ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [5th December, 19661, "That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the year 1967.".-[The Minister for Finance]

Question again proposed.

3.29 p.m.

Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, let me thank the Finance Minister for the financial statement which he delivered in this House. It was full of life and vigour. The Budget for 1967, like the one for last year, is a balanced one. Although the Government does not seek to increase taxes, yet it is able to balance its budget. It has also been able to get a surplus of $5-odd million, and $30 million is transferred to the Development Fund. When we analyse this budget, we will find that there are more surpluses. For example, we have contributed a sum of $23.3 million to the International Monetary Fund and a sum of $1 million to the World Bank. And these two sums of money are meant for investment in order to boost up our economic development. These two items are not recurrent expenditure. There are some items which have been increased. For example, the development item for Education. This year, the item was $15.8 million, but for next year the amount voted is $26.5 million, an increase of about $10.7 million. This is an increase of 68 per cent. The amount voted for the Ministry of the Interior and Defence this year was $33.67 million, but for next year the amount to be voted will be $78.89 million, an increase of about -

Mr Speaker: Can I draw attention to the speakers to which I drew attention on Monday? There are a number that are on, and persons who are not using microphones are finding it difficult to follow the Member as the translation in other languages is coming through the microphone. Perhaps after Mr Teong resumes, this can be detected. Mr Teong, please resume.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): An increase of about 230 per cent. Therefore, there is a further improvement in our national financial situation.

Let us look at the countries around us in South-East Asia. Whenever a budget is brought into Parliament, whenever a Finance Minister tables his budget, he will have either to increase taxation or borrow money from other countries. As a result, his country's foreign debt will accumulate. Therefore, it is small wonder that our Finance Minister has said that, as the Finance Minister for two successive years, he has been fortunate enough to be able to maintain a balanced budget and end up even with a small surplus. I feel that it is not only the good fortune of the Finance Minister but it is also the good fortune of all the people in our Republic. We do not have to worry, as people elsewhere do, whether we will have increased taxation whenever the Government tables its budget. The fundamental spirit of the budget is that of progress in the midst of stability. This is no exaggeration. This budget incorporates the elements of encouragement, vigour and the spirit for betterment. This is evident from the Development Estimates which total about $411 million.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as a Government which professes to carry out democratic socialism, there is no doubt that the purpose of our economic development is not just for the benefit of a few capitalists. It is not to widen the gap between the rich and the poor so that the rich becomes richer and the poor becomes poorer. If this were so, then our economic development would lose its meaning. What is significant in our economic development? What are its objectives? I am of the view that the purpose of economic development is to consolidate our national economy. It should boost up our economy and raise the standard of living of our people. It should create more job opportunities for our people. In other words, the benefits accruing from economic development should be shared equally by all the people. Only thus can it be compatible with the principle of democratic socialism. Only thus can we carry out, step by step, our high ideals of democratic socialism.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past five years, because of the active encouragement given by the Government in the field of industrial development, we have been able to create 58,000 more jobs. Nonetheless, there are still about 60,000 people who are jobless. They are waiting for us to help them. Therefore, unemployment is still a very critical and grave social problem in our nation. As the Finance Minister has said, unless we can during the coming five years reduce this spectre then all the economic gains would be lost in the turmoil of social and political unrest. He has also said that over the next five years, from 1966 to 1970, Singapore would need not only to wipe out the backlog of the existing unemployed, but also provide another 95,000 jobs for our youths. They would be leaving schools and seeking entry into the labour market. Therefore, it is not a small problem. It involves the very survival of our nation. Five years from now, if we are not able to solve this grave problem of unemployment, then our people will suffer and all construction programmes will have to come to a standstill. Our struggle for democratic socialism will come to a critical stage. Therefore, we must concentrate all our efforts and go all out to expand our industrial programme. We should also expand our trade to provide more jobs for our people in order to solve the grave unemployment problem. Only thus can we realise the ideals of democratic socialism.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to talk on the subjects of industrial progress and external trade and to offer my views on them. Undeniably in the past one year our industrial programme under the guidance of the Economic Development Board has made good progress. Let me now quote a certain portion of the speech by the Minister about the pioneer industry. He says there are about 165 pioneer industries. In 1964 there were only 113. At present about 103 are already in production, while 33 are in various stages of implementation. By September 1966 the total investment of these pioneer firms, in terms of fixed assets, has grown from $255 million at the end of 1965 to more than $300 million, showing an increase of $45 million. The total value of output of these firms is expected to reach $450 million this year as against $318 million in 1965, showing an increase of $132 million. In terms of employment, the total number of workers in pioneer firms has grown from 5,400 at the end of 1964 to 12,000 today, an increase of more than 120 per cent. Therefore, we can see that our industrial programme has been carried out in practice.

I remember that in the past two or three years certain ignorant politicians, including the anti-national Barisan Sosialis, have made statements mocking our industrial programme. They ridiculed it saying that it would be a flop. They said that the Jurong industrial estate was a stretch of bleak and desolate land; but now, after a few years, this so-called bleak and desolate land has become a grand industrial town, with chimneys springing up here and there. The Jurong industrial estate has been able to earn a large amount of foreign exchange for us. I do not know what is their reaction to the present site at Jurong now. The reasons for such success are that, firstly, the Government has been actively encouraging and promoting industrial development. The Economic Development Board has been giving all sorts of aid to the investors, including industrial financing, and a tax-free period of five years. Secondly, there is the economic and social stability in our country, plus our advantageous geographical position. All this is conducive to confidence and investment in our country. Thirdly, there is labour stability. We have quite a lot of skilled workers. In the past few years, under the guidance of the N.T.U.C., our democratic trade unionism has been put on the right track and workers in various sections of industry have been better organised. No doubt, labour stability is a very important factor which contributes to the success of industrial development, because with the help of large armies of labour, we will be in a better position to carry out our industrial programme and to boost up our output. But, at the same time, we must also treat the workers well. This is our basic task. In this field, I believe the N.T.U.C. will look after the workers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, according to the Finance Minister, in the past five years, although we have been able to create 58,000 more jobs for our people by industrial development, we still fall short of the number envisaged, which is 70,000 jobs. We are still short of about 12,000 jobs. This goes to show that our industrialisation programme has not reached the anticipated target and we have to strive further. Much more effort must be made and better schemes must be devised. More incentives must be devised to help industrialisation, such as those which have been announced by our Finance Minister, in order to develop our pioneer industry in the next five years, and to cope with our unemployment problem. We are glad to hear of the three new incentives announced by our Finance Minister which have been well received by our businessmen and investors alike. With the passage of time, I hope a lot of investment will go into our industry, either from local sources or from abroad. We welcome their active participation in our industrialisation programme.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that the international market has become highly competitive. Therefore, we must try our best to raise the quality of our products and to lower costs. Only thus can we compete with products from other countries. Another method to market our produce is to encourage our people to use locally-manufactured goods. The Economic Development Board and our manufacturers should jointly hold trade fairs and industrial fairs in order to introduce and sell our goods to foreigners.

In regard to the increase in productivity, as far as I know, certain factories in Jurong have started a campaign to raise output and yields. They do this by giving cash and other encouragement. On the other hand, the N.T.U.C., the Manufacturers' Association and the Employers' Federation have also drafted a charter for industrial progress in order to guide and encourage the growth of productivity. From the point of view of democratic socialism, an increase in output and profit must be accompanied by an increase in wages, because our industrial programme can be successful only if the benefits are mutually shared by management and labour.

Now let me review our external trade. According to the Minister for Finance, our external trade export and import trade - totals about $7,200 million. This is an increase and the reason is that, firstly, we have pursued a non-aligned and neutral foreign policy and we have been able to gain the respect of countries all over the world. Many countries have established friendly trade links with us. We have not only maintained our links with our old friends in trade, but have also established new friendly relationships, including trade relationships, with our new friends, including countries such as Russia, America, Britain, Bulgaria and Hungary. They have all concluded trade treaties with us on equal terms, and African countries are continuing to trade with us. Indonesia has now discarded its confrontation policy and has resumed trade with us. This will encourage our trade and further contribute to our economic prosperity. Secondly, our favourable and advantageous geographical position will be a great help. We are situated at the hub of South-East Asia and at the cross-roads of Europe and Asia. We have favourable conditions for a trading centre in South-East Asia, plus our harbour which can accommodate big steamers of up to thousands of tons. On top of this we have very good harbour facilities and banking and insurance facilities. All these contribute to our being the trading centre of South-East Asia. It is not an accident of history. In fact, our port is the fifth largest in the world. It has contributed very greatly to our economic life and prosperity and has earned for us a lot of foreign exchange.

Now I want to talk about public construction by the Government. The development in this respect has been rapidly carried out. The building of bridges, construction of roads and various projects will require millions of dollars. Many projects are nearing completion. When the road linking Connaught Drive and the Katong area is completed, the traffic congestion in this area will be relieved. There are expansions of road surface and other public projects. All these will tend to solve our traffic problem. The Government's vote for the Public Works Department next year amounts to $34.8 million. This is a large sum of money. This will be used for various projects in both the rural and urban areas. One of the projects will be construction work to alleviate the flood situation in certain areas, and this will be good news to the residents in these areas.

I would like to touch on another point - education. The vote for Education for next year is the highest, amounting to $143 million. Other than recurrent expenditure, $26.5 million will be used to set up primary and secondary schools to develop further our education. From this we can see that the Government is paying great attention to our education problem.

Next year's vote for Health will be $4 million, which will provide medical facilities to take care of the health of our people. The vote for social welfare is $10 million for next year, which will be used to advance the welfare of our people.

To sum up, the budget for next year is a very progressive one. Judging from the point of view of democratic socialism, it is an ambitious budget because it reflects our firm determination in economic development. It also reflects our wish and desire to promote the standard of living of our people. It also manifests our resolute spirit and confidence in marching towards a more industrialised and modernised Republic. I fully support the Government's budget for next year.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo (Bukit Merah): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the budget, introduced by the Minister for Finance and after its publication, according to what I have learnt, has been well received by our society. We know that our Minister for Finance wants to build an ideal society and achieve economic prosperity in Singapore. His ambition and desire have been reflected in this budget. On the whole, it is a successful one and should be supported by all.

In discussing it, we normally have two things to consider. One is to maintain the balance of revenue and expenditure. The other is to project into the future to see whether the various items of expenditure can meet our basic minimum requirements, and whether it is possible to make or whether we have already made full use of our economic capacity and have tapped every possible source of revenue. On these various aspects I would like to air my views.

I feel that the budget of a country should not only contain economic significance but should also embody political as well as cultural significance. The Communists regard cultural revolution as the pre-requisite to political revolution and economic revolution - as a guiding force for the two or as a precursor to them. Ours is not a Communist country. In this initial period of nation-building, we do not have very strong inclinations towards cultural construction and we have not placed it on top of economic construction. But it does not mean that we must entirely neglect cultural construction. Therefore, I feel that the contents of the Minister's Budget Statement in regard to the cultural aspects should be reviewed. The vote in 1967 for Culture and Social Affairs is $4.3 million. Compared with $7.6 million for 1966, it is nearly half of the previous vote. The Minister for Finance has explained that it is because a large part of the previous vote was spent on the building of T.V. and Radio stations before 1966; they were the major projects then. Therefore, in 1967 the vote has been reduced.

We can also see from the budget that the vote for cultural construction for 1967 is very insignificant. In this respect, there is provision only for the setting up of a library in Queenstown. It is the only outstanding project and seems to be the only project in cultural construction in which Government is interested. I would like to point out that the meaning and significance of cultural construction are not highlighted in the Budget Statement. Therefore, it is not quite in keeping with the requirements of our present-day society. We need to give some consideration to cultural construction.

From this budget and the various items of revenue we can see the general picture. For instance, the possible revenue from the Victoria Theatre next year shows a significant decrease. Perhaps it is due to the fact that next year the theatre will be undergoing repairs, resulting in the decrease of revenue from this source. But revenue from criminal fines and other fines has shown a marked increase. For instance, in respect of Customs, the revenue will increase by $90,000; in respect of Public Works, the increase will be $20,000; in respect of various other items, the amount to be derived from fines will amount to $218,000. This can only be explained by the fact that culture is deteriorating, whereas criminal activities are on the increase and this is a symptom of deterioration in social morality.

[Mr Tang See Chim in the Chair]

4.01 p.m.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo (Bukit Merah): The allocation by Government for cultural activities is very small, but the estimate of revenue from advertisements on T.V. and Radio is much larger, about $5.3 million - an increase of $1.3 million over the previous year. This can only be explained by the fact that the Government is more willing to add some commercial colour in cultural activities and is not interested in developing culture itself. It is praiseworthy of the Government to make provision to build a branch library in Queenstown. But our development in society requires that the Government must have a new prison in Queenstown at the same time. That means the prison and the library will be seen side by side, which is not a good sight for anybody at all. We would like to see more cultural centres instead of more prisons in our society. Of course, we fully appreciate that if one is not fully fed and clad, one cannot talk about culture and ceremonies. But a certain standard in cultural development must be maintained in order to keep pace with economic development, otherwise solely economic development will mean the production of more well-clad and fully fed nincompoops who are good for nothing and uncultured.

In addition to economic progress, we must do our best to have some kind of social education together with academic education for our citizens. Although we have made great achievements and progress in academic education, socially speaking, social education is still in a state of immaturity. The Ministry of Culture has not got sufficient financial resources to push forward our cultural movement. This is a defect which must be corrected in good time. The National Theatre is not receiving financial aid from the Government because of insufficient funds allocated for the cultural movement. Initially, it depended on public donations. As soon as the building was completed, public donations became rather unreliable, although they came in useful in the initial stage. Now that it is in the self-development stage, the situation may arise where it is not enough to depend on public donations alone for its development, otherwise we will be in the same position as Nanyang University, which in the past depended solely on public donations but now also needs government aid. Public donations alone are not sufficient to maintain existing institutions and they are not sufficiently of help to their further development. The present situation which the National Theatre faces should be an eye-opener for us in cultural development.

We see from the Budget Statement that there are signs of prosperity in economic development all round Singapore. We also hope that in the next Budget Statement he will be able to add some cultural colour and instill optimism in cultural construction. The Budget Statement itself, of course, is not very much concerned with culture but, generally speaking, it is very encouraging. I would like to express my full support for it.

4.06 p.m.

Mr Chow Chiok Hock (Ulu Pandan): (In Mandarin): Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to raise a few points.

Since Singapore achieved independence, it has made remarkable progress and development in various fields, such as economy, culture, education, health and construction. Within a short year, tremendous progress in concrete form has been achieved. Even foreigners who visit Singapore are full of praise for Singapore. It is a credit to the efforts put in by the Government. But as the Prime Minister has said, we must not be complacent about our achievements so far. We must redouble our efforts with a view to greater achievements. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to speak on some problems existing in our country.

The first question deals with capital which is a driving force behind our economic activities. We all know that the Economic Development Board has played a very important and leading role in the economic development of our country, and its achievements are very impressive and encouraging. It is clear that the Government has made very good progress in encouraging capitalists to come in and invest. Certain concessions have been announced to attract more capitalists and foreign capital into our country. In the Budget Statement, the Minister for Finance: has said that he has been able to add to these concessions. He has announced that certain new concessions will be made to new industries. This is a wise move. I hope that both local and foreign capitalists and investors will take advantage of these concessions by coming here to invest.

But there is one point which I would like to bring to the attention of the Government, and that is whether it has been able to attract all available idle capital into industry. In other words, is there not a great deal of idle capital which is hesitant to come forward to invest because of certain restrictions and requirements? This is the question we have to answer. I believe that capital investment is a must for greater economic prosperity. But are we doing our best to attract all available capital - idle or otherwise - into production in the interest of our national survival and social prosperity? Where it is necessary, we can relax certain restrictions and regulations so that, within a short space of time, a great deal of hidden idle capital may also be attracted into production.

I have discovered that there are two kinds of idle capital which may be attracted into industry to boost our economic development. Firstly, people who have come to stay here have been residents for many years. Some of them have become permanent residents while others have even become citizens of our country. These people have accumulated some capital outside Singapore - in their country of origin. If they are allowed to bring in their capital from outside for investment purposes, it will be a good thing for our economy. But so far as I am aware, these people have not transferred their liquid assets from foreign countries to Singapore to extend their business here or to invest in fresh enterprises. There is one factor which makes them hesitate to do this. If they transfer their foreign capital or convert their foreign properties into liquid assets here in Singapore, the Government will tax 40 per cent of their capital remitted to Singapore according to the income tax regulations. So a great deal of their capital is knocked off even before it is invested locally. This is not very pleasant for them. Therefore, I feel that in order to encourage more capitalists to invest in economic production, it is necessary - in fact, I would say it is a prerequisite - in this context to relax certain regulations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, another kind of idle capital comes from our own people. Some of them have capital for which they are unable to account legally because it may be difficult for them to do so. So because of this necessity for them to account for their capital, it remains idle. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is necessary for us to investigate into the sources of income in certain respects, and I do not, in fact, advocate that the Government entirely relaxes all the regulations for this purpose. But there are certain accomplished facts in respect of which we may be able to relax certain regulations. For example, some people might have acquired money through illegal means or through a windfall. But because of the regulations which require them to account for their capital, money or income, they have to hide it away. So, in my view, in order to give further impetus to our economic development, such capital should be made use of. Certain devices may be worked out to encourage people with such capital to come forward to invest. I would suggest that some measures may be worked out so that within a period of six months people with unaccountable income or capital may be allowed to invest within limit in certain kinds of production. We will then have more capital to develop economically. On the other hand, we can also prevent a lot of capital remaining idle. This is a good thing to those who have such idle capital, and it is also a good thing to our nation and society as a whole. I believe that, apart from attracting and encouraging foreign capital, our Government must also encourage local and national capitalists to come forward to invest. So certain positive measures must be worked out to attract this frozen idle capital into our local production so that it will become useful capital. I must, of course, stress that, by so doing, we are not going to encourage people in trying to get money through illegal means, but in the past some people did so. So if we encourage them by relaxing certain regulations for the time being or for a certain limited period of time, I think it will be a more realistic approach. Otherwise, as the Minister for Finance has said in his Annual Budget Statement, this capital would invariably be invested in some finance companies which borrow money at high interest rates to be lent out in turn at even higher interest rates, thereby making these finance companies a very risky enterprise, which is no security to the depositors. As far as I am aware, a lot of poor people have saved some money and deposited it in such finance companies. If these finance companies do not have sufficient funds and are engaged in risky enterprises, then the people who suffer will be the poor people who have saved up some money and invested it in these finance companies. It is, therefore, praiseworthy that the Finance Minister is proposing some legislative action against these finance companies. But if the idle capital that I have mentioned just now can be used gainfully, as I have suggested, then a lot of finance companies would not compete among themselves for more deposits at high interest rates, and at the same time the depositors would have their money safely invested in productive enterprises.

I would like to talk now about trade relations in Asia as a whole. As we all know, in the past decade it has been the international tendency to switch from international and long-distance trade to short-distance local and regional trade. This is because it has been realised that it is important to have regional co-operation. Short-distance trade will save a great deal of financial and human resources and time, particularly in the case of a backward and emerging country. This kind of trade must be strengthened and consolidated.

Our country is positioned in the central part of Asia and it is the gateway to the East and West. So our fate is inseparable from that of the whole of Asia. We have all the facilities and infrastructure for trade and commerce with other Asian countries. We are in a very advantageous position and it is necessary for us to set up new trade links with other countries and strengthen existing ones with other Asian countries. After our independence, several trade missions have been sent to African and East European countries, and, as a result, we have concluded several trade pacts with those countries.

But there is one big country in Asia which has been overlooked and with which we have no official relations. I refer to China which has a population of 700 million. This population provides us with a tremendous market which we must not overlook. Undoubtedly we must recognize that our foreign policy is neutral and non-aligned. This is in so far as politics is concerned. But for our survival and for more prosperity, economically speaking, our economic activities must have a wider scope for expansion, since this is in keeping with our policy. We must make friends with more people, irrespective of their political ideology. It is, therefore, a good thing that we should set up commercial and trade relations with China, which is a great nation in Asia. Whether it is for us to do business with them or to sell our finished products to them, is all to our advantage. Perhaps some people may criticise me for making this suggestion, but I would say that if they do so, they are trying to add political colour to purely economic relations. We want to survive. We want to have more prosperity. Therefore, it is necessary that we should send some form of trade mission to China to win over this tremendous market for our country. We must set up some kind of reciprocal trade relations with China. This is necessary and essential.

Mr Speaker, I support the financial policy of the Minister for Finance.

4.22 p.m.

Mr Ho See Beng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have read the Budget Statement by the Finance Minister. I believe that when I make my speech, he does not expect to get a bouquet from me. However, I will give him the bouquet he deserves.

The Minister for Finance (Mr Lim Kim San): Thank you.

Mr Ho See Beng: I read his Budget Speech with pleasure and optimism. I have followed it very, very closely, and I have no hesitation in saying and agreeing with him that the uncertainty following the separation has been dispelled, and that Singapore, as expected, will continue to have a buoyant economy. It is appreciated that if each sector plays the role assigned to it, there can be no reason why we should harbour any fears that Singapore will not solve not only its unemployment problem but also set an example to the rest of South-East Asia, including our hostile neighbour, that we have really become a welfare State.

It is gratifying to note that the economy is forging ahead with substantial increases in gross domestic product, external trade market, and so on. While identifying myself with the sentiments expressed by the Minister for Finance, I cannot for a moment subscribe to his undue optimism which apparently is not matched by a stroke of realism. I am not for a moment making any suggestion to the effect that we are misled by our Finance Minister, but, nevertheless, as a Backbencher of the ruling Party - not on the Opposition, of course and as a trade union leader who has the interests of the working class at heart, I cannot but express reservations with regard to the Finance Minister's approach towards the solution of confronting problems that appear to face Singapore both in the economic and political spheres.

The question is whether the economy can afford to produce more or less the number of new jobs to reduce the present rate of increase of unemployment, especially when we have one of the youngest populations in this region, and also when we recognise the fact that 10 to 15 per cent of the economically active population are unemployed. A casual look at the speech with regard to the unemployment figures appears to convince me that - to borrow his own expression:

'Singapore would need not only to wipe off the backlog of the existing unemployed, but also provide another 95,000 jobs for our youths, who would be leaving schools and seeking entry into the labour market.'

When we add these figures, Mr Speaker, Sir, to the number of unemployed at the end of 1965, that is, 56,300, we arrive at the shocking figure, viz., 151,300 unemployed. The pioneer industries, the pet project of our Government, and our people have provided jobs for only 12,000 up to today.

'During the period 1961-1965, employment opportunities increased by 57,600 jobs.'

In other words, four very important facts appear to crystallise out of these figures provided by the Finance Minister. First of all, the pioneer industries have only provided one-fifth of the new employment available during the past five years. Secondly, we are faced with the tremendous task of providing employment for 151,300 during the next five years. Thirdly, based on our past experience as well as from the information provided by the Finance Minister, if we keep up the present rate of an average of 11,520 jobs per year during the next five years, even with our herculean efforts and our excellent optimism, we will only be in a position to provide new jobs for 57,600 people during 1966-1970. In other words, there will be a spill-over of 93,700 in the labour market of Singapore.

The Finance Minister has stressed the fact that the manufacturing sector alone can provide employment during the next few years. Based on past performances, the manufacturing industries can only provide new employment for 5,729 per annum; from his figures which I have taken (47,217 minus 41,488). Thus during the next five years the total new employment opportunities in the manufacturing industries would be 28,645. I am not for a moment ignoring the multiplier effect of employment provided in the manufacturing industries. Nevertheless, I would rather warn the Finance Minister that in his unwarranted optimism he might be caught in the pitfalls of the economy. I wonder whether the manufacturing sector can really raise the employment figures thrice in a matter of five years from today.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have also to recognise the fact that every year 19,000 teenagers will be entering the labour market, based on the figures supplied by the Finance Minister. I wonder whether the present system of liberal education has "tuned and tailored" the labour force to meet the requirements of our industrialisation. Otherwise you will have a very strange paradox that, on the one hand, you will have a large reservoir of unemployed with a secondary education, and, on the other hand, you will find a lack of skilled and semi-skilled labour force. This situation is fast developing in Singapore and I am glad to note that the Finance Minister has accepted my suggestion during my criticism of the budget last year when I advocated a crash programme to solve the unemployment problem. I am all for gearing up the present educational system to meet the requirements. It is high time that the Finance Minister also thinks in terms of incorporating a training programme within plants and industries for producing specialised labour. If the employers and Government will consider these suggestions, the unions in Singapore will go all out to make it a success.

Regarding our industrialisation programme, while congratulating the Finance Minister on initiating a bold approach, I cannot give the seal of approval of the trade union movement, especially with regard to all the steps to increase production. We definitely support the Government's efforts to attract both foreign and indigenous capital. Nevertheless, I would prefer to sound a note of caution or warning with regard to the quality of foreign capital that enters the Singapore arena. We do not want to encourage those entrepreneurs, whether they are from Hongkong or Timbuctoo, who would be only interested in exploiting labour and accumulating profits on the basis of sweated labour. Many of them might have exhausted their quotas in foreign market from their countries of origin, and these birds of passage might consider Singapore as a convenient place for exploitation of labour and building up new quotas. This type of capital is unlikely to be helpful to the economy or the larger interests of this nation in the long run. Hence, I will be extremely grateful if the Finance Minister can give an unqualified assurance to the labour force in this country that in his enthusiasm to create a climate favourable for foreign capital, he will not follow a policy consistent with a Gladstonian economy. Unless a categorical assurance is given to the workers, the possibility of our co-operation is rather remote.

The Finance Minister's advocacy for a productivity drive is well taken by the labour force. But he should realise that labour alone cannot increase productivity. Secondly, even in a plant or industry where the productivity is not high, it need not necessarily mean that labour should be held responsible. Low productivity might be due to inefficient, unqualified family management, which employs cousins and nieces, and excessive investment on overheads, wrong predictions made by the entrepreneurs, large inventory due to lack of understanding of market, absence of specialised skill due to inadequate training programme of the industries, and so on. The possibility does exist of an industry even with 100 per cent labour efficiency which is still unable to make the grade. So why blame only labour for not helping to increase productivity? Hence it is high time the Treasury benches refrain from the over-emphasis that labour should further tighten its belt to increase productivity. Labour, of course, will continue to co-operate in increasing efficiency provided the management will answer the question "At what price do you want labour to increase productivity?"

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder what the Finance Minister had in mind when he mentioned that the Government will hold "a fair balance between management and labour". If he had in mind any decision to be made by the Government, ipso facto to be accepted and implemented by labour, he is sadly mistaken. Any unilateral approach coupled with the hysteria of "industrialisation at any cost" would be completely rejected by labour if it amounts to the exploitation of the interest of the working class. I am greatly disappointed at the Minister for Finance with regard to his budget for 1967 making no provision for its daily-rated employees. The Finance Minister knew full well that the 1961 collective agreement solemnly entered into between the management as an employer and the Public Daily-Rated Employees Unions Federation has not been implemented by the authority. During my budget speech last year, after the Finance Minister had presented his budget, I made the case for the daily-rated Government employees quite explicit, and I was under the impression that he would introduce the necessary provision in this year's budget which will meet the requirement of this particular case. But, unfortunately, the Finance Minister, who quoted Dr Benham last year to reject the demand of the Government daily-rated employees, has maintained a Sphinx-like silence this year by making no provision in the budget estimate in meeting the requirement under the terms of the 1961 agreement. In short, are we supposed to come to the conclusion that when the Government attests its signature to any agreement as an employer, it deserves to be treated as a scrap of paper and that implementation of a collective agreement is only applicable to the private sector and not to the public sector? If Government can flout its past agreements and assurances, I do not see any reason why a private employer should not follow suit. I am extremely doubtful how we can increase productivity with a dissatisfied, disillusioned and disgusted labour force. It is high time the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister wake up from their "slumber' and prove to the workers that they do believe in the expression, "Industrial Peace With Justice". I would like to say here in this House, for the information of Members, that today the situation in regard to the dispute between the Public Daily-Rated Employees Unions Federation and the Government is explosive. If we cannot find a solution, then there is no way out, they are going on strike. If you have read the editorial of the Sin Chew lit Poh yesterday, even the paper suggested, "Why cannot both parties get together and talk and negotiate, and if they cannot talk and negotiate, why cannot the Government send this case to the court?" Now the Government says, "No, we will break the strike." Suppiah says, "We are going on strike and let you break it." So, where do we go from here?

Mr Lim Kim San: On a point of order.

Mr Ho See Beng resumed his seat.

Mr Lim Kim San: We are not on Government-labour relationship. We are on the budget.

Mr Speaker: I think the Member is trying to relate this to his regret that the Minister for Finance did not make provision for payment. I was a little more anxious about another point. If my recollection is correct, Mr Ho, you are anticipating something for which you have got a Question down for tomorrow or the day after, and there is a Standing Order against anticipation of matters that are coming up in some other form.

Mr Ho See Beng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I shudder to think that, as in 1962, the same thing will happen again within two or three weeks' time. All of you are aware that in 1962 Singapore was plunged into a state of chaos. You saw night-soil vans overturned, heaps of rubbish everywhere. Do we want to see this kind of situation happen? So why cannot the Government refer this matter to the Arbitration Court? Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said, how can you expect labour to increase productivity? Further it is highly unrealistic to suggest that the wages of daily-rated employees, who have put in 5 to 20 years' service in the different Ministries, should be compared with the existing rate in the labour market, before a decision could be taken with regard to wage revision. In that case, applying the same principle, I wonder whether the senior boys in the Treasury, who might have helped our Finance Minister to prepare the budget, would be willing to accept salaries consistent with the existing rate in the labour market for a fresh Honours graduate from a university. I do not believe they will accept the rate. So why blame the public daily-rated workers? Perhaps our Government, particularly the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister, will provide the necessary candle-power for enlightenment. Give an explanation.

While stressing on the so-called fair balance between management and labour and the necessity to provide basic facilities, the Finance Minister has not sufficiently emphasised the role of the State Economic Consultative Council which should necessarily be the back-bone in smoothing the process of industrial relations. So far it has not been that effective and it is high time the Council is rejuvenated and that more sub-committees are formed within the orbit of the Consultative Council so that problems in industrial relations, productivity and so on, affecting labour, management or the Government can be thrashed out in an atmosphere of understanding and appreciation. It will relieve tension and also help in exploring more avenues of co-operation so that labour and management can form a basis of understanding without losing their respective identities. It is my fervent hope that the Government will take the initiative in this direction if it sincerely wants to smoothen the process of industrialisation.

Coming to industrialisation, it is gratifying to note that the Finance Minister has accepted the crash programme which I advocated in this Parliament a year ago. But he should remember that he has to take into account two factors, namely: a policy with regard to raw materials and markets. A few among our industries, like the plywood industry, depend on our neighbour for raw materials. A situation is fast developing where, with open hostility, our neighbour is exerting economic pressure on us with a view to crippling our economy. So we should look elsewhere for raw materials. If we are not careful about this, it might result in a ban on the supply of raw materials which in turn might create jerks and jolts in our economy. Under such conditions I wonder whether it is possible in future to think in terms of establishing industry with raw material from abroad at competitive rates so that we will not face a situation with the sword of Damocles hanging over our head.

Further in his speech the Minister for Finance, while quoting facts and figures of the industrialisation programme, has not told this House whether any market survey has been conducted by the Economic Development Board. Without a knowledge of and understanding backed by relevant facts and figures of international markets for our products, we are unlikely to make much headway in our industrialisation programme. I am quite eager to know what steps have been taken by the Government in this direction and where they stand with regard to markets.

The Finance Minister appears to have gloated over the fact that the Gross Domestic Product in 1965 has increased by $206 million to $3,017 million, representing the rate of growth of 7.3 per cent over 1964. While admitting the fact that the economy is surging forward, we cannot afford to relax as Socialists unless and until we have relevant and reliable information with regard to the distribution of income. If the increase in the rate of growth has not resulted in eliminating inequalities but perpetuating them we cannot afford to congratulate him on presenting these attractive figures before us.

Mr Speaker, Sir, speaking in general terms the Budget for 1967 is rather pragmatic and also is consistent with our general policy of industrialisation. The allocation for development expenditure and the fund reserved for education and social services are sufficient, bearing in mind our financial resources and also our goal for a better and more prosperous Singapore. Further the Finance Minister has not introduced new taxes which will hit the less privileged class in Singapore. From that point of view, I must say that the Finance Minister may get all the bouquets from the common man. Nevertheless, the people of Singapore are likely to watch every step the Government takes in implementing its programme and I only wish that in its over-enthusiasm during the transformation from an entrepot economy to an industrialised State, it would not sacrifice the interests of the working class.

Mr Sim Boon Woo (Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am standing here to give a little bouquet to the Finance Minister, not like my colleague, the hon. Member for Bras Basah, who is giving him additional grey hairs with his speech! The second budget of the independent Republic of Singapore presented by the Hon. Minister for Finance in the House on 5th December marks a better and brighter future for our national economy.

Sir, it is also gratifying to note that he has presented a surplus budget in this House at a time when quite a number of developing countries are having a deficit budget session at this moment. To a newly independent, stable and progressive society like ours, such a fiscal policy adopted by the Finance Minister would encourage more economic activity, and the investment is beneficial to our initial stage of industrial development. The 1967 Budget not only gives the public a sense of economic stability and prosperity, but also a sense of security and survival of our country in this turbulent part of the world.

However, Mr Speaker, Sir, it would be a sound and efficient fiscal policy for our budget next year if it was not for the increase of driving licence fees. This affects all driving licence holders. Furthermore, it directly affects the wage earners and lower income group. The rich will not mind this increase, but the poor and the lower income group, like those who earn a living as irregular or part-time drivers, will experience a corresponding fall in their income. Therefore, they will be shouldering an additional burden. As a result, Sir, the very poor and lower income group seems to pay a somewhat larger proportion of their income than the middle and upper income class groups. It may not be the intention of the Finance Minister to add another burden to the lower income group just to get an additional revenue of $1.8 million. But the fact is that with such a fall in the income of this lower income group, there will be less butter and bread for their families. Sir, how can the desired standard of living be maintained in such a state? With his wide experience and knowledge of economics, the Finance Minister could have easily found alternative means to raise the additional revenue of $1.8 million from sources such as luxury products, e.g., whisky and brandy, which all the rich men drink and not the poorer men, instead of increasing this driving fee licence.

Sir, all in all, I think the 1967 Budget is a very sound one and I wish to congratulate the Finance Minister.

Mr Speaker: I think this is a convenient time to suspend for tea. I suspend the sitting and will take the Chair again at 5.30 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.56 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Inche Rahamat Bin Kenap (Geylang Serai): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to congratulate the Minister for Finance of the State of Singapore on his success.

On the whole, the tax rise announced by the Minister for Finance is with the objective of raising the economic status of the State, particularly in view of the fact that our neighbour, Malaysia, has imposed a similar tax increase. If we do not impose a similar rise as Malaysia has done, our economy will be affected. I believe our Minister would not have increased the tax if Malaysia had not already done so. After Singapore became an independent State, its progress has been remarkable, which is due to the efficiency of the Minister for Finance. This is commendable. There is every prospect that we will continue to prosper in the future.

Mr Rajoo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by my colleagues who have supported the Budget Statement of the Minister for Finance. We see it as the initial budget of a budding nation. Though our nation lacks natural resources, it has the determination and has taken positive steps to develop and protect the interest of our people and the nation.

Sir, with the indulgence of the Minister, I wish to speak on a few points in the Budget Statement. It is noted that the annual rate of increase in Gross Domestic Product during the period 1960 to 1965 is only 8.5 per cent, and that in 1965 the gross capital formation increased by 11.8 per cent over 1964, accounting for about 15 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product.

It is encouraging to note the frankness of the Minister for Finance in admitting that this falls short of the 17.5 per cent to 20 per cent rate of capital accumulation which is considered necessary for self-sustaining growth in developing countries.

However, it is noted from the external trade figures that the re-export of goods has declined from 37.9 per cent in 1964 to 36.2 per cent in 1965. Although it may be argued that a certain percentage of imported goods have to be retained either as raw materials or capital equipment required for new and developing industries, the figures of import valued at $3,017.9 million during the first nine months of this year as compared with exports amounting to only $2,494.6 million are quite disconcerting. They show a definite unfavourable balance of trade, despite an increase of 13.3 per cent in exports over last year. If this trend continues, we shall soon be a nation in debt.

However, I trust that with the establishment of direct trading relations with other countries, as a result of visits of their trade missions to Singapore, and with the possibility of resumption of trade with Indonesia, there will be hope for an expansion of our external trade.

Sir, the Budget Statement shows an external reserve of $1,038 million - an increase of $123 million over last year. It also shows an external debit account of $61.75 million - an increase of $2.75 million over last year.

With the separation of currency in June next year, though our currency will be supported and issued at par value of our external reserves, with the unfavourable balance of trade and the payment of interest on international loans, there is fear that there may be a considerable depreciation of our external reserves unless proper care is maintained and our external trade and balance of payments are watched very carefully.

Sir, Singapore has a population which is nearing two million and more than half of this population comprise young people. In addition, 40,000 children are born every year and about 20,000 are leaving school yearly to look for jobs and swell the ranks of our unemployed every year.

Although the efforts of the Minister for Health in advocating family planning are praiseworthy, I wonder to what extent does he really believe that population growth can be controlled by Government effort to push through contraceptives?

Sir, bearing in mind our ever-increasing population, we are faced with the attendant problems of providing more houses, more schools and more jobs. These are really domestic problems. But our improved port facilities should be utilised to provide employment opportunities and sources of revenue for our Republic. Exports have to be increased so that we will be able to pay for the consumer goods imported for the use of our growing population.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the next subject I would like to touch upon is rural development. Although the Minister for Finance in his Budget Speech has laid stress on the importance of industrial and urban development, he has regrettably omitted sufficient mention of rural development schemes. It is unlikely that in the near future all land in Singapore will be utilised for urban development and, hence, of necessity, some land will still be available for rural development schemes, and this aspect of development should be given equal treatment.

In the rural areas, our farmers and producers of primary products are working hard to increase output. I feel that encouragement should be given to them to enable them to produce sufficient poultry, livestock, etc, to make appreciable exports.

I feel that if sufficient attention and drive is given to rural development and to producers of primary products as has been given to urban development and industry, the output of farmers can be increased considerably for the benefit of Singapore as a whole and of our export trade.

Finally, Sir, as a Back-bencher echoing the sentiments of the general public of Singapore, I should like to observe that the present Government is one of the best in South-East Asia. Our people have every confidence in the commitments and sincerity and integrity of the Government. Furthermore, the countries around us also share the same view, which I feel is a great tribute to us.

5.39 p.m.

Mr Tang See Chim: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Budget as presented to this House is a useful and down-to-earth one. This is to be expected in view of the special circumstances in which Singapore is placed. We are a small nation with no natural resources. Our only resources are our manpower. This at once is our asset and our problem. We have a tremendous reservoir of manpower which, if properly deployed and developed, would lead us to fortune, but if neglected would be the cause of our failure. This basic problem of ours is realised by our Government and positive steps are being taken to combat it. Unfortunately, this is a problem which cannot be solved overnight.

It gives me confidence, however, to observe that the Minister in charge of financial affairs was the person who, as Chairman of the Housing and Development Board, was responsible for breaking the back of our housing problem. He is now at the helm of our financial affairs actively engaged in tackling this unemployment problem. In order to solve it, a great deal of thought has been spent on industrialisation; but in order to industrialise effectively, we need a market. Singapore by itself is too small to provide a market to absorb all the products that our factories can turn out. Our attention, therefore, is turned to export. However, our industrialists are not quite familiar with the export market. Therefore, in order to encourage them to export, we have to offer them export incentives. In last year's budget, there were certain incentives offered, but these were found insufficient and I am glad to observe that in this year's budget, the incentives we offer are of a bold and imaginative kind and should do well to encourage our industrialists to export.

In this connection, however, I find that the Minister for Finance was practically silent on the prospects of our export markets. A great deal was said last year about the finding of export markets with the help of the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I read from last year's Budget Speech contained in Volume 24, No. 2, column 49 of Hansard in which the Minister, with reference to prospective markets, said, and I quote:

'I should like, Mr Speaker, to go into some detail on the question of prospective markets for our manufactured goods. These fall roughly into four categories :-

(a) Markets in the developed, highly industrialised countries of the world;

(b) New markets in Africa and Eastern Europe;

(c) Markets to be provided by those countries which have been consistently running favourable balances of trade with us; and

(d) Markets in those countries which have a vested interest in ensuring that Singapore remains viable and stable so that, in turn, their own security interests are not jeopardized.'.

I am afraid no further reference to this particular development is contained in the present Budget Speech, especially in regard to category (d) as contained in last year's Budget Speech of the Finance Minister - that is, markets in those countries which have a vested interest in ensuring that Singapore remains a viable and stable country.

I wonder whether the Minister for Finance in his reply will inform the House what progress has been made in this particular respect and what prospects there are for our industrial products being taken up by these particular markets.

In the course of the year, Mr Speaker, Sir, there were certain bi-lateral agreements entered into with East European countries, but it would appear that we were significantly unsuccessful in getting a foothold in the African market in spite of the fact that a trade mission had been to that continent.

I have read the debate on last year's budget and I notice that there was a good suggestion from the hon. Member for Punggol: he recommended to the Government to consider the question of creating an export credit guarantee agency. This may be one of the ways of helping our exporters. As the hon. Member for Punggol argued, exporters are usually unfamiliar with export markets, and they are not quite willing to risk their resources in such markets unless they can be reasonably assured that there is a return on their exports.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is difficult to comment upon the Budget Speech in view of the fact that we were given so little time in which to prepare and also the fact that a lot of information is not at our disposal. However, I would like to touch on a few subjects that appear in the current Budget as presented by the Finance Minister. May I, first of all, take the question of building and construction? As appearing in the Budget Statement:

'The value of buildings commenced in the first six months of this year stood at $56.5 million as against $80.7 million for the same period last year.'

There is, therefore, a drop of something like $24 million. I think the responsibility for this drop in the development of buildings and construction must be laid at the door of high rates. I am glad that in the present budget the Finance Minister is making provision to lower the rate for special development and for development in designated areas. Unfortunately it would appear that this is rather restricted and is not broad enough to encourage private development, especially of commercial buildings. A great deal of labour is employed in the construction industry and a boost to that industry will, in fact, be one of the ways of helping the unemployment problem.

In this respect, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I recommend the Government to have a look at the present legislation regarding rent control? The present legislation may be an impediment in the development of building and construction, especially of commercial buildings. Perhaps the Government may wish to have a look at this problem and possibly decide, for example, on selective de-control. This could first be done in the commercial areas.

Another solution to this problem may be the setting up of a tribunal to settle the question of disputes between landlords and tenants on the amount of compensation payable for removal. If this suggestion does not find favour with the Government, I wonder whether it will at least appoint a committee to look into the whole question of rent control and its effects on development.

I am also glad to see the announced intention of the Government to control finance companies. I think this is the appropriate time to do so. We are an affluent society. A lot of us are living on credit. In fact, we may term our present economy as an H.P. (hire-purchase) economy. I think it is high time that legislation should be introduced to protect the consuming public against unscrupulous finance companies, not only, as the Minister in his statement says, to protect the depositors but also to protect the borrowers from the finance companies.

I see that in the Budget Statement there is no mention whatsoever of our public transport system, although sometime ago we saw in the Press that the Government wanted the companies running public transport to come together to work out a certain scheme to better serve the public.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Mr Fong Sip Chee): On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker. I wonder if the hon. Member was referring to an article in the Malaysian Times, when the Malaysian Minister for Transport came down to Singapore and had some hush-hush meeting with the bus companies?

Mr Tang See Chim: No, Mr Speaker, I was not referring to that. I was referring to the meeting of the transport companies. I think it was at the invitation - I am not too sure, I stand to be corrected - of the Minister of State for the Prime Minister's Department. But we have heard nothing of that since, and I was wondering whether the Government will now contemplate legislation to nationalise public transport so that the public transport system can be a more rational and efficient one than it is at present.

In connection with industrialisation, Mr Speaker, Sir, as we said in the debate over the subject of resettlement last Monday, I think the Government may be paying far too much attention to industrialisation and not enough to the problems of the farming community. As I have said, farming properly developed may again be one of the ways of finding more job opportunities for our unemployed, since, at the present stage of development, it is a labour intensive industry.

I see from the financial statement, Mr Speaker, Sir, that a tremendous amount of money is being given out on loan to the Economic Development Board for the development of Jurong. Jurong, Mr Speaker, Sir, is an imaginative scheme. I think it is a scheme of which we in Singapore should be justly proud. On the other hand, Mr Speaker, Sir, if you go to Jurong you can see that a lot of sites are not being taken up and it would possibly benefit the Government to spend more thought on attracting foreign manufacturers to Jurong before developing Jurong further. There is no point in developing the sites when they are not being taken up. It would only be locking up a lot of financial resources which could be better deployed elsewhere. On the whole, Mr Speaker, this is a practical budget devoid of dramatic changes which, unfortunately, in, our present state of development the Finance Minister is not able to make. I support the budget.

6.01 p.m.

Inche Mahmud Awang (Kampong Kapor): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, for the Budget Speech for 1967 delivered by him on 5th December, 1966, we must shower congratulations on the Minister for Finance, although there has been an increase in road tax and driving licences too. We understand that to develop a new emergent State like ours in Singapore, we must have a balanced budget in line with the developments which we have made. We also appreciate the increased allocation for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to establish missions in 12 countries. There is a possibility that the number may increase in future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Budget Speech we find that the road tax and licence fees have been increased. What I am referring to here is that the Minister for Finance, in preparing his Budget Speech, naturally must have taken considerable time, and due consideration must have been given to how to raise more money and increase revenue. Possibly in raising new taxes the Minister for Finance thinks that licence holders are car owners. If that is his assumption, then it is an erroneous one. There are licence holders who are not car owners but who work as drivers. When we levy the new taxes on drivers and licence holders, it is certain that, as has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Changi, it will be an extra burden to them as they belong to the lower income group. But it is not so with licence holders who, at the same time, are car owners. They cannot only afford to pay the increased licence fees, but they can also employ drivers. To such people, the increased rate, in my opinion, is not a burden. They can pay not only $10 but $20. But to those who become drivers by occupation, it will be a bitter pill for them to swallow. I wonder if the Minister for Finance can find ways and means to exempt them from the newly increased road tax, if they are employed as drivers in a Ministry or in a commercial firm. Licence holders who are car owners should not be exempted. In the case of drivers, I ask the Minister for Finance to give due consideration as to whether the extra tax should be levied upon the employers, or to do whatever he thinks best.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the whole, the financial policy for 1967 is fair because a lot of development is being carried out at the moment.

Mr Ho Kah Leong (Jurong): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the 1967 Budget Statement given by the Finance Minister is a very encouraging one. It gives us great stimulation and impetus, and, as a result, the people have full confidence in their future. I believe this Budget Statement will be welcomed by the people at large.

The main feature of this financial policy is that, apart from some adjustments in road tax and an increase in driving licence fee, there have been no increases in other taxes. We cannot only arrive at a balance in the budget, but we can also have some surplus. This surplus reflects the economic stability of our country, which is of great importance to a developing country. In many countries, particularly in the emerging countries, financial and economic instability always leads to political unrest and social chaos. Therefore, economic stability is one of the most important factors in the Government policy in order to bring about an improvement in the livelihood of the people and to lead our country into a state of progress.

When we first achieved independence, some people expressed doubts and were very sceptical about our ability to survive. But after a year of struggle, we can show, from the present financial statement, that we are not only able to survive but we are also able to do something better to develop ourselves. Mr Speaker, the Budget Statement reflects the realistic foresight of our Government. Although we are devoid of any natural resources, we are able to expand our industrialisation and to win more foreign markets for our local products. We are also able to create more job opportunities for our people. From this Budget Statement we can see for ourselves that the Government is giving full encouragement to various quarters. This is all very encouraging. Government is encouraging our own people to take part in industrial and urban development by giving them some kind of incentive, such as the reduction of property tax from 36 per cent to 12 per cent. This is a far-reaching plan which is welcomed. But we can also see that the concession of property tax is not so well modelled on the pioneer concessions given in the industrial sector. There is no time limit given to this concession on property tax. Because of this, the people who participate in urban renewal will forever enjoy this kind of concession, particularly owners of property in the designated areas, thus perpetuating the gap between the rich and the poor.

Mr Speaker, our financial development is dependent upon the co-operation between capital and labour. If this is overlooked, then the future will be very gloomy, because there will be industrial unrest which may lead to economic collapse or political instability. So I urge trade unionists, before they take any industrial action, to think twice before they launch any such campaign. If they take haphazard industrial action, thereby giving rise to social chaos, then the people will suffer. On the other hand, if there is full co-operation between management and labour, and if both exert their joint efforts for our development, then there will be a better future and greater prosperity for our people.

Mr Speaker, in view of this, I fully support the financial policy of the Government for 1967.

Mr Bernard Rodrigues: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the financial policy of the Government for 1967. In doing so, I wish to congratulate the Finance Minister on his realistic and down-to-earth budget. It would not have required much intelligence or courage, especially in a House with a dominant majority, for a Finance Minister to weave a budget with yarns of expectations and hope. There is an abundance of economists and even more of economic theories to help a Finance Minister to dodge his problems and tasks. But it really takes courage and common sense to prepare a balanced budget that firmly plants the country's feet on the ground and allows the hands to get to work. Such is the budget before us.

On our eviction from Malaysia, we were faced with one country dedicated to our destruction, and another to our economic ruin. Another government and another people might have given up in despair. Our determination and our will pulled us through; and very nicely too. Our Gross National Product, our External Reserves, our trade and our manufactures have all gone up. There was indeed a miracle.

Looking at the development programme for the public sector for next year, I am amazed at the magnitude of our problems and our capacity to meet them. Bearing in mind that we have a balanced budget before us, our public sector development programme is really astounding. The people of Singapore are asked to invest in this sector, a sum which comes to nearly 70 per cent of the budget and which represents an outlay of over $200 for every man, woman and child. In other words, for every dollar we spend on ordinary expenses, we invest another 70 cents either from savings or from loans. This rate is, I am sure, something a number of developing countries would envy. Furthermore, the distribution of this massive investment is something which many developing countries would find it difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. No other country in this region has been able to allocate 57 per cent to economic development, 36 per cent to social development and only less than 7 per cent to public administration and defence.

Coming to the budget itself, I note that in spite of the calls for inducements and incentives for entrepreneurs, it remains a very socialist one. Of the $590 million of revenue, income tax, property tax, taxes on property transfers, customs and excise on liquor, petroleum and tobacco account for nearly $360 million. Reimbursements, sales of goods and services and income from investments and property amount to over $122 million. Together, the items I have narrated account for over 80 per cent of the budget. And in this big sector, the poor contributes but little.

On expenditure, I note that education and public health alone take up over $211 million, or nearly 40 per cent. Special expenditure or expenditure largely of a capital nature accounts for over $93 million or some 14 per cent. Culture, social welfare, public parks and gardens and public works expenditure come to nearly $60 million, or some 10 per cent. Statutory expenditure comes to some $76 million or over 11 per cent.

The facts which I have just mentioned account for my support of the 1967 Budget. There is, however, one point insignificant though it may be to the House but of vital importance to me as a trade unionist, on which the Finance Minister is silent. I am referring to the casualty of labour in the transition of the Republic from an entrepot to an industrial centre. Ample provisions are made in the budget, as I have said, to induce foreign capital to flow into the Republic. But no provision is made to enable the labour force which may be made redundant through the closing down of firms engaged in the import trade - a necessary side effect of the Government's export drive - to be retrained and channelised into the industrial sector. In this respect, I should think something in the nature of a National Employment Insurance Scheme may well be considered by the Finance Minister.

I, however, hasten to say that the point which I have just raised may have been fully considered by the Minister, and for his own reasons he has not dealt with it in his 1967 Budget. It should not, therefore, detract from my support of the budget which is progressive and sound. I wholeheartedly support the Finance Minister for such a balanced budget.

6.21 p.m.

Mr Tay Boon Too (Paya Lebar): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the people of Singapore have been greatly encouraged by the Budget Statement delivered on the 5th of December by the Finance Minister. Everyone says that it is an encouraging one. But as a Back-bencher, I would not like to praise it excessively. Otherwise, people would say that I am the loud-speaker of the Government. My duty is to play the role of the Opposition Party and to make certain criticisms and comments on certain parts of the Budget Statement, where necessary.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what I would like to point out involves the 100 per cent increase in driving licence fees. I feel that this is in conflict with the principle of the P.A.P. I do not know whether the Ministers in the Government are aware that our Party's aim is to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor. When the Finance Minister raises this licence fee, I do not know whether he himself has paid enough thought to it, as most of the driving licence holders are poor people. If 70 per cent of them are rich people, then I will acquiesce in this increase. However, in point of fact, most of the driving licence holders are from the lower income group. They are poor people. They work for the rich towkays, because most of the towkays have big cars and they do not have to have driving licences. They can engage chauffeurs by paying them about $100 a month. Such a meagre income is hardly adequate to support the livelihood of a family. Some other driving licence holders are earning money for the capitalists, e.g., the taxi drivers and bus drivers. These taxi drivers, bus drivers and chauffeurs who work for their towkays are only able to earn about $100 a month. But the Government goes out of its way to increase the licence fee from $5 to $10 per year, and this is done when the country is experiencing a period of economic stability. This is really beyond my understanding. If the Minister can assure us, as suggested by the Member for Kampong Kapor, that the increase in driving licence fee is to be paid by the employers of these wage-earners and chauffeurs, I will gladly support it. Otherwise this will be contrary to the principle of an egalitarian society. The budget, on the whole, is a sound one. Therefore, I will fully support it notwithstanding what I have said just now.

Mr Yeoh Ghim Seng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I should like to congratulate the Hon. Minister for Finance on a realistic and sound Budget Speech. There is practically nothing in it that one can criticise. "The economy continues to move forward" were the very words of the Hon. Minister and these words must have acted like a shot in the arm to the public. The Hon. Minister said that it was his good fortune as Finance Minister for two successful years not to have had to raise revenue by increases in the rates of taxation. I am sure the taxpayers in this country must have sighed with relief to know that we have a Finance Minister who knows his business.

However, the Minister has stated that the only change is one of increasing the motor vehicle tax and this would bring in a small increase of $5½ million in revenue, an increase which we do not really need, as this increase is incidental to the introduction of sound principles of taxation. If this is really so, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would have expected the Hon. Minister to spread the benefit of $5½ million among the lower income group so that these citizens would have to pay less income tax for the year 1967. Perhaps our very understanding Minister will consider what I have just said and be the first Finance Minister in South-East Asia to start a good example by lowering income taxes for the lower income group.

6.29 p.m.

Mr Lim Cheng Lock (River Valley): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Minister in his presentation of this budget, but I would not, like other Members, congratulate him on so doing. He has admitted that it has been his good fortune for the last two successive years not to have raised revenue by increases in the rates of taxation. For 1967 it has been not only his good fortune but I would say the good fortune of the people of Singapore that increased revenue is forthcoming because of the rising revenue in the major taxes. The only new tax which has been imposed is the change of the principle of the motor vehicle tax and also the increased rate in driving licence fees.

Sir, when we were in Malaysia, there were two very controversial taxes. I refer to the sugar and diesel taxes. When these taxes were imposed in the Malaysian Parliament, I believe that our Government leaders very vigorously opposed these two forms of taxation. I would like the Minister for Finance to explain to this House why it is necessary to continue imposing customs duty on sugar which is a basic essential food of the people. I am not aware that we have started a sugar refinery. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us on this.

The other controversial tax which was imposed on the people of Singapore during the Malaysia period was the diesel oil tax. This affected the cost of living of our people with increased costs in electricity, the manufacturing industries and our transport industry. I would also like the Minister to explain why the imposition of this duty should continue.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now touch on one point with regard to export incentives which was not covered by the Minister for Finance in his Budget Speech. I would say that the incentives proposed are very attractive to the manufacturing industry. But one point which I feel he may have overlooked is that for our export industry to be successful we will also have to depend on transportation. I believe that our Government has no control over freight rates and ships which call at Singapore, and that freight rates can be controlled by foreign shipping companies by increasing the rates for the carriage of goods from Singapore to export places, thus serving as a deterrent to our manufacturing industry.

The Government has quite rightly been encouraging the development of the building industry in the private sector. According to the Minister's Budget Speech, the encouragement is mostly centred on those urban areas where sites have already been cleared for development, and this will not therefore create a problem. But I believe there are other sites in the urban areas where private enterprise would like to redevelop but are being hindered by the provisions in the Rent Control Ordinance, on which, I believe, the Member for Choa Chu Kang has spoken. I would suggest that the Minister look into this Ordinance to see whether he can repeal any provisions which hinder the development of the building industry and to bring the Ordinance up to date.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am disappointed to note that the Minister for Finance has not made certain provisions in this year's budget for Government's participation in the public road transport system. I will not dwell in detail on this subject at the moment, but I will raise it again in the Committee of Supply during the debate on the Deputy Prime Minister's Ministry. I feel that the road transport industry is the only public utility still in the hands of private enterprise with no Government participation at all.

Mr Speaker: If there are no other Members wishing to speak, I will call upon the Minister for Finance to reply.

6.41 p.m.

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am in full agreement with the Member for Sembawang when he rightly gives a large part of the credit to the people of Singapore for the fine performance of the economy during this year, as a result of which we are getting a larger surplus than anticipated, and also I am in the happy position of being able to present a balanced budget for the year 1967. I think we can count ourselves fortunate that although added responsibilities have come to us on achieving our independence, I need not have to raise further taxes, with the exception of revising the method of taxing motor vehicles and an increase in driving licence fees, because of the energy, drive and entrepreneurship of the people. Apart from this, I need not have to raise further taxes to meet additional commitments. In reviewing these taxes, I think I have made it very clear that we still adhere to our socialist principle, that we should tax those who are best able to afford it. Therefore, in revising the road tax, we saw to it that only those who can afford will pay. The majority who own smaller cars will not have to bear too much of the incidence of taxation. Here again, in raising the driving licence fee from $5 to $10 per annum, I do not think that we have been bearing down unduly hard on the poor section of the people. I doubt very much the statement of the Member who says that the majority of driving licence holders are poor. There are roughly 360,000 driving licences in Singapore and the holders of driving licences belong to the rich, the very rich, the poor and the not so poor, and they are asked to pay $5 more not per month, per week, per day, but per year, which means, in effect, that if the average smoker forgoes three cigarettes per week, he will more than be able to meet this $5 more.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall take up as many as I can remember of the points made by hon. Members of the House. The Member for Bukit Merah has said that he is quite disappointed with the smaller provision made to the Ministry of Culture. I think it is wrong to assume, solely from this vote allocated to the Ministry of Culture, that the cultural activities in Singapore are financed. Cultural activities are being undertaken through the Education Department, the People's Association and various other bodies, and I do not believe that we can relate the level of cultural activities to the amount of money that is being voted for. I quite agree with him that one of the most important aspects in nation-building is the promotion of culture, and I can assure him that we are spending quite a sizable sum of the revenue in promoting culture in Singapore.

The Member for Ulu Pandan has suggested to me that in order to attract capital here we should be flexible with some regulations and think of some device to waive some of the Income Tax regulations to allow people who have money but cannot account for it to bring it in and invest. I do not know what regulations or what device he has in mind. If he is thinking of any device which will compromise the Government and make it appear that we condone any irregularities just because we want capital to come in, I can assure him that we will not agree to any such device which he may have in mind. For those people who, he says, have assets overseas and who are resident here and would like to bring their money in but are afraid to do so because the Income Tax Department would be after them and they would have to pay 40 per cent of whatever they brought in, under the Income Tax laws if it can be proved that these are assets which a non-Singaporean residing here has built up by monies earned by him outside Singapore prior to his coming here, then they are not taxable. Anyone who has got such assets and would like to bring them in here would be welcome.

We have been sending trade missions all over in order to find an export market. We have said that we will be friends with everybody and willing to trade with anyone. We will allow trade missions to China if it can be proved that they are going to China to sell our products and not to buy. At the moment, we have an unfavourable balance of trade with China annually, running into an odd $100 million. In the present circumstances, Sir, I think it would not be in our interest to allow further missions to go there if its purpose is to buy goods made in China and not to sell our products. But if the hon. Member can assure me that if a trade mission to China is formed in Singapore and that it will be able to sell our products there, I will willingly recommend that this mission be allowed to go.

I am very glad, Sir, that the Member for Bras Basah realises that the most important problem facing us is unemployment. But I do not understand how he came to the conclusion that I am most optimistic in feeling that the unemployment problem can be solved. In fact, if he has been paying the attention which he says he has to the Budget Statement, he will remember that I sounded a warning that unless and until every sector of the economy understands the problem that we face and pull up their socks and work together, then the future is going to be very bleak indeed.

The Member for Bras Basah has also mentioned that he would like to see training within industry. I presume he has got a copy of my Budget Speech, but I will refer to col. 455 where I said, and I quote:

'The Economic Development Board has already started, on a limited scale, the training of technicians and skilled workers in tool and die-making, electro-plating and heat treatment. The specialised training programmes help to upgrade the skill of our workers in the existing industries and, ... In addition, specialised production teams, including workers, will be sent overseas for on-the-job training . . . By building up a large reservoir of technicians and skilled workers, and by gearing training to the industrial promotion programme, we can quickly enter into a more sophisticated stage of industrial development.'

Therefore, the point that he has made has been provided for - we are giving training in industries and giving our people special skills.

Mr Ho See Beng: Below par.

Mr Lim Kim San: I do not know, Mr Speaker, Sir, where in my Budget Statement I implied - was it implied that I am blaming labour for not being productive? I cannot remember, nor can I find it anywhere in my statement, but I did say that both labour and management should co-operate together towards creating greater productivity. I said in the Budget Statement that:

'With the co-operation of the National Trades Union Congress, the Singapore Manufacturers' Association and the Singapore Employers' Federation, we jointly drew up in 1965 a Charter for Industrial Progress.'

Nowhere, Mr Speaker, did I blame labour alone for lack of productivity.

The Member for Bras Basah realises that the main problem facing us is unemployment. In the meanwhile, he is accusing the Government of not living up to its agreement and that we are not willing to negotiate to raise wages for the daily-rated employees. I will again quote, for his information and to refresh his memory, the minutes of the meeting held on 27th July, 1965, between the Prime Minister and representatives of the Public Daily-Rated Unions Federation, and the N.T.U.C. were present. I quote:

'Claims for fresh revision -.`

Mr Speaker: Mr Lim, could you identify the document from which you are quoting?

Mr Lim Kim San: This is Hansard, Vol. 24, No. 10, col. 540, the third paragraph from the bottom. And I quote here:

"`Claims for fresh revision of wages should be regarded as outside the scope of the Agreement of 1961 and the Union would be at liberty to submit fresh claims on revision of wages for negotiation after settlement of the other two issues: disciplinary and grievance procedures and job evaluation exercise of ten outstanding grades involving about 300 odd employees. In the event of failure to reach agreement in the negotiation, consideration would be given for the claims to be referred to arbitration.'"

I think he is not unaware that a few days ago representatives of the Public Daily-Rated Workers Unions Federation and the N.T.U.C. met the Prime Minister. And I think, apart from wage claims at this meeting, both have agreed that it should not be the subject of negotiation. A Committee is now sitting and considering any outstanding issues.

Mr Ho See Beng: That is what the Prime Minister said. We did not agree.

Mr Lim Kim San: These are the minutes of the meeting held on 27th July, 1965. And the same reply, the same quotation, was given to the Member for Bras Basah last year. I have never heard any refutation of it, not even up to today.

Mr Ho See Beng: The agreement was not given to us.

Mr Lim Kim San: That is your business and not my business. It is up to you to see that you get a copy of the minutes of any meeting you attend. Otherwise it is a tacit assumption that you have approved whatever is written in the minutes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Bras Basah is not unaware that, on the one hand, we have a large number of unemployed which looks a very formidable problem and that we are doing everything we can in order to solve it. On the other hand, he is not unaware that, with a large reservoir of unemployed on our hands, the unskilled labour in the public daily-rated unions is the highest paid unskilled labour in South-East Asia.

Mr Ho See Beng: After putting in 20 years' service.

Mr Lim Kim San: And yet, after having agreed that this is no time for wage revision, that the public daily-rated workers are the highest paid in South-East Asia, and that there are thousands and thousands of unemployed, he is asking for a wage revision at a time when we are going to fight unemployment and when we have got to prove that we are more efficient than the rest in order really to attract entrepreneurs with industrial schemes to create more employment. He is doing all these things knowing full well what the implications are. I do not think he can rightly say that the daily-rated labourers are being exploited. From his own experience and from my own experience and from the experience of a few, not only are they the highest paid, but I think they are being worked the least.

The Member for Bras Basah did mention that we must not forget in our industrialisation programme to bring in industries which will purchase their raw materials from all over the world. Here again, Mr Speaker, Sir, if he has been paying as much attention to the Budget Statement as he has said he had, he will find somewhere there that I did mention that we are giving every incentive in order to attract entrepreneur manufacturers, with world-wide connections who can purchase their materials from all over the world and who have got markets all over the world, in joint ventures with our own citizens. As far as markets are concerned, we have feasibility studies before we allow pioneer industries to receive pioneer certificates, and we have agents in some of the main cities of the world. It is our intention that later on, when we have set up embassies, to attach to them Trade Commissioners who will be able to provide the necessary market information.

Coming to the Member for Farrer Park, he is a bit worried that if we keep on retaining more and more of our imports, our balance of payments will become more and more unfavourable. Mr Speaker, Sir, it all depends upon whether we use retained imports for manufacture of products to be re-exported, or whether we consume the retained imports ourselves. I think I have made it very clear that the increase in retained imports is largely due to the fact that our increasing number of industries are using more and more raw materials which are turned into finished products and re-exported. And if he will look through my statement on the question of financing for development for the year 1967, he will see that, on Development Expenditure of round about $411 million for 1967, we will be drawing on our reserves of the Development Fund to the extent of only $32 million.

Though I did not mention export markets in my Budget Statement, it does not mean that nothing is happening in that sphere and that we are keeping still. I did not mention it for the simple reason that during the course of the year, when we signed bi-lateral trade agreements with Bulgaria and some East European countries, sufficient publicity had been given and I thought it would be wasting time to mention that again. I think sufficient publicity had been given during the time when we sat down with the Americans to negotiate on the textile quota. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, although I did not mention or enlarge on the statement I made last year about looking for new markets, things are happening there, though at a much slower rate than I or anyone of us would like it to be.

I cannot agree with the statement that the substantial drop in building and construction last year was due to the high rate of property tax. Building and construction is the most sensitive sector of the economy, and if there are any political changes, it is bound to suffer. I do not understand very clearly what the Member for Choa Chu Kang meant when he said that unless and until the property tax on building of commercial houses is reduced, there would be no progress in the building of commercial houses. I think he probably meant the re-building of commercial houses.

Mr Tang See Chim: On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lim Kim San: Yes.

Mr Tang See Chim: I do not think I said that unless and until the property tax is reduced there would be no progress. I think I said that the concession was not generous enough or not general enough to embrace the whole of the economy and possibly a reduction in the rates would serve as an incentive to the building trade.

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, I probably misunderstood him. But I thought it was implied that if no reduction in property tax is given to commercial building, there would be no progress in commercial building. I would say that under the urban renewal scheme it is exactly to commercial building that the reduced rate will apply.

As for the removal of rent control, Mr Speaker, Sir, the time will come, much sooner than we at first expected, when it would be possible to remove rent control without great hardship to the majority of the poorer tenants, because with the success of the low-cost building programme, we find that more than 50 per cent of the people who were living in the city have now moved into low-cost houses, and very soon more and more will go out and then that would be the time to consider removing rent control. I am very sure that if we were to pass a Bill now to remove rent control, the House would be really divided on this issue. But for the information of Members who feel that something should be done in order to assist the development of the city, we are thinking along the lines of setting up a tribunal in order to be able to settle compensation payable for removal for development purposes.

On the question of the nationalisation of public transport, I personally feel that once you nationalise public transport, it may be more rational, but it would not be more efficient. That is one thing I am very sure of. I have not the slightest desire to nationalise public transport nor would I recommend it, because that is the quickest way to lose Government revenue.

The Member for Choa Chu Kang, while agreeing that we should industrialise, felt that not enough emphasis has been given to the agricultural sector. I cannot agree with him on this. Within our limited confines we are doing everything we can to promote agriculture - not agriculture in the sense of planting rubber trees - and we have not done too badly. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will remember, about three or four years ago we were importing pigs, poultry and eggs, but now we are in a position to export pigs, poultry and eggs, and I think we have got a really good herd of locally-bred stud pigs which I think very few countries in South-East Asia have. Therefore, the Primary Production Department, under the Ministry of National Development, is pushing ahead and improving pig-rearing, husbandry, poultry rearing and market gardening methods. So within the very limited space in this island, we are doing everything we possibly can in order to take full advantage of modern technology in intensive farming poultry breeding and its allied lines.

The Member for Serangoon - is it Serangoon? - Telok Blangah, yes. Mr Speaker, he proposed that we should look after the unemployed by bringing in a national unemployment insurance scheme. I can assure him that we are trying to get an actuary to work out unemployment insurance for this country, and so far we have not been successful. But I hope during the course of next year to be able to put up a scheme for consideration by the Cabinet and by this House.

Lastly, to come to the Member for River Valley who wants me to give an explanation why certain taxes which were imposed during Malaysian days have not been removed. It is not true to say that the cost of living has gone up because there is a tax on diesel oil, and that electricity rates have gone up because of the tax on diesel oil. In fact, the P.U.B. is given exemption from paying this tax, and because of its desire to raise loans from the World Bank, it is now forced really to look into its system of trading and put it on a very firm trading basis, as a result of which it has found that it is in a very peculiar position, in that the more it sells, the more it loses! Therefore, before we can get a loan from the World Bank, we first have to put our house in order, that is, the P.U.B. in order, and to see that it really conforms to the organisation and to the principle of a trading concern, that is, the more you sell, the more you should be able to make, and not the other way round. So it is not true that the increase in electricity is due to the diesel oil taxes. In any case, the P.U.B. is not paying tax because it has been exempted from the tax on diesel.

His point on shipping is noted, and it has been exercising the minds of the officers of my Ministry to see in what way we can break the stranglehold that the Shipping Conference have on shipping rates. We will try as far as possible to see that this monopoly does not in any way put up an insuperable barrier to our industrialisation programme. In fact, we have managed to get the Australian-Singapore run to accept two of our local steamers to be members of the Conference, so that goods manufactured here could be exported to Australia in their bottoms and at a rate competitive with freight rates elsewhere. I think I have touched on most of the points that have been raised, and before I sit down, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like -

Mr Lim Cheng Lock: On a point of information.

Mr Speaker: Is the Finance Minister prepared to give way?

Mr Lim Kim San: Yes.

Mr Lim Cheng Lock: Mr Speaker, on the point of the imposition of duty on sugar, the Minister has not given the House an answer.

Mr Lim Kim San: Yes, I think I have left that one out. I must thank the Member for reminding me. The reason why the tax on sugar has not been removed is that there will be a sugar refinery in Singapore soon. From what I understand, the factory is in an advanced stage of construction, and when it is refining sugar, there would have to be a protective duty. So rather than removing the duty now and putting it back later on, we thought it best to leave well alone.

Finally, Mr Speaker, before I sit down, may I request the trade union leaders always to keep in mind that the biggest problem facing us is the unemployment problem, and that far from allowing labour to be exploited by management, we have always maintained that there should be no exploitation of one by the other, and that, in spite of the fact that there is a large number of unemployed, we would not allow any entrepreneur to take advantage of the situation. But still, at the same time, I hope the trade union leaders will realise the significance of it and that for the success of our industrialisation programme, which ultimately will mean more employment and prosperity for Singapore, everyone of us should pull up our socks, do our best, understand the problem before us, and do not do anything at all which will bring harm to our country.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the year 1967.

Resolved, "That the House do now adjourn."-[Mr Lim Kim San]

Adjourned accordingly at Fifteen minutes past Seven o'clock p.m. Estimate of Expenditure of Singapore for the Year 1967 (Cols 0677-0680)