CONTROL OF MANUFACTURE ORDINANCE, 1959 (Profiteering by manufacturers of goods specified in First and Second Schedules)

Mr Low Guan Onn asked the Minister for Finance whether he is aware that some existing manufacturers of goods specified in the First and Second Schedules to the Control of Manufacture Ordinance, 1959, are ex ploiting the captive market, and prices of some items of daily necessities have -gone up by more than 50 per cent, and what measures have been taken to curb this profiteering tendency which is at the expense of domestic consumers.

Mr Tang See Chim (for the Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, Sir, in order to answer the hon. Member's question, I have caused a survey to be taken of the prices of the following, which are the likely items of daily necessities the hon. Member has in mind. These items are:

(1) toilet soap;

(2) condensed milk;

(3) singlets;

(4) toilet papers;

(5) shirts;

(6) hair cream.

The survey shows that there has been little change in the retail prices of the items before and after protection has been accorded. There has been no change in the prices of all the other items mentioned except for toilet soap. There is therefore no justification for the contention of the hon. Member for River Valley that prices of some items of daily necessities have gone up by more than 50 per cent. As for shirts - until recently there existed neither duty nor quantity restriction. Even now there is no quantity restriction.

The complaints of higher prices are perhaps more the result of local consumers insisting on imported brands, on which protective tariffs have been imposed.

Mr Low Guan Onn (River Valley): Mr Speaker, Sir, I completely disagree With the Parliamentary Secretary. I have got the figures for 1965 for the following items: singlets used to cost 60 cents each and today it is being sold at 75 cents; socks used to cost $7 per dozen as against $7.80 per dozen today; toilet papers used to cost 18 cents per roll as against 23 cents per roll today; Lux soap used to cost 25 cents per cake as against 45 cents per cake today.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain the increase in prices between 1965 and today in the light of his contention yesterday that there was not much increase in the cost of living?

Mr Tang See Chim: Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member for River Valley answered his own question by his last sentence. Indeed, during yesterday's Budget debate I quoted the retail price index which showed that, in fact, there was a decline in the retail price index from something like 113 points to 111 points. I have got a list here which I shall be only too happy to give to the hon. Member, and if he will also make available to me his list, I shall check up. If he is satisfied with my private answer later on, all will be well, otherwise he can always table another question.