temporarily.

(2) To look after the interests of the majority in order to tide over the temporary difficulties.

Now, these two lines will clearly show which Government will be pro-people and which Government will be anti-people. Fundamentally the P.A.P. adopt the first method. The measures that they adopt will he only a palliative to alleviate the difficulties. The measures adopted by the P.A.P. Government have one characteristic. That is, they neglect the interests of the people. Firstly, the P.A.P. Government is an active promoter of Malaysia. Inevitably it will adopt a policy which will sacrifice the interests of the people; secondly, it is neglecting the interests of the taxpayers. The working class pay most of the taxes but they derive less benefits. They are the most neglected.

On the question of the Economic Defence Board, I want to point out that not very many workers will he protected by this Economic Defence Board and the protection they get will be very limited indeed and the period is very short. Those workers who are indirectly affected by the trade suspension will not be covered by this measure. The P.A.P. Government is like a stingy moneylender. When it gives out the dole, it will count the money by the cent, and it will not be able to give ample protection to the workers who become jobless. The P.A.P. Government seems to be generous to the small merchants - as though it has become a very generous and charitable ---

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed Al-Haj): (In Malay): I would like to ask the Member for Tampines whether he is making a speech or reading a speech?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Fong Kim Heng): I think the Member for Tampines is quite relevant in what he is saying. He may continue.

Mr Chia Thye Poh (Jurong): (In Mandarin): I doubt whether we have a sufficient quorum in this House at present.

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 Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): It seems that the P.A.P., from being a very stingy moneylender, has become a very charitable philanthropist. It talks about how to help the merchants transform capital into industrial capital. In spite of this, the P.A.P. Government will not be able to help those merchants affected to channel their capital into other fields. Before they start production they will still incur losses. Even if they are able to channel their capital into other fields, they will be denied a market of 100 million people in Indonesia. We the Barisan Sosialis are the true representatives of the people from all walks of life. Not only do we safeguard the interests of the workers, we also safeguard the interests of the farmers and our local capitalists --- [Interruption]

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Member for Tampines, I think, is still speaking on a relevant matter and he may proceed.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are a Party which will protect the national capitalists from the oppression of foreign monopoly capitalists. Therefore, only a Party which is opposed to foreign monopoly capitalists can protect the interests of local capitalists. In our present economic situation we demand that adequate protection be given to the local national capitalists. At the same time, we demand that the interests of the working class should be protected and looked after because they are the people who are the source of our national wealth. It is their labour and effort which fills our coffers. Any good government will have to make use of the revenue from the people on the people themselves. We are opposed to the P.A.P. attitude which is one of negligence towards the majority of the people.

We are not objecting to the transformation of commercial capital into industrial capital. On the contrary, we have many times stressed the importance of channelling our trade capital into industrial capital. And we have boldly pointed out that colonialism is the only obstacle which prevents our local commercial capital from investing in our industrialisation. But our local capitalists will have to face competition from foreign capitalists.

The Finance Minister spoke at great length on our Four-Year Development Plan. He boasted about the achievements of the P.A.P. He tried to accuse us by saying that what we have analysed was wrong. Today the P.A.P. are in a very difficult predicament. They are trying to make use of all the beautiful phrases to fool the people so as to disguise the fact that it is the P.A.P. that have brought misery and difficulty to the people and so that they will have some hope in the P.A.P.'s economic policy. But they will not succeed in their deception.

Today the gravest problem is still the unemployment problem. The people will know whether the P.A.P.'s policy will help them or not. The Four-Year Development Plan is not a comprehensive development plan. It only lays stress on capital build-up and the inducement of foreign capital for investment in Singapore. The Finance Minister is only interested in pleasing foreign capitalists and giving them ample protection at the expense of local capitalists. Under such circumstances the Four-Year Development Plan will not be beneficial to the people of Singapore. This Plan is designed to help foreign capitalists and to exploit our people with public funds. The real obstacle to economic expansion in Singapore is colonialism.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Mr Fong Sip Chee): Mr Deputy Speaker, I think according to the Standing Orders, Members may make reference to their notes. But in this case, I am afraid the Member for Tampines is making extensive references to his prepared speech.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I think the House is quite aware that this is only our State Assembly sitting and a number of Members are quite new here. Let us be a bit tolerant and allow the Member for Tampines to continue. But will the Member please try to refrain as much as possible from looking at his notes?

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): I do not find it necessary to argue with the Member opposite. Let me now continue with my speech. It is an example of their controlling the Press and suppressing publications. As long as colonial forces are in our land, we will not be able to build up an independent national economy. We must strive to build up an independent, free national economy. If a Party is not anti-colonialist, it will not be able to get rid of foreign economic influence. But now that the Malaysia Plan has been imposed on the people, it is another phase of neo-colonialism. British capitalists are in control of our economy, which under the P.A.P. is one that will only benefit foreign capitalists. We should have a national economy. The economic plans of the P.A.P. are in league with foreign capitalists. The local merchants are not being encouraged to be national capitalists but encouraged to be compradores and collaborators of foreign capitalists. Foreign capitalists and monopolists have intruded into our market, and our market has been dwindling, thus affecting our national income and the living standards of the people. The so-called success of the Four-Year Development Plan is nothing to be proud of.

4.40 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Poh Ber Liak: We can only see foreign capital in our land. There are many who, connected with it, are delighted with this. They shout about industrialisation, never realising that foreign investment has swallowed up local investment and local income. We should sigh at this type of economic plans of the Government. The present economic situation in Singapore and its effects on the people are just as one great poet in the Tang Dynasty had described - that there are foodstuffs in the granary of the rich but they rot due to over-storage; while, on the other hand, there are thousands dead on the road. Now, we are the representatives of the people. We should do things in the interests of the people and our economic plans should be those that will meet the majority of the people and our views should also be from this angle. I would like to remind the P.A.P. Government that every cent the P.A.P. get is from the pockets of the people. Take, for instance, our development plan. British investment forms the capital. British loans amount to $8.6 million and immovable assets amount to $15.3 million, and the surplus comes from the pockets of taxpayers. Everywhere in the world the situation is like this. The P.A.P. Government gets the money from the people and it is spent in the form of public loans.

The Minister for Finance in his statement told us that the Four-Year Development Plan is almost completed, and it amounts to 79 per cent success. If we include all those plans abandoned and increased, then we can see that the success only amounts to 30 per cent. Let us see the actual situation. In the Four-Year Development Plan the provisions are for economic development, $506.08 million, whereas actual expenditure is $306.43 million. It is only 60.5 per cent. Next is social development amounting to $351.75 million, whereas the actual expenditure is $200.4 million, which is 56.9 per cent. The third is public administration. The Plan provides $13.19 million, while the actual expenditure is $8.72 million, amounting to 66.1 per cent. The Finance Minister's success of 79 per cent is only a hope. The actual success is 60.5 per cent. If we want to examine the work of the Four-Year Development Plan, then we should compare the actual work accomplished and the money spent in relation to the provisions made therein. The Minister is trying to give the people the impression that almost the whole of the Four-Year Development Plan has been realised. In actual fact, the time limit has already passed and yet in certain projects only 2 per cent has been accomplished in relation to the Plan. Now what is there to brag about? The P.A.P. Government's intention is that after the end of the Four-Year Development Plan, it will be able to provide 40,000 jobs. But up till now how many jobs have been offered? Not a word was mentioned in the speech of the Minister about how many jobs are available. And yet he brags about the success of the Four-Year Development Plan! Why does he not want to talk about the percentage of the jobs available as a result of this Four-Year Development Plan? The P.A.P. Government blames the Communist bogey on the inability of the Four-Year Development Plan to materialise. Their intention is to sacrifice the interest of the majority of the people in order to benefit the foreign monopolists. That is why whatever they do is against the interest of the majority of the people. And it is only natural that they meet with opposition and criticism everywhere.

The Minister for Labour (Mr Jek Yeun Thong): I can see that the Member for Tampines is still reading his text. I do not object to his reading the text, but he is reading it very badly.

Mr Speaker: I have had occasion to rule, and the Deputy Speaker too has just ruled, that as the Assembly is only newly in session, we are prepared to allow Members to read. So I propose to allow him to proceed.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): The pretext of pro-Communism and the Communist bogey which has been used by the P.A.P. is merely to cover up their own failures. I would urge the P.A.P. to improve our economic situation and to encourage our national economic development.

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry - the Department of Broadcasting and Television - is spending a lot of time and money telling people that it is bad to throw rubbish about because it breeds flies and spreads disease. But during the last two days we have had the privilege of well-paid Assemblymen outside throwing rubbish in this Assembly. Whatever we heard yesterday, the day before yesterday and just now is a rehash of the speeches that have been made in this Assembly during the last two and a half years; we have had gentlemen reading out speeches. Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen who are no longer here have been repeating themselves for the last two and a half years. Is it necessary for them to do so? If it is not them, then is it necessary for those who manipulate them, those who use them, to burden this Assembly, this country, the newspapers, with repetitions of the speeches which have lost them the election. Surely, Sir, they have got brainy men, and intelligent men who can think out a new line. They are good Marxists. They are good Communists. Sir, I have just been reading a book giving advice to good Communists. "Communists should learn from their mistakes." They have made a mistake which cost them seats, and even those of their leaders. In view of that, I would have thought that - three months have passed since the pro-Communist Barisan Sosialis suffered a disastrous defeat - they would have used these three months to adopt an intelligent policy. In fact, Sir, I have come here hoping that if not the Barisan Sosialis here, then those who write the speeches for them, which some of the Members find great difficulty in reading properly ---

Mr Speaker: The Minister for Culture should not attack the conduct of hon. Members of this Assembly and he is going pretty close to it. I have also to remind him that we are discussing the Budget. Would he get on to the Budget?

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was not questioning the conduct of the Opposition Members. In fact, I am not interested in their conduct. But I am interested in what they say in this Assembly. After all, Sir, they are elected Assemblymen of the people of Singapore. But it is quite obvious now, having listened to them for the last three days, that these are not members representative of the people of Singapore. It is better to refer to them as the Member for Jakarta, the Member for Sourabaya, the Member for Medan, the Member for West Irian. They are not Malaysians. They are the spokesmen, free of charge ---

Mr Chio Cheng Thun (Choa Chu Kang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Minister for Culture was not speaking on the Budget. We urge that he should respect the ruling of the Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Will the Member please repeat that again?

Mr Chio Cheng Thun: (In Mandarin): I was saying that the Minister for Culture was not speaking on the Budget. He was talking rubbish.

Mr Speaker: Will the Minister please proceed with the debate and leave these hon. Members alone?

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, I have got my notes here. They were not speaking on the Budget. They were talking about confrontation, and how successful they hope it would be - nothing but about the success of the confrontation. Whose cause are they espousing in this Assembly? The people of Thomson? The people of Tampines? They are espousing the cause of the alien confrontationists, and we, a democratic Government, pay them $500 to speak on behalf of foreigners, on behalf of the enemies of Singapore, of the enemies of the people of Singapore. For the last three hours, Sir, since half-past two, I have listened to nothing but how successful they hope - in between they hope - the confrontation policy would be. In their speeches did they express one criticism of their Indonesian masters who started confrontation? I challenge any of the eight of them to get up and at least make a mild criticism of the Indonesian confrontationists who have brought misery to our people. It is not Malaysia which has brought misery. It is confrontation. We did not start confrontation, but their masters ---

Mr Tan Cheng Tong (Jalan Kayu): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister opposite is not respecting the Standing Orders of this House. He is shouting like a woman, and scolding and pointing to the Members on this side. He is like a woman abusing other people.

Mr Rajaratnam: It is necessary to identify traitors.

Mr Speaker: Again the Minister for Culture is attacking the conduct of Members. That is not allowed under our Standing Orders.

Mr Rajaratnam: I am referring to the speeches they have made for the last two and a half hours or three hours.

Mr Speaker: But he is calling them traitors.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, they are not traitors. They are spokesmen for Indonesia.

Mr Speaker: That is better.

Mr Rajaratnam: I withdraw the word "traitors". They are spokesmen for Indonesia, spokesmen for Jakarta, spokesmen for Medan ---

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I doubt whether the Minister for Culture has studied the financial statement. He has not made a detailed study of the financial statement. That is why he is talking rubbish.

Mr Speaker: If the Member for Tampines is interrupting any Member, he rises either on a point of order or on a point of clarification. He does not start off, as many Members have done, by making a speech. What is the point of order?

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I urge that the Minister for Culture should speak on the Budget statement and not on something else.

Mr Speaker: I think we have had enough of what the Minister for Culture thinks these Members are. I have reminded him that we are debating the Budget. Can we get on to the Budget?

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, for four hours they have talked about confrontation; every argument comes back to the success of confrontation. It is interesting, Sir, that the only time they have made a speech without a script is when the brutal truth is driven home, that they are spokesmen for foreigners. Therefore, let us not be finicky about what these eight gentlemen represent. Whose interest are they representing? And when they talk about the Budget ---

Mr Speaker: The Minister is now repeating himself. Can we get on to the Budget?

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, with due respect, though I have repeated myself for five minutes, these gentlemen have repeated themselves for the last three days on the same topics - sell-out merger, enforced merger. Now what is their thesis? I think the Member for Paya Lebar - the Member for Sourabaya - said that the P.A.P. has made ---

Mr Speaker: Again the Minister is repeating himself. He has called them the Member for Sourabaya, the Member for Jakarta. We have had that before. Cannot we get on to something new?

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, it is necessary sometimes to drive the truth home by repetition.

Mr Speaker: But not repetition.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, the Member for Paya Lebar - I shall not repeat myself - the Member for Paya Lebar said - what was the thesis of his argument? - the P.A.P. admits that confrontation is a setback for Singapore.

Mr Speaker: Now that the Minister is getting on, I am afraid it is 5 o'clock. I propose to suspend this sitting for half an hour until half-past five.

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

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether it is in order for me to recapitulate what I have said earlier. I have a feeling that I would be ruled out of order. Nevertheless, it will not be out of order for me to bring the attention of this House to what the Barisan Sosialis Members - Barisan Communists - were saying in regard to the Budget yesterday and today and what has already been said over Radio Jakarta a week ago. I would like to quote to you that these people are echoing the line laid down by their foreign masters. I refer to the Monitoring Digest which is a publication which monitors radio stations from many parts of the world, including the country of their adoption, Indonesia.

As far back - but I will not go too far back, Sir - as 1st November of this year (it is already December now), the North Kalimantan (Kalimantan Utara) Voice of Freedom Fighters have taken great pains to convince its listeners that Indonesia's confrontation policy is having adverse economic effects on Singapore, but it said so with great glee. October 21st:

`The entrepot trade in Singapore and Penang has suffered serious setbacks. Godowns have been empty and many ships are at present lying idle. Exports of produce like copra and rattan have been curtailed. Singapore has suffered heavy losses.'

That is what they have been saying for the last two or three days. What has been said over Radio Kalimantan Utara over a month ago is being repeated here by the Barisan Sosialis Members who claim to represent Singapore. Who gives whom instructions? Who lays down the line for their speeches? The electors of Singapore or Kalimantan Utara? It goes on to say ---

Mr Speaker: Order. I must remind the Minister that he may make passing references to the speeches made by Members of the Opposition. In my view, the Minister has made sufficient references, and I would suggest that if he has anything else to say he should proceed with the Budget.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, with due respect, I cannot make passing references to something which has been repeated for four hours! The essence of their argument is that confrontation is doing great damage and that therefore Singapore should go on its bended knees to Indonesia to solve the economic problems. That is the gist of their arguments, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister has already alleged that the Opposition Members take their orders from Jakarta. He has made that statement once, and I think once is more than enough.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I must adduce evidence that they are repeating a line which has been laid for them and I am quoting from the broadcasts of Kalimantan Utara. They cannot deny the validity of this evidence.

Sir, the report goes on to say,

`The Singapore Minister for Finance, Dr Goh Keng Swee, said that because of the trade severance with Indonesia, many factories using Indonesian raw materials will have to close down. Half the workers and so on...'

Then again, even earlier on, that is, in November, Radio Keman Kesatuan Malaya Merdeka again came back with a story entitled "Singapore Suffering Under Confrontation".

The thesis that has been developed in regard to the Budget, the essence of their argument is that - I have been taking down extensive notes - the only way Singapore can solve its economic problems is by coming to terms with Indonesia. They do not say on what terms, whether we go down on our bended knees in coming to terms with Indonesia, and therefore taking advantage of the 100 million customers who are waiting for us. In fact, the Member for Tampines suggested that prospects for industrialisation are not bright, because with confrontation, the 100 million Indonesian market would be lost. And the whole essence of their speeches on the Budget is to ask that we should abandon Malaysia and come to terms with Indonesia - on any terms - and assure ourselves of a market of 100 million.

With due respect to you, Sir, I stress this point to show that we should treat the Barisan Sosialis for what they are. Their comments on the Budget or on any matter are suspect. They are not doing so in the interest of the people of Singapore but in the interest of their foreign masters, whom they dare not criticise. They criticise the Government which pays them $500 a month, but they have not said one word against their foreign masters. Did they criticise them, Sir? They say that confrontation is responsible for all our economic difficulties. Will they be responsible for the failure of the Budget that our Minister for Finance has drawn up? But did they even once indicate whether they want confrontation to succeed or fail? They have not answered that and I hope they will answer it. Do you want confrontation to succeed or fail? Please answer that. [Laughter]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Rajaratnam: That is the crux of the matter, Sir. All these arguments, these crocodile tears for the sufferings of the workers! Let them say it here. If they have got speeches ready for them, they can go and get them corrected. Do they want confrontation to succeed or fail? We did not start confrontation. We are willing to treat and negotiate with Indonesia on reasonable terms - with any other country on reasonable terms - but we as Malaysians are determined that confrontation or no confrontation, our economic policies will succeed. Do the Barisan Sosialis want confrontation to succeed or fail? Answer yes or no. It is simple: yes or no?

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister for Culture has repeated the same question three times. I think thrice is more than enough. Can we proceed? I must ask him again to proceed with the Budget statement and leave references to the debate coming from the Opposition alone.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, these are replies to points that have been made by Opposition Members and I intend to make them because even if I repeat it five times, I know there will be no answer.

Mr Speaker: I must remind the Minister that I have made my ruling. Unless the Minister proceeds with further arguments on the Budget, I will have no alternative but to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, I was talking about the Budget and it is within the province of any Assemblymen to reply to points made on the Budget by Opposition Members.

They have been talking for four hours on confrontation - an essential point with which they have been trying to confuse the people - and it is necessary for me in the interests of the country and of this Assembly to expose their arguments and to indicate the purpose behind the long dreary rubbish that has been propounded in this Assembly for the last four days.

Sir, the Minister for Finance has in his Budget speech sketched out the main features of this fifth Budget presented by the P.A.P. Government. Before I make further comments on the observations that the so-called representatives of the people of Singapore opposite have been making on the Budget, I would like to say something about the basic beliefs and outlook of the Government which has presented this Budget. After all, a Budget and the economic policies must reflect the character and aspirations of the Government and the Party which shapes that Budget. A government of crooks will shape a Budget to promote the interest of crooks. A government of capitalists will naturally devise a Budget to protect and advance the interests of capitalists. A government consisting of men out for loot will shape a Budget to make such things possible. And a government composed of eminent Members like the Barisan Sosialis will definitely shape a Budget to sell out the country to their masters.

The P.A.P. Government consists of men who believe in a socialist ideology. Sir, when we talk of socialism, we do not put inverted commas as the Barisan Sosialis opposite do. When we talk of socialism, we mean non-Communist socialism.

Mr Speaker, Sir, during the last few days they have been talking about the Communist bogey. I will not venture into a new line of argument - I will reserve that for Monday - about the so-called Communist bogey. But we are a socialist Government and both as individuals and as members of a political Party we are therefore neither creatures, spokesmen or servile nominees of big capitalist concerns nor, at the other extreme like the Barisan Sosialis, puppets of Communist manipulators or political pimps for Indonesian confrontationists.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister is now using unparliamentary language.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, but "political pimps" has a different connotation.

Mr Speaker: In my opinion, the word "pimps" in any context would be unparliamentary.

Mr Rajaratnam: May I use the words "political purveyors of flesh"?

Mr Speaker: Please proceed.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, we are a political Party whose loyalty is to the people of this country - a country which we took a solemn oath at the beginning of this Session together with the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen to defend. We took a solemn oath and we pay great regard to any oath we take. I cannot say the same thing for the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen. Therefore, the strength and welfare of our Party lies in our being able to ensure the maximum happiness for the maximum number of our people. We are not, as I have said, tied to any capitalist or reactionary group. We do not have to serve their interest at the expense of the majority of the people. Moreover, we are not bound, as the Communists are - as the Barisan are - to deliberately spread poverty, discontent and economic chaos in order to pave the way for a Communist revolution.

Since the P.A.P. is a patriotic Malaysian Party tied to no privileged minority interest, or predatory alien forces, or enemies of our country, we can therefore afford to devise a Budget which will not only make the country prosperous but will ensure at the same time that this prosperity is fairly and justly distributed among all classes of people. We can afford to ensure that our economic and financial policies are such that inequalities of wealth are evened out without throwing our economy into chaos.

Since 1959 when the P.A.P. Government assumed power, its economic policy, as revealed in its Budgets, has been directed towards two objectives. And in this connection, Sir, may I say to the eight representatives ---

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Seven.

Mr Rajaratnam: Seven. Yes, Sir, there is some mystery about the eighth man just like The Third Man. Probably, Sir, he is a wiser man than the seven men who hold the fort here. But anyway before they come out with further badly-written scripts, I would suggest that they refer to the speeches of their Chairman, the present Chairman, in the first Budget Session of this Assembly. And some of their present Barisan Sosialis colleagues, whether above ground or underground, whether in this country or in their adopted homeland, had different ideas then about our Budget. At that time in 1959, they praised our economic policy, the policy of the Minister for Finance, whom they now regard as reactionary. At that time, they said that it was a good socialist Budget, good for the people and the best Budget that we ever had. That was in 1959, the Budget of the same Finance Minister. Only those who said it then do not now belong to the same Party, do not hold office and they are not in this Chamber. They said that because at that time the speeches were written from this side of the House. At that time, Sir, some of the Barisan Assemblymen knew that this Government in fashioning the Budget was not identified with any capitalist or foreign interest, but with the interest of the people, because we have no other affiliations. So in fashioning our Budget we have two objectives, and that is quite clear even in the present Budget speech made by the Minister for Finance.

The first of this is to plan for our future needs to meet not only the demands of a rapidly increasing population for jobs but also to change the character of an economy from a primarily trading one to an industrial one. I do not think even the Barisan Communists can complain that that is a bad objective. However, to do this, means spending some of our resources not by doling out free gifts and thus enjoying temporary popularity but in investing them in development projects which would ensure that in the future our children and our population will be able to enjoy a decent life. Were the P.A.P. a Government of opportunists, a Government of men concerned with only keeping themselves in power for the next few years, then it could have bought popularity by doling out such money and reserves as we have in free gifts. Just as the Member for Tampines said, "Oh, why not give free houses? Increase this and increase that." We could do that. It is not our money. We could have an election immediately after that to ensure that not one Barisan Sosialis is returned. We could even double everybody's wages and possibly even increase the ration allowance in Changi. We could do that to be popular. It is not our money. We have plenty of money in reserve. We could even give every married couple a scooter free. That is what many of their speeches amount to. "Oh, why do you not give more of this? Why not more of that?" We can do it if we are an irresponsible and a stupid government. But we are not an irresponsible or a stupid government. Some of the suggestions put forward - so-called constructive criticisms of the Budget - by some of the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen amount to, "Have a big carnival for two years. Free booze. Enjoy yourselves. Lots of money in the kitty." But what happens after that when the party is over? But as I have said, this is a deliberate policy. Let us be frank about it. The Barisan Sosialis for obvious reasons are not interested in ensuring a prosperous, peaceful and happy Malaysia because if there is a prosperous, peaceful and happy Malaysia, then they are out. They have a vested interest in poverty and disease - as the instruments of alien powers out to destroy Singapore. It is logical, Sir, as I shall show you later on. But for the time being, let us return to this. We could have followed the course followed in certain Asian countries which the Gentlemen opposite admire and on whose behalf they are fighting in this Assembly. Fortunately, we have not got a Minister for Finance of that calibre.

This is in the Monitoring Digest of 7th December. The country which they admire and on whose behalf they are working - here is their economic policy: Subandrio purposely neglected economy to gain national identity. Is that the policy they want to follow? Have you to impoverish your own population so that you can claim national identity? He is their pinup boy, their hero. Is that the policy they want us to follow? Is that the policy of the Barisan Sosialis which they want us to follow? Is that what they are working for - to ensure that it will come about in Singapore? The Foreign Minister said that in the past Indonesia had to neglect her economy purposely - not accidentally, not by ignorance, not by stupidity, but purposely, because she wanted to regain her own identity first for further development. He said:

`Some people might find it ridiculous that Indonesia gave priority to the revival of her identity and not to economic development. But after we have managed to revive our own identity, after the iron spirit of the Indonesian people has been revived, we can then establish in full swing the economic rehabilitation and exploitation of our wealth and resources.'

Sir, we are not interested in the kind of economic policies followed in the country of their adoption. In Singapore, we do it differently. We do not believe that it is necessary to revive the iron spirit of our people by depriving them of their necessities of life. And in this Budget we - at least the P.A.P. Government; I do not know about the Barisan Sosialis - prefer to stick to the somewhat old-fashioned thesis that it is the duty of a democratic socialist government to increase the living standard of the people first, not only for the people today but also for those who come after us. Therefore, investing for the future means not consuming and frittering away all our money today. We have to balance between improving the lot of the people today as well as investing and building for the future. With due modesty, I can say that we have managed since 1959 to hold the balance between what is necessary to spend immediately and what is necessary to invest for the future. We have avoided falling into either extreme in this respect. We could follow the Communist and other totalitarian methods of developing a country quickly. We could force savings by compelling people to make do with the barest minimum necessary to keep body and soul together. That is one way of doing it, at least for the mass of the people. We could, if we adopted Communist totalitarian methods, even kill off a few million people by providing them with a starvation living standard. I think the Barisan Sosialis Members opposite know what I am referring to. Many of them, I am quite sure, would consider it barbaric, inhuman and undemocratic if they were forced to go to countries which they otherwise proclaim to be a workers' paradise. I had the privilege of occasionally listening to other Barisan Sosialis Members - stalwarts - "great supporters of socialism" extolling and praising with delight the great things that are being achieved in the workers' paradise. But these discussions invariably took place in the most fashionable and expensive bars and restaurants in Singapore where they give tips which can feed a family in a workers' paradise for at least a week.

Sir, we the P.A.P. Government - a socialist Government, without inverted commas - have in this and other Budgets provided for future development without at the same time reducing the living standards of our people. On the contrary, Sir, the Finance Minister provided statistics in his Budget speech to show that, despite the efforts of the Barisan Sosialis Communists to wreck our economy through politically motivated industrial intimidation and unrest and despite the hundreds of millions of dollars that the Government has spent on development projects, there has nevertheless been at the same time since 1959 - and particularly during the last three years - an appreciable increase in the overall living standards of our people.

Now, lest they may think that this is a partisan claim - a Government Minister boasting about his own Government - may I therefore quote from an impartial observer? Sir, this is an extract from an article published by the Far Eastern Economic Review of 18th July, 1963, and before they jump to the conclusion that it is a neo-colonial magazine, let me say that this is a Hong Kong magazine, published in Hong Kong and edited by Asians. And this is what they have to say after referring to the P.A.P. as one of the most efficient and energetic governments in the world today. They say that after all the money that we have spent on housing development and so on, the rice bowls and restaurants and coffee-shops are full, cinemas are packed, taxi-drivers and hawkers are kept busy and hair-dressing saloons report record business. Sir, these are not to be found in a workers' paradise where I understand hair-dressers are not even in business, let alone report record business. Last year's statistics show that the number of people who can afford to buy luxuries - luxuries, not necessities - grew steadily. 80 per cent more motor-cars were sold in 1962; 6 per cent more refrigerators, 8 per cent more radios, 27 per cent more cameras and 7 per cent more liquor. Private builders after three timid years now have about 4,000 apartments under construction. Dealers have been pleasantly surprised at the great demand for T.V. sets since the introduction of T.V. broadcasting a few months ago; and they are quite clear as to the cause of this affluence. Government expenditure in planning is directly and indirectly responsible for many of these signs of modest prosperity and growing economic confidence.

Sir, this is a far cry from their pinup boy who says that one good sign of a progressive society is to ensure deliberately that no development takes place. And it is on behalf of people with that idea that they are working for. Sir, we in Singapore, as I have said, believe otherwise. The Government has spent more than $500 million on projects during the past three years without, at the same time, reducing our living standard to poverty level but instead increasing it. This was achieved, and the well-fed Barisan Sosialis Members opposite know this despite the increase of our population from 1.58 million to 1.73 million during the past three years.

Sir, I am not for one moment suggesting that we have created during the last three or four years a society where there is no poverty or unemployment or gross inequalities. These evils exist, but what we claim is that during the past few years we have not only prevented poverty and misery from extending, as it has in the country of their adoption, but we have succeeded to an appreciable extent in ironing out gross inequalities and economic injustices.

Sir, the Barisan Sosialis Communists may complain that the P.A.P. Government has failed to create a Utopia in the short space of three or four years, but what should be obvious to everyone is that notwithstanding economic confrontation, notwithstanding the Barisan Sosialis, notwithstanding Communist attempts to disrupt our economy during the past three years, the P.A.P. has laid the foundation for an economy which will ensure better prospects and rising living standards not only for our present population but also for future generations.

You will notice, Sir, and even the Barisan Sosialis cannot help but notice, that in the present Budget something like two-thirds of Government revenue will be spent on social services like schools, clinics, and hospitals to provide for the immediate needs of the people. There is no other country in Asia - workers' paradise or not - and certainly in South-East Asia, where every child can find a place in school, where ordinary people can get cheap and healthy homes and where the sick get free treatment in Government-run hospitals. And the P.A.P. can afford to follow a progressive economic policy, because unlike certain Right-wing Parties which are no longer in this Assembly, and unlike the Barisan Sosialis which is represented by a rump in this Assembly, we are not the creatures of a privileged minority or alien forces dedicated to the destruction of our country and our people. And this brings me to the various observations made by the Barisan Sosialis speakers like, "Oh, this Budget is not doing enough for the poor people and for the suffering workers." That is the theme of their speeches. They shed crocodile tears. Suffering people! The workers! The same Party which threw 1,700 people out of job.

An hon. Member: 1,800!

Mr Rajaratnam: 1,800 out of job. The same people come here to moan and groan about the sufferings of the workers and the unemployed. It is their union leaders, Mr Woodhull has already confessed, who mucked things. Now they come here and say. "We shed tears for the sufferings of the people and the workers."

Let me ask the Barisan Sosialis a very simple but a very important question. We have a vested interest for the reasons I have explained - to ensure that we run our government in such a way that people are prosperous and get more jobs, and our economy succeeds. But have the Barisan Sosialis a vested interest, a real genuine interest, in ensuring a prosperous and happy people? That is a very important question, Sir. Have they a vested interest in ensuring a prosperous Malaysia?

It is my submission, Sir, that the Barisan Sosialis, by the very nature of its political character and its political objective, which they have openly proclaimed, must fight not for a prosperous Malaysia but for a bankrupt Malaysia, because they must destroy Malaysia. They are committed to destroying Malaysia. They say they are against Malaysia. Do they expect us seriously to believe that they are going to work very hard to ensure a prosperous and happy Malaysia? Are they going to work for a prosperous and happy Malaysia? If they do, they cannot destroy Malaysia. It will survive, and become stronger. So, how can they genuinely work for the prosperity of Singapore, because to do that is to destroy themselves, to destroy their own objective, which is to finish off Malaysia on behalf of foreign powers. That is what they have already proclaimed openly. That is their objective. So how can they then really work to make the workers happier? Because if the workers are happier, they will not support the Barisan Sosialis, they will support the P.A.P. If Malaysia prospers, they will not listen to the anti-Malaysia line, they will support Malaysia.

In fact, Sir, the fact that the Barisan Sosialis are really out to destroy Malaysia is indicated by a remark that one of the hon. Members opposite made. He said, in connection with the $118 million that we pay for Federal services in Singapore, $78 million is for local services and $40 million for defence which, he said, is to oppress the people. Oppress the people! It is quite clear that they do not want Malaysia to be defended against their masters. They take great objection to our spending $40 million to protect our own country when the country of their adoption boasts of 400,000 men - more money spent on their army than on their people. And here we spend a modest sum of $40 million to protect our fishermen who get robbed by their friends - not our friends! They steal watches and we spend $40 million to ensure that our poor fishermen, our people, can keep their fish, can keep their vessels. But they do not want that. They say, "Scrap this $40 million. Leave it open." Then there can be piracy in Singapore itself. A chap can come right up to this Chamber, Sir, and our watches are gone! That is what they want. That is why they object to defence. That is why they ask that the Naval Base be scrapped. Are they going to defend Singapore for us? Are these gentlemen going to take out rifles and stop 400,000 men? Did they volunteer even for West Irian? Probably some of the gentlemen did. The only country which they are prepared to defend is West Irian. [Laughter]

Mr Speaker: Order. I have warned the Minister previously not to make references to individual Members of this Assembly. I hope I do not have to remind him again.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, I made no references to any of the Members here individually or collectively. I was referring to the Barisan Sosialis which is an amorphous body, whose antecedents we are not quite sure of, but which we intend to expose in the course of these Assembly proceedings.

Mr Speaker: The Minister previously spoke of the Barisan. I am quite prepared to allow him to talk of a Party. I am quite prepared to allow him to make references to some of the Opposition Members. But I am not prepared to allow him to refer to all the Opposition Members. When he refers to all, he is referring to each and every one. There is no distinction.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, thank you for your very pertinent ruling, because there is only one other Opposition Member whom I might exclude from my reference to Opposition Members. Sir, it is necessary, as I have said, to ask this question: "Have the Barisan Sosialis in their own interests as a Party a vested interest in seeing a prosperous Malaysia, a prosperous Singapore? A prosperous working class, everybody happy?" Do they know that if they do that, they will commit suicide? And therefore they must actively work to ensure more poverty, more disease, more fruitful soil for their way of life, for Communism, for confrontation. They are praying and hoping - they never deny it - that confrontation succeeds. Why? I understand a few days ago they even claimed credit for having initiated the confrontation policy, and that the 100 million people in Indonesia just followed them. Well, that is a good admission. It is in their Party paper. They are proud of it. They have to publish in their Party paper that they are responsible for confrontation, which is throwing our people out of job. And yet earlier - I think it was the Member for Tampines - he was shedding tears about the sufferings of the tongkang men, of the national capitalists whom he has helped to ruin. He and his Party. They claimed that they started this confrontation. They said so. They had the idea of confrontation, and the 100 million people of Indonesia said, "Dr Lee Siew Choh and the 8 Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen have said confrontation is a good thing. So we will follow them. We will support them." So it only substantiates our thesis that the Barisan Sosialis is dedicated to destroying our economy, our plans to improve the welfare of the people, because they want poverty and chaos in Singapore, so that their confrontation friends can move in. They are not representatives of the various constituencies. Maybe they come from - I am told. Sir, there is a place called `Suka Boomi', where the Chinese in Indonesia were slaughtered. Maybe they are representatives of that constituency. Suka Boomi!

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister is not only making personal remarks again. but he is becoming more and more repetitious. He has on several occasions referred to hon. Members taking orders from a foreign country. That has been repeated time and time again by him. Can I ask him to get on to something new?

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, there is another reason why they must ensure an economically crippled, an economically bankrupt Singapore. Those who manipulate the Barisan Sosialis we know are Communists. Mr Woodhull has said so, Mr Lim Shee Ping has admitted it. Mr James Puthucheary has admitted it. They do not talk about bogeys. They have written down in their statements that they - the Barisan Sosialis - are manipulated by the Communists. And the Communists cannot help the P.A.P. or any other non-Communist Government to establish a prosperous and happy Malaysia or Singapore. Because then nobody would follow Communism. Therefore, they must bring about poverty and chaos to prepare the way for their revolutionary scheme, for the triumph of Communism. For these reasons, Sir, all this talk about the Budget not being a good Budget, not a Budget that will help Singapore to be prosperous. I say, is all a lot of hypocrisy. It is not what they have in their hearts. What they want is a Budget which will help to destroy Singapore economically so that there will be mass unemployment. Then they can tell the people. "There you are. Only the Communist way can offer you a way out. Not the non-Communist way, not the socialist way."

Sir, before I conclude, I would like to say that the Barisan Sosialis is not interested in the Budget. They are not interested in a good Budget, a Budget that helps the people. They want to ensure how to help frustrate us realise our economic ambition. And secondly, as a Communist Party, and on admission of the Communist thesis - treason, betraying their own country, is a necessary part of their strategy, and I quote from a Communist tract:

`It is necessary, in the class struggle, for one to deal a blow against one's own government.' A blow to one's own government in wartime means high treason, it means facilitating the defeat of one's own country. And that is what the Barisan Sosialis, manipulated by the Communists, are dedicated to - the defeat of their own country economically and politically. And in all this criticism of the Budget they are a party of treason, as good Communists should be. Good Communists must betray their country.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Shame!

Mr Rajaratnam: They are therefore dedicated to the betrayal of their own country - not of their own accord, but by those who manipulate them. Therefore, Sir, let us not be under any delusion that the Barisan Sosialis is a Party of Malaysia or a Party of the workers of Singapore or Malaysia. It is a Party of treason.

Mr Speaker: Will the Minister for Finance indicate how long he will need in reply?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I would rather have 45 minutes if possible, but that is the minimum.

Mr Speaker: We will see how we get along. Mr Chia.

Mr Chia Thye Poh (Jurong): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Culture was very fierce in his attacks against us. He said all our talk was rubbish. Now, who is talking rubbish? Let the people judge. If we have said anything wrong, then he should allow what we have said to be published in the newspapers or broadcast over the radio in order to enable the people to judge our respective speeches. But our speeches made in this House for several hours have never been broadcast over Radio Singapore for more than one minute; not even allowed to be published in the newspapers. For what reasons? [Interruptions]

Mr Speaker: Order. The Members on the Government side should afford the Member an opportunity of speaking in silence.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): If the P.A.P. think that since they are now in power they can adopt dictatorial methods and tactics, they are wrong. In the past our Prime Minister has said that we should have an open argument. If he wants to put that into practice, then the P.A.P. should allow the people to know what we have said. The Minister for Culture should not make use of his power to monopolise the radio and the Press. He should not suppress what we have said. He has said just now that in all our speeches during the Budget debate we have taken the cue from the broadcasts from North Kalimantan Radio - since the radio has announced that confrontation has brought about suffering to Singapore and since North Kalimantan Radio has been broadcasting the same thing as we have said here, therefore we have taken the cue from it and have echoed its opinions. Since the Minister for Culture has just returned to Singapore by plane, he has perhaps neglected to read the speech of his colleague, the Minister for Finance, in which the Minister has said that Indonesian confrontation will bring about very serious consequences and far-reaching effects on Singapore's economy. Does he say that the Minister is also echoing the views of North Kalimantan Radio?

On the question of who has brought about these sufferings, the P.A.P. has been accusing us. But who are the real traitors, and who have brought about these sufferings? It is the P.A.P. who have sold out the interests of the people, and who have forced through the phoney merger resulting in the people of Singapore suffering all this. As to who are patriotic to the country, we ask: by whom is the nation formed? By the oligarchy of the P.A.P. or by the people as a whole? If a country is formed by the people generally, then the interests of the people should be held above almost everything else. The people are now suffering because the P.A.P. have sold out the interests of the people to the British imperialists. All along we have been on the side of the people. We have been suppressed and interfered with, but we are not afraid of these actions taken by them. We are willing to be gaoled. Now, the facts are clear showing who are speaking on behalf of the people and taking their stand.

Today, in this House, on the question of confrontation which has brought economic suffering to the people, we suggest that the P.A.P. Government should be responsible for initiating and persuading Indonesia to negotiate. We are fully aware that without our advancing this suggestion, the P.A.P., since they are with the British imperialists, will be donning Communist caps on us ---

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, on a point of clarification.

Mr Chia Thye Poh remained standing.

Mr Speaker: Well, the Member will not allow you, Mr Minister.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): We are fully aware that when we make this suggestion on behalf of the people, we know that the P.A.P. who are on the side of the imperialists and who have sold out the interests of the people will call us Communists, but we are not afraid of them or their accusations and smears, because we do all these things sincerely and faithfully on the side of the people. We are not out to create trouble from any evil source. Since we want peace and prosperity, that is why we have made such a proposition to the P.A.P. Government. We are not so belligerent as the P.A.P., saying that only by arming can we bring about prosperity. We do not believe that the P.A.P.'s belligerence will bring peace and prosperity. We have already declared our policy very clearly.

In the financial speech of the Minister for Finance on the Four-Year Development Plan during these four years, the Minister quoted a lot of figures. He said that economic development has accomplished 79 per cent, social development 76 per cent, and administrative projects about 79 per cent and so on and so forth, as though it would appear that there are really great achievements. But what are the facts? Whenever we do a thing, we must see that it produces results. We should not just say that we have spent so much without any result. The Government, like one who is responsible for the expenditure of the household, should be aware of this. It should see that when it spends one hundred dollars, it should get the value of what it has spent. If a housekeeper spends about 80 per cent, it does not mean that he is good. He must see that the livelihood of the members of the family could be maintained by the worth of 80 per cent spent. If, on the contrary, the result is different, then the householder should be condemned for the foolish act of spending money without getting its worth. Of course, the P.A.P. have always been praising themselves. The P.A.P. have always been praising the P.A.P. That is why the Minister for Culture has praised the Minister for Finance. Of course, the Minister for Finance can claim himself to be an economist, as though to make people believe that he is a far-sighted economist and a far-sighted Minister for Finance. But we would ask, what are the results of the Four-Year Development Plan? Has it brought good results to the people? Has the livelihood of the people been improved? To what extent has the unemployment situation been improved?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1961 the Government put up the Four-Year Development Plan. At that time they said that the main purpose of the Plan was to encourage private investment to create more employment opportunities. If there were a high rate of industrialisation, then you would be able to absorb $600 million worth of investment, they claimed. Thus you would be able to provide new employment opportunities for about 30,000 to 40,000 people. I would like to ask the Minister for Finance this: how much private investment up to now have the Government attracted? What is the sum total? How many jobs have the Government been able to afford to those unemployed youths? A little while ago the Minister for Culture has himself admitted that there is poverty, unemployment and economic depression in, Singapore. We would ask, during the P.A.P. four-year rule whether the number of unemployed people has increased or decreased. The P.A.P. has all along been putting out propaganda. Now, if the Government have really achieved any results in this field, how is it that they dare not publish the figures? In this Budget statement we can only see the number of buildings, factories and houses built - how many acres of land have been allotted and so on. During these four years we can only see figures relating to these few things. Since we see in the newspapers that certain factories have already been in operation for such a long time, now, how many people have been employed in these factories and how good is our economy? Since my colleague has spoken on many other things, I would not like to go further into them. The facts are before us. No matter how the P.A.P. try to claim that they want to attract foreign investment, in actual fact, there is no such result as claimed by them. It is not their so-called 80 per cent performance; it is not their so-called 80 per cent figure that can cover the truth of the matter. If we compare actual results, we know that the Government have in three years completed only a superficial 59 per cent, and three-quarters of the time has been spent. Yet the achievement is only 59 per cent. Then how can they claim this to be a success? The Government not only have not resolved the unemployment situation but they, on the other hand, have been unable to fulfil their responsibilities and duties in respect of rural development, building of roads and other necessary work.

The Government have talked about helping farmers and fishermen in the rural areas to increase their production and teaching them techniques in agriculture and fishing and reducing their costs of production. I would like to ask, how much productivity have the Government increased and to what extent has the cost been reduced? There are no concrete figures to show all this. I would like to ask the Government to give the actual figures. The livelihood of the fishermen and the farmers is day by day going down the drain. Some of them have advanced requests which are very reasonable, but the Government are not only not willing to accept their suggestions and views but they also ignore them totally. For instance, fishermen and farmers in Jurong have advanced certain suggestions to the Government with a view to helping them out of their difficulties. But have the Government done anything? Again some villagers in the rural areas live on poultry farming and vegetable gardening. In these places, due to the long period of drought, the villagers cannot get enough water to wash the poultry and animals and there is not enough water to water the vegetable farms. As a result, they suffer great losses. But have the Government so far done anything to provide water to these farmers? There has not been an increase in the standpipes to benefit the farmers. Can the Government boast about their achievements in this aspect of rural development? The Ministers in the P.A.P. can only stay in their air-conditioned rooms. They are unable to appreciate the difficulties and hardships of the farmers outside. That is why in this statement they can only boast about 7 per cent of performance, and no more than that, in rural development. Insofar as rural development is concerned, the Government have therefore achieved practically nothing.

Although the Government have been giving a great deal of publicity in the fields of health and education to the extent of 20 and 40 per cent respectively, what have they done in respect of the Singapore River? They have done up to only 2.9 per cent according to them. In the building of bridges and construction of roads, they have only achieved a 20 per cent performance. That is all they have done.

The only thing they can boast about is housing development. They say that their housing development is the best and the highest in South-East Asia. They have done 119 per cent. We do not go against the building of houses but our point is - you may have a lot of houses built, but there are a lot of poor people who cannot afford to pay the rent. The houses should be for the poor people. As a matter of fact, it is the Government who are reaping a big harvest from the building of houses instead of the people enjoying the benefit of more housing. So the Government instead of going ahead with full force with the building of houses, should spend money in other respects to improve the livelihood of the people in general. All that they can boast about now is housing and nothing more; but even in this respect they have not benefited the people in fact.

We can also see that their Development Budget for next year has only been allocated $16 million, but in 1963 the Development Estimates were $230 million. Now, how is it that there is a great difference between 1963 and 1964? Well, the Government's explanation perhaps is that some departments in Singapore have been taken over by the Central Government and the rest of it. But in spite of the transfer of certain departments to the Central Government, in any event, they cannot explain the fact that the estimate for next year constitutes one-fifteenth of the estimate for this year. From this, we can see that in future the people of Singapore will only be able to enjoy very much less rights and privileges than they did in the past.

If we take the total of $310 million in our Estimates for next year, the figure of $30 million for expenditure for Federal departments and the sum of $16 million for Development Estimates, then all that the people of Singapore will enjoy next year in respect of services and rights will only be about $360 million. If the Development Estimates for this year are properly and fully utilised, then in the course of this year, the people of Singapore would have been able to enjoy rights and services amounting to $600 million.

So if we compare the enjoyment of rights and services this year with that of next year, what is the difference? It is more than $240 million. But what about the burden to be borne by the people? Next year, the total burden to be borne by the taxpayers in Singapore will amount to $440 million. That is to say, if we find the sum of $150 million in respect of State revenue, 60 per cent of the national revenue (i.e., $170 million) and 40 per cent of the national revenue, we will get the total of $440 million. This will be the total burden to be borne by the taxpayers in Singapore next year. What is their burden this year? Well, it is $450 million. So there is not much difference between those figures. But what a great difference there is between what we have enjoyed this year and what we shall enjoy next year! Why? I believe the Minister for Finance himself only knows it too well! And this is the so-called prosperity that Malaysia has brought about!

Apart from having to contribute $170 million per year to the Federation and Sarawak, the people of Singapore have to endure hardship brought about by the economic confrontation. The trade depression has resulted in further unemployment. The vicious circle goes on. And, as admitted by the Minister for Finance himself, the repercussions of confrontation are wide and far-reaching. But our present Government dare not face up to their responsibility. Instead, they shift the blame on to the Barisan Sosialis. On the other hand, they shed crocodile tears as if they really care for those workers and merchants affected by confrontation. We have said before that what we have done in the past can bear examination by the people. We have a clear conscience.

The P.A.P. must not hope that the failure of the M.C.A. will help them in the future. They must face realities and try to solve our economic problems. The Minister for Finance says that the only way to get out of our present economic depression as a result of Indonesia's confrontation is to give the workers affected some sort of training and to channel the trade capital into industrialisation. These are only make-shift measures. They cannot fundamentally solve our problems.

Let us see how the Government are going to help those workers who are affected by the trade suspension. How much money have the Government provided to the Economic Defence Board, and how much money have they provided for the building of community centres? Which one is more important - to protect the interests of the P.A.P. or to protect the so-called training of workers who are affected by the trade suspension? The present unemployment problem is serious enough and many more people will be retrenched. How are the Government to find alternative employment for those people who are going to be retrenched? The Government say that they want to help the merchants to channel their capital into other industries, but we must remind them that during the course of this channelling and transformation the merchants will incur losses, and even after they have channelled their capital into industries, will they be able to maintain their industries? The Government hope for success in industrialisation because they place high hopes on the Common Market. Well, success in industrialisation is still very remote.

And what will become of the Common Market? It is a big question. Under the Malaysia Agreement, Singapore's fiscal and financial control has been taken over by the Central Government and many things will have to be approved by the Central Government, such as the issue of Pioneer Certificates; and the Central Government will have the right to unify and control taxes and tariffs. One of our colleagues has just now talked about this and about competition in the same market; that is another problem.

No matter if they say that the market is very much related to the power of consumption. Just look at the market of Indonesia's one hundred million people! What will be the future of Singapore's market of ten million people? The outlook is very bleak indeed. Blakang Mati perhaps alone will become the so-called free trade zone.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Budget should have been drafted six months ago - perhaps it was drafted at that time. At that time, there was no confrontation, but now there is confrontation. How can the situation be as what is described in the Budget? If the future income is less than what is stated in the Budget, what will the Government do then? If the future revenue and expenditure are different from what the Budget envisages, what will happen then? The Government should try to negotiate with Indonesia in order to resolve this problem. We hope that the P.A.P. will not act as agents for the British imperialists. They should truly and faithfully, on behalf of the people of Singapore, try to resolve the existing difficulties.

Inche Mahmud Awang (Kampong Kapor): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, at today's sitting we are debating the Budget statement for the year 1964. In debating the 1964 Budget, we as Members of this Assembly and elected by the people ---

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Standing Orders require that there should be at least one-third of the Members present before we proceed. It appears that there is no quorum now.

Inche Mahmud Awang: Thirteen.

Mr Speaker: I think there are 13. Do you want me to count? There are exactly 13 Members at the moment. Please proceed, Inche Awang.

Inche Mahmud Awang: (In Malay): It is always the case with the Opposition - just as I want to speak on the Budget, there is an interruption.

As I have said just now, the people of Singapore who have elected 51 representatives to this Assembly require guidance and the Members should carry out the responsibility of bringing about benefits to the people. As we have heard just now, the Opposition Members spoke on the 1964 Budget in a loud voice, but without using their brains. In the 1964 Budget, the figures for 1963 Estimates are clearly shown along with the Estimates for 1964. They show the expenditure for the State of Singapore. There is a vote in excess of the provision for 1964 which can be spent, which means that the Singapore Government can spend more than what is provided in the Estimates for 1963. Therefore, I am surprised at the Opposition's charge that the State of Singapore is bankrupt, and is not progressing well in the administration of the State. I would much prefer it if the newspapers, radio or television could inform the people of Singapore of the speeches made by Opposition Members in this Assembly as well as of those made by Government Members. They say that unemployment is on the increase, that rentals of flats are exorbitant, that workers have been suppressed, and so on and so forth. I believe the Barisan Sosialis Opposition Members themselves are unemployed. They are not working for the benefit of the workers; nor are they doing anything for the people of Singapore. The fact is that we are able to provide sufficient housing in Singapore Flats built in Queenstown should be tangible proof of our achievements. The construction of such flats will mean employment for thousands and thousands of workers, and that means more opportunities for employment.

The erection of community centres actually means more jobs for the people. The building of more schools, as has been explained by the Minister for Education, means that more teachers will be recruited and more workers will be in employment. Similarly, the more clinics we build, the more workers we will be able to employ. For cars which park along the roads, we have a car-parking system, and this means employment for the workers who are called "Car Parking Attendants". All these things should be enough proof that Singapore is on the road to progress. Nevertheless, for those who are still unemployed, means will be found to get them employment. Whilst they are unemployed, the Department of Social Welfare gives them financial assistance. This aspect has been dealt with by the Minister for Social Affairs.

I am sure the people of Singapore, as well as the people of Malaysia, know full well that the Singapore Government has a definite programme for the Jurong project. This must necessarily mean that more and more workers will be employed to ensure the success of the project.

We will build railway lines and the number of workers employed on this job will be by the tens of hundreds. The project there is making steady progress. We will improve and widen the roads from the city up to Jurong. This will also mean that we will require more workers for the project. Factories which will be built at the Jurong site will have to employ workers. Machines will be installed and operated by workers.

Mr Speaker, we are building a harbour in Jurong which requires workers, and it will be used for ships, sampans and motor-boats. This is a programme which we cannot forget even in our sleep - a programme which no doubt will bring benefit to the people of Singapore. I understand that the Barisan Sosialis Members in the Opposition wish to act on the orders of others. They have no brains and no ideas of how to improve the State as well as the lot of the people of Singapore.

Let us see what we have achieved during the five years since the P.A.P. came to power.

The Labour Code can be used for the benefit of the workers. It is there to prevent employers from exploiting the workers. During the last four years, we have established the Industrial Arbitration Court. Originally we had only one Arbitration Court but we now have two Industrial Arbitration Courts to safeguard and protect the interests of the workers from being exploited by the employers, and at the same time keep a watchful eye on the employers and the Barisan Sosialis from using the workers in the interest of their foreign masters.

During the period of our government, we have established a Labour Research Unit which is a section dealing with labour research. In the Labour Research Unit, we have staff to assist workers who need information, data and advice on the nomination of workers' representatives to put forward their demands for consideration by the Arbitration Court for the benefit of the workers.

At the moment, the Trade Union House is under construction. It is being built by our Government not for the purpose of housing the Ministers. It will be completely equipped so that the workers can make full use of the facilities provided there. Long before the Barisan Sosialis Opposition identified themselves with the workers, we had already identified ourselves with and worked for the workers. The Barisan Sosialis help the workers only in theory but we help them by practical means. Because we help the workers by practical means, we are now faced with confrontation with which the Barisan Sosialis are associated. We are helping the workers who are affected by the confrontation. We have a scheme whereby we pay them one-third of their income. In other words, workers affected by confrontation, which is supported by the Barisan Sosialis, will receive from their employers one-third of their income and the Government on their part will pay one-third to the workers affected.

Mr Speaker, I have said just now that the Opposition Members of the Barisan Sosialis only know the workers in theory or in their day-dreams only. However, we know the workers in practice. For that reason, we are able to form the organisation called the N.T.U.C. Workers employed in the N.T.U.C. will fight for the national interest. For that reason we call ourselves "employees of the N.T.U.C." We are fighting for the benefit of the State of Singapore and for the national interest, unlike the Barisan Sosialis who style themselves by other names and who fight for their foreign masters, as has been explained by my colleagues just now.

Mr Speaker, let me end my speech in this Assembly by giving an object lesson to the numbskull Barisan Sosialis Members. As a result of their misdeeds, the workers have suffered. The Barisan Sosialis are working for the interests of foreign countries. Mr Speaker, I wish to remind the Barisan Members of this point. Do they wish the confrontation to end, or do they wish it to go on indefinitely, which will no doubt affect many workers? I wish to know their stand on this matter.

Mr Koo Young (Thomson): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I just require at the most ten minutes. Or five minutes. Is it all right?

Mr Speaker: I think five minutes is all right.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Culture has just now raised a question for answer. He has asked us whether we want confrontation to succeed or fail. To my mind, if we really want to solve this problem, there is no question of whether you want it to succeed or to fail. The point is whether we want to solve the differences between Malaysia and Indonesia. If we want, then what steps are we taking towards this end? Do we want to have peaceful means or belligerent means? Do we want to do it by peace or by force? We want a reply to this from the P.A.P. If they want to solve this problem by peaceful means, then perhaps it will be solved. Now if they want to resort to jingoistic means, then we cannot support them.

Inche Mahmud Awang: (In Malay): The question posed by the Minister was, "Do the Barisan Sosialis want confrontation to succeed or to fail?" That question has not been --- [interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Member only five minutes. If Members of the Government are going to interrupt continually, I will have to give him more time. Please proceed.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): In the meantime, Members of our Party also wish to know whether the P.A.P. are prepared to depend on the 7,000 British soldiers to defeat the Indonesian confrontation. These 7,000 British soldiers are now stationed along the border of Sarawak and Borneo. If they were to rely on military means to resolve the problems and differences between nations then, of course, they could resort to war or other military measures. So the main question that remains to be answered now is whether the P.A.P. want to resolve the problems by peaceful means or by jingoistic means.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, this has not been a particularly illuminating Budget Session. I think, in my memory, this is about the worst, the most ill-informed debate on the Budget that has ever gone on in the five Budgets that we have gone through. And the reason is simple. In the first place, when the Barisan Sosialis want to have an intelligent discussion on financial and economic matters, they must have their facts right. When they make utterly stupid and elementary mistakes, then it is not possible for me to track through their numerous idiotic statements. I will give you one example, Mr Speaker, Sir, a small matter of tax concession on attap houses. The Member for Paya Lebar said, well that is no good because it means huts roofed with attap will get a concession, but not huts roofed with zinc. Mr Speaker, Sir, for the purposes of taxation, huts whether they are roofed with attap or zinc, provided they are of a temporary nature, are considered alike. So why should this misrepresentation, misunderstanding, lack of knowledge on numerous matters of fact be perpetrated by elected representatives of the people? I cannot understand. These are people who are supposed to study the law, administrative processes and not to make childish errors like this. Now when they come to the question of figures, the Budget deals with figures, how much money is spent here and what it represents, but as a socialist the Member does not understand what it is all about.

Another example, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Member for Paya Lebar says, "Well, look, this whole business of how much money we give to the Federation is all bad for the Government." 40 per cent of the revenue - $1l8 million - correct. Capital expenditure of Singapore, $9.5 million, correct. Loan, $30 million, correct. Then he says, add it all up and you come to a figure of $171.5 million. He says that we give all this away to them.

Sir, a loan is a loan. When you lend money, you expect it to be repaid. And I am quite certain that when we lend $30 million each year to the Borneo territories we will get it back. How can you add all these things? Only people with a kindergarten type of mentality perpetrate this childish error.

While on the subject of loans, Sir, the Member for Jalan Kayu said that I told a lie when I said that Sabah will take workers from Singapore. He quotes a statement saying that Sabah will not allow, under their immigration laws, anybody coming in unless they get a job of $1,000 a month. So, I am called a liar because of this.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as a lawyer, you will know that under the Immigration Ordinance there are income limits to any person wanting to go in, but the Minister has powers to exempt entry into the country on certain special grounds, and so far as the $30 million loan is concerned, it is written into the Constitution that Singapore will provide half the labour force employed on projects for which this $30 million is paid out of Singapore. If they want our money, they like our money, then they get our workmen. If they do not want our money, they do not like our workmen, then they do not get our money. It is as simple as that, a simple process of logic. The Member for Jalan Kayu, who is the representative of 30,000 people, cannot follow it. So I am not going to go into the details of the various matters that they have raised because to do so would reveal monumental ignorance and ineptitude of the so-called representatives of Singapore on the Barisan side.

Now, confrontation, as you know, Mr Speaker, is an important problem here. Here as we are building up, going from strength to strength, suddenly there is confrontation. We frame our Budget on our policies to meet this particular problem, and I have given a fair estimate of how much national income we lose and how much unemployment there will be. This is based on practical studies of individual industries of individual factories which will be affected and how they will be affected. These people say that my Estimates are too low. Yet, Mr Speaker, Sir, when my colleague, the Minister for Culture, pressed them to it, the Member for Jurong says, "Kalimantan Utara says this. What about impeaching the Minister for Finance for saying that the position is serious?" Now they cannot have it both ways. The Member has to fall back on my estimate to prove that an adverse situation has arisen and in my analysis of the effects of confrontation, I have been completely objective. I have never tried to minimise the effects of confrontation nor, on the other hand, to exaggerate them. I have been working on figures, the best available statistics, with a completely impartial mind, because the moment we deceive ourselves, then our policy fails.

So it is with the progress of the Development Plan. I have listened with interest to what all these people said where the Plan has fallen behind. All they could do is to get figures and amounts from my own Budget statement where I have said, in this sector, we have not done well. There is no point in hiding this fact, Mr Speaker, Sir. We have to report to the people. Where we have not done well, we say so and we do not need the Barisan Sosialis to add to that. My view is that there are minor sectors and projects which they could have picked out if they had been well informed and taken the trouble to find out the facts. But, of course, finding what the facts are in this situation is completely beyond their capacity.

On the effects of Indonesian confrontation, we have heard the most fantastic utterances from the Barisan Sosialis. The Member for Paya Lebar says the textile trade will go down by 60 to 70 per cent; banks are suffering at the rate of 30 to 40 per cent, and so on and so forth. What facts has he got? What research has he done to establish these percentages? How many of the textile firms has he visited? Has he inquired how much you export to Indonesia and how much you sell to Malaysia? Banks? Has he gone round to study the amount of bank loans that have been extended to Indonesian trade? Obviously this is all bunkum, rubbish, a typical Barisan way of getting to the truth. Any figure is good enough - 60 per cent textiles, in spite of the fact that of our total textile trade no more than 12 per cent is exported to Indonesia, and he says 60 to 70 per cent; banks 30 to 40 per cent. Unemployment, he says 30,000, and he says 50,000. All rubbish and idiocy. Be that as it may, they are entitled to their opinion if they say 50,000 people are unemployed now and begging in the streets as a result of confrontation. From the Singapore point of view, it does not matter. The people are intelligent, Mr Speaker, Sir. As the Chinese saying goes, "People's eyes are as clear as snow" and they can see them, even though these half-baked politicians, running dogs of the Communist Party, I mean, have not got their facts right --- [Laughter]

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister is now doing what I have stopped the Opposition from doing.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: No, Mr Speaker, Sir. Only seven of them; the eighth man is exempted. May I, Mr Speaker, Sir, when I used the expression "running dog", in Chinese it is "chou kou", which is in fact what they are ---

Mr Speaker: We have only got 25 minutes left. Make full use of it if you want to.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Yes, certainly. "Kung Ch'an Tang Ti Chou Kou". There is one danger, Mr Speaker, Sir. When they say 50,000 unemployed, people starving in Singapore, do they not realise the amount of damage that they can do to the people of Singapore and to the people of Malaysia? Ours is an open society, Mr Speaker, Sir. What is said in the Assembly is recorded in Hansard and published in the newspapers. Supposing, as will happen, Radio Indonesia gets hold of these records. They will broadcast this - representatives of the people, the great patriots, the people's heroes in the Barisan say starvation, 50,000 unemployed. This will be broadcast by the enemy. The Indonesian Government will believe it. What is the result? The result is they say, "All right, we continue confrontation. We beat them down." These are the people who say they are for the people. My colleague, the Minister for Labour, has already quoted from their own Party journal. They say, "We don't take orders from Indonesia in opposing Malaysia. We did it first, and then the Indonesian Government accepted our policy as the correct one."

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Followed them.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Followed them. Published in their own Party journal. What have they got to say to all this? These are the people who say, "We weep for the unemployed. How wicked the P.A.P. is in bringing about confrontation." Here they tell us. In their own journal, they boast of the fact that they are the people who opposed Malaysia. As a result of their opposition, the Indonesians were convinced that Indonesia could break Malaysia by opposing it with the assistance of renegades inside the country. That is what has happened.

Now, further evidence of disloyalty, Mr Speaker. Further evidence of treason. When they were discussing the impact of Indonesian confrontation on Singapore, the Member for Paya Lebar took great delight at the establishment of three free trade zones in Indonesia; north in Sabang, Sumatra, in Belawan - four actually; one in Sulawesi and one in Jakarta. He took great delight - "There you are, the Indonesians have established free trade zones. What is Singapore going to do? We will die unless we come to terms with them." We will die. Does he know that this is a great myth that when you establish a free port there are certain things that you must create and what it costs? If in Sabang in North Sumatra, the Indonesians were really to want a free port in fact as against a propaganda free port, they would have to spend at least $500 million. And they have not got that money. So the representative from Paya Lebar is hoping that Indonesia can break Singapore by establishing four free ports. Then he said and Members heard him, "Your industrialisation programme depends on the market of 100 million Indonesians, otherwise there is no hope. What is 10 million Malaysians? 100 million Indonesians. When you can sell to them, then you succeed." This is mad talk. He never took the trouble to find out what the facts are. In 1962 - the best year - we exported something like $390 million from Singapore. What goods did we export, Mr Speaker, Sir? Manufactures? What we produced? Nothing doing. It was food. The ports of Sumatra and Kalimantan depend on food supplies from Singapore. The vast majority of that is just to feed them. So far as the industrial market is concerned, Indonesia with 100 million people to buy goods we produce? I do not give them more than $20 million a year. Our own market in Malaysia is 100 times larger than this $20 million. Why does he bring up this point, Mr Speaker, Sir? No foundation in fact, but behind this is the wishful thinking that Indonesian confrontation is going to succeed, to bring down Malaysia, to destroy the P.A.P. My colleague the Minister for Culture asked them a straightforward question: "Do you want confrontation to succeed, or do you want confrontation to fail?" What is the answer, Mr Speaker, Sir? The Member for Thomson, for whom until now I had respect, fell right into our trap. Stupid man --- [Laughter]

Mr Speaker: Order. Please do not make personal allegations.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker, Sir, I never expect this co-operation from the Opposition. He said, "Do we want peace or war'? Please answer that'?" Well, I answer. I want peace; the P.A.P. wants peace; Singapore wants peace: Malaysia wants to settle it by peace. And he still has not answered. Do you want confrontation to succeed or to fail?

Now, Mr Speaker. Sir, I put it to the House that the position of the Barisan Sosialis is a very simple one. They want Singapore to fail, Malaysia to be ruined by confrontation. They want the Indonesians to succeed in their policy of confrontation to break up Malaysia. It is obvious. If that is not their policy, why do they not say so? A simple answer to a simple question. Mr Speaker, Sir, the reason is self-evident other than to their own wicked, violent, perverted minds.

Now, when we say we want to settle it in peace, we are honest about it. We know that, as a military power, Indonesia cannot be laughed at. They spend 75 per cent of their budget on the Army, Navy and the Air Force. They have more than 450,000 people under arms. They have more than 30 jet bombers and more than 90 MIG.21s. This is a formidable force. Luckily their Navy is no good, Mr Speaker, Sir, I mean, if their fleet breaks down, they cannot repair it. Apart from that, this is no laughing matter. This is a country with a tremendous punch if it comes to war. We do not want war, Mr Speaker, Sir. Why should we want war? We want to settle it peacefully. But we are not going to be bullied and pushed around into a dishonourable settlement.

When the Indonesian Government and their leaders realise and accept Malaysia as a fact of international life and that they cannot, either by peace or by war, destroy Malaysia, then that is the time they will talk reason. And they are not going to talk reason, Mr Speaker, Sir, when they believe they have traitors in our country who can help them to destroy the State, to terrorise the people, and to bring this country under their sovereignty.

And here these people talk about neo-colonialism. What do they mean by neo-colonialism? This is a subject which they have discussed for a long time, repeatedly saying that Malaysia is a neo-colonialist plot.

In the course of the Budget debate, when my colleague, the Minister for Culture, embarked on the political issues behind the Budget, you called him up repeatedly and said that he should come down to the financial aspects. And, if I may say with respect, Mr Speaker, Sir, when the gentlemen opposite repeatedly called Malaysia a neo-colonialist plot, an imperialist instigation, you did not call them to task. I can understand, Mr Speaker, Sir, that you are trying to be fair. You are a member of the P.A.P. and therefore since we elected you as Speaker you consider that you must be more than fair to the Opposition. And I think you have been more than fair to the Opposition.

These are the people who say, "Malaysia is a neo-colonialist plot." Why do they say "Malaysia is a neo-colonialist plot"? What evidence have they got? What arguments have they got? Is it the British base here? These people want the British base to close down. But their predecessors, Mr Woodhull and Mr James Puthucheary, were on wining and dining terms with Lord Selkirk. They assured Lord Selkirk at that eventful tea-party, "We will protect your bases so long as you allow us to bring down the P.A.P.". These are the people. British bases? Who want the British bases here? They are here by agreement between the elected Government of Malaya and the elected Government of Britain. Both Governments see an identity of interests in preserving British military power here. I make no apologies for that. As my colleague, the Minister for Labour, has said, "Close down British bases and you are faced with 450,000 Indonesian troops, 30 jet bombers, 90 jet fighters." And the Navy, of course. Their navy can still move, although it is not very efficient. Now, how do you beat them? Will the Barisan join up and register? Will they say now, "I sacrifice my life to defend Malaysia's integrity against an imperialist power that is trying to capture Malaysia by force of arms"? Or do they think the Indonesians are so reasonable that nothing will happen? When the power vacuum is withdrawn, then Dr Subandrio says, "Yes, you are my friends. I will help you." This is mad talk, Mr Speaker, Sir, utterly mad talk! And they know it; they deliberately want a power vacuum to be created in this territory. I can tell them: any time the elected Government of Malaysia says, "Close down the British bases", then at that moment the British bases are closed down. The Government of Malaysia, as the Government of Singapore, is elected by the people. If they campaign on the platform of closing down British bases, and they form the government in Singapore, and most important in Kuala Lumpur, then the British bases must close down. That has happened before. So long as you close down British bases, there will be no jobs. They go out. There is no question of the British imposing their bases on this country. It is a simple fact of international politics. We find these bases necessary and useful to us at the present moment. In the future they must go. Everyone agrees with that. And, Mr Speaker, when the bases go, then you have to build a big Army, a big Navy and a big Air Force, costing not hundreds of millions of dollars but thousands of millions of dollars. Here in this Budget we are devoting something like $40 million as our contribution to the Malaysian defence forces, to the Malaysian Parliament, to Malaysian external affairs. And the Member says that is to oppress the people! The trouble with the Barisan is that they think they are the people. The soldiers are to oppress the people; the soldiers are to oppress the Barisan. That is what they think. The police are to oppress the people; the police are to oppress the Barisan. The prisons are there for the people; the prisons are there for the Barisan. If that is their definition of "people", I accept that definition in this context. But how on earth can the Barisan, in heaven's name, claim to speak for the people? We had a referendum, and they lost out miserably. They were not satisfied; we had a general election. Their Party Chairman said, "All the P.A.P. Ministers will lose their deposits. The P.A.P. will be out, and the Barisan will be in. We will have an overwhelming landslide victory. The people want us." What happened? The people rejected them and we now have a miserable crowd in front! How can they presume to speak for the people?

Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, another thing before I leave the question of confrontation. All these people have said that it was very wrong for the Tunku, Tun Razak and the people in Kuala Lumpur to scold Soekarno and Subandrio and that it was wrong to call them names and burn their images. They said, "How can we have a peaceful settlement if these things happen?" So they criticised the Tunku and Tun Razak. But worse things are happening in Jakarta. Why do they not say something about them? Why do they not say that Soekarno must also not insult us, that the Indonesians must not have anti-Malaysia riots and burn the property of the Malaysian Embassy there? Why do they not say that? No, Mr Speaker, Sir. Whatever Indonesia says is right; whatever Malaysia says is wrong. Champions of the people! They call themselves genuine Malaysian patriots! Mr Speaker, Sir, if this sort of thing happens, say, in a well ordered society, these characters could be charged with treason and put into gaol under the law. And then when we tell them that they are anti-nationals, they say, "How can that be? We are patriots." Utter madness! They are out not only to sell out the country, but they are not clever enough to disguise their evil design.

Now, Sir, the effects of confrontation. The Barisan Sosialis said that our economic defence programme to give two-thirds pay to the workers later on is very good. The Member for Paya Lebar said it. But he said that we must consult the non-P.A.P. unions and that after all it is only democratic that we should consult all unions. Now, Sir, if I were a child of six I would believe that sort of nonsense, but I have had enough experience in dealing with the Communist unions. And I say that if I were mad enough to invite these characters and ask them, "How do we run this defence scheme?" I deserve - if I am mad enough - to be locked up in Woodbridge. I know that they would be ganging up, that they would ask for impossible conditions and that they would agitate against the scheme. I know it. I have had experience of this thing. In our long political struggle, we know what the Communists are. They are double-talkers. No reliance at all can be placed on their good faith. We have had clear examples, Mr Speaker. These chaps always say that workers are suffering, unemployment is mounting, and so on and so forth. We knew it.

In 1960 I asked Messrs. Lim Ching Siong, S. T. Bani, Sandra Woodhull and Fong Swee Suan about unemployment insurance. I said, "Gentlemen, the unemployment problem is very serious. Let us do something about it." A practical way of reducing the effect of unemployment is to introduce a system of unemployment insurance, so that when the workers are unemployed, they get some income, not by courtesy or by charity, but as of right. You have unemployment insurance in all countries, in developed countries of the West and in countries belonging to the Communist bloc. You have it in Hungary, Russia, Germany, Europe, Scandinavia, America - anywhere. First, when the workers are unemployed, quite often, it is due to no fault of their own. Unlike the Barisan when they instigated people to go on strike, 1,800 workers lost their jobs. The Barisan union called a strike and they failed. [Laughter] The Member for Jurong laughed, Mr Speaker. He has asked a question - how many people were employed in the pioneer industries? He is going to get the answer on Saturday. We do not run away from facts. And when I say that the S.A.T.U. - unions Communist unions - have deprived 1,800 workers of their jobs, I am going to give them a list showing the names of factories, the number of workers, when the strikes took place and what happened. I think when he is confronted with the facts he will be less sceptical and less cheerful than he is now. They want us to consult them on how to save the country from economic confrontation when it is their desire to see the country go down and ruined by enemy economic action. Yes, Sir, Lim Ching Siong - I have just started and I must end up - they would not agree. We said that we would get the employers to make a contribution and that the Government would also make a contribution. We asked, "Would the trade unions co-operate?" We received no co-operation. They did not want an unemployment insurance scheme in Singapore. Mind you, we have had several experts who came here and said, "Do not have unemployment insurance. It is too expensive." But we said, never mind the expense, although I am the Finance Minister. But on this score, I said, "We have a real problem to meet. We will have unemployment insurance. Never mind the expense. Never mind the priority." We asked, "Are you willing to co-operate?" Nothing, Mr Speaker, Sir. They do not want to relieve the distress of the working class because, as my colleague said, the more the distress the stronger their political influence. So for them to say that we should take them into their confidence and get the so-called pro-Communist unions to work this economic defence scheme is a proposal so ludicrous that I would not even waste one second to decide what I should do.

Mr Speaker: Order. Moment of interruption.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Assembly approves the financial policy of the Government for the year 1964.