PH DThesisFinal-Janury09 PDF

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/228119127
Economic Growth of Singapore in the Twentieth Century: Historical GDP

Estimates and Empirical Investigations
Article · January 2011
CITATIONS READS
11 306
1 author:
Ichiro Sugimoto
Soka University
8 PUBLICATIONS 17 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
The Construction of Long-term Economic Statistics in Former British Colonies in Southeast Asia View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ichiro Sugimoto on 09 May 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ECONOMIC GROWTH OF SINGAPORE IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY:
HISTORICAL GDP ESTIMATES AND EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATIONS ON
ECONOMIC INSTABILITY AND GOVERNMENT FISCAL BEHAVIOR
ICHIRO SUGIMOTO
INSTITUTE OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA
MALAYA
KUALA LUMPUR
JANUARY 2009
2009
ORIGINAL LITERARY WORK DECLATION
Name of Candidate: ICHIRO SUGIMOTO (I.C/Passport No: MZ 0453378)

Registration/ Matric No: HHA020002
Name of Degree: Ph.D
Tile of Thesis: ECONOMIC GROWTH OF SINGAPORE IN THE TWENTIETH
CENTURY: HISTORICAL GDP ESTIMATES AND EMPIRICAL
INVESTIGATIONS ON ECONOMIC INSTABILITY AND
GOVERNMENT FISCAL BEHAVIOR
Field of Study: ECONOMIC HISTORY
I do solemnly and sincerely declare that:
(1) I am the sole author/writer of this Work;

(2) This Work is original;
(3) Any use of any work in which copyright exists was done by way of fair dealing and for
permitted purposes and any excerpt or extract from, or reference to or reproduction of
any copyright work has been disclosed expressly and sufficiently and the title of the
Work and its authorship have been acknowledged in this Work;
(4) I do not have any actual knowledge no do I ought reasonably to know that the making
of this work constitutes an infringement of any copyright work;
(5) I hereby assign all and every rights in the copyright to this Work to the University of
Malaya (UM), who henceforth shall be owner of the copyright in this Work and that any
reproduction or use in any form or by any means whatsoever is prohibited without the
written consent of UM having been first had and obtained;
(6) I am fully aware that if in the course of making this Work I have infringed any copyright
whether intentionally or otherwise, I may be subject to legal action or any other action
as may be determined by UM.
Candidate’s Signature Date
Witness’s Signature Date
Name: Prof. Dr. Tan Eu Chye

Designation: Professor, Department of Economics,
Faculty of Economics and Administration,
University of Malaya
ECONOMIC GROWTH OF SINGAPORE IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY:
HISTORICAL GDP ESTIMATES AND EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATIONS ON
ECONOMIC INSTABILITY AND GOVERNMENT FISCAL BEHAVIOR
ICHIRO SUGIMOTO
THESIS SUBMITTED IN FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
INSTITUTE OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

KUALA LUMPUR
JANUARY 2009
2009
ABSTRACT
This thesis has as its main objective the analysis of economic growth of Singapore
in the twentieth century.
Research on the long-term economic growth of Singapore has been hampered until
now due, in large part, to the virtual absence of economic-related statistics prior to 1956
which conformed to the definitions as outlined in the System of National Accounts.
Recognizing this limitation, the first part of this study is devoted to providing the
methodologies employed for the construction of Singapore’s historical GDP estimates
for the periods 1900-39 and 1950-60. The “Expenditure Approach” was applied to
derive GDP data series in current and constant prices for these periods. Subsequently,
this time-series data was extended to cover entire twentieth century using a single base
year (1990 prices).
By utilizing this historical GDP series, two types of empirical investigations were
attempted to examine the economic growth experiences of Singapore. The first type
deals with the relationship between economic instability and economic growth. Three
related issues were examined, namely extent, sources and consequences of economic
instability during the twentieth century. It was observed that the extent of output
volatility in the pre-WWII period was greater than that of the post-WWII period. In
relation to sources of output volatilities, explanatory variables such as the share of
government deficit/surplus to GDP, changes in trade as a share of GDP and changes in
terms of trade were found to be statistically insignificant for both the pre-WWII and
post-WWII periods. With regard to the effect of economic instability on economic
growth, export instability has negatively impacted on real per capita GDP growth for
ii
the entire twentieth century but the coefficient has fallen over time as the structure of
the economy became more diversified.
The second type deals with government fiscal behavior towards economic growth. It
focused on whether there existed any notable differences or similarities in fiscal
behavior between the British colonial period and the period of self-government that
ensued. This study firstly identifies the nature of colonial government finance behavior
and then goes on to trace the changes in revenue raising, expenditure allocation and
budget balance management patterns in the twentieth century. A major structural change
was observed after WWII. It was mainly due to the shift of the source of revenue from
the sales of opium to revenue obtained from income tax. This transition impacted on the
revenue raising capacity and subsequently on the size of government expenditure.
Nevertheless, the share of government expenditure to GDP during both the British
colonial government and the period of self-government remained small while those of
other developed countries experienced continuous increases over the same period. In
fact, both the British colonial government and self-government attempted to establish
balanced or even a surplus budget structure. For analytical purposes, the validity of
Wagner’s law was empirically tested. The result on Granger causality test found that
economic growth nurtured the expansion of government expenditure in the pre-WWII
period while economic expansion during the post-WWII period could mainly be
attributed to astute macroeconomic management.
iii
ABSTRAK
Objektif tesis adalah untuk menganalisis pertumbuhan ekonomi di Singapura pada
abad ke-20.
Sehingga kini kajian mengenai pertumbuhan ekonomi di Singapura amat terhad
ekoran daripada ketidakwujudan data statististik yang selaras dengan tafsiran Sistem
Perakaunan Negara (SNA) sebelum tahun 1956. Berdasarkan kesedaran ini, kajian
menyeluruh terutamanya bahagian pertama kajian akan menghuraikan dan menjelaskan
metodologi pembentukan anggaran Keluaran Dalam Negara Kasar (KDNK) di
Singapura bagi tempoh 1900-39 dan 1950-60. Pendekatan dari segi perbelanjaan telah
digunakan berasaskan kepada harga semasa dan harga tetap. Selanjutnya, anggaran
KDNK ini digabungkan dengan data am yang diterbitkan dalam jangka masa sepanjang
abad ke-20 dengan berdasarkan harga tetap (tahun 1990).
Dengan menggunakan anggaran KDNK tersebut, dua jenis kajian empirikal telah
digunakan bagi meneliti pertumbuhan ekonomi Singapura. Jenis kajian pertama adalah
mengenai perhubungan diantara ketidakstabilan ekonomi dan pertumbuhan ekonomi.
Topik ini mengandungi isu-isu seperti kadar ketidakstabilan, sumber ketidakstabilan
dan kesan ketidakstabilan. Ketidakstabilan KDNK dalam jangka masa sebelum Perang
Dunia Kedua menunjukkan kadar yang lebih ketara jika dibandingkan dengan jangka
masa selepas Perang Dunia Kedua. Ini dapat dijelaskan melalui faktor-faktor yang
menyebabkan ketidakstabilan KDNK, jumlah lebihan dan defisit kerajaan dalam KDNK,
perubahan jumlah saiz perdagangan KDNK dan indeks terma perdagangan. Ketiga-tiga
perubahan ini tidak dapat diterangkan dalam bentuk statistik. Seterusnya,
ketidakstabilan eksport ini telah memberi kesan negatif kepada perkembangan per
kapita KDNK Singapura.
iv
Namun begitu, koefisien itu telah berkurangan dalam jangka masa tertentu sejajar
dengan munculnya pelbagai bentuk perdagangan.
Jenis kajian yang kedua ialah menganalisis perhubungan di antara pengurusan
kewangan kerajaan dengan pertumbuhan ekonomi di Singapura. Kajian ini memberi
tumpuan sama ada terdapat perbezaan atau persamaan dalam konteks pengurusan
kewangan di antara pihak pentadbiran kolonial British dan kerajaan Singapura selepas
kemerdekaan negara tersebut. Kajian pertama ialah sifat pengurusan kewangan kerajaan
di bawah pentadbiran kolonial. Selanjutnya, kajian ini meneliti mengenai perubahan
dari aspek pengutipan hasil, peruntukan perbelanjaan dan pengurusan belanjawan
kewangan dalam abad ke-20. Ini disebabkan oleh perubahan struktur pengutipan hasil
kerajaan daripada penjualan candu kepada cukai pendapatan. Transformasi ini
menyebabkan perkembangan terhadap saiz pengutipan hasil negeri. Sejajar dengan
polisi ini, perbelanjaan negeri juga meningkat. Walau bagaimanapun, jikalau dibanding
dengan negara-negara maju, saiz perbelanjaan KDNK terus mengecil dibawah
pentadbiran kerajaan kolonial British dan kerajaan Singapura. Sebenarnya, pihak
berkuasa kolonial British dan kerajaan Singapura telah memberi tumpuan bagi
membentuk struktur kewangan yang seimbang atau lebihan kewangan. Pada masa yang
sama ujian Wagner’s law iaitu Granger causality test dilaksanakan di mana ia telah
membuktikan bahawa pertumbuhan ekonomi menyebabkan perkembangan perbelanjaan
negeri sebelum Perang Dunia Kedua. Sebaliknya, pengurusan makroekonomi yang
diuruskan oleh kerajaan memberi kesan positif bagi menentukan pertumbuhan ekonomi
Singapura selepas Perang Dunia Kedua.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is my pleasure to thank the many individuals who made this thesis possible.
I am greatly indebted to Prof. Dr. Tan Eu Chye as my supervisor for the intellectual
support and patience he has shown me. Throughout my thesis-writing period he
provided me encouragement, sound advice, good teaching and lots of good ideas. I
would have been lost without him. Thanks to his encouragement, I presented part of this
study at a number of conferences, namely “The Economic History Society Annual
Conference 2005” (Leicester, UK), “The Socio-Economic History Society Annual
Conference 2007” (Tokyo, Japan) and “The Singapore Economic Review Conference
2007” (Singapore) before submission of this study.
I would also like to express my deep appreciation to His Royal Highness Raja Dr.
Nazrin Shah, Crown Prince of Perak and Pro-Chancellor, University of Malaya for
providing me great encouragement and opportunity to be in his research project entitled
“Historical National Accounts of Pre-Independence Malaya” since 1998. The
experience gained from this project as well as the accessibility accorded me to his
personal collections of colonial documents was of immense help to the completion of
my own thesis.
I want to thank Dato’ Dr. Shaharil Talib, former executive director, Asia-Europe
Institute for giving me great encouragement and for sharing his deep knowledge on
colonial history of Singapore. Mr. Gnaseagarah C. Kandaiya and Mr. Harbans Singh
have guided me in the construction of historical statistics with their profound experience
as statisticians. I have also received valuable comments at various stages from Prof. Dr.
Riitta Hjerppee, Dr. Reino Hjerppee, Dr. Pierre van der Eng, Prof. Dr. Jan Luiten van
vi
Zanden, Dr. Thomas Linblad, Prof. Dr. Om Prakash, Prof. Dr. Yoshihiro Tsubouchi and
Prof. Dr. Osamu Saito.
The Asia-Europe Institute, University of Malaya headed by Prof. Datuk Dr. Roziah
Omar, has provided me the best facility and resources to carry out my studies all the
way. I am grateful to my former research colleagues Ruhana, Nazli, Anita, Tuah, Tin,
Laili, Zul, Suhaimi and Quang who have been a source of motivation.
My most heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Daisaku Ikeda, founder of Soka University for
guiding me all the way since my decision to pursue further studies in Malaysia.
I am grateful to Prof. Dr. Masami Kita, Prof. Dr. Yoshihisa Baba, Prof. Hirotomo
Teranishi, Prof. Dr. Tsuyoshi Kato, Dr. Motoko Kawano, Mr. Choo Kong Fei, Mrs.
Choo Aiko, Prof. Dr. Christopher Boey, Mrs. Chang Lee Leng, Mrs. Lim Suat San, Mr.
Fumio Nakano, Mr. Hiroyuki Azuma, Mr. Mitsuharu Mori, Mr. Futoshi Ozaki, Mr.
Tomohito Gyota and Mr. Kazunori Wakayama and for their continued moral support.
Finally, I am forever indebted to my wife, Mieko and my son, Yoichi for their
understanding, endless patience and encouragement when it was most required. I am
also grateful to my late father, Yoshio Sugimoto, my mother, Kazuko Sugimoto, my
parents-in-law, Fumio Murayama and Tokiko Murayama for their unflagging support.
vii
TABLES OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ii-iii
ABSTRAK iv-v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT vi-vii
TABLES OF CONTENTS viii-xvii
LIST OF TABLES xviii-xxiii
LIST OF FIGURES xxiv-xxvii
LIST OF MAP xxvii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xxviii-xxix
CHAPTER INTRODUCTION 1-23

ONE
1.1 Objective of Study 1
1.2 Literature Review 3
1.2.1 Literature Review on Economic History of Singapore 3

prior to Independence
1.2.2 Literature Reviews on the Construction of Historical 8

Statistics
1.2.3 Literature Reviews on GDP Concepts and 13

Approaches
1.3 Statistical Sources and Possible Approach for the 18

Construction of GDP of Singapore
1.4 Thesis Layout 22
CHAPTER THE CONSTRUCTION OF HISTORICAL GROSS 24-126

TWO DOMESTIC PRODUCT ESTIMATES OF
SINGAPORE, 1900-39 AND 1950-60 AT CURRENT
AND CONSTANT PRICES
2.1 Introduction 24
2.1.1 Overview on the Methodology Employed for Estimation of 24

Each Component of GDP
viii
2.2 Private Final Consumption Expenditure by Resident 31
Households, 1900-39 and 1950- 60
2.2.1 Definition 31
2.2.2 Sources and Methods of Estimation at Current Prices 32
2.2.2.1 Direct Components 34
2.2.2.1.1 Opium Consumption 34
2.2.2.1.2 Education and Medical fees 37
2.2.2.1.3 Utility (Gas, Water Supply and 37

Electricity)
2.2.2.2. Indirect Components 38
2.2.2.2.1 Estimate of Population and 40

Consumption Standards (STEP 1)
(I) Estimation of Mid-year Population 40

of Singapore for 1900-39 and 1947-60
(II) Consumption Standards 44
2.1.2.2.2 Per-capita Consumption Expenditure by 46

Standard for base year (STEP 2)
(I) Pre World War II Period 47
a) The European Standard (1930) 47
b) The Eurasian / Asiatic Clerical 48

Standards (1930)
c) The Indian Labour Standard (1933) 48
d) The Malay and Chinese Labour 49

Standards (1936)
(i) Food (1936) 49
(ii) Tobacco, Clothing and Rent (1936) 50
(II) Post World War II Period 51
a) The European, Malay Clerical and 51

Chinese, Indian, Eurasian Clerical
Standards
b) Chinese, Malay and Indian Labour 51

standards for the year 1949
ix
2.2.2.2.3 Construction of Consumer Price Indices 53
1900-39 and 1950-60 (1914=100)
(STEP 3)
2.2.2.2.4 Estimating the Per Capita Final 56

Consumption Expenditure of Major
Objects of Consumption and Standards
in 1914 Prices for Selected Years
(STEP 4)
2.2.2.2.5 The Real Wage Indices (STEP 5) 56
2.2.2.2.6 Deriving Private Final Consumption 58

Expenditure in Constant and Current
Prices, 1900-39 and 1948-60 (STEPS 6-
11)
2.2.2.3 Private Consumption Expenditure by 63

Resident Households
2.3. Government Final Consumption Expenditure 65
2.3.1 Definition 65
2.3.2 Source Materials and Methodology for Estimates 65
2.3.2.1 Colony of Singapore, 1900-39 and 70

1950-60
2.3.2.2 The Municipality of Singapore, 1900-39 72

and the City Council of Singapore,
1950-60
2.3.2.3 Rural Boards 73
2.3.2.4 Education Board 74
2.3.2.5 Hospital Board 75
2.3.2.6 Total Government Output of Producers' 76

of Government Services, 1900-39 and
1950-60
2.3.3 Government Final Consumption Expenditure in 76

Current Prices
2.3.4 Government Final Consumption Expenditure in 1914 77

Prices
2.4 Gross Capital Formation 80
2.4.1 Definition 80
x
2.4.2 Investment in Construction 82
2.4.2.1 Definition 82
2.4.2.2 Investment in Construction in Current 83

Prices
2.4.2.3 Investment in Construction in 1914 88

Prices
2.4.3 Investment in Transport, Machinery and Equipment 89
2.4.3.2 Investment in M&E in Current Prices 89
2.4.3.3 Investment in M&E in 1914 Prices 95
2.4.4 Cultivated Assets 95
2.4.4.2 Investment in Cultivated Assets in 96

Current Prices
2.4.4.3 Investment in Cultivated Assets in 1914 103

Prices
2.4.5 Change in Stock 104
2.4.5.2 Methodology for Estimates 105
2.4.5.3 Change in Stocks in 1914 Prices 107
2.5 Net Exports of Goods and Services 108
2.5.1 Definition 108
2.5.2 Merchandize Trade in Current Prices 110
2.5.2.1 1900-27 Series 110
2.5.2.2 1928-39 and 1950-60 Series 111
2.5.3 Merchandise Trade and its Adjustment 111
2.5.4 Services Trade, 1900-1939 and 1950-1960 113
2.5.4.1 Observation of Post 1960’s 113

official data
xi
2.5.4.2 Exports of Bunker Coal and Petroleum 113
to Foreign Ships
2.5.4.3 Sale of Water to Foreign Ships 114
2.5.4.4 Revenue collection based on services 115

provided by the Singapore Harbour
Board
2.5.4.5 Revenue collected by The Colony of 115

Singapore
2.5.4.6 Private Final Consumption Expenditure 115

by Non-residents in the Domestic
Market
2.5.5. External Trade of Goods and Services in 1914 Prices 115
2.5.5.1 Construction of Import and Export Unit 115

Value Indices, 1900-39 and 1950-60
(1914=100)
2.5.5.1.1 1900-27 Series 118
2.5.5.1.2 1928-39 and 1950-60 Series 122
2.5.5.2 Deflators for Port Services 125
CHAPTER THE RESULT OF GDP ESTIMATES IN 127-170

THREE SINGAPORE AND OVERALL PATTERNS OF
GROWTH FOR THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
3.1 Introduction 127
3.2 Results of GDP Estimates 127
3.3 Assessment of GDP Estimates 133
3.3.1 Consistency Check 134
3.3.1.1 Unit Root Test 136
3.3.2 Upturns and Downturns of Each Component of GDP,

141
1900-39 and 1950-60
3.3.2.1 Private Final Consumption Expenditure 141

in Current and 1914 Prices
3.3.2.2 Government Final Consumption 143

expenditure in Current and 1914 Prices
xii
3.3.2.3 Gross Capital Formation in Current and 143
1914 Prices
3.3.2.4 Net Exports of Goods and Services in 145

Current and 1914 Prices
3.3.2.4.1 Exports of Goods and Services 147
3.3.2.4.2 Imports of Goods and Services 150
3.3.3. International Comparison 151
3.3.3.1 Growth Rate of GDP and Its 151

Components
3.3.3.2 Share of Each Component of GDP to 156

GDP
3.4. Overall Pattern of Singapore’s GDP during the Twentieth 160

Century
3.4.1 Transforming the base year from 1914 prices to 1990 160
prices for the period 1900-39 and 1950-60
3.4.2 Overall Patterns of Growth for the Twentieth 163

Century
3.4.2.1 Growth Rate of GDP and Its 163

Component in the Twentieth Century
3.4.2.2 Share of Each Component of GDP 167
CHAPTER ECONOMIC INSTABILITY AND ECONOMIC 171-213

FOUR GROWTH IN SINGAPORE IN THE
TWENTIETH CENTURY
4.1 Introduction 171
4.2 Literature Review 173
4.2.1 Declining degree of Real GDP volatility 173
4.2.2 The Source of Real GDP Volatilities 179
4.2.3 The Effect of Economic Instability to

181
Economic Growth
4.2.3.1 Export Instability 181
4.2.3.2 Annual Growth Rate of Exports as a 182

Proportion of GDP
xiii
4.2.3.3 Terms-of-Trade Volatility 183
4.2.3.4 Share of Investment to GDP 183
4.2.3.5 Annual Growth Rate of Government Final 184

Consumption Expenditure as a Proportion
of GDP
4.2.3.6. Population Growth 184
4.2.3.7 Gross Domestic Product Per Capita with 184

Time Lag
4.2.4 Studies on Singapore relating to this issue 185
4.3 The Extent of Economic Instability in Singapore 191
4.3.1 Definition and Measurement of Output Volatilities 191
4.3.2 Economic Instability of GDP and Its Components 192
4.4 Econometric Test 200
4.4.1. Explanation of Real GDP Volatilities 200
4.4.1.1 Explanatory Variables 200
4.4.1.2 Regression Results 203
4.4.2 The Effect of Economic Instability and Economic 204

Growth
4.4.2.1 Explanatory Variables 204
4.4.2.2 Regression Results 207
4.5. International Comparison 210
4.6 Concluding Remarks 212
CHAPTER GOVERNMENT FISCAL BEHAVIOR AND 214-263

FIVE ECONOMIC GROWTH IN SINGAPORE FOR THE
TWENTIETH CENTURY
5.1. Introduction 214
5.2. Literature Review 216
5.2.1 Features of Colonial Government Finance Behavior 216
5.2.1.1 Small Size of Government 216
xiv
5.2.1.2 Creation of Balanced Budget Structure 219
5.2.1.3 Weakness of Colonial Government

222
Macroeconomic Management
5.2.1.4 Summary 224
5.2.2 Previous Econometric Test on Government

224
Expenditure and Economic Growth
5.3. Historical Transitions of Government Finance Behavior of 229

Singapore in the Twentieth Century
5.3.1 Government Revenue 229
5.3.1.1 Growth of Government Revenue 229
5.3.1.2 Changes in Revenue Structure 231
5.3.1.3 British Colonial Period (1900-39 and 232

1950-59)
5.3.1.4 Self Government Period 235

(1959-2000)
5.3.2 Government Expenditure 237
5.3.2.1 Growth of Government Expenditure 237
5.3.2.2 Changes in the Composition of 238

Government Expenditure
5.3.3 Budget Surplus/Deficit and Financial Assets 242
5.3.4 Summary 244
5.4. Econometric Test 247
5.4.1 Testing Methodology 247
5.4.2 Data 253
5.5 Empirical Results 254
5.5.1 Unit Root Test 254
5.5.2 Cointegration Tests 257
5.5.3 Granger Causality Tests 259
5.6 Concluding Remarks 261
xv
CHAPTER CONCLUSION 264-271
SIX
6.1 Significance of the Construction of Historical GDP 264

Estimates of Singapore
6.2 Major Findings 266
6.2.1 Overall Patterns of Singapore GDP for the 266

Twentieth Century
6.2.2 Economic Instability and Economic Growth in 267

Singapore in the Twentieth Century
6.2.3 Government Fiscal Behavior and Economic 268

Growth in Singapore in the Twentieth Century
6.3 Limitations of This Study and Future Research Area 270
APPENDICES 272-335
Appendix 1 Singapore: Cost of Living Indices by Major Object of 273-276

Consumption and Consumption Standard, 1899-1914
1 Food Price Indices 273
2 Tobacco / Tobacco and Beverages Price 274

Indices
3 Clothing Price Indices 275
4 Rent Price Indices 275
5 Servant Price Indices 276
6 Club Price Indices 276
Appendix 2 Singapore: Cost of Living Indices by Major Object of 276-285

Consumption and Consumption Standard, 1914-39
1 Food Price Indices for the period 1915-17 and 1939 277
1.1 Asiatic Standard 277
1.2 European and Eurasian Clerical Standards 277
xvi
2 Price Indices of “Tobacco” and “Beverages and 278
Tobacco” for the period 1915-1917 and 1939
2.1 Tobacco Price Indices for the Asiatic and 278

Eurasian Standards, 1915-17
2.2 Beverages and Tobacco Price Indices for 279

European Standard
3 Price Indices of Clothing for the period 1915-17 and 280

1939
4 Price Indices of Rental of Dwellings, 1915-17 and 281

1939
4.1 Asiatic and All Labour Standards 281
4.2 European Standard 282
4.3 Price of rental value indices for the year 1939

282
for the different standards
5 Servant price indices for Asiatic, Eurasian and 283

European Standards
6 Transport price indices for Asiatic, Eurasian and 284

European Standards
7 Price Indices of Clubs for European Standard for the 284

Period 1915-17 and 1939
Appendix 3 Singapore: Cost-of- Living Indices by Major Object of 285-286

Consumption and Consumption Standard, 1939 and
1947-60
Appendix Tables 287-334
Appendix Figure 335
BIBLIOGRAPHY 336-358
xvii
LIST OF TABLES
1.1 Malaya and Singapore: Gross National Product and Gross Domestic 13
Product, 1947-60, (At Market Prices $ Million)
2.1 Singapore: Summary of Expenditure by Private Households at 33

Market Prices, 1956
2.2 Singapore: Methodology Adopted to Estimate PFCE on Opium for 36

the period 1923-25
2.3 Singapore: Mid-year Population, 1900-39 and 1947-60 44
2.4 Singapore: Population by Consumption Standard, 1899-1939 and 46

1947-60
2.5 Singapore: European Family Budget, 1930 47
2.6 A Labourer's Specimen Monthly Budget (1933) 48
2.7 Singapore: Annual Per Capita Private Consumption Expenditure by 52

Standard, Selected Years
(A) 1900-39 Series (B) 1947-60 Series
2.8 Singapore: Price Indices by Major Object of Consumption and 55

Consumer Price Index, 1899-1939 and 1947-60 (1914=100)
2.9 Singapore: Real Per Capita Private Consumption Expenditure by 56

Standard, Selected Years
(A) 1899-1939 (1914 Prices) (B) 1947-60 (1914 Prices)
2.10 Singapore: Weighted Real Wage Indices, 1899-1939 and 1947-60 58

(1914=100)
2.11 Singapore: Computation of PFCE in the Domestic Market, 1900-39 61

and 1948-60, European Standard - Food in Current and 1914 Prices,
(Straits $)
2.12 Singapore: Private Final Consumption Expenditure in the Domestic 62

Market, 1900-39 and 1950-60 at Current and Constant Prices
2.13 Singapore: Direct Purchases made Abroad by Resident Households 63

and Direct Purchases in the Domestic Market made by Non-resident
Households as a percentage of Total PFCE in the Domestic Market,
1960-70
2.14 Singapore: PFCE in the Domestic Market, PFCE by Resident 64

Households and Non-resident Household Consumption Expenditure
made in the Domestic Market, 1900-39 and 1950-60 at Current
Prices
xviii
2.15 Singapore: Gross Output of Producers' of Government Services, 78
1900-39 and 1950-60
2.16 Singapore: Government Final Consumption Expenditure, 1900-39 79

and 1950-60 at Current and 1914 Prices
2.17 Singapore: Estimates of Capital Formation for the year 1956 82
2.18 Net Imports Value of Cement Retained in Singapore, 1900-39 85
2.19 Singapore: Estimating Net Imports of Cement, 1950-60 86
2.20 Singapore: Production Account - Construction, 1972 86
2.21 Singapore: Total Investment in Construction (Construction output 87

Capitalized) in Current Prices, 1900-39
2.22 Singapore: Import Unit Value Indices of Cement, 1900-39 and 1950- 88
60 (1914=100)
2.23 Singapore: Construction Investment, 1900-39 and 1950-60 in 1914 88

Prices
2.24 Estimating Singapore's Imports of Transport, Machinery and 91

Equipment for the period 1913-23 and 1928-32
2.25 Estimating Singapore's Net Imports of Transport, Machinery and 92

Equipment for the period 1913-23 and 1928-32
2.26 Estimating Singapore's Net Imports of Transport, Machinery and 93

Equipment, 1948-60
2.27 Singapore: Transport, Machinery and Equipment Investment, 1900- 94

39 and 1950-60 in Current Prices (Straits $)
2.28 Singapore: Deflators for Investment for Machinery, Equipment and 95

Transports (1914=100)
2.29 Singapore: Transport, Machinery and Equipment Investment, 95

1900-39 and 1950-60 in 1914 Prices
2.30 Rubber, Cost-per-acre Estimates, Estate, 1900-20 in 1911 Prices 99
2.31 Rubber, Cost-per-acre Estimate, Estate, 1921-30 in 1924 Prices 99
2.32 Rubber, Cost-per-acre Estimate, Estate, 1931-39 in 1934 Prices 99
2.33 Rubber, Cost-per-acre Estimate, Smallholdings, 1900-39 in 1924 99

Prices
2.34 Coconuts, Cost-per-acre Estimate, Estate, 1900-27 in 1908 Prices 100
2.35 Coconuts, Cost-per-acre Estimate, Estate, 1928-39 in 1928 Prices 100
xix
2.36 Coconuts, Cost-per-acre Estimate, Smallholdings, 1900-39 in 1934 101
Prices
2.37 Singapore: Rubber, Cultivated Assets, 1900-39 in Current Prices 102
2.38 Singapore: Coconuts, Cultivated Assets, 1900-39 in Current Prices 103
2.39 Singapore: Indian Rubber Tapper's Wage Indices, 1900-39 104

(1914=100)
2.40 Singapore: Cultivated Assets in 1914 Prices, 1900-39 104
2.41 Singapore: Changes in Stock as a proportion to GDP, 1960-69 106
2.42 Singapore: Weights Assigned for the Change of Stocks to GDP (%) 107
in relation to GDP Growth Rate
2.43 Singapore: Percentage Contributions of Change in Stocks to GDP, 107

1900-39 and 1950-60
2.44 Singapore: Merchandize Net Exports in Current Prices, 1900-39 and 112
1950-60
2.45 Singapore: Imports and Export Price Index for Goods and Services, 118
1960-95 (1990=100)
2.46 Singapore: Price Indices by Class of Commodities, 1900-27 119

(1914=100)
2.47 Singapore: Import Unit Value Indices, 1900-27 (1914=100) 120
2.48 Singapore: Export Unit Value Indices, 1900-27 (1914=100) 121
2.49 Singapore: Export Value and Quantity by Major Commodity Goods 122
1927-39 and 1949-60 (based on figures by W.G. Huff )
2.50 Singapore: Export Unit Value Index, 1927-39 and 1950-60 124
(1914=100)
2.51 Singapore: Import Unit Value Indices and Export Unit Value 125
Indices, 1900-39 and 1950-60 (1914=100)
2.52 Weighted Price Indices on Fuel and Communication of the United 126
Kingdom, 1900-39 and 1950-60 (1914=100)
2.53 Singapore: Net Exports of Goods and Services at Current and 126
Constant Prices, 1900-39 and 1950-60
3.1 Singapore: Gross Domestic Product in Purchasers' Value in Current 129

Prices, 1900-39 and 1950-60 (Straits $ in millions)
3.2 Singapore: Gross Domestic Product in Purchasers' Value in 1914 131

xx
3.3 Singapore: Gross Domestic Product at Current prices, 1956-1960, 134
(Straits $ in millions)
3.4 Singapore: Average Annual Growth Rate of GDP and Its 135
Components at Current and Constant Prices, 1900-2000
3.5 Singapore: Gross Domestic Product and its Components at Current 135
Prices, 1900-1970
3.6 Singapore: The Results of Unit Root Tests of GDP and Its 139
Components (1990 Prices), 1960-2000
3.7 Singapore: The Results of Unit Root Tests of GDP and Its 140
Components (1914 Prices), 1900-39
3.8 Singapore: Percentage Private Final Consumption Expenditure by 142

Major Object of Consumption, Selected Years (Per Cent)
3.9 Singapore: Gross Capital Formation and Major Government 145

Construction Projects, 1900-39 and 1950-60
3.10 Singapore: Balance of Payments, 1960-71 146
3.11 Singapore: Total Merchandize Exports and Exports of Major 149

Commodities, 1900-39 and 1950-60
3.12 Singapore: Exports by Country and Region, 1911/13, 1925/27 and 150
1957/59, (Annual Average)
3.13 Singapore: Imports by Country and Region, 1911/13, 1925/27 and 151
1957/59 (Annual Average)
3.14 Percentage Share of Components of GDP to Total GDP for Selected 157
Countries at Current Prices, 1900-60
3.15 Conversion Ratio from 1914 price to 1990 price for the period 161
1900-39 and 1950-60
3.16 The Methodology for Deriving Deflators (1990=100) by Each 162

Component of GDP,1900-39 and 1950-2000
3.17 Singapore: Average Annual Growth Rate of Each Component of 164

GDP and Per-capita GDP at 1990 Prices, 1900-2000
3.18 Singapore: Components of GDP, 1900-39 and 1950-2000 (1990 165

Prices)
3.19 Singapore: Annual Average Share of Each Component to GDP at 167

Current Prices, 1900-39 and 1950-2000
3.20 Singapore: Components of GDP, 1900-39 and 1950-2000 (Current 168

Prices)
xxi
4.1 Standard deviations of annual real GDP growth (GDP % Growth 178
Volatility)
4.2 Real GDP growth volatility (Standard Deviations and Mean of 179
Growth)
4.3 Singapore: The Contribution of Domestic and External Demand to 186

Growth in Total Demand, 1900-2000 (1990 Prices)
4.4 Singapore: Tin, Rubber and Petroleum Export Quantity Indices and 187
Percentage Contributions to Merchandize Exports, 1900-70
4.5 Singapore: Standard Deviation of Prices and Export Volume of 189

Rubber, Tin and Petroleum, 1900-70
4.6 Singapore: Dependence on Trade 1970 to 2000 190
4.7 Singapore: A Comparison of the Standard Deviation of the GDP 193

series using Hodrick-Prescott Methods
4.8 Singapore: Instability Indicators of GDP and the Aggregate Demand 198
Components, 1900-2000 at 1990 Prices and Relative Instability
Indicators of the Each Component of GDP (1914-39=100)
4.9 Singapore: Relative Instability Indicators of the Aggregate Demand 199

Components, 1900-2000 (1990 Prices)
4.10 Singapore: Cross-Correlations between Volatilities of Each 200

Component of GDP and GDP, 1900-2000 (1990 Prices)
4.11 Results of Unit Root Tests (1990 Prices) 202
4.12 Singapore: Source of Real GDP Volatility by Specific Periods, 204

Dependent Variables: Real GDP Volatility
4.13 Results of Unit Root Tests (1990 Prices) 206
4.14 Singapore: Regression Results with the Rate of Growth of Real GDP 208
Per Capita as the Dependent Variable, 1900-39,1950-2000 and
1975-2000
5.1 Percentage Share of Real General Government Expenditure to Real 217

GDP for Selected Years, 1870-1996 (1990 prices)
5.2 Singapore: Revenue by Major Sources at the level of Colony of 233

Singapore, Municipality / City Council of Singapore and Rural
Board at Current Prices, 1900-39 (Percentage)
5.3 Singapore: Revenue by Major Sources at Current Prices, 1960-2000 235

(Percentage)
5.4 Singapore: Trend of Government Expenditures (period annual 238

averages), 1900-2000 (1990 Prices)
xxii
5.5 Percentage Share of Government Social Expenditure to GDP 239
(Average of OECD Countries)
5.6 Singapore: Percentage Share of Expenditure to GDP by Major 240

Objects at Current Prices (%) Selected Years
5.7 Unit Root (Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test and Philips-Perron Test) 256
Test for Stationary
5.8 Johansen Maximum Likelihood Procedure Cointegration LR test 258

based on the Max-Eigen Test and Trace Text of the Stochastic
Matrix, 1900-39 and 1950-2000
5.9 The Results of Granger Causality tests, 1900-39 and 1950-2000 259
Appendix Tables
1 The Assigned Weights of Food by Item for the Construction of Food 274
Price Indices for All Standards
2 Price Indices on Rent for Asiatic Standard 281
3 Singapore: Computation of Consumer Price Indices by Major Object 287

of Consumption (1914=100), 1899-1914

of Consumption (1914=100), 1914-39

of Consumption (1949=100), 1939 and 1947-60
6 Singapore: Computation of PFCE in the Domestic Market, 1900-39 297

and 1948-60 in Current and 1914 Prices, (Straits $)
7 Total Private Final Consumption Expenditure by Major Object of 328

Consumption and Standard in Current and Constant Prices, 1900-39
and 1947-60 (Straits Dollars)
8 Singapore: Percentage Share of Expenditure Incurred in relation to 331

Straits Settlements by Class of Account and Department for the
period 1900-09
9 Methodology Adopted to Identify the Share of Expenditure Assigned 333

to Singapore in Relation to Straits Settlements by Departments for
the Period 1910-39
10 Percentage Share of Expenditure Incurred in Singapore in relation to 334

Straits Settlements by Class of Account and Department
xxiii
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 List of Previous Studies on Singapore Relating to Socio-Economic 5

Issues Prior to Independence
1.2 Historical GDP Estimates Available in Asian Countries prior to 12

World War II
1.3 The Components of GDP from Production, Income and Expenditure 14

Approach
1.4 Integrated Framework for Measurement of GDP 16
1.5 Singapore: List of Source Materials Utilized for the Computation of 21

Each Component of GDP, (Expenditure Approach), 1900-39 and
1950-60
2.1 Steps of Estimating Private Final Consumption Expenditure, 25

1900-39 and 1950-60
2.2 Steps involved for the Estimation of GFCE, 1900-39 and 1950-60 27
2.3 Steps involved for the Estimation of Construction Output 28

Capitalized,1900-39 and 1950-60
2.4 Steps involved for the Estimation of Machinery and Equipment 28

Capitalized, 1900-39 and 1950-60
2.5 Steps involved for the Estimation of Investment for Cultivated 29

Assets, 1900-39 and 1950-60
2.6 Steps involved for the Estimation of Changes in Stock, 1900-39 and 30
1950-60
2.7 Steps involved for the Estimation of Imports and Exports of Goods 30
and Services, 1900-39 and 1950-60
2.8 Summary of Deflator Employed by Each Component of GDP 31
2.9 (a) Singapore: Transformation of Revenue Collection from the Sales 35

of Opium, 1899-1939
(b) Singapore: Methods Adopted to Estimate The Private Final 35

Consumption Expenditure of Opium / Chandu, 1899-1939
2.10 Flow Chart for Computation of PFCE in Domestic Market at Current 39

Prices, 1900-39
2.11 Singapore: Methodology to Derive Adjusted Total Population 43
2.12 Singapore: Coding System for Identifying the Different Classes of 67

Government Expenditures
xxiv
2.13 Singapore: Classification for Total Output of Producers' of 69
Government Services
2.14 The Components of Gross Capital Formation (SNA 68) 80
2.15 Singapore: Format for Calculating Investment on Coconut Planting 97

at Current Prices, 1910-16
2.16 Classification of Exports and Imports of Goods and Services 108
2.17 Singapore: Statistical Sources of Trade Statistics, 1900-39 110
2.18 Singapore: Import Unit Value Indices and Export Unit Value 125
Indices, 1900-39 and 1950-60 (1914=100)
3.1 Singapore: Gross Domestic Product in Purchasers' Value in Current 130

3.2 Singapore: Annual Growth Rate of GDP and its components at 130
Current Prices, 1900-39 and 1950-60
3.3 Singapore: Gross Domestic Product in Purchasers' Value in 1914 132

3.4 Singapore: Annual Growth Rate of GDP and its components at 1914 132
Prices, 1900-39 and 1950-60
3.5 Singapore: Merchandize Exports by Major Export Commodities, 149

(A) 1900-39 and (B) 1950-60
3.6 Annual Growth Rates (%) of GDP of Singapore against Selected 152
Countries, 1900-39 at Current Prices
3.7 Annual Growth Rates (%) of Private Final Consumption 153

Expenditure by Resident Household (PFCE) of Singapore against
Selected Countries, 1900-39 at Current Prices
3.8 Annual Growth Rates (%) of Government Final Consumption 153

Expenditure (GFCE) of Singapore against Selected Countries,
1900-39 at Current Prices
3.9 Annual Growth Rates (%) of Gross Capital Formation (GCF) of 154
Singapore against Selected Countries, 1900-39 at Current Prices
3.10 Annual Growth Rates (%) of Exports of Goods and Services 155
(EXGS) of Singapore against Selected Countries, 1900-39 at Current
Prices
3.11 Annual Growth Rates (%) of Imports of Goods and Services (IMGS) 155
of Singapore against Selected Countries, 1900-39 at Current Prices
xxv
3.12 Percentage Share of Private Final Consumption Expenditure in 158
Gross Domestic Product in Current Prices, 1900-39, Singapore and
Selected Countries
3.13 Percentage Share of Government Final Consumption Expenditure in 158

Gross Domestic Product in Current Prices, 1900-39, Singapore and
Selected Countries
3.14 Percentage Share of Gross Capital Formation in Gross Domestic 159

Product in Current Prices, 1900-39, Singapore and Selected
Countries
3.15 Percentage Share of Exports of Goods and Services in Gross 159

Domestic Product in Current Prices, 1900-39, Singapore and
Selected Countries
3.16 Singapore; GDP at Current and Constant (1990 Prices), 1900-39 and 166
1950-2000
3.17 Singapore: Per-capita GDP at Current and Constant (1990 Prices), 166
1900-39 and 1950-2000
3.18 Singapore: Share of Each Component of GDP to GDP at Current 167

Prices, 1900-39 and 1950-2000
3.19 Singapore: Saving and Investment as ratio of GNP and Current 170
Account Balance, 1960-2000
4.1 Standard Deviations of Output (Real GDP) Volatility during 174

Different Monetary Regimes
4.2 Standard Deviations of Volatilities of Major Components of GDP 176

Relative to Output (Real GDP) for Pre War, Inter-war and Post War
Period
4.3 Cross-Correlations between Volatilities of Each Major Component 177

and Output (Real GDP)
4.4 Singapore: Percentage Contributions of Tin, Rubber and Petroleum 188

to Merchandize Exports, 1900-70
4.5 Singapore: Export Unit Value Indices (1914=100) of Rubber, Tin 188
and Petroleum, 1900-70
4.6 Singapore: Trend GDP, Actual GDP and Percentage Deviation of 193
GDP from Trend, 1900-2000 (Trend obtained using HP filter)
4.7 Singapore: Private Final Consumption Expenditure, Trend, Actual 195

and Percentage Deviation from Trend, 1900-2000 (1990 Prices)
4.8 Singapore: Government Final Consumption Expenditure, Trend, 196

Actual and Percentage Deviation from Trend, 1900-2000 (1990
Prices)
xxvi
4.9 Singapore: Gross Capital Formation, Trend, Actual and Percentage 196
Deviation from Trend, 1900-2000 (1990 Prices)
4.10 Singapore: Exports of Goods and Services, Trend, Actual and 197
Percentage Deviation from Trend, 1900-2000 (1990 Prices)
4.11 Singapore: Imports of Goods and Services, Trend, Actual and 197
4.12 Explanatory Variables for Regression 201
4.13 Explanatory Variables for Regression 205
5.1 Members of Legislative Council and Executive Council 221
5.2 Summary of Selected Empirical Studies on Government Expenditure 225

and Economic Growth
5.3 Summary of Selected Empirical Studies on Granger Causality Test 227
5.4 Singapore: General Government Revenue at Current Prices, 1900-39 230

and 1950-2000
5.5 Singapore: Budget Deficit (-)/ Surplus at Current Prices, 1900-1939, 243
1950-79 and 1980-2000
Appendix Figure
1 335
LIST OF MAP
1.1 The Malay Peninsula, c. 1925 6
xxvii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ADB Asian Development Bank

ADF Augmented Dickey-Fuller
ARTSS Appendix to the Report on the Trade, Straits Settlements
ASHSTAT Asian Historical Statistics Project
BM Returns of Foreign Imports and Exports, British Malaya
BOP Balance of Payments
CO Colonial Office
CPI Consumer Price Indices
DF Dickey-Fuller
FMS Federated Malay States
FTM Foreign Trade of Malaya
GCF Gross Capital Formation
GDP Gross Domestic Products
GNP Gross National Products
GFCE Government Final Consumption Expenditure
GFCF Gross Fixed Capital Formation
GFS Government Financial Statistics
HP Hodrick Prescott Method
NBER National Bureau of Economic Research
NETEX Net Exports of Goods and Services
PFCE Private Final Consumption Expenditure
PP Phillips-Perron
PPP Power Purchasing Parity
SNA System of National Accounts
SS Straits Settlements
SSBB Blue Book, Straits Settlements
STBCPP Statistical Tables Relating to British Colonies, Possessions and
Protectorates
STCOPUK Statistical Tables Relating to the Colonial and Other Possessions of the
United Kingdom
xxviii
STCPP Statistical Tables Relating to the Colonial and Other Possessions and
Protectorates
TGE Total Government Expenditure

UMS Unfederated Malay States
UN United Nations
WWII World War II
xxix
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objective of study
The objective of this study is to examine the long-term economic growth of
Singapore during the twentieth century. According to official statistics released since
1960, the economic indicators of Singapore show a sustained and relatively rapid
economic growth over this period. For the period 1960-2000, real GDP (1990 prices)
rose at an average annual rate of 7.7 percent. With population growth at 2.2 percent, real
per capita GDP increased by 5.5 percent on average each year. In fact, real per capita
GDP has increased 9.7 times within 40 years. Out of 107 countries, Singapore registered
the highest growth performance1 during the period 1960-2000 (Ghesquiere 2007:14).
This phenomenon was frequently cited as an “economic miracle”. On the other hand,
economic performance of Singapore prior to 1960 was never quantified in the same
manner due to the complete absence of comparable economic statistical indicators such
as GDP and other relevant statistical time-series. Given these serious constraints of data
availability for the earlier period, the existing literature on the pre-1960 economic
development of Singapore has been confined merely to studies on specific sectors.
Admittedly, though these specific studies help to shed some light on certain aspects of
the economic activities in Singapore during this period they certainly are not enough to
give any detail insight into the long-term economic growth of Singapore during the last
100 years.
In order to fill this void, the first part of this thesis focuses on the construction of
historical GDP estimates of Singapore in both current and constant prices for the period
1900-39 and 1950-60. It should be noted here that the World War II period (1941-45)
1
National Income expressed in PPP dollars.
1
and the years immediately after WWII are not covered in this exercise because of the
difficulties in estimating historical GDP time-series due to the complete absence of data
for some of the components of GDP. The construction of historical GDP of Singapore
involved three major steps. The first requires the identification and collection of existing
statistical records published by the British colonial authority. Secondly, it involves the
evaluation of this data and subsequently making estimates by employing several
methodologies while at the same time ensuring that the concepts and definitions
2
conformed to those as outlined in A System of National Accounts (SNA) 1968 for each
component of GDP. Thirdly, it involves checking the reliability and validity of the
estimated statistical series by tracing supportive information which could possibly
explain the upturns and downturns of each component of GDP in both current and real
terms.
Based on this newly derived historical GDP and official time-series database for the
post-1960 period, the second part of this thesis focuses on the empirical investigation
with regards to Singapore’s long-term economic growth during the entire twentieth
century by applying modern econometric techniques. The first topic is in relation to
economic instability and economic growth. This topic deals with three related issues,
namely (i) extent of real GDP volatility (ii) source of the real GDP volatility and (iii) the
effects of economic instability on economic growth.
The second topic deals with government fiscal behavior towards economic growth.
This study firstly identifies the ramifications of colonial government finance and
subsequently observes the transition of government fiscal behavior from the British
colonial rule to the period of self-government. Based on the observations, this thesis
focuses on whether there existed any notable differences or similarities between various
types of government expenditure and economic growth. For analytical purposes two
2
Up till now, three different versions of SNA were released by United Nations for the years 1953, 1968 and 1993. In this study, the
SNA 68 was utilized for the estimation of each component of historical GDP. This is mainly because all official GDP estimates of
Singapore for the period 1960-2000 were constructed based on the SNA 68.
2
econometric techniques of cointegration and Granger causality tests are applied.
The structure of the remaining part of this chapter is organized as follows. Section
1.2 provides a literature review on the economic history of Singapore, construction of
historical statistics and lastly the concept of GDP and the three different approaches that
can be used in its estimation. Section 1.3 explains the data required for the construction
of historical GDP estimates. Finally, the layout of the thesis is briefly presented in
Section 1.4.
1.2 Literature Review
This section briefly conducts a literature review relevant to this study. Three areas of
literature review are identified, namely [1] economic history of Singapore prior to
Independence, [2] the construction of historical GDP estimates and [3] concept of GDP.
1.2.1 Literature Review on Economic History of Singapore prior to Independence
Wong Lin Ken (1979) provided a literature review on the economic history of
Malaya (inclusive of Singapore) under the title of “Twentieth-Century Malayan
Economic History: A Select Bibliographic Survey”. In his article, Wong Lin Ken stated
that “research in this region is still on the frontier area of the social sciences. Analytical
methodology grounded in economic theory was lacking”. Some two decades later,
Drabble, John H (2000), in his book on “Economic History of Malaysia” which covered
the period 1800-1990 elaborated the progress of economic history of Malaysia by
stating that “from the standpoint of the economic historian the situation is still to a large
extent as Wong described”. Loh Wei Leng (2005) also stated that “(quantitative) data
found in official documents are seldom questioned and are yet to be closely scrutinized
as to their likely use in support of specific policies. There is an obvious need to be more
sensitive to these implications in future work”. The above statements made by economic
historians made abundantly clear that research in this field of economic history saw
3
little progress.
Figure 1.1 provides a slew of previous studies on Singapore in the field of
socio-economy during the British colonial period. The studies on the economic history
of Singapore approached from various aspects ranging from trade, commercial activity,
money, government finance and financial development to economic conditions during
the world depression in early 1920s and 1930s. Apart from this, studies on demographic
changes, labour conditions, infrastructure development in terms of construction of water
supply and port facilities as well as opium revenue collection by the British
administration were also conducted. In these studies, the economic importance of
Singapore as an entrepôt and a regional trading centre was often highlighted. For
example, Kaoru Sugihara worked on the statistics of intra-Asian trade during the
nineteenth and early half of 20th century to clarify the nature of the western impact and
the role of regional trade in Asia’s economic development (Sugihara, Kaoru, 1980 and
1996 and 1998). In a related study, Lindblad, J.Thomas (1997, 1998) examines the role
of foreign direct investment (FDI) in Southeast Asia from the late nineteenth century.
He contrasts the statistical evidence pertaining to the late 1930s and the late 1980s and
identifies features of change and continuity between these two periods.
Nevertheless, very few researchers have attempted to investigate the overall
economic activities of Singapore. The following three studies, however, provided
various statistical databases and interpreted Singapore’s economy during the British
colonial period.
Firstly, a study by Emerson, Rupert(1964) entitled Malaysia: A study in direct and
indirect rule examines the similarities and differences in economic activities between
the colonial administered territories of British Malaya (See Map 1)3 and Netherland
Indies. Subsequently, Lim Chong Yah’s book (1967) entitled Economic Development of
3
Prior to World War II, the territory of British Malaya was administrated as three different entities, namely the Straits Settlements,
Federated Malay States and Unfederated Malay States. Frequently, the term “British Malaya” was considered as the summation of
these three administrative units.
4
Modern Malaya examined the socio-economic development of Malay states from
various aspects such as the role of major export commodities (eg. rubber and tin), trade
as well as government revenue and expenditure allocation.
Figure 1.1
List of Previous Studies on Singapore Relating to Socio-Economic Issues Prior to
Independence
Field of Research Author/Year Period

Chiang, Hai Ding (1963 and 1965) 1870-1915
Sharom Ahmat (1965) 1819-1865
Blake, D.J.(1968) 1961-1966
Choo, Eng Kang (1976) 1920-1922
Trade
Wong Lin Ken (1978) 1819-1941
Wong Lin Ken (1991) Pre-WWII period
Huff, W.G.(1993) Pre-WWII period
Hernaikh Singh Dhaliwal (1989) 1920-30s
Economic Conditions Huff, W.G.(2001) Early 1930s
Kratoska, Paul H.(1990) 1917-1921
Population Saw, Swee Hock, (1999) 1871-1940
Teo, Mary Celine Kiew Ting (1962) 1819-1959
Infrastructure Hanizah Idris (1995) 1819-1941
(Water Supply and Port
Facilities) Huff, W.G.(1994) Pre-WWII period
Ruhana Padzil (1999) 1819-1941
Khoo, Kay Kim (1960) 1887-1940
Municipality
Yeoh, Brenda S.A. (1993 and 1996) Early 20th Century
Lee Soo Ann (1974) 1948-60
Government Finance
Edward, C.T (1970) 1948-60
Lee, Sheng Yi (1990) Early 20th Century
Hicks, George H. (eds.) (1993) 1910-1940
Money and Banking
Huff, W.G.(2003a) Pre-WWII period
Huff, W.G.(2003b) Pre-WWII period
Warren, James Francis (1986) 1900-1940
Labour
Shimizu, Hiroshi and Hirakawa, Hitorchi (1999) 1870-1965
Commercial Activities
Brown, Ian (1994) 1930s
Trocki, Carl, A (1990) 1800-1910
Opium
Cheng, U Wen (1961) 1867-1910
5
These two studies by Emerson, Rupert (1964) and Lim Chong Yah (1967) provided
well documented statistical databases and identified Singapore as a major regional
entrepôt. These studies described the economic structure of Singapore as entirely
different from that of the other states of Malaya which concentrated in the production of
primary export commodities. The island of Singapore formed a part of the Straits
Settlements during the period of the British colonial administration.4
Map 1.1
The Malay Peninsula, c. 1925
4
The establishment of the Straits Settlements followed the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824 between the United Kingdom and the
Netherlands, by which the Malay archipelago was divided into a British zone in the north and a Dutch zone in the south. This
resulted the exchange of the British settlement of Bencoolen (on Sumatra) for the Dutch colony of Malacca and undisputed control
of Singapore. Its capital was moved from Penang to Singapore in 1832. In 1867, the Settlements became a British Crown Colony,
making the Settlements answerable directly to the Colonial Office in London instead of the Calcutta government based in India on
April 1. Earlier on February 4, a "Letters Patent" granted the Settlements a colonial constitution. This allocated much power to the
Settlements' Governor, who administered the Colony of the Straits Settlements with the aid of an Executive Council, composed
wholly of official (i.e. ex-officio) members, and a Legislative Council, composed partly of official and partly of nominated members,
of which the former had a narrow permanent majority. The work of administration, both in the Colony and in the Federated Malay
States, was carried on by means of a civil service whose members were recruited by competitive examination held annually in
London. Penang and Malacca were administered, directly under the Governor, by resident councilors.
6
The third study was that of W.G. Huff (1994) contained in the book entitled The
Economic Growth of Singapore, Trade and Development in the Twentieth Century. This
is the first major research work which traces the long-term economic development of
Singapore as an economic entity during the twentieth century. “The history of Singapore
is written mainly in statistics” is the opening sentence in Huff's book. Huff had
immersed himself in the collection and integration the statistical material from a host of
primary, secondary and even obscure data sources. The result is a systematic attempt at
tracing economic linkages between the metropolis and its hinterland and connections
between agriculture, trade, banking and industry. He argues that essentially Singapore
was a port dealing in staple commodities. It built its original development on tin exports
from Malaya and the Netherland East Indies. In the twentieth century came a further
developmental thrust with the rubber boom, driven by the requirements of the
automobile industry. However, the drastic fluctuations in the international demand of
rubber frequently had serious impacts on the entire economy of Singapore.
Apart from tin and rubber, the other major export commodity of Singapore in the
1930s was petroleum which was imported from the Dutch East Indies. But this did not
have much direct effect on the Singapore economy as it created little employment and
its installations were confined to offshore islands. It did, however, create employment
opportunities in the extensive shipyard facilities which the British had established. In
this study, Huff highlights the fact that Singapore achieved economic development
without the manufacturing industry as the driving force.
These three studies mentioned above have, in fact, immensely contributed in the
deeper understanding of the economic history of Singapore. However, their scope of
research was basically determined by the availability of the relevant statistical
information compiled by the British colonial authority. At this juncture it would be
important to take note of Wong Lin Ken’s comment on analytical methodology
7
grounded in economic theory which was described being still on the frontier area. This
existing fundamental research gap was purely due to the lack of analytical work
grounded on macroeconomic data. The field of economic history of Singapore was
treated as such and no compatible analysis was conducted with a view to identifying the
long-term economic growth of Singapore.
This phenomenon is not merely observed for Singapore. In fact, most of the former
colonies faced a similar predicament. Michael Havinden and David Meredith’s works
(1996) entitled Colonialism and Development: Britain and Its Tropical Colonies,
1850-1960 set out to consider the policy decisions of Great Britain in regard to the
economic development of its tropical possessions from 1860 through 1960. This study,
however, resorted to the used of the “size of foreign trade” as a proxy to measure the
economic development of the respective colonies with the author acknowledging with a
caveat that foreign trade was not a reliable proxy to indicate economic growth. This
implies that deficiencies of the relevant economic indicators do not permit the conduct
of modern quantitative economic analysis. Based on this recognition, the collection and
construction of macroeconomic time-series data of Singapore such as GDP, which is an
integral part of this study represents a fundamental but crucial step towards filling this
void, notwithstanding the painstaking and tedious task of compiling the required raw
data from various official publications and records.
1.2.2 Literature Reviews on the Construction of Historical Statistics
Unlike developing countries, the construction of historical national accounting has
been regarded as one of the most dynamic branches of economic history (Heikkienen,
Sakari and Luiten Van Zanden, Jan (eds), 2004) in western countries. The emergence of
this branch of studies was closely associated with the creation of the System of National
Accounts (SNA). The first major research in the field of historical national accounts
8
emerged in the 1930s when Clark (1937) and Kuznets (1934) published their pioneering
works. Subsequently, the first standardized SNA was designed and formulated in a large
part by Maede and Stone (1941). They made the first official estimates of national
income for the United Kingdom in 1941. Subsequently, the United Nations in 1953
released its first recommendations on a standardized System of National Accounts
(SNA) and it has been widely applied in most countries. Following this, the United
Nations published two further revised versions of SNA, namely in 1968 and 1993.
In line with this development of SNA in the 1950s, the methodology employed in the
construction of historical GDP and formulation of economic theory has made
incremental improvements. Most of the empirical research since then has focused on
expanding and deepening the database on which the comparative and summarizing
studies of Kuznets were based, while much of the theory-oriented research has
concentrated on refining the growth accounting framework. This quantification of past
economic activities using the SNA approach was crucial in the attempts to seek general
characteristics relating to structural transformation, technological change, income
distribution and population growth.
The empirical research has been widened by expanding the construction of historical
national accounts to other countries, and, increasingly, by updating the previous work in
order to comply with the procedures as set out in the System of National Accounts.
Among of these prominent research studies are those initiated by Craft, N.F.R (1984,
1987, 1988, 1995, 1999), Broadberry. Stephen, N.(1986,1988,1997a, 1997b), Craft,
N.F.R and Broadberry, Stephen, N.(1990a, 1990b).
While both “old” and “new” economic historians emphasized the importance of
empirical investigation for economics, cliometricians5 equated ‘fact’ with measurable
phenomena. To be empirical was to be quantitative (Rouvray, 2004:157).
Reconstruction of historical national accounts was made available for almost all
5
Historical researchers using economic models and advanced mathematical methods of data processing and analysis.
9
OECD countries by the 1970s. This reconstruction exercise has been carried out in
several countries by teams of researchers and in others by individual scholars.
Angus Maddison emerged as the central hub in the network of historical national
accounts. He collected a voluminous set of data, interpreting them in a consistent way,
and made them internationally comparable as far as it was possible. The broadening of
the database has been one of the major achievements of the worldwide network of
historical national accountants. Refinements in methodology, in particular concerning
the measurement and analysis of productivity growth, has been another major field of
research. The emergence of the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) method was aimed at
resolving the problem caused by exchange rates, which are not good indicators of the
relative values of currencies of different countries. The research work of Kravis,
Kenessey, Heston and Summers (1975) laid the foundation for a system of international
comparisons of GDP and this made it possible to integrate the long-term growth of GDP
into one global database.6
Unlike these OECD countries, the relative unavailability of database on historical
national accounts and related empirical growth studies in developing countries
represented a severe handicap. From Angus Maddison’s efforts in compiling data on
real GDP time-series (Maddison, 2001, 2003), it was obvious that the availability of
historical GDP estimates in Asian countries was found wanting (See Figure 1.2).
In Asian countries, historical GDP estimates pertaining to the period prior to World
War II was initiated by two major research teams. The first major collaborative research
project was The Long-term Economic Statistics of Japan 1867-1965 7 , led by the
Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University and was carried out over the
6
It must be noted here that historical GDP estimates of Singapore conducted in this study does not convert to international
comparative prices such as PPP or Geary-Khamis Prices due to the absolute deficiencies of necessary data to initiate this study.
7
It was in 1957 when professors Ohkawa, Shinohara, Umemura and others of the Institute of Economic Research at the
Hitotsubashi University launched a monumental project to estimate a GDP series of Japan from the Meiji period onwards. The
project was completed in 1988, when the last volume in the series Long-term Economic Statistics of Japan, 1867-1965 was
published. The project started in 1957 was mainly financed by the Rockefeller Foundation.
10
period 1957-88. This project also covered former Japanese colonies such as Korea and
Taiwan. The second research group undertook a study of the Netherland Indies, and was
led by Creutzberg, P and P. Boomgaard (1975-96) from the Royal Tropical Institute.
They compiled 16 volumes of historical statistics on the Netherland Indies entitled The
Changing Economy of Indonesia.
These two research efforts were regarded as one of the first long-term projects in the
Asian region. Other than these two collaborative research projects, other studies were
made by individual scholars. The commencement of all these research work started in
the 1960s. Unfortunately, other countries did not initiate similar research. In the 1960s,
in fact, Simon Kuznets visited some Asian countries and investigated the possibility of
starting a project on the construction of historical GDP estimates in Asian countries but
proceeded no further as it was ascertained that the project would require skilled
statistical specialists who were in short supply in these countries.8 In fact, reliability of
GDP estimates in the early 1950’s in the selected countries were highly questionable
(Oshima, Harry T., 1956). Attention was focused on the creation of reliable modern
GDP estimates rather than historical GDP estimates (Goh Keng Swee, 1956).
Since then, no collaborative large-scale research on the construction of historical
GDP in Asian countries was attempted for many decades. The rapid and sustained
economic growth recorded in East Asian countries since the 1970s encouraged further
exploration in the area. In 1995, the Economic Research Institute, Hitotsubashi
University organized the Asian Historical Statistics Project for the period 1995-2000
with Konosuke Odaka as its project director.9 In 1998, H.R.H. Raja Dr. Nazrin Shah
embarked on a study to compute GDP estimates of Peninsular Malaysia for the period
8
According to Oshima (1997), upon the request of the Ford Foundation, Kuznets embarked on a trip to explore the possibilities of
studying pre-war Asian economic conditions soon after World War II. However, his conclusion was that with the exception of Japan,
this would not be a feasible project. He suggested to the Ford Foundation that before undertaking any economic analysis, it would
be necessary to start with training statistical survey specialists in the various Asian countries.
9
The interim Report on the Asian Historical Statistics Database project was released (Odaka, Konosuke, 2007). The listed
countries are Taiwan, Vietnam, Mainland China, Korea, Thailand, India/Pakistan, Indonesia, Russia, Egypt and Turkey, Philippines,
Central Asia and Russia and Japan. Malaya and Singapore are not included in this project.
11
1900-39.10 In fact, this study on the GDP estimates of Singapore is very much indebted
to the research project initiated by H.R.H. Raja Dr. Nazrin Shah.
Figure 1.2
Historical GDP Estimates Available in Asian Countries prior to World War II
1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940

Japan 1870-
China
1890
1900
1913
1929-38
East Asia Korea 1911-
1870
Taiwan 1912-
Hong Kong
1913
Indonesia (Java) 1870-1941
Philippines
1870
1902-40
Peninsular Malaysia 1900-39
Singapore 1900-39
Southeast
Thailand
1890
1929
Asia
1870
1938
1913
Burma
1901
1906
1911
1916
1921
1926
1931
1936
Vietnam
Laos
Cambodia
India 1884-
Sri Lanka 1870-
South Asia Bangladesh
Nepal
1870
1913
Pakistan
Sources:
(Japan) Ohkawa, Shinohara and Umemura (eds.) (1974)
(China) Maddison, Angus (1998)
(Korea) Mizoguchi and Umemura (eds.) (1988)
(Taiwan) Mizoguchi and Umemura (eds.) (1988)
(Indonesia (Java)) Eng, P. Van Der (2002)
(Philippines) Hooley, Richard (2005)
(Peninsular Malaysia) Nazrin, Raja (2000, 2002 and 2006)
(India) Sivasubramonian, S (2000)
(Sri Lanka) Snodgrass, D.R. (1966)
As is shown in Table 1.1, data on national income was only available for the entity
of British Malaya (incorporating the territories of the Federation of Malaya and
Singapore) for the period 1947-55. Subsequently, the official estimates of the Federation
of Malaya for the period 1956-60 were computed by the Department of Statistics,
Federation of Malaya. Additionally, Rao, B. provided another set of GDP estimates for
the Federation of Malaya for the period 1947-55. In the case of Singapore, the first
estimate of the national income of Singapore was prepared by Benham, Frederik (1959)
for the year 1956. Subsequently, unofficial GNP figure was constructed by Department
10
Nazrin (2000, 2002 and 2006).
12
of Statistics, Singapore for the years 1957-60. For the same period, no GDP figures
were available for Singapore.11 Official GDP figures were computed by the Department
of Statistics from 1960 onwards.
Table 1.1
Malaya and Singapore: Gross National Product and Gross Domestic Product,
1947-60 (At Market Prices $ Million)
GDP at Current Market Prices GNP at Current Market

Prices
British Malaya (Federation Federation of Malaya Singapore Singapore

of Malaya and Singapore)
1947 3,531 2,601 1947

[1]
1948 3,619 2,612 1948
1949 3,550 2,635 1949
1950 5,345 4,075 1950
1951 7,520 [2] 5,686 1951
1952 6,350 4,670 1952
1953 5,780 4,137 1953
[4]
1954 4,273 1954
1955 4,992 4,880 1955
1956 5,060 4,933 1,685 [7] 1956
1957 5,126 4,985 1,797 1957
[3]
1958 4,896 4,764 1,967 1958
[8]
1959 5,527 5,393 1,968 [5] 1,886 1959
1960 5,866 5,876 2,150 [6] 2,001 1960
Sources: [ ] implies published sources

[1] Benham,Frederick (1951) [2] IBRD (1955) [3] Department of Statistics, Malaysia (1999)
[4] Rao, B. (1976) [5] Goh Keng Swee (1995) [6] Department of Statistics (1996)
[7] Benham, Frederick (1959) [8] Lee Soo Ann (1981)
1.2.3 Literature Reviews on GDP Concepts and Approaches
In SNA, there are four accounts of the nation, namely Gross Domestic Product
Account, Income and Outlay Account, Capital Transactions Account and Balance of
Payments Account. Out of these accounts, the basic measure of the output arising from
economic activity is known as Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The first question that
must be answered is what constitutes an economic activity, since this determines what
falls within the scope of the national accounting system. There is no difficulty in
defining as economic those activities that result in the production of goods and services
for sale on the market. There is also general agreement that government activities in the
areas of public administration, law and order, health, education, and social services (and
activities in similar areas carried out by private non-profit organizations) should be

11
Maddison (2001: 293, 299 and 305) provided figures on GDP, GDP per-capita and Population since 1950. The figures, however,
provided in the International Geary Khamis dollars and the methodology used in the computation was not explained in detail.
13
counted as economic activity, even though their output is not sold on the market.
However, SNA does not include unpaid services rendered by housewives and other
household members. Once the boundary of economic activity has been established, as
illustrated in Figure 1.3, GDP can be derived using three approaches.
Figure 1.3
The Components of GDP from Production, Income and Expenditure Approach
A B C
Gross domestic product by Cost components of gross Expenditures on gross

kind of economic activity domestic product domestic product
1. Agriculture, hunting, 1. Indirect taxes, net 1. Private final consumption

forestry and fishing Indirect taxes paid expenditure Resident
2. Mining and quarrying households, Private
3. Manufacturing Less: subsidies received non-profit institutions
4. Electricity, gas and water serving households
5. Construction 2. Consumption of fixed
6. Wholesale and retail trade, capital Compensation of 2. Government final
and restaurants and hotels employees consumption expenditure
7. Transport, storage and
communication 3. Operating surplus 3. Gross capital formation
8. Financing, insurance, real Increase in stocks
estate and business Gross domestic product in Gross fixed capital
services purchaser’s value Formation
9. Owner-occupied dwellings
10. Community, social and 4. Net exports of goods and
personal services services
Less: imputed bank service Gross domestic product in

charges purchaser’s value
Sub-total: Domestic product

of industries
11. Producers of Government

Services
12. Producers of private
non-profit services to
households
13. Domestic services of
households
Adjustments:
Plus: import duties
Gross domestic product in
purchaser’s value
14
The first approach looks at output. It measures the contribution of output made by
each producer, by deducting from the total value of its output the value of the goods and
services it has purchased from other producers and used up in producing its own output.
What is left is the value added by the producer in question; what is used up in
production is intermediate consumption. With some minor adjustments (less imputed
bank services plus import duties), the total value added by all producers equals GDP at
market prices. This method of GDP compilation is commonly known as the production
approach to GDP. The second approach considers the costs incurred by the producer
within his own operation: the incomes paid out to employees, net indirect taxes less
subsidies, consumption of fixed capital, and the operating surplus; this also adds up to
value added. This method is often called the income approach. The third method, known
as the expenditure approach, looks at the final uses of the country’s output for private
final consumption expenditure, government final consumption expenditure, gross
capital formation and net exports of goods and services; in other words, it shows what
becomes of the output once it has been produced.12 Conceptually, the results derived
from each of these three approaches should be identical but invariably different methods
of estimating GDP will not yield similar statistical results due to leakages.
Figure 1.4, which is a simplified version of what in national accounting is known as
an input-output table, displays production and cost inter-relationships. This chart shows
how the various types of input into economic activity (listed in the rows of the chart)
flow through the economy and are purchased by various users (listed in the columns).
The chart is divided into three quadrants. Quadrant I is concerned with the intermediate
consumption of producers. Across the top, producers are grouped by the kind of activity
in which they engage. Down the side, the goods and services which they purchase for
use in production are listed by type. Although the labels on the columns and rows of this
quadrant are the same, their content is not.

12
Department of International Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations (1986:1)
15
Figure 1.4
Integrated Framework for Measurement of GDP
Intermediate consumption by kind of activity Final demand Gross Output
(Column
Industry
14+20)
Producers' of government
services
Producers of private non-
profit services to
households
Domestic services of
households
Total All Activities
(Column 1-13)
Government Final
Consumption Expenditure
Private Final Consumption
Expenditure
Gross Capital Formation
Exports of Goods and
Services
Less: Imports of Goods and
Services
Total Final Expenditure
(Column 11-15)
Agriculture, hunting,
forestry and fishery
Mining and quarrying
Manufacturing
Electricity, gas and
water
Construction
Wholesale and retail
trade and restaurants
and hotels
Transport, storage and
communication
Financing, insurance,
real estate and business
services
Owner-occupied
dwellings
Community, social and
personal services
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishery 1
Mining and quarrying 2
Manufacturing 3
Electricity, gas and water 4
Construction 5
Wholesale and retail trade and restaurants and
Industry
6
hotels
Transport, storage and communication 7 Quadrant I (Intermediate Consumption) Quadrant II (Final Expenditure)
Financing, insurance, real estate and business
8
services
Owner-occupied dwellings 9
Community, social and personal services 10
Types of Goods and Services

Producers' of government services 11
Producers of private non-profit services to households 12
Domestic services of households 13
Total (goods and services) (Column 1-13) 14 C GDP

Indirect taxes, minus subsidies 15
Consumption of fixed capital 16
Compensation of employees 17
Quadrant III (Value Added) B
Costs
Operating surplus 18
Total Value Added (Column 15-18) 19 A GDP

Gross Input (Column 14+19) 20
Source: Department of International Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations (1986:6)
16
Non-agricultural goods, for example, may be produced by establishments classed in
agriculture and, conversely, establishments classed in agriculture may produce some
goods and services classified elsewhere. The column heading refer to whole
establishments, classified by their principal activity. The rows, on the other hand, refer
to goods and services, classified by their own nature. The subtotal row at the bottom of
this quadrant shows total intermediate consumption of producers engaged in each kind
of activity. The sub-total column at the right side of this quadrant divides the same total
intermediate consumption by the types of goods and services of which it is composed.
Quadrant III (the lower left-hand corner) is concerned with the rest of the production
costs of producers (that is, costs that do not arise from purchases from other producers).
These remaining costs are the components of value added as listed in (B) of Figure 1.3
and comprise indirect taxes (net), consumption of fixed capital, compensation of
employees, and operating surplus.
Addition across the rows of this quadrant yields, in the total column at the right, the
entries in Figure 1.4. Adding down the columns yields, in the total row at the bottom of
Quadrant III, the entries in (A) of Figure 1.3. The grand total row, Gross Input, at the
bottom of the chart is the sum of all production costs and profits of the producers
classified in each kind of activity; it is, of course, necessarily equal to the sum of
intermediate consumption and value added. Thus, another way of deriving (A) of Figure
1.3 is by subtracting the total row of Quadrant I (intermediate consumption), from the
grand total row representing Gross Input. Finally, Quadrant II (the upper right-hand
corner) is concerned with the final uses of GDP. Across the top, the column headings
are the categories of final expenditure that appear in Figure 1.4. The total column at the
right side of this quadrant contains the entries of (C) of Figure 1.3. The total column at
the right side of this quadrant shows the kinds of goods and services that go to make up
GDP.
17
The grand total column (Gross Output), at the extreme right of the chart is the sum
of intermediate purchases by producers (shown in Quadrant I) and final purchases by
others (shown in Quadrant II), classified by type of goods and services. Total gross
output is, by definition, equal to total gross input. It is seldom the case that national
accountant will be able to use all three approaches for making complete and
independent estimates of GDP, particularly in developing countries where there is a
dearth of data. Wherever possible, however, the use of more than one approach is
desirable, not only because of the analytic usefulness of the figures but also as a check
on the reasonableness of the estimates.
1.3 Statistical Sources and Possible Approach for the Construction of GDP of
Singapore
As compared with modern estimates of GDP, the construction of historical GDP
estimates has more serious constrains on the grounds that every step in the estimating
procedure would depend on the availability of statistical information. Gathering and
preparing of statistical material into time-series database represents a basic but
important step in constructing GDP estimates. Ideally, estimates using the three
different approaches would be most desirable since reasonableness of the results of
these estimates can be evaluated one against the other. However, this is again
constrained by the availability of data.
Prior to World War II, the British colonial authority compiled statistical information
on British Malaya based on the constituent administrative units, namely the Straits
Settlements, Federated Malay States and the five individual Unfederated Malay States.
Among these administrative units, the Straits Settlements had the most complete and
comprehensive time-series statistical information for the period 1900-39. Singapore's
figure was recorded as a part of the Straits Settlements.
British authorities had published four kinds of reports containing socio-economic
18
data on Singapore prior to World War II, namely the Blue Book, Straits Settlements,
1899-1938, Statistical Tables Relating to the Colonial and Other Possessions of The
United Kingdom, 1900-01, Statistical Tables Relating to the Colonial and Other
Possessions and Protectorates, 1902-07 and Statistical Tables Relating to British
Self-Governing Dominions, Crown Colonies, Possessions and Protectorates, 1908-1912.
These reports provided detailed statistical figures on trade, market prices, agricultural
planting, demography and government finance (revenue, expenditure, assets and
liabilities).
Secondly, the Annual Report, Straits Settlements, 1899-1938 gave summarized
economic data pertaining to the Straits Settlements and provided descriptive
explanations on various socio-economic events. Finally, the Straits Settlements,
Departmental Reports, (namely on Education, Electrical, Post and Telegraph, Trade,
Financial Statement, Land Office, Chinese Protectorate, Labour and Indian
Immigration, Public Works, Medical, Forest and Government Monopoly) 1888-1938
provided descriptive explanations and statistical data with regards to education, health
care, public works, and post and telecommunications. Apart from these reports, the
British colonial administration also released other specific data on Singapore. For
matters pertaining to economic indices, the Average Prices, Declared Trade Values,
Exchange, Currency and Cost of Living, Malaya, 1929-38 and 1948-51 provided
average market prices on major consumer items and cost of living indices as reflected
by consumption standards which were based on ethnicity and occupation. In the case of
trade, the Appendix to the Report on Trade, Straits Settlements, 1896-1906, 1908-17,
1921-28; British Malaya, Return of Foreign Imports and Exports, 1921-39 and Foreign
Trade of Malaya, 1929-30, 1932, 1934, 1936-39 provided information on Singapore's
trade by (i) class of goods and (ii) country of origin and destination. Private
investment in perennial crops was compiled and published in the Malayan Agricultural
19
Statistics, 1931-39, 1947-49. The Reports on Population Censuses (Straits Settlements,
1871,1881,1891,1901 and 1911) and British Malaya, (1921, 1931, 1947 and 1957)
provided detailed information on the characteristics of the population and its
geographical distribution. For inter-censal years, the yearly reports entitled Registration
of Births and Deaths, Straits Settlements, 1899-1939 and the Administration Report on
the Singapore Municipality, 1899-1939 gave annual population estimates by ethnicity
and gender.
The end of World War II and the Japanese occupation of British Malaya in 1945
marked the end of the Straits Settlements as an administrative unit. Singapore was
reconstituted as a British Crown Colony and continued to be so up to 1955. This
administrative transition ushered in an era whereby Singapore began collecting,
compiling and publishing its own statistical data. Annual Report, the Colony of
Singapore provided a wide range of statistical figures and descriptive information while
the Financial Statement of Singapore and Singapore’s External Trade contained detailed
data on government finance and trade respectively. To recapitulate, the British colonial
authority had in place devices to collect and compile a wide range of statistical
information which improved over time.
Figure 1.5 illustrates the availability of relevant statistical information for the
computation of each component of GDP (expenditure approach). As is described above,
statistical information on government expenditure and merchandize trade was relatively
well documented. This information has directly helped in the construction of
government final consumption expenditure and net of exports of goods (merchandize).
Other than these two components, unfortunately, no direct statistical information was
available to comply with the definitions of SNA 68. Under these circumstances,
alternative methods were used depending on the availability of the relevant statistical
data.
20
Figure 1.5
Singapore: List of Source Materials Utilized for the Computation of Each
Component of GDP, (Expenditure Approach), 1900-39 and 1950-60
Private Final Government Final Gross Fixed Capital Formation Net Exports of Goods and Services
Consumption Consumption
Investment on Investment on Investment on Net Exports of Net Exports of
Expenditure by Expenditure
Construction Machinery and Cultivated Goods Services
Resident
Equipments Assets (Merchandize)
Househoulds
AP ARSM ARTCFMS ARTSS MAS ARTSS ARSHB

ARCPSS FSSS ARTSS FTM SSBB BM ARSM
AREDSS SSBB BM STCOPUK FTM FTM
ARGMSS FTM STCPP SSBB SSBB
ARIISS STCOPUK STBCPP STCOPUK
ARMDSS STCPP STCPP
1900-39
ARRBDSS STBCPP STBCPP
ARSM
ARSS
CSS
CBM
SSBB
AP ARCCS ARS MSBFM SET ARCCS

AREDS ARCS SET SET ARSHB
ARLDS ARS
ARMDS FSCS
1950-60
ARRBDMS
CMU
CS
MSBFM
Abbreviations:
AP Average Prices, Declared Trade Values, Exchange, Currency and cost of Living, Malaya
ARCCS Administration Reports on City Council, Singapore
ARCPSS Annual Report, Chinese Protectorate, Straits Settlements
ARCS Annual Report, Colony of Singapore
AREDS Annual Report, Education Department, Colony of Singapore / State of Singapore
AREDSS Annual Report, Education Department, Straits Settlements
ARGMSS Annual Report, Government Monopoly Department, Straits Settlements
ARIISS Annual Report, Indian Immigrations, Straits Settlements
ARLDS Annual Report, Labour Department, Colony of Singapore
ARMDS Annual Report, Medical Department, the Colony of Singapore / State of Singapore
ARMDSS Annual Report, Medical Department, Straits Settlements
ARRBDMS Annual Report, Registration of Births and Deaths Marriages and Persons, Singapore
ARRBDSS Annual Report, Registration of Birth and Death, Straits Settlements
ARSHB Annual Report, Singapore Harbour Board
ARSM Administration Report on the Singapore Municipality
ARS Annual Report, the Colony of Singapore / State of Singapore
ARSS Annual Report, Straits Settlements
ARTCFMS Annual Report, Trade and Custom, Federated Malay States
ARTSS Appendix to the Report on Trade, Straits Settlements
BM British Malaya, Return of Foreign Imports and Exports
CSS Population Census, Straits Settlements
CBM Population Census of British Malaya
CMU Population Census of Malayan Union
CS Population Census of Colony of Singapore
FSCS Financial Statements, the Colony of Singapore
FSSS Financial Statements, Straits Settlements
FTM Foreign Trade of Malaya
MAS Malayan Agricultural Statistics
MSBFM Monthly Statistical Bulletins, Federation of Malaya
SET Singapore External Trade
SSBB Straits Settlements, Blue Book
STCOPUK Statistical Tables Relating to the Colonial and Other Possessions of the United Kingdom
STCPP Statistical Tables Relating to the Colonial and Other Possessions and Protectorates
STBCPP Statistical Tables Relating to British Colonies, Possessions and Protectorates
21
In view of the nature of data that was available, the expenditure approach was
selected for the purpose at hand. The other two approaches, namely the production
approach and the income approach were found to be not feasible since the data required
as inputs for these two approaches were generally lacking or incomplete.
1.4 Thesis Layout
The framework of this thesis is organized as follows. Chapter 1 provides an
introduction to the issue at hand. Chapter 2 shows the methodology employed for the
construction of each component of GDP, namely Private Final Consumption
Expenditure by Resident Households (PFCE), Government Final Consumption
Expenditure (GFCE), Gross Capital Formation (GCF) and Net Exports of Goods and
Services in both current and constant (1914) prices. Chapter 3 examines the result of
GDP estimates by conducting consistency checks between estimated figures and official
figures and also by comparing with available historical GDP estimates of other
countries. Subsequently, possible reasons of upturns and downturns of each component
of GDP are provided. Additionally, the overall pattern of Singapore’s GDP growth for
the entire twentieth century is commented upon. Based on this, two types of empirical
investigations were attempted to examine the economic growth of Singapore in the
twentieth century.
Chapter Four examines economic instability and economic growth. This topic deals
with four related issues, namely (i) has the degree of output volatility dampened over
time? (ii) what are the explanatory variables for the decline in output volatility? (iii)
how has economic instability impacted on economic growth? and (iv) comparison of
Singapore’s situation vis-à-vis other countries.
Subsequently, Chapter Five examines the long-term transition of government
finance structure and empirically investigates the relationship between government
fiscal behavior and economic growth. This study firstly identifies the features of fiscal
22
policy during the British colonial period and describe the transition of government fiscal
behavior in terms of budgetary process, revenue raising, government expenditure and
budget management (surplus/deficit management). It then proceeds with empirical
analysis whereby the validity of Wagner’s Law is tested. For analytical purposes two
econometric techniques, namely cointegration test and Granger causality test were
employed.
As a conclusion, Chapter 6 encapsulates the major findings and limitations of the
study as well as suggestions for future research in this field.
23
CHAPTER TWO
THE CONSTRUCTION OF HISTORICAL GROSS DOMESTIC

PRODUCT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE, 1900-39 AND 1950-60
AT CURRENT AND CONSTANT PRICES
2.1 Introduction
This chapter will provide the estimating procedures for each component of GDP,
namely Private Final Consumption Expenditure by resident households (PFCE),
Government Final Consumption Expenditure (GFCE), Gross Capital Formation (GCF)
and Net Exports of Goods and Services. Each component would be discussed in the
following manner. Firstly, the definition of each component will be explained briefly.
Subsequently, an attempt will be made to identify the data availability for the period
under study. Thirdly, the methodologies employed for the construction of the respective
components of GDP in current prices would be explained. Finally, the choice of the
most suitable deflator to obtain constant prices for each component is described. It will
be noted here that for the periods 1900-39 and 1950-60, 1914 was selected as the base
year. This is mainly because the cost of living index which was utilized for the
construction of Consumer Price Indices set 1914 as a base year. The year 1914 was
deemed to be a relatively stable year for the period under study.
2.1.1 Overview on the Methodology Employed for Estimation of Each Component

of GDP
Before providing the detail explanations on the methodology employed for the
estimation of each component of GDP, it is necessary to sketch an outline of the
estimation exercise. As is discussed in Chapter One, the concept and definition of each
component of GDP were clearly described in SNA. Nevertheless, published statistical
data series in the British colonial documents are not fully available to construct each
component of GDP. Thus, various creative methodologies were applied but always
24
consciously conforming, as closely as was possible, to the definitions as outlined in
“The System of National Accounts (SNA) 1968”.
Presently, household budget surveys and commodity flow tables are widely utilized
for the computation of PFCE. However, these approaches could not be employed due to
the dearth of such data. Consequently, alternative techniques had to be utilized in
arriving at these estimates. As presented in Figure 2.1, two distinctive approaches were
employed viz the direct and indirect approach. In the direct approach, data on
consumption expenditure pertaining to opium, education, medical fees and utilities (gas,
water supply and electricity) was gathered independently from various official sources.
The indirect approach involved the estimate of PFCE on food, beverages and tobacco,
clothing, rent, domestic servants and transport. Summing up the expenditures derived
from these two approaches provides us the PFCE in current and constant prices.
Figure 2.1
Steps of Estimating Private Final Consumption Expenditure, 1900-39 and 1950-60
Direct Component Indirect Component
Beverage &
Food Clothing Rent
Tobacco
Transport Servants Clubbing Miscellaneous
Step 1 Estimation of Mid-year population by consumption standards
Estimation of per capita consumption expenditure of major

Opium Step 2 objects of consumption and standards in current prices for
selected years
Estimation of Price Indices for Major Objects of Consumption

Education Step 3
and Consumption Standards, Malaya
Estimating the per capita final consumption expenditure of

Medical Step 4 major objects of consumption and standards in 1914 prices for
selected years
Utilities Step 5 Estimations of real wage index, 1900-39, 1947-60
Deriving Total Private Final Consumption Expenditure in

Step 6
Constant and Current Prices, 1900-39
Aggregation of Direct and Indirect Component to obtain the PFCE in the

Step 7
Domestic Market
Deriving PFCE by resident household by deducing non-resident consumption
Step 8
made in the domestic market
25
The indirect approach estimates involved a number of steps. Firstly, six
consumption standards were classified based on the recognition that there are significant
differences in consumption levels and expenditure patterns exist among ethnic groups.
Subsequently, the current per capita consumption expenditure of each major object of
consumption was identified for each standard. These figures were then deflated by the
consumer price indices of each major object of consumption to obtain the expenditure in
constant prices. Real per capita consumption expenditure of each major object of
consumption of each standard was then adjusted based on the changes in real income
over time taking into account the income elasticities of demand by each major object of
consumption. For example, annual figures on PFCE were computed for food for the
European standard in both constant and current prices as follows. If in the base year (t),
the real per capita expenditure on food for European standard is RPCFt and if the real
wage indices13 increases from 1 in year t to 1.2 in year t+1, real per capita expenditure
on food in year t+1 (RPCFt+1) was calculated as follows:
RPCFt+1 = RPCFt + ((RPCFt × 1.2/1.0) × 0.7)
If the real earnings index increases to 1.5 in year t+2, per capita food expenditure in
year t+2 was calculated as follows:
RPCFt+2 = RPCFt+1 + ((RPCFt+1 × (1.5-1.2)/1.2)) × 0.7))
Real per capita expenditure of the European standard on food for the period 1900-39
was then multiplied by the population of each year of the European Standard to obtain
the real PFCE of the European Standard on food for each reference year. The derived
figures were then inflated by the food indices to arrive at the PFCE in current prices.
Similar procedures were applied for each major object of consumption for the six
consumption standards. PFCE in the domestic market was then derived by aggregating
the figures of the direct components and indirect components. In order to obtain PFCE
by resident households, adjustment was made.

13
Data on household income was not available. The movements of the nominal weighted wage indices of the agriculture and non-
agriculture sectors were then used as surrogates for household income changes. The real wage index for the period 1900-39 was
then computed by dividing the linked series from 1900-39 by the overall Consumer Price Indices with base year 1914=100.
26
Government final consumption expenditure (GFCE) was derived by deducting from
the government output (goods and services), the sales of other goods and services
produced by the producers of government services (Please see Figure 2.2). Output of
producers of government services was computed by summing up the compensation of
employees (personal emoluments), the intermediate consumption of goods and services
and the depreciation allowances of all producers of government services. These
estimates include the expenditure incurred by Colony of Singapore, Municipality / City
Council of Singapore and Rural Boards.14 In the case of government sales of goods and
services, school fees and hospital fees were identified and deducted from government
output to arrive at the GFCE.
Figure 2.2
Steps involved for the Estimation of GFCE, 1900-39 and 1950-60
Step 1 Estimation of output of producers’ government services at current prices
Step 2 Estimation of government sales (Education and Medical) at current prices
Deriving estimated government final consumption expenditure (Government Output of

Step 3
Producer's Government Services -Government Sales) at Current Prices
The estimates of Gross Capital Formation (GCF) include investments made on
construction, machinery and equipment and cultivated assets. Inventories include stocks
of goods held by producers to meet temporary or unexpected fluctuations in production
or sales, and work in progress other than construction.
In the case of construction output capitalized, as is presented in Figure 2.3, total
construction output was firstly derived by using input-output coefficients of cement to
total construction output based on the first construction survey in 1972. Total
construction expenditure that went into fixed capital formation was then derived by
deducting from total output of construction, the expenditures incurred on repairs and
maintenance.
14
Military expenditure on capital formation items have been treated as intermediate consumption of goods and services and form
part and parcel of output.
27
Figure 2.3
Steps involved for the Estimation of Construction Output Capitalized, 1900-39
and 1950-60
Step 1 Estimation of net imports of cement retained in Singapore
Step 2 Identification of input-output coefficient of cement to total output
Step 3 Estimation of total output for Construction
Step 4 Identification of weights on repairs and maintenance against total output
Step 5 Deriving estimated Construction Output Capitalized
In the case of investment on machinery and equipment (M&E), it was assumed that
the M&E produced locally during the period was negligible for the period under study.
This means that total net imports valued at market prices was equivalent to total
investments in M&E. Net imports of M&E at c.i.f. values were obtained from official
trade statistics. No commodity taxes were levied against M&E which meant that the c.i.f.
(basic) and producers’ values were identical. As is presented in Figure 2.4, trade and
transport margins were added to producers’ value to arrive at market prices. The final
step was to determine what proportion of net imports was to be capitalized. Some of
these imports would have been used as inputs into construction activity and some as part
of private final consumption expenditure.
Figure 2.4
Steps involved for the Estimation of Machinery and Equipment Capitalized,
1900-39 and 1950-60
Step 1 Estimation of net imports of machinery and equipment retained in Singapore
Step 2 Identification of market margin and transport margin
Step 3 Estimation of total output of Machinery and Equipment
Identify the weight of output capitalized for investment on Machinery and

Step 4
Equipment
In preparing the estimates on the investment for cultivated assets, only rubber and
coconut were selected since other perennial crops were found to be negligible. All
28
expenses sunk into perennial crops prior to their reaching the bearing age were treated
as part and parcel of capital expenditure. As presented in Figure 2.5, three types of
information were utilized for the above computation, namely, newly planted acreage for
each year, number of years it takes for the crop to reach bearing age and annual cost per
acre of bringing the crop into production. The yearly estimates of expenditure on
cultivated assets at different years of maturity were derived by multiplying the total
immature acreage with the corresponding base year estimates of cost of investment per
acre at different stages of maturity. These yearly estimates were then aggregated to
arrive at the yearly estimates of real capital expenditure. Total real investment in
cultivated assets was then inflated by the nominal rubber tapper’s earnings indices. For
both rubber and coconut, a distinction was made between smallholding and estate
cultivation.
Figure 2.5
Steps involved for the Estimation of Investment for Cultivated Assets,
1900-39 and 1950-60
Step 1 Estimation of newly planted acreage for smallholding and estimate
Estimation of cost of production up to maturity for various period (Smallholding and

Step 2
Estate)
Step 3 Computation of Cultivated Assets for various period with different base year
Step 4 Estimation of Nominal Agricultural wage Index as deflator
Step 5 Adjustment for deriving Cultivated Assets in Current Prices
Inventory as defined in SNA 68, consists largely of raw materials and supply,
finished or partly finished products awaiting sale and unpaid work in progress on assets
which take a long time to produce. The colonial government records, however, did not
provide sufficient information to construct reliable estimates. Under these serious
constraints of data availability, the official figures available after 1960 were utilized. It
was observed that there are positive correlation between GDP growth and value of
changes in stock (See Figure 2.6). Based on the prevailing economic conditions as
29
reflected in the level of GDP growth rate, the percentage contribution of changes in
stock to GDP were assigned values ranging from -3.0% to 3.0%.
Figure 2.6
Steps involved for the Estimation of Changes in Stock, 1900-39 and 1950-60
Observe relationship between GDP growth and level of change in stock for post-war
Step 1
Singapore
Step 2 Apply appropriate weights on change in stocks to GDP
Export and import statistics cover transactions of goods and services between the
residents of one country and non-residents of another. Data on merchandize imports and
exports of Singapore were available for the period 1900-27. For the period 1928-39, 50-
60, W.G. Huff’s estimates (1994) were applied. Exports and imports of services were
captured in this estimate by using port and other related statistics (See Figure 2.7).
Figure 2.7
Steps involved for the Estimation of Imports and Exports of Goods and Services,
1900-39 and 1950-60
Step 1 Deriving Merchandize Imports and Exports from official record
Estimating trade in services on port services and non-resident consumption expenditure

Step 2
made in domestic market.
Real GDP figures were arrived at by deflating each component of aggregate demand
in current prices by various deflators into constant 1914 prices for the period 1900-39
and 1950-60. Figure 2.8 portrays the various deflators used in the deflation process. For
example, CPI and Import and Export Unit Value Indices were computed using the
Laspeyres Price Indices15. Unit values of commodities were derived from the quotients
of values and quantities. As it was not feasible to derive an outright continuous unit
15 Pn
Laspeyres Price Indices computed using the following formula; ∑ PnQo = ∑ Po
* PoQo
∑ PoQo ∑ PoQo
where Pn = Price in current period
Qo = Quantity in base period.
Currently, Department of Statistics, Singapore uses the Laspeyres method in computing Consumer Price Indices as well as Import
and Export Unit Value Indices.
30
value indices series due to changing composition of exports, the sample period was
broken down into several but overlapping intervals with different base years. The
criteria for the selection of intervals and their base years include relative stability of the
shares of commodities and a relatively tranquil year. In this exercise, the base year of
each interval is identified based on the proximity of the price of the commodity that
commands the largest weight to its average price level during the corresponding interval.
Figure 2.8
Summary of Deflator Employed by Each Component of GDP
GDP Components Method Applied / Deflators
Private Final Consumption Expenditure
Indirect Approach Consumer Price Indices for each major object of
consumption
Direct Approach Consumer Price Indices
Government Final Consumption Expenditure
Government Output
Compensation of Employees Consumer Price Indices
Intermediate Consumption Consumer Price Indices
Sales of Government Services Consumer Price Indices
Cultivated Assets Indian Rubber Tapper's Wage Indices
Construction Import Unit Value Indices of Cement
Machinery and Equipment UK Indices of Machinery and Plant
Changes in Stock Import Unit Value Indices
Exports of Goods and Services
Merchandize Export Unit Value Indices
Port (goods and services) UK Weighted Indices for Fuel and Light, Transport,
Communication and Other Services
Non-residents consumption in domestic market Consumer Price Indices
Imports of Goods and Services
Merchandize Import Unit Value Indices
2.2 Private Final Consumption Expenditure by Resident Households, 1900-39 and

1950- 60
2.2.1 Definition
Private final consumption expenditure (PFCE) by resident households as defined in
the SNA68 is the actual total consumption of private households and non-profit
making institutions16 on current goods and services less sales of similar goods and
services. PFCE by resident households include purchases of goods and services made
16
Private non-profit institutions are basically private organizations such as clubs, clan associations, religious organizations and
trade unions. This series, however, does not take into account the PFCE of private non-profit making institutions because the
magnitude of their final consumption expenditure is rather small or negligible.
31
abroad by resident households17 and excludes purchases by non-resident households
(e.g., by foreign tourists) made in the domestic market. Normally, PFCE made in the
domestic market would be constructed first and adjustments made subsequently to
derive PFCE by resident households.
2.2.2 Sources and Methods of Estimation at Current Prices
In modern times, PFCE in the domestic market is generally constructed using a
number of approaches, namely (i) household budget survey method,18 (ii) commodity
flow approach,19 (iii) retail valuation method20 and (iv) retail sales method.21 In this
exercise, however, none of the methodologies described above could be used for the
estimation of the PFCE for the years 1900-39 and 1950-60 due to the dearth of data. No
household budget surveys or wholesale, retail and catering trades censuses were
conducted during the period 1900-39 for the entity of Singapore. In fact, the first
household budget survey in respect of Singapore was only conducted in 1947/48. This
survey, however, was not comprehensive since it only covered the pattern of
expenditure of Europeans and the higher income Asiatic group. The consumption of the
institutional population was also not included.
In Singapore, the first attempt at estimating PFCE in the domestic market was
conducted by Benham (1959) for the year 1956. In this exercise, he utilized net imports
17
In addition, net value of gifts sent abroad is taken into account.
18
Household budget survey method is the summation of household consumption expenditure to cover all households by inflating
the data collected in a sample household survey. However, the use of data from the household expenditure survey are subject to
three major constraints. Firstly, the household survey is based on a small sample of households and / or may refer to particular
groups of the population only. Secondly, respondents are reluctant to the provide actual expenditure pattern. Thirdly, the
household survey does not cover the rent of owner-occupied dwellings.
19
The commodity flow approach only can be adopted if we have fairly good statistics on production, imports, exports, capital
formation, intermediate consumption, stocks and other related statistics. The commodity flow table traces the use of a particular
commodity by various end-users, e.g. household consumers, intermediate consumption by industries, producers of government
services or other final demand. Based on the commodity flow table, it is relatively easy to construct an input/output table which can
then be used to determine the PFCE based on the movements of production of commodities, imports, etc. However, the coefficients
of the input/output tables should be revised from time to time but the construction of a commodity flow table itself is admittedly
time consuming.
20
Retail value method is utilized when primary information on household consumption is available in terms of quantities. The
household expenditure is then computed by multiplying the quantity consumed by the households by the retail prices paid by the
consumers. However, the compilation of appropriate average retail prices to value the quantities of commodities that households
consume or acquire may be difficult to obtain. Correct weights for geographical price differences, adjustments for variations in
quality, etc, are not available.
21
Retail sales method takes into account data on sales gathered from retailers and other outlets selling goods and services direct to
household consumers. Issues of apportioning items of expenditure between final consumption expenditure of households and the
intermediate consumption or gross capital formation of industries arises in instances of goods utilized by professional practitioners
and other individual proprietors both in production and in household consumption.
32
(quantity) of non durable, semi-durable and durable goods consumed by households and
multiplied them by the respective retail prices. In addition, locally produced goods
(quantity) consumed by households were multiplied by their respective retail prices.
Own-account consumption of produce by fishermen and farmers was obtained by
multiplying the quantity thus consumed by producer’s price (See Table 2.1).
Table 2.1
Singapore: Summary of Expenditure by Private Households
at Market Prices, 1956
Item Straits Percentage

$ (millions)
Food 641 40.2
Alcoholic Drink 59 3.7
Tobacco 76 4.8
Clothing 163 10.2
Durable Consumer Goods 78 4.9
Other Manufactured Goods 167 10.5
Passenger Transport 124 7.7
Entertainment 20 1.3
Other Services 98 6.1
Housing (including rates) 170 10.6
Total 1,596 100.0
Source: Benham (1959:1).
Unfortunately, this methodology could not be employed for the period under study
since the required data was not available for this period. This being the scenario, we had
no other choice but to adopt an alternative technique of constructing the PFCE in the
domestic market.
The remainder of this section attempts to describe the data and methods used to put
together the PFCE series in constant and current prices. Basically two approaches were
combined to estimate the PFCE. PFCE on opium, education, medical services, utilities
and passenger rail transport were compiled for each year in current prices using the
direct approach. Expenditure on food and groceries, beverages and tobacco, clothing,
rent, domestic services, clubs, passenger transport (other than rail and ferry) and other
miscellaneous household expenditures were compiled using an indirect approach.
Summing up the expenditures from these two approaches in current and constant prices
gives us the PFCE in the domestic market in both current and constant prices. Further
33
adjustments were made by taking into account consumption made by residents outside
Singapore and deducting consumption of non-residents (eg. foreign tourists) made in the
domestic market.
2.2.2.1 Direct Components
Under the category of direct components, consumption expenditure on opium,
education, medical fees, utilities (gas, water supply and electricity) was gathered
independently. The information relating to these major objects of consumption was
relatively well documented in official British colonial government reports. The
methodology that was then applied to derive estimates for years for which data was not
available is described in the ensuing paragraphs.
2.2.2.1.1 Opium Consumption
Opium consumption in Singapore prior to World War II was not unlawful and data
pertaining to household consumption of opium could be obtained from various official
sources. Therefore, for purposes of this study estimates of PFCE incorporating
household opium consumption were made for Singapore for the period prior to World
War II. However, after World War II with household opium consumption not being
sanctioned by the government, there was no data available whatsoever on the household
consumption of opium. The paucity of this data meant that this component of PFCE was
not taken into account for the post-war period.
The distribution and sale of opium in Singapore prior to World War II had
experienced many transitions. As shown in Figure 2.9, purchases and sales of opium
were entirely operated by Chinese revenue farms since the early nineteenth century. It
was not until 1910 that the British colonial authority took over the right for purchasing
and selling opium from Chinese revenue farms. Nevertheless, a majority of retail shops
that sold opium to consumers were operated by licensed private (Chinese) retailers. At
the same time, Singapore gradually increased government-owned retail shops.
34
Figure 2.9
(a) Singapore: Transformation of Revenue Collection from (b) Singapore: Methods Adopted to Estimate The Private
Final Consumption the Sales of Opium, 1899-1939 Expenditure of Opium / Chandu, 1899-1939
1899 1899
1900 1900
1901 1901
1902 1902
1903 1903
1904 1904
1905 Chinese Revenue Farms only 1905
1906 1906
1907 1907
1908 1908
1909 1909
1910 1910
1911 1911
Total Tahil Sold x Retail Price
1912 1912
1913 1913
1914 1914
1915 1915
1916 Licenced Private Retail Shops 1916
1917 1917
1918 1918
1919 1919
1920 1920
1921 Government Monopoly 1921
1922 1922
1923 Department 1923 [1] Government Receipts from Sales of Opium / Chandu to [2] Government Receipts from Sales of Opium / Chandu to [3] Margins of Licenced
1924 1924 Consumers (Retail Prices) Licenced Private Retail Shops (Wholesale Prices) Private Retail Shops
1925 1925
1926 1926
1927 1927
1928 1928
1929 1929
1930 1930
1931 1931
1932 1932
1933 Government Monopoly Department 1933 [1] Government Receipts from Sales to Consumers of Opium / Chandu (Retail Prices)
1934 1934
1935 1935
1936 1936
1937 1937
1938 1938
1939 1939
0% 100%
Sources: Constructed based on the Straits Settlements and Federated Malay States Opium Commission, (1908) Commission Appointed to Inquire into Matters Relating to the Use of Opium in the Straits Settlements and the
Federated Malay States and British Malaya Opium Committee (1924), Proceedings of the British Malaya Opium Committee.
35
Between 1910 and 1926, the proportion of government retail shops increased
significantly. Eventually, licensed private retail shops were abolished by 1926 and fully
monopolized by the government.
For the computation of the PFCE on opium in Singapore, three different procedures
were applied based on the availability of data on opium consumption (See Figure
2.1(b)). For the period 1899-1922, statistical information on the quantity of opium sold
to consumers and its retail price was utilized from the two reports by the Opium
Committee for the years 1908 and 1924. Subsequently, due to the deficiencies of
information on quantity sold and retail prices, government revenue figures on the sales
of opium provided in the Annual Report, Government Monopoly Department, Straits
Settlements and the Blue Book, Straits Settlements were then utilized to estimate the
PFCE on opium for the period 1923-25, details of which are given in Table 2.2. It
should be noted that government revenue figures on the sale of opium as contained in
these two reports for the period 1923-25 did not fully represent the actual consumption
figures. The revenue figures for this period were estimated using a combination of (i)
government receipts from sales of opium to consumers in retail prices and (ii)
government receipts from sales of opium to licenced private retail shops at wholesale
prices. The wholesale price was adjusted to obtain the retail price by making use of the
1922 trade and transport margin which was estimated to be approximately 4.2%. For the
remaining period between 1926-39 the figures pertaining to government revenue from
the sale of opium to household consumers were directly obtained from the Annual
Report, Government Monopoly Department, Straits Settlements.
Table 2.2
Singapore: Methodology Adopted to Estimate PFCE on Opium for the period
1923-25
Gross Government Gross Government Revenue Gross Government Receipts from Trade and Dealers Receipts from Total Private Final
Revenue Receipts from Receipts from the Sales of Opium the Sales of Opium / Chandu to Transport Consumers (Retail Prices) Consumption of Opium /
the Sales of Opium / / Chandu to Consumers (Retail Retail Shops (Wholesale Prices) ) Margins (%) ($) Chandu ($)
Chandu ($) Prices) ($) ($)
[1] [2] [3]= [1]x[2] [4] [5]=[1]x[4] [6] [7]=[5]x(1+[6]) [8]=[3]+[7]
1923 10,137,264 60% 6,082,358 40% 4,054,906 4.2% 4,225,212 10,307,570

1924 9,033,157 70% 6,323,210 30% 2,709,947 4.2% 2,823,765 9,146,975
1925 9,306,725 90% 8,376,052 10% 930,672 4.2% 969,761 9,345,813
36
2.2.2.1.2 Education and Medical fees
Total school fees collected by the Department of Education and Education Board
were utilized as expenditure on education. The figures for the period 1900-39 were
extracted from the Blue Book, Straits Settlements and Annual Report, Education
Department, Straits Settlements. Subsequently, the Annual Report, Education
Department, Colony of Singapore and Annual Report, Education Department, States of
Singapore were utilized to obtain the information for the period 1948-56 and 1957-60
respectively.22
For medical expenditure, revenue collected in the form of hospital fees by the
Medical Department was defined as consumption expenditure. Figures were compiled
from the Blue Book, Straits Settlements, Annual Report, Medical Department, Straits
Settlements, Annual Administration Report, Malacca and Annual Administration Report,
Penang. For some years, the related information was not available. Estimates were
derived by employing the average ratio of Singapore’s revenue collected from hospital
fees in relation to that of Penang. For the period 1947-60, figures on hospital fees were
compiled from Annual Report, Medical Department, Colony of Singapore, 1947-56 and
State of Singapore, 1957-60.
2.2.2.1.3 Utility (Gas, Water Supply and Electricity)
In the case of Singapore, revenue collection for utilities was undertaken by the
Singapore Municipality. Revenue collection from households on electricity, gas and
water were taken as final expenditure on utilities. Expenditure by businesses and public
authorities was excluded, as far as possible. However, it must be noted that in some
instances the government publications did not clearly distinguish the revenue obtained
from private as against public users. In such instances, the average ratio of private use
against total use was used to interpolate and derive the estimated figures. For the period
22
For the period of 1953-58, unfortunately, no figures were presented in The Colony of Singapore, Report of the Educational
Department. Considering these contraints, a compound growth rate (11.6%) was derived from given figures for 1952 and 1959
respectively. The figures for the years 1953-58 were then computed based on this compound growth rate.
37
between 1900-39, figures were compiled from the Annual Administration Report on
Singapore Municipality while for the years 1947-60, the Annual Administration Report
on Singapore City Council was used to obtain these figures.
2.2.2.2 Indirect Components
In this category, major components of PFCE such as food, beverages, tobacco,
clothing, rent, servant, transport and miscellaneous expenditure were computed by an
entirely different method. The remainder of this section will explain the process of
computation (See Figure 2.10).
38
Figure 2.10
Flow Chart for Computation of PFCE in Domestic Market at Current Prices, 1900-39
(11) (12) (13)
Direct Approach (Current Prices)
1. Opium / chandu
2. Health
3. Education
4. Utilities
5. Passenger Transport (rail and ferry)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)=(7) x (8) (10)
Indirect Population / Per capita Consumer Price Per capita Final Real Wage Income Elasticities of Per capita Private Final Population Private Final Inflate real PFCE
Consumption Consumption Indices of Major Consumption Index Demand by Major Object of Consumption Numbers by Consumption of Major Objects
Approach Standards Expenditure of Objects of Expenditure of Consumption and Standard Expenditure of Major Consumption Expenditure of Consumption (Plus)
Major Objects of Consumption Major Objects of Objects of Consumption Standard by Major by Price Indices Direct
Consumption and (1914=100) Consumption and (Food=0.7)
(Food =0.8) and Standards in 1914 Object of (1914 =100) Purchases
Standards in Standards in 1914 (Beverages and Tobacco =1.0) prices Consumption Abroad,
1. Food and Groceries Current Prices Prices for Selected (Clothing =1.0) and Standard Resident
(Rent = 0.8) Households in
for Selected Years in 1914 prices
2. Beverages and Tobacco (Transport =1.0)
Years Current
(Domestic Servants =1.0)
Private Final Prices (Straits $) Private Final
3. Clothing (Club 1.0) Consumption Consumption
Expenditure in (Minus) Expenditure by
4. Rent Domestic Direct Resident
Market in Purchases in Households in
5. Domestic Servants Current Prices The Domestic = Current Prices
(Asiatic and Eurasian + Market, Non- (Straits $)
Clerical Standards and Malay Labour Resident
European Standard only) Standard 1936 1900-39 Series Households in
Current
6. Passenger Transport Prices (Straits $)
Chinese
other than rail and ferry Labour
(Asiatic and Eurasian 1936 1900-39 Series
Standard
Clerical Standards and
European Standard only)
Indian Labour
Standard 1933 1900-39 Series
7. Clubs (European
Standard only)
Asiatic
Clerical 1930 1900-39 Series
Standard
Eurasian
Clerical 1930 1900-39 Series
Standard
European
Standard 1930 1900-39 Series
Miscellaneous
39
2.2.2.2.1 Estimate of Population and Consumption Standards (STEP 1)
(I) Estimation of Mid-year Population of Singapore for 1900-39 and 1947-60
In most countries, population censuses are carried out on a decennial basis, with the
prohibitive high costs associated with it deterring countries from conducting it on a
more frequent basis. In modern times, a Post Enumeration Survey (PES) is often carried
out as soon as a population census enumeration is completed with the purpose of
evaluating the completeness and accuracy in terms of coverage and content, that is the
data on population characteristics collected in the census (Muhsam, 1960). The results
of the PES often serve as a basis for adjusting the population census count for under-
enumeration. The population census figure is then adjusted to mid-year. In principle,
there are two approaches to conducting a population census, namely the de facto and the
de jure methods. While the de facto approach enumerates persons in terms of the place
where they were physically present on Census Night, the de jure method involves
enumerating persons according to their usual place of residence at the time of the census
irrespective of their physical presence.23 The Censuses of British Malaya, of which
Singapore was a constituent entity, were all conducted on de facto basis.
This population figure derived from the population census was then used as a base
to derive post-censal annual population estimates by adding to it natural increase (ie.
excess of births over deaths) and net immigration (ie excess of immigration / arrivals
over emigration / departures) that had occurred over the one-year period. This method
of arriving at annual population estimates continues until the next population census is
held whereby the figure from latest census will be used as a new base to make post-
censal annual population estimates.
It should be noted here that although the population censuses were generally
conducted in March or April, for purposes of this exercise the population census figure
has been taken to represent the population as at 1st January in the year that the census
23
Department of Economic and Social Affairs Statistics Division, United Nations (1997: 63)
40
was conducted. It was felt that this would to some extent neutralize the phenomenon of
undercounting that is generally prevalent in a population census.
For the period 1900-30, the total estimated population of the Colony of Singapore
was available in the Annual Report, Registration of Birth and Death, Straits Settlements.
This annual report provided the total estimated end-year population as well as the
number of births and deaths. The figure presented in this report yielded relatively steady
rates of population growth for the period 1901-10 (2.3-2.4%) and 1911-20 (2.8%).
However, kinks in population growth rates were observed between the Census year and
the year preceding to it, much of it being attributed to the rather inaccurate data
pertaining to net immigration. Information relating to the issue of net immigration was
documented in the Annual Report, Chinese Protectorate, Straits Settlements. The report
provided the number of Chinese arrivals into Singapore.24 These figures, however, did
not reflect the actual number of immigrants to Singapore. Annual Report, Indian
Immigrations, Straits Settlements provided figures on Indian arrivals and departures.
The coverage of this report, however, was limited only to immigrants arriving and
departing from Penang. The number of Indians who proceeded to Singapore was not
available from this report.
Given the above data constraints, the following estimation procedure was applied.
Firstly, the population numbers recorded in The Report of the Population Census of
1947 for the years 1901, 1911, 1921 and 1931 were set as the anchor figures. 25
Secondly, the inter-censal annual population estimates were obtained by adding to the
census base population the natural increase and net migration that occurred over each
year. While the figures on births and deaths were deemed to be reasonable the same
could not be said of net migration which was obtained by deducting departures from
24
Chinese immigrants who were examined on board in Singapore mainly proceeded to FMS, Penang and Malacca in the territory
of British Malaya & Bangkok and Rangoon (outside of British Malaya).
25
The census data ordinarily pertained to the months of March and April. This is, however, assumed to pertain to January 1 of the
relevant years. It is hoped that this procedure would largely neutralize the phenomenon of under-counting of the population in the
census years.
41
arrivals. 26 As a consequence there was a big difference between the inter-censal
population estimate and the census figure for the same year. Since it was strongly
believed that the figures obtained from the censuses must be given more credence than
the constructed inter-censal figures, the inter-censal figures were adjusted to bring them
in line with the census figures. To clarify this estimation procedure, Figure 2.11
illustrates the adjustments applied for the years 1921-31, as an example. To begin with,
the 1921 census population figure was used as the base figure representing the
population as at 1st January 1921. Subsequently, the annual natural increase and net
immigration figures were added year by year from the 1st of January 1921 to the 1st of
January 1931. Logically, the inter-censal derived figure on the 31st December 1930 (or
1st January 1931) should be identical to that of the 1931 census figure but the derived
inter-censal figure was found to be much higher than the 1931 Census figure. Thus an
exercise had to be undertaken to reconcile these figures. The birth and death figures
were left unchanged while net migration bore the full brunt of the adjustments. The
adjustment was made in the following manner. Firstly, the net immigration for the
period 1st January 1921 – 1st January 1931 was obtained as a residual by taking the
population growth (obtained by taking the 1931 census population minus the 1921
census population) less the natural increase between 1st January 1921–1st January 1931.
The ratio of this residual net migration figure in relation to the sum of yearly net
immigration between 1921-31 (1st January) was then used as an adjustment factor and
applied to the latter. The resulting adjusted net immigration figures when added to the
figures of natural increase for each year of the 10-year period respectively using 1921
census population as the base would yield intercensal population estimates in line with
the 1931 Census figure.
26
Annual Report, Chinese Protectorate Department, Straits Settlements provided the number of Chinese arrivals and departures
during the year. This number of net immigrants, however, is far different from figure in Annual Report, Registration of Birth and
Death, Straits Settlements. This is because Annual Report, Chinese Protectorate Departments, Straits Settlements regards Singapore
as the entry and exit point of Chinese migration to British Malaya.
42
Figure 2.11
Singapore: Methodology to Derive Adjusted Total Population
Estimated Net Immigration

(1st Jan.1921-31st Dec.1930)
Adjusted Net Immigration
(1st Jan.1921-31st Dec.1930)
Esimated Natural Increase Esimated Natural Increase Total Census Population

(1st Jan.1921-31st Dec.1930) (1st Jan.1921-31st Dec.1930) 1931 (1st January 1931)
Total Census Population Total Census Population Total Census Population

1921 (1st January 1921) 1921 (1st January 1921) 1921 (1st January 1921)
For the period 1931-60, the Report on the Registration of Birth and Deaths,
Malayan Union, 1940-1946 and Annual Report, Registration of Births and Deaths
Marriages and Persons for the year 1965, Singapore provided figures on mid-year
population. These figures, particularly those pertaining to net immigration, which
hitherto had been deemed to be grossly inaccurate, were then accepted as reliable
figures based on the statements made in the Population Census Report of 1947.27 The
estimated mid-year population for Singapore for individual years as well as annual
population growth rates for the period 1900-39 and 1947-60 is given in Table 2.3.
27
It is only fair to point out that the pre 1930 figures for Chinese did not even purport to be migration statistics. They were merely
departmental records kept by the Chinese Protectorate in Singapore of arrivals there of deck passengers from China including
passengers in transit to other Malaysian ports or other countries and of departures to China alone. Naturally, the use of these figures
on the assumption that they were genuine migration statistics provided absurdly high estimates. There was gross undercounting of
departures (Census Report 1947:28). However the whole system of collecting migration statistics had been completely overhauled
in 1930 and subsequently the figures were as complete as could reasonably be expected though, doubtless, small movements by
junk or boat to and from China and Indonesia and over the Siamese border went unrecorded (Census Report, 1947:28).
43
Table 2.3
Singapore: Mid-year Population, 1900-39 and 1947-60
Mid-year Growth Mid-year Growth Mid-year Growth

Population rate (%) Population rate (%) Population rate (%)
1900 226,100 1920 411,849 1947 938,144
1901 231,845 2.5 1921 427,026 3.6 1948 960,800 2.4
1902 238,508 2.8 1922 446,426 4.4 1949 978,700 1.8
1903 245,328 2.8 1923 462,792 3.6 1950 1,022,100 4.3
1904 252,345 2.8 1924 479,462 3.5 1951 1,068,100 4.4
1905 259,591 2.8 1925 500,229 4.2 1952 1,127,000 5.4
1906 267,042 2.8 1926 520,163 3.9 1953 1,191,800 5.6
1907 274,717 2.8 1927 540,660 3.9 1954 1,248,200 4.6
1908 282,626 2.8 1928 561,434 3.8 1955 1,305,500 4.5
1909 290,754 2.8 1929 582,519 3.7 1956 1,371,600 4.9
1910 299,096 2.8 1930 575,435 -1.2 1957 1,445,929 5.3
1911 308,378 3.1 1931 562,866 -2.2 1958 1,514,000 4.6
1912 318,630 3.3 1932 545,988 -3.0 1959 1,579,600 4.2
1913 329,169 3.3 1933 514,500 -5.9 1960 1,634,100 3.4
1914 340,005 3.2 1934 525,228 2.1
1915 351,144 3.2 1935 572,310 8.6
1916 362,602 3.2 1936 603,163 5.3
1917 374,393 3.2 1937 651,486 7.7
1918 386,530 3.2 1938 710,037 8.6
1919 399,013 3.2 1939 727,564 2.4
(II) Consumption Standards
It is generally accepted that significant differences exist in consumption levels and
expenditure patterns between ethnic groups, between rural and urban areas and between
households in different income/occupational brackets. For constructing our expenditure
series, an attempt was made to take these differences in population characteristics into
account. To this end, expenditure patterns were classified into six consumption
standards for the periods 1900-39 and 1950-60. In this exercise, occupations were first
classified into professional / managerial, clerical and manual and this classification
scheme was then used alongside the information on ethnicity to establish the total
number of employed for the various consumption standards mentioned above. For
example, it was assumed that Eurasian manual workers shared the same lifestyle as their
Indian counterparts and were consequently placed in the Indian labor standard. Non-
Europeans holding professional / management positions were classified under the
European standard. Altogether, six benchmark years are involved that generally
44
corresponds with the availability of data on the total number of employed by occupation
and by ethnic group in Singapore. Those years include 1901, 1911, 1921, 1931, 1947
and 1957. Figures for inter-censal years were estimated based on approximations from
benchmark years as no breakdown figures of employment are available for those years.
Hence, 1901 has been used as the reference year for the period 1900-10, 1911 for 1911-
20, 1921 for 1921-30, 1931 for 1931-39, 1947 for 1947-56 and 1957 for 1957-60.
However, census data of 1901 and 1911 does not provide information on population by
occupation. Therefore, the population by occupational categories for the years 1900-20
was estimated based on the assumption that its distribution would be very much akin to
that observed in the 1921 Population Census.28
Table 2.4 lists out the six consumption standards based on the above-mentioned
ethnicity-employment (occupational) data. Refinements were made on numerous
occasions to the data obtained from source documents when it was felt that the number
of persons of a specific ethnic group reported for a particular occupational category was
incredibly large. For instance of the total Malays employed as accountants and
bookkeepers, it would be deemed that not all of them were actually in the
professional/managerial category and thus were adopting the European lifestyle. Instead,
it would be assumed, based on local knowledge, that only a certain percentage of them
actually fell in the professional/managerial category (European standard) while the rest
were in the clerical category (Asiatic clerical standard) and lists out the six consumption
standards based on the above mentioned ethnicity-employment (occupational) data.
28
For the years 1900-10 and 1911-20, the distribution of six consumption standards was based on the 1921 Census with slight
adjustments being made for 1901 and 1911 (See Table below). It was assumed that the composition of European Standard, Asiatic
clerical, Chinese labour standard and Indian labour standard was slightly smaller prior to 1921. On the other hand, the composition
of Malay labour standard was assumed to be higher based on the assumption that substantial immigration of this group occurred in
the early 20th century.
Census European Asiatic Eurasian Chinese Indian Malay Total

Year Standard Clerical Clerical Labour Labour Labour
Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard
1901 6.0% 8.5% 1.0% 59.5% 7.0% 18.0% 100.0%
1911 6.0% 8.8% 1.0% 60.2% 7.0% 17.0% 100.0%
1921 6.5% 11.0% 1.0% 60.5% 8.0% 13.0% 100.0%
45
Table 2.4
Singapore: Population by Consumption Standard, 1899-1939 and 1947-60
European Asiatic Clerical Eurasian Clerical Chinese Labour Indian Labour Malay Labour Total
Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard
1899 13,667 19,362 2,278 135,535 15,945 41,002 227,790 1899
1900 13,566 19,219 2,261 134,530 15,827 40,698 226,100 1900
1901 13,911 19,707 2,318 137,948 16,229 41,732 231,845 1901
1902 14,310 20,273 2,385 141,912 16,696 42,931 238,508 1902
1903 14,720 20,853 2,453 145,970 17,173 44,159 245,328 1903
1904 15,141 21,449 2,523 150,145 17,664 45,422 252,345 1904
1905 15,575 22,065 2,596 154,457 18,171 46,726 259,591 1905
1906 16,023 22,699 2,670 158,890 18,693 48,068 267,042 1906
1907 16,483 23,351 2,747 163,456 19,230 49,449 274,717 1907
1908 16,958 24,023 2,826 168,162 19,784 50,873 282,626 1908
1909 17,445 24,714 2,908 172,999 20,353 52,336 290,754 1909
1910 17,946 25,423 2,991 177,962 20,937 53,837 299,096 1910
1911 18,503 27,137 3,084 185,643 21,586 52,424 308,378 1911
1912 19,118 28,039 3,186 191,815 22,304 54,167 318,630 1912
1913 19,750 28,967 3,292 198,160 23,042 55,959 329,169 1913
1914 20,400 29,920 3,400 204,683 23,800 57,801 340,005 1914
1915 21,069 30,901 3,511 211,389 24,580 59,695 351,144 1915
1916 21,756 31,909 3,626 218,286 25,382 61,642 362,602 1916
1917 22,464 32,947 3,744 225,385 26,208 63,647 374,393 1917
1918 23,192 34,015 3,865 232,691 27,057 65,710 386,530 1918
1919 23,941 35,113 3,990 240,206 27,931 67,832 399,013 1919
1920 24,711 36,243 4,118 247,933 28,829 70,014 411,849 1920
1921 27,757 46,973 4,270 258,351 34,162 55,513 427,026 1921
1922 29,018 49,107 4,464 270,088 35,714 58,035 446,426 1922
1923 30,082 50,907 4,628 279,989 37,023 60,163 462,792 1923
1924 31,165 52,741 4,795 290,074 38,357 62,330 479,462 1924
1925 32,515 55,025 5,002 302,638 40,018 65,030 500,229 1925
1926 33,811 57,218 5,202 314,698 41,613 67,621 520,163 1926
1927 35,143 59,473 5,407 327,100 43,253 70,286 540,660 1927
1928 36,493 61,758 5,614 339,668 44,915 72,986 561,434 1928
1929 37,864 64,077 5,825 352,424 46,602 75,727 582,519 1929
1930 37,403 63,298 5,754 348,138 46,035 74,807 575,435 1930
1931 36,586 61,915 2,814 354,606 50,658 56,287 562,866 1931
1932 35,489 60,059 2,730 343,972 49,139 54,599 545,988 1932
1933 33,443 56,595 2,573 324,135 46,305 51,450 514,500 1933
1934 34,140 57,775 2,626 330,894 47,271 52,523 525,228 1934
1935 37,200 62,954 2,862 360,555 51,508 57,231 572,310 1935
1936 39,206 66,348 3,016 379,993 54,285 60,316 603,163 1936
1937 42,347 71,663 3,257 410,436 58,634 65,149 651,486 1937
1938 46,152 78,104 3,550 447,323 63,903 71,004 710,037 1938
1939 47,292 80,032 3,638 458,365 65,481 72,756 727,564 1939
European Malay Clerical Chinese, Indian, Chinese Labour Indian Labour Malay Labour Total
Standard Standard Eurasian Clerical Standard Standard Standard
Standards
1947 56,289 14,072 126,649 562,886 93,814 84,433 938,144 1947

1948 57,648 14,412 129,708 576,480 96,080 86,472 960,800 1948
1949 58,722 14,681 132,125 587,220 97,870 88,083 978,700 1949
1950 61,326 15,332 137,984 613,260 102,210 91,989 1,022,100 1950
1951 64,086 16,022 144,194 640,860 106,810 96,129 1,068,100 1951
1952 67,620 16,905 152,145 676,200 112,700 101,430 1,127,000 1952
1953 71,508 17,877 160,893 715,080 119,180 107,262 1,191,800 1953
1954 74,892 18,723 168,507 748,920 124,820 112,338 1,248,200 1954
1955 78,330 19,583 176,243 783,300 130,550 117,495 1,305,500 1955
1956 82,296 20,574 185,166 822,960 137,160 123,444 1,371,600 1956
1957 86,756 14,459 267,497 788,031 144,593 144,593 1,445,929 1957
1958 90,840 15,140 280,090 825,130 151,400 151,400 1,514,000 1958
1959 94,776 15,796 292,226 860,882 157,960 157,960 1,579,600 1959
1960 98,046 16,341 302,309 890,585 163,410 163,410 1,634,100 1960
2.1.2.2.2 Per-capita Consumption Expenditure by Standard for base year (STEP 2)
The second step involved the determination of the annual consumption expenditure
of a “representative” individual of each of the six standards by each major object of
consumption. The methodology involved for estimating the per capita consumption
46
expenditure on major objects of consumption of the various consumption standards may
be described as follows:
(I) Pre World War II Period
a) The European Standard (1930)
From the 1930 Family Budget Survey of Singapore, it was established that a typical
European standard household of 3 persons would incur a monthly expense of $649.10 as
given in the Table 2.5.
Table 2.5
Singapore: European Family Budget, 1930
Major Objects of Consumption Straits $
Food 157.00
Market and Cold Storage 120.00
Groceries 30.00
Bakery 7.00
Beverages and Tobacco 47.63
Whisky, gin, vermouths, port, sherry, liquers, bitters and wine 36.03
Aerated waters 4.40
Tobacco 7.20
Servant 170.00
Boy, cook, tukang ayer, gardener, amah and syce 170.00
Transport 53.47
Petrol, tyres, insurance covering car, lubricating oil, repairs, etc. 53.47
Clothing 80.00
Man 25.00
Wife 40.00
Child in Malaya 15.00
Club 61.00
Entrance fees, subscriptions, expenses (caddies, etc) 61.00
Rent 80.00
Rent 80.00
Total 649.10
Source: Milles (1930:14-16 and 20-23).
The above figure ($649.10) excludes expenditure on certain consumption items (e.g.
health, education and utilities) that has already been estimated via the direct approach.
This European budget also excludes consumption of a non-resident family member. Not
included also is the miscellaneous expenditure which would be taken into account only
at the final stages in the computation of PFCE of all standards. The monthly and yearly
per capita consumption of this household was subsequently derived.
47
b) The Eurasian / Asiatic Clerical Standards (1930)
It should be noted here that for the Eurasian and Asiatic clerical standards in
Singapore the procedure of deriving monthly and yearly per capita consumption
expenditures was similar to those adopted for the European standard as described above.
The source data was again obtained from the Family Budget Survey of 1930 for
Singapore taking into account variations in household size.
c) The Indian Labour Standard (1933)
The consumption of an adult of this standard was obtained from the Indian
Labourer’s Specimen Monthly Budget, 1933 as contained in the Annual Report, Johore,
1933 which amounted to $4.525 per month as shown in Table 2.6.
Table 2.6
A Labourer’s Specimen Monthly Budget (1933)
Items Amount Unit of Price in cents Cost (Straits $)
Quantity per gantang,
chupak or kati
Food 3.855
Rice 6 gantang 20 1.200
Salt 1.5 chupak 3 0.045
Chilies 0.5 kati 17 0.085
Coriander 0.75 chupak 6 0.045
Tamarind 1.5 kati 7 0.105
Dhal 1.5 chupak 12 0.180
Green Peas 1 chupak 8 0.080
White beans 0.5 chupak 10 0.050
Onions 1 kati 6 0.060
Garlic 0.5 kati 8 0.040
Thalippu 0.5 chupak 24 0.120
Pepper 1.25 chupak 5 0.060
Turmeric 1.25 chupak 16 0.040
Curry Masala 0.040
Coconut Oil 1 bottle 10 0.100
Salted Fish 1 bottle 19 0.190
Mutton 1 kati 48 0.480
Vegetables 0.400
Potatoes 1 kati 5 0.050
Coffee 1 tin 12 0.120
Sugar 1 kati 4.5 0.045
Tin Milk 1 tin 18 0.180
Gingelly Oil 0.5 bottle 28 0.140
Tobacco 0.420
Betel nut & Tobacco 0.420
Clothing 0.250
Clothing 0.250
Per capita Adult Consumption 4.525
Source: Annual Report, Johore 1933, Labourer’s Specimen Monthly Budget 1933, p.27.
48
The above expenditure does not include miscellaneous expenses incurred on items
such as soap, kerosene oil, pots and pans, mats, pillows etc. The monthly and yearly
weighted per capita consumption expenditure was then derived based on the assumption
that an adult female would consume the same amount of food and clothing as the adult
male while a child’s consumption of these items would be two-thirds of that of an
adult.29 It should be noted that the figure for food was revised upwards to account for
own-account consumption.30 The per capita consumption of tobacco was based solely
on the consumption made by an adult male. Data on rent for the Indian standard was not
available for any one year during this period. Expenditure on rent was therefore
estimated based on surrogate data. The cost-of-living index of the Eurasian Clerical
standard, 1914-39 gave a weight of 8% for rentals for the base year in relation to all
goods and services consumed. This was taken into account and an assumption was made
that the rental expenditure for the Indian standard would account for about 5 % of all
goods and services consumed. The treatment of miscellaneous items was similar to that
of the European/Eurasian clerical/Asiatic clerical standards mentioned earlier.
d) The Malay and Chinese Labour Standards (1936)
(i) Food (1936)
The food consumption pattern of a full meat diet of a Malay and a Chinese adult was
based on the 1936 diet scale of government hospitals. Since food provisions in
government hospitals were deemed to be the minimum dietary requirements, the food
consumption data was adjusted upwards to reflect the normal intake of an adult.
Subsequently, the monthly and yearly weighted per capita consumption for the Malay
and Chinese standards were arrived at in a procedure similar to that as described for the
Indian labour standard.
29
This information was derived from the Health and Nutrition Information Infrastructure Database System (1995) developed by
the National Institute of Health and Nutrition (NIHN) in collaboration with the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST).
Annual mean of total amount of food, both animal food and vegetable food, for an adult (30-39 years old) and child (1-6 years old)
were 1,479.8 grams and 983.4 grams respectively. Based on this available information, it was decided that child consumption on
food was almost 2/3 of an adult.
30
For example, this includes consumption of home-grown poultry and livestock products, vegetables etc.
49
(ii) Tobacco, Clothing and Rent (1936)
No data was available for 1936 on the per capita consumption of tobacco, clothing
and rent. Given this predicament, estimates for the various major objects of
consumption in 1936 were made based on per capita consumption of such objects
(except rent) in the year 1949 for which data was available. It was assumed that the
proportion of expenditure, in nominal terms on these major objects of consumption in
relation to food as observed in 1949 would remain unchanged in 1939. Based on this
assumption, the consumption of food in 1939 was computed. However, the changes in
real consumption due to changes in real income were not taken into account. Having
determined the per capita consumption of food in 1939, the per capita consumption of
tobacco and clothing for 1939 was computed based on the relationship of these major
objects of consumption to food in 1949. The data for 1936 was then obtained by
deflating each major object of consumption by the relevant price index to reflect price
changes for the two years (1936 and 1939) using 1914 as the base year.
Data on rent was not available for the year 1949. It was noted that rent constituted
8% of the per capita expenditure of the Eurasian clerical standard in 1914. It was then
posited that the percentage of expenditure on rent for the Malay and Chinese labour
standards would certainly be less than the Eurasian clerical standard. An assumption
was therefore made that the percentage would only be about 5% for the Malay labour
standard and around 6% for the Chinese labour standard. As for the miscellaneous items
of consumption, its treatment is similar to that of the European/Eurasian clerical/Asiatic
clerical standards as described earlier. I have so far described the manner in which
annual per capita consumption expenditure of a “representative” individual in each of
the six consumption standards has been constructed for each major object of
consumption in current prices for the selected years. The results of the above exercise
are summarized in Table 2.7 (A).
50
(II) Post World War II Period
a) The European, Malay Clerical and Chinese, Indian, Eurasian Clerical

Standards
The publication entitled Average Prices, Declared Trade Values, Exchange,
Currency and Cost of Living, Department of Statistics, Straits Settlements and
Federated Malay States, 1948, Malaya provided a detailed structure of household
consumption expenditure by major object of consumption for the European, Malay
Clerical and Chinese, Indian, Eurasian Clerical standards respectively. Original data
provide quantity consumed on food, tobacco and transport while total value of
consumption for beverages, clothing, clubs and rents at 1948 prices. In order to derive
the value in 1948 for food items, tobacco and transport, available market prices of that
particular year were derived from the Monthly Statistical Bulletin, Federation of Malaya
and Malayan Statistics Monthly Digest of Economic and Social Statistics Relating to the
Colony of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya.
b) Chinese, Malay and Indian Labour standards for the year 1949
Annual Report, Labour Department, the Colony of Singapore, 1949 provided
information on quantity consumed by an adult male for each item, namely food, tobacco
and clothing. The monthly and yearly weighted per capita consumption expenditure was
then derived based on the assumption that an adult female would consume the same
amount of food and clothing as the adult male while a child’s consumption of these
items would be two-thirds of that of an adult. For estimating consumption expenditure
on rent, an assumption was therefore made that the percentage would only be about 5%
for the Malay and Indian labour standards and around 6% for the Chinese labour
standard. The results of the estimates are presented in Table 2.7 (B).
51
Table 2.7
Singapore: Annual Per Capita Private Consumption Expenditure by Standard,
Selected Years
(A) 1900-39 Series

Consumption European Eurasian Asiatic Malay Chinese Indian
Standard Standard Standard Clerical Labour Labour Labour
Major (1930) (1930) Standard Standard Standard Standard
Objects of (1930) (1936) (1936) (1933)
Consumption
Food and Groceries $601.201 $195.481 $184.561 $84.542 $88.012 $79.796
Bevarages and
$171.481 $8.641 $8.641 $10.193 $8.143 $16.366
Tobacco
Clothing $288.001 $31.201 $31.201 $11.584 $11.424 $10.186
Rent $288.001 $72.001 $72.001 $5.575 $7.035 $9.497
Not Not Not
Domestic Servants $655.201 $24.001 $24.001 Applicable Applicable Applicable
Transport (Other Not Not Not
$192.481 $26.501 $26.501 Applicable Applicable Applicable
than Railway)
Not Not Not Not Not
Clubs $219.601 Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable
Notes:
1. Per capita consumption was derived based on household size of each standard household.
2. Consumption per capita is assumed to be 25% more than the full meat diet scale of adults in government hospitals. Male and
female adults consume the same amount whereas children consume 2/3 of adult amount.
3. Applied the ratio of beverages and tobacco to food in 1949 to 1939 and deflated to 1936.
4. Applied the ratio of clothing to food in 1949 to 1939 and deflated to 1936.
5. Applied the ratio of rent to food in 1949 to 1939 and deflated to 1936.
6. Consumption per capita is assumed to be 20% more than that of Labourer’s Specimen, Johore, 1933. Male and female adults
consume the same amount whereas children consume 2/3 of adult amount.
7. Computed as a 5% of total expenditure on food, clothing, beverages and tobacco.
Sources:
[1] Milles (1931:14-16 and 20-23).
[2] Annual Report, Johore 1933, Labourer’s Specimen Monthly Budget, p.27.
[3] Allen, L.A. (1938:1705).
[4] Annual Report Labour Department, Colony of Singapore, 1949, p. 74-76.
(B) 1947-60 Series

Consumption European Malay Chinese, Malay Chinese Indian
Standard Standard Clerical Indian and Labour Labour Labour
(1948) Standard Eurasian Standard Standard Standard
Major (1948) Clerical (1949) (1949) (1949)
Objects of Standard
Consumption (1948)
Food and Groceries $1,245.821 $451.331 $419.131 $300.422 $356.032 $407.742
Beverages and
$708.901 $20.701 $20.701 $39.942 $36.332 $38.802
Tobacco
Clothing $951.821 $57.741 $54.461 $48.222 $54.142 $31.432
Rent $672.651 $60.501 $60.501 $22.953 $32.973 $28.943
Not Not Not
Domestic Servants $1,357.691 $108.081 $108.081 Applicable Applicable Applicable
than Railway)
Not Not Not Not Not
Clubs $456.001 Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable
Notes:
1. Per capita consumption was derived based on household size of each standard household.
2. Male and female adults consume the same amount whereas children consume 2/3 of adult amount.
Computed as a percentage of expenditure on food, clothing, beverages and tobacco: Malay and Indian Labor 5%, Chinese Labor 6%.
Sources:
[1]Department of Statistics, Federation of Malaya (1949: 74-77).
[2] Annual Report, Labour Department, the Colony of Singapore,1949, pp. 74-76.
52
2.2.2.2.3 Construction of Consumer Price Indices 1900-39 and 1950-60
(1914=100) (STEP 3)
Consumer price indices (CPI) forms a basis for measuring the rate of inflation and a
useful tool for deflating PFCE, wage rates, etc. It provides a measure of the average rate
of change in prices of a fixed basket of consumer goods and services which represents
the household expenditure pattern. 31 For this purpose, CPI by major object of
consumption was required to obtain the respective real per capita consumption
expenditure. Additionally, the overall CPI was utilized to compute real wage indices.
The following actions were taken to compute the CPI.
Firstly, estimate the private final consumption expenditure of each major object of
consumption for each consumption standard for the base year (1914=100). Secondly,
compute the base weights of private final consumption using the total private final
consumption expenditure of each major object of consumption by each consumption
standard. The weights of private final consumption of each consumption standard within
a particular major object of consumption should add up to unity. Subsequently, multiply
the base weights of private final consumption of each consumption standard within a
particular major object of consumption by the relevant price indices of each year. Based
on the above procedures, derive the overall price index of each major object of
consumption by adding up the weighted index of each standard.
This would give you the overall price index for each major object of consumption
for each year. The details on how the price indices for each major object of consumption
were estimated and the results of such an exercise are presented in Appendices 1-3. It
will be apparent from these Appendices that there are essentially two (2) series of price
indices. The first series covering the period 1900-39 had 1914 as its base year
(1914=100) while the second series encompassing the period 1939, 1947-60 had 1949
31
A base weighted price index, ie a Laspeyres Price Index was used in the computation. It can be computed using the following
formula.
Pn
∑ PnQo ∑ Po * PoQo
Laspeyre’s Index = ∑ PoQo

= ∑ PoQo
Where Pn = Price in current period and Qo = Quantity in base period.
53
as the base year. With 1939 being common to both series of price indices, it was then
possible to reconstruct one continuous series for the period 1900-39 and 1950-60 with
1914 as the base year (1914=100) by using the overlapping 1939 price indices
expressed as a conversion factor and applying it to the period 1950-60.
The weights of private final consumption expenditure in the base year of each major
object of consumption (irrespective of standard) were computed by using the total
private final consumption expenditure. These weights should add up to unity.
Subsequently, multiply the base weights so derived by the price indices of each major
object of consumption for each year. Lastly, derive the overall price index by adding up
the base weighted index for each major object of consumption for each year. The
estimated Consumer Price Indices (CPI) so derived for the year 1900-39 and 1950-60
are presented in Table 2.8. The computation of procedures of CPI for the various
periods namely 1899-1914, 1914-39 and 1939, 1947-60 are presented in Appendix
Table 3-5.
54
Table 2.8
Singapore: Price Indices by Major Object of Consumption and Consumer Price
Index, 1899-1939 and 1947-60 (1914=100)
Price Indices by Major Object of Consumption Overall

Food & Tobacco Clothing Rent Servants Transport Club CPI
Groceries
1899 81.12 81.32 76.31 75.02 69.64 109.66 88.18 81.23

1900 81.97 83.55 78.94 76.46 75.00 107.87 88.88 82.73
1901 82.91 81.61 84.45 77.93 73.21 107.44 89.10 83.57
1902 85.51 86.19 86.79 79.43 82.14 107.23 90.99 86.73
1903 85.51 91.42 92.79 80.96 82.14 107.34 91.66 87.79
1904 87.28 86.94 90.19 82.53 78.57 107.23 91.97 87.89
1905 90.18 89.41 87.98 84.12 78.57 107.12 93.74 89.51
1906 87.80 86.21 84.42 85.74 82.14 107.23 92.14 88.13
1907 85.69 89.90 82.99 87.40 91.07 105.07 91.55 88.04
1908 87.02 90.40 86.31 89.09 91.07 104.64 92.28 89.25
1909 85.83 87.90 76.42 86.37 91.07 103.67 91.37 87.13
1910 87.09 90.09 84.38 86.05 91.07 103.24 92.28 88.78
1911 102.81 88.10 84.03 84.75 91.07 102.91 99.88 97.35
1912 105.84 88.64 83.07 85.45 91.07 103.02 101.47 99.03
1913 105.09 99.12 99.53 90.86 91.07 99.46 102.43 101.09
1914 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
1915 104.73 91.83 138.32 100.28 103.82 101.83 91.31 106.54
1916 106.47 135.91 161.28 102.44 103.82 103.13 103.77 113.14
1917 115.77 127.84 144.02 102.29 113.09 108.64 113.88 117.78
1918 139.48 174.54 189.80 114.34 116.80 112.50 134.00 140.43
1919 183.87 201.99 229.60 124.90 116.80 122.90 147.40 172.28
1920 243.98 236.50 291.60 160.76 155.50 126.80 163.50 221.30
1921 167.96 237.22 237.20 168.16 155.50 122.80 176.70 174.82
1922 144.20 233.57 182.80 186.66 155.50 112.00 177.40 156.16
1923 144.28 201.55 163.60 209.64 155.50 94.80 169.20 152.11
1924 144.61 188.81 157.10 217.54 155.50 99.40 164.10 151.49
1925 149.58 186.19 158.10 225.57 155.50 105.30 164.20 155.07
1926 158.49 187.93 157.50 236.04 155.50 103.50 161.70 160.33
1927 154.85 180.99 155.40 253.41 155.50 94.20 159.50 158.00
1928 150.77 181.13 151.90 275.75 155.50 93.10 159.50 156.66
1929 147.73 176.61 141.00 277.40 155.50 89.70 155.30 153.27
1930 138.26 170.09 139.80 255.60 152.90 85.50 156.10 145.73
1931 104.59 174.80 136.57 221.46 138.00 96.20 160.50 124.49
1932 89.18 168.76 121.38 181.20 124.70 89.00 160.10 109.58
1933 82.36 155.09 115.68 159.06 115.80 85.40 158.40 101.76
1934 86.41 156.31 110.78 159.06 123.70 84.50 159.50 104.44
1935 94.68 147.01 109.81 159.06 127.40 82.40 157.70 108.53
1936 92.21 146.72 109.12 159.06 125.70 80.00 157.40 106.70
1937 101.76 146.72 112.79 161.78 130.00 81.40 157.70 113.08
1938 94.29 145.90 113.92 169.58 128.20 81.50 159.40 109.42
1939 91.81 154.10 123.83 182.26 128.20 82.18 152.87 110.16
1947 394.16 493.82 628.50 549.01 366.43 181.50 423.73 409.33

1948 361.21 404.61 385.91 460.76 306.70 151.91 444.09 344.50
1949 336.79 417.66 389.07 510.58 322.29 150.46 437.21 338.58
1950 360.41 444.64 415.49 527.05 334.74 155.63 469.31 359.02
1951 480.24 506.62 525.93 642.35 380.93 173.46 546.51 451.51
1952 502.13 514.31 514.47 680.78 423.69 171.95 564.09 469.80
1953 477.30 521.93 472.64 719.21 448.21 166.69 556.45 458.41
1954 433.27 542.23 448.54 735.68 454.64 164.20 546.51 436.94
1955 415.99 540.39 439.15 724.70 457.59 165.87 544.22 427.08
1956 418.47 542.24 438.15 768.62 459.05 168.29 549.57 431.66
1957 436.83 549.94 444.86 790.58 459.05 174.01 558.74 444.20
1958 430.04 550.13 443.56 807.05 459.05 174.83 561.80 441.93
1959 419.57 547.50 436.17 818.03 459.05 177.47 567.15 436.87
1960 418.89 547.21 438.13 818.03 459.05 179.24 572.82 437.05
55
2.2.2.2.4 Estimating the Per Capita Final Consumption Expenditure of Major
Objects of Consumption and Standards in 1914 Prices for Selected Years (STEP 4)
By utilizing the consumer price indices constructed in Step 3, figures on real per-
capita consumption expenditure by each major object of consumption and each standard
using 1914 as the base year were derived and the results are presented in Table 2.9.
Table 2.9
Singapore: Real Per Capita Private Consumption Expenditure by Standard,
Selected Years
(A) 1899-1939 (1914 Prices)
Consumption European Eurasian Asiatic Malay Chinese Indian
Standard Standard Standard Clerical Labour Labour Labour
Major
Object of (1930) (1930) Standard Standard Standard Standard
Consumption (1930) (1936) (1936) (1933)
Food and
$434.85 $141.39 $133.49 $91.68 $95.45 $96.88
Groceries
Beverages and
$100.82 $5.08 $5.08 $6.95 $5.55 $10.55
Tobacco
Clothing $206.01 $22.32 $22.32 $10.61 $10.47 $8.80
Rent $112.68 $28.17 $28.17 $3.50 $4.42 $5.97
Not Not Not
than Railway)
Not
Not Not Not Not
Clubs $140.68 Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable
Applicable
(B) 1947-60 (1914 Prices)

Consumption European Malay Chinese, Malay Chinese Indian
Standard
Standard Clerical Indian and Labour Labour Labour
Major (1948) Standard Eurasian Standard Standard Standard
Object of (1948) Clerical (1949) (1949) (1949)
Consumption Standard
(1948)
Food and Groceries $344.90 $124.95 $116.12 $89.20 $105.71 $121.07
Beverages and
$175.21 $5.12 $5.12 $9.56 $8.70 $9.29
Tobacco
Clothing $246.65 $14.96 $14.11 $12.39 $13.92 $8.08
Rent $145.99 $13.13 $13.13 $4.49 $6.46 $5.67
Not Not Not
than Railway)
Not
Not Not Not Not
Clubs $102.68 Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable
Applicable
2.2.2.2.5 The Real Wage Indices (STEP 5)
Ideally a real wage index should be constructed using the weighted average of
wages in all sectors of the economy. Unfortunately, no such detailed time series data
was available. As an alternative approach, the following estimation procedure was
56
applied to compute the real wage indices. For the period 1899-1939, the wage index was
constructed based on the daily wage rates of carpenters, joiners, blacksmiths and
bricklayers in Singapore and the Indian factory workers in Singapore to capture wage
movements in the non-agriculture sectors,32 while the Indian rubber estate tappers’
wage rate was used to reflect wage movements in the agriculture sector.
A weighted wage index was constructed based on the employment data of the
agriculture and non-agriculture sectors in accordance with the 1921 Census of
Population.33 Real earnings index was then derived by deflating the earnings index with
the overall CPI.
For the period 1947-57, the information on number of labourers by industry for the
year 1947 and 1957 was provided in the Population Census 1957, the Colony of
Singapore. According to this census report, more than half of the working population
was employed in the manufacturing and services sectors for both 1947 and 1957. Based
on this observation, minimum daily wage information was extracted from the Annual
Report, Labour Department, the Colony of Singapore. The data presentation, however,
has changed over time. Therefore, synchronizations needed to be made. These selected
representative wage rates for each industry were then converted to a wage index with
1957 as the base year. Subsequently, the weighted wage index was computed based on
the 1957 Census. The derived nominal weighted wage index was then deflated by the
overall Consumer Price Indices. The real wage indices for the period 1899-1939 and
1947-60 were thus obtained and are presented in Table 2.10.

32
Wage data of carpenters, joiners, blacksmiths and bricklayers was only available from 1899-1923, while that of Indian factory
workers only for 1925-39. To link the two wage series, it was necessary for us to make an educated guess on the level of wages of
Indian factory workers relative to that of carpenters, joiners, blacksmiths and bricklayers. It was assumed that the wage rates of
carpenters, joiners, blacksmiths and bricklayers was about 2.27 times that of the Indian factory workers.
33
The weighting of the nominal wage indices for agriculture and non-agriculture sectors for both periods (1900-14 and 1914-39)
was based solely on the 1921 Population Census data on employment across sectors given the absence of such data for the base year,
1914. As shown in table below, weights on agriculture and non-agriculture sectors for 1921 and 1931 were relatively stable.
Therefore, the weights from the 1921 Census were used to represent base year (1914) weights.
Agriculture Non-agriculture
Sector sector
1921 13.8% 86.2%
1931 12.9% 87.1%
1947 8.1% 91.9%
1957 6.9% 93.1%
57
Table 2.10
Singapore: Weighted Real Wage Indices, 1899-1939 and 1947-60 (1914=100)
1899-1939, 1947-1960 (1914=100)
1899 116.03 1920 89.13 1947 164.71
1900 113.92 1921 112.82 1948 179.65 250.0
1901 112.77 1922 123.66 1949 220.02
1902 108.67 1923 126.94 1950 203.15
1903 107.35 1924 127.47 1951 181.26 200.0
1904 107.24 1925 124.53 1952 176.19
1905 105.29 1926 120.44 1953 206.53
1906 106.94 1927 127.57 1954 208.97 150.0
1907 107.05 1928 131.90 1955 204.74
1908 107.87 1929 131.51 1956 230.57
1909 110.50 1930 129.23 1957 215.81
1910 108.44 1931 115.38 1958 215.37 100.0
1911 98.90 1932 122.09 1959 194.19
1912 97.22 1933 136.87 1960 230.48
1913 95.24 1934 130.38 50.0
1914 100.00 1935 137.02
1915 93.86 1936 148.89
1916 88.38 1937 150.08
-
1917 100.72 1938 155.10
1899
1901
1903
1905
1907
1909
1911
1913
1915
1917
1919
1921
1923
1925
1927
1929
1931
1933
1935
1937
1939
1947
1949
1951
1953
1955
1957
1959
1918 104.36 1939 154.06
1919 92.87
2.2.2.2.6 Deriving Private Final Consumption Expenditure in Constant and

Current Prices, 1900-39 and 1948-60 (STEPS 6-11)
In steps 1-5, the necessary statistical information was prepared, namely population
by consumption standard, per-capita consumption expenditure by major object of
consumption and standard in current prices, consumer price indices by major object of
consumption (1914=100), per capita consumption expenditure by major object of
consumption and standard in 1914 prices and real wage indices. In deriving yearly
private consumption expenditure in both 1914 and current prices (steps 6-11), the
element of changes in real income levels having an impact on the consumption patterns
needs to be factored in. As a result certain assumptions were made with regards to
income elasticities of demand to adjust the expenditure series for changes in real income
over time: the assumed income elasticities of demand being 0.7 for food,34 1.0 each for
beverages, tobacco, clothing, domestic servants, and transport (other than railway), and
0.8 for rent. To give an example, if in the base year (t) real per capita expenditure on
food for the European standard is RPCFt and if the real wage indices increases from 1 in
34
The basis for using an income elasticity of demand of 0.7 for food was very much guided by other related studies. In this regard,
Derkson, J.B.D. and Tinbergen, J. (1945) established that the income elasticity of demand on food was 0.7 for the Netherlands. In
the case of pre-war Malaya, a study by Nazrin (2006) set 0.8 as elasticity of demand on food. In the light of this, it was assumed that
elasticity of demand on food for Singapore ought to be lower than pre-war Malaya and to be not too dissimilar to that of the
Netherlands.
58
year t to 1.3 in year t+1, then the real per capita expenditure on food in year t+1
(RPCFt+1) is calculated as follows:
RPCFt+1 = RPCFt + ((RPCFt × (1.3-1.0)/1.0) × 0.7)
If the real earnings index increases to 1.5 in year t+2, real per capita expenditure in year
t+2 is calculated as:
RPCFt+2 = RPCFt+1 + ((RPCFt+1 × (1.5-1.3)/1.3)) × 0.7))
This computation is illustrated in more detail in Table 2.11, (Columns (1) to (5)) taking
the consumption expenditure on food for the European Standard, as an example. The
real per-capita expenditure of the European standard on food for the period 1899-1939
(Column 5) was then multiplied by the population of the European standard (Column 6)
to obtain the real private consumption expenditure on food for the Europeans standard
in 1914 prices (Column 7). This was finally inflated by food indices (Column 8) to
obtain private final consumption expenditure on food for the European standard in
current prices (Column 9). Similar procedures were applied to compute PFCE on food,
tobacco, clothing, rent, domestic servants and clubs, wherever applicable, for each
standard in both current and constant prices using their respective income elasticities of
demand (See Appendix Table 6). The summation of each of the major objects of
consumption for each standard in constant and current prices gave us the total PFCE of
those items in both constant and current prices respectively (See Appendix Table 7).
The miscellaneous items expenditure was then computed for each year based on the
indirect approach of computing the total PFCE in current prices. The miscellaneous
items included among others, furniture and furnishings, household equipment and
operations such as furniture, curtains, cooking appliances, glassware, tableware,
household utensils and other non-durable goods, e.g. matches, soap, candles, shoe
polish, etc. It also included cultural services and other goods and services, including
personal care, e.g barbers, laundry, etc. based on the indirect approach. Based on
statistical evidence, the miscellaneous expenditure was taken to be 10.0% of the total
59
private final consumption expenditure in current prices based on PFCE derived from the
indirect approach.35 The estimates are therefore, subject to errors. The miscellaneous
expenditure in constant terms for each year was determined by dividing the
miscellaneous expenditure in current terms by the overall consumer price indices. The
overall PFCE in the domestic market for each year was then derived by summing up the
major objects of consumption in both current and constant prices based on the direct and
indirect approaches (including the miscellaneous expenditure based on the indirect
approach) (See Table 2.12).
35
Department of Statistics, Singapore (1983) provides the figures on private final consumption expenditure in the domestic market
by major objects of consumption for the period 1960-82 at current prices. According to this time series data, a weight on the other
goods and services (expenditure on personal care, restaurants, cafes and hotels) for the period 1960-65 was in the range of 15-16%.
However, this category includes the consumption expenditure on clubs. The weight on this specific consumption was approximately,
3-5%. Based on this, 10% was assigned for deriving miscellaneous expenditure. It will be noted in Nazrin’s (2006) estimates of
private consumption expenditure for pre-war Malaya, a figure of 7% was applied for miscellaneous expenditure.
60
Table 2.11
Singapore: Computation of PFCE in the Domestic Market, 1900-39 and 1948-60,
European Standard – Food in Current and 1914 Prices
(Straits $)
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita European Total Real Private Food Price Total Private Final
Capita Private Wage Indices Real Wages Real Private Final Population Final Indices Consumption
Final of Agriculture (%) Consumption Consumption Standard Consumption (1914=100) Expenditure on
Consumption and Non- (%) Expenditure based (Numbers) Expenditure on Food in the
Expenditure in agriculture on Rel Wages and Food in the Domestic Market
Real Terms Sectors Income Elasticities Domestic Market (Current Prices)
(1914 Prices) (1914=100 ) of Demand (1914 Prices) (Straits $)
(Straits $) (1914 Prices) (Straits $)
(Straits $)
STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 STEP 9 STEP 10 STEP 11

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1899 116.03 397.96 13,667 5,439,107 81.12 4,412,406
1900 113.92 -1.81% -1.27% 392.91 13,566 5,330,194 81.97 4,369,042
1901 112.77 -1.01% -0.71% 390.14 13,911 5,427,068 82.91 4,499,325
1902 108.67 -3.64% -2.55% 380.20 14,310 5,440,909 85.51 4,652,316
1903 107.35 -1.21% -0.85% 376.97 14,720 5,548,916 85.51 4,744,669
1904 107.24 -0.11% -0.07% 376.69 15,141 5,703,397 87.28 4,977,968
1905 105.29 -1.82% -1.27% 371.91 15,575 5,792,605 90.18 5,223,634
1906 106.94 1.56% 1.09% 375.97 16,023 6,024,044 87.80 5,289,017
1907 107.05 0.10% 0.07% 376.24 16,483 6,201,579 85.69 5,313,974
1908 107.87 0.77% 0.54% 378.27 16,958 6,414,603 87.02 5,582,067
1909 110.50 2.44% 1.71% 384.73 17,445 6,711,682 85.83 5,760,682
1910 108.44 -1.86% -1.30% 379.72 17,946 6,814,297 87.09 5,934,800
1911 98.90 -8.80% -6.16% 356.32 18,503 6,592,851 102.81 6,778,183
1912 97.22 -1.70% -1.19% 352.09 19,118 6,731,180 105.84 7,124,071
1913 95.24 -2.04% -1.43% 347.07 19,750 6,854,720 105.09 7,203,681
1914 100.00 5.00% 3.50% 359.21 20,400 7,327,950 100.00 7,327,950
1915 93.86 -6.14% -4.30% 343.76 21,069 7,242,660 104.73 7,585,155
1916 88.38 -5.83% -4.08% 329.73 21,756 7,173,622 106.47 7,638,020
1917 100.72 13.95% 9.77% 361.94 22,464 8,130,391 115.77 9,412,300
1918 104.36 3.61% 2.53% 371.09 23,192 8,606,305 139.48 12,003,667
1919 92.87 -11.01% -7.70% 342.50 23,941 8,199,725 183.87 15,077,106
1920 89.13 -4.03% -2.82% 332.84 24,711 8,224,894 243.98 20,066,803
1921 112.82 26.58% 18.61% 394.78 27,757 10,957,825 167.96 18,404,853
1922 123.66 9.60% 6.72% 421.32 29,018 12,225,691 144.20 17,628,945
1923 126.94 2.66% 1.86% 429.16 30,082 12,909,727 144.28 18,626,209
1924 127.47 0.41% 0.29% 430.40 31,165 13,413,301 144.61 19,396,465
1925 124.53 -2.31% -1.62% 423.44 32,515 13,768,225 149.58 20,594,430
1926 120.44 -3.28% -2.30% 413.71 33,811 13,987,688 158.49 22,169,479
1927 127.57 5.93% 4.15% 430.87 35,143 15,141,927 154.85 23,446,884
1928 131.90 3.39% 2.38% 441.10 36,493 16,097,336 150.77 24,270,469
1929 131.51 -0.30% -0.21% 440.19 37,864 16,667,209 147.73 24,622,799
1930 434.85 129.23 -1.73% -1.21% 434.85 37,403 16,264,686 138.26 22,486,856
1931 115.38 -10.72% -7.50% 402.22 36,586 14,715,907 104.59 15,391,167
1932 122.09 5.82% 4.07% 418.60 35,489 14,855,891 89.18 13,248,386
1933 136.87 12.10% 8.47% 454.06 33,443 15,185,011 82.36 12,505,866
1934 130.38 -4.74% -3.32% 439.00 34,140 14,987,527 86.41 12,950,916
1935 137.02 5.09% 3.56% 454.65 37,200 16,913,087 94.68 16,013,727
1936 148.89 8.66% 6.06% 482.21 39,206 18,905,496 92.21 17,432,618
1937 150.08 0.80% 0.56% 484.91 42,347 20,534,128 101.76 20,895,697
1938 155.10 3.35% 2.34% 496.27 46,152 22,904,054 94.29 21,596,868
1939 154.06 -0.67% -0.47% 493.94 47,292 23,359,018 91.81 21,445,527
1947 164.71 324.32 56,289 18,255,364 394.16 71,954,987

1948 344.90 179.65 9.067% 6.347% 344.90 57,648 19,882,898 361.21 71,818,963
1949 220.02 22.473% 15.731% 399.16 58,722 23,439,406 336.79 78,941,707
1950 203.15 -7.666% -5.366% 377.74 61,326 23,165,302 360.41 83,489,050
1951 181.26 -10.776% -7.543% 349.25 64,086 22,381,866 480.24 107,486,516
1952 176.19 -2.797% -1.958% 342.41 67,620 23,153,681 502.13 116,261,314
1953 206.53 17.217% 12.052% 383.68 71,508 27,435,948 477.30 130,950,539
1954 208.97 1.183% 0.828% 386.85 74,892 28,972,205 433.27 125,527,001
1955 204.74 -2.023% -1.416% 381.38 78,330 29,873,146 415.99 124,269,457
1956 230.57 12.617% 8.832% 415.06 82,296 34,157,654 418.47 142,939,681
1957 215.81 -6.401% -4.481% 396.46 86,756 34,395,185 436.83 150,249,636
1958 215.37 -0.205% -0.144% 395.89 90,840 35,962,661 430.04 154,652,705
1959 194.19 -9.837% -6.886% 368.63 94,776 34,937,265 419.57 146,586,615
1960 230.48 18.691% 13.084% 416.86 98,046 40,871,439 418.89 171,204,779
Percentage Change in Real Wage Indices, 1906-1905 1.56%

Percentage Change in Real Consumption, 1906-1905 1.09%
C1906
-1 = 1.09%
C1905
C1906
= 1.09% + 1
C1905
375.97
= 1.0109
C1905
C1905 = 375.97
1.0109
C1905 = 371.91
61
Table 2.12
Singapore: Private Final Consumption Expenditure in the Domestic Market,
1900-39 and 1950-60 at Current and Constant Prices
Private Final Consumption Expenditure in the Domestic Market Per-capita Private Final Consumption Expenditure in the
by Resident and Non-resident Households Domestic Market by Resident and Non-resident
Households
Current Prices Growth rate 1914 Prices Growth rate Current Prices Growth rate 1914 Prices Growth rate
(Straits $) (%) (Straits $) (%) (Straits $) (%) (Straits $) (%)
1900 42,103,116 50,867,089 186.21 224.98

1901 43,224,674 2.6 51,708,242 1.6 186.44 0.1 223.03 -0.9
1902 45,130,696 4.3 52,021,265 0.6 189.22 1.5 218.11 -2.2
1903 46,597,537 3.2 53,072,229 2.0 189.94 0.4 216.33 -0.8
1904 47,674,674 2.3 54,244,611 2.2 188.93 -0.5 214.96 -0.6
1905 49,407,615 3.6 55,200,986 1.7 190.33 0.7 212.65 -1.1
1906 50,344,313 1.9 57,105,288 3.4 188.53 -1.0 213.84 0.6
1907 51,953,202 3.1 58,969,568 3.2 189.12 0.3 214.66 0.4
1908 54,441,481 4.7 60,963,806 3.3 192.63 1.8 215.71 0.5
1909 55,398,248 1.7 63,525,899 4.1 190.53 -1.1 218.49 1.3
1910 58,374,612 5.2 65,715,977 3.4 195.17 2.4 219.72 0.6
1911 61,657,716 5.5 63,318,932 -3.7 199.94 2.4 205.33 -6.8
1912 64,088,347 3.9 64,692,236 2.1 201.14 0.6 203.03 -1.1
1913 66,565,286 3.8 65,855,277 1.8 202.22 0.5 200.07 -1.5
1914 70,238,013 5.4 70,238,013 6.4 206.58 2.1 206.58 3.2
1915 73,289,375 4.3 68,826,758 -2.0 208.72 1.0 196.01 -5.3
1916 77,541,495 5.6 68,664,206 -0.2 213.85 2.4 189.37 -3.4
1917 92,493,914 17.6 78,609,260 13.5 247.05 14.4 209.96 10.3
1918 116,860,527 23.4 83,392,017 5.9 302.33 20.2 215.75 2.7
1919 134,334,722 13.9 78,080,370 -6.6 336.67 10.8 195.68 -9.8
1920 172,156,775 24.8 77,821,030 -0.3 418.01 21.6 188.96 -3.5
1921 177,206,263 2.9 101,716,229 26.8 414.98 -0.7 238.20 23.2
1922 177,376,184 0.1 113,684,635 11.1 397.32 -4.3 254.65 6.7
1923 181,144,588 2.1 119,178,513 4.7 391.42 -1.5 257.52 1.1
1924 185,897,887 2.6 122,754,643 3.0 387.72 -0.9 256.03 -0.6
1925 194,814,805 4.7 125,693,013 2.4 389.45 0.4 251.27 -1.9
1926 203,283,357 4.3 126,960,364 1.0 390.81 0.3 244.08 -2.9
1927 217,979,220 7.0 138,128,353 8.4 403.17 3.1 255.48 4.6
1928 230,014,025 5.4 146,879,422 6.1 409.69 1.6 261.61 2.4
1929 229,670,817 -0.1 149,860,839 2.0 394.27 -3.8 257.26 -1.7
1930 214,289,817 -6.9 146,942,993 -2.0 372.40 -5.7 255.36 -0.7
1931 163,923,019 -26.8 131,160,777 -11.4 291.23 -24.6 233.02 -9.2
1932 148,784,340 -9.7 135,065,402 2.9 272.50 -6.6 247.38 6.0
1933 143,273,992 -3.8 139,775,888 3.4 278.47 2.2 271.67 9.4
1934 145,253,521 1.4 138,216,342 -1.1 276.55 -0.7 263.15 -3.2
1935 170,007,793 15.7 155,815,301 12.0 297.06 7.2 272.26 3.4
1936 188,072,989 10.1 175,116,863 11.7 311.81 4.8 290.33 6.4
1937 214,810,368 13.3 189,079,124 7.7 329.72 5.6 290.23 -0.0
1938 230,461,017 7.0 209,108,433 10.1 324.58 -1.6 294.50 1.5
1939 236,976,709 2.8 213,456,021 2.1 325.71 0.3 293.38 -0.4
1948 870,785,958 252,774,860 906.31 263.09

1949 1,030,867,837 16.9 304,461,754 18.6 1,053.30 15.0 311.09 16.8
1950 1,073,862,182 4.1 299,061,922 -1.8 1,050.64 -0.3 292.60 -6.1
1951 1,272,003,340 16.9 281,946,415 -5.9 1,190.90 12.5 263.97 -10.3
1952 1,366,152,822 7.1 290,898,659 3.1 1,212.20 1.8 258.12 -2.2
1953 1,609,481,462 16.4 351,634,837 19.0 1,350.46 10.8 295.05 13.4
1954 1,626,152,653 1.0 372,052,806 5.6 1,302.80 -3.6 298.07 1.0
1955 1,639,802,301 0.8 383,467,220 3.0 1,256.07 -3.7 293.73 -1.5
1956 1,921,470,437 15.9 444,809,033 14.8 1,400.90 10.9 324.30 9.9
1957 2,014,487,496 4.7 455,456,344 2.4 1,393.21 -0.6 314.99 -2.9
1958 2,093,107,385 3.8 475,456,393 4.3 1,382.50 -0.8 314.04 -0.3
1959 1,988,598,796 -5.1 456,342,816 -4.1 1,258.93 -9.4 288.90 -8.3
1960 2,371,715,294 17.6 544,423,403 17.6 1,440.55 13.5 330.68 13.5
62
2.2.2.3 Private Consumption Expenditure by Resident Households
As discussed above, PFCE in the domestic market was computed based on the
procedures as outlined in steps 1-10. This derived estimate, however, required further
adjustment to derive PFCE by resident households. Ideally, direct purchases abroad by
resident households and direct purchases of non-resident households in the domestic
market should be calculated independently but it was difficult to construct such data. As
an alternative option, the available official figures for the period 1960-70 were used as a
guide. As is presented in Table 2.13, 10-15 % of total PFCE in the domestic market was
non-resident consumption made in the domestic market. On the other hand, direct
purchases abroad by residents were around 1%. Based on this observation, it was
decided that 20% and 15% of the PFCE36 in the domestic market was taken to represent
purchases in the domestic market by non-resident households for the period 1900-32
and 1933-60 respectively. The results are presented in Table 2.14. It should be noted
here that resident household expenditure incurred overseas was assumed to be
negligible. In order to derive the PFCE in the domestic market by resident households in
1914 prices, current price data was then deflated by overall Consumer Price Indices.
Table 2.13
Singapore: Direct Purchases made Abroad by Resident Households and Direct
Purchases in the Domestic Market made by Non-resident Households as a
percentage of Total PFCE in the Domestic Market, 1960-70
1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970
[1] PFCE in the Domestic Market

2,111.5 2,305.7 2,419.2 2,593.8 2,565.3 2,733.2 2,991.0 3,288.2 3,618.0 3,922.3 4,474.4
Direct Purchases made Abroad
[2]
by Resident Households
32.3 33.3 34.4 30.6 30.9 32.3 33.6 37.6 40.8 50.5 54.7
Direct Purchases in the
[3] Domestic Market made by Non-
resident Households 222.3 230.2 258.5 297.8 358.0 424.9 468.4 473.2 479.1 533.1 609.5
Total Private Consumption
[4]=[1]+[2]+[3]
Expenditure 1,921.5 2,108.8 2,195.1 2,326.6 2,238.2 2,340.6 2,556.2 2,852.6 3,179.7 3,439.7 3,919.6
Percentage Contribution of [2]
[2] / [1]
against [1] 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.3% 1.2%
Percentage Contribution of [3]
[3] / [1]
against [1] 10.5% 10.0% 10.7% 11.5% 14.0% 15.5% 15.7% 14.4% 13.2% 13.6% 13.6%
Source: Department of Statistics, Singapore (1996: 77)
36
It was assumed that the weights on the non-resident consumption made in the domestic market were higher in the period after
the formation of self-government due to the relatively free flows of migration. Since the early 1930s, the Colonial government of
Straits Settlements had imposed restrictions on Chinese immigration from China (Annual Report, Chinese Protectorate, Straits
Settlements). Based on this observation, weights on resident household consumption in the domestic market have been taken to
increase from 80% to 85%. These figures must be treated with great reserve. However, it is important to note here that non-resident
consumption made in the domestic market was regarded as exports of services. Therefore, the total GDP figure remained unchanged.
63
Table 2.14
Singapore: PFCE in the Domestic Market, PFCE by Resident Households and
Non-resident Household Consumption Expenditure made in the Domestic Market,
1900-39 and 1950-60 at Current Prices
Current Prices 1914 Prices

PFCE in the PFCE in the PFCE in the PFCE in the CPI PFCE in the PFCE in the
Domestic Market Domestic Market Domestic Market Domestic Market Domestic Market Domestic
by Resident and by Resident by Non-resident by Resident and by Resident Market by Non-
Non-resident (*) Households Households Non-resident Households resident
Households Households Households
[1] [2] [3]=[1]*[2] [4]=[1]-[3] [5] [6] [7]=[4]/[6]*100 [8]=[5]-[7]

1900 42,103,116 80% 33,682,493 8,420,623 50,867,089 82.73 40,713,842 10,153,247 1900
1901 43,224,674 80% 34,579,739 8,644,935 51,708,242 83.57 41,377,221 10,331,021 1901
1902 45,130,696 80% 36,104,557 9,026,139 52,021,265 86.73 41,630,535 10,390,730 1902
1903 46,597,537 80% 37,278,029 9,319,507 53,072,229 87.79 42,461,783 10,610,447 1903
1904 47,674,674 80% 38,139,740 9,534,935 54,244,611 87.89 43,397,230 10,847,381 1904
1905 49,407,615 80% 39,526,092 9,881,523 55,200,986 89.51 44,158,159 11,042,827 1905
1906 50,344,313 80% 40,275,451 10,068,863 57,105,288 88.13 45,698,299 11,406,988 1906
1907 51,953,202 80% 41,562,561 10,390,640 58,969,568 88.04 47,206,706 11,762,862 1907
1908 54,441,481 80% 43,553,185 10,888,296 60,963,806 89.25 48,798,861 12,164,945 1908
1909 55,398,248 80% 44,318,599 11,079,650 63,525,899 87.13 50,866,768 12,659,131 1909
1910 58,374,612 80% 46,699,690 11,674,922 65,715,977 88.78 52,602,070 13,113,906 1910
1911 61,657,716 80% 49,326,173 12,331,543 63,318,932 97.35 50,669,872 12,649,060 1911
1912 64,088,347 80% 51,270,678 12,817,669 64,692,236 99.03 51,774,227 12,918,009 1912
1913 66,565,286 80% 53,252,229 13,313,057 65,855,277 101.09 52,680,481 13,174,796 1913
1914 70,238,013 80% 56,190,410 14,047,603 70,238,013 100.00 56,190,410 14,047,603 1914
1915 73,289,375 80% 58,631,500 14,657,875 68,826,758 106.54 55,030,406 13,796,352 1915
1916 77,541,495 80% 62,033,196 15,508,299 68,664,206 113.14 54,827,165 13,837,042 1916
1917 92,493,914 80% 73,995,131 18,498,783 78,609,260 117.78 62,827,025 15,782,235 1917
1918 116,860,527 80% 93,488,421 23,372,105 83,392,017 140.43 66,572,058 16,819,959 1918
1919 134,334,722 80% 107,467,778 26,866,944 78,080,370 172.28 62,378,416 15,701,954 1919
1920 172,156,775 80% 137,725,420 34,431,355 77,821,030 221.30 62,236,003 15,585,027 1920
1921 177,206,263 80% 141,765,011 35,441,253 101,716,229 174.82 81,091,031 20,625,198 1921
1922 177,376,184 80% 141,900,947 35,475,237 113,684,635 156.16 90,870,685 22,813,950 1922
1923 181,144,588 80% 144,915,671 36,228,918 119,178,513 152.11 95,268,174 23,910,339 1923
1924 185,897,887 80% 148,718,310 37,179,577 122,754,643 151.49 98,170,886 24,583,757 1924
1925 194,814,805 80% 155,851,844 38,962,961 125,693,013 155.07 100,505,831 25,187,183 1925
1926 203,283,357 80% 162,626,685 40,656,671 126,960,364 160.33 101,429,843 25,530,520 1926
1927 217,979,220 80% 174,383,376 43,595,844 138,128,353 158.00 110,369,534 27,758,820 1927
1928 230,014,025 80% 184,011,220 46,002,805 146,879,422 156.66 117,457,064 29,422,358 1928
1929 229,670,817 80% 183,736,654 45,934,163 149,860,839 153.27 119,880,132 29,980,707 1929
1930 214,289,817 80% 171,431,854 42,857,963 146,942,993 145.73 117,632,905 29,310,088 1930
1931 163,923,019 80% 131,138,415 32,784,604 131,160,777 124.49 105,343,984 25,816,793 1931
1932 148,784,340 80% 119,027,472 29,756,868 135,065,402 109.58 108,621,325 26,444,077 1932
1933 143,273,992 85% 121,782,894 21,491,099 139,775,888 101.76 119,672,423 20,103,465 1933
1934 145,253,521 85% 123,465,493 21,788,028 138,216,342 104.44 118,216,791 19,999,552 1934
1935 170,007,793 85% 144,506,624 25,501,169 155,815,301 108.53 133,147,850 22,667,450 1935
1936 188,072,989 85% 159,862,041 28,210,948 175,116,863 106.70 149,821,047 25,295,816 1936
1937 214,810,368 85% 182,588,812 32,221,555 189,079,124 113.08 161,461,646 27,617,477 1937
1938 230,461,017 85% 195,891,864 34,569,153 209,108,433 109.42 179,024,728 30,083,705 1938
1939 236,976,709 85% 201,430,203 35,546,506 213,456,021 110.16 182,848,975 30,607,046 1939
1948 870,785,958 85% 740,168,064 130,617,894 252,774,860 344.50 214,850,296 37,924,564 1948
1949 1,030,867,837 85% 876,237,662 154,630,176 304,461,754 338.58 258,796,929 45,664,825 1949
1950 1,073,862,182 85% 912,782,854 161,079,327 299,061,922 359.02 254,244,530 44,817,393 1950
1951 1,272,003,340 85% 1,081,202,839 190,800,501 281,946,415 451.51 239,464,811 42,481,604 1951
1952 1,366,152,822 85% 1,161,229,899 204,922,923 290,898,659 469.80 247,177,082 43,721,577 1952
1953 1,609,481,462 85% 1,368,059,242 241,422,219 351,634,837 458.41 298,436,369 53,198,467 1953
1954 1,626,152,653 85% 1,382,229,755 243,922,898 372,052,806 436.94 316,341,017 55,711,790 1954
1955 1,639,802,301 85% 1,393,831,956 245,970,345 383,467,220 427.08 326,361,963 57,105,257 1955
1956 1,921,470,437 85% 1,633,249,872 288,220,566 444,809,033 431.66 378,360,750 66,448,283 1956
1957 2,014,487,496 85% 1,712,314,371 302,173,124 455,456,344 444.20 385,479,118 69,977,226 1957
1958 2,093,107,385 85% 1,779,141,277 313,966,108 475,456,393 441.93 402,588,812 72,867,580 1958
1959 1,988,598,796 85% 1,690,308,977 298,289,819 456,342,816 436.87 386,911,225 69,431,592 1959
1960 2,371,715,294 85% 2,015,958,000 355,757,294 544,423,403 437.05 461,262,368 83,161,035 1960
Note:
(*) = Represents the total private final consumption expenditure by resident households only in the domestic market.
64
2.3 Government Final Consumption Expenditure
2.3.1 Definition
Government final consumption expenditure is defined in the SNA68 as the value of
the gross output of general department (producers of government services),37 less the
value of government sales38 and less the value of any own-account capital formation
that is included in gross output. Government final consumption expenditure is thus
equal to the value of goods and services produced by the government for its own current
use. Since government output is mainly not sold, SNA68 measures its value by the cost
of producing it, namely, the sum of four component items, that is (i) compensation of
employees (personal emoluments), 39 (ii) intermediate consumption of goods and
services by producers of government services and estimates of fixed capital,40 (iii)
consumption of fixed capital 41 (iv) net indirect taxes paid, and own-account
construction, if any.42 In most cases, units classified as governmental will not pay
indirect taxes nor receive subsidies, so that only the first three components need to be
considered in the Singapore context.
2.3.2 Source Materials and Methodology for Estimates
Prior to World War II, British colonial authority formed six separate general
governmental administrative bodies at different points of time in line with the
development of public administration in Singapore, namely, the Colony of Straits
Settlements (1868), Municipality (1886), Rural Board (1908), Education Board (1909)
37
The producers’ of government services (General Department) include all bodies, departments and establishments of government-
central, state or provincial, district or country, municipal, town or village, which engages in a wide range of activities, for example,
administration, defense and regulation of the public order, health, educational, cultural, recreational and other social service. The
legislative executive, departments, establishments and other bodies of government are also included. However, government
expenditure incurred by industries (trading departments) e.g. post and telegraph, electricity, public works, printing, drainage and
irrigation and the like were not included on the ground that the nature of activities of these departments deals purchases and sales.
38
Government sales include receipts from reproduction of museums, publications sold by statistical office, fees for medical and
hospital treatment, sales of maps and charts, etc. Fees that are levied for regulating purposes are excluded such as passport and
driving licenses.
39
Compensation of employees consists of (a) personal emoluments (wages and salaries in cash, payment in kind, contributions to
social security).
40
Intermediate consumption is defined as the non-durable goods and services that are purchased by producers and used up in the
process of production. Fixed capital formation on defense (exclusive of private dwelling) was treated as intermediate consumption.
41
Consumption of fixed capital is a cost of production. It may be defined as the decline in the current value of the stock of fixed
assets owned and used by a producer as a result of physical deterioration, normal obsolescence or normal accidental damage.
42
Department of International Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations (1986: 118).
65
and Hospital Board (1910). In the case of Municipality and Rural Board, individual
government expenditure accounts were available for Singapore alone. On the other hand,
in the case of government expenditure account pertaining to the Colony of Straits
Settlements, Education Board and Hospital Board, government expenditure account
figures were consolidated and presented for the Straits Settlements as a whole.
After World War II, due to the dissolution of Straits Settlements, Singapore was
reconstituted as an independent Crown Colony. The Municipality of Singapore was
renamed as the City Council. Due to the increasing urbanization of Singapore, the
trading activities of City Council viz electricity, gas and water were subsequently
separated from that of the City Council and were reconstituted as part of the newly
created Utility Board. The Rural Board was continuously in existence under the
Municipal Ordinance. With elected self-government under the 1959 Constitution, the
PAP Government abolished these two levels of local government and these functions
were integrated as part of the Central Government on the grounds that Singapore was
too small to afford such differentiation in roles.
Detail expenditures recorded in conventional government accounts varied among
administrative bodies and also within each administrative body over time. However,
there were no systematic presentations of the expenditure incurred. In view of this, it
was necessary to set up a coding system that would identify for estimating
compensation of employees, intermediate consumption, capital formation, transfers and
others.43 For convenience, major codes of 1-5 were assigned for personal emoluments,
intermediate consumption expenditure, government fixed capital formation, transfer
payments and others respectively as is presented in Figure 2.12. In addition to
expenditure incurred under the major code, further detailed breakdown were made
based on the availability of data.
43
Government Finance Statistics Manual (GFS Manual) defines the coding system for all headings of government expenditure
incurred by all government bodies. For the construction of GFCE, GFS transaction category on (1) compensation of employees
[Code 21], (2) use of goods and services (intermediate consumption) [Code 22], (3) consumption of fixed capital [Code 23] and (4)
Sales of government services [Code 142] could be utilized. (Department of Statistics, IMF, 2001: Appendix 3-4). In this exercise,
however, the coding system is not followed exactly due to the fact the available information during the research period were rather
limited. (Department of Statistics, IMF, 2001: Appendix 3-4).
66
Figure 2.12
Singapore: Coding System for Identifying the Different Classes of
Government Expenditures
Major Code Sub Code
Compensation of employees 1
Emoluments (proper) 1 1
Annual recurrent expenditure 1 2
Special expenditure 1 3
Special services 1 4
Other charges 1 5
Blank 1 6
Others 1 9
Intermediate consumption 2
Fixed Capital Formation 3+4
Construction 3
Residential building 3 1
Non-residential building 3 2
Other construction 3 3
Residential and non-residential building 3 4
Residential and other construction 3 5
Non-residential and other construction 3 6
Residential, non-residential and other construction 3 7
Others 3 9
Machinery and Equipment 4
Transport 4 1
Others 4 9
Transfer Payments and Others 5
To meet the definitions of SNA68, the following steps were taken to identify the
government final consumption expenditure. In general, the government expenditure
accounts presented expenditure incurred by each department. Within the department,
two major classifications were made, viz, personal emoluments (compensation of
employees) and other charges (annual recurrent and special expenditure). Under this
broad classification, details were provided. Unfortunately, no systematic presentation of
the expenditure incurred was available. In view of this, it was necessary to set up a
coding system that would identify for our purpose, compensation of employees,
intermediate consumption, capital formation, transfers and others.
Firstly, information on revenue received by class of account was utilized to identify
the sales of other goods and services by producers of government services. For the
compilation of the government final consumption expenditure, the expenditure incurred
by the following departments were excluded:
67
(i) Drainage and Irrigation Department
(ii) Electric Supply Department
(iii) Gas Supply Department
(iv) Government Monopolies Department
(v) Post and Telegraph Department
(vi) Printing Department
(vii) Public Works Department
(viii) Railway Department
(ix) Water Supply Department
Secondly, from the producers’ of government services, independent transfer items
recorded as a head of department such as pensions, purchase of land, payment of loans
are also excluded. Having done these deductions, the output of producers of government
services which constitute compensation of employees and intermediate consumption
expenditure were identified (See Figure 2.13).
Consumption of fixed capital, however, is very difficult to trace due to the dearth of
data. Therefore, based on the available post independent information, it was assumed
that 1 % of gross output of producers of government services would be classified as
depreciation allowance.44
Thirdly, government sales were deducted from gross output of producers of
government services. Sales of other goods and services produced by the producers of
government services refer to the school fees, hospital fees, etc.
These standard procedures however, were not fully applicable for all government
accounts due to the deficiencies of data. Therefore, the following approach was applied
based on the availability of data.
44
Information on this which was available for the 1960s was used as an indicative guide. The data on consumption of fixed capital
and its percentage share of government output for Singapore for the years 1960-170, was in the range of 1% to 2%. Based on this
statistical evidence it was assumed that the percentage share of consumption of fixed capital to total government output for
Singapore during the study period 1900-39, 1950-60 would have been in the region of 1%.
68
Figure 2.13
Singapore: Classification for Total Output of Producers’ of Government Services
Total Government Expenditure
Producers' of Government Services Industries

Output of Producers' of Government Services
Compensation of Employees Compensation of Employees
+
Intermediate Consumption Expenditure Intermediate Consumption Expenditure
Fixed Capital Formation Fixed Capital Formation

Construction Construction
Residential Building Residential Building
Non-residential Building Non-residential Building
Other Construction Other Construction
Machinery, Transport and Equipment Machinery, Transport and Equipment
Breeding Stocks Breeding Stocks
Transfers and Others Transfers and Others
LIST OF MAIN DEPARTMENTS LIST OF MAIN DEPARTMENTS
Administration of Justice Labour Department Drainage and Irrigation Department

Agricultural Land and District Office Electric Supply Department
Analyst Legal Gas Supply Department
Appeal Court Light Houses Government Monopolies
Assistant Adviser Liquors Post and Telegraph Department
Audit Malayan Civil Service Printing Department
Bands Malayan Establishment Office Public Works Department
Bankruptcy Marine Railway
Botanical Gardens and Museum Marine Survey Water Supply Department
British Adviser Markets
Chandu Monopoly Medical and Health
Charitable Allowances Military Expenditure
Chinese and Indian Immigrants Protection Mines
Chinese Protectorate Miscellaneous Services
Chinese Secretariat Monopolies and Customs
Civil Service Mosques
Clerical Services Mosquito Destruction Boards
Collector of Land Revenue Municipal
Colonial Secretary Museum and Library
Commissioner of Lands and Mines Native States
Conservancy Office of Registrar of Titles
Contribution to Imperial War Funds Official Assignee
Co-operative Societies Penghulus
Courts, Civil and Criminal Pensions and Retired Allowances
Customs and Excise Police
Demarcation Political Intelligence Bureau
Religious Affairs Post Office
District and Land office Printing Office
Ecclesiastical Prisons
Education Public Trustee
Estate Duty Office Rent
Exchange Revenue Services
Excise Sanitary Board
Fire Brigade Secretary to High Commisioner
Fisheries State Council
Food Control State Secretary
Forest Statistics
Game Warden Stores and Workshops
Gaols Subventions
Geological Survey Supreme Court
Government Gardens Survey Department
Government Monopolies The Federal Secretary
Government Printing Office The Governor
Government Town Planner The High Commissioner
Government Vessels, The Residents
H.H.The Sultan's Office The Rulers and Chiefs
Hackney Carriage, Jinrikisha and etc. Town Hall and Municipal Offices
Hackney Carriages and Jinrikisha Dept Town Lighting and Street Watering
Harbour Department Town Planning
Health Branch, Singapore Transport
Hospitals and Dispensaries Transport Licensing Board
Immigration Department Treasury
Imports, Exports and Statistics Valuer General
Income Tax Veterinary Department
Indian Immigration Volunteer Force
Judical War Expenditure
Widows and Orphans's
69
2.3.2.1 Colony of Singapore, 1900-39 and 1950-60
The government expenditures for the Colony of Singapore are published in the
yearly Blue Book, Straits Settlements for the period 1900-38. For the 1939 the data is
available in the Financial Statements of the Colony of the Straits Settlements while for
the years 1950-56 the data is available from the Financial Statements of the Colony of
Singapore and for the years 1957-60 in the Financial Statements of the State of
Singapore. Availability of expenditure details varied over time. For the period 1900-09,
the expenditures incurred were presented in a manner that was quite different from that
of 1910-39. For the period 1900-09, detailed expenditure by heads of departments was
available for each of the Settlements with regards to personal emoluments, annual
recurrent and special expenditures. From the detailed expenditures incurred, we were
able to identify emoluments, intermediate consumption, capital formation and “transfers
and others”. In the case of “Crown Agents”, we were also able to assign, in most cases,
the expenditure incurred in each of the Settlements based on the information provided in
the source documents. Only in some cases were we not able to assign with precision the
expenditure incurred by the “Crown Agents”. The magnitude of these expenditures was
relatively negligible. Overall it could be said that the estimated expenditure incurred by
the “Crown Agents” in the respective Settlements was fairly reliable. The detail
transactions made by producers’ of government services and other trading departments
(industries) were available on a departmental basis. The output of producers of
government services was computed by summing up the emoluments and intermediate
consumption of goods and services of the producers of government services (major code
of 1 and 2 in Figure 2.6), although not taking into account initially the consumption of
fixed capital formation (depreciation).
For the period 1910-39, data on personal emoluments and input were available by
heads of departments on a consolidated basis for the Colony of the Straits Settlements.
In addition, detailed transactions of “recurring” and “special” expenditure, in some
70
instances, were only available on a consolidated basis. This being the case, the
consolidated personal emoluments of each department from 1909-39 was apportioned
on a simple average basis to each of the Settlements in the Colony based on the
structure of each department for the period 1900-09 (See Appendix Table 8). In cases,
where a particular department that existed in 1910-39 but not in the period 1900-09, we
had to find an alternative approach to identify the proportion of emoluments that ought
to be allocated to each entity of the Settlements in the Colony. The apportioning of the
emoluments in this instance was based on the input structure (intermediate consumption
of goods and services) of each department for which data was available. This
methodology was adopted as it was felt that there was a stable relationship within each
department between compensation of employees and intermediate consumption (See
Appendix Table 9). Relevant information was also available to distinguish the producers
of government services from that of industries.
In cases where sufficient data on inputs were not available, estimates of emoluments
were made for each of the regions based on local knowledge of the department (See
Appendix Table 10). It should be noted that in the accounts of the Straits Settlements
proper, government contributions to Hospital Board, Education Board and Rural Boards
were excluded in the computation of government final consumption expenditure.
However, they were incorporated in government final consumption expenditure of
Municipalities and local bodies.
After World War II, the island of Singapore was treated as a separate entity (British
Crown Colony of Singapore) due to the dissolution of the Straits Settlements. Financial
Statements of Colony of Singapore, for 1950-56 and Financial Statement of the State of
Singapore, 1957-60 were utilized to obtain the government final consumption
expenditure.
71
2.3.2.2 The Municipality of Singapore, 1900-39 and the City Council of
Singapore, 1950-60
For the computation of government final consumption expenditure at the local
government level, the yearly Annual Administration Report on Singapore Municipality
1900-02, 1904-09 and 1911-39 was utilized to obtain government accounts. In the pre-
World War II period, the local government of Singapore was known as the Singapore
Municipality and subsequently was renamed as the Singapore City Council. For the pre-
war period, two different formats of accounts were provided. For the period 1900-16,
the Annual Administration Report of Singapore Municipality provided total expenditure
by department and crude classification of departmental expenditure was presented under
the heading of [1] personal emoluments, [2] other charges and [3] special services. No
further detail expenditure breakdown was available. Personal emoluments can in its
entirety be classified as compensation of employees. On the other hand, other charges
and special services generally contain a whole host of expenditures. However, most of
expenditure appearing under the heading of other charges was intermediate
consumption expenditure and the expenditure on special services was not classified as
compensation of employees or intermediate consumption expenditure. For the period
1917-39, the figures for the Colony of Singapore were relatively well documented.
Detailed expenditure of each department was available and personal emoluments and
intermediate consumption expenditure were then summed up to obtain government
output of goods and services of Singapore Municipality. For the post-war period, the
Annual Administration Report on City Council of Singapore provided government
accounts by department. The accounts of each department, however, was provided in
different formats and the classifications used were rather crude. As an alternative option,
Singapore’s City Council Estimate for the year 1954 was utilized. This report provided
very detailed expenditure accounts for the year 1952 for each department. The
percentage distribution of each expenditure item for each department by object was
identified. These distribution patterns were then applied to the other years. The derived
72
figures, therefore, are inevitably crude estimates considering that a fixed (1952)
percentage distribution pattern was applied for the period 1950-60. In contrast to the
Colony of Singapore, the City Council of Singapore did not have any kind of
government sales of goods and services such as education and hospital fees. Therefore,
the government final consumption expenditure was treated as equal to the expenditure
on government output.
2.3.2.3 Rural Boards
The Rural Boards existed only in the Settlements of Singapore, Penang and
Malacca; having their origin in the Municipal Ordinance of the former Straits
Settlements. Actual operation of Rural Boards started since 1908.45 In effect, they cover
the whole area of Singapore with the exception of the municipal areas.46 Unfortunately,
only total expenditure figures were available in Blue Books, Straits Settlements for the
period 1911-38. For the post World War II period, the Annual Report of Singapore,
provided the account of expenditure with breakdowns by major classification of
accounts for the years 1950-57. As detailed information on expenditure was not
available for the years 1911-39, there was no other option but to apply the percentage
distribution of expenditure by class of accounts (emoluments, intermediate consumption,
capital formation and "transfers and others") as observed for Rural Boards in the early
1980's. For the years 1908-10, the average ratio between rural boards and municipality
for compensation of employees and intermediate consumption was applied to obtain the
estimated figures.
For the period 1950-60, the Annual Report of Singapore provided the expenditure
by department. These figures on expenditure were then reclassified by objects and total
45
[1] In December, 1907, the Secretary of State signified his approval of the institution of Rural Boards in the Country Districts
outside Municipal limits (Source: Straits Settlements (1909) Proceeding's of the Legislative Council of the Straits Setltements for
the year 1908, p.C149). [2] The institution of Rural Boards outside Municipal limits I (Secretary of State) mentioned last year
(1908), and I am glad to be able to say that hitherto they have worked well. (Source: Straits Settlements (1910) Proceeding's of the
Legislative Council of the Straits Settlements, for the year 1909, p.C.97).
46
Taylor, W.C. (1949: 61)
73
expenditure on personal emolument and intermediate consumption expenditure were
then summed up to derive the government output of goods and services.
2.3.2.4 Education Board
The Education Board of Straits Settlements was formed for the following reasons.
Firstly, to determine the amount of fees to be charged in government schools and to
receive all such fees. Secondly, to submit to the government the annual estimates for
educational purposes, and to make recommendation thereon. Thirdly, to advise the
government as to the purposes for education should be expended upon any matters
connected with education which may from time to time be referred to it by the Governor.
The percentage distribution by class of account was known in respect of the
Education Department in Singapore. The expenditure pattern of the Education
Department and Education Board by class of account for Singapore was then estimated
for the period 1910-39 based on the average share of the expenditure by class of account
of Singapore in relation to the Straits Settlements expenditure for the period 1900-09.
Having determined the expenditure by class of account of the Education Department
and Education Board on a consolidated basis for Singapore, we were able to determine
the expenditure by class of account for the Education Board proper for Singapore by
deducting from the consolidated account of the Education Department and Education
Board of Singapore, the expenditure pattern by class of account of the Education
Department. In the case of the Education Board proper, the data available was only in
respect to total expenditure on a consolidated basis for the period 1900-39 without
breakdown by class of account. Estimation by class of account for each of the entity
within the Straits Settlements was estimated as follows.
For the period 1900-09, the total expenditure on education was the sole
responsibility of the Education Department (SS). With the setting up of the Education
Board in 1909, the expenditure on education became the joint responsibility of the
74
Education Department and the Education Board (SS). For the period 1911-39, the
expenditure by class of account of the Education Department (SS) was available.
However, no such data was available in the case of Education Board (SS) whereby only
the total expenditure was known. The percentage distribution from 1900-09 of the
Education Department (SS) was then utilized to determine the pattern of expenditure of
the Education Board (SS) and the Education Department (SS) on a consolidated basis
for the period 1910-39. Having identified the total expenditure pattern by class of
account on a consolidated basis, the expenditure pattern of the Education Board proper
(SS) was derived by isolating from the expenditure pattern of the Education Department
(SS) and the Education Board (SS) on a consolidated basis. In the post-war period,
unfortunately, expenditure on Education Boards was no longer available in the Annual
Report, Financial Statement of Singapore and Annual Report, Education Department,
Singapore. Therefore, there was no other option but to estimate the figures by
extrapolation.
2.3.2.5 Hospital Board
The Hospital Board was formed for a number of reason, namely (a) to determine the
amount of fees to be charged in all Hospitals and Asylums and (b) to disburse all sums
voted by Governor in Council for the purposes of Hospitals and Asylums and (c) to
advise the Government on any matters in connection with Hospitals and Asylums. In the
case of Hospital Board, separate data on total expenditure incurred was available for
Singapore. The assignment of expenditure incurred by the Medical Department of
Singapore and the Hospital Board of Singapore by class of account for the period 1910-
39 was derived based on the expenditure pattern by class of account from 1900-09 of
the expenditure incurred by Medical Department of Singapore. Having identified the
total expenditure pattern of the Medical Department and the Hospital Board on a
consolidated basis, the expenditure pattern by class of account of the Hospital Board
75
was derived by isolating the consolidated expenditure pattern of the Medical
Department and the Hospital Board, the expenditure of the Medical Department for the
period 1910-39. In the post-war period, expenditure on Hospital Boards was not
available in the relevant reports a situation similar to that of the Education Board as has
been mentioned earlier. Therefore, the extrapolation method was applied under these
circumstances to obtain the estimates.
2.3.2.6 Total Government Output of Producers’ of Government Services, 1900-39

and 1950-60
Table 2.15 presents the total expenditure incurred for (1) compensation of
employees and (2) intermediate consumption by each government body. Two features
can be highlighted here. Firstly, the share of personal emoluments for the Colony was
very high (in the region of over 70%) during the period under review while the share of
total personal emoluments for all government bodies averaged about 55% and 66% for
the period 1900-39 and 1950-60 respectively. Secondly, the share of that of the local
bodies particularly the Municipality was relatively high particularly during the period
1900-39 (46%) compared to the 1950s (25%).
2.3.3 Government Final Consumption Expenditure in Current Prices
Gross output of producers’ of government services were then derived by summing
up the output from all government bodies. As is presented in Table 2.16, each
government administration showed different weights on compensation of employees
and intermediate consumption expenditure but aggregated weight provides relatively
similar weights with the official figure. As was stated earlier, a depreciation rate of 1%
was applied against gross output of producers of government services. Finally, in order
to obtain the estimate of government final consumption expenditure (GFCE), deducted
from the estimate of gross output were all of the elements entering into it that were not
final consumption; that is amount received for any part of government gross output that
76
in fact is sold on the market. In these estimates, only school fees and hospital fees which
appeared in the Blue Books, Straits Settlements and Annual Report, Financial Statement
were utilized as government sales.
2.3.4 Government Final Consumption Expenditure in 1914 Prices
As has been mentioned above, output of producers of government services was
derived by summing up the compensation of employees (personal emoluments),
intermediate consumption of goods and services (inputs) and depreciation allowances.
Unfortunately, an appropriate wage index of government employees for deflating
personal emoluments was not available. As an alternative option, consumer price
indices (CPI) were applied as an alternative deflator for both output of producers of
government services and government sales. Government final consumption expenditure
in constant prices are presented in Table 2.16.
77
Table 2.15
Singapore: Gross Output of Producers’ of Government Services, 1900-39 and 1950-60
(Straits Millions $)
A: Colony B: Municipality C: Rural Board D: Education Board E: Hospital Board Total Percentage Share:-
[1] [1]/[3] [2] [2]/[3] [3]= [1]+[2] [1] [1]/[3] [2] [2]/[3] [3]= [1]+[2] [1] [1]/[3] [2] [2]/[3] [3]= [1]+[2] [1] [1]/[3] [2] [2]/[3] [3]= [1]+[2] [1] [1]/[3] [2] [2]/[3] [3]= [1]+[2] [1] [1]/[3] [2] [2]/[3] [3]= [1]+[2] A B C D E
1900 0.88 69 0.40 31 1.28 0.20 20 0.77 80 0.96 1.08 48 1.17 52 2.25 57 43 1900
1901 0.99 67 0.48 33 1.47 0.23 19 0.99 81 1.23 1.22 45 1.48 55 2.70 55 45 1901
1902 1.11 67 0.54 33 1.66 0.26 28 0.67 72 0.93 1.37 53 1.21 47 2.58 64 36 1902
1903 1.25 61 0.82 39 2.07 0.27 22 0.94 78 1.21 1.52 46 1.76 54 3.28 63 37 1903
1904 1.27 57 0.96 43 2.24 0.28 19 1.18 81 1.46 1.56 42 2.15 58 3.70 60 40 1904
1905 1.32 68 0.61 32 1.93 0.31 22 1.12 78 1.43 1.63 49 1.73 51 3.36 57 43 1905
1906 1.24 67 0.62 33 1.86 0.33 25 1.00 75 1.32 1.57 49 1.62 51 3.19 58 42 1906
1907 1.26 67 0.62 33 1.88 0.35 27 0.93 73 1.28 1.61 51 1.55 49 3.16 60 40 1907
1908 1.41 70 0.59 30 2.00 0.37 28 0.94 72 1.31 0.03 44 0.04 56 0.06 1.81 54 1.57 46 3.38 59 39 2 1908
1909 1.53 74 0.54 26 2.07 0.38 32 0.82 68 1.20 0.03 48 0.03 52 0.06 1.94 58 1.39 42 3.33 62 36 2 1909
1910 1.61 77 0.49 23 2.11 0.41 26 1.14 74 1.55 0.03 42 0.04 58 0.07 0.02 41 0.03 59 0.05 0.04 26 0.12 74 0.17 2.12 54 1.83 46 3.95 53 39 2 1 4 1910
1911 1.55 81 0.36 19 1.91 0.43 23 1.46 77 1.89 0.03 38 0.04 62 0.07 0.05 56 0.04 44 0.09 0.03 20 0.12 80 0.15 2.09 51 2.02 49 4.11 47 46 2 2 4 1911
1912 1.67 83 0.35 17 2.01 0.43 25 1.29 75 1.72 0.04 38 0.07 62 0.11 0.05 54 0.04 46 0.09 0.01 10 0.12 90 0.14 2.20 54 1.86 46 4.07 49 42 3 2 3 1912
1913 1.76 84 0.35 16 2.10 0.56 22 1.98 78 2.54 0.04 38 0.07 62 0.11 0.07 59 0.05 41 0.12 0.01 9 0.14 91 0.16 2.45 49 2.59 51 5.03 42 51 2 2 3 1913
1914 1.82 82 0.41 18 2.23 0.66 28 1.71 72 2.37 0.08 38 0.12 62 0.20 0.05 53 0.05 47 0.10 0.03 17 0.16 83 0.19 2.64 52 2.45 48 5.09 44 47 4 2 4 1914
1915 1.76 83 0.37 17 2.13 0.50 24 1.58 76 2.08 0.06 38 0.10 62 0.16 0.06 54 0.05 46 0.11 0.03 15 0.15 85 0.17 2.40 52 2.25 48 4.65 46 45 4 2 4 1915
1916 1.71 63 1.00 37 2.72 0.43 27 1.16 73 1.59 0.05 38 0.09 62 0.14 0.12 65 0.06 35 0.18 0.03 18 0.15 82 0.19 2.35 49 2.47 51 4.82 56 33 3 4 4 1916
1917 1.78 84 0.35 16 2.13 0.61 29 1.52 71 2.13 0.06 38 0.10 62 0.16 0.06 53 0.05 47 0.11 0.04 20 0.17 80 0.21 2.55 54 2.18 46 4.73 45 45 3 2 4 1917
1918 2.20 58 1.56 42 3.76 0.59 26 1.69 74 2.28 0.07 38 0.12 62 0.20 0.07 55 0.06 45 0.13 0.06 25 0.19 75 0.25 3.00 45 3.61 55 6.61 57 35 3 2 4 1918
1919 2.98 72 1.15 28 4.13 0.77 36 1.40 64 2.17 0.09 38 0.14 62 0.22 0.09 58 0.07 42 0.16 0.13 33 0.27 67 0.39 4.06 57 3.01 43 7.07 58 31 3 2 6 1919
1920 5.55 82 1.25 18 6.80 1.15 34 2.25 66 3.40 0.09 38 0.14 62 0.23 0.44 72 0.17 28 0.61 0.11 24 0.33 76 0.44 7.34 64 4.14 36 11.49 59 30 2 5 4 1920
1921 6.11 81 1.40 19 7.51 1.69 36 3.06 64 4.75 0.09 38 0.15 62 0.24 0.22 61 0.14 39 0.37 0.19 30 0.46 70 0.66 8.31 61 5.21 39 13.53 56 35 2 3 5 1921
1922 5.48 80 1.35 20 6.84 1.29 27 3.46 73 4.75 0.08 38 0.12 62 0.20 0.17 55 0.14 45 0.31 0.10 22 0.36 78 0.46 7.12 57 5.43 43 12.56 54 38 2 2 4 1922
1923 5.05 80 1.29 20 6.34 1.34 26 3.74 74 5.08 0.09 38 0.15 62 0.24 0.19 56 0.14 44 0.33 0.11 23 0.37 77 0.48 6.78 54 5.69 46 12.47 51 41 2 3 4 1923
1924 5.43 78 1.49 22 6.93 1.41 27 3.88 73 5.29 0.11 38 0.17 62 0.28 0.21 56 0.16 44 0.37 0.15 30 0.36 70 0.51 7.31 55 6.07 45 13.38 52 40 2 3 4 1924
1925 5.63 83 1.12 17 6.75 1.49 33 2.98 67 4.48 0.13 38 0.21 62 0.34 0.23 56 0.18 44 0.41 0.04 6 0.53 94 0.57 7.53 60 5.02 40 12.55 54 36 3 3 5 1925
1926 5.84 83 1.21 17 7.06 1.53 29 3.70 71 5.23 0.11 38 0.18 62 0.29 0.32 61 0.21 39 0.52 0.02 3 0.54 97 0.56 7.82 57 5.84 43 13.66 52 38 2 4 4 1926
1927 5.79 83 1.21 17 7.00 1.61 27 4.26 73 5.87 0.18 38 0.29 62 0.47 0.36 61 0.23 39 0.58 0.15 17 0.76 83 0.91 8.08 55 6.74 45 14.83 47 40 3 4 6 1927
1928 6.14 82 1.35 18 7.50 1.74 31 3.93 69 5.67 0.15 38 0.24 62 0.39 0.37 61 0.24 39 0.61 0.08 9 0.79 91 0.87 8.49 56 6.56 44 15.05 50 38 3 4 6 1928
1929 6.76 80 1.67 20 8.43 1.85 32 4.00 68 5.86 0.24 38 0.39 62 0.64 0.39 60 0.26 40 0.64 0.03 4 0.73 96 0.76 9.28 57 7.05 43 16.33 52 36 4 4 5 1929
1930 6.96 79 1.86 21 8.82 1.82 30 4.28 70 6.10 0.24 38 0.39 62 0.64 0.41 60 0.28 40 0.69 0.03 4 0.75 96 0.78 9.47 56 7.56 44 17.03 52 36 4 4 5 1930
1931 7.14 78 1.97 22 9.10 2.03 34 3.89 66 5.92 0.24 38 0.39 62 0.64 0.41 58 0.30 42 0.71 0.03 4 0.75 96 0.78 9.85 57 7.30 43 17.15 53 35 4 4 5 1931
1932 6.51 80 1.60 20 8.11 2.07 38 3.40 62 5.46 0.14 38 0.22 62 0.36 0.35 55 0.29 45 0.64 0.04 5 0.67 95 0.71 9.10 60 6.18 40 15.28 53 36 2 4 5 1932
1933 6.26 83 1.26 17 7.52 1.73 37 3.00 63 4.73 0.14 38 0.22 62 0.36 0.32 54 0.27 46 0.59 0.04 7 0.56 93 0.59 8.48 61 5.32 39 13.80 55 34 3 4 4 1933
1934 6.10 87 0.92 13 7.02 1.60 38 2.58 62 4.18 0.11 38 0.18 62 0.30 0.27 51 0.26 49 0.53 0.04 6 0.56 94 0.60 8.13 64 4.51 36 12.64 56 33 2 4 5 1934
1935 6.58 87 0.97 13 7.55 1.70 39 2.66 61 4.36 0.14 38 0.22 62 0.36 0.28 51 0.27 49 0.54 0.05 7 0.67 93 0.72 8.75 65 4.79 35 13.54 56 32 3 4 5 1935
1936 6.54 82 1.42 18 7.97 1.80 44 2.26 56 4.06 0.16 38 0.26 62 0.41 0.32 53 0.28 47 0.60 0.04 6 0.69 94 0.73 8.86 64 4.92 36 13.77 58 29 3 4 5 1936
1937 7.35 82 1.62 18 8.97 1.82 46 2.12 54 3.94 0.17 38 0.27 62 0.43 0.34 53 0.30 47 0.64 0.03 4 0.69 96 0.72 9.71 66 5.00 34 14.71 61 27 3 4 5 1937
1938 7.29 80 1.84 20 9.13 1.86 41 2.73 59 4.59 0.21 38 0.35 62 0.56 0.38 55 0.32 45 0.70 0.06 6 0.82 94 0.87 9.81 62 6.05 38 15.85 58 29 4 4 6 1938
1939 7.01 75 2.32 25 9.32 1.90 40 2.84 60 4.73 0.25 38 0.40 62 0.65 0.43 56 0.34 44 0.76 0.02 2 0.93 98 0.95 9.60 58 6.82 42 16.43 57 29 4 5 6 1939
76 24 30 70 39 61 56 44 14 86 55 45 54 38 3 3 4
1950 41.31 73 14.92 27 56.23 5.04 38 8.21 62 13.25 0.29 20 1.16 80 1.45 0.96 56 0.74 44 1.70 0.29 14 1.83 86 2.12 47.89 64 26.86 36 74.76 75 18 2 2 3 1950
1951 50.21 72 19.30 28 69.51 6.30 38 10.28 62 16.59 0.30 17 1.43 83 1.73 1.15 56 0.89 44 2.04 0.35 14 2.19 86 2.54 58.32 63 34.09 37 92.41 75 18 2 2 3 1951
1952 58.37 73 21.85 27 80.22 7.26 38 12.09 62 19.35 0.39 20 1.56 80 1.95 1.29 56 1.00 44 2.29 0.39 14 2.46 86 2.85 67.70 63 38.96 37 106.66 75 18 2 2 3 1952
1953 68.55 72 26.33 28 94.88 7.80 38 12.49 62 20.28 0.55 22 1.94 78 2.49 1.65 56 1.27 44 2.93 0.50 14 3.15 86 3.65 79.06 64 45.17 36 124.23 76 16 2 2 3 1953
1954 73.34 66 37.07 34 110.41 8.66 38 14.18 62 22.84 0.51 17 2.43 83 2.93 1.95 56 1.50 44 3.44 0.59 14 3.71 86 4.30 85.04 59 58.89 41 143.93 77 16 2 2 3 1954
1955 84.63 73 31.58 27 116.21 10.35 38 16.74 62 27.08 0.58 19 2.56 81 3.14 2.08 56 1.60 44 3.69 0.63 14 3.97 86 4.60 98.28 64 56.44 36 154.72 75 18 2 2 3 1955
1956 93.84 79 25.04 21 118.88 12.05 37 20.79 63 32.83 0.57 16 3.10 84 3.67 2.43 56 1.87 44 4.31 0.74 14 4.63 86 5.37 109.63 66 55.43 34 165.06 72 20 2 3 3 1956
1957 98.98 79 25.65 21 124.63 12.08 46 14.12 54 26.20 1.02 22 3.53 78 4.55 3.02 56 2.32 44 5.34 0.92 14 5.75 86 6.66 116.02 69 51.36 31 167.38 74 16 3 3 4 1957
1958 106.55 79 27.66 21 134.21 13.01 46 15.23 54 28.23 1.11 23 3.75 77 4.86 3.22 56 2.48 44 5.71 0.98 14 6.14 86 7.12 124.87 69 55.27 31 180.14 75 16 3 3 4 1958
1959 106.54 75 34.61 25 141.14 13.00 41 19.05 59 32.05 0.96 25 2.85 75 3.82 2.53 56 1.95 44 4.48 0.77 14 4.82 86 5.59 123.81 66 63.28 34 187.09 75 17 2 2 3 1959
1960 105.16 75 35.05 25 140.21 105.16 75 35.05 25 140.21 100 1960
74 26 40 60 20 80 56 44 14 86 66 34 75 17 2 3 3
Notes: [1] Compensation of Employees, [2] Intermediate Consumption Expenditure [3] Output of Producers’ of Government Services
78
Table 2.16
Singapore: Government Final Consumption Expenditure, 1900-39 and 1950-60
at Current and 1914 Prices
(Straits Millions $)
Government Output Sales of Government Services Govt. Final
Compensation of Intermediate Depreciation Total School Fees Hospital Fees Total Consumption Government Sales of Govt. Final
Year Employees Consumption Expenditure Output Govt. Consumption Year
Services Expenditure
[1] [2] [3]= [4]-[1]- [4]= ([1]+[2]) [5] [6] [7]=[5]+[6] [8]=[3]-[4]-[7] A B C=A-B
[2] / 0.99
1900 1.08 1.17 0.02 2.27 0.01 0.03 0.04 2.23 2.74 0.05 2.70 1900
1901 1.22 1.48 0.03 2.72 0.01 0.03 0.04 2.69 3.26 0.04 3.21 1901
1902 1.37 1.21 0.03 2.61 0.01 0.04 0.05 2.56 3.01 0.06 2.95 1902
1903 1.52 1.76 0.03 3.32 0.03 0.04 0.07 3.25 3.78 0.08 3.70 1903
1904 1.56 2.15 0.04 3.74 0.03 0.04 0.07 3.67 4.25 0.08 4.18 1904
1905 1.63 1.73 0.03 3.39 0.08 0.04 0.12 3.27 3.79 0.13 3.66 1905
1906 1.57 1.62 0.03 3.22 0.03 0.05 0.08 3.14 3.65 0.09 3.56 1906
1907 1.61 1.55 0.03 3.20 0.04 0.04 0.08 3.12 3.63 0.09 3.54 1907
1908 1.81 1.57 0.03 3.41 0.04 0.05 0.09 3.32 3.82 0.11 3.72 1908
1909 1.94 1.39 0.03 3.37 0.18 0.05 0.23 3.14 3.86 0.26 3.60 1909
1910 2.12 1.83 0.04 3.99 0.12 0.06 0.18 3.81 4.49 0.20 4.29 1910
1911 2.09 2.02 0.04 4.15 0.13 0.07 0.20 3.95 4.26 0.20 4.06 1911
1912 2.20 1.86 0.04 4.11 0.14 0.06 0.20 3.91 4.15 0.20 3.95 1912
1913 2.45 2.59 0.05 5.08 0.16 0.06 0.22 4.86 5.03 0.22 4.81 1913
1914 2.64 2.45 0.05 5.14 0.16 0.06 0.22 4.92 5.14 0.22 4.92 1914
1915 2.40 2.25 0.05 4.69 0.17 0.08 0.25 4.44 4.41 0.24 4.17 1915
1916 2.35 2.47 0.05 4.87 0.05 0.10 0.15 4.72 4.30 0.13 4.17 1916
1917 2.55 2.18 0.05 4.78 0.05 0.13 0.18 4.60 4.06 0.15 3.91 1917
1918 3.00 3.61 0.07 6.68 0.05 0.16 0.21 6.46 4.75 0.15 4.60 1918
1919 4.06 3.01 0.07 7.14 0.06 0.20 0.26 6.88 4.15 0.15 3.99 1919
1920 7.34 4.14 0.12 11.60 0.07 0.25 0.32 11.28 5.24 0.14 5.10 1920
1921 8.31 5.21 0.14 13.66 0.08 0.32 0.39 13.27 7.82 0.22 7.59 1921
1922 7.12 5.43 0.13 12.68 0.08 0.40 0.48 12.21 8.12 0.31 7.82 1922
1923 6.78 5.69 0.13 12.60 0.09 0.50 0.59 12.00 8.28 0.39 7.89 1923
1924 7.31 6.07 0.14 13.52 0.10 0.26 0.36 13.16 8.92 0.24 8.68 1924
1925 7.53 5.02 0.13 12.68 0.12 0.34 0.47 12.21 8.18 0.30 7.88 1925
1926 7.82 5.84 0.14 13.80 0.12 0.38 0.50 13.30 8.61 0.31 8.29 1926
1927 8.08 6.74 0.15 14.98 0.12 0.37 0.50 14.48 9.48 0.31 9.16 1927
1928 8.49 6.56 0.15 15.20 0.14 0.39 0.53 14.68 9.70 0.34 9.37 1928
1929 9.28 7.05 0.16 16.49 0.15 0.46 0.61 15.88 10.76 0.40 10.36 1929
1930 9.47 7.56 0.17 17.20 0.16 0.55 0.72 16.48 11.80 0.49 11.31 1930
1931 9.85 7.30 0.17 17.32 0.18 0.66 0.83 16.49 13.91 0.67 13.24 1931
1932 9.10 6.18 0.15 15.43 0.19 0.78 0.97 14.46 14.08 0.88 13.20 1932
1933 8.48 5.32 0.14 13.94 0.18 0.79 0.97 12.97 13.70 0.95 12.75 1933
1934 8.13 4.51 0.13 12.77 0.19 0.91 1.10 11.67 12.23 1.05 11.17 1934
1935 8.75 4.79 0.14 13.67 0.20 0.81 1.01 12.66 12.60 0.93 11.67 1935
1936 8.86 4.92 0.14 13.91 0.21 0.86 1.07 12.84 13.04 1.00 12.04 1936
1937 9.71 5.00 0.15 14.86 0.23 0.81 1.04 13.82 13.14 0.92 12.22 1937
1938 9.81 6.05 0.16 16.01 0.22 0.86 1.08 14.93 14.64 0.99 13.65 1938
1939 9.60 6.82 0.17 16.59 0.21 0.91 1.13 15.47 15.06 1.02 14.04 1939
1950 47.89 26.86 0.76 75.51 0.33 0.73 1.06 74.45 21.03 0.30 20.74 1950
1951 58.32 34.09 0.93 93.34 0.50 0.92 1.42 91.92 20.67 0.31 20.36 1951
1952 67.70 38.96 1.08 107.74 0.54 0.99 1.53 106.21 22.93 0.33 22.61 1952
1953 79.06 45.17 1.25 125.48 0.56 1.15 1.71 123.77 27.37 0.37 27.00 1953
1954 85.04 58.89 1.45 145.38 0.56 1.18 1.74 143.64 33.27 0.40 32.87 1954
1955 98.28 56.44 1.56 156.28 0.63 1.19 1.82 154.47 36.59 0.43 36.17 1955
1956 109.63 55.43 1.67 166.73 0.70 1.20 1.90 164.83 38.63 0.44 38.19 1956
1957 116.02 51.36 1.69 169.07 0.78 1.46 2.24 166.83 38.06 0.51 37.56 1957
1958 124.87 55.27 1.82 181.95 0.87 1.52 2.39 179.56 41.17 0.54 40.63 1958
1959 123.81 63.28 1.89 188.98 0.98 1.35 2.32 186.65 43.26 0.53 42.73 1959
1960 105.16 35.05 1.42 141.63 1.23 1.31 2.54 139.09 32.41 0.58 31.82 1960
79
2.4 Gross Capital Formation
2.4.1 Definition
Gross capital formation contains two major components, namely gross fixed capital
formation and the increase in stocks during a period which do not enter into the
intermediate consumption during the period. The fundamental distinction between
intermediate consumption and gross capital formation is whether commodities are
considered to be used up during the account period, or to yield benefits in the future.47
The 1968 SNA provides for the classification of gross fixed capital formation according
to the kind of economic activity of the owner and the type of fixed assets. The
classification according to the type of fixed assets is given in Figure 2.14 below.48
Figure 2.14
The Components of Gross Capital Formation (SNA 68)
By Type of Capital Goods

1. Residential building
2. Non-residential building
3. Other Construction except land improvement
4. Land improvement and plantation and orchard development
5. Transport equipment
6. Machinery and equipment
Gross fixed capital formation
1. Goods producing industries
2. Wholesale and retail trade
3. Other industries
4. Government services
Gross capital formation
Source: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistical Office of the United Nations (1968:173).
Currently, data on fixed capital formation may be obtained from specialized surveys
or from general production surveys and in the case of government and public
corporations, directly from the accounts. Changes in inventories, however, are more
difficult to estimate, especially because of the related problems of stock valuation.49
Nevertheless, in most cases, the indirect approach is used by employing the commodity
47
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistical Office of the United Nations (1968:110).
48
The coverage of gross fixed capital formation has changed from SNA68 to SNA93. For example, SNA93 has recommended that
computer software which are used in the production of goods and services for more than one year are to be treated as investment
instead of intermediate consumption.
49
Department for Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division, United Nations (1999: 9-10).
80
flow table. Estimates of gross capital formation by the commodity flow method,
however, do not lend themselves to classification according to the kinds of economic
activity of the purchasers. In practice, in most cases, the indirect approach is the only
way of estimating gross fixed capital formation simply because data on gross fixed
capital formation occurring in all sectors of the economy are generally not available. In
the case of Singapore, the first estimates were provided by Benham (1959). As is
presented in Table 2.17, the figures on capital formation was constructed based on the
aggregations of retained imports, domestic production, new building and public works
and animal husbandry.50 It is important to note that weights on domestic production
were small as Singapore heavily relied on imports from overseas due to the lack of
domestic production.
Investments in cultivated assets were omitted since they were deemed to be
negligible in 1956. In the pre-war period, cultivated assets were regarded as a
component of Gross Capital Formation (GCF) despite the small weight attached to it. In
this estimate, GCF was classified into (1) construction, (2) machinery and equipment,
(3) cultivated assets, and (4) changes in inventories.
50
In these estimates, other capital formation (roads, etc.) was included in the current expenditure of the city council and Rural
Board. Part of the plant and machinery, etc. included in this estimate was used for renewals and replacements. On the other hand,
the estimates for local output of machinery and for increase in local livestock are on the low side, and attap houses are excluded.
Hence the figure of $194 million may be taken as about equal to net capital formation. The above value for machinery, etc. includes
the costs and profits of distribution. Domestic production of machinery and equipment for export (mainly to the Federation) is
excluded. Domestic production of implements and tools was less than $1 million. Animal husbandry represents mainly the increase
in the number of pigs. Poultry are excluded. Other agricultural investment (apart from roads, etc. included in Public Works) was
relatively small. Durable consumer goods such as private motor cars, furniture, and refrigerators have been shown under a separate
heading. Owing to lack of information, changes in stock were omitted.
81
Table 2.17
Singapore: Estimates of Capital Formation for the year 1956
Straits $ %
(millions)
I. Retained Imports 91 46.9
1. Machinery, excluding parts 44 22.7
2. Implements and tools 7 3.6
3. Industrial electrical equipment 19 9.8
4. Telegraph and telephone equipment and transmitting 8 4.1
5. Commercial vehicles 13 6.7
II. Domestic Production: 8 4.1
1. Machinery and equipment 6 3.1
2. Ships and sailing vessels 2 1.0
III. New Building and Public Works 94 48.5
1. Public authorities 63 32.5
2. Private 31 16.0
IV. Animal Husbandry 1 0.5
1. Animal Husbandry 1 0.5
Total 194 100.0
Source: Benham (1959:23-24)
2.4.2 Investment in Construction
2.4.2.1 Definition
By definition, construction output that is to be capitalized is computed by taking
into account the output of the characteristic products of the construction industry at
purchaser's values, less the sum of construction for military uses excepting family
buildings (dwellings), plus construction on own account and for sale by other kinds of
activity less the characteristic output of construction activity that is for maintenance and
current repairs. According to UN recommendations, gross fixed capital formation on
buildings and other construction is often estimated as the sum of the estimated value of
the building and construction materials used, overhead costs and value added, based on
information from a number of contractors. Alternatively, the data are estimated by
inflating the value of a few basic materials used, such as cement, sawn timber, plywood,
mild steel bars and rods, floor tiles, (terrazzo, mosaic, etc.), bricks, roofing tiles, etc., by
coefficients from input-output studies.51 The gross output of the construction industry is
also frequently taken as a measure of gross fixed capital formation in construction. It
should be noted, however, that gross output of the construction industry and gross fixed
51
Department of International Economic and Social Affairs, Statistical Office, United Nations (1986: 141).
82
capital formation in construction are not equal; some of the output of the construction
industry consists of maintenance and current repairs and therefore should not be
capitalized.
2.4.2.2 Investment in Construction in Current Prices
For the period 1900-39 and 1948-60, it is not possible to compute the value of
construction output that goes into capital formation due to the paucity of data. No
survey on construction output was carried out during this period. The first survey of
construction in respect of Singapore was only carried out in 1972. Thereafter, surveys
were carried out on an annual or biennial basis. The only information on construction
for the period 1900-39 and 1948-60 that could be used to estimate part of the
construction output was the information that was incorporated in the financial
statements of government accounts in relation to the general government departments
and the government trading departments. One among other options to estimate the total
construction output was to inflate the value of a few basic materials used in construction,
such as cement, sawn timber, plywood, mild steel bars and rods, floor tiles, bricks, etc
by coefficients from the input-output studies. Unfortunately, again we noted that
information on the inputs mentioned above for the period was scarce and no continuous
series of data was available except for cement. Even in this case, net imports of cement
retained in the territory of Singapore were available only for the period 1900-12 and
1933-39. They were provided for in the Statistical Tables Relating to the Colonial and
Other Possessions of The United Kingdom for the period 1900-01, Statistical Tables
Relating to the Colonial and Other Possessions and Protectorates for the period 1902-
07 and Statistical Tables Relating to British Self-Governing Dominions, Crown
Colonies, Possessions and Protectorates for the period 1908-12. For the period 1933-39,
the Annual Report, Returns of Imports and Exports, British Malaya and Malayan
Statistics provided figures on imports, exports and net imports retained in Singapore.
83
Unfortunately, figures for the years 1913-27 and 1928-32 were not available. As
illustrated in Table 2.18, figures on net imports of Singapore for the period 1913-27
were calculated using two steps. Firstly, the figures of net imports of cement for
Singapore for the period 1913-27 were treated as 80% of Straits Settlement’s total
figure based on experiences of 1908-12. For the period 1928-32, similar procedures
were applied based on the relationship between net value of imports of cement into
Singapore and total net cement imports into British Malaya as a whole for the period
1933-39. It was decided that 50% and 60% of the total value of net imports of cement of
British Malaya be allocated to Singapore for the period 1928-30 and 1931-32
respectively.
Subsequently, the net import value of cement in Singapore for the period 1950-60
was computed by employing a different methodology due to the paucity of information.
The Report on the Colony of Singapore and Singapore’s External Trade provides the
quantity of cement exports and imports for the period 1953-58 but value data was not
available. As an alternative option, weights of cement import and export values to that
of total merchandize imports and exports were applied to estimate data for missing
years. In the case of imports, 0.5% of total merchandize imports was treated as cement
for the period 1950-56 based on the 1957 figure. Subsequently, 0.4% and 0.3% were
applied for the year 1958 and 1959 respectively based on the fact that weights on
cement imports against total merchandize imports was 0.2% for the year 1960. Similar
procedures were employed to estimate cement exports for the period 1950-56 and 1958-
59 (See Table 2.19).
84
Table 2.18
Net Imports Value of Cement Retained in Singapore, 1900-39
(Straits $)
Straits [b] /[a] Singapore [c]/[b] British
Settlements Malaya
[a] [b] [c]
1900 137,601
1901 174,859
1902 231,109
1903 266,285
1904 456,583
1905 341,007
1906 243,722
1907 361,569
1908 731,979 0.8 588,755
1909 1,012,271 0.9 935,311
1910 1,021,781 0.9 884,914
1911 1,033,553 0.7 729,444
1912 1,311,534 0.8 1,011,788
1913 1,437,048 0.8 1,170,209
1914 1,127,613 0.8 918,232
1915 1,025,719 0.8 835,258
1916 1,263,359 0.8 1,028,772
1917 1,314,887 0.8 1,070,732
1918 2,062,321 0.8 1,679,379
1919 1,918,128 0.8 1,561,960
1920 3,764,525 0.8 3,065,508
1921 3,391,003 0.8 2,761,344
1922 1,571,905 0.8 1,280,026
1923 1,567,542 0.8 1,276,473
1924 1,380,399 0.8 1,124,079
1925 1,899,811 0.8 1,547,044
1926 2,076,033 0.8 1,690,544
1927 3,193,865 0.8 2,600,812
1928 4,214,191 0.5 8,428,382
1929 3,788,160 0.5 7,576,319
1930 2,583,546 0.5 5,167,092
1931 2,411,288 0.6 4,018,813
1932 1,641,887 0.6 2,736,479
1933 1,223,569 0.7 1,849,716
1934 885,452 0.6 1,516,025
1935 1,568,647 0.7 2,396,194
1936 1,814,001 0.6 2,795,513
1937 2,486,377 0.6 4,003,490
1938 2,449,133 0.6 4,289,340
1939 3,534,574 0.6 5,480,500
Sources:
(Singapore)
1900-01: Statistical Tables Relating to the Colonial and Other Possessions of the United Kingdom
1902-07: Statistical Tables Relating to the Colonial and Other Possessions and Protectorates
1933-37: Returns of Imports and Exports, British Malaya
1938-39: Foreign Trade of Malaya
(Singapore and Straits Settlements)
1908-12: Statistical Tables Relating to British Self-Governing Dominions, Crown Colonies, Possessions and Protectorates
1913-15: Appendix to the Report on the Trade, Straits Settlements
1916-27: Blue Book, Straits Settlements
(British Malaya)
1928-37: Returns of Imports and Exports, British Malaya
85
Table 2.19
Singapore: Estimating Net Imports of Cement, 1950-60
(Straits $)
Imports of [a] /[b] Total Merchandize Exports of [c] / [d] Total Merchandize Net Imports of
Cement, Imports, Singapore Cement, Exports, Singapore Cement,
Singapore Singapore Singapore
[a] [b] [c] [d] [a] -[c]
1950 16,176,492 0.5% 3,273,497,000 6,090,184 0.2% 3,025,750,000 10,086,308
1951 17,353,987 0.5% 5,027,204,000 6,265,155 0.2% 4,745,242,000 11,088,832
1952 18,531,482 0.5% 3,750,056,000 6,440,127 0.2% 3,199,610,000 12,091,356
1953 14,927,286 0.5% 3,020,706,000 5,342,160 0.2% 2,654,114,000 9,585,126
1954 14,947,779 0.5% 3,024,853,000 5,405,370 0.2% 2,685,518,000 9,542,409
1955 19,088,308 0.5% 3,862,736,000 6,780,466 0.2% 3,368,699,000 12,307,842
1956 19,417,486 0.5% 3,929,349,000 6,901,789 0.2% 3,428,975,000 12,515,697
1957 20,220,446 0.5% 4,091,837,000 7,519,418 0.2% 3,478,133,000 12,701,028
1958 18,700,325 0.5% 3,740,065,000 5,852,524 0.2% 3,140,343,000 12,847,801
1959 19,538,350 0.5% 3,907,670,000 3,134,997 0.1% 3,440,263,000 16,403,353
1960 20,388,430 0.5% 4,077,686,000 1,967,923 0.1% 3,477,053,000 18,420,507
Sources: 1950-56: Annual Report, Colony of Singapore
1957-60: Singapore’s External Trade
Estimated figures on the value of net imports of cement for the territory of
Singapore for the period 1900-39 and 1950-60 were then utilized to compute the
investment figure. According to the production accounts of the construction sector in
Singapore for the year 1972, the input value of cement and concrete products to total
output value was 9.1% as illustrated in Table 2.20.
Table 2.20
Singapore: Production Account - Construction, 1972
Purchase of Materials and Services 644 48.8%
Wood and wood products 76 5.8%

Granite, bricks and tiles 69 5.2%
Cements and concrete products 120 9.1%
Metal and metal products 210 15.9%
Machinery and equipment 87 6.6%
Other materials and services 82 6.2%
Indirect Taxes 17 1.3%

Value Added 660 50.0%
Total Cost 1,321 100.0%

Source: Department of Statistics, Singapore (1975:17).
In these estimates, it was assumed that the input of value of cement to total output
value was 6%, 8% and 9% for the periods 1900-07, 1907-27 and 1928-60 respectively.
These coefficients were assigned based on the conventional premise that input of
cement was lesser in the earlier period. The total construction that would go into fixed
capital formation was derived by deducting from total output of construction, the repairs
86
and maintenance and those used by the military (except family dwellings). These
percentages were used to estimate total investments in construction, the results of which
are presented in Table 2.21.
Table 2.21
Singapore: Total Investment in Construction (Construction output Capitalized)
in Current Prices, 1900-39
(Straits $)
Net Imports of Total Output by Different Repairs and maintenance Investment in
Cement in Input - Output Ratios Construction
Singapore (Construction output
Capitalised)
[A] [B] [C]=[A]/[B] [D] [E]=[C]x[D] [F]=[C]-[E]
1900 137,601 6.0% 2,293,350 2.0% 45,867 2,247,483
1901 174,859 6.0% 2,914,317 2.0% 58,286 2,856,030
1902 231,109 6.0% 3,851,817 2.0% 77,036 3,774,780
1903 266,285 6.0% 4,438,083 2.0% 88,762 4,349,322
1904 456,583 6.0% 7,609,717 2.0% 152,194 7,457,522
1905 341,007 6.0% 5,683,450 2.0% 113,669 5,569,781
1906 243,722 6.0% 4,062,033 2.0% 81,241 3,980,793
1907 361,569 6.0% 6,026,150 2.0% 120,523 5,905,627
1908 588,755 8.0% 7,359,438 3.0% 220,783 7,138,654
1909 632,344 8.0% 7,904,306 3.0% 237,129 7,667,177
1910 679,161 8.0% 8,489,514 3.0% 254,685 8,234,829
1911 729,444 8.0% 9,118,050 3.0% 273,542 8,844,509
1912 1,011,788 8.0% 12,647,350 3.0% 379,421 12,267,930
1913 1,170,209 8.0% 14,627,615 3.0% 438,828 14,188,786
1914 918,232 8.0% 11,477,898 3.0% 344,337 11,133,561
1915 835,258 8.0% 10,440,728 3.0% 313,222 10,127,506
1916 1,028,772 8.0% 12,859,649 3.0% 385,789 12,473,860
1917 1,070,732 8.0% 13,384,150 3.0% 401,524 12,982,625
1918 1,679,379 8.0% 20,992,232 3.0% 629,767 20,362,465
1919 1,561,960 8.0% 19,524,501 3.0% 585,735 18,938,766
1920 3,065,508 8.0% 38,318,856 3.0% 1,149,566 37,169,290
1921 2,761,344 8.0% 34,516,800 3.0% 1,035,504 33,481,296
1922 1,280,026 8.0% 16,000,319 3.0% 480,010 15,520,310
1923 1,276,473 8.0% 15,955,908 3.0% 478,677 15,477,231
1924 1,124,079 8.0% 14,050,992 3.0% 421,530 13,629,462
1925 1,547,044 8.0% 19,338,053 3.0% 580,142 18,757,911
1926 1,690,544 8.0% 21,131,805 3.0% 633,954 20,497,851
1927 2,600,812 8.0% 32,510,145 3.0% 975,304 31,534,840
1928 4,214,191 9.0% 46,824,344 3.0% 1,404,730 45,419,614
1929 3,788,160 9.0% 42,090,661 3.0% 1,262,720 40,827,941
1930 2,583,546 9.0% 28,706,067 3.0% 861,182 27,844,885
1931 2,411,288 9.0% 26,792,087 3.0% 803,763 25,988,324
1932 1,641,887 9.0% 18,243,193 3.0% 547,296 17,695,898
1933 1,223,569 9.0% 13,595,211 3.0% 407,856 13,187,355
1934 885,452 9.0% 9,838,356 3.0% 295,151 9,543,205
1935 1,568,647 9.0% 17,429,411 3.0% 522,882 16,906,529
1936 1,814,001 9.0% 20,155,567 3.0% 604,667 19,550,900
1937 2,486,377 9.0% 27,626,411 3.0% 828,792 26,797,619
1938 2,449,133 9.0% 27,212,589 3.0% 816,378 26,396,211
1939 3,534,574 9.0% 39,273,044 3.0% 1,178,191 38,094,853
1950 10,086,308 9.0% 112,070,093 3.0% 3,362,103 108,707,991
1951 11,088,832 9.0% 123,209,245 3.0% 3,696,277 119,512,968
1952 12,091,356 9.0% 134,348,397 3.0% 4,030,452 130,317,945
1953 9,585,126 9.0% 106,501,398 3.0% 3,195,042 103,306,357
1954 9,542,409 9.0% 106,026,771 3.0% 3,180,803 102,845,968
1955 12,307,842 9.0% 136,753,795 3.0% 4,102,614 132,651,182
1956 12,515,697 9.0% 139,063,305 3.0% 4,171,899 134,891,406
1957 12,701,028 9.0% 141,122,533 3.0% 4,233,676 136,888,857
1958 12,847,801 9.0% 142,753,344 3.0% 4,282,600 138,470,744
1959 16,403,353 9.0% 182,259,478 3.0% 5,467,784 176,791,693
1960 18,420,507 9.0% 204,672,300 3.0% 6,140,169 198,532,131
87
2.4.2.3 Investment in Construction in 1914 Prices
The output of construction in real terms is arrived at by deflating the current output
by using the movements of price increases or decreases in cement imports with 1914 as
the base year (See Table 2.22). Undoubtedly, the deflator used is rather weak. A more
appropriate deflator should be used that takes into account price movements in salaries
and wages paid and the inputs used to generate the construction output.
Table 2.22
Singapore: Import Unit Value Indices of Cement,
1900-39 and 1950-60 (1914=100)
1900-39 and 1947-60 (1914=100)
1900 134.40 1910 100.15 1920 300.09 1930 102.64 1950 262.29
1901 132.96 1911 94.64 1921 279.44 1931 84.89 1951 330.69
1902 125.01 1912 100.39 1922 176.26 1932 81.46 1952 377.29
1903 131.06 1913 112.24 1923 132.11 1933 72.49 1953 351.30
1904 123.58 1914 100.00 1924 128.77 1934 58.51 1954 325.31
1905 115.78 1915 111.67 1925 121.10 1935 57.42 1955 331.00
1906 90.63 1916 131.44 1926 122.59 1936 56.53 1956 320.32
1907 104.27 1917 176.55 1927 122.99 1937 58.12 1957 314.21
1908 105.29 1918 242.95 1928 121.89 1938 68.55 1958 269.95
1909 102.16 1919 248.81 1929 118.52 1939 76.28 1959 271.47
1960 241.55
Sources:
(FMS)
1903-32: Annual Report, Trade and Custom, Federated Malay States
(Singapore)
1900-01: Statistical Tables Relating to the Colonial and Other Possessions of the United Kingdom
Straits Settlements
1916-27: Appendix to the Report on Trade, Straits Settlements
(British Malaya)
1921-27: Returns of Foreign Imports and Exports, British Malaya
Investment of construction in constant prices for the period 1900-39 and 1950-60 is
presented in Table 2.23 below.
Table 2.23
Singapore: Construction Investment, 1900-39 and 1950-60 in 1914 Prices
(Straits $)
1900-39 and 1950-60 (1914=100)
1900 1,672,225 1910 8,222,647 1920 12,385,907 1930 27,128,671 1950 41,445,484
1901 2,148,013 1911 9,345,441 1921 11,981,683 1931 30,615,392 1951 36,140,083
1902 3,019,550 1912 12,219,773 1922 8,805,342 1932 21,723,699 1952 34,540,107
1903 3,318,515 1913 12,641,360 1923 11,715,038 1933 18,192,688 1953 29,406,546
1904 6,034,725 1914 11,133,561 1924 10,584,176 1934 16,310,505 1954 31,614,434
1905 4,810,708 1915 9,069,382 1925 15,490,189 1935 29,441,597 1955 40,075,494
1906 4,392,325 1916 9,490,320 1926 16,721,087 1936 34,585,492 1956 42,111,745
1907 5,663,897 1917 7,353,695 1927 25,639,347 1937 46,103,537 1957 43,566,392
1908 6,779,901 1918 8,381,259 1928 37,262,057 1938 38,507,737 1958 51,295,409
1909 7,505,372 1919 7,611,772 1929 34,447,940 1939 49,943,553 1959 65,124,024
1960 82,190,271
88
2.4.3 Investment in Transport, Machinery and Equipment
2.4.3.1 Definition
Fixed Capital formation in Machinery and Equipment (M&E) by producers consists
of the value of their acquisitions of new existing transport, machinery and equipment
less the value of disposals of existing ones. It covers transport equipment and other
machinery and equipment, including office equipment, furniture, etc. New machinery
and equipment that has not yet been sold forms part of additions to inventories of
finished goods held by the producers of the assets. Similarly, imported machinery and
equipment is not recorded as gross fixed capital formation until it is acquired by the unit
that intends to use it. Machinery and equipment such as vehicles, furniture, kitchen
equipment, computers, communications equipment, etc. that are acquired by households
for the purpose of private final consumption are not fixed assets and their acquisition is
not treated as gross fixed capital formation. Proceeds of sales by resident producers of
their used and scrapped fixed assets of the same type and the cost net of dealers’
margins and other transfer charges, of purchases of these second-hand items by resident
producers for uses are classified as fixed assets (Department of Economic and Social
Affairs, Statistical Office of the United Nations, 1968:115).
2.4.3.2 Investment in M&E in Current Prices
Commodity flow analysis is often used in estimating gross fixed capital formation in
transport, machinery and equipment based on statistics on foreign trade and domestic
production.52 In this estimates, it was assumed that there was no M&E produced locally
during the years 1900-39 and 1950-60 and all M&E supplies came as imports from
abroad. This means that total expenditure on M&E equals to net imports valued at
market prices. This assumption is deemed to be not unrealistic. Official published
figures on the net import value of M&E for Singapore were available for the period
52
89
1900-12, 1924-27, 1933-39 and 1956-60 based on seven different sources. The sources
are the Statistical Tables Relating to the Colonial and Other Possessions of The United
Kingdom for the period 1900-1901, Statistical Tables Relating to the Colonial and
Other Possessions and Protectorates for the period 1902-1907 and Statistical Tables
Relating to British Self-Governing Dominions, Crown Colonies, Possessions and
Protectorates for the period 1908-12. Appendix to the Report on Trade, Straits
Settlements for the period 1924-27, the Annual Report, Returns of Import and Exports,
British Malaya and Malayan Statistics for the period 1933-39 and the Annual Report,
Singapore’s External Trade for the period 1956-60. Unfortunately, a complete set of
data on net imports of M&E for Singapore was not available for many years. This being
the case, it was necessary to make estimates of M&E for the missing years. In the case
of pre World War II period, a two-step estimation procedure was used. Firstly,
Singapore’s import value of M&E for the period 1913-23, 1928 and 1932 were
estimated based on the average ratio against the total import value of M&E for Straits
Settlements as illustrated in Table 2.24. However, in 1920, 90% of total imports on
M&E for the Straits Settlements were distributed to Singapore on the grounds that large
amounts of M&E were purchased for Singapore for infrastructure building such as the
Singapore harbour dock.53
53
Annual Report, Straits Settlements, 1920, p.51.
90
Table 2.24
Estimating Singapore’s Imports of Transport, Machinery and Equipment for the
period 1913-23 and 1928-32
(Straits $)
Singapore [1]/[2] Straits Settlements
[1] [2]
1900 2,789,534 100% 2,789,534
1901 2,844,144 95% 2,989,628
1902 1,996,283 85% 2,348,134
1903 3,107,048 92% 3,364,716
1904 1,762,233 85% 2,065,266
1905 1,902,332 77% 2,456,378
1906 2,493,448 84% 2,985,329
1907 2,967,486 80% 3,690,461
1908 3,368,956 80% 4,199,327
1909 3,087,451 78% 3,973,806
1910 3,875,828 71% 5,466,342
1911 3,644,147 73% 4,993,771
1912 4,294,793 63% 6,771,441
1913 4,707,839 69% 6,813,000
1914 3,169,654 69% 4,587,000
1915 2,017,744 69% 2,920,000
1916 4,683,653 69% 6,778,000
1917 5,395,392 69% 7,808,000
1918 3,953,949 69% 5,722,000
1919 9,075,010 69% 13,133,000
1920 29,519,100 90% 32,799,000
1921 12,013,056 73% 16,435,000
1922 5,227,854 73% 7,152,200
1923 8,735,505 73% 11,951,000
1924 12,566,154 73% 17,191,691
1925 22,650,025 72% 31,669,998
1926 28,861,834 73% 39,338,957
1927 23,421,318 68% 34,607,035
1928 22,647,239 60% 37,630,239
1929 23,832,851 60% 39,600,229
1930 14,731,930 60% 24,478,305
1931 7,618,502 53% 14,459,288
1932 5,530,315 53% 10,496,082
1933 5,815,076 53% 11,036,535
1934 12,031,077 94% 12,765,495
1935 13,787,495 55% 24,908,410
1936 13,597,542 51% 26,688,037
1937 19,222,710 48% 40,424,359
1938 17,317,989 53% 32,486,643
1939 15,459,511 51% 30,544,750
Estimated Figure
Sources:
(Singapore)
1900-12: Statistical Tables Relating to the Colonial and Other Possessions of The United Kingdom
1933-37: Report on Foreign Imports and Exports, British Malaya
(Straits Settlements)
91
Secondly, total export values on M&E for the period 1913-23 and 1928-32 were
estimated based on the average percentage between import and export values on M&E
for the year 1910-12 and 1924 (See details in Table 2.25). Finally net imports were
derived by subtracting the value of exports from imports for the period 1900-39.
Table 2.25
Estimating Singapore’s Net Imports of Transport, Machinery and Equipment for
the period 1913-23 and 1928-32
(Straits $)
Imports [1]/[3] Exports [2]/[3] Total trade Net Imports
[1] [2] [3] [1]-[2]
1900 2,789,534 77% 828,767 23% 3,618,301 1,960,767
1901 2,844,144 77% 867,112 23% 3,711,256 1,977,032
1902 1,996,283 73% 750,491 27% 2,746,774 1,245,792
1903 3,107,048 79% 841,909 21% 3,948,957 2,265,139
1904 1,762,233 71% 710,643 29% 2,472,876 1,051,590
1905 1,902,332 69% 853,504 31% 2,755,836 1,048,828
1906 2,493,448 75% 843,608 25% 3,337,056 1,649,840
1907 2,967,486 70% 1,282,859 30% 4,250,345 1,684,627
1908 3,368,956 81% 801,176 19% 4,170,132 2,567,780
1909 3,087,451 77% 917,596 23% 4,005,047 2,169,855
1910 3,875,828 72% 1,515,728 28% 5,391,556 2,360,100
1911 3,644,147 68% 1,740,194 32% 5,384,341 1,903,953
1912 4,294,793 67% 2,123,872 33% 6,418,665 2,314,790
1913 4,707,839 69% 2,132,350 31% 6,840,188 2,575,489
1914 3,169,654 69% 1,435,651 31% 4,605,305 1,734,004
1915 2,017,744 69% 913,909 31% 2,931,653 1,103,835
1916 4,683,653 69% 2,121,395 31% 6,805,049 2,562,258
1917 5,395,392 69% 2,443,767 31% 7,839,159 2,951,625
1918 3,953,949 60% 2,635,966 40% 6,589,915 1,317,983
1919 9,075,010 60% 6,050,007 40% 15,125,017 3,025,003
1920 29,519,100 60% 19,679,400 40% 49,198,500 9,839,700
1921 12,013,056 60% 8,008,704 40% 20,021,759 4,004,352
1922 5,227,854 60% 3,485,236 40% 8,713,090 1,742,618
1923 8,735,505 60% 5,823,670 40% 14,559,175 2,911,835
1924 12,566,154 60% 8,288,299 40% 20,854,453 5,253,258
1925 22,650,025 61% 14,577,710 39% 37,227,735 10,535,117
1926 28,861,834 73% 10,739,152 27% 39,600,986 15,789,544
1927 23,421,318 63% 13,924,529 37% 37,345,847 11,553,270
1928 22,647,239 68% 2,812,682 32% 25,459,921 19,834,558
1929 23,832,851 68% 1,970,445 32% 25,803,295 21,862,406
1930 14,731,930 68% 1,541,426 32% 16,273,355 13,190,504
1931 7,618,502 71% 1,294,530 29% 8,913,032 6,323,971
1932 5,530,315 71% 1,036,928 29% 6,567,243 4,493,387
1933 5,815,076 71% 2,387,656 29% 8,202,732 3,427,420
1934 12,031,077 82% 2,668,216 18% 14,699,293 9,362,861
1935 13,787,495 81% 3,196,168 19% 16,983,663 10,591,327
1936 13,597,542 80% 3,355,608 20% 16,953,150 10,241,934
1937 19,222,710 80% 4,737,509 20% 23,960,219 14,485,201
1938 17,317,989 78% 4,812,617 22% 22,130,606 12,505,372
1939 15,459,511 77% 4,591,334 23% 20,050,845 10,868,177
Estimated Figure
Sources:
1900-01: Statistical Tables Relating to the Colonial and Other Possessions of The United Kingdom
1933-37: Returns of Foreign Imports and Exports, British Malaya
92
In the post-war period, the presentation of trade data changed significantly. The
Report on External Trade of Singapore treated Singapore as an entity and provided
figures on net imports of machinery for the period 1956-60. However, prior to 1956 no
statistical data on net imports of machinery and equipment into Singapore was available.
Alternatively, two different methods were employed for the period 1953-55 and 1950-
52 respectively. For the period 1953-55, the ratio of total imports to exports on M&E in
Singapore against the Federation of Malaya’s imports to exports recorded in 1956 was
applied. Subsequently, the percentage contribution of imports and exports of M&E
against Singapore’s total merchandize imports and exports for the year 1953 was
applied for the period 1950-52 (See Table 2.26).
Table 2.26
Estimating Singapore’s Net Imports of Transport, Machinery and Equipment,
1948-60
(Straits $)
Imports of Transport, Machinery and Equipment Total Exports of Transport, Machinery and Equipment Total
Federation of [a]/[b] Singapore [b]/[c] Merchandize Federation of [a]/[b] Singapore [b]/[c] Merchandize
Malaya Imports Malaya Exports
[a] [b] [c] [a] [b] [c]
1950 199,738,539 6.1% 3,273,497,000 1950 143,266,747 4.7% 3,025,750,000
1951 306,744,250 6.1% 5,027,204,000 1951 224,683,264 4.7% 4,745,242,000
1952 228,816,678 6.1% 3,750,056,000 1952 151,498,874 4.7% 3,199,610,000
1953 172,800,000 94% 184,314,024 6.1% 3,020,706,000 1953 14,100,000 11% 125,670,091 4.7% 2,654,114,000
1954 148,700,000 94% 158,608,191 3,024,853,000 1954 9,600,000 11% 85,562,615 2,685,518,000
1955 174,300,000 94% 185,913,972 3,862,736,000 1955 13,700,000 11% 122,104,982 3,368,699,000
1956 231,500,000 94% 246,925,327 3,929,349,000 1956 17,600,000 11% 156,864,795 3,428,975,000
1957 244,900,000 281,354,832 4,091,837,000 1957 25,500,000 172,293,132 3,478,133,000
1958 222,700,000 254,978,710 3,740,065,000 1958 19,100,000 166,727,342 3,140,343,000
1959 242,500,000 225,009,047 3,907,670,000 1959 18,100,000 181,928,013 3,440,263,000
1960 330,300,000 287,421,374 4,077,686,000 1960 30,800,000 232,912,385 3,477,053,000
Imports Exports Net Imports

1950 199,738,539 143,266,747 56,471,792
1951 306,744,250 224,683,264 82,060,987
1952 228,816,678 151,498,874 77,317,804
1953 184,314,024 125,670,091 58,643,932
1954 158,608,191 85,562,615 73,045,575
1955 185,913,972 122,104,982 63,808,989
1956 246,925,327 156,864,795 90,060,532
1957 281,354,832 172,293,132 109,061,700
1958 254,978,710 166,727,342 88,251,368
1959 225,009,047 181,928,013 43,081,034
1960 287,421,374 232,912,385 54,508,989
Sources:
(Federation of Malaya) 1953-60: Monthly Statistical Bulletin, Federation of Malaya
(Singapore) 1956-60: Singapore’s External Trade
No commodity taxes were levied on imports on M&E during this period so that cost,
insurance and freight (c.i.f) and producers’ values were identical. Estimated trade and
transport margins of 16% and 2%54 respectively were added to the producers’ values to
arrive at market prices. The final step was to determine what proportion of net imports
54
Due to the complete absence of information, this study used similar margins introduced by Nazrin (2002: 26)
93
to capitalize. Some of these imports would have been used as inputs in construction
activity, some as part of final consumption expenditure, some as intermediate
consumption (repairs and maintenance) and some as current consumption in the case of
military expenditure. It was not possible to determine these values from historical
records. Consequently, 10% of net import was assigned for the above and the remaining
90% capitalized.55 The results are presented in Table 2.27.
Table 2.27
Singapore: Transport, Machinery and Equipment Investment,
1900-39 and 1950-60 in Current Prices (Straits $)
Singapore Net Imports of Plus 18% [Trade Margin (16%) Investment in Machinery, Transport
M&E (CIF) and Transport (2%)] and Equipment
[1] [2]=[1]x 1.18 [3]=[2] x 90%

1900 1,960,767 2,313,705 2,082,335
1901 1,977,032 2,332,898 2,099,608
1902 1,245,792 1,470,035 1,323,031
1903 2,265,139 2,672,864 2,405,578
1904 1,051,590 1,240,876 1,116,789
1905 1,048,828 1,237,617 1,113,855
1906 1,649,840 1,946,811 1,752,130
1907 1,684,627 1,987,860 1,789,074
1908 2,567,780 3,029,980 2,726,982
1909 2,169,855 2,560,429 2,304,386
1910 2,360,100 2,784,918 2,506,426
1911 1,903,953 2,246,665 2,021,998
1912 2,314,790 2,731,452 2,458,307
1913 2,575,489 3,039,077 2,735,169
1914 1,734,004 2,046,125 1,841,512
1915 1,103,835 1,302,525 1,172,273
1916 2,562,258 3,023,465 2,721,118
1917 2,951,625 3,482,917 3,134,625
1918 1,317,983 1,555,220 1,399,698
1919 3,025,003 3,569,504 3,212,554
1920 9,839,700 11,610,846 10,449,761
1921 4,004,352 4,725,135 4,252,622
1922 1,742,618 2,056,289 1,850,660
1923 2,911,835 3,435,965 3,092,369
1924 5,253,258 6,198,844 5,578,960
1925 10,535,117 12,431,438 11,188,294
1926 15,789,544 18,631,662 16,768,496
1927 11,553,270 13,632,859 12,269,573
1928 19,834,558 23,404,778 21,064,301
1929 21,862,406 25,797,639 23,217,875
1930 13,190,504 15,564,795 14,008,315
1931 6,323,971 7,462,286 6,716,057
1932 4,493,387 5,302,197 4,771,977
1933 3,427,420 4,044,356 3,639,920
1934 9,362,861 11,048,176 9,943,358
1935 10,591,327 12,497,766 11,247,989
1936 10,241,934 12,085,482 10,876,934
1937 14,485,201 17,092,537 15,383,283
1938 12,505,372 14,756,339 13,280,705
1939 10,868,177 12,824,449 11,542,004
1950 56,471,792 66,636,715 59,973,043

1951 82,060,987 96,831,964 87,148,768
1952 77,317,804 91,235,009 82,111,508
1953 58,643,932 69,199,840 62,279,856
1954 73,045,575 86,193,779 77,574,401
1955 63,808,989 75,294,608 67,765,147
1956 90,060,532 106,271,428 95,644,285
1957 109,061,700 128,692,806 115,823,525
1958 88,251,368 104,136,614 93,722,953
1959 43,081,034 50,835,620 45,752,058
1960 54,508,989 64,320,607 57,888,546
55
Due to the complete absence of information, this study used similar margins introduced by Nazrin (2002: 26)
94
2.4.3.3 Investment in M&E in 1914 Prices
No proper price indices were available for Singapore during the British colonial
period. As an alternative option, UK price indices for capital goods on plant and
machinery provided by Feinstein (1972) were utilized on the grounds that Singapore
had imported M&E to a large extent from UK (See Table 2.28). These deflators were
then applied to obtain investment in M&E in constant prices, the data being presented in
Table 2.29.
Table 2.28
Singapore: Deflators for Investment for Machinery, Equipment and Transports
(1914=100)
1900-39 and 1947-60 (1914=100)

1900 101.96 1910 93.77 1920 253.37 1930 123.48 1947 295.68 1957 489.30
1901 96.81 1911 96.81 1921 178.82 1931 115.40 1948 328.55 1958 502.32
1902 92.72 1912 100.91 1922 135.31 1932 115.08 1949 334.11 1959 503.90
1903 90.72 1913 105.00 1923 128.42 1933 110.57 1950 343.14 1960 509.88
1904 90.72 1914 100.00 1924 130.83 1934 117.39 1951 368.24
1905 90.72 1915 127.47 1925 130.41 1935 120.23 1952 409.40
1906 90.72 1916 151.94 1926 127.79 1936 128.21 1953 423.99
1907 93.77 1917 195.72 1927 130.10 1937 147.00 1954 425.04
1908 96.81 1918 215.15 1928 131.88 1938 147.84 1955 445.62
1909 93.77 1919 251.79 1929 135.45 1939 154.46 1956 471.77
Source: Based on Feinstein (1972:T136).
Table 2.29
Singapore: Transport, Machinery and Equipment Investment,
1900-39 and 1950-60 in 1914 Prices
(Straits $)
1900-39and 1950-60 (1914=100)
1900 2,042,406 1910 2,673,094 1920 4,124,390 1930 11,344,603 1950 17,477,718
1901 2,168,792 1911 2,088,625 1921 2,378,224 1931 5,820,059 1951 23,666,617
1902 1,426,987 1912 2,436,259 1922 1,367,683 1932 4,146,661 1952 20,056,793
1903 2,651,651 1913 2,604,923 1923 2,408,106 1933 3,292,109 1953 14,688,992
1904 1,231,028 1914 1,841,512 1924 4,264,282 1934 8,470,362 1954 18,251,082
1905 1,227,795 1915 919,646 1925 8,579,322 1935 9,355,782 1955 15,206,936
1906 1,931,360 1916 1,790,975 1926 13,122,429 1936 8,484,017 1956 20,273,714
1907 1,908,040 1917 1,601,587 1927 9,431,241 1937 10,464,819 1957 23,671,270
1908 2,816,840 1918 650,583 1928 15,972,324 1938 8,983,161 1958 18,658,017
1909 2,457,619 1919 1,275,886 1929 17,141,288 1939 7,472,729 1959 9,079,681
1960 11,353,367
2.4.4 Cultivated Assets
2.4.4.1 Definition
Expenditure on cultivated assets of estates / smallholdings, orchards and vineyards
consists of trees (including shrubs) and are cultivated and take more than a year to
95
become productive for the products that they yield year after year. Cultivated assets
produced on own-account are valued by the value of cost incurred in their production
during the period. For example, the calculation takes into account, the cost of preparing
the ground (including felling, clearing, stumping and burning, soil conservation,
draining and chankolling), lining, holing and planting (including seedlings and plants),
staking, protection from weather or disease (including insecticides, pesticides and
fertilizers applied), pruning, weeding, upkeep, draining, etc, until the trees reach
maturity and start to yield a product.
2.4.4.2 Investment in Cultivated Assets in Current Prices
The perennial crops investment in Singapore examined are rubber and coconut. No
estimates were made for other perennial crops since the investments were negligible.56
Additionally, fruit-bearing trees such as durians, rambutans, chikus, langsat,
mangosteens and mangoes were not estimated because of data unavailability. In
preparing the estimates, all expenses sunk into perennial crops prior to their reaching the
fruit-bearing age were treated as an investment expense. Once the trees began to yield
an income, expenditures on fertilizers and other maintenance were treated as production
expense. The following information was compiled for rubber and coconuts.
(1) Newly planted acreage each year from 1900 to 1939.

(2) Number of years it takes for the crop to reach bearing age.
(3) Cost per acre of bringing the crop into production.
The yearly estimates of real investment in cultivated assets at different years of
maturity are derived by multiplying the total acreage (newly planted) with the
corresponding base year estimates of cost of development per acre at different stages of
maturity. This yearly estimates are then aggregated to arrive at the yearly estimates of
real investments. Subsequently, these estimates of total real investment in cultivated

56
For the period of 1900-39, total newly planted acreage of perennial crops was almost negligible except rubber and coconut as it
is illustrated. Total planted acreage of perennial crops become negligible after the World War II. Based on this recognition,
estimates of investment on perennial crops were only confined to rubber and coconut in this exercise for the period 1900-39. It is
necessary to note that investments on cultivated assets were omitted from official accounts after 1960. This is because planting of
perennial crops was negligible in Singapore.
96
assets are transformed into nominal investment figures based on the nominal earnings
index of rubber tappers (See Figure 2.15). This procedure was resorted to in the absence
of price indices of other components of investment in cultivated assets. Nevertheless,
this was not a major drawback, since wages of rubber tappers was the single largest
component of total investments in cultivated assets. Data series on newly planted
acreage for rubber and coconut were obtained by taking the year-to-year changes in
total planted acreage. This method should give a fairly accurate picture of new plantings
as long as there was not much replanting activity being undertaken. Consider the
following example. If old coconut trees were completely removed and the land
replanted with coconut seedlings, the records will show no change in total planted
acreage of coconuts, and our estimates will understate the actual investment in coconut
planting.
Figure 2.15
Singapore: Format for Calculating Investment on Coconut Planting
1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
Newly Planted Acreage for 1910 [1] 10 10 10 10 10 10
Cost per acre (1911 prices) [2] 50 20 20 20 20 20
Value [A]= [1]x[2] 500 200 200 200 200 200
1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
Newly Planted Acreage for 1911 [3] 30 30 30 30 30 30
Cost per acre (1911 prices) [4] 50 20 20 20 20 20
Value [B]=[3]x[4] 1500 600 600 600 600 600
1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
Investment (1911 prices) [C]=[A]+[B] 500 1700 800 800 800 800 600
Rubber Tappers Indices (1911 prices) [D] 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Investment (Current Prices) [E]=[C]x[D]/100 450 1,700 880 960 1,040 1,120 900
Rubber Tappers Indices (1914 prices) [F] 69 77 85 92 100 108 115

Investment (1914 Prices) [G]=[E]/[F]*100 652 2,208 1,035 1,043 1,040 1,037 783
Instead, if the land was converted to rubber, then the records will show an increase
in total rubber acreage, and this new investment in rubber will be included in our
estimates. The historical records indicate that there were no significant replanting that
were undertaken for the crops considered here, except in the case of rubber.
There were some years in which data on planted acreage were not available and it
was necessary to make some broad assumptions. The method of estimation employed
97
was to assume constant annual increases in newly planted acreage for the missing years.
If the records show a reduction in total acreage planted between any two years, this
estimates show no new plantings and hence no investment in those years. For both
rubber and coconut, a distinction was made between smallholding and estate cultivation.
This is because the cost structure of the estate was considerably higher than that of the
smallholding, necessitating the use of different cost-per-acre estimates when calculating
investments. In some years, the breakdown of total acreage into smallholding and estate
cultivation could be obtained directly from source materials. In other years, this
information was not directly available, and the breakdown was derived in two stages.
First, estate acreage was established based on the assumption that its share of total
acreage was the same as that of the nearest year for which data on both total acreage and
estate acreage were available. Second, smallholding acreage was obtained by taking the
difference between total and estate acreage. The cost-per-acre estimates used was
governed by data availability. The calculations took into account the cost of land
preparation (including felling, clearing, stumping and burning, soil conservation and
draining), lining, holing and planting, protection from weather and disease (including
use of insecticides, pesticides and fertilizer), pruning, weeding, and upkeep until the
trees reached maturity. Contemporary estimates were used wherever possible. Since our
study period spans 40 years (1900-39), an attempt was made to use varying cost
estimates for different sub-periods in order to take into account more accurately changes
in costs over time. For the rubber estate, three sets of cost estimates were used
respectively for the entire period. In the case of rubber smallholdings, however, only
one period was selected due to the general unavailability of data. The estimates for
estates rubber tabulated in Tables 2.30, 2.31 and 2.32 were used in the calculations
covering the period 1900-20, 1921-30 and 1931-39 respectively. Table 2.33 shows the
estimates for rubber smallholdings for the period 1900-39.
98
Table 2.30
Rubber, Cost-per-acre Estimates, Estate, 1900-20 in 1911 Prices
Year
Item Total
1 2 3 4 5 6
Survey 1.00 1.00
Felling, clearing and burning 15.00 15.00
Cleaning up after burning 7.50 7.50
Weeding 18.00 12.00 9.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 54.00
Draining 5.00 5.00
Holing, lining and filling 4.00 4.00
Planting and supplying 2.00 2.00
2 year old plants 4.00 4.00
Tools 10.00 10.00
Management 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 75.00
Hospital, medical attendance 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 22.50
Contingencies 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 12.00
Cultivated Assets 84.75 30.25 27.25 23.25 23.25 23.25 212.00
Source: Figart (1925:90)
Table 2.31
Rubber, Cost-per-acre Estimate, Estate, 1921-30 in 1924 Prices
Year
Item Total
1 2 3 4 5 6
Preliminary Expenses 3.00 3.00
Felling 12.00 12.00
Clearing and burning 40.00 40.00
Stumping and burning 80.00 80.00
Sundry expenses in connection with clearing 4.00 4.00
Soil conservation, draining and chankolling 30.00 30.00
Lining, holing and planting including nurseries 17.00 17.00
Upkeep 12.00 20.00 20.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 97.00
Miscellaneous purchases, etc. 7.00 7.00
General charges: Superintendence, $130, labour charges
35.00 37.00 35.00 36.00 36.00 36.00 215.00
(recruiting, medical expenses, etc) $60, other $25
Source: Figart (1925:52).
Table 2.32
Rubber, Cost-per-acre Estimate, Estate, 1931-39 in 1934 Prices
Year
Item Total
1 2 3 4 5 6
Survey 1.00 1.00
Felling, clearing and burning 10.50 10.50
Cleaning up after burning 5.25 5.25
Weeding 12.60 8.40 6.30 3.50 30.80
Draining 3.50 3.50
Holing, lining and filling 4.00 4.00
Planting and supplying 2.00 2.00
2 year old plants 4.00 4.00
Tools 8.00 8.00
Management 6.66 6.66 6.66 6.66 6.66 6.66 40.00
Hospital, medical attendance 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 12.00
Contingencies 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 6.48
Source: Bauer, P.T.(1948: 129-130)
Table 2.33
Rubber, Cost-per-acre Estimate, Smallholdings, 1900-39 in 1924 Prices
Year
Item Total
1 2 3 4 5 6
Clearing and burning 50.00 50.00
Soil conservation, draining and chankolling 5.00 5.00
Lining, holing and planting including nurseries 5.00 5.00
Upkeep 10.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 50.00
Source: Figart (1925: 90).
99
In the case of coconuts, different cost production estimates were used for estates and
smallholdings. In the case of the former, two sets of estimates were used, one for the
period 1900-27 (Table 2.34) and the other for the period 1928-39 (Table 2.35). The
estimates for smallholdings are shown in Table 2.36. The period to maturity was 6 years
for estates and 8 years for smallholdings. These tables present the estimates on private
investment in coconut planting in each year from 1900-39.
Table 2.34
Coconuts, Cost-per-acre Estimate, Estate, 1900-27 in 1908 Prices
Year
Item Total
1 2 3 4 5 6
Felling and clearing 10.00 10.00
Draining 12.00 12.00
Cost of seed 6.40 6.40
Fencing 2.00 2.00
Lining and planting 2.00 2.00
Tools 2.00 2.00
Stationery and postage 0.10 0.10
Medical 0.10 0.10
Weeding 6.00 12.00 8.40 7.00 7.00 7.00 47.40
Contingencies 1.00 1.00
Superintendence 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 36.00
Supplying 0.60 0.60
Source: Straits Settlements and Federated Malay States (1909). Agricultural Bulletin, No.5, Vol.8, Appendix. B, pp.237-238.
Table 2.35
Coconuts, Cost-per-acre Estimate, Estate, 1928-39 in 1928 Prices
Year
Items Total
1 2 3 4 5
Tools 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 2.00
Felling, burning and clearing 27.00 27.00
Seeds 2.00 2.00
Lining, holing and planting 3.00 3.00
Supplying 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 3.00
Circle cultivation of seedlings 3.00 3.00
Weeding 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.20 21.00
Cover crops 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 4.00
Pests and diseases 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 10.00
Survey Fees, Suprintendence, Medical
7.52 7.52 7.52 7.52 7.52 37.60
& Contingencies and Quit-rent*
Total 50.52 15.52 15.52 15.52 15.52 112.60
Source: Grist, D.H (1950: 113)
Note:
The above estimate does not take into account cost of premium on land , survey fees, permanent buildings, renticing and bunding (at
present 20 cents per foot) and other overhead charges.
* Item 1-9 excludes (i)survey fees, (ii) suprintendence, (iii) medical and contingencies, and (iv) quit-rent. Item 10 [(i)survey fees,
(ii) suprintendence, (iii) medical and contingencies, and (iv) quit-rent]- estimates based on Coconut estates cost structure, 1908.
100
Table 2.36
Coconuts, Cost-per-acre Estimate, Smallholdings, 1900-39 in 1934 Prices
Year
Item Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Seeding 7.00 7.00
Copra sun dried nuts 2.00 2.00
Tools and stores 5.00 5.00
Cover crop 1.00 1.00
Pest and disease 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 4.96
Contingencies 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 6.00
Cultivated Assets 16.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 25.96
Source: Federated Malay States (1932) Third Inter-Departmental Agricultural Conference, Kuala Lumpur: Government Printing
office, Appendix p.5.
Even for the same crop at the same point in time and employing the same type of
cultivation, the costs of opening up an acre of land could vary considerably depending
on location, type of land and other local circumstances. It is, of course, not possible to
cover all cases. Instead it was necessary to resort to some generalizations. Subsequently,
these estimates of total real investment in cultivated assets were transformed into
nominal investment figures based on the nominal rubber tappers’ wage indices.57 The
nominal figures of investments for rubber and coconut planting with breakdown on
estates and smallholdings are presented in Tables 2.37 and 2.38.
57
Blue Book, Straits Settlements, provides information on minimum Indian rubber tappers’ wage for the period 1913-38. For the
year 1939, wage of 1938 was applied. Prior to 1913, no specific wage for rubber tapper was available. As an alternative option, the
movement of wage rate for predial workers provided in Blue Book, Straits Settlements for the period 1900-14 was treated as a
proxy of Indian rubber tappers wage.
101
Table 2.37
Singapore: Rubber, Cultivated Assets, 1900-39 in Current Prices
(Straits $)
Estate Smallholding Total
1900-20 1921-30 1931-39 1900-39
1911 Rubber Current 1924 Rubber Current 1934 Price Rubber Current 1924 Price Rubber Current Current
Price Tappers Prices Price Tappers Prices Tappers Prices Tappers Prices Prices
Earnings Earnings Earnings Earnings
Index Index Index Index
(1911=100) (1924=100) (1934=100) (1924=100)
[1] [2] [3]=[1]*[2] [1] [2] [3]=[1]*[2] [1] [2] [3]=[1]*[2] [1] [2] [3]=[1]*[2]
/100 /100 /100 /100
1900 - 100.00 - 50.00 - 83.33 - - 50.00 - -

1901 - 100.00 - 50.00 - 83.33 - - 50.00 - -
1902 - 100.00 - 50.00 - 83.33 - - 50.00 - -
1903 - 100.00 - 50.00 - 83.33 - - 50.00 - -
1904 6,611 100.00 6,611 50.00 - 83.33 - - 50.00 - 6,611
1905 89,822 100.00 89,822 50.00 - 83.33 - - 50.00 - 89,822
1906 63,006 100.00 63,006 50.00 - 83.33 - - 50.00 - 63,006
1907 271,891 100.00 271,891 50.00 - 83.33 - - 50.00 - 271,891
1908 164,964 100.00 164,964 50.00 - 83.33 - - 50.00 - 164,964
1909 155,202 100.00 155,202 50.00 - 83.33 - 175,009 50.00 87,504 242,706
1910 826,655 100.00 826,655 50.00 - 83.33 - 305,541 50.00 152,771 979,426
1911 866,253 100.00 866,253 50.00 - 83.33 - 263,335 50.00 131,668 997,921
1912 772,926 100.00 772,926 50.00 - 83.33 - 188,397 50.00 94,199 867,125
1913 534,974 150.00 802,461 75.00 - 125.00 - 111,584 75.00 83,688 886,149
1914 452,638 200.00 905,276 100.00 - 166.67 - 230,169 100.00 230,169 1,135,445
1915 439,901 200.00 879,801 100.00 - 166.67 - 92,031 100.00 92,031 971,832
1916 237,135 200.00 474,270 100.00 - 166.67 - 55,645 100.00 55,645 529,915
1917 723,109 200.00 1,446,218 100.00 - 166.67 - 273,975 100.00 273,975 1,720,193
1918 399,690 200.00 799,380 100.00 - 166.67 - 191,545 100.00 191,545 990,925
1919 524,016 320.00 1,676,853 160.00 - 266.67 - 255,994 160.00 409,591 2,086,444
1920 333,790 320.00 1,068,129 160.00 - 266.67 - 122,050 160.00 195,280 1,263,409
1921 305,203 320.00 976,650 - 160.00 - 266.67 - 85,636 160.00 137,018 1,113,667
1922 292,308 200.00 584,616 - 100.00 - 166.67 - 74,352 100.00 74,352 658,968
1923 119,063 200.00 238,127 - 100.00 - 166.67 - 46,648 100.00 46,648 284,775
1924 75,911 200.00 151,823 - 100.00 - 166.67 - 30,072 100.00 30,072 181,895
1925 3,836 200.00 7,673 - 100.00 - 166.67 - 7,736 100.00 7,736 15,409
1926 200.00 - - 100.00 - 166.67 - 1,456 100.00 1,456 1,456
1927 200.00 - - 100.00 - 166.67 - - 100.00 - -
1928 200.00 - - 100.00 - 166.67 - - 100.00 - -
1929 200.00 - - 100.00 - 166.67 - - 100.00 - -
1930 160.00 - - 80.00 - 133.33 - - 80.00 - -
1931 140.00 - - 70.00 - - 116.67 - - 70.00 - -
1932 100.00 - - 50.00 - 405,495 83.33 337,913 - 50.00 - 337,913
1933 112.00 - - 56.00 - 121,420 93.33 113,325 - 56.00 - 113,325
1934 120.00 - - 60.00 - 295,935 100.00 295,935 505,610 60.00 303,366 599,301
1935 140.00 - - 70.00 - 243,376 116.67 283,939 98,874 70.00 69,212 353,151
1936 140.00 - - 70.00 - 144,565 116.67 168,660 62,480 70.00 43,736 212,396
1937 160.00 - - 80.00 - 132,446 133.33 176,594 62,480 80.00 49,984 226,578
1938 160.00 - - 80.00 - 51,805 133.33 69,073 119,040 80.00 95,232 164,305
1939 160.00 - - 80.00 - 46,128 133.33 61,504 76,364 80.00 61,091 122,595
102
Table 2.38
Singapore: Coconuts, Cultivated Assets, 1900-39 in Current Prices
(Straits $)
Estate Smallholding Total
1900-27 1928-39 1900-39
6 years to Maturity (1908=100) 4 years to Maturity (1928=100) 8 years to Maturity (1934=100)
1908 Price Rubber Current 1928 Price Rubber Current 1932 Price Rubber Current Current
Tappers Prices Tappers Prices Tappers Prices Prices
Earnings Earnings Earnings
Index Index Index
(1908=100) (1928=100) (1932=100)
[1] [2] [3]=[1]*[2] [1] [2] [3]=[1]*[2] [1] [2] [3]=[1]*[2]

/100 /100 /100
1900 - 100.00 - 50.00 - - 100.00 - -
1901 58,786 100.00 58,786 50.00 - 19,818 100.00 19,818 78,604
1902 40,984 100.00 40,984 50.00 - 7,705 100.00 7,705 48,689
1903 25,617 100.00 25,617 50.00 - 2,165 100.00 2,165 27,782
1904 163,623 100.00 163,623 50.00 - 50,469 100.00 50,469 214,092
1905 145,526 100.00 145,526 50.00 - 30,132 100.00 30,132 175,658
1906 92,583 100.00 92,583 50.00 - 8,209 100.00 8,209 100,792
1907 322,917 100.00 322,917 50.00 - 96,099 100.00 96,099 419,016
1908 155,129 100.00 155,129 50.00 - 15,565 100.00 15,565 170,694
1909 184,640 100.00 184,640 50.00 - 29,185 100.00 29,185 213,825
1910 106,746 100.00 106,746 50.00 - 14,679 100.00 14,679 121,425
1911 364,899 100.00 364,899 50.00 - 110,652 100.00 110,652 475,551
1912 188,635 100.00 188,635 50.00 - 18,668 100.00 18,668 207,303
1913 100,830 150.00 151,245 75.00 - 16,666 150.00 24,999 176,244
1914 89,050 200.00 178,100 100.00 - 16,666 200.00 33,332 211,432
1915 76,570 200.00 153,140 100.00 - 10,557 200.00 21,114 174,254
1916 76,570 200.00 153,140 100.00 - 10,661 200.00 21,323 174,463
1917 - 200.00 - 100.00 - 8,241 200.00 16,481 16,481
1918 35,462 200.00 70,924 100.00 - 21,683 200.00 43,365 114,289
1919 132,648 320.00 424,474 160.00 - 43,587 320.00 139,478 563,951
1920 56,265 320.00 180,048 160.00 - 4,870 320.00 15,583 195,631
1921 47,260 320.00 151,232 160.00 - 6,116 320.00 19,571 170,803
1922 42,250 200.00 84,500 100.00 - 4,974 200.00 9,948 94,448
1923 42,250 200.00 84,500 100.00 - 4,870 200.00 9,739 94,239
1924 32,565 200.00 65,130 100.00 - 4,765 200.00 9,531 74,661
1925 - 200.00 - 100.00 - 4,765 200.00 9,531 9,531
1926 2,856 200.00 5,712 100.00 - 3,640 200.00 7,281 12,993
1927 1,080 200.00 2,160 100.00 - 104 200.00 209 2,369
1928 900 200.00 1,800 - 100.00 - 104 200.00 209 2,009
1929 780 200.00 1,560 - 100.00 - - 200.00 - 1,560
1930 780 160.00 1,248 581,184 80.00 464,947 20,888 160.00 33,420 499,616
1931 780 140.00 1,092 21,024 70.00 14,717 1,748 140.00 2,447 18,256
1932 - 100.00 - 182,464 50.00 91,232 8,296 100.00 8,296 99,528
1933 112.00 - 26,864 56.00 15,044 2,296 112.00 2,572 17,615
1934 120.00 - 26,864 60.00 16,118 2,296 120.00 2,755 18,874
1935 140.00 - 26,864 70.00 18,805 53,354 140.00 74,696 93,501
1936 140.00 - 5,840 70.00 4,088 6,569 140.00 9,197 13,285
1937 160.00 - 5,840 80.00 4,672 6,569 160.00 10,511 15,183
1938 160.00 - - 80.00 - 4,821 160.00 7,714 7,714
1939 160.00 - - 80.00 - 4,821 160.00 7,714 7,714
2.4.4.3 Investment in Cultivated Assets in 1914 Prices

The aggregated nominal investments of cultivated assets were then deflated by
rubber tappers’ wage indices as illustrated in Table 2.39.58 By utilizing these indices,
cultivated assets in constant prices were obtained and are presented in Table 2.40.
58
Real wage indices of rubber tappers were derived by deflating nominal wage indices by the consumer price indices.
103
Table 2.39
Singapore: Indian Rubber Tapper’s Wage Indices, 1900-39 (1914=100)
1900 50.00 1920 160.00

1901 50.00 1921 160.00 180
1902 50.00 1922 100.00
1903 50.00 1923 100.00 160
1904 50.00 1924 100.00 140
1905 50.00 1925 100.00
1906 50.00 1926 100.00 120
1907 50.00 1927 100.00
1908 50.00 1928 100.00 100
1909 50.00 1929 100.00
80
1910 50.00 1930 80.00
1911 50.00 1931 70.00 60
1912 50.00 1932 50.00
1913 75.00 1933 56.00 40
1914 100.00 1934 60.00
20
1915 100.00 1935 70.00
1916 100.00 1936 70.00 -
1917 100.00 1937 80.00 1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1918 100.00 1938 80.00
1919 160.00 1939 80.00
Source: Blue Book, Straits Settlements, 1900-38.
Table 2.40
Singapore: Cultivated Assets in 1914 Prices, 1900-39
(Straits $)
1900-39 (1914=100)
1900 - 1910 1,964,924 1920 1,958,281 1930 907,778
1901 131,963 1911 2,860,613 1921 1,396,065 1931 32,921
1902 84,863 1912 2,118,880 1922 1,175,007 1932 978,619
1903 48,990 1913 1,424,238 1923 575,530 1933 243,763
1904 389,060 1914 1,346,877 1924 387,926 1934 1,101,203
1905 475,762 1915 1,232,312 1925 38,539 1935 703,827
1906 289,807 1916 801,289 1926 23,011 1936 350,130
1907 1,224,631 1917 2,057,063 1927 3,725 1937 345,771
1908 602,615 1918 1,537,395 1928 3,136 1938 238,974
1909 800,500 1919 2,782,751 1929 2,379 1939 181,813
2.4.5 Change in Stock
2.4.5.1 Definition
Stocks, or inventories, consist mainly of goods that have been purchased for
intermediate consumption but not yet used, goods produced for sale but not yet sold,
(work in progress), and livestock being raised for slaughter. Government stocks of
strategic materials, grains and other goods of special importance to a country in time of
crisis are also included. Work in progress on heavy machinery, ships and similar items
104
are included in stocks, but work in progress on construction is treated as gross fixed
capital formation. The natural increase in standing crops and timber is not included in
stocks, nor are new discoveries (or additions to proven reserves) of mineral resources
such as oil. In practice, problems may arise in drawing the line between the increase in
stocks and gross fixed capital formation for heavy machinery and ships that take a
considerable time to complete. It often happens that the basic data supplied by
producers make no distinction between finished and unfinished work.59
What enters into gross capital formation is not total inventories, but the addition to
inventories in the period of account. Since prices are likely to change over the course of
the period, it is necessary to distinguish between the change in the value of inventories
and the value of the physical change in them. It is the latter that is wanted, valued at
purchasers’ prices when acquired from other units and at producers’ prices when
produced by the unit owning the stocks. The valuation should in principle be at the
prices current at the time the additions to stocks are made, and withdrawals from stocks
for internal processing or for sale should similarly in principle be valued at the prices
current at the time the withdrawal takes place. Work in progress, for which there is
normally no market price, should be valued at explicit cost. In practice, however, it is
almost never possible to follow these principles strictly. In devising alternative methods,
the objective should be to ensure that what is being measured is the change in the
physical quantity of stocks, measured at suitable fixed prices during the whole
accounting period.
2.4.5.2 Methodology for Estimates
Currently, data on the value of stocks are collected in production censuses and
surveys, and in special quarterly or annual surveys of stocks. The colonial government
records, however, did not provide sufficient information to construct reliable estimates.
59
105
Under these serious constraints of data unavailability, an observation was made to
examine whether there is any statistical relationship between GDP growth rate and
value of changes in stocks for the period 1960-2000.60 For the period 1960-2000,
correlations between these variables are 0.42334. The correlation of closest period of
1960-1969 was even higher, that is 0.77217. This correlation test somewhat portrays the
fact that GDP growth rate has been positively correlated with the level of change in
stock.
Subsequently, GDP growth rate and percentage contribution of changes in stock to
GDP for the period 1960-1969 were observed, as is presented in Table 2.41, size of
changes in stock to GDP varied ranging from -1% to 2%.
Table 2.41
Singapore: Change in Stocks as a proportion to GDP, 1960-69
GDP Growth Rate Weights on Changes

(%) in Stock to GDP (%)
1960 2
1961 8 -1
1962 8 1
1963 10 1
1964 -3 -0
1965 9 1
1966 12 2
1967 12 2
1968 14 2
1969 15 2
Source: Department of Statistics, Singapore (1996:56).
Based on this observation, the following ranges of weights were assigned for the
Changes of Stock to GDP in relation to GDP growth rate (See Table 2.42).
Subsequently, similar ranging bands were assigned based on the growth rate of
estimated GDP (exclusive of change of stocks) for the period 1900-39 and 1950-60 as
presented in Table 2.43.
60
Figures obtained from Department of Statistics, Singapore (1996) and Asian Development Bank (2001).
106
Table 2.42
Singapore: Weights Assigned for the Change of Stocks to GDP (%) in relation to
GDP Growth Rate
GDP growth rate Weights on the Changes

(%) of Stock to GDP (%)
Less than -30% -3.0
-21 to -30 -2.5
-12 to -20 -2.0
-9 to -11 -1.5
-6 to -8 -1
-5 to +5 0
6 8 1
9 to 11 1.5
12 to 20 2.0
20 to 30 2.5
More than 30 3.0
Table 2.43
Singapore: Percentage Contributions of Change in Stocks to GDP,
1900-39 and 1950-60
1900 0.0 1910 1.5 1920 0.0 1930 -2.0 1950 0.0
1901 1.5 1911 -1.0 1921 2.5 1931 -3.0 1951 2.0
1902 0.0 1912 -1.5 1922 0.0 1932 -2.0 1952 -1.5
1903 -1.5 1913 0.0 1923 -1.5 1933 2.0 1953 2.5
1904 1.0 1914 1.5 1924 -1.5 1934 -1.0 1954 1.0
1905 2.0 1915 2.5 1925 2.0 1935 2.5 1955 -1.0
1906 1.0 1916 -1.5 1926 0.0 1936 0.0 1956 2.0
1907 0.0 1917 3.0 1927 0.0 1937 2.0 1957 0.0
1908 2.0 1918 2.0 1928 2.5 1938 0.0 1958 0.0
1909 0.0 1919 3.0 1929 2.5 1939 2.0 1959 0.0
1960 1.5
2.4.5.3 Change in Stocks in 1914 Prices
The deflation of change in stocks is complex as it requires an adjustment to remove
stock appreciation in the accounting period as well. Stock appreciation is the change in
the money value of stocks, in the accounting period, which is due to changes in price
rather than changes in physical quantity of stocks. Based on this recognition, import unit
value index was alternatively used as deflator. Admittedly, these arbitrary assignments
of stock values are not entirely satisfactory from a methodological point of view and
further studies need to be made to obtain more refined figures.
107
2.5 Net Exports of Goods and Services
2.5.1 Definition
As is presented in Figure 2.16, Exports and Imports of Goods and Services defined
in SNA68 include merchandize, transport and communication, insurance services and
miscellaneous goods and services.61 The definitions of merchandize trade used in SNA
and in foreign trade statistics are similar in most respects. Merchandize exports are
expressed in f.o.b. transaction values62 while Merchandize imports should be c.i.f.
value.63
Figure 2.16
Classification of Exports and Imports of Goods and Services
[A] Exports of Goods (1+2)

1 Exports of merchandize, f.o.b
2 Adjustment of merchandize exports to change-of-ownership basis
[B] Exports of Services (3+4+5+6+7)
3 Transport and communication
4 Insurance service charges
5 Other commodities
6 Direct purchases in the domestic market of non-resident households
7 Direct purchases in the domestic market of extraterritorial bodies (foreign embassies,
international organizations, foreign armed forces).
[A]+[B] Total Exports of Goods and Services
[A] Imports of Goods (1+2)

1 Imports of merchandize, c.i.f.
1.1 Imports of merchandize, f.o.b.
1.2 Transport services on merchandize imports
1.3 Insurance service charges on merchandize imports
2 Adjustment of merchandize imports to change-of-ownership basis
[B] Imports of Services (3+4+5+6+7)
3 Other Transport and Communication
4 Other Insurance Service Charges
5 Other Commodities
6 Direct purchases abroad by government
7 Direct purchases abroad by resident households.
[A]+[B] Total Exports of Goods and Services
Source: Department of International, Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations (1986:148-149).
61
It refers to the gross margin realized by resident merchants on goods purchased in another country and sold in a third country
and reimbursements of the cost of home office services of parent companies by foreign branches and subsidiaries.
62
In addition to the producer’s value of commodities at the establishment of the exports, f.o.b values include all costs of
transporting the goods to the custom frontier of the exporting country, exports duties and the cost of loading the goods onto the
international carrier.
63
Freight and insurance charges incurred after the merchandize has left the establishment of the exporters and until it reaches the
customs frontier of the importer should be added to its f.o.b. value. Import duties and the cost of unloading the goods from the
carrier are not included in the c.i.f. value.
108
Other than merchandize trade figures provided in foreign trade statistics, a number
of items should be included as service trade. These are (1) fuel and stores sold or
purchased abroad by ships and aircraft operated primarily in international waters by
resident enterprises, (2) repair work done as exports or imports of services. Additionally,
direct purchases in the domestic market by non-resident households are included in
exports of services, and direct purchases abroad by resident households are included as
imports of services. SNA68 includes all purchases by extraterritorial bodies, such as
foreign embassies, international organizations or foreign armed forces, as exports of
country in which the purchases are made.
It is important to note that all transactions in goods and services between residents
and non-residents should in principle be recorded at the moment at which ownership of
the goods passes between buyer and seller in the definition of national accounting. In
other words, trade statistics as represented by the transaction of goods and services
between the national geographical boundaries (ie. across national custom frontiers) does
not provide an actual picture of external trade in the national accounting sense.64
The export and import figures recorded for Singapore during the British colonial
period in official publications essentially referred to imports and exports of goods which
crossed the customs frontier. Since we were not able to identify the ownership of these
goods, data in this series could not be used to provide specific figures for the exports
and imports of goods and services in line with the national accounting framework.
Therefore, only data on net exports of goods and services are presented in order to
overcome this inability to identify transactions involving change in ownership.
64
Practically, it is difficult to quantify the difference between the value of goods that still remain in the country of exporter after
the change in ownership has occurred and the value of goods that have crossed custom boundaries of a country without change in
ownership. (Department of International Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations (1986: 147).
109
2.5.2 Merchandize Trade in Current Prices
2.5.2.1 1900-27 Series
As is presented in Figure 2.17, six different sources on merchandise trade were
available during the 1900-39. For the period 1900-27, the Appendix to the Report on the
Trade, Straits Settlements provided information on Singapore's trade with the Rest Of
the World or ROW (exclusive of trade with the Malay states) and also Singapore's trade
with Malay States. However, this set of data series is no longer available after 1927.
Figure 2.17
Singapore: Statistical Sources of Trade Statistics, 1900-39
Singapore as a Separate Entity (1) + (2)
(1) Singapore's trade with Rest of World (exclusive of trade with Malaya) (2) Singapore's trade with Malaya
1899-1901 1902-1907 1908-12 1900-19 1900-27 1921-37 1928-39 1899-1901 1902-1907 1908-12 1900-19 1900-27 1928-39
1899
STCOP
STCOP
UK
UK
1900
1901
1902
1903
STCPP
STCPP
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
SSBB
SSBB
STBCPP
STBCPP
1909
1910
1911
1912
ARTSS
ARTSS
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
BM
1929
1930
1931
Not Available
1932
FTM
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
Abbreviations:
STCOPUK Statistical Tables Relating to the Colonial and Other Possessions of the United Kingdom
STCPP Statistical Tables Relating to the Colonial and Other Possessions and Protectorates
STBCPP Statistical Tables Relating to British Colonies, Possessions and Protectorates
SSBB Blue Book, Straits Settlements
ARTSS Appendix to the Report on Trade, Straits Settlements
BM Returns of Foreign Imports and Exports, British Malaya
FTM Foreign Trade, Malaya
110
This is mainly because the British colonial authority created British Malaya (Straits
Settlements, Federated Malay States and the five Unfederated Malay States) as one
consolidated administrative entity from 1921 onwards. The Annual Report, Returns of
Imports and Exports, British Malaya provided fairly detailed information on trade such
as the quantity and value of imports / exports as well as the origin and destination of
each item. Singapore was treated as a major entry / exit gate for British Malaya. Data
recorded in the Annual Report, the Foreign Trade of Malaya partially provided trade
figures on Singapore with the ROW (exclusive of trade with the Malay States).
However, data on Singapore's trade with the Malay States became no longer available
due to the termination of compiling trade data which treated Singapore as a separate
entity.
2.5.2.2 1928-39 and 1950-60 Series
For the above time periods, the figures for merchandise trade of Singapore was only
available from 1956 onwards in the Annual Report, Singapore’s External Trade. For the
periods 1928-39 and 1950-55 no official data on total merchandise trade of Singapore
was available. Given this scenario, estimates constructed by G.W. Huff for the missing
years were utilized.
2.5.3 Merchandise Trade and its Adjustment
By nature, a number of reasons can be listed for discrepancies in trade statistics
including but not limited to false invoicing of imports and exports, simple errors in
counting and recording, time lags, and smuggling. In fact, sudden fluctuation of trade
import and export value for several years seems quite impossible to explain when we
aggregate the other components of GDP. Therefore, in order to check the reliability of
trade figures, quantitative investigations were made by observing the net import value
of selected major categories. Here, it is assumed that the quantity of net imports retained
111
in the domestic market was fully consumed (exclusive of stock) by both resident and
non-resident households at market prices. In this exercise, the net import value of
manufactured textiles retained in Singapore was computed for the period 1900-27 based
on the Appendix to the Report on Trade, Straits Settlements. Subsequently, this data
series was compared with private final consumption expenditure on clothing in the
domestic market.
Generally, net import values on manufactured textiles were always higher than that
of private final consumption expenditure on clothing. In addition, it was found that the
total net import value of food and beverages was generally higher than that of private
final consumption expenditure on these items save for a couple of years. Based on this
observation, it was decided to adjust the import value of merchandise items accordingly.
The resulting adjusted net exports in current prices for the period 1900-39 and 1950-60
are presented in Table 2.44.
Table 2.44
Singapore: Merchandize Net Exports in Current Prices,
1900-39 and 1950-60
(Straits $ Millions)
Merchandize Net Exports at Current Prices
1900 -28.3 1920 -117.5 1950 -247.7
1901 -25.8 1921 -77.7 1951 -282.0
1902 -26.9 1922 -43.6 1952 -550.4
1903 -33.6 1923 -63.2 1953 -366.6
1904 -34.7 1924 -85.3 1954 -339.3
1905 -28.7 1925 -87.3 1955 -494.0
1906 -24.4 1926 -106.6 1956 -500.4
1907 -29.4 1927 -137.6 1957 -613.7
1908 -25.1 1928 -106.5 1958 -599.7
1909 -25.3 1929 -64.9 1959 -467.4
1910 -24.4 1930 -57.0 1960 -600.6
1911 -32.1 1931 -64.2
1912 -44.7 1932 -57.8
1913 -54.0 1933 -16.7
1914 -49.5 1934 -36.8
1915 -35.4 1935 -28.8
1916 -51.4 1936 -44.0
1917 -45.3 1937 -45.1
1918 -65.7 1938 -74.0
1919 -44.3 1939 -61.9
112
2.5.4 Services Trade, 1900-39 and 1950-60
2.5.4.1 Observation of Post 1960’s official data
In contrast to the merchandise trade which is based essentially on official records,
no direct information is available on trade in services for the period 1900-39 and 1950-
60. Official figures on trade in services for Singapore only can be traced from the
Balance of Payments Accounts which became available beginning in 1960. The
percentage contribution of services trade changed over time. In 1960, the percentage
contribution of service exports to total goods and services exported was 16.7% and its
proportion increased to 24.5% by 1970. On the other hand, the percentage contribution
of service imports (exclusive of freight and insurance) to total goods and services
imported was negligible. In 1960, the figure was only 1.7% and its proportion increased
slightly to 3.3% by 1970. The percentage contribution of merchandise trade has varied
over time and its composition has been subject to change. Therefore, the conversion
ratio method might not be favorable to identify the value of service trade for Singapore.
Due to the deficiencies of available information on the service trade, two possible areas
of estimates were deemed to be feasible, namely the (i) trade of goods and services
made in port and (ii) non-resident consumption made in the domestic market. The
following procedures were applied for their estimation for the period 1900-39 and 1950-
60.
2.5.4.2 Exports of Bunker Coal and Petroleum to Foreign Ships
It is assumed that a major portion of coal retained in Singapore (total imports less
total exports of coal) was utilized for the supply of bunker coal to foreign ships. Trade
information was derived from the Statistical Tables Relating to the Colonial and Other
Possessions of The United Kingdom for the period 1900-01, Statistical Tables Relating
to the Colonial and Other Possessions and Protectorates for the period 1902-07 and
Statistical Tables Relating to British Self-Governing Dominions, Crown Colonies,
113
Possessions and Protectorates for the period 1908-12. No figures were available for the
period of 1913-21. Alternatively, the movement of revenue derived from wharfage,
storage and stevedorage were applied. Subsequently for the period 1922-39, The
Foreign Trade of Malaya provided figures on bunker coal supplied to ships in
Singapore and Penang respectively. Unfortunately, a disaggregated figure for Singapore
was not available. Therefore, the proportion for Singapore was estimated based on the
number of vessels that entered Singapore and Penang. After World War II, net import
figures of coal were again not available. However, the outward movement of outwards
tonnage on coal ships from Singapore which was provided for in the Singapore
Harbour Board Report, 1963 was utilized as a proxy to estimate the figure on sales of
coal.
Due to the technological innovation, some ships started to use petroleum. Singapore
served as a supplier of Petroleum. The Foreign Trade of Malaya provided data for the
petroleum sold for ships entering Singapore for the period 1922-38. After World War II,
no direct information was available. Alternatively, the movement of inward and
outwards tonnage on petroleum ships from Singapore which was provided in the
Singapore Harbour Board Report, 1963 was utilized as the proxy to estimate the figure
of sales of petroleum to the ships.
2.5.4.3 Sale of Water to Foreign Ships
The Annual Administration Report on Singapore Municipality provided information
on the sale of water to ships for the period 1918-39. The Annual Administration Report
of City Council, Singapore also provided specific revenue obtained from the sale of
water to ships for the period 1950-59. No figures were available prior to 1918. Thus, an
estimation procedure was applied to fill the gap for the period 1900-17. Due to the
deficiencies of data, the movement of revenue derived from wharfage, storage and
stevedorage were applied to calculate water revenue during the said period.
114
2.5.4.4 Revenue collection based on services provided by the Singapore Harbour
Board
The Annual Report, Singapore Harbour Board provided the revenue collected from
services provided to foreign ships by docks and machine shops. Additionally, the
Singapore Harbour Board collected revenue from services on wharfage, storage and
stevedorage. Statistical figures on the above-mentioned revenue were available for the
period 1910-36 and 1950-60. Prior to 1910, the movement of earnings from the sale of
coal was applied as a proxy to estimate the revenue earned from wharfage, storage and
stevedorage.
2.5.4.5 Revenue collected by The Colony of Singapore
The Blue Book, Straits Settlements provided figures on revenue from port and
harbour dues in Singapore. The revenue collection was terminated by 1913.
2.5.4.6 Private Final Consumption Expenditure by Non-residents in the Domestic

Market
A large number of foreign ship passengers purchased goods and services in the
territory of Singapore. Additionally, many diplomatic missions were located in
Singapore. Most western industrialized countries and Japan stationed embassies or high
commissions in Singapore but the data on the actual number of people employed was
not available. Most importantly, there was a massive number of immigrants, mainly
from mainland China, who entered Singapore for a short period before departing to
another part of British Malaya as well as other countries in the South East Asian region.
2.5.5 External Trade of Goods and Services in 1914 Prices
2.5.5.1 Construction of Import and Export Unit Value Indices, 1900-39 and
1950-60 (1914=100)
In the economy of any country there are a large variety of trading goods and
services. From one period to the next, both the quantity and price of these goods and
115
services are subject to change due to the transition of market structure. Price indices of
imports and exports attempt to isolate the effects of price changes on the value of these
goods and services and measure the aggregate effect of these changes in a single
number. For the construction of price indices, three different types of indicies can be
constructed, namely, the Laspeyres Price Index, Paasche Price Index and Fisher Price
Index. The most commonly used indices are the fixed weight indices where quantities
are held constant for either some past period or the current period. The Laspeyres Index
keeps the quantities (Q) fixed for some period in the past (0). In its simplest form, it is a
ratio of what it costs today to purchase the same set of goods and services that were
purchased in a specific previous period. The Paasche index keeps the quantities fixed at
their levels in the current period (t). In its simplest form, it is the ratio of what today’s
purchases cost compared to what they would have cost in the previous period. Both of
these indices fail the time reversal, circularity and factor reversal tests. There are classes
of indices, called superlative indices, which pass the factor reversal test and have the
property of being a closer approximation to the ideal consumer utility function than the
Paasche or Laspeyres. These indices use weight information from two periods. The
simplest of these indices is the Fisher index which is the geometric mean (square root)
of the Laspeyres and Paasche index.
Fixed-base indices such as Laspeyres and Paasche have a common point of
comparison to which all price measures are related. Chained indices use a current period
as the point of reference and then link the index for this period to that of the previous
period. When the comparison point is changed in fixed-base indices, the entire series
must be recalculated using the aggregation weights of the new comparison point.
External trade is usually covered through export and import price indices which
measure the change in prices of representative export and import transactions. When
specific information from exporters and importers cannot be obtained, unit values
(average prices for specific products) were used as a proxy for prices to compute indices.
116
The use of chained-Laspeyres price indices with annual weight updates are an
appropriate measure of price change for National Accounting. Therefore, chained
Laspeyres indices were utilized as an appropriate proxy for these estimates.65 In the
case of Singapore, the feature of import and export unit value indices was quite different
from other countries. For example in the case of neighboring country like Malaya, the
export unit value indices could be constructed based on a few major export commodities
such as rubber and tin since the price movements of these few items can represent the
pattern of total merchandize exports. On the other hand, the movement of import unit
value indices of Malaya followed in tandem with that of the Consumer Price Indices
(CPI) since Malaya mainly imported various consumer items due to the lack of a local
food production and manufacturing base. Therefore, the level and movement of export
and import unit value indices in Malaya were very different throughout the period.
In the case of Singapore, however, the level and movement of export and import
unit value indices was almost identical. As is illustrated in Table 2.45, the official
import and export price indices of Singapore (1990=100) was fairly close to each other
in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s and subsequently even in the first half of the 1990s the
price indices did not deviate very much. This phenomenon can be explained because
Singapore served as an entrepôt. The bulk of the items imported into Singapore were re-
exported to other parts of world. Based on this observation, it would be safe to assume
that this situation prevailed retrospectively during the 1900-39 and 1950-60 time
periods. The nature of statistical data that was available necessitated the construction of
import / export price indices for three different periods, namely the 1900-27, 1928-39
and 1950-60 series.
65
Currently, Department of Statistics Singapore conducts compilation of Export and Import Unit Value Indices using the
Laspeyres formula (Department of Statistics, Singapore, 2008).
117
Table 2.45
Singapore: Imports and Export Price Index for Goods and Services,
1960-95 (1990=100)
Exports of Imports of Exports of Imports of Exports of Imports of Exports of Imports of
Goods and Goods and Goods and Goods and Goods and Goods and Goods and Goods and
Services Services Services Services Services Services Services Services
1960 52.5 53.4 1970 52.6 53.5 1980 113.1 116.1 1990 100.0 100.0
1961 52.5 53.4 1971 53.2 54.1 1981 116.9 119.7 1991 97.6 96.4
1962 52.5 53.4 1972 53.4 54.4 1982 116.6 117.2 1992 94.0 93.0
1963 52.4 53.3 1973 60.5 61.6 1983 111.0 111.2 1993 93.1 91.9
1964 53.3 54.2 1974 85.4 85.7 1984 104.9 106.2 1994 92.1 89.2
1965 53.0 53.9 1975 86.1 86.7 1985 103.3 105.1 1995 91.3 88.1
1966 50.7 51.6 1976 91.9 92.6 1986 89.5 91.1
1967 51.0 51.9 1977 95.6 96.7 1987 96.3 98.7
1968 48.2 49.0 1978 97.5 98.8 1988 97.9 99.4
1969 50.2 51.1 1979 102.8 104.9 1989 99.3 99.9
Source: Department of Statistics, Singapore (1996: 62-63).
2.5.5.1.1 1900-27 series
For this period, the Appendix to the Report on the Trade, Straits Settlements
provided trade statistics of Singapore as an entity. Fortunately this report provided value
of merchandize imports and exports by class of commodities, viz [A] Live animals,
food, drinks and narcotics, [B] Raw materials and [C] Manufactured and partly
manufactured articles. In the case of Class [B] and Class [C] further breakdown was
made for [a] Textile goods, [b] Metal goods and [c] Others (See Table 2.46) and the
price indices which represent each component were chosen and used for each class of
commodities. Weights of each major class of commodities for imports / exports varied
over time. In particular, weights on food, drinks and narcotics have frequently changed.
As presented in Table 2.47, Import unit value indices made use of 7 time intervals,
namely 1900-08, 1908-14, 1914-16, 1916-19, 1919-20, 1920-22 and 1922-27. Weights
being chosen for import unit value indices for the years 1904, 1914, 1916, 1918,
1919,1921 and 1923. In the case of export unit value indices, 8 time intervals were
determined, namely 1900-08, 1908-14, 1914-16, 1916-19, 1919-20, 1920-22, 1922-25
and 1925-27. The weights chosen were for the years 1904, 1914, 1916, 1918, 1919,
1921, 1924 and 1927 (See Table 2.48). The various interval series were then chained at
their overlapping years to generate a continuous import and export unit value index
series with 1914 as the reference year by applying the conversion factors.
118
Table 2.46
Singapore: Price Indices by Class of Commodities, 1900-27 (1914=100)
A- Live Animals, B- Raw Materials C- Manufactured and Partly

Food, Drinks and Manufactured Articles
Narcotics
Total [a] Textiles [b] Metal [c] Other [a] Textiles [b] Metal [c] Other
Food & Beverage Clothing Tin Price Rubber Price Clothing Tin Price UK M&E
Indices Indices Indices Indices* Indices Indices Indices
1900 81.97 78.94 88.74 100.07 78.94 88.74 101.96 1900
1901 82.91 84.45 78.81 120.10 84.45 78.81 96.81 1901
1902 85.51 86.79 80.13 141.52 86.79 80.13 92.72 1902
1903 85.51 92.79 84.11 126.54 92.79 84.11 90.72 1903
1904 87.28 90.19 84.11 97.25 90.19 84.11 90.72 1904
1905 90.18 87.98 94.70 92.44 87.98 94.70 90.72 1905
1906 87.80 84.42 119.87 101.20 84.42 119.87 90.72 1906
1907 85.69 82.99 114.57 81.52 82.99 114.57 93.77 1907
1908 87.02 86.31 88.08 80.32 86.31 88.08 96.81 1908
1909 85.83 76.42 89.40 99.55 76.42 89.40 93.77 1909
1910 87.09 84.38 102.65 121.51 84.38 102.65 93.77 1910
1911 102.81 84.03 127.15 104.44 84.03 127.15 96.81 1911
1912 105.84 83.07 138.41 106.75 83.07 138.41 100.91 1912
1913 105.09 99.53 133.77 97.26 99.53 133.77 105.00 1913
1914 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 1914
1915 104.73 138.32 108.61 109.11 138.32 108.61 127.47 1915
1916 106.47 161.28 120.53 124.54 161.28 120.53 151.94 1916
1917 115.77 144.02 157.62 122.72 144.02 157.62 195.72 1917
1918 139.48 189.80 218.54 97.27 189.80 218.54 215.15 1918
1919 183.87 229.60 170.86 90.02 229.60 170.86 251.79 1919
1920 243.98 291.60 196.03 80.92 291.60 196.03 253.37 1920
1921 167.96 237.20 109.27 34.76 237.20 109.27 178.82 1921
1922 144.20 182.80 105.96 33.85 182.80 105.96 135.31 1922
1923 144.28 163.60 133.77 55.70 163.60 133.77 128.42 1923
1924 144.61 157.10 164.90 50.48 157.10 164.90 130.83 1924
1925 149.58 158.10 172.85 127.51 158.10 172.85 130.41 1925
1926 158.49 157.50 192.72 86.38 157.50 192.72 127.79 1926
1927 154.85 155.40 191.39 67.06 155.40 191.39 130.10 1927
Notes: The following price indices were applied for the construction of weighted import and export unit value indices.
[A] Live animals, food, drinks and narcotics: Weighted food & beverage price indices which is constructed in the Consumer Price
Indices by major object of consumption for the Private Final Consumption Expenditure.
[B] Raw materials
[1] Textiles: Weighted Clothing Price Indices which is constructed in the Consumer Price Indices by major object of consumption
for the Private Final Consumption Expenditure.
[2] Metal: Tin Export Price Indices,
[3] Other: Rubber Price Indices
[C] Manufactured and Partly Manufactured Articles.
[1] Textiles: Weighted Clothing Price Indices,

[2] Metal: Tin Price Indices.
[3] Other: UK Price Indices of Machinery & Equipment
*In the beginning of the 20th century, rubber was not the major commodity item. Its importance only emerged in 1908 and drastic
expansion was only experienced after 1910. Alternatively, rubber and other staple commodities weighted indices were applied for
the period 1900-14.
119
Table 2.47
Singapore: Import Unit Value Indices, 1900-27 (1914=100)
Weights Base Year
A- Live Animals, Food, Drinks and Narcotics Total Food & Beverage Indices 0.4189
[a] Textiles Clothing Indices 0.0096
B- Raw Materials [b] Metal Tin Price Indices 0.1720
1900-1908 [c] Other Rubber and Staple Commodities Weighted Price Indices 1904
0.2040
C- Manufactured and Partly Manufactured
[b] Metal Tin Price Indices 0.0358
Articles
[c] Other UK M&E Indices 0.0640
1908-1914 [c] Other Rubber and Other Commodities Weighted Price Indices 1914
0.2362
Articles
1914-1916 [c] Other Rubber Price Indices 0.3564 1916
Articles
Articles
Articles
Articles
Articles
120
Table 2.48
Singapore: Export Unit Value Indices, 1900-27 (1914=100)
Weights Base Year
1900-1908 [c] Other Rubber and Staple Commodities Weighted Price Indices 1904
0.2030
Articles
1908-1914 [c] Other Rubber and Other Commodities Weighted Price Indices 1914
0.2659
Articles
Articles
Articles
Articles
Articles
Articles
Articles
121
2.5.5.1.2 1928-39 and 1950-60 Series
The termination of the collection of trade figures whereby Singapore was treated as
a separate entity in 1927 meant that the previous time series database were no longer
available beginning in 1928. W.G. Huff’s time series database on major export
commodities of Singapore were instead utilized for the period 1928-39 and 1950-60
(See Table 2.49).
Table 2.49
Singapore: Export Value and Quantity by Major Commodity Goods 1927-39 and
1949-60 (based on figures by W.G. Huff )
Tin Rubber Petroleum Canned pineapples Palm oil
Value Volume Unit Value Volume Unit Value Volume Unit Value Volume Unit Value Volume Unit
($,000) (tons) Value ($,000) (tons) Value ($,000) (tons) Value ($,000) (tons) Value ($,000) (tons) Value
1927 91,929 37,634 2.44 271,354 200,307 1.35 73,659 466,257 0.16 7,494 36,259 0.21 1927
1928 82,565 42,756 1.93 162,407 201,263 0.81 61,577 417,443 0.15 7,761 42,739 0.18 1928
1929 76,560 43,352 1.77 183,592 253,875 0.72 49,494 368,629 0.13 8,735 55,352 0.16 1929
1930 47,257 37,468 1.26 100,461 233,799 0.43 57,298 405,616 0.14 7,297 53,515 0.14 1930
1931 29,800 29,784 1.00 49,937 220,545 0.23 65,101 442,603 0.15 6,545 54,620 0.12 1931
1932 24,565 20,840 1.18 28,536 184,296 0.15 58,145 420,106 0.14 7,002 58,139 0.12 1932
1933 51,208 30,913 1.66 45,451 230,352 0.20 42,285 394,082 0.11 5,382 51,769 0.10 1,031 9,202 0.11 1933
1934 45,333 23,550 1.92 124,045 315,990 0.39 44,649 453,958 0.10 5,971 57,166 0.10 1,034 12,603 0.08 1934
1935 52,725 27,999 1.88 112,379 258,579 0.43 50,911 511,457 0.10 6,644 60,481 0.11 2,528 18,045 0.14 1935
1936 63,457 37,511 1.69 131,428 218,697 0.60 42,416 480,939 0.09 7,099 64,243 0.11 3,066 21,478 0.14 1936
1937 77,692 38,150 2.04 206,172 285,933 0.72 54,047 627,518 0.09 6,988 65,197 0.11 4,834 28,344 0.17 1937
1938 39,082 24,784 1.58 120,511 225,751 0.53 54,924 742,949 0.07 6,372 64,382 0.10 4,063 33,111 0.12 1938
1939 69,527 36,044 1.93 178,765 259,238 0.69 52,561 681,242 0.08 8,869 74,050 0.12 3,472 36,061 0.10 1939
1949 120,591 23,935 5.04 381,691 484,848 0.79 121,621 1,522,957 0.08 5,551 7,115 0.78 24,407 35,004 0.70 1949
1950 207,190 35,855 5.78 1,405,274 655,025 2.15 160,677 1,906,991 0.08 11,049 13,173 0.84 22,243 34,475 0.65 1950
1951 261,457 29,399 8.89 2,518,844 750,221 3.36 201,701 1,880,855 0.11 15,714 15,761 1.00 26,434 31,192 0.85 1951
1952 217,429 27,013 8.05 915,895 555,343 1.65 307,796 2,358,420 0.13 11,625 10,913 1.07 30,302 31,865 0.95 1952
1953 172,292 26,853 6.42 750,764 506,480 1.48 341,584 2,613,622 0.13 17,797 16,264 1.09 17,710 26,174 0.68 1953
1954 195,912 33,263 5.89 785,088 555,297 1.41 350,556 2,732,430 0.13 23,461 19,890 1.18 15,822 23,645 0.67 1954
1955 202,192 33,322 6.07 1,399,635 604,152 2.32 371,097 3,115,858 0.12 27,172 25,898 1.05 17,810 27,153 0.66 1955
1956 138,657 21,330 6.50 1,216,551 596,600 2.04 446,236 2,936,508 0.15 29,048 28,333 1.03 20,737 28,996 0.72 1956
1957 133,562 20,843 6.41 1,171,094 617,198 1.90 444,964 3,005,649 0.15 31,229 34,837 0.90 16,516 22,094 0.75 1957
1958 48,337 7,884 6.13 1,045,556 650,204 1.61 370,308 2,459,169 0.15 31,145 38,754 0.80 17,730 27,867 0.64 1958
1959 4,448 677 6.57 1,533,074 722,580 2.12 371,657 2,494,965 0.15 26,586 36,599 0.73 19,078 26,026 0.73 1959
1960 5,161 775 6.66 1,426,513 598,378 2.38 379,209 2,687,573 0.14 25,243 35,937 0.70 23,811 33,767 0.71 1960
Source: Huff (1994: 372-385).
Given that the information on import value and volume was rather weak, it was
assumed that the export unit value indices would be a good proxy for the import unit
value index, an assumption not altogether unreasonable as seen from the data shown in
Table 2.45 for the years 1960-95. Based on the information on value and volume of
exports of tin, rubber, petroleum, canned pineapples and palm oil, the unit value of each
commodity was derived. During the period 1927-60 (excluding the year 1940-49), the
criteria for the selection of intervals and their base years include the element of relative
stability of the export share of commodities. Eleven intervals were set, namely 1927-28,
1928-29, 1929-30, 1930-31, 1931-32, 1932-34, 1934-39, 1939-51, 1951-53, 1953-58
and 1958-60 and the commodity weights for the respective base years 1928, 1929, 1930,
122
1931, 1932, 1934, 1936, 1950, 1953, 1957 and 1959 were identified. These staple
commodities based export unit value indices, however, only accounted for 30-50% of
total merchandize exports of Singapore. Thus, it was necessary to consider other trade
items such as food, beverages and tobacco, clothing, transport, etc. Unfortunately, it was
impossible to trace the specific unit value for many items. As an alternative the CPI was
introduced. Weights on CPI were obtained as residuals of major commodity exports to
total merchandize exports (See Table 2.50).
By linking the two separate series of import and export unit value indices, separate
set of import and export unit value indices (1914=100) for the period 1900-39 and
1950-60 were obtained. As can be seen from the Table 2.51 and Figure 2.18, both
import and export unit value indices for the period 1900-39 and 1950-60 (1914=100)
moved very much in tandem although levels differed slightly.
123
Table 2.50
Singapore: Export Unit Value Index, 1927-39 and 1950-60 (1914=100)
Items Weights of Export Weights of Export Base year
Items Commodity Items and CPI
Tin 0.2627
Rubber 0.5167
0.4692
1927-28 Canned pineapples 0.0247 1928
Petroleum 0.1959
CPI 0.5308
Tin 0.2405
Rubber 0.5766
0.4611
Petroleum 0.1555
CPI 0.5389
Tin 0.2226
Rubber 0.4732
0.4020
Petroleum 0.2699
CPI 0.5980
Tin 0.1969
Rubber 0.3299
0.4619
Petroleum 0.4300
CPI 0.5381
Tin 0.2077
Rubber 0.2413
0.4356
Petroleum 0.4917
CPI 0.5644
Tin 0.2118
Rubber 0.5796 0.5428
1932-34 1934
Petroleum 0.2086
CPI 0.4572
Tin 0.2564
Rubber 0.5311
Petroleum 0.1714 0.5588
1934-39 1936
Canned pineapples 0.0287
Palm oil 0.0124
CPI 0.4412
Tin 0.1147
Rubber 0.7779
Petroleum 0.0889 0.6023
1939,1949-51 1950
Palm oil 0.0123
CPI 0.3977
Tin 0.1713
Rubber 0.8225
Petroleum 0.2624 0.4899
1951-53 1953
Palm oil 0.0191
CPI 0.5101
Tin 0.0743
Rubber 0.6516
Petroleum 0.2476 0.5168
1953-1958 1957
Palm oil 0.0092
CPI 0.4832
Tin 0.0023
Rubber 0.7842
Petroleum 0.1901 0.5682
1958-60 1959
Palm oil 0.0098
CPI 0.4318
124
Table 2.51
Singapore: Import Unit Value Indices and Export Unit Value Indices,
1900-39 and 1950-60 (1914=100)
Import Unit Export Unit Import Unit Export Unit Import Unit Export Unit Import Unit Export Unit Import Unit Export Unit
Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value
Indices Indices Indices Indices Indices Indices Indices Indices Indices Indices
1900 87.68 87.24 1910 98.21 99.49 1920 189.99 177.60 1930 78.26 76.90 1950 235.24 231.13
1901 90.33 89.82 1911 105.98 106.68 1921 117.89 116.09 1931 64.84 63.70 1951 332.36 326.55
1902 96.03 95.60 1912 110.11 110.97 1922 100.81 99.74 1932 55.87 54.89 1952 273.39 263.69
1903 94.31 94.05 1913 108.07 108.47 1923 113.59 110.37 1933 53.14 55.47 1953 232.56 228.50
1904 88.83 88.58 1914 100.00 100.00 1924 119.72 113.46 1934 68.67 67.47 1954 226.04 222.09
1905 91.02 90.95 1915 110.78 110.24 1925 149.97 145.08 1935 69.73 68.51 1955 266.17 261.52
1906 96.64 96.99 1916 121.89 121.22 1926 137.37 132.91 1936 72.66 71.39 1956 258.56 254.04
1907 90.71 90.93 1917 131.16 131.05 1927 126.37 124.16 1937 80.37 78.97 1957 252.80 248.38
1908 86.08 85.79 1918 144.57 145.01 1928 103.98 102.16 1938 69.01 67.80 1958 243.88 239.61
1909 89.45 89.87 1919 150.70 154.34 1929 98.40 96.68 1939 76.98 75.63 1959 267.22 262.55
1960 273.29 268.51
Figure 2.18
Singapore: Import Unit Value Indices and Export Unit Value Indices,
1900-39 and 1950-60 (1914=100)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
-
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
Export Unit Value Indices Import Unit Value Indices
2.5.5.2 Deflators for Port Services
There were no price indices which could represent the price movement of port
services such as bunkering and water supply services, revenue from the services on port
wharfage, storage and stevedorage and port harbour dues. Hence, as an alternative, the
weighted price indices on fuel and communication of the United Kingdom were applied
(See Table 2.52).
125
Table 2.52
Weighted Price Indices on Fuel and Communication of the United Kingdom,
1900-39 and 1950-60 (1914=100)
1900-39 and 1950-60 (1914=100)
1900 97.86 1910 93.96 1920 220.26 1930 167.88 1950 281.55
1901 95.60 1911 94.67 1921 230.35 1931 166.69 1951 302.80
1902 93.28 1912 103.97 1922 195.97 1932 164.75 1952 329.27
1903 92.99 1913 100.54 1923 180.89 1933 162.24 1953 343.68
1904 92.83 1914 100.00 1924 181.91 1934 160.69 1954 355.37
1905 92.51 1915 105.51 1925 179.01 1935 158.72 1955 372.86
1906 94.36 1916 119.94 1926 183.75 1936 160.82 1956 401.81
1907 98.48 1917 139.44 1927 174.33 1937 163.65 1957 422.72
1908 96.14 1918 165.28 1928 168.33 1938 165.03 1958 438.94
1909 94.93 1919 194.08 1929 169.10 1939 172.73 1959 442.61
1960 447.48
Source: Based on Feinstein (1972:T134-135).
Table 2.53 provides the net exports of goods and services at Current and Constant
Prices for 1900-39 and 1950-60.
Table 2.53
Singapore: Net Exports of Goods and Services at Current and Constant Prices,
1900-39 and 1950-60
(Straits $ Millions)
Net Exports (Merchandize) Net Exports (Services) Net Exports of Goods and Services Net Exports of Goods and Services
[1] [2] [3] = [1]+[2] [4]

1900 -28.3 23.1 -5.2 -6.1
1901 -25.8 22.7 -3.0 -2.2
1902 -26.9 20.9 -6.0 -4.0
1903 -33.6 20.6 -13.0 -12.2
1904 -34.7 21.1 -13.6 -15.1
1905 -28.7 20.8 -7.9 -8.5
1906 -24.4 20.6 -3.8 -3.4
1907 -29.4 21.0 -8.4 -10.4
1908 -25.1 22.7 -2.4 -4.0
1909 -25.3 21.5 -3.7 -5.5
1910 -24.4 22.5 -1.9 -3.1
1911 -32.1 23.2 -8.9 -7.5
1912 -44.7 24.5 -20.2 -18.2
1913 -54.0 25.9 -28.1 -25.1
1914 -49.5 27.2 -22.4 -22.4
1915 -35.4 26.0 -9.4 -6.1
1916 -51.4 27.6 -23.8 -16.5
1917 -45.3 33.2 -12.1 -7.9
1918 -65.7 39.0 -26.7 -20.2
1919 -44.3 44.8 0.5 -15.7
1920 -117.5 65.8 -51.6 -5.4
1921 -77.7 68.0 -9.7 -25.7
1922 -43.6 54.7 11.0 -6.3
1923 -63.2 54.4 -8.9 -8.6
1924 -85.3 55.4 -29.9 -11.2
1925 -87.3 60.0 -27.3 -1.1
1926 -106.6 66.7 -40.0 -16.6
1927 -137.6 70.1 -67.6 -54.8
1928 -106.5 72.7 -33.8 -46.0
1929 -64.9 75.5 10.6 -6.6
1930 -57.0 70.5 13.5 -15.0
1931 -64.2 52.9 -11.3 -52.2
1932 -57.8 46.3 -11.5 -58.5
1933 -16.7 35.8 19.1 -25.3
1934 -36.8 36.1 -0.7 -16.0
1935 -28.8 42.0 13.2 0.6
1936 -44.0 44.0 0.0 -16.5
1937 -45.1 49.6 4.5 -7.0
1938 -74.0 54.7 -19.3 -56.2
1939 -61.9 56.1 -5.7 -27.8
-
1950 -247.7 214.4 -33.4 -18.7
1951 -282.0 257.9 -24.0 5.2
1952 -550.4 292.2 -258.3 -88.1
1953 -366.6 334.7 -31.9 -57.0
1954 -339.3 343.1 3.8 -45.4
1955 -494.0 339.5 -154.5 -80.9
1956 -500.4 386.3 -114.1 -79.1
1957 -613.7 412.9 -200.8 -122.1
1958 -599.7 422.4 -177.3 -125.4
1959 -467.4 401.7 -65.8 -59.2
1960 -600.6 462.0 -138.6 -90.2
126
CHAPTER THREE
THE RESULT OF GDP ESTIMATES IN SINGAPORE

AND OVERALL PATTERNS OF GROWTH
FOR THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
3.1 Introduction
In Chapter 2, each component of GDP was constructed by employing various
estimating techniques based on the availability of historical statistical information to
meet the modern definition as outlined in “A System of National Accounts (SNA)
1968”. By summing up each component, historical GDP estimates of Singapore were
then constructed. This estimated GDP series, however, requires to be checked from
various aspects to assess the reliability or validity of the estimate. After these processes,
the historical GDP series (1900-39 and 1950-60) supplemented with the official GDP
series 1960-2000 in both current and constant prices was then obtained after which the
pattern of economic growth in Singapore for the twentieth century was examined.
This chapter is organized as follows. Section 3.2 presents the result of GDP
estimates of Singapore for the period 1900-39 and 1950-60 in both current and 1914
prices. Based on these derived time-series, an attempt was made to assess the reliability
of each component of GDP in Section 3.3. Subsequently, this derived series was
extended to cover 100 years by supplementing it with the post-1960 statistical
time-series with a single base year (1990=100) for conducting quantitative analysis of
Singapore for the twentieth century which appear in chapters 4 and 5. Section 3.4
explains the overall pattern of growth for 100 years in respect of GDP growth and share
of the various components of GDP.
3.2 Results of GDP Estimates
The results of GDP estimates and its components in both current and 1914 prices for
the period 1900-39 and 1950-60 are presented in Tables 3.1-3.2 and Figures 3.1-3.4.
127
The average annual growth rate of GDP for the period 1900-39 and 1950-60 in current
prices was 5.2% and 7.2% while this growth rate in 1914 prices was 4.5% and 4.8%
respectively. The average annual per-capita GDP growth rate for same time periods was
2.2% and 2.4% in current prices and 1.5% and 0.03% in 1914 prices.
An examination of the yearly growth rates in GDP in current prices during the
period under review, however, yielded years which experienced extremely high growth
rates as in 1917 (41%), 1919 (38%) and 1928 (36%) and conversely extremely low
growth rates well into the negative territory for the year 1931 (-38%). Similarly
extremely high GDP growth rates in real terms were recorded for the years 1917 (29%),
1922 (23%), 1933 (46%) and 1953 (36%) while high negative rates were noted for 1916
(-20%), 1927(-21%), 1931 (-43%), 1938 (-22%) and 1952 (-37%).
An analysis of the share of each component of Singapore’s GDP showed certain
notable features. Firstly, the share of private final consumption expenditure (PFCE) was
high. For the year 1903-04, 1912-14, 1916 and 1927, total PFCE recorded was higher
than that of GDP in current prices. 66 This implied that personal consumption
expenditure by resident households in current terms exceeded the national income.
Secondly, it is also important to note that the share of net exports of goods and services
to GDP in current prices was in most years in the negative territory. Its share has
fluctuated heavily from -58% in 1913 and to +11% in 1933 in current prices and -69%
in 1932 to +2% in 1951 in 1914 prices. Thirdly, it was observed that the share of
government final consumption expenditure remained stable in the range of 6% to 10%
in current prices and 5% to 16% in 1914 prices during the period under review.
66
Weight on private final consumption expenditure by resident households in Finland (1917) and Dutch (1844-46) exceeded the
figure of GDP. Other than these countries, historical estimates of Korea experienced the weight of more than 90% for most of the
1910s. Therefore, this phenomenon is not merely recorded in Singapore.
128
Table 3.1
Singapore: Gross Domestic Product in Purchasers’ Value in Current Prices,
1900-39 and 1950-60 (Straits $ in millions)
Private Final Consumption Government Final Consumption Gross Capital Formation (GCF) Net Exports of Goods GDP at Martket Prices
Expenditure in The Domestic Expenditure (GFCE) and Services (NETEX) (Current Prices)
Market by Resident Households
(PFCE)
[1] % of Growth [2] % of Growth [3] % of Growth [4] % of [5]=[1]+[2]+ Growth

GDP rate (%) GDP rate (%) GDP rate (%) GDP [3]+[4] rate (%)
1900 33.7 96 2.2 6 4.3 12 -5.2 -15 35.1 1900

1901 34.6 87 3 2.7 7 19 5.6 14 26 -3.0 -8 39.9 13 1901
1902 36.1 96 4 2.6 7 -5 5.1 14 -9 -6.0 -16 37.8 -5 1902
1903 37.3 110 3 3.2 10 24 6.3 19 20 -13.0 -38 33.8 -11 1903
1904 38.1 102 2 3.7 10 12 9.2 25 38 -13.6 -36 37.4 10 1904
1905 39.5 93 4 3.3 8 -11 7.8 18 -16 -7.9 -18 42.7 13 1905
1906 40.3 88 2 3.1 7 -4 6.4 14 -21 -3.8 -8 46.0 7 1906
1907 41.6 93 3 3.1 7 -1 8.4 19 28 -8.4 -19 44.7 -3 1907
1908 43.6 78 5 3.3 6 6 11.3 20 30 -2.4 -4 55.8 22 1908
1909 44.3 82 2 3.1 6 -6 10.4 19 -8 -3.7 -7 54.1 -3 1909
1910 46.7 76 5 3.8 6 19 12.8 21 20 -1.9 -3 61.4 13 1910
1911 49.3 88 5 4.0 7 4 11.8 21 -8 -8.9 -16 56.2 -9 1911
1912 51.3 103 4 3.9 8 -1 15.1 30 25 -20.2 -41 50.0 -12 1912
1913 53.3 111 4 4.9 10 22 18.0 37 18 -28.1 -58 48.0 -4 1913
1914 56.2 104 5 4.9 9 1 15.1 28 -17 -22.4 -42 53.9 11 1914
1915 58.6 86 4 4.4 7 -10 14.1 21 -7 -9.4 -14 67.8 23 1915
1916 62.0 107 6 4.7 8 6 15.0 26 6 -23.8 -41 58.0 -16 1916
1917 74.0 85 18 4.6 5 -2 20.5 24 31 -12.1 -14 86.9 41 1917
1918 93.5 95 23 6.5 7 34 24.8 25 19 -26.7 -27 98.1 12 1918
1919 107.5 75 14 6.9 5 6 29.1 20 16 0.5 0 144.0 38 1919
1920 137.7 94 25 11.3 8 49 49.1 34 52 -51.6 -35 146.5 2 1920
1921 141.8 75 3 13.3 7 16 43.7 23 -12 -9.7 -5 189.1 26 1921
1922 141.9 77 0 12.2 7 -8 18.1 10 -88 11.0 6 183.3 -3 1922
1923 144.9 88 2 12.0 7 -2 16.5 10 -10 -8.9 -5 164.5 -11 1923
1924 148.7 100 3 13.2 9 9 17.2 12 4 -29.9 -20 149.2 -10 1924
1925 155.9 89 5 12.2 7 -7 33.5 19 66 -27.3 -16 174.2 15 1925
1926 162.6 94 4 13.3 8 9 37.3 22 11 -40.0 -23 173.2 -1 1926
1927 174.4 106 7 14.5 9 9 43.8 27 16 -67.6 -41 165.1 -5 1927
1928 184.0 78 5 14.7 6 1 72.4 31 50 -33.8 -14 237.3 36 1928
1929 183.7 65 0 15.9 6 8 71.1 25 -2 10.6 4 281.3 17 1929
1930 171.4 72 -7 16.5 7 4 37.6 16 -64 13.5 6 239.0 -16 1930
1931 131.1 80 -27 16.5 10 0 27.8 17 -30 -11.3 -7 164.1 -38 1931
1932 119.0 84 -10 14.5 10 -13 20.1 14 -33 -11.5 -8 142.0 -14 1932
1933 121.8 70 2 13.0 7 -11 20.4 12 2 19.1 11 174.3 20 1933
1934 123.5 81 1 11.7 8 -11 18.6 12 -10 -0.7 0 153.0 -13 1934
1935 144.5 71 16 12.7 6 8 33.7 17 60 13.2 6 204.1 29 1935
1936 159.9 79 10 12.8 6 1 30.7 15 -9 0.0 0 203.4 0 1936
1937 182.6 74 13 13.8 6 7 47.4 19 44 4.5 2 248.3 20 1937
1938 195.9 85 7 14.9 6 8 39.8 17 -17 -19.3 -8 231.4 -7 1938
1939 201.4 76 3 15.5 6 4 55.1 21 32 -5.7 -2 266.3 14 1939
1950 912.8 81 74.4 7 168.7 15 -33.4 -3 1,122.5 1950

1951 1,081.2 78 17 91.9 7 21 234.3 17 33 -24.0 -2 1,383.4 21 1951
1952 1,161.2 96 7 106.2 9 14 194.4 16 -19 -258.3 -21 1,203.6 -14 1952
1953 1,368.1 82 16 123.8 7 15 207.3 12 6 -31.9 -2 1,667.2 33 1953
1954 1,382.2 80 1 143.6 8 15 197.7 11 -5 3.8 0 1,727.4 4 1954
1955 1,393.8 88 1 154.5 10 7 184.6 12 -7 -154.5 -10 1,578.4 -9 1955
1956 1,633.2 84 16 164.8 8 6 269.6 14 38 -114.1 -6 1,953.6 21 1956
1957 1,712.3 89 5 166.8 9 1 252.7 13 -6 -200.8 -10 1,931.1 -1 1957
1958 1,779.1 88 4 179.6 9 7 232.2 12 -8 -177.3 -9 2,013.6 4 1958
1959 1,690.3 83 -5 186.7 9 4 222.5 11 -4 -65.8 -3 2,033.8 1 1959
1960 2,016.0 87 18 139.1 6 -29 291.0 13 27 -138.6 -6 2,307.5 13 1960
PFCE GFCE GCF NETEX GDP Per-

capita
GDP
% of Growth % of GDP Growth % of GDP Growth rate % of Growth Growth rate Growth
GDP rate (%) rate (%) (%) GDP rate (%) (%) rate (%)
1900-1939 87.2 4.6 7.2 5.0 19.9 6.5 -14.4 5.2 2.2
1900-1914 93.7 3.7 7.5 5.7 20.7 8.9 -21.9 3.1 0.2
1914-1939 83.4 5.1 7.1 4.6 19.4 5.2 -9.9 6.4 3.3
1950-1960 85.2 7.9 8.1 6.3 13.2 5.5 -6.5 7.2 2.4
129
Figure 3.1
Singapore: Gross Domestic Product in Purchasers’ Value in Current Prices,
2,500
2,000
1,500
Strait $ (millions)
1,000
500
0
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1951
1953
1955
1957
1959
-500
Year
GDP at Market Prices Private Final Consumption Expenditure
Government Final Consumption Expenditure Gross Capital Formation
Net Exports of Goods and Services
Figure 3.2
Singapore: Annual Growth Rate of GDP and its components at Current Prices,
1900-39 and 1950-60
50%
40%
30%
20%
Growth Rate (%)
10%
0%
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1951
1953
1955
1957
1959
-10%
-20%
-30%
-40%
-50%
Year

130
Table 3.2
Singapore: Gross Domestic Product in Purchasers’ Value in 1914 Prices,
Private Final Consumption Government Final Consumption Gross Capital Formation (GCF) Net Exports of Goods GDP at Martket Prices
Expenditure in The Domestic Expenditure (GFCE) and Services (NETEX) (1914 Prices)
(PFCE)
[1] % of Growth [2] % of Growth [3] % of Growth [4] % of [5]=[1]+[2]+ Growth

GDP rate (%) GDP rate (%) GDP rate (%) GDP [3]+[4] rate (%)
1900 40.7 99 2.7 7 3.7 9 -6.1 -15 41.1 1900

1901 41.4 87 2 3.2 7 18 5.1 11 32 -2.2 -5 47.5 14 1901
1902 41.6 92 1 2.9 7 -9 4.5 10 -12 -4.0 -9 45.2 -5 1902
1903 42.5 108 2 3.7 9 23 5.5 14 19 -12.2 -31 39.4 -14 1903
1904 43.4 107 2 4.2 10 12 8.1 20 39 -15.1 -37 40.5 3 1904
1905 44.2 94 2 3.7 8 -13 7.5 16 -8 -8.5 -18 46.8 14 1905
1906 45.7 86 3 3.6 7 -3 7.1 13 -5 -3.4 -6 52.9 12 1906
1907 47.2 96 3 3.5 7 -1 8.8 18 22 -10.4 -21 49.1 -7 1907
1908 48.8 81 3 3.7 6 5 11.5 19 27 -4.0 -7 60.1 20 1908
1909 50.9 85 4 3.6 6 -3 10.8 18 -7 -5.5 -9 59.7 -1 1909
1910 52.6 78 3 4.3 6 18 13.8 20 25 -3.1 -5 67.6 12 1910
1911 50.7 83 -4 4.1 7 -6 13.8 23 0 -7.5 -12 61.0 -10 1911
1912 51.8 97 2 3.9 7 -3 16.1 30 16 -18.2 -34 53.6 -13 1912
1913 52.7 107 2 4.8 10 20 16.7 34 4 -25.1 -51 49.0 -9 1913
1914 56.2 104 6 4.9 9 2 15.1 28 -10 -22.4 -42 53.9 9 1914
1915 55.0 84 -2 4.2 6 -17 12.8 19 -17 -6.1 -9 65.9 20 1915
1916 54.8 102 0 4.2 8 0 11.4 21 -11 -16.5 -31 53.8 -20 1916
1917 62.8 87 14 3.9 5 -6 13.0 18 13 -7.9 -11 71.8 29 1917
1918 66.6 106 6 4.6 7 16 11.9 19 -9 -20.2 -32 62.9 -13 1918
1919 62.4 96 -7 4.0 6 -14 14.5 22 20 -15.7 -24 65.2 4 1919
1920 62.2 77 0 5.1 6 24 18.5 23 24 -5.4 -7 80.4 21 1920
1921 81.1 98 26 7.6 9 40 19.8 24 7 -25.7 -31 82.7 3 1921
1922 90.9 88 11 7.8 8 3 11.3 11 -55 -6.3 -6 103.8 23 1922
1923 95.3 89 5 7.9 7 1 12.5 12 10 -8.6 -8 107.1 3 1923
1924 98.2 90 3 8.7 8 10 13.4 12 6 -11.2 -10 109.0 2 1924
1925 100.5 75 2 7.9 6 -10 26.4 20 68 -1.1 -1 133.7 20 1925
1926 101.4 82 1 8.3 7 5 29.9 24 12 -16.6 -13 123.0 -8 1926
1927 110.4 111 8 9.2 9 10 35.1 35 16 -54.8 -55 99.8 -21 1927
1928 117.5 84 6 9.4 7 2 58.9 42 52 -46.0 -33 139.8 34 1928
1929 119.9 66 2 10.4 6 10 58.7 32 0 -6.6 -4 182.4 27 1929
1930 117.6 80 -2 11.3 8 9 33.3 23 -57 -15.0 -10 147.2 -21 1930
1931 105.3 111 -11 13.2 14 16 28.9 30 -14 -52.2 -55 95.3 -43 1931
1932 108.6 128 3 13.2 16 0 21.8 26 -28 -58.5 -69 85.1 -11 1932
1933 119.7 88 10 12.7 9 -3 28.3 21 26 -25.3 -19 135.4 46 1933
1934 118.2 86 -1 11.2 8 -13 23.7 17 -18 -16.0 -12 137.0 1 1934
1935 133.1 69 12 11.7 6 4 46.8 24 68 0.6 0 192.2 34 1935
1936 149.8 79 12 12.0 6 3 43.4 23 -8 -16.5 -9 188.8 -2 1936
1937 161.5 70 7 12.2 5 2 63.1 27 37 -7.0 -3 229.8 20 1937
1938 179.0 97 10 13.6 7 11 47.7 26 -28 -56.2 -31 184.2 -22 1938
1939 182.8 78 2 14.0 6 3 64.5 28 30 -27.8 -12 233.6 24 1939
1950 254.2 81 20.7 7 58.9 19 -18.7 -6 315.2 1950

1951 239.5 72 -6 20.4 6 -2 68.1 20 15 5.2 2 333.2 6 1951
1952 247.2 108 3 22.6 10 10 48.0 21 -35 -88.1 -38 229.7 -37 1952
1953 298.4 90 19 27.0 8 18 62.0 19 26 -57.0 -17 330.5 36 1953
1954 316.3 88 6 32.9 9 20 57.5 16 -8 -45.4 -13 361.4 9 1954
1955 326.4 99 3 36.2 11 10 49.4 15 -15 -80.9 -24 331.0 -9 1955
1956 378.4 91 15 38.2 9 5 77.5 19 45 -79.1 -19 415.0 23 1956
1957 385.5 105 2 37.6 10 -2 67.2 18 -14 -122.1 -33 368.2 -12 1957
1958 402.6 104 4 40.6 10 8 70.0 18 4 -125.4 -32 387.7 5 1958
1959 386.9 87 -4 42.7 10 5 74.2 17 6 -59.2 -13 444.6 14 1959
1960 461.3 91 18 31.8 6 -29 106.2 21 36 -90.2 -18 509.1 14 1960
PFCE GFCE GCF NETEX GDP Per-

capita
GDP
% of Growth % of GDP Growth % of Growth rate % of Growth Growth rate Growth
GDP rate (%) rate (%) GDP (%) GDP rate (%) (%) rate (%)
1900-1939 90.7 3.9 7.6 4.2 21.6 7.3 -19.9 4.5 1.5
1900-1914 93.7 2.3 7.5 4.3 18.9 10.0 -20.1 1.9 -1.0
1914-1939 88.9 4.7 7.7 4.2 23.2 5.8 -19.7 5.9 2.8
1950-1960 92.2 6.0 8.8 4.3 18.4 5.9 -19.3 4.8 0.03
131
Figure 3.3
Singapore: Gross Domestic Product in Purchasers’ Value in 1914 Prices,
600
500
400
Straits $ (millions)
300
200
100
0
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1951
1953
1955
1957
1959
-100
-200
Year

Figure 3.4
Singapore: Annual Growth Rate of GDP and its components at 1914 Prices,
1900-39 and 1950-60
50%
40%
30%
20%
Growth Rate (%)
10%
0%
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1951
1953
1955
1957
1959
-10%
-20%
-30%
-40%
-50%
Year
132
3.3 Assessment of GDP Estimates
In the field of historical GDP estimates, there are broadly three ways in which the
reliability of the main aggregates can be assessed: (1) by comparison with other
estimates, (2) by comparison from two or more different approaches (eg. production and
income approach in the case of GDP) and (3) by reference to the subjective evaluations
of statistical personnel responsible for the compilation of the each component (Feinstein,
1972:10). In the case of GDP estimates of Singapore, however, there are constraints in
conducting these reliability checks. To begin with there were no previous exercises
attempted in the construction of historical GDP estimates for Singapore. For second
method, up till today, no attempt has been made in constructing GDP estimates from the
income and production approach. This is mainly because the statistical data is so much
lacking that it does not permit the construction of GDP using these alternative
approaches. In the case of the income approach, the British colonial authority did not
collect basic statistical information relating to income and profit earnings by various
sectors. For the production approach, as was described earlier, Singapore, as a regional
entrepôt had been primarily engaged in wholesale trade and the services sector.67
Therefore, estimates for value added by sector would be extremely difficult due to the
deficiencies of data. The third method involves assessing the reliability of the GDP
series, undertaken by the investigator responsible for the estimates and expressed in
terms of reliability grades (Feinstein, 1972: 20). However, this assessment would be
arbitrary because it is rare that we can set a correct margin of error. In view of these
constraints, the following four alternative approaches were employed. Firstly, this study
examines if the estimates made, bear any consistency with the official figures compiled
by the Department of Statistics, Singapore for the years after 1960. Firstly, a check of
the level of GDP between the estimated figure and available official figure released by
67
In 1960, 78% of GDP was Service Sector (Peebles, Gavin and Peter Wilson,1996:5).
133
Department of Statistics, Singapore for the years 1959-60 was made. Subsequently, the
average annual growth rate and share of each component of GDP for the periods
1900-39 and 1950-2000 was also observed. Nelson and Plosser (1982) presented
statistical evidence that there are non-stationary (difference stationary) in the
macroeconomic time series for the US. Similar tests were employed for Singapore to
evaluate whether each component of the GDP figure was consistent with the overall
data for the twentieth century as a whole.
Secondly, economic factors and events gleaned from official documents and records
which contributed towards the upturns and downturns of each component of GDP for
particular years were noted as supporting proof.
Thirdly, the historical GDP estimates from this exercise were compared with figures
available for other countries to compare the patterns, levels and trends of these
estimates.
3.3.1 Consistency Check
The first official GDP of Singapore was constructed by the Department of Statistics
for the year 1960. Additionally, GDP estimates for the year 1959 were released by Goh
Keng Swee (1995). As presented in Table 3.3, notably, estimates of GDP were fairly
close with that of the figures from the above sources despite the differing methodologies
employed for their computation. Unfortunately, other than for these two years, only
GNP estimates were available for the period 1956-60.
Table 3.3
Singapore: Gross Domestic Product at Current Prices,
1959-60, (Straits $ in millions)
Year Official Figure Estimates by

Sugimoto
1959 1,968 [A] 2,034
1960 2,150 [B] 2,307
Sources:
[A] Goh Keng Swee (1995).
[B] Department of Statistics, Singapore (1996).
134
The average annual growth rate of each component of GDP for each decade for the
period 1900-39 and 1950-2000 in both current and constant prices is shown in Table 3.4.
Generally, the GDP and its components showed relatively higher average annual growth
rates during the second half of the 20th century as compared with that of the pre-World
War II period. It may be possible to conclude that the rapid and sustained growth of
Singapore’s GDP recorded in our estimate may find general acceptance for both the
British Colonial period and the period of self-government. It will also be noted that the
share of each component of GDP of Singapore in both current and constant prices was
also not significantly different from that of 1960s (See Table 3.5).
Table 3.4
Singapore: Average Annual Growth Rate of GDP and Its
Components at Current and Constant Prices, 1900-2000
At Current Prices At Constant Prices
PFCE GFCE GCF NETEX GDP PFCE GFCE GCF NETEX GDP
1914 prices
1900-1910 3.3 5.4 10.8 5.6 2.6 4.7 13.1 5.0
1910-1920 10.8 10.9 13.5 8.7 1.7 1.7 2.9 1.7
1920-1930 2.2 3.8 -2.7 4.9 6.4 8.0 5.9 6.0
1930-1939 1.8 -0.7 4.3 1.2 4.9 2.4 7.4 5.1
1950-1960 7.9 6.3 5.5 7.2 6.0 4.3 5.9 4.8
1990 prices
1960-1970 7.1 14.6 22.2 9.9 6.1 13.3 14.5 8.8
1970-1980 11.9 12.6 16.4 14.6 6.8 7.0 8.9 8.6
1980-1990 8.7 10.2 7.4 10.0 5.9 6.5 5.0 7.0
1990-2000 7.3 9.0 7.2 8.5 5.7 8.1 7.0 7.2
Table 3.5
Singapore: Gross Domestic Product and its Components
CURRENT PRICES
PFCE GFCE GCF NETEX GDP
1900 96 6 12 -15 100

1905 93 8 18 -18 100
1910 76 6 21 -3 100
1915 86 7 21 -14 100
1920 94 8 34 -35 100
1925 89 7 19 -16 100
[A]
1930 72 7 16 6 100
1935 71 6 17 6 100
1939 76 6 21 -2 100
1950 81 7 15 -3 100
1955 88 10 12 -10 100
1960 87 6 13 -6 100
1960 89 8 11 -8 100
1965 79 10 22 -11 100 [B]
1970 68 12 39 -18 100
Sources: [A] Sugimoto’s Estimates and [B] Department of Statistics, Singapore (1996)
Abbreviations: PFCE=Private Final Consumption Expenditure by resident households, GFCE=Government Final Consumption
Expenditure, GCF=Gross Capital Formation, NETEX=Net Exports of Goods and Services
Note: For the years 1960, 1965 and 1970, percentage share of statistical discrepancy to GDP were allocated under NETEX.
135
3.3.1.1 Unit Root Test
In addition to previous consistency checks on the historical GDP estimates, this
section conducts unit root tests for checking the consistency of time-series data on GDP
and its components. Relating to this, Nelson and Plosser (1982) presented statistical
evidence that supports the hypothesis of a unit root in the macroeconomic time series
for the US which included GNP, employment, wages, prices, interest rate and stock
prices. Their study is widely recognized as an important literature in macroeconomics
and econometrics. The presence or absence of unit roots, to put it simply, helps to
identify some features of the underlying the data-generating process of a series. If a
series has no unit roots, it is characterized as stationary, and therefore exhibits mean
reversion in that it fluctuates around a constant long run mean. Also the absence of unit
roots implies that the series has a finite variance which does not depend on time and that
the effects of shocks dissolve over time. Alternatively, if the series feature a unit root
they are better characterized as non-stationary processes that have no tendency to return
to a long-run deterministic path.
Considered below are two alternative models used to represent GDP time series:
yt = a + bt + e t (1)
yt = a + yt-1 + e t (2)
Where:
yt represents the natural logarithm of GDP at time t

t represents a time trend
b is a constant that gives the growth rate of variable
e is an error term with zero mean and finite variance
The first specification implies that GDP equals the constant a at time zero (y0 = a)
and growth over time at a constant rate b, with the error term explaining deviations from
the trend in each year. In other words, the variable yt presents a stationary fluctuation
around the time trend a + bt. Therefore, the variable is described as trend stationary
(TS), and stationarity is achieved by removing the time trend (“detrending”), i.e.
136
regressing yt on t. In short, for the first specification, the effects of a shock at time t tend
to zero over time, since the error term affects the outcome in the current period but has
no persistent influence in succeeding time periods.
Model (2), on the other hand, specifies that GDP grows at rate a from its previous
value, with an error term playing a role every year. Despite the apparent similitude
between the two models, they are indeed very different, and lead to different
implications in many respects. First, model (2) is non-stationary and cannot be made
stationary through detrending. It will be noted that the first difference of the series is
given by a + et, a stationary process. So, stationarity can be achieved by differencing,
and the model is called difference stationary (DS). Model (2) is one of the simplest
AR(1) processes, and can be described as a random walk with drift. The dependent
variable displays a random fluctuation given by the error term et, in addition to the
growth given by the drift term a. Contrarily to model (1), however, there is no tendency
for yt to return to a predetermined mean value, and its trajectory is given by an
accumulation of disturbances. In other words, the error term affects not only what
happens in the current period, but also what happens in all succeeding periods. In order
to better visualize this point, we can substitute repeatedly for the lagged yt value in
equation (2) to get:
t
yt = y0 + at + ∑ ei (3)
i =1
It is straightforward to see that the variance of yt without bound over time, and that
shocks to the system (captured by the error term) have a permanent effect on the series.
The study by Nelson and Plosser (1982) conclude that the evidence presented
supports the DS representation of non-stationary (difference stationary) in economic
time series. In other words, their study found that many fluctuations in GDP and its
components are permanent, in the sense that there is no tendency for GDP to revert to
trend line following a shock. Similar results were obtained amongst others by
137
Sosa-Escudero (1997), Carrera, Feliz, and Panigo (1999), Noriega and Ramirez-Zamora
(1999), Thornton (2001) and Rapach (2002).
Many studies begin by testing for unit root using Augmented Dickey-Fuller’s test
(Dickey and Fuller, 1979, 1981) and Philips and Perron’s (Philips and Perron, 1988). To
test the unit root property of the ∆GDP (Y) time series, the following regression
equation (4) is used:
p
∆Y = α 0 + α1Yt −1 + α 2T + ∑ β j ∆Yt − j + ε t (4)
j =1
Where ∆ is the first-difference operator, T is time trend and Є t is assumed to be
Gaussian white noise. The number of lags, p in the dependent variable is chosen to
ensure that the errors are white noise. The two most commonly used methods for the
selection of lag length are Akaike Information Criteria (AIC) and Schwartz Info Criteria
(SIC). This study employed the SIC approach which has been widely used in the
literature for the selection of the optimal lag length. Unit root tests of this type are
referred to as Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) tests. The null hypothesis is that the
series is non-stationary against the alternative hypothesis of stationarity. The ADF test
is based on the estimated parameter α1 and its corresponding t-statistic. When α1=0,
the time series βt is non-stationarity so that the standard asymptotic analysis cannot be
used to obtain the distributions of the test statistics. A problem with the ADF test is that
it involves the inclusion of extra differences terms in the testing equation. Alternatively,
the Philips-Perron (PP) approach allows for the presence of unknown forms of
autocorrelation and conditional heteroscedasticity in the error term, and is based on
testing regression (1), except that p=0. This method uses a nonparametric correction for
serial correlation. The statistics are then transformed to remove the effects of serial
correlation on the asymptotic distribution of the test statistics. For both tests, a t-statistic
138
larger in absolute value than the critical value results in the rejection of the null
hypothesis of a unit root in favour of the stationarity alternative.
Table 3.6 shows the result of unit root tests for GDP and its components of
Singapore for the period 1960-2000 (1990 prices) for Singapore, based on official data
compiled from Department of Statistics, Singapore and the ADB Key Indicators. For
unit root tests, Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) and Philips-Perron (PP) approaches
were conducted.
As is observed from the results of unit root tests, time series of real GDP and its
components are all integrated of order one, I(1), since only its first difference and
second difference are stationary. This result portrays that the null hypothesis of a unit
root test cannot be rejected, indicating that Singapore’s time series of GDP and its
components are difference stationary for the period 1960-2000. These results are similar
to those observed for other countries.
Table 3.6
Singapore: The Results of Unit Root Tests of GDP and Its Components
(1990 Prices), 1960-2000
Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test

Levels trend lags1 First Difference trend lags1 Second Difference trend lags1 Order
GDP -2.744437 Yes 1 -6.378192*** Yes 0 -6.888162*** Yes 0 I(1)

PFCE -2.488435 Yes 0 -5.425393*** Yes 0 -6.647346*** Yes 1 I(1)
GFCE -1.522812 Yes 0 -5.843068*** Yes 0 -11.11444*** Yes 0 I(1)
GCF -1.594248 Yes 0 -5.730494*** Yes 0 -6.931361*** Yes 1 I(1)
EXGS 0.708007 No 0 -5.547558*** No 0 -9.954132*** No 0 I(1)
IMGS 0.497826 No 0 -5.733827*** No 0 -8.239051*** No 1 I(1)
Phillips-Perron Test (Constant and no trend)

Levels trend Bandwidth2 First Difference trend Bandwidth2 Second Difference trend Bandwidth2 Order
GDP -2.764241 Yes 1 -9.279439*** Yes 2 -25.52034*** Yes 3 I(1)

PFCE -2.224479 Yes 1 -5.473416*** Yes 1 -13.48829*** Yes 14 I(1)
GFCE -1.522812 Yes 2 -5.834362*** Yes 2 -36.67194*** Yes 3 I(1)
GCF -1.659389 Yes 0 -5.730494*** Yes 1 -18.60471*** Yes 10 I(1)
EXGS 0.668348 No 2 -5.538378*** No 1 -17.84169*** No 10 I(1)
IMGS 0.446229 No 2 -5.724699*** No 2 -12.62309*** No 2 I(1)
Notes:
1. All variables are natural logarithm figure.
2. Automatic selection of lag were determined by Schwartz Info Criterion
3. Bandwidth was determined based on the Newey-West using Bartlett kernel
4. (***,** ,*) denotes significance at the 1%, 5% and 10% level respectively.
5. I(0) = stationary, I(1) = unit root
Abbreviations:
PFCE=Private Final Consumption Expenditure by resident households, GFCE=Government Final Consumption Expenditure,
GCF=Gross Capital Formation, EXGS= Exports of Goods and Services, IMGS= Imports of Goods and Services
139
A similar exercise on unit root tests was made this time for the period, 1900-39
using 1914 as the base year.68 As is observed in Table 3.7, the results of two different
unit root tests for both 1900-39 and 1950-60 are of order Integrated (1). The results
were similar to that of the data for the period 1960-2000 as seen earlier in Table 3.6.
The result of these econometric tests bears out the fact that there are consistencies in the
nature of long-term time series data on Singapore for the entire twentieth century.
Table 3.7
Singapore: The Results of Unit Root Tests of GDP and Its Components
(1914 Prices), 1900-39
Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test

Levels trend lags1 First Difference trend lags1 Second Difference trend lags1 Order
GDP -0.700543 No 0 -6.913214*** No 0 -6.811257*** No 2 I(1)

PFCE -2.651279 Yes 0 -5.400934*** No 1 -7.897427*** Yes 1 I(1)
GFCE -2.491583 Yes 0 -6.537564*** No 0 -8.267926*** Yes 0 I(1)
GCF -1.415085 No 0 -6.813627*** No 0 -11.92415*** No 0 I(1)
EXGS -1.804277 Yes 0 -7.010903*** No 0 -8.198379*** Yes 1 I(1)
IMGS -1.559027 Yes 0 -6.288120*** No 0 -7.964125*** Yes 1 I(1)
Phillips-Perron Test
Levels trend Bandwidth2 First Difference trend Bandwidth2 Second Difference trend Bandwidth2 Order
GDP 0.126424 No 33 -11.66003*** No 37 -26.36706*** No 14 I(1)

PFCE -2.186524 Yes 5 -4.984350*** No 5 -16.82710*** Yes 20 I(1)
GFCE -2.540027 Yes 1 -6.571247*** No 2 -23.24026*** Yes 9 I(1)
GCF -3.059313 Yes 0 -7.104991*** No 1 -37.11039*** Yes 1 I(1)
EXGS -1.885684 Yes 3 -6.967272*** No 3 -15.69813*** Yes 3 I(1)
IMGS -1.850829 Yes 3 -6.306713*** No 3 -11.15228*** Yes 0 I(1)
Notes:
Abbreviations:
PFCE=Private Final Consumption Expenditure by resident households, GFCE=Government Final Consumption Expenditure,
GCF=Gross Capital Formation, EXGS= Exports of Goods and Services, IMGS= Imports of Goods and Services
Similar unit root test was conducted for other Asian countries, namely Japan,
Taiwan, Korea and Malaya and all countries showed a similar result of unit root test.69
68
For the period of 1950-60, no Unit Root Test was conducted due to the shortage of number of observations.
69
For unit root test, Philips-Perron approaches were tested. For all countries, real GDP of Japan, Taiwan, Korea and Malaya were
integrated of order one, I(1) difference stationary. Therefore, null hypothesis of unit root for all countries listed below were not
rejected at 1% level.
Period Base year Levels trend Bandwidth2 First Difference trend Bandwidth 2 Second trend Bandwidth2 Order
Difference
Japan 1903-38 1934-36 -0.331987 Yes 1 -5.593847*** Yes 1 -16.33138*** Yes 10 I(1)
Taiwan 1903-38 1934-36 -1.308562 Yes 4 -8.309289*** Yes 1 -16.18597*** Yes 4 I(1)
Korea 1911-38 1934-36 -0.99868 Yes 3 -5.329979*** Yes 2 -23.55882*** Yes 9 I(1)
Malaya 1900-39 1914 -2.979818 Yes 3 -6.733598*** Yes 6 -22.90363*** Yes 16 I(1)

140
3.3.2 Upturns and Downturns of Each Component of GDP, 1900-39 and 1950-60
In the case of commodity producing countries such as Malaya, for example,
production or exports of major commodities like rubber and tin may more or less
portray the movement of real GDP. On the other hand, in the case of Singapore, due to
the deficiencies of influential major determinant variables, it is difficult to explain the
movement of real GDP. Alternatively, a greater insight into the upturns and downturns
of Singapore’s GDP could possibly be gained by observing the movements of each
component of GDP.
3.3.2.1 Private Final Consumption Expenditure in Current and 1914 Prices
Private final consumption expenditure (PFCE) by resident households in the
domestic market was the single largest component which represented on average 86.5%
and 85.7% of GDP for the two periods 1900-39 and 1950-60 respectively. In terms of
growth rate, the average annual growth rate of PFCE in current prices was 4.6% and
7.9% for the periods 1900-39 and 1950-60 respectively while in constant terms, the
average annual growth rate was recorded at 3.9% and 6.0% for these two periods.
In per-capita terms, the PFCE of Singapore grew at an average annual rate of 1.4%
and 2.8% in current terms while in constant terms they grew by 0.7% and 0.6%
respectively.
Annually, total and per-capita private final consumption expenditure in nominal or
in constant terms showed frequent fluctuations during the period. In current terms,
PFCE grew remarkably for the period 1917-20, namely 17.6% (1917), 23.4% (1918),
13.9% (1919) and 24.8% (1920) respectively. Their growth rate in real terms was,
however, in the negative territory for the later years of this period recording rates of
13.5% (1917), 5.9% (1918), -6.6% (1919) and -0.3% (1920) for the respective years.

141
This could be attributed to the sharp increase in CPI by some 20.4% in 1919 and 25.0%
in 1920. This increase was mainly fuelled by the sharp increase in the prices of nearly
all major objects of consumption.
The sharp decline in the growth rates of PFCE in both current and constant terms for
Singapore was experienced during the Great Depression years of 1930-32. In current
terms, negative growth rate of -14.3% (1930), -29.7% (1931) and -12.2% (1932) were
recorded for respective years. In constant terms, negative growth was observed for the
years 1930 (-9.4%) and 1931 (-13.7%). Singapore faced serious downturns as a result of
the world-wide slump. In line with this, major export commodities such as rubber, tin
and petroleum experienced a drastic fall in their prices. The reasonableness of PFCE
estimates in terms of major objects of consumption for Singapore is demonstrated in
Table 3.8. This table provides the percentage share of PFCE for each major object of
consumption in current prices for selected years. It would be comforting to note that the
independently arrived percentage share of each major object of consumption for the
selected years 1905, 1918, 1929, 1955, 1965 and 1980 are similar in pattern with
Frederick Benham’s estimate for the year 1956.
Table 3.8
Singapore: Percentage Private Final Consumption Expenditure by Major Object
of Consumption, Selected Years (Per Cent)
Percentage Share of PFCE

Major Object of
1905 1918 1929 1955 1956* 1965 1980
Consumption
Food, Beverages and
49.63 49.40 48.86 48.79 48.70 35.90 25.80
Tobacco
Clothing 8.70 11.70 8.60 9.60 10.20 9.10 8.20
Rent 4.70 4.10 9.90 10.10 10.60 8.50 9.00
Miscellaneous 36.97 34.83 32.55 31.51 30.50 46.56 57.04
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Source: For the year 1965 and 1980, the figures were derived from Department of Statistics, Singapore (1983:64-65).
* Estimates made by Benham (1959:1).
142
3.3.2.2 Government Final Consumption Expenditure in Current and 1914 Prices
As has been touched upon in Chapter 2, Section 2.3, output of producers of
government services were derived by the summation of (i) compensation of employees

70
(ii) intermediate consumption and (iii) depreciation. Average weights on
compensation of employees and intermediate consumption was 55% and 45% for the
period 1900-39 and 65% and 35% for the period 1950-60 respectively. This distribution
is similar to that of the official figure; 66 % and 34 % in 1973. Output of government
services generally experienced gradual increases throughout the period under review.
Significant increases were recorded for the years 1918 (34%) and 1920 (49%). Both
these expansions could be attributed to the British colonial government allocating huge
temporary allowances to compensate for sudden price increases of consumer goods. The
reduction of personal emoluments recorded in 1932-34 could be attributed to the
retrenchment of government staff during the recession period.
3.3.2.3 Gross Capital Formation in Current and 1914 Prices
Unlike PFCE and GFCE, the level of GCF experienced frequent fluctuations.
Additionally, the share of GCF against GDP was high on certain occasions. During the
second decade of the twentieth century, when rubber and tin production was rapidly
expanding in Malaya and the Netherland Indies, Singapore experienced large-scale
capital formation. In order to consolidate its position as the foremost premier entrepôt in
the region, massive capital formation was initiated by both the private and government
sectors. Despite its small resident population, Singapore needed to undertake relatively
large scale infrastructure projects such as port and aerodrome facilities to meet regional
and international demand. Unfortunately, it was difficult to quantify these activities
since there was no specific information which could portray the movement of gross
70
In this estimate, the value of depreciation was estimated as 1% of aggregated figures of compensation of employees and
intermediate consumption based on an educated guess. Therefore, it hardly gave any significant impact to total government output.
143
capital formation. The only available time-series data in our collection was capital
formation figures which consists of construction (residential, non-residential and other
constructions) and investment on machinery and equipment obtained from government
financial statements contained in reports emanating from the Singapore Harbour Board,
Colony of Singapore and Singapore Municipality. Table 3.9 lists some major
government capital formation pertaining to construction. The colonial government
attempted to construct sophisticated harbour facilities. Modern port and harbour
facilities which were constructed during the period 1908-20 were regarded as “second to
no port out East”.71 This large-scale capital formation contributed greatly to ensure the
economic development of Singapore as a regional entrepôt.
Another notable government capital formation was the construction of government
office buildings undertaken by the authority of Colony of Singapore, while road, street
and bridge construction was initiated by the Singapore Municipality in the later half of
the 1920’s. These expenditures were incurred to meet the increasing demand for
infrastructure as a result of socio-economic development.
71
Huff (1994:140).
144
Table 3.9
Singapore: Gross Capital Formation and Major Government
Construction Projects, 1900-39 and 1950-60
Year GCF Current Singapore Harbour Board Colony of Singapore Singapore
Prices Municipality
Straits $ Growth Straits $ millions

millions rate (%) Singapore Tanjong Pagar New Graving Singapore Singapore- Construction of Road, Street and
Harbour Main Wharf Dock at Keppel Harbour works Johore Govt. Office Bridges
Works Reconstruction Harbour Railway
1900 4.3 0%
1901 4.6 7% 0.7
1902 5.1 10% 0.5
1903 7.0 30%
1904 8.6 21% 0.1
1905 6.5 -28% 0.5
1906 5.7 -14%
1907 8.4 39%
1908 9.4 11%
1909 10.4 10% 1.5
1910 11.2 8% 1.0
1911 12.6 12% 2.0 0.2 1.1
1912 16.3 26% 2.4 2.0 0.6
1913 18.2 11% 2.8 1.3
1914 13.1 -33% 1.1 1.8
1915 12.1 -8% 2.0
1916 16.5 31% 2.2
1917 14.0 -16%
1918 25.8 61% 2.4
1919 18.5 -33% 2.5
1920 49.8 99% 15.1
1921 35.4 -34%
1922 18.1 -67%
1923 19.8 9%
1924 20.2 2%
1925 28.3 34% 1.3
1926 37.3 28% 2.1 1.6
1927 43.8 16% 2.7 1.0
1928 50.3 14% 1.7 1.5
1929 58.7 15% 0.2 1.0
1930 43.6 -30% 1.1
1931 38.0 -14% 0.3
1932 25.1 -41%
1933 15.3 -50%
1934 25.6 52% 0.9
1935 24.7 -4% 1.1
1936 29.6 18% 2.1
1937 38.8 27%
1938 39.8 3% 0.7
1939 47.0 17%
1950 180.0 0%
1951 186.6 4%
1952 224.8 19%
1953 125.9 -58%
1954 171.9 31%
1955 208.4 19%
1956 202.2 -3%
1957 252.7 22%
1958 222.2 -13%
1959 222.5 0%
1960 233.9 5%
3.3.2.4 Net Exports of Goods and Services in Current and 1914 Prices
As was observed in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 earlier, net exports of goods and services of
Singapore were generally in the negative territory in both current and constant prices.
145
This was purely due to the fact that Singapore did not have any significant domestic
production base. Singapore imported various types of items from many parts of world.
A major portion of these imported items were then re-exported. Parts of the imports
retained in the domestic market were eventually allocated for intermediate and final
consumption expenditure, capital formation and stocks.
One might wonder how Singapore which experienced consistent negative net
exports together with an income balance which was usually represented by an outflow
could be viable economically. This anomaly can be explained by observing the official
balance of payments data of Singapore. As presented in Table 3.10, while the
merchandize trade balance was regularly negative even after achieving self-governance,
the combined invisible trade and capital and financial account (CFA) was positive
largely due to inflows of foreign direct investment, generating an overall surplus and a
steady accumulation of foreign exchange reserves. Therefore, the overall balance of
payments of Singapore was consistently positive with a few exceptions. It can be
posited that it was not implausible that the overall balance of payments during the
pre-independence period behaved in a similar manner in the absence of statistical
information on the capital account for the earlier years.
Table 3.10
Singapore: Balance of Payments, 1960-71
(Straits $ in millions)
Year Merchandize Merchandize Merchandize Invisible Trade Overall
Imports Exports Net Exports and Net Balance
Capital
Inflows
1960 3,497 2,964 -533 647 114
1961 3,358 2,750 -608 623 15
1962 3,431 2,860 -571 762 191
1963 3,996 3,291 -705 785 80
1964 3,252 2,601 -651 561 -90
1965 3,570 2,810 -760 728 -32
1966 3,825 3,168 -657 844 187
1967 4,149 3,239 -910 1,269 359
1968 4,759 3,589 -1,170 1,718 548
1969 5,863 4,471 -1,392 1,860 468
1970 7,047 4,428 -2,619 3,080 461
1971 8,090 5,075 -3,015 3,846 831
Source: Goh Keng Swee (1995: 12-13)
146
3.3.2.4.1 Exports of Goods and Services
As is presented in Table 3.11, merchandize exports at current prices has increased
from $ 185.8 million in 1900 to $435.9 million in 1939. Between 1950-60, it increased
from $3.0 billion to $3.5 billion. The annual growth rate of exports, however,
experienced frequent fluctuations.
Three major downturns of merchandize exports were experienced for the years
1920-21 (-55%), 1930-31 (-48%), 1937-38 (-37%) and 1951-52 (-39%). On the other
hand, five booms were recorded for the years 1918-19 (37%), 1924-25 (49%), 1936-37
(30%), 1950-51 (45%) and 1954-55 (23%). These patterns of fluctuations in
merchandize export growth of Singapore is inextricably linked to international
economic conditions. A boom during World War I (1915-17); the immediate post-war
buying euphoria and world-wide inflation in 1919; recession from mid 1920 to 1921; a
sharp upswing in the mid-1920s; and the slump in the early 1930s, followed by a partial
recovery in the form of a mini-boom in 1937 were some of the extreme conditions
during the 1900-39 period. For the period 1950-60, drastic expansion was recorded for
1951 due to the Korean War.
By utilizing Huff’s estimates on export value of major export commodities, an
attempt was made to provide supportive reasons, which led to these fluctuations. As
presented in Table 3.10, rubber, tin and petroleum were the three major commodities
which can portray the movement of merchandize exports. In 1917, the three comprised
47% of Singapore’s total exports. This proportion rose to 61% in 1925, due to further
rapid increases in rubber exports and the sudden growth of petroleum trade. In 1955,
these three commodities combined to account for some 59% of Singapore’s exports
though the share of tin had significantly decreased. Out of these three commodities, the
share of rubber to total merchandize exports in particular rapidly increased after 1914.
The share of rubber varied from 5% (1913) to 45% (1925) and 53% (1951). In line with
147
the growing predominance of rubber exports, in relation to Singapore’s total
merchandize exports, it has inevitably influenced the level and the resulting fluctuations
of Singapore’s total merchandize exports (See Figure 3.5).
World demand for rubber was basically strongly tied to the development of
motorized transport. The automobile industry needed rubber mainly for the manufacture
of tyres. Between 1913 and the 1930s, the United States annually imported one half to
three quarters of world rubber production. Its automotive industry took three quarters of
these imports. Because of high export dependence on the United States and the demand
and supply conditions for rubber, instability in the American economy had a powerful
impact on Singapore. As presented in Table 3.12, total merchandize exports to United
States, which mainly comprised rubber, tin and petroleum increased more than 10 times
between 1911 and 1927. In the 1950s, however, the destination of Singapore’s primary
exports shifted from the United States to Europe due to the invention and widespread
use of the cheaper synthetic rubber in United States paralleled by the emergence of a
large demand of rubber in Europe, including Eastern Europe.
148
Table 3.11
Singapore: Total Merchandize Exports and Exports of Major Commodities,
1900-39 and 1950-60
Total Merchandize Exports [1] Rubber [2] Tin [3] Petroleum [4]= [1]+[2]+[3]
Value ($,000) Growth Value Growth % share Value Growth % share Value Growth % share Value ($,000) % share
rate (%) ($,000) rate (%) ($,000) rate (%) ($,000) rate (%)
1900 185,788 - 34,505 19 2,282 1 36,787 20 1900
1901 194,810 5 - 36,896 7 19 2,238 -2 1 39,134 20 1901
1902 209,278 7 - 38,592 4 18 1,543 -37 1 40,135 19 1902
1903 211,524 1 - 41,782 8 20 3,422 80 2 45,204 21 1903
1904 199,956 -6 26 0 41,796 0 21 5,818 53 3 47,640 24 1904
1905 197,619 -1 528 301 0 38,980 -7 20 1,068 -170 1 40,576 21 1905
1906 202,211 2 1,648 114 1 46,333 17 23 833 -25 0 48,814 24 1906
1907 201,830 0 2,895 56 1 43,929 -5 22 835 0 0 47,659 24 1907
1908 181,050 -11 2,940 2 2 33,478 -27 18 922 10 1 37,340 21 1908
1909 185,627 2 5,438 62 3 32,038 -4 17 925 0 0 38,401 21 1909
1910 219,520 17 9,838 59 4 34,669 8 16 854 -8 0 45,361 21 1910
1911 226,768 3 12,435 23 5 41,373 18 18 473 -59 0 54,281 24 1911
1912 241,814 6 10,270 -19 4 47,879 15 20 724 43 0 58,873 24 1912
1913 256,154 6 13,961 31 5 55,875 15 22 621 -15 0 70,457 28 1913
1914 228,330 -11 21,328 42 9 40,905 -31 18 663 7 0 62,896 28 1914
1915 303,860 29 54,642 94 18 55,000 30 18 1,206 60 0 110,848 36 1915
1916 377,950 22 103,254 64 27 51,410 -7 14 3,213 98 1 157,877 42 1916
1917 491,849 26 171,637 51 35 60,828 17 12 841 -134 0 233,306 47 1917
1918 496,637 1 139,136 -21 28 73,454 19 15 696 -19 0 213,286 43 1918
1919 720,347 37 260,934 63 36 72,427 -1 10 1,259 59 0 334,620 46 1919
1920 724,271 1 232,510 -12 32 70,491 -3 10 1,956 44 0 304,957 42 1920
1921 415,808 -55 83,918 -102 20 41,713 -52 10 1,890 -3 0 127,521 31 1921
1922 414,959 0 104,132 22 25 44,721 7 11 10,762 174 3 159,615 38 1922
1923 512,781 21 158,185 42 31 46,727 4 9 34,833 117 7 239,745 47 1923
1924 551,010 7 151,856 -4 28 75,168 48 14 30,768 -12 6 257,792 47 1924
1925 899,853 49 405,844 98 45 72,556 -4 8 71,127 84 8 549,527 61 1925
1926 874,758 -3 342,328 -17 39 76,338 5 9 78,658 10 9 497,324 57 1926
1927 791,614 -10 271,354 -23 34 91,929 19 12 73,659 -7 9 436,942 55 1927
1928 652,825 -19 162,407 -51 25 82,565 -11 13 - 244,972 38 1928
1929 658,964 1 183,592 12 28 76,560 -8 12 49,494 8 309,646 47 1929
1930 526,016 -23 100,461 -60 19 47,257 -48 9 - 147,718 28 1930
1931 326,419 -48 49,937 -70 15 29,800 -46 9 65,101 20 144,838 44 1931
1932 269,487 -19 28,536 -56 11 24,565 -19 9 58,145 -11 22 111,246 41 1932
1933 289,624 7 45,451 47 16 51,208 73 18 42,285 -32 15 138,944 48 1933
1934 331,880 14 124,045 100 37 45,333 -12 14 44,649 5 13 214,027 64 1934
1935 345,552 4 112,379 -10 33 52,725 15 15 50,911 13 15 216,015 63 1935
1936 365,742 6 131,428 16 36 63,457 19 17 42,416 -18 12 237,301 65 1936
1937 492,141 30 206,172 45 42 77,692 20 16 54,047 24 11 337,911 69 1937
1938 339,475 -37 120,511 -54 35 39,082 -69 12 54,924 2 16 214,517 63 1938
1939 435,886 25 178,765 39 41 69,527 58 16 52,561 -4 12 300,853 69 1939
1950 3,025,750 1,405,274 46 207,190 7 160,677 5 1,773,141 59 1950

1951 4,745,242 45 2,518,844 58 53 261,457 23 6 201,701 23 4 2,982,002 63 1951
1952 3,199,610 -39 915,895 -101 29 217,429 -18 7 307,796 42 10 1,441,120 45 1952
1953 2,654,114 -19 750,764 -20 28 172,292 -23 6 341,584 10 13 1,264,640 48 1953
1954 2,685,518 1 785,088 4 29 195,912 13 7 350,556 3 13 1,331,556 50 1954
1955 3,368,699 23 1,399,635 58 42 202,192 3 6 371,097 6 11 1,972,924 59 1955
1956 3,428,975 2 1,216,551 -14 35 138,657 -38 4 446,236 18 13 1,801,444 53 1956
1957 3,478,133 1 1,171,094 -4 34 133,562 -4 4 444,964 0 13 1,749,620 50 1957
1958 3,140,343 -10 1,045,556 -11 33 48,337 -102 2 370,308 -18 12 1,464,201 47 1958
1959 3,440,263 9 1,533,074 38 45 4,448 -239 0 371,657 0 11 1,909,179 55 1959
1960 3,477,053 1 1,426,513 -7 41 5,161 15 0 379,209 2 11 1,810,883 52 1960
Not Available
Figure 3.5
Singapore: Merchandize Exports by Major Export Commodities
(A) 1900-39 (B) 1950-60
1,000,000 5,000,000
900,000 4,500,000
800,000 4,000,000
Exports Value (Straits $ ,000)
Exports Value (Straits $ ,000)
700,000 3,500,000
600,000 3,000,000
500,000 2,500,000
400,000 2,000,000
300,000 1,500,000
200,000 1,000,000
100,000 500,000
- -
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
Year Year
Total Merchandize Exports Value ($,000) Total Merchandize Exports Value ($,000)
[1] Rubber Value ($,000) [1] Rubber Value ($,000)
[2] Tin Value ($,000) [2] Tin Value ($,000)
[3] Petroleum Value ($,000) [3] Petroleum Value ($,000)
Source: Figure arranged from Huff (1994)
149
Table 3.12
Singapore: Exports by Country and Region, 1911/13, 1925/27 and 1957/59,
(Annual Average)
1911/1913 1925/1927 1957/1959
$'000 % $'000 % $'000 %
Southeast Asia 123,111 47.8% 304,543 35.1% 1,317,149 39.3%
Malaya (Peninsular Malaysia) 58,485 22.7% 148,631 17.1% 694,688 20.7%
Netherland East Indies (Indonesia) 39,358 15.3% 102,041 11.8% 244,642 7.3%
Siam (Thailand) 9,666 3.8% 22,405 2.6% 82,283 2.5%
Indo-China (Vietnam) 2,323 0.9% 9,463 1.1% 49,737 1.5%
British Borneo (Sarawak, North Borneo and Brunei) 6,182 2.4% 14,102 1.6% 164,467 4.9%
Burma 5,467 2.1% 5,900 0.7% 23,937 0.7%
Philippine Islands and Sulu Archipelago 1,630 0.6% 2,000 0.2% 57,395 1.7%
Europe, North America and Japan 105,916 41.1% 470,440 54.2% 1,381,892 41.2%
United Kingdom 35,925 13.9% 49,208 5.7% 278,808 8.3%
Europe 33,372 13.0% 75,460 8.7% 594,735 17.7%
United States 31,188 12.1% 316,768 36.5% 253,309 7.6%
Canada 638 0.2% 2,378 0.3% 46,226 1.4%
Japan 4,793 1.9% 26,626 3.1% 208,814 6.2%
Rest of World 28,597 11.1% 93,295 10.7% 653,872 19.5%
Hong Kong 8,137 3.2% 6,826 0.8% 50,881 1.5%
China 3,240 1.3% 7,959 0.9% 75,498 2.3%
India 11,553 4.5% 14,399 1.7% 62,144 1.9%
Sri Lanka 1,919 0.7% 4,152 0.5% 12,147 0.4%
Australia 1,501 0.6% 30,619 3.5% 118,724 3.5%
Others 2,246 0.9% 29,339 3.4% 334,477 10.0%
Gross Exports (Inclusive of Coins and Bullions) 257,624 100.0% 868,278 100.0% 3,352,913 100.0%
Notes:
1 The figures include treasure of bullion and specie.
2 Columns may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Huff (1994:81 and 282-283).
3.3.2.4.2 Imports of Goods and Services
As was described earlier, the structure of imports by major object was similar to that
of exports. Merchandize imports of Singapore have generally moved in tandem to that
of merchandize exports though the former was consistently higher than the latter. Apart
from rubber, tin, petroleum and other commodities, most of the major consumer and
capital goods imported recorded higher values than exports since retained imports in the
domestic market were finally distributed for either intermediate or final consumption,
capital formation and stocks. Singapore’s pattern of imports from Asia has been
substantially modified when Singapore developed as an entrepôt dealing essentially
with the import and export of commodities such as rubber, tin, petroleum etc. The city
became more dependent on imports from its immediate hinterland of Malaya,
Netherlands East Indies and British Borneo which were the main suppliers of these
commodities which were re-exported to the West. As is presented in Table 3.13, these
three territories combined, accounted for 39.8% (1911/1913), 59.1% (1925/1927) and
150
51.4% (1957/1959) of total merchandize imports of Singapore. Other than these major
commodities, Singapore imported food from elsewhere in Southeast Asia and
manufactures from the Western countries for domestic consumption and re-exports.
Table 3.13
Singapore: Imports by Country and Region, 1911/13, 1925/27 and 1957/59
(Annual Average)
1911/1913 1925/1927 1957/1959
$'000 % $'000 % $'000 %
Southeast Asia 182,584 57.3% 694,775 69.7% 2,229,456 57.0%
Malaya (Peninsular Malaysia) 64,565 20.3% 203,537 20.4% 742,144 19.0%
Netherland East Indies (Indonesia) 56,577 17.8% 344,747 34.6% 1,066,791 27.3%
Siam (Thailand) 30,329 9.5% 72,565 7.3% 142,220 3.6%
Indo-China (Vietnam) 11,560 3.6% 20,196 2.0% 41,698 1.1%
British Borneo (Sarawak, North Borneo and Brunei) 5,431 1.7% 40,087 4.0% 200,837 5.1%
Burma 12,430 3.9% 12,336 1.2% 33,496 0.9%
Philippine Islands and Sulu Archipelago 1,692 0.5% 1,306 0.1% 2,269 0.1%
Europe, North America and Japan 65,382 20.5% 184,419 18.5% 1,045,944 26.7%
United Kingdom 34,656 10.9% 89,396 9.0% 390,957 10.0%
Europe 16,183 5.1% 35,860 3.6% 270,696 6.9%
United States 4,825 1.5% 30,824 3.1% 127,015 3.2%
Canada 104 0.0% 2,328 0.2% 11,390 0.3%
Japan 9,614 3.0% 26,011 2.6% 245,886 6.3%
Rest of World 70,572 22.2% 117,662 11.8% 637,790 16.3%
Hong Kong 25,909 8.1% 27,180 2.7% 86,295 2.2%
China 8,395 2.6% 32,233 3.2% 135,122 3.5%
India 19,934 6.3% 30,821 3.1% 66,395 1.7%
Sri Lanka 621 0.2% 798 0.1% 2,430 0.1%
Australia 10,781 3.4% 13,481 1.4% 112,726 2.9%
Others 4,932 1.5% 13,151 1.3% 234,821 6.0%
Gross Imports (Inclusive of Coins and Bullions) 318,538 100.0% 996,856 100.0% 3,913,191 100.0%
Notes:
1. The figures include treasure of bullion and specie.
2. Columns may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Huff (1994:81and 282-283).
3.3.3 International Comparison
3.3.3.1 Growth Rate of GDP and Its Components
It might be of interest to make comparisons of GDP estimates of Singapore with
that of other nations. For this purpose, six countries were chosen, based on data
availability, they being UK, USA, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Finland. Figure 3.6 depicts
the comparison of Singapore’s annual growth rate of GDP with these selected countries
for the period 1900-39 at current prices.72 One outstanding feature arising from these
comparisons was the volatility in the GDP growth rates of Singapore compared to the
other countries during this period. Nevertheless, there was a common pattern amongst
72
Ideally, comparison would be made based on the constant prices with same base year. However, it is impossible to conduct this
exercise since each country used different base years. Therefore, it was decided to utilize current price figures for international
comparison.
151
all countries reflected in the sharp dip in GDP growth rates during the period of WWI
and the Great Depression years in the early 1930s. It would be noted that the growth of
Singapore in the 1930s was very similar to that of Malaya and USA.73
Figure 3.6
Annual Growth Rates (%) of GDP of Singapore against Selected Countries,
[A] Singapore and Malaya [B] Singapore and Japan [C] Singapore and Korea
50.0
50.0 50.0
40.0
40.0 40.0
30.0
30.0 30.0
20.0
20.0 20.0
growth rate (%)
10.0
growth rate (%)

growth rate (%)
10.0 10.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
-10.0
-10.0 -10.0
-20.0
-20.0 -20.0
-30.0
-30.0 -30.0
-40.0
-40.0 -40.0
-50.0 -50.0 -50.0
Year Year Year
Singapore Japan
Singapore Malaya Singapore Korea
[D] Singapore and Taiwan [E] Singapore and UK [F] Singapore and Finland
50.0 50.0 80.0
40.0 40.0
60.0
30.0 30.0
40.0
20.0 20.0
growth rate (%)

growth rate (%)
growth rate (%)
10.0 10.0 20.0
0.0 0.0
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
0.0
-10.0 -10.0
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
-20.0 -20.0 -20.0
-30.0 -30.0
-40.0
-40.0 -40.0
-50.0 -50.0 -60.0
Year Year Year
Singapore Taiwan Singapore UK Singapore Finland
[G] Singapore and USA

50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0 Sources: (Malaya) Nazrin, Raja (2002), (Japan, Korea and Taiwan)
growth rate (%)
10.0
0.0
Mizoguchi, Toshiyuki and Umemura, Mataji (edit.) (1988), (UK) Feinstein,
C.H, (1974), (Finland) Hjerppe, Riitta (1996), (USA) Carter, Susan B.
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
-10.0
-20.0
-30.0
(2006).
-40.0
-50.0
Year
Singapore USA
Subsequently, annual growth rate of each component of GDP was observed (See
Figures 3.7-3.11). Unlike annual growth rate of GDP, annual growth rate of each
component of GDP was somewhat not significantly different from that observed for the
other selected countries.
In the case of PFCE, all selected countries recorded remarkably steep annual growth
rate increase during the 1916-20 period. Subsequently, all selected countries
experienced a continuous negative growth during the world depression in the early
1930s. Annual growth rate of GFCE recorded significant increases, particularly in UK
and Japan during the World War I period and The Japan-Russo War respectively.
73
For the period 1929-1939, correlations of GDP growth between (a) Singapore and Malaya and (b) Singapore and USA was
0.7187 and 0.5959 respectively.
152
Unlike these countries, Singapore did not experience wide fluctuations of government
final consumption expenditure.
Figure 3.7
Annual Growth Rates (%) of Private Final Consumption Expenditure by Resident
Household (PFCE) of Singapore against Selected Countries,
30.0
50.0 50.0
20.0 40.0 40.0
30.0 30.0
10.0
20.0 20.0
growth rate (%)
growth rate (%)
growth rate (%)

0.0
10.0 10.0
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
-10.0 0.0 0.0
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
-10.0 -10.0
-20.0
-20.0 -20.0
-30.0
-30.0 -30.0
-40.0 -40.0 -40.0
Year Year Year
Singapore Malaya Singapore Japan Singapore Korea
40.0 30.0 70.0
60.0
30.0
20.0 50.0
40.0
20.0
10.0 30.0
growth rate (%)

growth rate (%)
growth rate (%)
10.0 20.0
0.0
10.0
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
0.0
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
0.0
-10.0
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
-10.0 -10.0
-20.0 -20.0
-20.0
-30.0
-30.0 -30.0 -40.0

Year Year Year
Sources: (Malaya) Nazrin, Raja (2006), (UK) Feinstein, C.H, (1974), (Finland) Hjerppe, Riitta (1996), (Japan, Korea and Taiwan)
Mizoguchi, Toshiyuki and Umemura, Mataji (edit.) (1988)
Figure 3.8
Annual Growth Rates (%) of Government Final Consumption Expenditure
(GFCE) of Singapore against Selected Countries,
100.0
100.0 100.0
50.0 50.0
50.0
growth rate (%)
growth rate (%)

growth rate (%)
0.0 0.0
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
0.0
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
-50.0
-50.0
-50.0
-100.0
Year -100.0
Year
Year
100.0 150.0 100.0
100.0
50.0 50.0
growth rate (%)
growth rate (%)
growth rate (%)
50.0
0.0
0.0
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
0.0
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
-50.0
-50.0
-50.0
-100.0
-100.0 -100.0
Year
Year Year
153
The percentage annual growth rate of Gross Capital Formation for the period
1900-39 experienced relatively frequent volatilities. During the early 1920s and 1930s,
most of the countries experienced negative growth due to the world wide recessions.
Interestingly, the movement of Singapore was somewhat very similar to that of Malaya
(See Figure 3.9). Figures 3.10 and 3.11 portray the annual growth of both exports and
imports of goods and services. As was observed in the case of Gross Capital Formation,
annual growth rates of both imports and exports of goods and services experienced
similar patterns. Interestingly, Malaya, Japan, Taiwan and Korea have all recorded
similar patterns of growth during the period.
In addition to annual growth rate of GDP and its components, it is necessary to
observe the difference in the percentage contribution of each GDP component to total
GDP among the selected countries.
Figure 3.9
Annual Growth Rates (%) of Gross Capital Formation (GCF) of Singapore against
Selected Countries, 1900-39 and 1950-60 at Current Prices
100.0
100.0 100.0
50.0 50.0 50.0

growth rate (%)
growth rate (%)

growth rate (%)
0.0 0.0 0.0

1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
-50.0 -50.0 -50.0
-100.0 -100.0 -100.0

Year Year Year
100.0 200.0 150.0
150.0 100.0
50.0
100.0
50.0
growth rate (%)
growth rate (%)
growth rate (%)
50.0
0.0
0.0
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
0.0
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
-50.0
-50.0
-50.0
-100.0
-100.0
-150.0
-100.0 -150.0
Year
Year Year
Singapore UK Singapore Finland

Singapore Taiwan
154
Figure 3.10
Annual Growth Rates (%) of Exports of Goods and Services (EXGS) of Singapore
against Selected Countries, 1900-39 and 1950-60 at Current Prices
60.0
60.0 60.0
40.0
40.0 40.0
20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0

growth rate (%)
growth rate (%)
growth rate (%)

1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
-20.0 0.0 0.0
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
-40.0
-20.0 -20.0
-60.0
-40.0 -40.0
-80.0
-100.0 -60.0 -60.0

Year Year Year
60.0 60.0 150.0
40.0
40.0 100.0
20.0
20.0
growth rate (%)

growth rate (%)
50.0
growth rate (%)
0.0
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
0.0
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
-20.0 0.0
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
-20.0
-40.0
-50.0
-40.0 -60.0
-100.0
-60.0 -80.0
Year
Year Year
Figure 3.11
Annual Growth Rates (%) of Imports of Goods and Services (IMGS) of Singapore
against Selected Countries, 1900-39 and 1950-60 at Current Prices
60.0
60.0 60.0
40.0 40.0 40.0
20.0 20.0 20.0

growth rate (%)
growth rate (%)
growth rate (%)
0.0 0.0 0.0

1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
-20.0 -20.0 -20.0
-40.0 -40.0 -40.0
-60.0 -60.0 -60.0
-80.0 -80.0
-80.0
Year Year
Year
60.0 60.0 200.0
40.0 40.0 150.0
20.0 20.0 100.0

growth rate (%)
growth rate (%)
growth rate (%)
0.0 0.0
50.0
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
-20.0 -20.0
0.0
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
-40.0 -40.0
-50.0
-60.0 -60.0
-100.0
-80.0 -80.0
Year
Year Year
155
3.3.3.2 Share of Each Component of GDP to GDP
In terms of percentage share of each GDP component to total GDP, inter-country
comparisons are presented in Table 3.14 and Figures 3.12-3.15. In terms of share of
PFCE and GCF to GDP, Singapore has experienced a relatively higher percentage share
than that of the other countries. On the other hand, in terms of the share of GFCE,
Singapore has shown to have relatively smaller percentage share than the other nations.
One unique feature that does not escape notice in general is the continuous negative
share of Singapore’s net export of goods and services to GDP throughout the entire
study period.74 Singapore had extensive contacts with other nations and each of them
served as a crucial port for their respective hinterland, undertaking certain essential
distributive, financial and transportation functions. This entrepôt background gave them
certain initial advantages. But, Singapore is almost totally lacking in natural resources.
Its arable land can provide only a small portion of its food requirements. Additionally,
Singapore does not have her own rural hinterlands in which a majority of their people
still live and support themselves by subsistence or commercial agriculture. Nor do they
have a domestic market large enough to serve as the initial base for industrialization.
Hence, Singapore’s very existence depended upon its ability to import, which in turn
rested upon its capacity to earn the necessary foreign exchange by exporting goods and
services to competitive regional and world markets.75 The extreme dependence of
Singapore on foreign trade, in consequence, led to it being extremely vulnerable against
external economic shocks and consequently its impact on GDP (Peebles, Gavin and
Peter Wilson, 2002).
74
It will be noted that the share of each component of GDP for Singapore has been relatively similar to that of the Dutch.
Unfortunately, the share of each component of the Dutch GDP was available for the period 1814-1913 only.
75
As is described in page 146, while the merchandize trade balance was consistently negative, the combined invisible trade and
capital and financial account (CFA) was positive largely due to the inflow of foreign direct investments.
156
Table 3.14
Percentage Share of Components of GDP to Total GDP for Selected Countries
Private Final Consumption Expenditure by Resident Households
Singapore Japan Korea Taiwan UK Finland Dutch
1900 96 - - - 84 85 84
1911 88 73 99 78 84 85 91
1926 94 78 92 72 87 81 -
1934 81 71 88 64 84 67 -
1950 81 - - - 73 65 -
1960 87 - - - 67 59 -
Government Final Consumption Expenditure

1900 6 - - - 9 7 7
1911 7 9 3 6 8 9 6
1926 8 7 4 6 10 9 -
1934 8 12 6 7 10 11 -
1950 7 - - - 16 11 -
1960 6 - - - 16 13 -

1900 12 - - - 10 16 13
1911 21 19 5 11 7 16 18
1926 22 18 5 13 10 10 -
1934 12 17 9 17 10 17 -
1950 15 - - - 12 22 -
1960 13 - - - 19 29 -

1900 -15 0 0 0 -3 -8 -4
1911 -16 -1 -7 5 1 -9 -16
1926 -23 -3 0 10 -6 0
1934 0 0 -3 12 -4 5
1950 -3 0 0 0 -1 1
1960 -6 0 0 0 -2 -1
Sources: (Japan, Korea and Taiwan) Mizoguchi, Toshiyuki and Umemura, Mataji (edit.) (1988), (UK) Feinstein (1974), (Finland)
Hjerppe, Riitta (1996), (Dutch) J.-P.Smits, E.Horlings and J.L.van Zanden (2000).
157
Figure 3.12
Percentage Share of Private Final Consumption Expenditure in
Gross Domestic Product in Current Prices, 1900-39
Singapore and Selected Countries
120.0
100.0
80.0
% of GDP
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
Year
Singapore Malaya Japan Korea Taiwan UK Finland Dutch
Sources: (Malaya) Nazrin, Raja (2002), (Japan, Korea and Taiwan) Mizoguchi, Toshiyuki and Umemura, Mataji (edit.) (1988),
(UK) Feinstein (1974), (Finland) Hjerppe, Riitta (1996), (Dutch) J.-P.Smits, E.Horlings and J.L.van Zanden (2000).
Figure 3.13
Percentage Share of Government Final Consumption Expenditure in
Gross Domestic Product in Current Prices, 1900-39
Singapore and Selected Countries
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
% of GDP
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
Year

158
Figure 3.14
Percentage Share of Gross Capital Formation in Gross Domestic Product in
Current Prices, 1900-39, Singapore and Selected Countries
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
% of GDP
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
Year

Figure 3.15
Percentage Share of Net Exports of Goods and Services in Gross Domestic Product
in Current Prices, 1900-39, Singapore and Selected Countries
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
% of GDP
0.0
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
-10.0
-20.0
-30.0
-40.0
-50.0
-60.0
Year

159
3.4 Overall Pattern of Singapore’s GDP during the Twentieth Century
3.4.1 Transforming the base year from 1914 prices to 1990 prices for the period
1900-39 and 1950-60
In order to conduct a quantitative investigation for this entire 100-year period, it
becomes inevitable that a time-series data stretching over the twentieth century with one
base year be constructed. In this exercise, the year 1990 was selected as base year for
the entire twentieth century due to the availability of time-series data for the period
1960-95, provided in the Singapore System of National Accounts 1995 and 1996-2000
in the Asian Development Bank, Key Indicators of Developing Asian and Pacific
Countries, 2001. On the other hand, 1914 was selected as a base year for the period
1900-39 and 1950-60 as discussed in Chapter 2. For purposes of conducting rebasing
from 1914 to 1990 prices for the period, 1900-39 and 1950-60 from 1914 prices, the
following formula was applied for re-scaling.

x
E90 = xE14 X 60E90
60
E14
Where xEy is the estimate of year x in base year y prices.
As is presented in Chapter 2, PFCE and GFCE were deflated by CPI. On the other
hand, other components of GDP were deflated differently. In the case of GCF,
investment in cultivated assets, construction, transport, machinery and equipment and
change in stock was deflated by each deflator separately. Similar to this, merchandize
trade and service trade were deflated by their respective deflators. Nevertheless, official
database for the years 1960-2000 merely provides implicit deflators for each component
of GDP. Under these constraints of availability of deflator, it was decided to apply the
implicit deflators for GCF, EXGS and IMGS (See Tables 3.15 and 3.16).
160
Table 3.15
Conversion Ratio from 1914 price to 1990 price
for the period 1900-39 and 1950-60
Private Final Consumption Expenditure (PFCE)

CPI (1914=100) for 1960 [1] 437.05
Implicit Deflators for PFCE (1990=100) for 1960 [2] 40.93
Conversion Ratio [2]/[1] 0.09
Government Final Consumption Expenditure (GFCE)
CPI (1914=100) for 1960 [1] 437.05
Implicit Deflators for GFCE (1990=100) for 1960 [2] 34.57
Gross Capital Formation (GCF)
Implicit Deflators for GCF (1914=100) for 1960 [1] 274.02
Implicit Deflators for GCF (1990=100) for 1960 [2] 17.20
Exports of Goods and Services (EXGS)
Implicit Deflators for EXGS (1914=100) for 1960 [1] 280.99
Implicit Deflators for EXGS (1914=100) for 1960 [2] 52.50
Imports of Goods and Services (IMGS)
Implicit Deflators for IMGS (1914=100) for 1960 [1] 273.29
Implicit Deflators for IMGS (1914=100) for 1960 [2] 53.40
For the new series in 1990 prices, the growth rates of each component of GDP,
namely, PFCE, GFCE, GCF, EXGS and IMGS for the years 1900-39 and 1950-60
correspond to the 1914 constant price series. However, the growth rates of GDP
components in 1990 prices are different from that of GDP series in 1914 prices.
Similarly, as would be expected, the percentage share of each component of GDP in
1990 prices was different from 1914 prices.
For conducting the empirical investigation on the economic growth of Singapore for
the twentieth century in Chapter Four and Five, it is inevitable to use the time-series
data on GDP and its components with a single base year.
161
Table 3.16
The Methodology for Deriving Deflators (1990=100) by Each Component of GDP,
1900-39 and 1950-2000
Private Final Consumption Government Final Consumption Gross Fixed Capital Formation Exports of Goods and Services Imports of Goods and Services
Expenditure Expenditure
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Implicit Deflator Implicit Deflator Implicit Deflator Implicit Deflator Implicit Deflator
1914=100 1990=100 1914=100 1990=100 1914=100 1990=100 1914=100 1990=100 1914=100 1990=100
1900 82.73 7.75 82.73 6.54 116.56 7.32 87.73 16.39 87.68 17.13 1900
1901 83.57 7.83 83.57 6.61 110.20 6.92 89.91 16.80 90.33 17.65 1901
1902 86.73 8.12 86.73 6.86 113.57 7.13 95.11 17.77 96.03 18.76 1902
1903 87.79 8.22 87.79 6.94 114.49 7.19 93.73 17.51 94.31 18.43 1903
1904 87.89 8.23 87.89 6.95 113.54 7.13 88.77 16.58 88.83 17.36 1904
1905 89.51 8.38 89.51 7.08 104.70 6.57 90.96 16.99 91.02 17.79 1905
1906 88.13 8.25 88.13 6.97 89.66 5.63 96.43 18.02 96.64 18.88 1906
1907 88.04 8.25 88.04 6.96 95.33 5.98 91.14 17.03 90.71 17.72 1907
1908 89.25 8.36 89.25 7.06 98.45 6.18 86.52 16.16 86.08 16.82 1908
1909 87.13 8.16 87.13 6.89 96.88 6.08 89.98 16.81 89.45 17.48 1909
1910 88.78 8.31 88.78 7.02 92.50 5.81 98.67 18.44 98.21 19.19 1910
1911 97.35 9.12 97.35 7.70 85.57 5.37 105.61 19.73 105.98 20.71 1911
1912 99.03 9.27 99.03 7.83 93.52 5.87 110.02 20.56 110.11 21.51 1912
1913 101.09 9.47 101.09 8.00 107.89 6.77 107.72 20.13 108.07 21.12 1913
1914 100.00 9.37 100.00 7.91 100.00 6.28 100.00 18.68 100.00 19.54 1914
1915 106.54 9.98 106.54 8.43 110.90 6.96 109.89 20.53 110.78 21.65 1915
1916 113.14 10.60 113.14 8.95 132.20 8.30 120.81 22.57 121.89 23.82 1916
1917 117.78 11.03 117.78 9.32 157.39 9.88 130.73 24.42 131.16 25.63 1917
1918 140.43 13.15 140.43 11.11 208.19 13.07 145.25 27.14 144.57 28.25 1918
1919 172.28 16.14 172.28 13.63 200.33 12.58 155.62 29.08 150.70 29.45 1919
1920 221.30 20.73 221.30 17.50 265.74 16.68 180.53 33.73 189.99 37.12 1920
1921 174.82 16.37 174.82 13.83 221.32 13.90 123.13 23.01 117.89 23.04 1921
1922 156.16 14.62 156.16 12.35 159.71 10.03 104.67 19.56 100.81 19.70 1922
1923 152.11 14.25 152.11 12.03 131.57 8.26 113.76 21.26 113.59 22.20 1923
1924 151.49 14.19 151.49 11.98 128.88 8.09 116.57 21.78 119.72 23.39 1924
1925 155.07 14.52 155.07 12.26 126.57 7.95 146.06 27.29 149.97 29.30 1925
1926 160.33 15.02 160.33 12.68 124.82 7.84 134.90 25.20 137.37 26.84 1926
1927 158.00 14.80 158.00 12.50 124.90 7.84 126.62 23.66 126.37 24.69 1927
1928 156.66 14.67 156.66 12.39 122.86 7.71 106.02 19.81 103.98 20.32 1928
1929 153.27 14.35 153.27 12.12 121.01 7.60 100.75 18.82 98.40 19.23 1929
1930 145.73 13.65 145.73 11.53 112.92 7.09 81.73 15.27 78.26 15.29 1930
1931 124.49 11.66 124.49 9.85 96.28 6.04 68.93 12.88 64.84 12.67 1931
1932 109.58 10.26 109.58 8.67 92.19 5.79 59.87 11.19 55.87 10.92 1932
1933 101.76 9.53 101.76 8.05 72.27 4.54 59.05 11.03 53.14 10.38 1933
1934 104.44 9.78 104.44 8.26 78.53 4.93 70.66 13.20 68.67 13.42 1934
1935 108.53 10.16 108.53 8.58 71.99 4.52 72.11 13.47 69.73 13.62 1935
1936 106.70 9.99 106.70 8.44 70.60 4.43 74.85 13.98 72.66 14.20 1936
1937 113.08 10.59 113.08 8.94 75.11 4.72 81.90 15.30 80.37 15.70 1937
1938 109.42 10.25 109.42 8.65 83.49 5.24 72.60 13.56 69.01 13.48 1938
1939 110.16 10.32 110.16 8.71 85.39 5.36 79.51 14.85 76.98 15.04 1939
1950 359.02 33.62 359.02 28.40 286.27 17.97 236.01 44.10 235.24 45.97 1950
1951 451.51 42.29 451.51 35.71 343.94 21.59 329.63 61.59 332.36 64.94 1951
1952 469.80 44.00 469.80 37.16 405.01 25.43 272.03 50.83 273.39 53.42 1952
1953 458.41 42.93 458.41 36.26 334.21 20.98 240.67 44.97 232.56 45.44 1953
1954 436.94 40.92 436.94 34.56 343.77 21.58 234.26 43.77 226.04 44.17 1954
1955 427.08 40.00 427.08 33.78 374.11 23.49 270.61 50.56 266.17 52.01 1955
1956 431.66 40.43 431.66 34.14 347.89 21.84 264.83 49.48 258.56 50.52 1956
1957 444.20 41.60 444.20 35.13 375.85 23.60 260.01 48.58 252.80 49.40 1957
1958 441.93 41.39 441.93 34.95 331.93 20.84 253.01 47.27 243.88 47.65 1958
1959 436.87 40.91 436.87 34.55 299.91 18.83 273.82 51.16 267.22 52.22 1959
1960 437.05 40.93 437.05 34.57 274.02 17.20 280.99 52.50 273.29 53.40 1960
1961 40.99 36.15 18.28 52.50 53.40 1961
1962 41.10 37.71 23.39 52.50 53.40 1962
1963 41.61 37.78 22.86 52.40 53.30 1963
1964 42.09 37.83 26.46 53.30 54.20 1964
1965 42.36 37.85 27.45 53.00 53.90 1965
1966 43.20 38.01 29.04 50.70 51.60 1966
1967 44.23 38.17 29.30 51.00 51.90 1967
1968 44.78 38.21 31.09 48.20 49.00 1968
1969 44.77 38.70 33.68 50.20 51.10 1969
1970 45.35 39.38 37.19 52.60 53.50 1970
1971 46.89 41.83 39.58 53.20 54.10 1971
1972 48.10 42.45 44.43 53.40 54.40 1972
1973 54.71 45.43 49.48 60.50 61.60 1973
1974 61.46 52.71 58.30 85.40 85.70 1974
1975 63.28 56.23 59.41 86.10 86.70 1975
1976 63.68 58.01 62.43 91.90 92.60 1976
1977 65.01 59.14 62.91 95.60 96.70 1977
1978 66.71 60.71 65.13 97.50 98.80 1978
1979 69.67 63.14 70.31 102.80 104.90 1979
1980 75.46 69.44 79.10 113.10 116.10 1980
1981 80.06 75.18 86.55 116.90 119.70 1981
1982 66.09 84.98 87.06 116.60 117.20 1982
1983 83.22 86.74 88.04 111.00 111.20 1983
1984 85.86 89.34 88.83 104.90 106.20 1984
1985 86.55 108.54 86.57 103.30 105.10 1985
1986 86.90 86.44 84.60 89.50 91.10 1986
1987 89.11 86.45 86.95 96.30 98.70 1987
1988 92.55 92.32 94.93 97.90 99.40 1988
1989 96.75 98.48 98.67 99.30 99.90 1989
1990 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 1990
1991 102.57 100.66 102.70 97.60 96.40 1991
1992 104.95 100.82 104.88 94.00 93.00 1992
1993 109.18 101.56 110.01 93.10 91.90 1993
1994 114.10 106.64 109.34 92.10 89.20 1994
1995 115.30 107.02 110.13 91.30 88.10 1995
1996 114.35 110.75 107.79 90.10 86.80 1996
1997 115.49 111.63 108.89 89.00 85.40 1997
1998 114.22 109.10 106.67 88.04 84.47 1998
1999 114.95 104.57 104.24 88.23 87.16 1999
2000 116.33 109.26 101.19 92.83 90.41 2000
162
3.4.2 Overall Patterns of Growth for the Twentieth Century
This section attempts to briefly re-examine the economic growth of Singapore
during the entire twentieth century from the view points of GDP growth and share of
each component of GDP against GDP.
3.4.2.1 Growth Rate of GDP and Its Component in the Twentieth Century
Singapore’s GDP growth rate has been high and remarkably consistent over a long
time period; the size of economy being measured simply in terms of real domestic
output. In 1939, real GDP (1990 prices) was 5.7 times its 1900 level. In 2000, real GDP
increased tremendously such that it was 33.8 times its 1950 level. The annual average
growth rate of GDP for the periods 1900-39 and 1950-2000 was 4.5% and 7.2%
respectively while the growth rate of real per-capita GDP for the same periods was
1.5% and 4.6%76 (See Table 3.17 and Figures 16 and 17). Both results reinforce the
historical fact that the overall growth rate of GDP during the post-World War II period
was significantly higher than that of the pre-World War II period. Table 3.17 gives
some indication of these growth rates for nine (9) decades. The most rapid growth of
real GDP and real per capita GDP was recorded in the 1960s and 1970s. Subsequently,
the growth rates were somewhat slightly lower after the 1980s. Each component of
GDP also showed a similar phenomenon.
Table 3.18 depicts the annual growth rates of both real GDP and its components and
it can be seen that many fluctuations were observed during the British colonial period
(up to 1957). Similarly, most of the negative growth rates for the twentieth century were
recorded during the British colonial period for the years 1930-32, 1938 and 1952
namely, -21% (1930) -23% (1931), -7% (1932), -11% (1938) and -19% (1952). In fact,
many countries faced a similar economic situation due to the world depression. On the
other hand, high growth rates of more than 20% were recorded for the years 1933 (23%),
76
The annual average growth rate was calculated based on the simple arithmetic average of yearly exponential growth rates.
163
1935 (22%), 1953 (24%) and 1956 (21%). On the other hand, real GDP has recorded
sustained and high growth rates during the period of self-government. For the years
1966-73, real GDP growth rates have constantly exceeded 10% exclusive of 1964 (-4%).
During this period, huge and significant foreign direct investment (FDI) into Singapore
was observed. For the period 1976-2000, real GDP growth rate was in the range of
6-11%, excluding the years 1985 (-2%) and 1998 (0.3%). During this period,
Singapore’s economy was boosted by the rapid expansion of the manufacturing and
financial and business services (Peebles, Gavin and Wilson, Peter, 2002:95).
Table 3.17
Singapore: Average Annual Growth Rate of Each Component of GDP and
Per-capita GDP at 1990 Prices, 1900-2000
PFCE GFCE GCF NETEX GDP Per-capita

GDP
1900-10 2.6 4.7 13.1 4.6 1900-10 1.8
1911-20 1.7 1.7 2.9 2.2 1911-20 -1.0
1921-30 6.4 8.0 5.9 6.1 1921-30 2.8
1931-39 4.9 2.4 7.4 5.0 1931-39 2.3
1950-60 6.0 4.3 5.9 5.1 1950-60 0.3
1961-70 6.1 13.3 14.5 8.8 1961-70 6.5
1971-80 6.8 7.0 8.9 8.6 1971-80 7.1
1981-90 5.9 6.5 5.0 7.0 1981-90 4.7
1991-2000 5.7 8.1 7.0 7.2 1991-2000 4.5
1900-1939 3.9 4.2 7.3 4.5 1900-1939 1.5
1950-2000 6.2 7.4 8.5 7.2 1950-2000 4.6
Abbreviations:
PFCE Private Final Consumption Expenditure by resident households
164
Table 3.18
Singapore: Components of GDP, 1900-39 and 1950-2000 (1990 Prices)
Private Final Consumption Government Final Consumption Gross Capital Formation Net Exports of Goods Statistical GDP at Martket Prices
Expenditure in The Domestic Expenditure and Services Discrepancy
[1] % of GDP % [2] % of % [3] % of % [4] % of [4] % of [5]=[1]+[2]+ %

Straits $ growth Straits $ GDP growth Straits $ GDP growth GDP Straits $ GDP [3]+[4] growth
millions millions millions millions
1900 434.7 79 34.1 6 59.2 11 24.9 4 552.8 1900

1901 441.8 73 2 40.6 7 18 81.4 13 32 45.3 7 609.1 10 1901
1902 444.5 75 1 37.3 6 -9 72.2 12 -12 36.5 6 590.5 -3 1902
1903 453.4 78 2 46.8 8 23 87.3 15 19 -4.5 -1 582.9 -1 1903
1904 463.4 74 2 52.8 8 12 128.6 21 39 -18.9 -3 625.9 7 1904
1905 471.5 73 2 46.2 7 -13 118.7 18 -8 12.8 2 649.3 4 1905
1906 487.9 71 3 45.1 7 -3 112.9 17 -5 36.7 5 682.7 5 1906
1907 504.1 73 3 44.8 6 -1 140.1 20 22 4.0 1 692.9 1 1907
1908 521.1 66 3 47.0 6 5 183.1 23 27 34.9 4 786.1 13 1908
1909 543.1 69 4 45.5 6 -3 171.4 22 -7 25.6 3 785.7 0 1909
1910 561.7 64 3 54.3 6 18 219.8 25 25 41.6 5 877.3 11 1910
1911 541.0 65 -4 51.3 6 -6 219.2 26 0 16.9 2 828.5 -6 1911
1912 552.8 67 2 49.9 6 -3 256.3 31 16 -36.3 -4 822.7 -1 1912
1913 562.5 68 2 60.8 7 20 265.5 32 4 -67.2 -8 821.6 0 1913
1914 600.0 71 6 62.3 7 2 241.0 28 -10 -54.6 -6 848.7 3 1914
1915 587.6 67 -2 52.7 6 -17 203.1 23 -17 39.3 4 882.7 4 1915
1916 585.4 72 0 52.7 6 0 181.1 22 -11 -6.0 -1 813.3 -8 1916
1917 670.8 68 14 49.4 5 -6 207.1 21 13 53.7 5 981.1 19 1917
1918 710.8 75 6 58.2 6 16 190.0 20 -9 -17.0 -2 941.9 -4 1918
1919 666.1 68 -7 50.5 5 -14 231.5 24 20 34.8 4 982.9 4 1919
1920 664.5 61 0 64.5 6 24 294.2 27 24 75.0 7 1,098.2 11 1920
1921 865.9 70 26 96.0 8 40 314.8 25 7 -39.5 -3 1,237.2 12 1921
1922 970.3 73 11 98.8 7 3 180.8 14 -55 73.2 6 1,323.0 7 1922
1923 1,017.2 73 5 99.8 7 1 199.5 14 10 73.1 5 1,389.7 5 1923
1924 1,048.2 73 3 109.8 8 10 212.9 15 6 64.6 4 1,435.5 3 1924
1925 1,073.2 62 2 99.6 6 -10 421.0 24 68 148.6 9 1,742.3 19 1925
1926 1,083.0 62 1 104.9 6 5 475.7 27 12 78.7 5 1,742.3 0 1926
1927 1,178.5 68 8 115.9 7 10 558.7 32 16 -121.1 -7 1,731.9 -1 1927
1928 1,254.2 56 6 118.4 5 2 938.8 42 52 -74.9 -3 2,236.5 26 1928
1929 1,280.0 52 2 131.0 5 10 935.6 38 0 137.3 6 2,483.9 10 1929
1930 1,256.0 62 -2 143.0 7 9 530.0 26 -57 94.2 5 2,023.2 -21 1930
1931 1,124.8 70 -11 167.4 10 16 459.9 28 -14 -137.9 -9 1,614.3 -23 1931
1932 1,159.8 77 3 166.9 11 0 346.7 23 -28 -175.5 -12 1,497.9 -7 1932
1933 1,277.8 68 10 161.1 9 -3 450.6 24 26 -0.4 0 1,889.1 23 1933
1934 1,262.3 69 -1 141.3 8 -13 376.7 21 -18 40.0 2 1,820.3 -4 1934
1935 1,421.7 58 12 147.5 6 4 745.7 31 68 128.9 5 2,443.8 29 1935
1936 1,599.7 64 12 152.2 6 3 691.6 28 -8 44.2 2 2,487.6 2 1936
1937 1,724.0 57 7 154.5 5 2 1,004.9 33 37 119.5 4 3,002.9 19 1937
1938 1,911.6 71 10 172.5 6 11 760.2 28 -28 -160.5 -6 2,683.9 -11 1938
1939 1,952.4 62 2 177.5 6 3 1,027.6 33 30 2.9 0 3,160.4 16 1939
1940 7 1940
1950 2,714.7 66 262.2 6 938.5 23 226.2 5 4,141.7 1950
1951 2,556.9 60 -6 257.4 6 -2 1,085.2 25 15 382.6 9 4,282.1 3 1951
1952 2,639.3 75 3 285.8 8 10 764.4 22 -35 -149.8 -4 3,539.7 -19 1952
1953 3,186.6 71 19 341.4 8 18 987.8 22 26 -0.5 0 4,515.3 24 1953
1954 3,377.8 71 6 415.6 9 20 916.0 19 -8 71.0 1 4,780.4 6 1954
1955 3,484.8 75 3 457.3 10 10 786.1 17 -15 -92.7 -2 4,635.4 -3 1955
1956 4,040.0 71 15 482.8 8 5 1,234.4 22 45 -66.9 -1 5,690.3 21 1956
1957 4,116.0 76 2 474.8 9 -2 1,071.0 20 -14 -274.0 -5 5,387.7 -5 1957
1958 4,298.7 77 4 513.7 9 8 1,114.2 20 4 -311.8 -6 5,614.9 4 1958
1959 4,131.3 70 -4 540.2 9 5 1,181.9 20 6 25.9 0 5,879.3 5 1959
1960 4,694.4 80 13 467.2 8 -15 1,421.2 24 18 -448.2 -8 -243 -4 5,891.7 0 1960
1961 5,145.0 80 9 573.1 9 20 1,475.9 23 4 -548.2 -9 -251 -4 6,394.7 8 1961
1962 5,340.5 78 4 627.1 9 9 1,672.2 24 12 -404.0 -6 -390 -6 6,846.3 7 1962
1963 5,591.5 74 5 729.7 10 15 2,130.9 28 24 -671.1 -9 -218 -3 7,562.8 10 1963
1964 5,317.5 73 -5 743.5 10 2 2,049.1 28 -4 -480.1 -7 -393 -5 7,237.1 -4 1964
1965 5,524.9 72 4 813.2 11 9 2,359.6 31 14 -541.7 -7 -438 -6 7,718.2 6 1965
1966 5,917.1 69 7 924.5 11 13 2,511.4 29 6 -389.5 -5 -428 -5 8,535.2 10 1966
1967 6,449.7 67 9 1,004.5 10 8 2,837.3 29 12 -462.3 -5 -182 -2 9,647.3 12 1967
1968 7,101.1 64 10 1,174.6 11 16 3,458.1 31 20 -382.2 -3 -329 -3 11,023.0 13 1968
1969 7,683.4 61 8 1,446.6 12 21 4,267.2 34 21 -811.8 -6 -88 -1 12,497.2 13 1969
1970 8,643.7 61 12 1,758.3 12 20 6,034.6 43 35 -1,961.0 -14 -298 -2 14,177.2 13 1970
1971 9,663.7 61 11 2,058.0 13 16 7,018.4 44 15 -2,473.2 -16 -312 -2 15,955.0 12 1971
1972 10,543.1 58 9 2,332.5 13 13 7,635.9 42 8 -2,228.0 -12 -200 -1 18,083.4 13 1972
1973 11,589.3 58 9 2,460.5 12 5 8,175.4 41 7 -1,312.1 -7 -795 -4 20,118.6 11 1973
1974 12,459.9 58 7 2,463.1 11 0 9,794.2 46 18 -2,306.2 -11 -933 -4 21,478.5 7 1974
1975 12,833.7 57 3 2,530.7 11 3 9,040.2 40 -8 -1,470.5 -7 -605 -3 22,329.0 4 1975
1976 13,514.7 56 5 2,657.3 11 5 9,581.0 40 6 -1,112.0 -5 -707 -3 23,933.9 7 1976
1977 14,258.0 55 5 2,902.3 11 9 9,217.8 36 -4 -97.5 0 -490 -2 25,791.1 7 1977
1978 15,213.4 54 6 3,236.3 12 11 10,682.3 38 15 -471.7 -2 -654 -2 28,006.1 8 1978
1979 16,141.4 53 6 3,220.6 11 0 12,657.8 41 17 -515.9 -2 -890 -3 30,613.7 9 1979
1980 17,109.6 51 6 3,524.6 10 9 14,699.8 44 15 -522.0 -2 -1,230 -4 33,581.6 9 1980
1981 17,897.8 49 5 3,709.4 10 5 15,697.9 43 7 -54.5 0 -444 -1 36,807.0 9 1981
1982 18,584.8 47 4 4,201.4 11 12 17,985.3 46 14 -925.7 -2 -509 -1 39,337.2 7 1982
1983 19,469.7 46 5 4,606.0 11 9 19,985.6 47 11 -513.9 -1 -993 -2 42,554.7 8 1983
1984 20,463.4 44 5 4,846.5 11 5 21,858.5 47 9 -228.5 0 -848 -2 46,091.7 8 1984
1985 20,280.9 45 -1 6,033.2 13 22 19,118.4 42 -13 197.0 0 -285 -1 45,344.9 -2 1985
1986 21,179.9 46 4 6,096.6 13 1 17,395.6 38 -9 1,481.7 3 234 1 46,388.0 2 1986
1987 23,227.1 46 9 6,147.9 12 1 18,745.1 37 7 2,549.0 5 231 0 50,899.9 9 1987
1988 26,353.3 46 13 5,780.9 10 -6 18,256.2 32 -3 6,036.3 11 394 1 56,821.1 11 1988
1989 28,594.8 46 8 6,106.4 10 5 20,640.0 33 12 6,647.5 11 300 0 62,288.8 9 1989
1990 30,762.0 45 7 6,779.7 10 10 24,348.8 36 17 5,988.4 9 0 0 67,878.9 9 1990
1991 32,560.0 45 6 7,387.1 10 9 25,070.8 34 3 7,908.8 11 -66 0 72,860.9 7 1991
1992 34,716.6 45 6 7,564.5 10 2 27,759.1 36 10 7,670.8 10 -317 0 77,393.8 6 1992
1993 38,472.1 45 10 8,461.3 10 11 32,289.6 38 15 7,008.7 8 -759 -1 85,473.2 10 1993
1994 40,567.6 43 5 8,467.2 9 0 32,367.7 34 0 13,591.9 14 -931 -1 94,063.6 10 1994
1995 42,630.1 42 5 9,525.4 9 12 35,712.2 35 10 15,981.4 16 -1,550 -2 102,299.1 8 1995
1996 46,122.1 42 8 11,022.5 10 15 44,098.1 40 21 11,168.4 10 -1,712 -2 110,699.2 8 1996
1997 48,884.3 41 6 11,806.3 10 7 50,201.2 42 13 11,663.9 10 -2,416 -2 120,140.2 8 1997
1998 47,451.6 39 -3 12,746.8 11 8 41,994.9 35 -18 20,327.7 17 -2,314 -2 120,206.9 0 1998
1999 49,961.6 39 5 13,378.0 11 5 44,225.6 35 5 22,243.3 17 -2,559 -2 127,250.0 6 1999
2000 54,641.1 39 9 15,212.6 11 13 49,191.1 35 11 23,449.0 17 -2,654 -2 139,839.5 9 2000
Sources: Figures for the period 1900-39 and 1950-59 are estimated by the author while the figures for 1960-2000 are obtained from
official publication of the Department of Statistics, Singapore (1996) and Asian Development Bank (2001).
165
Figure 3.16
Singapore: GDP at Current and Constant (1990 Prices), 1900-39 and 1950-2000
180,000
160,000 GDP (Current Prices)
140,000 GDP (1990 Prices)
Straits $ (millions)
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
-
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1954
1959
1964
1969
1974
1979
1984
1989
1994
1999
Year
Figure 3.17
Singapore: Per-capita GDP at Current and Constant (1990 Prices),
1900-39 and 1950-2000
45,000
40,000
Per-capita GDP (Current Prices)
35,000
Per-capita GDP (1990 Prices)
30,000
Straits $
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
-
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1954
1959
1964
1969
1974
1979
1984
1989
1994
1999
Year
166
3.4.2.2 Share of Each Component of GDP
Table 3.19 shows the 10-yearly average share of each component of GDP for the
period 1900-39 and 1950-2000 while Table 3.20 and Figure 3.18 present the annual
share of each component of GDP at current prices in Singapore for the same period.
Table 3.19
Singapore: Annual Average Share of Each Component to GDP at Current Prices,
1900-39 and 1950-2000
PFCE GFCE GCF NETEX

1900-10 90.9 7.2 17.7 -15.7
1911-20 94.8 7.3 26.6 -28.7
1921-30 84.7 7.2 19.0 -11.0
1931-39 77.2 7.3 16.3 -0.7
1950-60 85.2 8.1 13.2 -6.5
1961-70 78.6 10.3 22.3 -11.9
1971-80 59.1 10.8 41.2 -10.7
1981-90 45.5 11.6 41.5 1.2
1991-2000 41.9 9.5 34.5 15.2
1900-1939 87.3 7.2 19.9 -14.4
1950-2000 63.0 10.0 29.9 -2.9
Note: Figures might not add to 100 because of the statistical discrepancy.
Sources: Figures for the period 1900-39 and 1950-59 are estimated by the author while the figures for 1960-2000 are obtained
from official publication of the Department of Statistics, Singapore (1996) and Asian Development Bank (2001).
Abbreviations:
PFCE=Private Final Consumption Expenditure by resident households, GFCE=Government Final Consumption Expenditure
GCF=Gross Capital Formation, NETEX=Net Exports of Goods and Services
Figure 3.18
Singapore: Share of Each Component of GDP to GDP at Current Prices,
1900-39 and 1950-2000
120
100
80
60
% of GDP
40
20
0
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1951
1953
1955
1957
1959
1961
1963
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
-20
-40
-60
-80
Year
PFCE GFCE GFCF NETEX
Abbreviations:
PFCE Private Final Consumption Expenditure by resident households
167
Table 3.20
Singapore: Components of GDP, 1900-39 and 1950-2000 (Current Prices)
Private Final Consumption Government Final Consumption Gross Capital Formation Net Exports of Goods Statistical Discrepancy GDP at Martket Prices
Expenditure in The Domestic Expenditure and Services
[1] % of % [2] % of % [3] % of % [4] % of [4] % of [5]=[1]+[2]+ %

Straits $ GDP growth Straits $ GDP growth Straits $ GDP growth Straits $ GDP Straits $ GDP [3]+[4] growth
millions millions millions millions millions
1900 33.7 96 2.2 6 4.3 12 -5.2 -15 35.1 1900

1901 34.6 87 3 2.7 7 19 5.6 14 26 -3.0 -8 39.9 13 1901
1902 36.1 96 4 2.6 7 -5 5.1 14 -9 -6.0 -16 37.8 -5 1902
1903 37.3 110 3 3.2 10 24 6.3 19 20 -13.0 -38 33.8 -11 1903
1904 38.1 102 2 3.7 10 12 9.2 25 38 -13.6 -36 37.4 10 1904
1905 39.5 93 4 3.3 8 -11 7.8 18 -16 -7.9 -18 42.7 13 1905
1906 40.3 88 2 3.1 7 -4 6.4 14 -21 -3.8 -8 46.0 7 1906
1907 41.6 93 3 3.1 7 -1 8.4 19 28 -8.4 -19 44.7 -3 1907
1908 43.6 78 5 3.3 6 6 11.3 20 30 -2.4 -4 55.8 22 1908
1909 44.3 82 2 3.1 6 -6 10.4 19 -8 -3.7 -7 54.1 -3 1909
1910 46.7 76 5 3.8 6 19 12.8 21 20 -1.9 -3 61.4 13 1910
1911 49.3 88 5 4.0 7 4 11.8 21 -8 -8.9 -16 56.2 -9 1911
1912 51.3 103 4 3.9 8 -1 15.1 30 25 -20.2 -41 50.0 -12 1912
1913 53.3 111 4 4.9 10 22 18.0 37 18 -28.1 -58 48.0 -4 1913
1914 56.2 104 5 4.9 9 1 15.1 28 -17 -22.4 -42 53.9 11 1914
1915 58.6 86 4 4.4 7 -10 14.1 21 -7 -9.4 -14 67.8 23 1915
1916 62.0 107 6 4.7 8 6 15.0 26 6 -23.8 -41 58.0 -16 1916
1917 74.0 85 18 4.6 5 -2 20.5 24 31 -12.1 -14 86.9 41 1917
1918 93.5 95 23 6.5 7 34 24.8 25 19 -26.7 -27 98.1 12 1918
1919 107.5 75 14 6.9 5 6 29.1 20 16 0.5 0 144.0 38 1919
1920 137.7 94 25 11.3 8 49 49.1 34 52 -51.6 -35 146.5 2 1920
1921 141.8 75 3 13.3 7 16 43.7 23 -12 -9.7 -5 189.1 26 1921
1922 141.9 77 0 12.2 7 -8 18.1 10 -88 11.0 6 183.3 -3 1922
1923 144.9 88 2 12.0 7 -2 16.5 10 -10 -8.9 -5 164.5 -11 1923
1924 148.7 100 3 13.2 9 9 17.2 12 4 -29.9 -20 149.2 -10 1924
1925 155.9 89 5 12.2 7 -7 33.5 19 66 -27.3 -16 174.2 15 1925
1926 162.6 94 4 13.3 8 9 37.3 22 11 -40.0 -23 173.2 -1 1926
1927 174.4 106 7 14.5 9 9 43.8 27 16 -67.6 -41 165.1 -5 1927
1928 184.0 78 5 14.7 6 1 72.4 31 50 -33.8 -14 237.3 36 1928
1929 183.7 65 0 15.9 6 8 71.1 25 -2 10.6 4 281.3 17 1929
1930 171.4 72 -7 16.5 7 4 37.6 16 -64 13.5 6 239.0 -16 1930
1931 131.1 80 -27 16.5 10 0 27.8 17 -30 -11.3 -7 164.1 -38 1931
1932 119.0 84 -10 14.5 10 -13 20.1 14 -33 -11.5 -8 142.0 -14 1932
1933 121.8 70 2 13.0 7 -11 20.4 12 2 19.1 11 174.3 20 1933
1934 123.5 81 1 11.7 8 -11 18.6 12 -10 -0.7 0 153.0 -13 1934
1935 144.5 71 16 12.7 6 8 33.7 17 60 13.2 6 204.1 29 1935
1936 159.9 79 10 12.8 6 1 30.7 15 -9 0.0 0 203.4 0 1936
1937 182.6 74 13 13.8 6 7 47.4 19 44 4.5 2 248.3 20 1937
1938 195.9 85 7 14.9 6 8 39.8 17 -17 -19.3 -8 231.4 -7 1938
1939 201.4 76 3 15.5 6 4 55.1 21 32 -5.7 -2 266.3 14 1939
1950 912.8 81 74.4 7 168.7 15 -33.4 -3 1,122.5 1950

1951 1,081.2 78 17 91.9 7 21 234.3 17 33 -24.0 -2 1,383.4 21 1951
1952 1,161.2 96 7 106.2 9 14 194.4 16 -19 -258.3 -21 1,203.6 -14 1952
1953 1,368.1 82 16 123.8 7 15 207.3 12 6 -31.9 -2 1,667.2 33 1953
1954 1,382.2 80 1 143.6 8 15 197.7 11 -5 3.8 0 1,727.4 4 1954
1955 1,393.8 88 1 154.5 10 7 184.6 12 -7 -154.5 -10 1,578.4 -9 1955
1956 1,633.2 84 16 164.8 8 6 269.6 14 38 -114.1 -6 1,953.6 21 1956
1957 1,712.3 89 5 166.8 9 1 252.7 13 -6 -200.8 -10 1,931.1 -1 1957
1958 1,779.1 88 4 179.6 9 7 232.2 12 -8 -177.3 -9 2,013.6 4 1958
1959 1,690.3 83 -5 186.7 9 4 222.5 11 -4 -65.8 -3 2,033.8 1 1959
1960 1,921.5 89 13 161.5 8 -14 244.5 11 9 -300.9 -14 123.0 6 2,149.6 6 1960
1961 2,108.8 91 9 207.2 9 25 269.8 12 10 -351.0 -15 94.3 4 2,329.1 8 1961
1962 2,195.1 87 4 236.5 9 13 391.2 16 37 -276.9 -11 -32.2 -1 2,513.7 8 1962
1963 2,326.6 83 6 275.7 10 15 487.1 17 22 -426.9 -15 127.4 5 2,789.9 10 1963
1964 2,238.2 82 -4 281.3 10 2 542.2 20 11 -318.7 -12 -28.4 -1 2,714.6 -3 1964
1965 2,340.6 79 4 307.8 10 9 647.7 22 18 -356.3 -12 16.4 1 2,956.2 9 1965
1966 2,556.2 77 9 351.4 11 13 729.4 22 12 -273.7 -8 -40.6 -1 3,322.7 12 1966
1967 2,852.6 76 11 383.4 10 9 831.2 22 13 -315.9 -8 -2.8 0 3,748.5 12 1967
1968 3,179.7 74 11 448.8 10 16 1,075.2 25 26 -283.6 -7 -105.1 -2 4,315.0 14 1968
1969 3,439.7 69 8 559.9 11 22 1,437.4 29 29 -532.4 -11 115.3 2 5,019.9 15 1969
1970 3,919.6 68 13 692.5 12 21 2,244.5 39 45 -1,179.1 -20 127.4 2 5,804.9 15 1970
1971 4,531.5 66 15 860.8 13 22 2,778.1 41 21 -1,484.2 -22 154.3 2 6,840.5 16 1971
1972 5,071.2 62 11 990.2 12 14 3,392.7 41 20 -1,378.2 -17 119.1 1 8,195.0 18 1972
1973 6,340.1 62 22 1,117.7 11 12 4,045.2 39 18 -1,041.0 -10 -205.1 -2 10,256.9 22 1973
1974 7,657.6 61 19 1,298.4 10 15 5,709.8 45 34 -2,043.9 -16 -11.8 0 12,610.1 21 1974
1975 8,120.7 60 6 1,423.0 11 9 5,370.4 40 -6 -1,416.4 -11 -54.7 0 13,443.0 6 1975
1976 8,605.9 59 6 1,541.5 11 8 5,981.7 41 11 -1,199.4 -8 -278.8 -2 14,650.9 9 1976
1977 9,268.6 58 7 1,716.3 11 11 5,799.1 36 -3 -424.2 -3 -320.8 -2 16,039.0 9 1977
1978 10,149.1 57 9 1,964.7 11 14 6,957.4 39 18 -897.6 -5 -343.2 -2 17,830.4 11 1978
1979 11,245.2 55 10 2,033.6 10 3 8,899.9 43 25 -1,445.1 -7 -210.6 -1 20,523.0 14 1979
1980 12,911.3 51 14 2,447.4 10 19 11,627.6 46 27 -2,215.8 -9 320.2 1 25,090.7 20 1980
1981 14,329.3 49 10 2,788.6 10 13 13,587.0 46 16 -1,633.5 -6 268.0 1 29,339.4 16 1981
1982 12,282.5 41 -15 3,570.4 12 25 15,658.8 53 14 -1,440.6 -5 -401.2 -1 29,669.9 1 1982
1983 16,202.1 44 28 3,995.3 11 11 17,595.8 48 12 -663.8 -2 -396.6 -1 36,732.8 21 1983
1984 17,569.5 44 8 4,330.0 11 8 19,417.3 48 10 -1,113.0 -3 158.9 0 40,362.7 9 1984
1985 17,552.9 44 0 6,548.5 16 41 16,551.2 41 -16 -945.7 -2 216.6 1 39,923.5 -1 1985
1986 18,404.5 47 5 5,270.2 13 -22 14,716.6 37 -12 143.1 0 729.5 2 39,263.9 -2 1986
1987 20,697.4 48 12 5,314.6 12 1 16,298.7 37 10 589.1 1 669.5 2 43,569.3 10 1987
1988 24,389.7 47 16 5,336.9 10 0 17,329.8 34 6 4,526.7 9 58.7 0 51,641.8 17 1988
1989 27,664.2 47 13 6,013.3 10 12 20,364.9 34 16 5,969.5 10 -668.4 -1 59,343.5 14 1989
1990 30,762.0 45 11 6,779.7 10 12 24,348.8 36 18 5,988.4 9 0.0 0 67,878.9 13 1990
1991 33,398.3 44 8 7,435.8 10 9 25,746.6 34 6 9,293.1 12 -552.9 -1 75,320.9 10 1991
1992 36,436.3 45 9 7,626.6 9 3 29,112.6 36 12 8,587.9 11 -765.9 -1 80,997.5 7 1992
1993 42,004.7 45 14 8,593.4 9 12 35,520.6 38 20 8,556.2 9 -416.2 0 94,258.7 15 1993
1994 46,288.1 43 10 9,029.1 8 5 35,389.7 33 0 18,342.0 17 -824.9 -1 108,224.0 14 1994
1995 49,152.2 41 6 10,194.2 8 12 39,328.3 33 11 21,792.9 18 161.2 0 120,628.8 11 1995
1996 52,741.3 41 7 12,207.6 10 18 47,531.4 37 19 17,553.4 14 -1,832.7 -1 128,201.0 6 1996
1997 56,456.3 40 7 13,179.6 9 8 54,663.9 39 14 18,753.5 13 -2,825.8 -2 140,227.5 9 1997
1998 54,197.6 39 -4 13,907.2 10 5 44,796.7 33 -20 27,289.4 20 -2,726.7 -2 137,464.2 -2 1998
1999 57,429.2 40 6 13,989.1 10 1 46,098.6 32 3 27,479.9 19 -2,886.0 -2 142,110.8 3 1999
2000 63,564.9 40 10 16,620.7 10 17 49,776.4 31 8 29,363.5 18 -283.7 0 159,041.8 11 2000
Sources: Figures for the period 1900-39 and 1950-59 are estimated by the author while the figures for 1960-2000 are obtained from
official publication of the Department of Statistics, Singapore (1996) and Asian Development Bank (2001).
168
For the period 1900-39 and 1950-60, the 10-yearly average share of each component
of GDP was relatively stable though the annual data generally displayed significant
yearly changes.
In contrast to the British colonial period, structural changes were observed after the
attainment of independence in 1965. In particular, private final consumption
expenditure by resident households (PFCE) showed drastic falls from about 89 per cent
of GDP in the 1960 to around 40 per cent at the end of the 20th century.
On the other hand, the share of government final consumption expenditure (GFCE)
to GDP remained fairly constant. The annual share of gross capital formation (GCF) to
GDP, however, has gradually increased after independence from 20% to 40% within the
20-year period (1971-90) though it declined slightly during the 1990s. The most
remarkable change was observed in the net exports of goods and services. Net exports
were in the negative territory up to 1985. This situation dramatically reversed after 1985
when net exports began to predominate in the positive territory. By 2000, the share of
net exports of goods and services was close to 20% of GDP.
There are a number of plausible explanatory factors for this incredible change which
occurred during the last four decades in the structure of GDP. A large fall of PFCE can
be explained by the remarkable increase in Gross Domestic Savings (GDS) over this
long period77 (Peebles and Wilson, 2002: 78 and Ghesquiere, 2007: 165). This increase
of saving rate can be attributed to “forced saving” due to the compulsory public
provident fund system, the Central Provident Fund (CPF).78
As is presented in Figure 3.19, increases in savings naturally lead to the increase in
financing domestic investments and lending abroad. The continuous reduction of the
77
Disposable income is equal to income (output) plus net transfers less taxes. Disposable income, in turn, is allocated to
consumption and saving. Therefore, increases of the weight on saving will lead the fall of share of PFCE against GDP.
78
The Central Provident Fund (CPF) was established by law in 1953 under the colonial administration and started operations in
July 1955. It was initially intended as a fully-funded pension plan for civil servants but has been expanded in coverage and scope
immensely under the PAP government and has become an important part of social and economic policy and has been used for
macroeconomic purposes. Employers and employees both contribute to the member’s account at rates that have changed
significantly over time. All employees are required to be members while permanent residents can be members. The self-employed
can contribute to this fund. The scheme implies no transfers between economic classes and is not redistributive or aimed at reducing
income inequality. It does not guarantee any minimum pension on retirement.
169
share of PFCE has led to a parallel increase in the share of GCF. This structure,
however, experienced significant changes in 1985. Since then, gross national savings
have exceeded domestic investments and this has led to large positive current account
balances.79
Figure 3.19
Singapore: Saving and Investment as ratio of GNP and Current Account Balance,
1960-2000
60 40,000
35,000
50
30,000
40 25,000
S'pore $ millions
20,000
30
% to GNP
15,000
20
10,000
10 5,000
0
0
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
-5,000
-10 -10,000
Current Account Balances $ millions GNS/GNP% I/GNP%
Source: Figure was created based on Table released by Peebles, Gavin and Wilson, Peter (2002: 274-275)
79
The excess of saving over investment (S – I) in the private sector is equal to the government budget deficit (Government
purchases of goods and services (G) plus government transfer payments (TR) minus government revenue (TA)) plus the trade
surplus (NEXGS); S - I = (G + TR – TA) + NEXGS. In the case of Singapore, the government budget has been in the surplus
situation for many years. Thus, it is inevitable to conclude that when savings exceed investments, net exports of goods and services
would be in the positive territory.
170
CHAPTER FOUR
ECONOMIC INSTABILITY AND ECONOMIC GROWTH

IN SINGAPORE IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
4.1 Introduction
It will be recalled that the methodology employed for the construction of GDP
estimates for the Colony of Singapore for the period 1900-39 and 1950-60 was
described in detail in Chapter Two. Subsequently in Chapter Three, the overall
patterns of GDP of Singapore were investigated. The availability of this long-term
economic database stretching over the last hundred years,80 covering the British colonial
era and the more recent period of self-government, enabled us to undertake a long-term
quantitative economic analysis of Singapore.
This chapter is devoted to examining economic instability and its impact on the
economic growth of Singapore during the twentieth century. In this study, economic
instability is defined as the short-term fluctuations of real GDP after adjusting for trend
(Nazrin, 2000, Dawe, 1996). As observed in Chapter Three, the salient feature of
Singapore’s economy is its high degree of openness to international trade. Singapore is
often described as a ‘very open re-export economy’ due to her heavy reliance on
imported intermediate inputs as well as entrepôt exports (Huff, 1994, Lloyd and
Sandilands, 1986, Peebles and Wilson, 1996 and 2002). Basically, this nature of
Singapore’s heavy dependence on the international economic environment remains
essentially unchanged until today. Given this scenario, Singapore has been
extraordinarily vulnerable to external shocks, whether it be a slowdown in export
growth, a sharp exodus of short-term capital, a change in world interest rates, or an
increase in imported inflation (Peebles and Wilson 2002:175).
80
This study does not include 1940-49 due to the absence of historical GDP estimates.
171
Nevertheless, Singapore has experienced two major changes in the twentieth century.
The first involved the shifting of trade dependence from the re-export of primary
commodities to the exports of domestic manufactured goods. Secondly, macroeconomic
management which was dictated by the principle of laissez-faire under the British
colonial administration shifted to government-interventionist fiscal and monetary
policies during the era of self-government (Huff, 1994).
Against this historical backdrop, this chapter focuses on answering three basic
questions relating to the issue of economic instability and its concomitant effect on
economic growth. The first question seeks to examine the pattern of volatility of real
GDP and its components over the century. The second attempt is to identify the
explanatory variables which could statistically explain the sources of real GDP volatility.
Thirdly, this study examines the effect of export instability and other relevant
explanatory variables on the economic growth of Singapore. For all of the above
questions, attention was focused particularly on whether there were any notable
similarities or differences in the relationship between economic instability and
economic growth for the two periods, namely the British colonial era and the period of
self-government.
This chapter is organized as follows. Section 4.2 conducts a literature review on the
studies relating to (i) the extent of volatility of GDP and its components (ii) the source
of real GDP volatility, (iii) the effect of export instability on economic growth and (iv)
the studies on Singapore relating to this topic. Section 4.3 outlines the definition of
economic instability and examines the extent of economic instability of Singapore’s real
GDP and its components, namely private final consumption expenditure, government
final consumption expenditure, gross capital formation, exports of goods and services
and imports of goods and services. Section 4.4 conducts two types of econometric tests,
namely the sources of output volatility and the effect of export instability on economic
172
growth. Based on the results of econometric tests, international comparisons would be
made in Section 4.5. Finally, Section 4.6 provides some concluding remarks.
4.2 Literature review
4.2.1 Declining Degree of Real GDP Volatility
To-date, many studies have been conducted touching on the issues of economic
instability based on the various empirical econometric tests with different time-series
framework undertaken for both developed and developing countries. One of the
academic questions relating to this subject was the declining degree of real GDP
volatility over time. Christina Romer (1986, 1989), Sheffrin (1988) and Nathan Balke
and Robert J. Gordon (1989) observed the fact that real GDP volatility in the United
States after World War II has been smaller than that prior to World War I and discussed
that a diminution of volatility was the reflection of institutional developments and the
successful application of macro-management policies. With regards to this, Backus
David K., Kehoe, Patrick J. (1992) compared output volatility prior to World War I (the
pre-war period 1870-1914), between the wars (the inter-war period 1919-39) and the
period immediately after World War II (1945-88) by utilizing available long-term
statistical data of ten countries, namely Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Italy,
Japan, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom and United States. This study also found that
real GDP volatilities during the pre-World War I period were generally larger than those
of the post World War II period, the extent of the differences varying across countries.
The changes in real GDP variability over time are that the inter-war era experienced
much larger fluctuations than the other two periods although the extent of this higher
volatility again varies from country to country. High volatilities were experienced
during a brief depression in the early 1920s and the Great Depressions of the 1930s
which wrought havoc to the world economy during these years.
173
Similar exercises were conducted by Bergman, U.Michael, Bordo, Michael D. and
Jonung, Lars (1998) and Basu, S and Taylor, Alan (1999) by extending the number of
samples from 10 to 13 countries (Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy,
Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom and United States). The
time periods were decided based on the four distinct international monetary regimes,
namely the Classical Gold Standard period (1870-1914), inter-war period (1919-39),
Bretton Woods era (1945-71) and Floating Exchange Rate era (1970s to present). Their
empirical tests find convergence with the observations made in the works of Backus and
Patrick J. (1992). Volatility was considerably higher during the inter-war years than
during the pre-World War I and the post-World War II periods (See Figure 4.1).
Figure 4.1
Standard Deviations of Output (Real GDP) Volatility during Different Monetary
Regimes
0.09
0.08
0.07
Standard Deviation
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
United Kingdom
Belgium
Germany
Japan
Denmark
France
Canada
United States
Netherlands
Italy
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Gold Standard 1876-1913 Interwar 1920-38 Postwar 1948-95
Source: Bergman, et al. (1998)
In addition to real GDP volatilities, Backus and Patrick (1992) examined volatilities
of expenditure components: consumption, gross investment, government spending and
net exports. Some stylized facts were observed. Firstly, consumption expenditures have
approximately the same standard deviation as output. Secondly, government spending
exhibits little regularities with its volatility relative to output ranging from 0.81 in inter-
174
war Sweden to 8.72 in inter-war Britain to 9.49 in pre-war Japan.81 Thirdly, volatilities
of investment (gross capital formation) has generally varied, with the level of standard
deviation being two to four times larger than output. Fourthly, volatilities of net
exports82 varied across the countries (See Figure 4.2).
In addition to standard deviations of volatility, Backus and Kehoe (1992) examined
the cross-correlations between volatilities of each major component and real GDP. As
presented in Figure 4.3, cross-correlation between fluctuations in consumption and real
GDP ranges from 0.41 in pre-war United Kingdom to 0.91 in the pre-war United States.
Similarly, cross-correlations between investment volatility and that of real GDP is also
relatively high. On the other hand, cross-correlations between government spending and
real GDP, however, exhibit some irregularity. Of the 18 estimated cross-correlations, 10
are positive and eight are negative. In the case of net exports, in two-thirds of the cases
the cross-correlations were negative and often strongly so. In the remaining cases, the
cross-correlations were generally small.
In contrast to above studies, no similar long-term period empirical exercises were
available for developing countries due to the dearth of long-term time-series data which
stretch over the entire twentieth century. This study hopes to bridge the gap by
providing a case study of a developing country like Singapore (See Section 4.3).
Empirical tests on the output volatility after World War II have been more widely
examined for both developed and developing countries. Blanchard and Simon (2001)
measured output volatility in USA, United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Italy
and Japan since the first quarter of 1952. It was noted that volatility increased from the
late 1960s to the mid-1980s, and this was followed by a sharp decline since the second
half of the 1980s for all six countries. A similar pattern was observed from the exercise
conducted by Singh and Fagernäs (2006) as presented in Table 4.1.
81
This large difference was partly due to the expansion of military spending during the Russo-Japanese War.
82
Volatilities of net exports were measured as the ratio of current value net exports to nominal output.
175
Figure 4.2
Standard Deviations of Volatilities of Major Components of GDP Relative to Output (Real GDP) for Pre War, Inter-war and Post War Period
CONSUMPTION GOVERNMENT PURCHASES
3.5 10
9
3.0
8
2.5 7
6
2.0
5
1.5 4
1.0 3
2
0.5
1
Standard Deviations Relative to Output

0.0 0
Australia Canada Denmark Italy Japan Norway Sweden United United Australia Canada Denmark Italy Japan Norway Sweden United United
Kingdom States Kingdom States
Prewar Interwar Postwar Prewar Interwar Postwar
INVESTMENT NET EXPORTS
10 4.0
9 3.5
8
3.0
7
2.5
6
5 2.0
4 1.5
3
1.0
2
0.5
1

0 0.0
Australia Canada Denmark Italy Japan Norway Sweden United United Australia Canada Denmark Italy Japan Norway Sweden United United
Kingdom States Kingdom States
Source: Backus and Kehoe (1992:875).
176
Figure 4.3
Cross-Correlations between Volatilities of Each Major Component and Output (Real GDP)
CONSUMPTION GOVERNMENT PURCHASES
1.00 1.00
0.90 0.80
0.80 0.60
0.70
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.00
0.40
Australia Canada Denmark Italy Japan Norway Sweden United United
0.30 -0.20 Kingdom States
0.20 -0.40
Cross-Correlations with Output

0.10 -0.60
0.00 -0.80
Kingdom States -1.00
INVESTMENT NET EXPORTS
1.00 1.00
0.80
0.80
0.60
0.60 0.40
0.20
0.40 0.00
-0.20 Kingdom States
0.20
-0.40

-0.60
0.00
Australia Canada Denmark Italy Japan Norway Sweden United United -0.80
Kingdom States
-0.20 -1.00
Source: Backus and Kehoe (1992:875).
177
Table 4.1
Standard deviations of annual real GDP growth (GDP % Growth Volatility)
1954-73 1974-83 1984-93 1994-2003

World 4.3 5.3 4.3 3.0
United States 2.5 2.8 1.9 1.2
Germany 2.4 2.0 1.9 1.0
France 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.2
Italy 1.5 2.7 1.4 0.9
United Kingdom 1.8 2.2 2.0 0.8
Japan 2.4 1.9 2.0 1.5
Source: Singh and Fagernäs (2006:3).
Most of the trend decrease in output volatility can be traced to a decrease in the
volatility of consumption and investment. In contrast to regularities found in developed
countries, a similar exercise applied for developing countries yielded different results. A
study by Agénor, McDermott and Prasad (2000) found that output volatility of
developing countries83 were, on average, much higher than the level typically observed
in industrial countries for the period 1978 (1st quarter) to 1995 (4th quarter). Similarly,
studies by De Ferranti et al (2000) and, Singh and Fagernäs (2006) show that there are
also significant geographical differences in output volatility among developing
countries for the period 1960-2004. As presented in Table 4.2, evidence suggests that
volatility has declined over the last two decades in South Asia and less so, in the East
Asia region as a whole. Among the latter country group, volatility has clearly declined
for China, but whether this is the case for the other countries is not clear. To the best of
my knowledge, there are, unfortunately, no previous studies which dealt with the issue
of economic instability during the British colonial period and the period of self-
government. This was plausibly due to the absence of long-term time series economic
data. This study, therefore, represents the first of its kind devoted specifically to
examining the extent of instability of GDP and its components for Singapore during the
twentieth century.
83
Those countries are Chile, Colombia, India, South Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Philippines, Tunisia, Turkey and Uruguay.
178
Table 4.2
Real GDP growth volatility (Standard Deviations and Mean of Growth)
1960-71 1972-81 1982-91 1992-2004 1992-2004
St.Dev 2.6 3.6 1.8 1.3
South Asia
Mean 4.0 3.6 5.2 5.7
St.Dev 7.4 2.0 1.5 2.5 1.7
East Asia & Pacific
Mean 4.9 6.5 7.7 7.9 8.6
St.Dev 1.8 2.2 2.4 2.2
Latin America & Caribbean
Mean 5.4 5.1 1.6 2.8
St.Dev 5.5 3.3 1.1
Middle East & North Africa
Mean 3.8 3.7 3.8
St.Dev 2.0 1.9 1.5 1.7
Sub-Saharan Africa
Mean 5.1 3.2 1.7 2.9
Source: Arranged from Singh and Fagernäs (2006:5, 7 and 9).
4.2.2 The Source of Real GDP Volatilities
As is observed above, most of the developed/OECD countries experienced similar
patterns of output volatilities in the long-term perspective. On the other hand, the results
for developing countries were rather mixed. With regards to this, many studies have
attempted to seek the possible explanatory factors (source) for the decline of real GDP
volatility mainly in developed countries. Cecchetti, Stephen et al. (2006) surveyed the
evidence and competing explanations and found support for the view in decline in the
degree of volatility in the post-World War II period due to a number of reasons, namely
(i) improved inventory management policies (McConnell, Mosser and Perez-Quiros,
1999, McConnell and Perez-Quiros, 2000, Kahn, McConnel and Perez-Quiros, 2002
and Kent, Christopher et al. 2005), (ii) better monetary policy (eg. inflation control)
(Clarida, Gali and Gertler, 2000, Blanchard and Simon, 2001, Martin and Rowthorn,
2004 and Kent, Christopher et al., 2005), (iii) financial innovation in risk sharing
(Dynan, Elmendorf and Sichel, 2006), (iv) increased international commercial openness
(Barrell and Gottschalk, 2004 and (v) luck in the form of smaller shocks (Stock and
Watson, 1988, 1999 and Ahmed and Wilson, 2004). The first four factors emphasized
the government’s role in reducing the adverse effects on the economy arising from
exogenous shocks. The fifth factor, however, may have led to a decline in the
179
magnitude of the shocks globally over this period, regardless of any effect from the first
four factors. Based on this hypothesis, Cecchetti et al. (2006) conducted output
volatility panel regression tests which showed that financial development, as measured
by the importance of bank lending, is linked to real economic stability. Beyond the
importance of financial development, this study provided evidence in favors of the view
that improved inventory control policies played an important role in bringing about
more stable growth. Furthermore, increased commercial openness, measured by the
ratio of imports plus exports to GDP, does not appear to be associated with more stable
growth.
In the case of developing countries, Singh and Fagernäs (2006) conducted
econometric analysis of India, where real GDP volatility has declined over the past two
decades. In their analysis of real GDP volatility, the following factors were regarded as
possible explanatory variables; trade openness ((imports + exports) as a share of
GDP(%)), private financial development (private sector credit as a share of GDP(%),
private capital flows as a share of GDP(%)), government macroeconomic management
(change in CPI , gross fiscal deficit as a share of GDP(%)), external shocks (terms of
trade, percentage change), the structure of the economy (eg. share of agriculture in
GDP(%)), GDP growth rate in the past year and past experiences of real GDP volatility.
Their regression results show that the move away from agriculture has stabilized the
economy while increased financial depth and more favorable developments in terms of
trade have had a similar effect.
In this study for Singapore, similar econometric tests would be applied.
Unfortunately, the availability of statistical information on private sector credit and
share of Gross Value Added of each sector of GDP are not generally available.
Therefore, econometric tests based on only those variables for which data was available
were made and are described in Section 4.4.
180
4.2.3 The Effect of Economic Instability to Economic Growth
4.2.3.1 Export Instability
How economic instability affects economic growth has been an issue of research,
initiated by the work of Ramey, Garey and Ramey, Valerie A. (1994) who found that
countries with large fluctuations in growth rates were inclined to have lower average
growth rates. Many studies were conducted to identify the determinant variables relating
to this issue; their focus being particularly with the effect of export instability on
economic growth for both developed and developing nations. These studies found all
three possible kinds of relationships between export instability and economic growth,
namely, positive, negative and no relationship.
Studies by McBean (1966) and Knudsen and Parnes (1975) found a positive
relationship between the two variables. Their study argues that uncertainty of export
earnings can lead to reduction in consumption and in turn, an increase in savings and
investments and thus economic growth. The conventional measure of export instability,
on the other hand, leads to an opposite conclusion that export instability has a negative
impact on economic growth (Glezakos, 1973, Voivodas, 1974, Moran, 1983, Feder,
1984, Lim David, 1974, 1976, Knudsen, 1975, Rangarajan and Sundararajan, 1976,
Ozler and Harrigan, 1988, Dawe, 1996, Sinha, 1999, Abraha, 2004, Dupasquier and
Patrick, 2006).
A study by Sinha (1999) examined the relationship between export instability and
investment and economic growth in nine Asian countries using time series data (around
1950-97). A negative relationship between export instability and economic growth was
found in the case of Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines and Sri Lanka while on the other
hand a positive relationship was found for South Korea, Myanmar, Pakistan and
Thailand. India, however, displayed mixed results. In the case of domestic investments,
economic growth in most cases was found to be positively associated with it.
181
The results from previous studies on export instability and economic growth rate are
very far from conclusive. However, what is clear is the tendency that export instability
is higher for developing countries than for developed countries (Mullor Sebastian, 1988).
The work by Love (1977, 1987 and 1992) is one of the few studies which examines the
causal relationship between export instability and income instability. His time series
analysis found that developing countries which rely on the export of primary goods,
which are subject to more fluctuations, experienced greater export instability than those
countries relying primarily on the exports of industrial goods.
In the case of Singapore, Wilson (1994) investigates the export earnings instability
of Singapore for the years 1957-88 measured over two separate time periods: 1957-71
and 1972-88. He found that the pattern of the export instability index of the latter period
was even higher than that of first period. Nevertheless, no specific study on Singapore
has yet been made to cover the entire twentieth century. Therefore, this study attempts
to fill the gap in reviewing the long-term patterns of economic instability in a typically
small, open economy like that of Singapore.
Apart from “export instability”, other explanatory variables were also examined and
are described in the ensuing pages.
4.2.3.2 Annual Growth Rate of Exports as a Proportion of GDP
Westphal, Kim and Dahlman (1985) and Pack and Westphal (1986) examined the
relationship between for the annual growth rate of exports as a proportion of GDP and
the economic growth for Korea. Their study emphasizes that a high rate of growth of
exports is an important source of economic growth. An export-oriented economy forces
it to compete world–wide and to produce products that are competitive in quality and
price. A growing export share provides the country with the foreign exchange to pay for
182
its imports particularly of capital goods that serve as an engine for further economic
growth.
4.2.3.3 Terms-of-Trade Volatility
The study by Blattman, Christopher, Hwang, Jason and Williamson, Jeffrey G
(2004) suggests volatility in the terms-of-trade was damaging to economic growth
particularly in the commodity producing colonies based on the experiences from 1870
to 1939 and assessed its impact on the economic performance of the sovereign
industrialized countries and the primary-product producing colonies. Similarly, a study
by Mendoza, Enrique (1994 and 1995) which included 40 industrial and developing
countries also showed that terms-of-trade volatility adversely affected economic growth.
Similar results were derived from the empirical test on developing countries (Bleaney,
Michael, Greenaway, David, 2001 and Turnovsky and Chattopadhyay, 2003).
4.2.3.4 Share of Investment to GDP
De Long and Summers (1991) focused on equipment investment as potentially a key
factor in growth in a post-World War II cross-section of economies spanning the range
from the poorest to the richest using data from the United Nations International
Comparison Project. This study found that countries with high equipment investment
grew extremely rapidly, even controlling for a number of other factors. This association
suggested a causal relationship: rapid growth went with high equipment investment, no
matter whether high investment was a consequence of high saving or of a low relative
equipment prices. Subsequently, De Long, Summers and Abel (1992) documented a
statistically significant and robust cross-country partial correlation between the growth
rate of GDP per worker and the equipment investment/GDP ratio.
183
4.2.3.5 Annual Growth Rate of Government Final Consumption Expenditure as a
Proportion of GDP
The annual growth rate of the ratio of real government final consumption
expenditure to real GDP was also tested as one of the possible determinant variables to
economic growth. Relating to this, Barro (1991) has argued that higher growth rate of
government final consumption spending lowers real GDP growth through the distorting
effects resulting from taxation or government expenditure programs. The results he
obtained from a cross-sectional study of 98 countries for 1965-85 affirms this
proposition.
4.2.3.6 Population growth
Neoclassical growth theory states that the steady state growth rate of output equals
the sum of the growth rate of the labour force and the growth rate of exogenous
technological change. On the other hand, if a high population growth rate increases the
dependency ratio it will serve to retard economic growth (Simon, J.L, 1986). It could
also be argued that a cheap labour supply discourages automation and other productivity
enhancing measures.
4.2.3.7 Gross Domestic Product Per Capita with Time Lag
Neoclassical growth theory predicts that in the transition to the steady state,
countries with lower capital-labour ratios and hence lower output per capita will grow at
a faster rate as a result of diminishing returns. Therefore, the lower the level of GDP per
capita, the higher the potential for rapid growth.
Nazrin (2000) had conducted regression analysis by utilizing above mentioned
explanatory variables for Malaya / Malaysia for the time periods 1895-1939 and 1947-
97. His regression results found that the coefficient of export instability for both periods
was negative and statistically significant while coefficient became smaller in the second
184
period. This implies that the problem of export instability becomes less as the structure
of the economy changed. Additionally, he pointed out that the role of government
macroeconomic management in offsetting the effect of instability also had a lot to do
with the reduced impact on economic growth. This study of Singapore also attempts to
test export instability over the periods 1900-39 and 1950-2000.
4.2.4 Studies on Singapore relating to this issue
Sachs and Warner (1995) identified Singapore as one of the most open economies in
the World. Nevertheless, “open economies” which refer to the degree of integration
with other countries, is different from the “dependence” on trade. Unlike other countries,
in fact, Singapore’s economy “depends” heavily on trading activities. In 2000,
approximate figures of GDP in billions of dollars are presented as follows:
GDP = PFCE + GFCE + GCF + (EX-IM)

160 = 64 + 17 + 50 + 29
This standard way of presenting the account of net exports do not seem as crucial as
some elements of domestic demand. However, we can re-write this underlying
relationship in terms of demand and supply as follows:
Demand = Supply
EX + C + G + I = GDP + IM
287+ 64 + 17 + 50 = 160 + 258
It can be seen that export demand is 4.5 times the amount of domestic private
consumption and 5.7 times the amount of investments. For the period 1992-2000, for
example, changes in the external demand (exports) accounted for over three-quarters of
the changes in real total demand, while changes in domestic demand only accounted for
less than a quarter ( Peebles and Wilson, 2002: 175).
185
A similar exercise was conducted for the twentieth century to examine whether
these relationships still held good. As is presented in Table 4.3, changes in external
demand (exports) accounted for 71.5% and 67.6% of the changes in real total demand
(1990 prices) for the pre-war and post-war periods respectively. In fact, throughout the
twentieth century, Singapore’s total demand was heavily determined by the changes in
external demand.
Table 4.3
Singapore: The Contribution of Domestic and External Demand to Growth in
Total Demand, 1900-2000 (1990 Prices)
Aggregate Private Final Government Gross Capital Domestic External

Demand Consumption Final Formation Demand Demand
Expenditure Consumption
Expenditure
Average Exponential Growth Rate (%)

1900-1939 3.3 3.9 4.2 7.3 4.6 2.4
1950-2000 7.4 5.9 7.9 8.0 6.8 7.8
Average Composition (%)
1900-1939 100.0 24.7 2.4 9.1 36.2 63.8
1950-2000 100.0 23.9 4.3 14.1 42.3 57.7
Contribution to growth in total demand (%)
1900-1939 3.3 1.0 0.1 0.9 1.8 1.5
1950-2000 7.4 1.4 0.4 1.3 3.0 4.4
Percentage contribution to growth in total demand
1900-1939 100.0 -1.4 2.7 27.6 27.9 72.1
1950-2000 100.0 14.9 1.2 16.4 32.4 67.6
Note: Figure was constructed based on the statistical database presented in Chapter 3. All variables are 1990 prices.
This is not surprising since Singapore’s share of external demand remain bigger than
its domestic demand. This situation is very different from that of other economies such
as Japan and USA where domestic demand is the prime mover in total demand. This
implies that any unforeseen shock in external demand may cause a serious impact to
Singapore’s change in total demand itself.
However, Singapore’s economy has experienced a major structural shift in relation
to economic volatility as a result of two major factors. Firstly, there was the shift of
trade dependence from primary commodity re-export to exports of domestic
186
manufactured goods. Secondly, macroeconomic management which was dictated by the
principle of laissez-faire under British colonial administration had shifted to
government-interventionist fiscal and monetary policies in the era of self-government
(Huff, 1994). It is important to investigate whether these shifts have in any way affected
or impacted on economic instability.
Table 4.4 shows percentage contributions of three major export commodities from
Singapore namely tin, rubber and petroleum as against total merchandize exports for the
1900-70. In the early twentieth century, tin accounted for the bulk of total merchandize
exports. This structure, however, experienced some major transitions after the
emergence of rubber in early 1910s and petroleum in the 1920s. By 1920, these three
major export commodities accounted for about 42% of total merchandize exports and
their share increased further to 69% in 1939. In the post World War II period, the
importance of tin dropped significantly. This is mainly because all major smelting work
in Singapore ceased when the Straits Trading Company transferred its operation to
larger smelters located in Butterworth (Penang).
Table 4.4
Singapore: Tin, Rubber and Petroleum Export Quantity Indices and Percentage
Contributions to Merchandize Exports, 1900-70
Export Quantity (1920=100) Percentage Contribution to Merchandize Exports

Tin Rubber Petroleum Tin Rubber Petroleum Total
1910 82.6 0.7 221.0 15.8 4.5 0.4 20.7
1920 100.0 100.0 100.0 9.7 32.1 0.3 42.1
1930 128.5 161.4 5,720.5 9.0 19.1 10.9 39.0
1939 73.4 143.5 11,529.3 16.0 41.0 12.1 69.0
1950 70.9 308.2 23,633.7 6.8 46.4 5.3 58.6
1960 2.0 459.3 38,717.6 0.1 41.0 10.9 52.1
1970 0.2 600.7 178,387.2 0.0 24.4 17.2 41.7
Source: Extracted from Huff (1994: 372-385).
The changes in the export structure brought with it severe fluctuations in annual
export values, volume and percentage contribution to total merchandize exports of these
three major export commodities (See Figure 4.4). These rapid fluctuations were strongly
187
related to the change in the external demand for these commodities. The market price of
these commodities has experienced rapid fluctuations (See Figure 4.5). In particular,
rubber price experienced very large fluctuations throughout the period despite the
implementation of several rubber regulation schemes aimed at bringing stability in its
price during the 1920s and 1930s.
Figure 4.4
Singapore: Percentage Contributions of Tin, Rubber and Petroleum to
Merchandize Exports, 1900-70
60%
% to Merchandize Exports
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
Ye ar
T in Rubber Petroleum
Figure 4.5
Singapore: Export Unit Value Indices (1914=100) of Rubber, Tin and Petroleum,
1900-70
1,200
Rubber Price Indices (1914=100)

1,000 Tin Price Indices (1914=100)
Petroleum Price Indices (1914=100)
800
600
400
200
-
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
188
Table 4.5 shows the standard deviations of price and export volume of these three
major export commodities. In the case of tin, standard deviations of price were
relatively stable over time although export quantity had fallen significantly. In the case
of rubber, high standard deviations on price were recorded during the inter-war period.
On the other hand, export quantity of petroleum had experienced high standard
deviations for the same period.
Table 4.5
Singapore: Standard Deviation of Prices and Export Volume of Rubber, Tin and
Petroleum, 1900-70
Tin Rubber Petroleum
Price Quantity Price Quantity Price Quantity
1900-1918 0.264 0.105 0.430 2.577 0.288 0.653
1919-1939 0.256 0.191 0.703 0.283 0.349 1.672
1950-1970 0.265 2.163 0.255 0.190 0.259 0.556
Source: Calculated based on Huff, W.G (1994)
With independence from the British in 1959, the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP)
ushered in the process of industrialization to diversify away from the “entrepôt base”
which inevitably placed constraints in the form of employment and more importantly
avoid high export earnings instability. For the period 1960-65, an import substitution
policy was initiated based on the expected integration with the Federation of Malaya.
Upon the inclusion of Singapore under the Federation of Malaysia in 1963, fiscal
concession was given to ‘pioneer’ industries for the establishment of a viable industrial
sector. However, when Singapore left the Federation of Malaysia in 1965, trade policies
were entirely changed from inward to outward orientation. Due to the limited size of the
domestic market and dearth of natural resources, the import substitution policy was no
longer valid for Singapore. The focus in trade policy therefore switched towards the
promotion of labour-intensive exports and the attraction of foreign investments. In 1967
when the British government announced its intention to phase out its military bases in
the Republic by 1971, nearly one-fifth of Singapore’s GDP 84 was at stake. This
84
Lee Kuan Yew (2000: 49).
189
triggered the rapid development of export-oriented and labour-intensive industries. In
1968 the Economic Development Board, as part of the trade promotion exercise, was
reorganized and tax incentives were given to encourage export promotion and foreign
investment participation. The new strategy of export promotion combined with a lack of
indigenous industrial entrepreneurs made the attraction of foreign investment a top
priority.
The shift in the policy towards industrialization introduced in the 1960s initially
focused upon low-skill-intensive exports of textiles and garments and simple electrical
goods but moved towards capital-intensive petrol refining in the 1970s and to the
manufacture of more sophisticated electronic goods in the 1970s and 1980s. Although
petroleum refining and bunkering for ships and aircraft increased in importance in
1970s and 1980s, in value-added terms their contribution declined to 9.4 per cent by
2000. As presented in Table 4.6, a major expansion of domestic exports was observed
beginning in 1975. In other words, the importance of the entrepôt trade to the economy
measured by its contribution to GDP, seems to have hit a nadir in the mid-1970s
(Krause et al, 1987:65).
Table 4.6
Singapore: Dependence on Trade 1970 to 2000
Total Domestic Exports Entrepôt
Exports Total Oil Exports Domestic Exports Exports
less Oil Exports
Singapore $ (billions)
1970 82 32 19 13 50
1975 95 56 19 37 39
1980 171 107 59 48 64
1985 129 84 42 42 45
1990 141 93 26 67 48
1995 141 83 12 71 58
2000 149 85 14 71 64
Distribution (%)
1970 100.0 39.0 23.2 15.9 61.0
1975 100.0 58.9 20.0 38.9 41.1
1980 100.0 62.6 34.5 28.1 37.4
1985 100.0 65.1 32.6 32.6 34.9
1990 100.0 66.0 18.4 47.5 34.0
1995 100.0 58.9 8.5 50.4 41.1
2000 100.0 57.0 9.4 47.7 43.0
Source: Based on Wilson, Peter and Peebles, Gavin (2005)
190
In summary, it can be said that there was a significant shift of the trade structure,
from a high concentration of exports of primary commodities to an expansion of exports
comprising mainly domestically manufactured goods. The impact of this structural
change was significant from the viewpoint of a spill-over effect.
4.3 The Extent of Economic Instability in Singapore
4.3.1 Definition and Measurement of Output Volatilities
This section firstly clarifies the definition of economic instability and investigates
the most suitable measurement of economic instability in this exercise. The
representation of economic time series data consists of the trend component and a
cyclical component. The trend component of an economic time series is assumed to be
characterized by a slow and smooth change over time. The cyclical component, on the
contrary, is commonly characterized by recurrent, large swings in the macroeconomic
variables over relatively short periods of time. In the case of GDP, the study of
movements in the trend or secular component has been long viewed as falling within the
realm of growth theory. A cyclical fluctuation was a familiar topic of interest in the field
of business cycle theory. Theories of growth have been concerned with examining the
determinant variables in the long-run trends; for example, traditional one-sector
neoclassical models have focused on factors such as capital accumulation, population
growth and technological change. Theories of business cycle, on the other hand, seek to
answer the question of why economies go through cycles of recession and recovery, or
boom and bust. Any theory of the business cycle makes two sorts of claims: what
shocks are most important in disturbing the economy and what economic structure is
necessary for propagating these shocks (Basu and Taylor, 1999).
In the case of economic instability, the attention was given to examine the
movements in the cyclical component of real GDP. Therefore, in this study, economic
191
instability is defined as the short-run fluctuations of real GDP after adjusting for trend.
It is measured by taking the absolute deviation of real GDP from its long-run trend.
Unfortunately, there is no concrete method of identifying long-run trend (Wilson,
1994, Nazrin, 2000, Singh and Fagernäs, 2006). In the final analysis, the choice of
creation of trend is rather judgmental. A working definition of economic fluctuation of
time series was filtered by the Hodrick-Prescott method, which removes trend
movements from the data.85 The choice of this method is mainly because many previous
studies have applied it for empirical tests 86 (For example Backus and Patrick, 1992,
Agénor, Pierre-Richartd et al, 2000, Blattman, Christopher et al, 2004).
4.3.2 Economic Instability of GDP and Its Components
As is described in the literature review, one of the major questions in all historical
accounts of the evolution of the economic instability is whether the level of volatility
increases or decreases over time. One simple way to look at economic volatility is to
check the standard deviation of variables (Basu and Taylor, 1999). Figure 4.6 and Table
4.7 provides the degree of instability on log of real GDP and its components which was
derived by the Hodrick-Prescott method. Determining periodical frame is an important
step due to the fact that the result would be different depending on the selection of the
period. Alternatively, periodical frame for the pre-World War II was determined based
on the long-term international historical exercises led by Bergman, U.Michael, Bordo,
Michael D. and Jonung, Lars (1998) and Basu, Susanto and Taylor, Alan M (1999),
85
The Hodrick-Prescott filter, described by Hodrick, R and Prescott, E.C. (1980) and Kydland, F.E. and Prescott, E.C. (1982),
defines a trend {τt} for a series {yt} as the solution to the problem
T T −1
min
(τ i )
∑
t =1
( y t − τ ) 2
+ µ ∑
t = 2
[( τ t +1 − τ t ) − (τ t − τ t −1 )] 2
Fluctuations are defined as deviations from trend, yt - τt. We use µ=100 in all tables concerning fluctuations of variables. A
procedure for computing the trend was made based on Eview 4.1.
86
Bergman, U.Michael, Bordo, Michael D. and Jonung, Lars (1998) apply the Baxter-King (1995) band-pass filter to extract all
variations of a variable at business cycle frequencies. Love (1992) and Sinha (1999) define the measure of export instability as the
absolute value of the deviations of actual exports from a five-year moving average of exports. Singh and Fagernäs (2006) applied
the three-year moving average. Wilson (1994) selected the autocorrelation corrected exponential regression model.
192
namely Pre-World War I period (1900-13) and Inter-War Period (1914-39). For the
post World War II period (1950-2000), two sub-periods were set, namely 1950-74 and
1975-2000 based on the historical fact that Singapore’s economy had experienced a
transformation from entrepôt trade involving the export of primary commodities to one
that increasingly depended on the export of domestically manufactured goods.
Figure 4.6
Singapore: Trend GDP, Actual GDP and Percentage Deviation of GDP from
Trend, 1900-2000 (Trend obtained using HP filter)
14
12
10
Log of GDP
-
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
YEAR
ACTUAL TREND
5%
4%
3%
Deviations from Trend
2%
1%
0%
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
-1%
-2%
-3%
-4%
-5%
YEAR
Table 4.7
Singapore: A Comparison of the Standard Deviation of the GDP series
using Hodrick-Prescott Methods
Period Hodrick-Prescott
1900-1913 4.7
1914-1939 12.4
1950-1974 6.4
1975-2000 3.2
193
Based on these unit root test, now we examine the degree of volatility. From the
long-term perspective, the degree of real GDP instability for the period of inter-war
years (1914-39) was among the highest as compared with the other three periods.
During the pre-World War I period, the standard deviations of real GDP instability was
much smaller than that of the inter-war period and even slightly smaller than that of first
phase of post-war period (1950-74). The standard deviation of real GDP instability for
the last period (1975-2000) was among the lowest in the twentieth century. The small
standard deviation of real GDP for pre-World War I vis-à-vis that of inter-war period
observed for Singapore was consonant to that observed in other studies of industrialized
countries. Singapore’s standard deviation of pre-World War I period being even smaller
than post WWII periods, however, dissimilar to that observed in most of the
industrialized countries. One plausible reason for the low standard deviation prior to
World War I period for Singapore was the fact that role played by the export of primary
commodities such as rubber, which was in its infancy then, was not significant yet in
terms of its weight against Singapore’s total trade.
Subsequently, the extent of economic instability for GDP and its components,
namely private final consumption expenditure (Figure 4.7), government final
consumption expenditure (Figure 4.8), gross capital formation (Figure 4.9), exports of
goods and services (Figure 4.10)87 and imports of goods and services (Figure 4.11) were
tested. Each of these variables was transformed to logarithms before filtering. Each
graphical presentation is divided into two panels. The upper panel plots the actual and
estimated trend values of the variable. The lower panel shows the percentage deviation
87
The time-series figures on imports and exports of goods and services for the period 1960-2000 were not provided in the official
statistical reports by the Department of Statistics, Singapore. However, the figures for both imports and exports of goods and
services in current prices (Singapore Dollars) were provided in the Penn-World Table Version 6.1. (Alan, Heston et al. 2002). The
figures on net exports on goods and services which are derived from Penn-World Table Version 6.1 were almost identical with
official time-series figures provided by Department of Statistics, Singapore. Based on this observation, the figures provided in Penn-
World Table Version 6.1 were deemed to be acceptable. Imports and exports of goods and services in 1990 prices were deflated by
implicit export and import unit value indices of goods and services (1990=100). These derived net exports of goods and services
figures in 1990 prices for the period 1960-2000 were, however, different from that given in official publications. In this exercise, we
aimed to identify the trend and deviations from trend. Therefore, this derived figure was then utilized for conducting this specific
analysis.
194
of the cyclical component of the variable from its long run trend. For comparison, the
percentage deviation of the cyclical component of GDP from its long run trend is also
plotted in the lower panel of each diagram. The lower panel of each diagram shows that
the degree of economic instability of each component of GDP was different from that of
GDP. Generally, the degree of instability of PFCE was similar and its range was smaller
than that of GDP. On the other hand, the degree of instability for GFCE and GCF were
relatively larger than that of GDP. It is important to note here that deviations of GFCE
from the HP filtered trend somewhat moved in the opposite direction to that of GDP
during the world depression period (1930-32) and the short-term economic recession
period (1985-86). The degree of instability for GCF, EXGS and IMGS, however,
showed similar direction to that of GDP. Generally, the degree of instability was similar
to that of GDP. During periods of economic boom and recession, however, the degree
of instability was more volatile as compared with that of GDP.
Figure 4.7
Singapore: Private Final Consumption Expenditure, Trend, Actual and
12
Log Private Final Consumption Expenditure
10
-
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
YEAR
ACTUAL TREND
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
-1%
-2%
-3%
-4%
-5%
YEAR
PFCE GDP
195
Log Gross Capital Formation Deviations from Trend Log Government Final Consumption Expenditure
-
2
4
6
8
10
12
2
4
6
8
10
12
-10%
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
1900
1900 1902 1900
1900
1902 1904 1902
1902
1904 1906 1904
1904
1906 1908 1906
1906
1908 1910 1908 1908
1910 1912 1910 1910
1912 1914 1912
1912
1914 1916 1914 1914
1916 1918 1916 1916
1918 1920 1918 1918
1920 1922 1920 1920
1922 1924 1922 1922
1924 1926 1924 1924
1926 1928 1926 1926
1928 1930 1928 1928
1930 1932 1930 1930
1932 1934 1932 1932
1934 1936 1934 1934
Source: Computed from data contained in Chapter 3

1936 1938 1936 1936
1938
1940 1938 1938
1940
1942 1940 1940
1942 1942 1942
1944
1944 1944 1944
1946
1946 1946 1946
1948
GCF
ACTUAL
1948 1948 1948
1950
1950
ACTUAL
1950
GFCE
YEAR
1952 1950
YEAR
YEAR
1952 1952
YEAR
1954 1952
1954
Figure 4.9
Figure 4.8
1954 1954
1956
GDP
1956 1956 1956
1958
TREND
1958
GDP
1958 1958
1960 1960
TREND
1960 1960
1962 1962 1962
1964 1962
1964 1964 1964
1966 1966 1966
1968 1966
1968 1968 1968
1970 1970 1970
1970
1972 1972 1972
1972
1974 1974 1974
1974
1976 1976 1976
1976
1978 1978 1978
1978
1980 1980 1980
1980
1982 1982 1982 1982
1984 1984 1984 1984
1986 1986
Singapore: Gross Capital Formation, Trend, Actual and
1986 1986
1988 1988 1988 1988

1990 1990 1990 1990
1992 1992 1992 1992
1994 1994 1994 1994
1996 1996 1996 1996
1998 1998 1998 1998
2000 2000
Singapore: Government Final Consumption Expenditure, Trend, Actual and
2000 2000
196
Deviations from Trend Log Imports of Goods and Services Deviations from Trend Log Exports of Goods and Services
-
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
1900 1900 1900 1900
1902 1902 1902 1902
1904 1904 1904 1904
1906 1906 1906 1906
1908 1908 1908 1908
1910 1910 1910 1910
1912 1912 1912 1912
1914 1914 1914 1914
1916 1916 1916 1916
1918 1918 1918 1918
1920 1920 1920 1920
1922 1922 1922 1922
1924 1924 1924 1924
1926 1926 1926 1926
1928 1928 1928 1928
1930 1930 1930 1930
1932 1932 1932 1932
1934 1934 1934 1934
1936

1936 1936 1936
1938 1938 1938 1938
1940 1940 1940 1940
1942 1942 1942 1942
1944 1944 1944 1944
1946 1946 1946 1946
IMGS
1948 1948 1948 1948
ACTUAL
EXGS
ACTUAL
1950 1950 1950 1950
YEAR
YEAR
YEAR
YEAR
1952 1952 1952 1952
1954 1954 1954 1954
GDP
1956 1956
Figure 4.11
Figure 4.10
1956 1956
GDP
1958 1958 1958 1958
TREND
TREND
1960 1960 1960 1960
1962 1962 1962 1962
1964 1964 1964 1964
1966 1966 1966 1966
1968 1968 1968 1968
1970 1970 1970 1970
1972 1972 1972 1972
1974 1974 1974 1974
1976 1976 1976 1976
1978 1978 1978 1978
1980 1980 1980 1980
1982 1982 1982 1982
1984 1984 1984 1984
1986 1986 1986 1986
1988 1988 1988 1988
1990 1990 1990 1990

Singapore: Exports of Goods and Services, Trend, Actual and
Singapore: Imports of Goods and Services, Trend, Actual and
1992 1992 1992 1992

1994 1994 1994 1994
1996 1996 1996 1996
1998 1998 1998 1998
2000 2000 2000 2000
197
Table 4.8 shows the instability indicators of each component of GDP which is
derived from the standard deviation of the cyclical fluctuations from trend. As is
mentioned above, one of the objectives of this study is to compare the degree of
economic instability between the pre-World War II and post-World War II periods. The
following observations can be made. The highest instability for all components of GDP
was recorded during the inter-war period, while the petroleum swung the other way with
the lowest degree of instability being observed during the last quarter of the twentieth
century (1975-2000) for GDP, GFCE and GCF. On the other hand, the degree of
instability for PFCE, EXGS and IMGS was recorded at its lowest in the pre-World War
I period. Another important observation was that GDP and its components experienced
an increase in the economic instability during the inter-war period (1914-39) compared
to the pre-World War I period (1900-13). Subsequently, the degree of instability has
constantly dampened in the third quarter (1950-74) and fourth quarter (1975-2000) of
the twentieth century.
Table 4.8
Singapore: Instability Indicators of GDP and the Aggregate Demand Components,
1900-2000 at 1990 prices and Relative Instability Indicators of the Each
Component of GDP (1914-39=100)
Period GDP Private Final Government Gross Capital Exports of Imports of

Consumption Final Formation Goods and Goods and
Expenditure Consumption Services Services
Expenditure
1900-1913 4.7 2.1 8.8 13.3 4.0 4.6
1914-1939 12.4 7.5 11.5 30.5 11.0 10.1
1950-1974 6.4 5.5 9.3 12.0 8.5 8.3
1975-2000 3.2 3.4 5.4 10.2 6.8 7.2
Relative Instability Indicators of the Each Component of GDP (1914-39 = 100)
1900-1913 37.7 28.0 76.5 43.7 36.8 45.5
1914-1939 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1950-1974 52.1 73.4 80.3 39.2 77.4 82.3
1975-2000 25.7 45.1 46.3 33.5 61.6 71.3
198
Table 4.9 shows instability indicators of each component of GDP in relation to that
of GDP. It was found that the relative instability indicator of private final consumption
spending was less volatile than GDP before the war, but surprisingly more volatile than
GDP for the period 1975-2000. The other components of GDP experienced greater
instability in the British colonial period. Among these, gross domestic capital formation
showed the highest volatility. Throughout the period, the relative instability indicator of
gross capital formation to GDP was generally three times higher. There was a reduction
in import and export instability as the century progressed.
Table 4.9
Singapore: Relative Instability Indicators of the Aggregate Demand Components,
1900-2000 (1990 Prices)
Period GDP Private Final Government Gross Capital Exports of Imports of
Consumption Final Formation Goods and Goods and
Expenditure Consumption Services Services
Expenditure
1900-1913 100.0 44.9 189.1 285.5 86.4 98.5

1914-1939 100.0 60.5 93.3 246.7 88.7 81.7
1950-1974 100.0 85.3 143.8 185.9 131.8 129.1
1975-2000 100.0 106.2 168.4 321.8 212.7 226.9
Source: Computed from data contained in Table 4.9.
In addition to the two above observations, Table 4.10 provides the results of cross
correlations between volatilities of each component of GDP and GDP itself for selected
time periods. PFCE and GDP showed relatively strong (0.70) and positive cross
correlations for the all period. A similar phenomenon was observed between GCF and
GDP save for the period 1900-13. In the case of GFCE, cross-correlations of volatility
have been weak and negative throughout the period, with the exception for the period
1950-74 which recorded a positive relationship (0.60). On the other hands, cross-
correlations of volatilities between net exports and GDP were somewhat different. Prior
to World War II, correlations for this component were positive but during the later half
199
of twentieth century, a reverse situation was observed with these correlation values
being in the negative territory.
Table 4.10
Singapore: Cross-Correlations between Volatilities of Each Component of GDP
and GDP, 1900-2000 (1990 Prices)
GDP Private Final Government Gross Net Exports of

Consumption Final Capital Goods and
Expenditure Consumption Formation Services
Expenditure
1900-1913 1.00 0.75 -0.08 0.36 0.59
1914-1939 1.00 0.68 -0.11 0.78 0.50
1950-1974 1.00 0.76 0.60 0.74 -0.24
1975-2000 1.00 0.75 -0.37 0.77 -0.27
Note:
Volatility of Net exports of goods and services were measured without converting to natural logarithm term due to the fact that
original net exports of goods and services were minus (-) for most of the twentieth century.
4.4 Econometric Tests
4.4.1 Explanation of Real GDP Volatilities
4.4.1.1 Explanatory Variables
As seen earlier, Singapore has experienced a decline of real GDP volatility over
time. This section is devoted to empirically investigate what economic variables caused
the decline of real GDP volatilities. In this exercise, five types of hypothesis were
experimented based on the empirical exercise made by Singh and Fagernäs (2006).
Firstly, it has been argued that improvement of government’s ability help to reduce the
volatility of output due to the greater knowledge of the economy by policy makers and
their ability to anticipate how to cope with economic shocks. Government budget deficit
as a share of GDP are used to reflect the government’s policy choices. Secondly, it is
often argued somewhat counter-intuitively, that trade openness should not lead to
greater but to lower volatility. Thirdly, the role of shocks such as changes in terms of
trade with respect to output volatility will also be considered. Fourthly, the real GDP
growth rate in the previous year may itself affect volatility of the current year. It is
significant to see how GDP growth rate is associated with real GDP volatility. Fifthly,
200
past experiences of volatility itself has caused volatility in the subsequent period. Based
on these premises, the following independent variables (Figure 4.12) have been selected
for this exercise.
Figure 4.12
Explanatory Variables for Regression
Dependent Variable: Volatility of Real GDP growth (%)

Independent Variables
SBY(-1) Government fiscal deficit as a share of GDP (%) with one year time
lag
Trade/GDP(-1) Changes in Trade (Imports of goods and services + Exports of
goods and services) as a share of GDP (%) with one year time lag
TOT(-1) Terms of trade, percentage change with one year time lag
GDP%(-1) Percentage growth of Real GDP with one year time lag
VOL(-1) Volatility of Real GDP with one year time lag
The volatility of real GDP growth over the period was measured using the standard
deviation. However, for the purposes of econometric time series analysis, an annual
measure is required (Singh and Fagernäs, 2006:17). The precise volatility measure used
in this regression test is based on the recursive estimation used in the following equation.
yt = α + β1yt-1 +β2yt-2 + γ t + εt
where yt is real GDP growth and t represents time.
Time-series data on Terms of Trade was derived by utilizing export and import unit
value indices, the construction of which were described in Chapters 2 and 3.
Before turning to the econometric regression analysis, it is necessary to conduct unit
root test to examine whether dependent and explanatory variables are trend stationary or
difference stationary. As is applied above, two types of Unit Root Tests, namely ADF
and PP tests were conducted for the period 1900-39 and 1950-2000, respectively. The
results (Table 4.11 [A]-[E]) show that the time series of [A] growth rate of real GDP,
[B] volatility of GDP, [C] share of Government deficit to GDP (1900-39), [D] share of
trade to GDP and [E] annual percentage change of terms of trade are all integrated of
201
order zero, I (0), therefore, regarded as trend stationary. [C] share of government deficit
to GDP (%) for the period 1950-2000 (ADF test) are, however, integrated of order one,
I (1) since only its first difference and second difference are stationary. This means that
the null hypothesis of a unit root test cannot be rejected. Nevertheless, the PP test
showed integrated of order zero, I (0). As is discussed above, the result of PP test should
be given priority over the results from the ADF test. The time series regression will then
include only stationary variables.
Table 4.11
Results of Unit Root Tests (1990 Prices)
[A] Results of Unit Root Tests on Growth of Gross Domestic Product (%)
Period Levels trend lags1 First Difference trend lags1 Second Difference trend lags1 Order
1900-1939 -6.731829*** Yes 0 -11.01591*** Yes 0 -4.990693*** Yes 6 I(0)
ADF
1950-2000 -6.236542*** Yes 0 -12.07564*** Yes 0 -5.776294*** Yes 5 I(0)
Period Levels trend 2 First Difference trend 2 Second Difference trend 2 Order
Bandwidth Bandwidth Bandwidth
1900-1939 -7.637953*** Yes 9 -30.44674*** Yes 20 -43.66058*** Yes 13 I(0)
PP
1950-2000 -6.223109*** Yes 3 -14.62394*** Yes 5 -27.74062*** Yes 7 I(0)
[B] Results of Unit Root Tests on Volatility of Real GDP growth (%)
1900-1939 -5.679102*** Yes 0 -10.73193*** Yes 0 -7.594588*** Yes 2 I(0)

ADF
1950-2000 -8.207704*** Yes 0 -12.65713*** Yes 0 -5.407161*** Yes 5 I(0)
Period Levels trend Bandwidth2 First Difference trend Bandwidth2 Second Difference trend Bandwidth2 Order
1900-1939 -5.69661*** Yes 9 -32.2365*** Yes 30 -43.7771*** Yes 13 I(0)

PP
1950-2000 -7.94207*** Yes 3 -34.8525*** Yes 21 -40.6237*** Yes 18 I(0)
[C] Results of Unit Root Tests on Share of Government Deficit to GDP
1900-1939 -5.590361*** Yes 0 -9.830936*** Yes 0 -6.292093*** Yes 4 I(0)
ADF
1950-2000 -2.513268 Yes 3 -13.79304*** Yes 0 -11.06508*** Yes 1 I(1)
1900-1939 -5.573827*** Yes 3 -32.00959*** Yes 37 -59.46962*** Yes 33 I(0)
PP
1950-2000 -3.446567* Yes 3 -13.2647*** Yes 2 -21.67567*** Yes 0 I(0)
[D] Results of Unit Root Tests on Share of Trade to GDP
1900-1939 -6.213849*** Yes 0 -7.860096*** Yes 1 -8.80479*** Yes 2 I(0)
ADF
1950-2000 -7.990837*** Yes 0 -9.750357*** Yes 1 -13.38367*** Yes 1 I(0)
1900-1939 -6.406631*** Yes 5 -33.03873*** Yes 35 -47.65318*** Yes 35 I(0)
PP
1950-2000 -7.990837*** Yes 0 -20.17221*** Yes 6 -24.87343*** Yes 3 I(0)
[E] Results of Unit Root Tests on Terms of Trade (TOT)
1900-1939 -9.095181*** Yes 0 -8.51861*** Yes 1 -5.678672*** Yes 4 I(0)
ADF
1950-2000 -7.101295*** Yes 0 -10.73563*** Yes 1 -5.969188*** Yes 7 I(0)
1900-1939 -10.97895*** Yes 6 -52.44527*** Yes 28 -28.0582*** Yes 3 I(0)
PP
1950-2000 -7.253854*** Yes 5 -27.05399*** Yes 32 -32.20052*** Yes 41 I(0)
Notes:
(***,** ,*) denotes significance at the 1%, 5% and 10% level respectively.
I(0) = stationary, I(1) = unit root
202
4.4.1.2 Regression Results
The selection of the period for this regression analysis was made based on the
historical experience that Singapore has undergone in terms of two types of different
administration in the twentieth century namely, the period of British colonial
government and self-government after the independence (1965). Due to the dearth of
time-series data of 1940s, it was not possible to set the two different periods.
Alternatively, three different periods of 1900-39, 1950-2000 and 1965-2000 were tested
for regression analysis. The first two periods were selected to see whether there were
any significant similarities or differences. The selection of the third period (1965-2000)
was, however, set to see whether there were any similar features as compared with
previous period.
Table 4.12 shows the results of the regression analysis for the three specific periods,
with volatility of real GDP being used as dependent variable. From these regression
results, one feature was identified in Singapore’s economy. Contrary to findings made
in studies for other countries, the coefficient of explanatory variables such as the share
of government budget deficit to GDP, percentage changes of terms of trade and share of
trade (exports and imports of goods and services) to GDP are not consistent by period
and statistically not significant for all the periods. For the years 1965-2000, the
coefficient of previous year’s volatility of real GDP growth and one year lagged real
GDP growth were statistically significant at 1% and 5% levels respectively but
negligible. In short, these regression results reveal that there are no plausible
explanatory variables which can statistically explain the sources of output growth
volatility in Singapore for both during the British colonial period as well as in the period
of self-government.
203
Table 4.12
Singapore: Source of Real GDP Volatility by Specific Periods
Dependent Variable= Real GDP Volatility
1900-1939 1950-2000 1965-2000
Explanatory Variables
[1] [2] [5]
CONSTANT -0.08 4.63 12.16
(-0.03) (1.43) (2.49)**
VOL(-1) -0.06 0.58 1.86
(-0.13) (1.26) (3.07)***
GDP%(-1) 0.08 -0.61 -1.41
(0.19) (-1.41) (-2.37)**
SBY(-1) -0.23 -0.04 0.16
(-0.57) (-0.29) (1.64)
TOT(-1) -0.47 -0.12 0.10
(-0.68) (-0.18) (0.15)
TRADE/GDP(-1) 0.70 0.36 -0.65
(0.41) (0.24) (-0.35)
R2 0.04247 0.05179 0.38581

Standard Error of
Regression 11.12 4.38 2.83
F-statistic F(6.37) F(6.48) F(6.36)
0.275016 0.458811 3.768934
[0.9233] [0.8045] [0.0091]
Durbin-Watson 1.8919# 1.5341# 1.8041#
Notes: (1) (***, ** , *) Significant at (1%,5% and 10% )level respectively.
(2) Figures in ( ) refer to the t-statistics.
(3) Figures in [ ] refer to the marginal significance level.
(4) (#) Null hypothesis of existence of serial correlation is rejected at 1 per cent significant level.
4.4.2 The Effect of Economic Instability on Economic Growth
4.4.2.1 Explanatory Variables
Regression tests were run with the growth rate of real GDP per capita as the
dependent variable. The primary interest of this regression exercise was to study the
effect of export instability on economic growth. In line with the works of Kormendi and
Meguire (1985), Dawe (1993) and Nazrin (2000), other plausible explanatory variables
were also included in the effect to improve the specification of the model and increase
the explanatory power of the regression (See Figure 4.13). The final choice of
explanatory variables, however, was ultimately governed by the practical consideration
of data availability. Generally, the explanatory variables selected were very similar to
that as used in the study by Nazrin (2000). Data for the 1900-39 and 1950-59 periods
represent my own estimates, whereas those for the more recent years were obtained
204
from official publication releases entitled System of National Account 1995 Singapore
and Asian Development Bank, Key-Indicators 2001.
Figure 4.13
Explanatory Variables for Regression
Dependent Variable: Real Per-capita GDP growth (%)
Independent Variables
MACHIN Change in share of Investment on Machinery and Equipment to
GDP
CONSTRUC Change in share of Investment on Construction to GDP
POP Population Growth (%)
GDPC GDP Per-capita
EXIN Export Instability Indicator
GREXSHAR Growth rate of exports as a proportion of GDP
GCSHAR Growth rate of Government Final Consumption Expenditure as a
proportion of GDP
As is described above, before turning to econometric regression analysis, unit root
tests (Augmented Dickey Fuller test and Phillips-Perron test) have been applied for both
dependent and independent variables (See Table 4.13). ADF and PP unit root test results
showed that the time-series appear to be stationary in their levels for (A) Real Per-capita
GDP growth, (C) CONSTRUC, (F) EXIN, (G) GREXSHAR and (H) GCSHAR i.e.,
they are all integrated of order zero, I (0). On the other hand, unit root test on MACHIN
POP, and GDPC were stationary in first differences rather than in levels. Therefore,
MACHIN, POP and GDPC are difference stationary and integrated of order one. The
time series regression should include only stationary variables. Therefore, alternatively,
first difference of MACHIN, POP and GDPC are applied for the regression.
205
Table 4.13
Results of Unit Root Tests (1990 Prices)
[A] Results of Unit Root Tests on Real Per-capita GDP growth (%)
1900-1939 -7.537025*** Yes 0 -6.975864*** Yes 2 -5.148174*** Yes 7 I(0)
ADF
1950-2000 -7.727637*** Yes 0 -5.015317*** Yes 2 -6.112558*** Yes 5 I(0)
1900-1939 -18.62838*** Yes 37 -31.28876*** Yes 15 -40.69998*** Yes 12 I(0)
PP
1950-2000 -7.68677*** Yes 4 -15.80769*** Yes 1 -23.3652*** Yes 1 I(0)
[B] Results of Unit Root Tests on MACHIN

1900-1939 -3.144064 Yes 0 -7.25663*** Yes 0 -8.101325*** Yes 1 I(1)
ADF
1950-2000 -1.494534 Yes 0 -6.618517*** Yes 0 -11.90124*** Yes 0 I(1)
1900-1939 -3.127443 Yes 2 -7.42359*** Yes 12 -23.10612*** Yes 10 I(1)
PP
1950-2000 -1.729622 Yes 3 -6.61815*** Yes 3 -20.33456*** Yes 7 I(1)
[C] Results of Unit Root Tests on CONSTRUC

1900-1939 -3.264208* Yes 0 -6.562041*** Yes 3 -7.091812*** Yes 2 I(0)
ADF
1950-2000 -3.763358** Yes 2 -6.011241*** Yes 0 -11.13506*** Yes 0 I(0)
1900-1939 -3.206648* Yes 4 -8.097467*** Yes 3 -26.10839*** Yes 14 I(0)
PP
1950-2000 -2.642867 Yes 0 -5.994391*** Yes 6 -23.48653*** Yes 12 I(1)
[D] Results of Unit Root Tests on Population Growth

1900-1939 -6.475748*** Yes 7 -5.422539*** Yes 3 -4.726867*** Yes 3 I(0)
ADF
1950-2000 -2.794071 Yes 0 -7.451214*** Yes 0 -5.91752*** Yes 6 I(1)
1900-1939 -3.07816 Yes 3 -4.985655*** Yes 3 -8.249593*** Yes 4 I(1)
PP
1950-2000 -2.794071 Yes 0 -8.699432*** Yes 6 -20.42238*** Yes 11 I(1)
[E] Results of Unit Root Tests on GDPC

1900-1939 -3.263372* Yes 0 -5.633005*** Yes 0 -7.365134*** Yes 2 I(0)
ADF
1950-2000 -0.654696 Yes 0 -6.204539*** Yes 0 -6.119545*** Yes 4 I(1)
1900-1939 -3.167221 Yes 5 -20.17437*** Yes 2 -30.77797*** Yes 14 I(1)
PP
1950-2000 -0.374226 Yes 11 -7.490135*** Yes 9 -16.75087*** Yes 18 I(1)
[F] Results of Unit Root Tests on EXIN

1900-1939 -4.043342*** Yes 0 -8.311278*** Yes 0 -6.585082*** Yes 2 I(0)
ADF
1950-2000 -4.293947*** Yes 0 -7.844368*** Yes 1 -9.004968*** Yes 1 I(0)
1900-1939 -4.029493*** Yes 1 -8.550944*** Yes 36 -23.75345*** Yes 6 I(0)
PP
1950-2000 -4.27237*** Yes 3 -10.40277*** Yes 47 -21.30501*** Yes 9 I(0)
[G] Results of Unit Root Tests on GREXSHAR

1900-1939 -5.989855*** Yes 0 -9.9088*** Yes 1 -6.854212*** Yes 2 I(0)
ADF
1950-2000 -7.265695*** Yes 0 -9.15986*** Yes 1 -11.77748*** Yes 1 I(0)
1900-1939 -5.987733*** Yes 2 -35.99585*** Yes 36 -64.53198*** Yes 35 I(0)
PP
1950-2000 -7.27847*** Yes 2 -45.85592*** Yes 47 -24.87374*** Yes 11 I(0)
206
[H] Results of Unit Root Tests on GCSHAR
1900-1939 -6.148656*** Yes 0 -6.949908*** Yes 1 -6.953464*** Yes 2 I(0)
ADF
1950-2000 -7.364163*** Yes 0 -8.393242*** Yes 1 -6.99744*** Yes 3 I(0)
1900-1939 -6.148953*** Yes 2 -37.27765*** Yes 36 -66.66384*** Yes 35 I(0)
PP
1950-2000 -7.398835*** Yes 3 -47.19874*** Yes 47 -28.69676*** Yes 14 I(0)
Notes:
1 Automatic selection of lag based on the Schwartz Info Criterion
2 Bandwidth was determined based on the Newey-West using Bartlett kernel
I(0) = stationary, I(1) = unit root
4.4.2.2 Regression Results
The estimating time span was from 1900 to 2000 covering three periods, namely
1900-39, 1950-2000 and 1975-2000. The first two periods were identified to see the
overall picture of the pre-World War II period vis-à-vis the post-World War II era.
Additionally, one specific period of 1975-2000 was studied to empirically test the effect
of changes in the export structure shifting from the dominance of entrepôt based
primary commodity export to the export of domestic manufactured goods since the
middle of 1970s. In this exercise, the export instability index measured by one-year
time lags was applied.88
The results of regression tests are presented in Table 4.14. Importantly, the
coefficient of export instability of first-year lag was negative and statistically significant
at the 5 per cent level for the period 1900-39 and 10 per cent level for the periods 1950-
2000 and 1975-2000. The coefficient of export instability for the period 1900-39 was -
37.81. This negative coefficient figure, however, reduced slightly to the level of -28.16
for the period 1950-2000. It is crucial to note here that negative coefficient on export
instability for the period 1975-2000 has even scaled down to –10.07. The result of this
econometric regression test has clearly found the phenomenon that the effect of export
88
Several time lags were attempted for regression test such as 2-3 years time lags and combinations of one and two year lags.
However, all regression results were insignificant. Additionally, the explanatory variables of D(MACHIN), D(POP) and
D(GDPC)(-1) were omitted in this regression analysis on the ground that inclusion of these variable would lead to weak F-statistics
results and apart from serial-correlation.
207
instability to real per-capita GDP growth became smaller once Singapore trade structure
experienced diversification to the export of manufactured goods.
The rate of growth in the export ratio to GDP shows a small negative coefficient of
(-0.001) for the period 1900-39 but not significant. Subsequently, for the period 1950-
2000, the coefficient of this variable turned positive (0.001) but was statistically not
significant. For the period 1975-2000, the coefficient has slightly increased up to the
level of 0.004 and is statistically significant for this period at the 1% level. This
regression result shows that a high rate of growth of exports was not an important
source of real economic growth.
Table 4.14
Singapore: Regression Results with the Rate of Growth of Real GDP Per Capita
as the Dependent Variable, 1900-39,1950-2000, and 1975-2000
Estimation Period
Explanatory Variables 1900-1939 1950-2000 1975-2000
[1] [2] [4]
CONSTANT 7.92 4.50 5.92
(1.31) (4.87)*** (14.12)***
CONSTRUC -0.35
(-1.00)
EXIN (-1) -37.81 -28.16 -10.07
(-1.89)* (-2.30)** (-2.03)**
GREXSHAR -0.001 0.001 0.004
(-0.57) (1.56) (4.65)***
GCSHAR 0.0001 0.001 0.007
(0.54) (1.27) (4.30)***
R2 0.1617 0.1670 0.6695

Standard Error of
10.5555 6.4614 1.751
Regression
F-statistic 1.6391 3.0747 14.8536
F(5.38)=0.1871 F(4.49)=0.0368 F(4.26)=0.0000
Durbin-Watson 2.3511# 2.1032# 1.8674#
Notes: (1) (***, ** , *) Significant at (1%,5% and 10% )level respectively.

(2) Figures in ( ) refer to the t-statistics.
(3) Figures in [ ] refer to the marginal significance level.
(4) (#) Null hypothesis of existence of serial correlation is rejected at 1 per cent significant level.
208
In the case of coefficient of change with respect to the share of Government Final
Consumption Expenditure to GDP, a small and positive coefficient of 0.0001, though
statistically not significant, was recorded for the period 1900-39. During the entire post-
World War II period in the 20th century, the coefficient became slightly higher, that is to
0.001 for the period 1950-2000. For the period 1975-2000, the coefficient in fact
increased from 0.001 to 0.007 and was statistically significant at 1% level. It goes
without saying that the coefficient of this explanatory variable was very small and even
negligible. This regression result implies that the high growth rate of Government Final
Consumption Expenditure did not have any significant impact on the real per-capita
GDP growth. This results differed from that obtained by a study by Barro (1991).
Based on the above results, it may be possible to draw several observations on the
effect of economic instability on economic growth in Singapore for the twentieth
century as follows.
Firstly, the regression results show that export instability negatively impacted on the
economic growth for both periods. Nevertheless, the negative coefficient value for the
export instability became remarkably small for the Post World War II period due to the
diversification of trade items namely the relative reduction on exports of primary
commodities and expansion of exports of domestically produced manufactured items
particularly after middle of 1970s.
Other than export instability, remarkable changes were identified between pre
World War II and the period thereafter. In the case of 1975-2000, the coefficient of
annual growth rate of exports and government final consumption expenditure as a
proportion of GDP were positive and statistically significant though the coefficients
being very small and negligible.
209
4.5 International Comparison
Based on the long-term observations of economic instability of Singapore and
related econometric tests, this study found some unique features of Singapore’s
economic performance in the twentieth century in comparison with other countries.
Firstly, the extent of real GDP volatilities observed for Singapore was similar to that
experienced by developed countries. Standard deviations of inter-war period were
among the highest during the twentieth century. Nevertheless, the extent of economic
instability of real GDP during the pre-World War I period was much smaller than that
of the inter-war period and even slightly smaller than that of first phase of post-war
period (1950-74). This picture was somewhat dissimilar to that observed in most of the
industrialized countries. One plausible reason for the low standard deviation prior to
World War I period for Singapore was the fact that the role played by the export of
primary commodities such as rubber, which was in its infancy then, was not significant
yet in terms of its weight against Singapore’s total trade.
On the contrary, output volatilities of other developing countries such as the Latin
American countries during the post 1960 period have increased and the economic
growth rates were rather unimpressive. On the other hand, there has been little change in
Africa.
The similarities with industrialized nations can be explained by the fact that
Singapore’s economy was strongly dependent on the economic conditions of developed
countries which were the major destinations of Singapore’s major export commodities
such as rubber, tin and petroleum. With respect to the relative economic instability
indicators of each component to GDP, the phenomenon observed for PFCE, GFCE and
GCF in Singapore was again very similar to that of industrialized nations.89
89
The study of Backus and Kehoe (1992) did not provide the standard deviations of volatilities of export and imports of goods and
services relative to real GDP. Instead, standard deviations of volatilities of net exports of goods and services relative to real GDP
were presented. However, my study could not obtain the volatility indicator due to the problem of deriving figures in natural
logarithm term.
210
In terms of cross-correlations between volatilities of each component of GDP and
GDP in Singapore, PFCE and GCF recorded relatively constant and high cross-
correlations over the period. Similar phenomenons were observed in industrialized
countries. In the case of GFCE, cross-correlations between government spending and
real GDP, however, exhibit some irregularity. In the case of Singapore, exclusive of
first phase of post-WWII period, cross-correlation was negative and weak. In the case of
net exports, in two-thirds of the cases the cross-correlations were negative and often
strongly so. In Singapore, cross-correlations of net exports during the pre-WWII period
were somewhat positive but turned to negative in the latter half of the twentieth century.
Nevertheless, economic instability indicators of exports and imports of goods and
services experienced a significant difference as compared with other developed nations.
Singapore’s figures remain high throughout the twentieth century while many
industrialized nations experienced significant reductions. Study on India by Singh and
Fagernäs (2006) show that output volatility is persistent as it depends positively and
significantly on previous volatility. Additionally, higher growth (lagged) is associated
with more volatility. A similar phenomenon was experienced by Singapore.
In the case of India, government macroeconomic management which impacts on
budget deficit are statistically not significant. In the case of Singapore, a similar
phenomenon was observed.
As is explained above, this study on the effect of economic instability to economic
growth applied a similar econometric exercise as used by Nazrin (2000) for Malaya /
Malaysia. Regression results of both Malaya and Singapore showed negative effects of
export instability towards economic growth. This result is not surprising in the sense
that both economies were strongly reliant on the exports of primary commodities in the
early half of the century. In line with the diversification of the economic structure, the
negative coefficient values have declined for both Singapore and Malaya/Malaysia.
211
4.6 Concluding Remarks
This chapter examines the extent, causes and consequences of economic instability
in Singapore during the twentieth century. Not unlike industrialized nations, the degree
of economic instability experienced by Singapore has dampened in the post World War
II period as compared with that of the pre World War II years. Most notably, highest
real GDP instability was recorded during the inter-war period though other periods also
recorded a certain degree of real GDP volatility. Among GDP components, a relative
instability indicator of private final consumption expenditure was found to be less
volatile than that of GDP. On the other hand, the relative instability indicator of gross
capital formation to GDP was almost three times. When we look at the relative
instability indicator of each component, PFCE, GFCE and GCF showed significant
reduction of instability particularly during the last quarter of the twentieth century.
Nevertheless, the degree of instability of exports and imports of goods and services did
not change overtime. In fact, instability of trade export earnings has the most significant
impact on real GDP growth. The instability of the export sector has, in turn, been
influenced by the extreme volatility of export commodities during the British colonial
era. Nevertheless, diversification of trade in Singapore was initiated during the period of
self-government since the mid-1970s. This study attempts to undertake two kinds of
empirical tests, namely sources of output volatility and the effect of export instability on
economic growth. The following features were observed from this empirical exercise.
Firstly, contrary to findings made in other studies, the major sources of output
volatilities were not determined by explanatory variables such as share of government
deficit to GDP, changes in trade as a share of GDP (%) and changes in terms of trade
with one year time lag were not statistically significant. Secondly, export instability was
seen to reduce economic growth for both periods. The coefficient of export instability
has reduced over time. Importantly, the negative coefficient on export instability for the
212
period 1975-2000 has even scaled down significantly. The result of this econometric
regression test has clearly found the phenomenon that the effect of export instability to
real per-capita GDP growth became smaller once Singapore’s trade structure
experienced diversification moving away from exports of primary commodities to the
export of manufactured goods.
213
CHAPTER FIVE
GOVERNMENT FISCAL BEHAVIOR AND ECONOMIC GROWTH

IN SINGAPORE IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
5.1 Introduction
Chapter Four earlier examined the relationship between economic instability and
economic growth of Singapore in the twentieth century based on the fact that her
economic structure was characterized by an open economy and vulnerable to external
shocks.
Another characteristic found in Singapore’s economy was with regards to the
government’s nature of fiscal behavior. The share of government expenditure to GDP
remained small during the twentieth century.90 The average share of real total general
government expenditure to GDP (1990 prices) in Singapore for the period 1900-39 and
1950-2000 was 17.0% and 18.0% respectively while that of industrialized nations
generally recorded a share of over 40% since the 1980s.
The objective of this chapter is to understand the long-term pattern of government
finance structure and empirically investigate the relationship between government fiscal
behavior and economic growth in Singapore in the twentieth century. This research is
driven by the hypothesis that government finance behavior in relation to economic
growth in Singapore might have experienced a significant shift due to the administrative
changes brought about in the process of transition from British colonial rule to one of
self-government.
In Chapter Four, two types of econometric tests were conducted relating to the issues
of extent, source and consequence of economic instability. In regression tests,
government fiscal behavior was selected as one of the explanatory variables. Firstly, the
90
This study does not include 1940-49 due to the absence of historical GDP estimates.
214
share of government budget surplus to GDP was tested as to whether this was a possible
source of real output volatility. Secondly, the effect of annual growth rate of government
final consumption expenditure as a proportion of GDP growth on real per-capita GDP
growth was tested to examine whether a higher growth rate of GFCE lowers real GDP
growth through the distorting effects resulting from taxation or government expenditure
programs. The results of both empirical tests, however, were statistically not significant
for the British colonial period as well as the period of self government.
This chapter will investigate in depth the relationship between government fiscal
behaviors and economic growth in Singapore. Firstly, this chapter attempts to identify
the characteristics of colonial government fiscal behavior as against that during the
period of self-government in terms of budgetary process, revenue raising, expenditure
allocation and budget deficit/surplus management. Secondly, this study aims to conduct
empirical econometric tests using time-series data stretching over the better part of the
twentieth century. The validity of Wagner’s Law was tested to establish whether
Singapore government’s fiscal behavior obeys Wagner’s law or endogenously
responding to the macroeconomic situation. Attention was focused on any notable
similarities or differences that existed between the period of British colonial rule and the
years of self-government. In order to undertake this econometric exercise, the
conventional three-step approach needs to be employed. Firstly, stationarity of the
respective time-series on government expenditure, GDP and relevant variables are
assessed using the unit root tests. Secondly, the hypothesis of a long-run relationship
between government expenditure and real GDP is tested using Johansen maximum
likelihood technique. Thirdly, the Granger causality test is utilized to examine the short-
run direction of causality between GDP and government expenditure in the context of
Wagner’s Law.
The structure of this essay is arranged as follows. Section 5.2 outlines the literature
215
review on [i] the characteristics of colonial government finance behavior and [ii]
previous econometric tests on government finance behavior to economic growth.
Section 5.3 provides the historical transition of government finance behavior in
Singapore in terms of revenue raising, expenditure allocation and government budget
surplus/deficit management. Special attention was given to clarify the notable
similarities or differences between the colonial period and the period of self-government.
In Section 5.4, the framework and the methodologies for econometric tests are
described in general. The econometric results and analyses are presented in Section 5.5.
Finally, Section 5.6 provides some concluding remarks.
5.2 Literature Review
5.2.1 Features of Colonial Government Finance Behavior
5.2.1.1 Small Size of Government
Historically, changes in government expenditure levels were largely fashioned by the
changes in attitudes towards the role of the state in the economy. The study by Tanzi and
Schuknecht (2000) elaborate the major transitions of government’s involvement in the
economy in industrialized countries during the twentieth century and found that growth
in government expenditure has been a general phenomenon despite the considerable
institutional differences. Tanzi and Schuknecht (2000) pointed out that the role of the
state in the economy has experienced four major transitions in the twentieth century,
namely (1) the period up to World War I, (2) the interwar period, (3) the period until
1980 and (4) the period after 1980.
Initially, the laissez-faire attitude occupied a position of predominance while the role
of government in economic life was minimal. In fact, the onset of the World War I
brought about considerable increases of government expenditure in the form of war
expenses. Subsequently, the Great Depressions in late 1920s and early 1930s
216
experienced world-wide was regarded as a monumental failure of the market economy
and this had led to the expansion of government involvement in the nation’s economy.
The most notable expansion of government involvement in the economy was recorded
for the years 1960 and 1980. As is presented in Table 5.1, the percentage share of real
general government expenditure to real GDP for selected years generally showed rapid
growth for the period 1960-80 and remained relatively stable. In 1980s, skepticism
about the proper role of state in allocation of resources, stabilization and income
distribution emerged (Buchanan, 1975, Premchand, 1983). Some critics also started to
question the practical implementation of these policies. As deficits and public debt rose,
many economists argued that government had grown much beyond its justified role,
undermining economic incentives, property rights and economic freedom.
Table 5.1
Percentage Share of Real General Government Expenditure to Real GDP for
Selected Years, 1870-1996 (1990 prices)
Late 19th Pre Post Pre World Post World War II

Century about World War I War II
1870 1913 1920 1937 1960 1980 1990 1996
Australia 18.3 16.5 19.3 14.8 21.2 34.1 34.9 35.9
Austria 10.5 17.0 14.7 20.6 35.7 48.1 38.6 51.6
Canada - - 16.7 25.0 28.6 38.8 46.0 44.7
France 12.6 17.0 27.6 29.0 34.6 46.1 49.8 55.0
Germany 10.0 14.8 25.0 34.1 32.4 47.9 45.1 49.1
Italy 13.7 17.1 30.1 31.1 30.1 42.1 53.4 52.7
Japan 8.8 8.3 14.8 25.4 17.5 32.0 31.3 35.9
New Zealand - - 24.6 25.3 26.9 38.1 41.3 34.7
Norway 5.9 9.3 16.0 11.8 29.9 43.8 54.9 49.2
Sweden 5.7 10.4 10.9 16.5 31.0 60.1 59.1 64.2
Switzerland 16.5 14.0 17.0 24.1 17.2 32.8 33.5 39.4
United Kingdom 9.4 12.7 26.2 30.0 32.2 43.0 39.9 43.0
United States 7.3 7.5 12.1 19.7 27.0 31.4 32.8 32.4
Average 10.8 13.1 19.6 23.8 28.0 41.9 43.0 45.0
Singapore 22.7 22.2 18.8 10.7 25.2 19.2 21.8
Sources: Tanzi and Schuknecht (2000: 6-7) and Sugimoto (2008).
The 1990s have seen much interest in budgetary institutions and in fiscal rules to
prioritize and improve the efficiency of public spending and to make government live
within its means. Many countries, and especially the industrial countries, have
217
introduced important reforms that have helped to make fiscal policy sounder.
Government began to focus on public spending on essential tasks and provide basic
services in the most cost-effective ways. Unlike the previous period, these approaches
are in fact aimed at reducing the size of public spending. Nevertheless, as presented in
Table 5.1, few countries managed to reduce the government expenditure share to GDP.
This implies that reduction of government expenditure is not an easy task as compared
with its expansion.
Unlike statements of Tanzi and Schuknecht (2000), the share of real general
government expenditure to real GDP in Singapore remained small and stable over time
as compared with industrialized countries as is presented in Table 5.1. Historically, one
major difference between Singapore and other industrialized countries was the fact that
Singapore was formerly governed by the British colonial authority. In fact, the
foundation of revenue raising, expenditure allocation and budget management were
established and implemented by the colonial authority. The small share of government
expenditure to GDP should also be treated as one of the features of the colonial
government’s fiscal behavior in Singapore. While the characteristic of the small share of
government expenditure to GDP continued during the period of self-government, the
underlying principle of government fiscal behavior underwent a substantial change.
During the period of self-government the budgetary process and actual implementation
of government fiscal behavior was determined in line with its owns needs as opposed to
the interest of the colonial government which paid more attentions to the benefits of
home country (Britain). One may be interested to know whether there are any common
features in the government fiscal behavior during the two periods, that is the British
colonial period and the period of self-government.
In the following sections, this study would like to highlight the two key terms which
explain the features of colonial government fiscal behavior, namely “creation of a
218
balanced budget structure (5.2.1.2)” and “weakness of colonial government
macroeconomic management (5.2.1.3)”.
5.2.1.2 Creation of a Balanced Budget Structure
One of the characteristics of fiscal principle of the colony was to self-support and
have a balanced budget, i.e. “living within means”, such that there was no need for the
exchequer of the home country to subsidize the Colony (Tan, Shu-hung, 1997). There
are many criteria in assessing whether the budgetary performance achieved the
objectives of this fiscal philosophy. The most important one is the actual surplus/deficit
of the financial budgets.
Huff (2003b) has compiled the balance of government finance in Burma, Indochina,
Thailand, British Malaya, Indonesia and Philippines and elaborated that the colonial
authorities of Southeast Asian countries generally favored balanced budgets. Although
external shocks sometimes precluded budget balance, it however remained sufficiently
near zero.
In the case of Hong Kong, for example, the philosophy and management of fiscal
system was governed by the financial procedures stipulated in the colonial regulations.
These financial procedures controlled the scope and scale of public expenditure and the
financial reporting system of the Colony (Tan, Shu-hung, 1997).
Sugimoto (1997 and 2007a) examined the British colonial financial administration in
the state of Johore for the period 1910-40. This study established that during the thirty-
year period of British colonial administration, the central concern was the creation and
accumulation of budget surpluses and its allocation to government portfolio financial
investments in the British Empire. For the period 1914-40, total accumulated
government financial assets had increased from $2 million to $41 million and almost
the entire assets were allocated for portfolio government financial investment. It was
219
almost double the total annual government expenditure.
As a matter of fact, this government finance structure was strongly linked with the
financial situation of the government of the United Kingdom. It will be noted that the
United Kingdom faced serious government debt after World War I which in part could
be attributed to the expansion of government expenditure and also due to the problems
arising from budget management.
For the year 1913, percentage of gross public debt to GDP in UK was at 30.4%.
However, the share to GDP dramatically increased to 132% and 188.1% in 1920 and
1937 respectively (Tanzi and Schuknecht, 2000:65).
It does not mean that all colonies could afford to maintain the “living within means”
fiscal principle. In fact, many colonies faced serious government finance deficit as a
result of a weak revenue base compounded with the demand for extraordinary
expenditure such as defense (Da Costa, 2007). For example, British India borrowed
quite heavily to finance its expenditure, both in the London money market and also in
India. These borrowings peaked at the time of the World Wars (Roy, 2000:229).
Nevertheless, the colonial government authority always aimed to maintain a balanced
budget. In line with this, colonial countries by nature needed to conduct prudent
government finance management. How did they realize such financial management? In
fact, it was strongly related to the budgetary process. In any country, there are at least
two stages before the actual implementation of government finance administration. First
comes the formulation phase which involves making advance estimates of revenue and
expenditure. This is entirely the responsibility of the executive arm of the government.
The second stage involves seeking legislative approval to the executive’s proposals. In
most cases, parliament has been entrusted with matters relating to taxation vis-à-vis tax
decisions and spending policies. This being the case, the crucial causal force for
determining the budget was the voter under democratic parliamentary systems which
220
stimulated citizens-participation in their choice of government. The budgetary process
during the colonial period, however, differed from that practiced during the period of
self-government. In practice, the colonial budget was institutionalized to meet the needs
and interests of the suzerain power. For example, the budgetary system of the Colony of
Straits Settlements was formulated by the Treasury of the Colony of Straits Settlements
at the first stage phase. Subsequently, authorization of the budget was discussed by the
legislative council members and executive council members who were appointed by the
Governor (See Figure 5.1).
Figure 5.1
Members of Legislative Council and Executive Council
Members of Legislative Council Members of Executive Council
Governor as President Governor as President
Ex-officio members (11) General officer Commanding the Troops,
Official members (2) Malaya (1)
Elected Unofficial members (2 since The Colonial Secretary, Penang, Malacca (2)
1924) Resident Councilor, Penang, Malacca (2)
11 Nominated Unofficial members (11) Attorney-General (1)
(Nominated Unofficial Members are Treasurer (1)
subject to the confirmation or Official member (2)
disallowance of His Majesty the King) Unofficial member (3)
( ) number of people.
Sources: Malayan Year Book 1939 and Mills, Lennox A (1942).
The legal power of the governor, the advisory role of the two councils, and the
ultimate control of the colonial office in London was essentially the set-up applied for
the colonies. On the other hand, the colonial authority did not permit resident
participation in the formulation of the budget. Generally, raising revenue is politically
sensitive but spending money is favorable for everyone.91
91 Nevertheless, constitutional theory and actual practice was incongruent. In reality, the Governor was a limited monarch (Mills
1942). His policy was influenced by local public opinion and the press, and one of his most cherished ambitions was that he shall
not provide ammunition for any questions in the House of Commons in Britain. In other words, the Governor has to plan and
implement the budget to meet the request of the colonial office in UK by observing response from the local populace. After World
War II, the situation changed slightly. The first election for the Legislative Council was held in 1948. The Legislative Council
comprised nine elected unofficial members, four nominated unofficial members, five nominated officials and four ex-officials.
Nevertheless, the electorate numbered only 22,000 since voting was confined to only registered voters and registration was
voluntary and not mandatory. It was a far cry from the budgetary system established in western countries. After the formation of
self-government, authorization of budget changed due to the creation of a democratic parliamentary system. Regular parliamentary
elections chose the political party and led to increasing power and say of the citizens.
221
5.2.1.3 Weakness of Colonial Government Macroeconomic Management
It is crucial to examine whether the colonial government planned and implemented
effectively the macroeconomic management of the economy. As described previously,
the emergence of the role of government became clearer with the onset of the Great
Depression in the end of 1920s. In the case of western industrialized countries, as
mentioned above, the government’s role in macroeconomic management became active
during the Great Depressions. It was market failure that clearly justified government
intervention. For example, United States introduced major public expenditure programs
with the New Deal, and other governments authorized higher spending on the
unemployed and on public works partly to create employment. As a matter of fact, the
depression was transmitted from the advanced industrial economies to Southeast Asia
through a sharp fall in demand for many of the region’s major primary commodities
such as rubber and tin which were exported to western countries. Singapore was one of
the few economies which underwent a macroeconomic shock more severe than that
experienced by other countries (Huff, 2001:293).
In this regards, it is significant to see whether the colonial government authority had
effectively implemented macroeconomic management. In order to fulfill the four major
objectives of macroeconomic management, namely (i) full employment, (ii) low
inflation, (iii) a high, but sustainable rate of economic growth and (iv) keeping the
balance of payments in equilibrium, there are two instruments of macroeconomic policy,
namely fiscal policy and monetary policy. Fiscal policy comprises government spending
and taxation and is frequently used for counter-cyclical adjustment, aiming to
automatically stabilize demand by increasing government expenditure. On the other
hand, monetary policy is the process by which the government, central bank or
monetary authority manages the supply of money or by trading in the foreign exchange
market. Generally monetary policy can be referred to as either being an expansionary
222
policy or a contractionary policy. Expansionary policy is traditionally used to combat
unemployment in a recession by lowering interest rates while contractionary policy has
the goal of raising interest rates to combat inflation.
To my best knowledge, there is no literature which systematically analyses the effect
of colonial government macroeconomic management behavior on the nation’s economy.
It is partially because of the deficiencies of historical economic indicators. Nevertheless,
there are some previous literatures explaining the government involvement in the
nation’s economy during the Great Depression period.
Huff (2001) conducted a study on the impact of the Great Depressions to the colonial
economy, particularly highlighting the issue of massive increases of unemployed labour
during the period and elaborated on the implications of colonial government
macroeconomic management behavior in British Malaya. He stressed that the British
colonial authority had no intention of undertaking ‘purely relief works’ to provide
employment during the Great Depression. In fact, little new public works expenditure
materialized: in 1931 two-thirds of the planned Straits Settlements expenditure of $15.2
million on extraordinary public works was to meet existing commitments. Instead of
creating new job opportunities, the British colonial authority resorted to repatriation to
regulate the size of the workforce (Kratoska, 2000 and Huff, 2001).
Booth, Anne (2002) also pointed out that most Southeast Asian colonies ran
considerable budget deficits in the early 1930s. This hardly reflected a conversion to
Keynesian economics on the part of colonial officials, but rather an inability to reduce
expenditures in the face of rapidly falling revenues.
In terms of monetary policy, the colonial currency board system can be viewed as
minimal government involvement. Because colonial currency boards offer no scope for
government regulation or intervention, they are the antithesis of a central bank (Huff,
2003a:127, Roy, 2000: 233). In other words, colonial monetary policy was particularly
223
inadequate in the task of stabilization of prices and outputs (Roy, 2000:237). Before
World War II, money supply in the Colony of Straits Settlements consisted chiefly of
base money, M0, issued by currency boards. During the period base money supply
changed principally in response to changes in the current account of the balance of
payments.
The fact that exchange rate policies were formulated largely in the interests of the
metropolitan powers in the early decades of the twentieth century is hardly surprising
(Booth, Anne, 1990). Exchange rate policies were used to promote tight economic links
between the colonies and the metropolitan power, and especially to encourage the
importation of industrial products from the sovereign’s economy.
5.2.1.4 Summary
Based on the literature review, it might be possible to summarize the main features
of the colonial government financial behavior as follows. Firstly, the major objective of
the colonial government was the establishment of a self-sufficient budget structure so as
not to depend on the home country. To ensure this principle was met budgetary process
was handled by the people who represented the interests of the home country. Secondly,
the colonial government did not implement as effectively macroeconomic management
as was done in western countries. The colonial government only passively reacted
against the unforeseen economic changes taking place. Relating to this issue, this study
will examine the relationship between the colonial government’s fiscal behavior and
economic growth in Section 5.4. Additionally, this study conducts the empirical
econometric analysis.
5.2.2 Previous Econometric Test on Government Expenditure and Economic

Growth
Subsequently, this study conducts a literature review on the empirical analysis
relating to the relationship between government expenditure and economic activities.
224
Over the past three decades, numerous empirical studies have been undertaken to seek
the relationship between government expenditure and economic growth. The main
interest of researchers was confined to two areas, namely element(s) of government
expenditure and relative size of the government expenditure to GDP. Figure 5.2
provides a summary of the empirical investigations conducted to-date.
Figure 5.2
Summary of Selected Empirical Studies on Government Expenditure and
Economic Growth
Author(s) Sample Method Explanatory Variable (s) Results

Haque, M. Panel of 30 LDCs 3SLS Government capital expenditure positively and
Emranul and (1970s and 1980s) / GDP significantly correlated
Osborn, Denise Government current with growth
R. (2007) expenditure / GDP Insignificant.
At the sectoral level, only outlays that are
government investment and significantly associated
total expenditures in education with growth
Kneller et al Panel 22 OECD OLS, Investment/GDP, other and Productive expenditure
(1998) (1970-95) GLS (non) productive expenditures, enhances growth, but
other and (non) distortionary nonproductive
taxes spending does not
Devarajan and Panel of 14 OLS, Various functional types of Health, transport and
Vinaya (1993) developed 5-year expenditure (health, education, communication have
countries Moving transport, etc) significant positive
(1970-90) Average effect; education and
defense a negative
impact.
Ahsan,S.M. Time series OLS, Share of real total government Positive significant
Kwan, A.C.C. Canada GLS expenditure / GDP
and. Shani , B.S. (1953-1988) Real total government
(1996) expenditure
Lin, S.A.Y. Panel of 62 OLS, Share of investment, Mixed results.
(1994) countries: 2 ,3SLS government expenditure in Nonproductive
1960-85 GDP, growth rate of labour Spending insignificant
force; exports, foreign direct impact on ADC, but
investment share in GDP significant positive on
LDC.
Barro (1991) Cross-section OLS Government final Government
(98countries) Consumption expenditure consumption
1960-85 expenditure has a
significant negative
effect
Alexander, W.R. 13 countries OLS Government consumption Growth of government
(1990) (OECD) panel expenditure, gross fixed capital spending, and inflation
(1959-84) formation, deficits, exports, have significant
negative impact on
growth.
Landau, D. Panel of 27 OLS Various types of government Government
(1983), (1986) LDCs expenditure. consumption
expenditure a negative
impact.
Kormendi and Panel of 47 OLS Government final consumption Government
Meguire (1985) Countries expenditure consumption has no
significant effect.
As can be seen, the results obtained differed by country/region, analytical method
employed, periods chosen for the study. These differences in results obtained were
partially due to the differences in the set of conditioning variables and initial conditions
225
across studies leading to a lack of consensus in the results (Levine and Renelt, 1992)
and in part due to the ignorance of the implication of government budget constraint for
their regression (Helms, 1985, Mofidi and Stone, 1990; Kneller et al. 1999a and 1999b).
Many studies were conducted based on the “cross-section” or “panel-pooled data”.
The defect of such empirical studies, however, is the statistical constraints that “cross-
sectional analysis can identify correlation but not causation between variables” (Hsieh
and Lai, 1994 and Wing, Yuk, 2005). In view of this, time series analysis is crucial to
determine the flow(s) of causality.
In 1893, Adolph Wagner put forward his well-known proposition that there is a
positive relationship between economic activities and government expenditure
(Henrekon, 1993). It is one of the economic theories that emphasize economic growth
as the fundamental determinant of government sector growth. Empirical tests of this law
have yielded results that differ considerably from one country to another (See Figure
5.3).
Wagner and Weber (1977) tested the hypothesis for 34 countries over the period
1950-72. The study by Abizadeh and Gray (1985) covered 55 countries over the period
1963-79 and their findings support the proposition in the cases of wealthier nations but
not for the poorest countries. Ram’s study (1986, 1987) covering the period 1960-80
encompassing 115 countries found limited support to Wagner’s hypothesis. Afxentiou
and Serletis (1996) examined six European countries (France, Italy, Germany, Belgium,
the Netherlands and Luxemburg) over the period 1961-91 and found no evidence
supporting Wagner’s hypothesis for the countries studied. Ansari et al. (1997) studied
three African countries, namely Ghana, Kenya and South Africa, and also found little
evidence supporting Wagner’s hypothesis. Wahab (2004) in his study intended to
disentangle the effects of accelerating and decelerating economic growth in government
expenditure for OECD, EU and G7 countries for the period 1950-2000. He found
226
evidence that lends support to Wagner’s law for EU countries only. However, his
findings suggested that for all countries in general, government expenditure increased
less than proportionately with accelerating economic growth and decreased more than
proportionately with decelerating economic growth.
Figure 5.3
Summary of Selected Empirical Studies on Granger Causality Test
Author(s) Sample Variable Direction of Variable

Causality
Comparative Studies (Post WWII period)
Ram, Rati (1986,1987) 115 Countries (1960-80) R TGE / Real GDP → Real GDP
Hsiah and Lai (1994) G-7 Countries RTGE / Real GDP No uniform Per capita Real
causality GDP
Ansari, M.I., D.V.Gordon and Ghana (1961-88) RTGE ← RGDP
C.Akuamoah (1997) Kenya (1964-89) RTGE ~ RGDP
South Africa (1957-90) RTGE → RGDP
Ghali, K.H. (1999) All OECD (1970.1Q – RTGE / Real GDP → Real GDP
1994.3Q)
Kolluri et al (2000) G7 (1960-93) Three different ~ Real GDP
UK (1960-93) category of ← Real GDP
government spending
Tsangyao Chang (2002) South Korea (1954-96), Five versions of Wagner’s law.
Taiwan (1951-96), (Found the validity of Wagner’s law exception of Thailand)
Thailand (1951-95), Japan
(1952-95)
USA (1951-96),
UK (1951-96)
Wahab(2004) OECD,EU and G7 (1950- RTGE ← Real GDP
2000)
Specific Country Studies (Post WWII period)

Gupta(1967), Bird (1971), Ahsan Canada (1950-95) Total government ← Real GDP
et.al (1989), Biswal et al (1999) current expenditure
Government Fixed ↔ Real GDP
Capital Formation
Tan Eu Chye (2003) Malaysia RTGE → Real GDP
(End of1980s -1997) ROG → Real GDP
RDG → Real GDP
Pluta (1979), Sun (1997), Huang, Taiwan (1979-2002) RTGE ~ Real GDP
Chiung-Ju (2006)
Demirbas, Safa (1999) Turkey (1950-90) RTPE ~ Real GNP
Halicioĝlu (2003) RTPCE ~ Real GNP
Courakis, Anthony S, Fatima Moura- Greece, Portugal Various components ~ Real GDP
Roque and George Tridimas (1993) (1958-85) of expenditure
Defense expenditure
Karavitis, Nicholas (1987) Greece (1950-80) Various components ← Real GDP
Chletsos, Michael and Charistos Greece (1958-93) of expenditure ↔ Per capita Real
Kollias (1997) GDP
Singh, Balvir and Balbir S. Sahni India (1950-81) RTGE and various ~ GNI
(1984) components of Public
Expenditure
Nagarajan and Spears (1990), Mexico (Various period) RTGE and various ← Real GDP
Murthy (1993), Ashworth (1994), components of Public
Hayo,B (1994) Expenditure
Ganti and Kalluri (1978), Vatter and USA (Various period) RTGE and various ← Real GDP
Walker (1986), Yousefi and Abizadeh components of Public
(1992) Expenditure
Gyles (1991) UK RTGE and various ↔ Real GDP
components of Public
Expenditure
227
Historical Studies (Inclusive of Pre-WWII period)
Thornton, John (1999) Denmark, Germany, Unidirectional causality ran mainly from income to
Italy, Norway, Sweden, government expenditure. Considerable support for Wagner’s
UK (Mid 19th century to law.
1913)
Wing Yuk(2005) UK(1830-1993) RTGE → Real GDP
Oxley, Les (1994) UK(1870-1913) RTGE ← Real GDP

R TGE / Real GDP → Real GDP
Volume of exports → Real GDP
Islam, Anisul, M. (2001) USA (1929-96) Relative size of TGE ← Per-capita Real
Income
Mann, Arthur J. (1980) Mexico (1925-76) Six different versions Mixed Real GDP
of Wagner’s principle result Per-capital Real
GDP
Abbreviations
RDG= Real Government Development Expenditure, ROG= Real Operating Government Expenditure
RTGE = Real Total Government Expenditure, RTPE = Real Total Public Expenditure
RTPCE = Real Total Public Consumption Expenditure
Notes: ← (→) indicates direction of causality running from the variable on the right (left) to the one on the left (right).
↔ indicates both direction of causality
~ indicates absence of causality
The study by Kolluri et al.(2000), which focused on the relationship between
economic growth and certain components of public expenditure of the G7 countries for
the period 1960-93, yielded results to the contrary. Wagner’s Law was confirmed for all
seven countries, i.e., there were signs of long-run equilibrium relationships between
different categories of government spending and economic growth. For UK in particular,
Wagner’s Law was confirmed for all three categories of government expenditure as
indicated by the positive signs displayed for the coefficients.
Besides these works, there are many country-specific studies. Gupta (1967), Bird
(1971), Ahsan et al.(1996) and Biswal et al. (1999) have studied Wagner’s Law for
Canada. Mann (1980), Nagarajan and Spears (1990), Murthy (1993), Ashworth (1994),
Hayo (1994) examined the validity of Wagner’s Law for Mexico. Ganti and Kalluri
(1978), Vatter and Walker (1986) and Yousefi and Abizadeh (1992) have studied the
applicability of this law for the USA; Pluta (1979) and Sun (1997) for Taiwan; Khan
(1990) for Pakistan; Gyles (1991) for the UK; Henrekson (1993) for Sweden;
Hondroyiannis and Papapetrou (1995) for Greece; Nomura (1995) for Japan, Tan, Eu
Chye (2003) for Malaysia and Singh (1996) for India. In general country-specific
studies, with few exceptions, have found support for Wagner’s proposition.
228
Most of the works focused on the post-World War II period. However, there are a
number of studies which tested the validity of Wagner’s law for the period prior to
World War II such as UK (Wing Yuk, 2005 and Oxley, 1994), USA (Islam, 2001) and
Mexico (Mann, Arthur J., 1980). The results obtained differed from country to country,
very much influenced by government expenditure and the periods chosen for the study.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no study which examines the validity of
Wagner’s law between the pre World War II period and the post World War II period. In
the case of Singapore, there was no empirical exercise made on the applicability of
Wagner’s Law. As is described in Section 5.2.1, studies on Singapore government’s
finance behavior have mostly concentrated on the pattern of government revenue and
expenditure and hardly gave any attention to the relationship between government
expenditure and economic growth. Unlike other previous country-specific studies, this
paper focuses on seeking out any notable similarities or differences that existed during
the two periods, namely the period of British colonial rule and the period of self-
government, in respect of government finance behavior in relation to economic growth.
5.3 Historical Transitions of Government Finance Behavior of Singapore in the

Twentieth Century
This section briefly observes the long-term structural changes of revenue raising,
expenditure allocation and budget management of Singapore in the twentieth century.
5.3.1 Government Revenue
5.3.1.1. Growth of Government Revenue
Figure 5.4 provides a chart on Singapore’s general government revenue at current
prices for the twentieth century. 92 Prior to World War II, government revenue
experienced fluctuations over time. The most rapid revenue growth of 53% was
92
Revenue is composed of heterogeneous elements. Accordingly, the elements are classified according to different characteristics
depending on the type of revenue, namely, (1) taxes and (2) social contribution (3) grants and (4) other revenue. (IMF, 2001:47). In
this study, Government revenue refers to revenue collected from Colony of Singapore, Municipality of Singapore/ City Council of
Singapore for the period 1900-39 and 1950-60. Revenue from Trading Department was not included in this definition. After 1960,
revenue credited to the Consolidated Revenue Account was utilized.
229
recorded in 1920. It was due to the introduction of Income tax as a temporary measure
to compensate for the deficiencies of revenue raising capacity. After the termination of
this implementation in 1922, total revenue collection fell by 16% despite revenue being
raised from other sources having improved.
Figure 5.4
Singapore: General Government Revenue at Current Prices,
1900-39 and 1950-2000
1900-39, 1950-60
350
300
250
Straits $ Millions
200
150
100
50
-
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
Year
1963-2000
45,000
40,000
35,000
Straits $ / Singapore $ Millions
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
-
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Year
Source:
1900-39, 1950-60: Constructed by Author.
1960-81: Department of Statistics, Singapore (1983).
1982: Estimated by Author.
1983-2000: Asia Development Bank (2001 and 2005).
230
Another reduction of revenue was observed in 1929. It was solely due to the reduction
of revenue collection from the sales of opium.
Clear distinctions of the size of revenue can be observed between the pre-war and
the post-war periods. It is partially due to inflation but mainly because of the
implementation of income tax in 1947. After the formation of self-government, revenue
earning has experienced a steep increase over time. However, a notable reduction of
revenue was recorded during the recession period, namely 1985-1986 and 1997-1998.
5.3.1.2. Changes in Revenue Structure
According to the study by Tanzi and Schuknecht (2000) on revenue structure, the
revenue composition in Western industrialized countries experienced considerable
changes over the century. Initially, indirect taxes were the most crucial revenue source.
Nevertheless, narrow tax bases prevented the revenue raising capacity. After World War
II, income tax and social security contributions have become the most crucial revenue
categories, comprising almost two-thirds of total government revenue. By 1960, this
ratio between direct and indirect tax revenue still prevailed. Additionally, social security
contributions started to be become an important revenue source. For the period 1960-
2000, revenue increases were largely derived from direct taxes and social security
contributions. In most of the western countries, personal income taxes came to be seen
as the best and fairest taxes. Personal income taxes were ideal instruments because they
could be progressive and thus contribute to the objective of income redistribution. These
direct taxes are more in conformity with the ability-to-pay principle and are more
befitting of a modern community, because they are generally levied at progressive rates
(Goode, 1984:89).
Unlike industrialized countries, the revenue structure of developing countries
depends upon customs (export and import duties) and excise duties, poll tax,
231
commodity taxes and other indirect taxes for its sources of revenue. These indirect taxes
are regressive in nature and the tax burden falls heavily and unevenly on the poor
(Goode, Richard, 1984). A developed country relies more on income tax, profit tax,
property tax, estate duties, inheritance tax, and other direct taxes for its revenue.
5.3.1.3. British Colonial Period (1900-39 and 1950-59)
The British colonial government in Singapore formed three levels of government
bodies, namely the Colony of Singapore, Municipality / City Council and Rural Board.
As presented in Table 5.5, the Colony of Singapore accounts for between 72.1-90.0% of
total revenue while Municipality / City Council and Rural Board contributed about 8.5-
27.9% and 0.8-2.0% respectively.
With elected self-government for all internal matters under the 1959 Constitution,
the ruling People's Action Party abolished the City Council and the Rural Board on the
ground that Singapore was too small to afford such differentiation in roles (Lee Soo Ann,
1974:68-69).
The British colonial authority needed to identify potential revenue sources for
Singapore which became part of its colonies in the early 19th century. Unlike other
British colonial territories which relied on export duties, Singapore as a free port relied
heavily on trade for its economic activities. Under these circumstances, the British
colonial authority could not impose any export duties as their revenue source.
Alternatively, the colonial authority needed to rely on the revenue collection from the
sales of opium / chandu (Trocki, Carl, 1990, Emerson, Rupert, 1969 and Lim Chong
Yah, 1967). As can be seen from Table 5.2, more than half of the entire revenue came
from this single revenue source during the 1900-20’s. Nevertheless, its reliance on
opium sales as a revenue source reduced gradually over the period. The revenue from
opium was paid into the “Opium Revenue Replacement Fund” for each year and the
money invested in securities abroad. More importantly, the British colonial authority
232
ceased to depend on opium revenue by abolishing the opium sales immediately after the
end of World War II.
Table 5.2
Singapore: Revenue by Major Sources at the level of Colony of Singapore,
Municipality / City Council of Singapore and Rural Board at Current Prices,
1900-39 (Percentage)
Percentage of Total by Level
1907 1915 1920 1928 1933 1938 1952 1956
Colony of Singapore 72.1 77.8 84.4 72.9 74.7 72.7 90.0 85.9
Municipality / City Council of Singapore 27.9 20.5 14.8 26.0 23.9 25.3 8.5 12.4
Rural Board 1.7 0.8 1.1 1.4 2.0 1.5 1.7
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Percentage Composition of Revenue at Each Level

1907 1915 1920 1928 1933 1938 1952 1956
Colony of Singapore
Sales of Opium (2) 49.2 61.3 44.4 35.1 20.4 18.3
Sales of Liquor 12.1 10.8 6.9 10.6 8.1 10.9 6.7 9.2
Import Duty 12.1 10.8 10.7 21.8 21.8 26.6 26.5 26.4
Stamp Duty 4.7 5.5 5.6 8.7 5.7 13.6 0.8 0.9
Income Tax 14.2 34.6 29.6
Interest on Investment and Loan(3) 0.0 2.1 1.3 3.9 16.8 14.2 1.8 1.8
(1)
Others 21.9 9.5 16.8 19.8 27.2 16.4 29.6 32.1
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Municipality / City Council of Singapore
Rates 47.9 62.7 55.2 61.9 55.3 52.9 61.5 71.1
Taxes 7.9 9.0 23.1 9.7 8.8 11.6 1.9 1.2
Licences 1.4 2.7 0.7 0.5 4.3 3.0 6.7 5.2
Fees 3.1 3.7 4.5 8.7 12.7 12.0 23.0 16.2
Miscellaneous 3.7 7.8 4.7 10.9 8.7 11.0 2.3 1.5
Reimbursements 4.3 1.6 3.8 3.1 5.0 4.1 0.0 0.0
Rents 31.7 12.4 8.0 5.3 5.1 5.3 4.5 4.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Rural Board (4)

Revenue Proper 35.4 77.0 87.7 69.0 58.6 NA NA
Government Contribution 64.6 23.0 12.3 31.0 41.4 NA NA
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Sources:
Blue Book, Straits Settlements, various series, Financial Statement of Colony of Singapore, various series, Annual, Administration
Report of the Singapore Municipality, various series, Annual Administration Report of the City Council of Singapore,
Various series.
Notes:
(1) Others in the Colony of Singapore include Fees of Courts, Rents of Government Property, Land Sales, Postage Stamps and
Others, Overpayments recovered, Motor Cars and Drivers' Licenses etc.
(2) Net revenue earning from the sales of Opium was available for Straits Settlements as a whole for the period 1911-1930. The
distribution for Singapore for that period was derived based on the average distribution for the period 1931-39.
(3) Interest obtained from the Opium Revenue Replacement Fund for the period 1933-39 was also presented for Straits Settlements
as a whole. The distribution for Singapore was calculated based on the size of revenue earning from the sales of opium for the
relevant years.
(4) Rural Board was established in 1908.
Import duties increasing became an important revenue source over time. Import
duties that were imposed were that on petrol (1909) followed by tobacco (1916), which
233
became a crucial duty item. By the 1930s, the revenue derived from import duties
already exceeded that derived from the sales of opium. This expansion was achieved
through the increases of rate of duty. 93 In order to overcome this serious weak
foundation of revenue sources, the British colonial administration introduced income
tax during the 1920-1923. As no similar tax was imposed in the Federated Malay States
and Unfederated Malay States, commercial interests in the Straits Settlements argued
against the discriminatory treatment. The law was finally repealed (Lee Soo Ann,
1974:81).
It is important to note that interest from government financial investment such as
Opium Revenue Replacement Fund, Sterling Security Fund and other loans had brought
considerable stable revenue for the Colony of Singapore.
After World War II, money collected in the way of import duties represented the
most important revenue source coinciding with the abolishment of revenue collection
from the sales of opium. Nevertheless, the government could not expect any further
increase in the size of revenue. Under such circumstances, the income tax bill was
finally introduced in 1947. “The Income Tax Ordinance of Singapore” was modeled
after that of the United Kingdom. Comparatively speaking, the Government imposed a
relatively moderate progressive tax rate in Singapore (Edwards, 1970).
As Singapore was a free-enterprise and open economy, too progressive a rate would
hinder people’s incentive to work, save and invest. The company income tax was
applied to limited companies, public and private, but not to unincorporated firms such
as sole proprietors and partnerships because the profit of the latter is accrued to the
proprietors or partners and the personal income tax is applied to them accordingly. The
company income tax was at the flat rate of 40% on ‘taxable profit’. The revenue
structure, in fact, has changed rapidly within a relatively short historical time frame.
93
For instance, duty of petroleum with a flash point of 73° Fahrenheit was 5 cents per gallon when it was first imposed in 1909, and
this was increased to 10 cents in 1925 and raised further to 35 cents per gallon in 1931. The duty of Tobacco was 60 cents per pound
before 9 August 1921, raised to 80 cents after that date, raised further to $1.00 per pound in 1925 and raised further still to $1.10 in
1932 (Lim Chong Yah, 1967: 256).
234
In the case of the Municipality, increasing urbanization of Singapore led to increases
in revenue through the rates it levied on property and the services an urban centre
needed. The construction of respective revenue sources remains relatively stable over
time. The Rural Board which existed under the Municipal ordinance, with powers
similar to the Municipality / City Council similarly derived its revenue from the levying
of rates.
5.3.1.4. Self Government Period (1959-2000)
After the formation of self-government, income tax comprising company and
individual taxes remains the most crucial revenue sources for Singapore as presented in
Table 5.3. The size of revenue from income tax accounted for more or less half of the
total taxes by 1975. In line with the expansion of income taxes, revenue from selling,
leasing and renting of government assets such as land, facilities and motor-vehicle
related taxes also showed increases. On the other hand, the percentage contribution of
revenue from custom and excise duties had gradually decreased.
Table 5.3
Singapore: Revenue by Major Sources at Current Prices, 1960-2000
(Percentage)
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Income Tax 24.4 20.7 20.8 36.0 33.2 28.1 37.5 35.4 43.2
Import Duty and Excise 33.1 29.8 23.6 12.9 11.7 9.2 10.0 6.4 5.7
Property Tax 3.2 12.2 9.0 9.8 9.7 11.1 8.5 6.6 4.8
Motor Vehicle Taxes 2.3 5.5 4.9 4.8 8.5 6.4 10.2 7.3 7.0
Stamp Duty 1.3 1.2 1.9 1.5 2.8 2.9 5.0 5.5 4.4
Goods and Services Tax 6.6 7.2
Others 8.0 6.9 10.6 5.1 5.5 5.6 9.3 10.3 9.0
Non-tax Revenue 27.7 23.7 29.2 29.9 28.6 36.6 19.6 21.8 18.7
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Sources:
1951 and 1956: Financial Statements of Colony of Singapore and Lee Soo Ann (1974:83).
1960-1995: Low, Linda (1998:111).
2000: Year Book of Statistics, Singapore, Various Series.
Notes:
(1) Others include Tax on betting, estate duty, other transfer receipt and other non-transfer receipt.
(2) Non-tax revenue includes Sales of Goods & Services from Current Operations, Reimbursements for Services & Sales of
Lands and Interest & Dividends Received.
In 1985, the Government of Singapore set up an Economic Committee to identify
new directions for its future economic prosperity. The committee report submitted in
235
1986 suggested new tax system. Firstly, suggestion was made to reduce corporate and
personal income taxes from 40% to 30% and subsequently 25%. It was mainly due to
the fact that Singapore government would like to attract foreign investment and foreign
talents. Additionally income tax also has a detrimental effort on savings and enterprise.
In response to this suggestion, the highest scale of company income tax rate and
individual tax rate has been brought down to 33%. Additionally, reduction of property
tax to 16% was implemented in 1990.
Secondly, the committee recommended structural tax system from direct to indirect
taxes as the main source of revenue. This is because the reduction in income tax revenue
has to be compensated by an increase in other revenue. Option is laid on the
introduction of indirect taxation on goods and services (GST). Needless to say, GST is
inherently regressive in nature since everybody pays the same tax rate regardless of the
income level. However, it was rationalized on the ground that broad based goods and
service tax would not create disincentive to corporations (regarding profitability) and
individuals (with regards to saving). Finally, on 1st April 1994, the government
introduced the GST (Lim Chong Yah, 2004:257).
Other than tax revenue, it must be highlight that the proportion of non-tax revenue is
relatively high in Singapore as compared with other countries. A few key items account
for the difference between Singapore and other countries. Firstly, revenue from the lease
of land is substantial, at about 7 per cent of GDP, since the government owns more than
80 per cent of the land in Singapore. Secondly, prudent investment of the large
accumulated stock of government assets has provided a substantial income stream to the
government, estimated at about 5 per cent of GDP (Ghesquiere, 2007:57).
In short, the government’s finance structure underwent a substantial transformation;
from relying on traditional revenue sources such as revenue from the sale of opium
during the colonial period to more diversified and modern revenue sources during the
236
period of self-government. Most notable among the changes was the shifting of the tax
burden from unevenly on the low-income group to all income group levels based on the
ability-to-pay principle which is more befitting of a modern community, because they
are generally levied at progressive rates. However, it is important to note the
consistency of both the colonial government and self-government in constantly paying
attention to create a revenue system which provided incentives to foreign investors.
5.3.2 Government Expenditure
5.3.2.1. Growth of Government Expenditure
In the twentieth century, Singapore has experienced a long-term real GDP growth
rate (1990 prices) of 4.5% and 7.2% for the period 1900-39 and 1950-2000 respectively.
In real per-capita terms, a moderate growth rate of 1.5% was recorded for the period
1900-39. On the other hand, a higher growth rate of 4.6% has been attained for the
period 1950-2000. Hence, there are inter-temporal differences in terms of real growth
rate between these two distinct periods. As is presented in Table 5.4, the most
remarkable growth in terms of real GDP and per-capita real GDP was recorded during
1921-30 in the pre-World War II period and 1960-80 in the post-war period. A similar
phenomenon was observed in terms of real total government expenditure, government
final consumption expenditure and government fixed capital formation. It will not
escape notice that Government Fixed Capital Formation (GFCF) showed the highest
average growth during the period 1910-30. The average growth was even higher than
that in the post-independence period. It was mainly because of the government’s efforts
to undertake major infrastructure projects in order to ensure it maintained its eminent
position as the regional trading centre.
In terms of share of real government expenditure to GDP, government final
consumption expenditure (GFCE) generally remained stable for the entire century
exclusive of the 1960s. On the other hand, the share of government fixed capital
237
formation (GFCF) to GDP showed a gradual expansion from 1921 onwards reaching its
peak (11.6%) during the 1981-90 periods after which it declined to 7.6 % during the
next decade. In terms of size of real government expenditure to GDP, real total
government expenditure of Singapore for the years 1900-39 and 1950-2000 was 17.0%
and 18.0% respectively; this being remarkably low compared with other industrialized
nations as can be seen from the data shown on page 217. Both GFCE and GFCF also
have experienced gradual increases of their shares of GDP until 1990, after which a
slight reduction was experienced.
Table 5.4
Singapore: Trend of Government Expenditures (period annual averages),
1900-2000 (1990 Prices)
Average % growth
Real Per- Real Per- Real Per- Real Per- Share of Share of Share of
GDP capita TGE capita GFCE capita GFCF capita TGE to GFCE to GFCF to
Real Real Real Real GDP (%) GDP (%) GDP (%)
GDP TGE GFCE GFCF
1900-1910 4.6 1.8 4.1 1.3 5.5 1.9 5.8 2.8 13.8 6.6 1.6
1911-1920 2.2 -1.0 11.7 8.2 2.7 -1.5 31.9 27.8 15.1 6.0 1.8
1921-1930 6.1 2.8 10.1 6.5 9.3 4.6 24.5 20.4 17.5 6.6 2.6
1931-1939 5.0 2.3 6.8 4.0 2.7 -0.2 3.7 0.9 21.5 7.3 3.1
1950-1960 5.1 0.3 6.8 1.8 6.4 -0.5 10.5 5.3 12.5 8.6 5.4
1961-1970 8.8 6.5 15.6 12.9 14.4 10.9 18.0 15.2 17.5 10.4 7.7
1971-1980 8.6 7.1 9.4 7.7 7.3 5.4 12.5 10.8 20.7 11.6 9.4
1981-1990 7.0 4.7 5.9 3.4 7.7 4.2 4.9 2.4 22.6 11.3 11.6
1991-2000 7.2 4.5 7.6 4.7 8.5 5.3 9.9 6.9 16.7 10.0 7.6
1900-1939 4.5 1.5 8.2 5.0 5.1 1.2 16.8 13.3 17.0 6.6 2.0
1950-2000 7.2 4.6 9.1 6.1 8.9 5.1 11.2 8.1 18.0 10.4 8.4
Sources:
[1900-39 and 1950-59] Sugimoto (2008), [1960-1995] Department of Statistics, Singapore (1996).
[1995-2000] Asian Development Bank (2001).
Abbreviations:
TGC= Total Government Expenditure, GFCE= Government Final Consumption Expenditure
GFCF= Government Fixed Capital Formation
5.3.2.2 Changes in the Composition of Government Expenditure
As is described above, government spending was initially mostly limited to the
maintenance of law and order, external security, and to the provision of limited
government services and investments. However, over the subsequent decades,
government expenditure increased significantly. In the case of OECD countries, notable
238
increases were observed in the area of social expenditure.94 As presented in Table 5.5,
the share of government expenditure on Law, order and defense, education, health,
pensions to GDP has gradually increased over the period. This was mainly due to the
increasing government obligations, or, seen from another side, of citizens’ entitlements
in the social area (Tanzi and Schuknecht, 2000:32). Particularly, expenditure on
education has been regarded as a function of economic growth and equity, social
stability and democratic values.
Table 5.5
Percentage Share of Government Social Expenditure to GDP
(Average of OECD Countries*)
Type of Expenditure About About 1913 About 1937 1960 1980 1993 1996
1870 1910 1930
Law, order and defense
4.1 3.7
expenditure
Education 0.6 1.3 2.1 3.5 5.8 6.1
Health 0.3 0.4 2.4 5.8 6.4
Pensions 0.4 1.9 4.5 8.4 9.6
Unemployment 1.3 0.3 0.9 1.6 2.7
Sources:
Law, order and defense expenditure: OECD (2007:195).
Education, Health, pensions, Unemployment: Constructed based on Tanzi and Schuknecht (2000:34, 38 , 41 and 43).
Notes:
Law, order and defense expenditure covers the police forces, intelligence services, prisons and other correctional facilities,
the judicial system, and ministries of internal affairs.
(*) refers to Australia. Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand,
Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States.
It is interesting to observe whether Singapore experienced a similar pattern of
government expenditure. Table 5.6 provides share of government expenditure on (1)
defense, justice and police, (2) education, (3) health and (4) social security and welfare
against GDP in Singapore for the twentieth century. Several observations can be drawn.
Firstly, the government expenditure on defense, justice and police remained high
throughout the twentieth century despite some fluctuations being observed in the pre-
WWII period. Unlike other categories of government expenditure, defense expenditure
makes little or no direct contribution to economic development (Lim Chong Yah,
2004:241). However, this expenditure was considered essential to maintain peace and
94
This category includes education, health, pensions, unemployment benefits and other transfer programs.
239
order in Singapore. In 1964, expenditure for this category experienced a sudden drop
due to the historical fact that Singapore became a part of the Federation of Malaysia,
which bore to undertake expenditure for this purpose. After the attainment of
independence in 1965, the percentage share of defense remained high as during the pre-
1963 period. This implies that government expenditure on defense was one of the
indispensable areas for the establishment of internal and external security of Singapore.
Table 5.6
Singapore: Percentage Share of Expenditure to GDP by Major Objects
at Current Prices (%) Selected Years
Defense, Justice Education Health Social Security
and Police and Welfare
1900 1.2 0.3 0.5 0.3
1905 1.1 0.2 0.7 0.4
1910 3.1 0.2 0.5 0.3
1915 5.5 0.2 0.5 0.3
1920 3.3 0.2 0.4 0.3
1925 3.1 0.3 0.5 0.2
1930 2.9 0.4 0.6 0.2
1935 3.2 0.5 0.6 0.2
1952 1.2 1.3 0.7 0.7
1955 2.6 2.7 1.8 1.0
1960 1.6 2.7 1.5 1.0
1964 0.1 3.9 2.4 1.8
1970 5.7 5.4 1.4 1.0
1975 5.5 4.8 1.1 0.9
1980 5.2 4.1 0.9 0.9
1983 4.2 4.9 1.4 0.3
1990 5.1 4.3 1.0 0.5
1995 4.7 3.1 1.2 0.8
2000 4.8 4.0 1.0 0.7
Sources:
1900-39: Constructed by Author.
1950-60: Lee Soo Ann (1974).
1965-80: Department of Statistics, Singapore (1983).
1985-2000: Asian Development Bank (2001 and 2005).
Secondly, share of government expenditure on both education and health to GDP
was recorded at very low levels throughout the pre-World War II period. These
categories can be interpreted as contributing to investment in human and social capital
and are priority areas for the government. In this sense, it is clear that the British
colonial authority did not pay as much attention to these expenditure categories. The
post-war period saw the share of government expenditure on education increase steadily
240
over the years. However, government expenditure on health remained small even during
the period of self-government period. In fact, the share of health expenditure in
Singapore was much lower than that of other OECD countries. This is because the
healthcare system of Singapore differed from those in the United States and Western
Europe. The goal is to provide quality healthcare for all Singaporeans at minimal cost to
society by relying on a combination of public and private service delivery, but without a
national health insurance system. Nonetheless, Singapore’s healthcare system was
ranked among the most successful in the world in terms of cost-effectiveness and
community health results (Ghesquiere, 2007:67 and 69).
Thirdly, not unlike health expenditure, government outlays for social security and
welfare were very low throughout the century. It amounted, on average, to less than 1
percent of GDP in 1990-2001, compared with 13 percent in the typical OECD country.
In Singapore, old-age security is seen as being primarily the responsibility of the
individual and family, followed by the community through charity, with the state acting
only as a last resort.95 There is no formal unemployment insurance scheme. Indirectly,
individuals out of work have to rely primarily on accumulated savings or family
support.96 Relating to this, the Central Provident Fund, which was put in place in 1955
played significant role. This compulsory savings scheme has relieved the budget for
much of the social security expenditure.
In short, the share of government expenditure to GDP during both the British
colonial government and the period of self-government remained small. In particular,
share of government expenditure on social welfare (exclusive of education) did not
show any expansion while those of other OECD countries experienced continuous
increases over the period. It is, however, essential to note that there are notable
95
Public pensions are limited to holders of political positions, the judiciary, and top civil servants and military officers (Ghesquiere,
2007:53).
96
If these are absent, the government provdes a social safety net as a last resort, but this is subject to stringent means-testing.
Government resists introducing entitlement programs, emphasizing instead retraining and incentives that foster job creation.
(Ghesquiere, 2007:54).
241
differences in the management of government expenditure between the British colonial
period and the period of self-government. The British colonial government, as is argued
above, always aimed to create a balanced or even a surplus budget structure so as not to
burden the colonial home government. Thus, the priority was not to foster the
improvement of the quality of government services and their effectiveness. On the other
hand, self-government consciously limited the growth of expenditure by focusing on
quality service and competitiveness. In the process of budgeting, every government
department is required to specify its output and set performance targets as part of the
annual budgetary process. These targets are monitored and form the basis for evaluating
the performance of the departments. By doing so, the driving force of budgeting is
shifted from resource requirements to output performance.
5.3.3 Budget Surplus/Deficit and Financial Assets
Putting together the revenue and expenditure side of the government sector and
added to it that for the statutory boards to arrive at the overall balance for the
government sector. Figure 5.5 shows the overall budget surplus / deficit of Singapore
for the twentieth century.97 Prior to 1920, the balance of surplus/deficit was relatively
negligible, except for a couple of years (1911 and 1919). However, substantial deficits
were recorded since 1925. During the Great Depression years of the 1930’s and the
years thereafter, Singapore recorded continuous budget deficits. This picture was
somewhat different from the other Malay states (Sugimoto, 1997 and 2007a) which
relied on revenue source from export duties. The reduction of revenue collected from
the sale of opium/chandu had a major contributory effect on the decline of revenue
raising capacity in Singapore and this led to the emergence of budget deficit despite
attempts by the Colonial government to seek alternative revenue sources in the form of
import duties, amongst the major being import duty from petrol. In line with this, it
97
Due to the lack of information on statutory boards, figures prior to 1960 only refer to the Colony and Municipality / City Council.
242
cannot be denied that the British colonial government in Singapore could no longer
maintain a balanced budget since the 1920s. This issue, however, need to be examined
from the wider scope. From the view point of the British colonial authority, Singapore
somewhat functioned as a part of British Malaya. As described before, the Federated
Malay States, Johore and Kedah had recorded continuous government budget surplus.
This is mainly because those states could receive export duties which were imposed on
primary commodities such as rubber, tin and etc. Instead, Singapore has served as
entrepot. During the period, the Colony of Straits Settlements issued loans and it was
purchased by other wealthy states of British Malaya.98 In this regards, Singapore have
played functional role. However, in the immediate post World War II period Singapore
recorded continuous budget surpluses over time. Lee Soo Ann (1974) found that the
British colonial budget management paid special attention to achieving budget surpluses
for the period 1948-60. In fact, there were significant differences between the budget
estimated and the actual expenditure and revenue figures. Naturally, this led to the
accumulation of budget surpluses and substantial amounts were allocated for foreign
asset holdings.99
Figure 5.5
Singapore: Budget Deficit (-)/ Surplus at Current Prices, 1900-1939, 1950-79 and
1980-2000
1900-39, 1951-60
80
60
40
Straits $ Millions
20
0
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
-20
-40
Year
Budget Deficit (-) or Surplus
98
For example, The Straits Settlements’ 7 per cent Loan was issued on 26th April 1921 at the amount of $20,216,300 and wholly
purchased by Colonial governments of the territories of British Malaya, namely the Federated Malay States Government
($15,000,000), Johore Government ($800,000), Singapore Municipality ($3,500,000) and Penang Municipality ($916,300) (Annual
Report, Colony of Straits Settlements, 1921, pp.12-13).
99
A similar phenomenon was observed in the Malayan state of Johore prior to World War II (Sugimoto, 1997, 2007a).
243
1963-1979
350
300
250
200
Singapore $ Millions 150
100
50
0
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
-50
-100
-150
Year
1980-2000
25,000
20,000
Singapore $ Millions
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
-5,000
Year
Sources: [1900-39, 1950-60] Sugimoto (2008), [1960-2000] IMF Government Finance Statistics, Various Series.
Note: (1) Total Revenue = Total Revenue + Grant (2) Total Expenditure = Total Expenditure + Lending minus repayments.
This major transition was realized mainly due to the introduction of income tax and
its steady expansion as a major revenue source. Excluding the early years of the 1960s
and the year 1987, the government’s prudent budgetary practices resulted in budget
surpluses which have grown larger especially over the period 1990-2000. According to
the Jang and Nakabayashi (2005), the government budget surplus amounted to on
average 10.6 per cent of GDP during the 1990-2001 periods while a typical OECD
country for the same period recorded a budget deficit to the tune of -3.6%.
5.3.4 Summary
Based on the above observations, summarized below are the following main features
of government finance of Singapore. Firstly, the implementation of various measures
by the government to raise revenue and allocate expenditure had undergone major
structural changes between the pre-war and the post-war periods. In the pre-war period,
244
revenue collection was almost entirely based on the sales of opium/chandu since its free
port status precluded imposition of export duties, a privilege enjoyed by the Malay
States of British Malaya. For several years, the British colonial government attempted to
introduce income tax but failed to do so due to strong objections from its residents.
Initially, Singapore managed to sufficiently obtain revenue to meet the size of its
expenditure. Nevertheless, over the years, the Colony of Singapore faced a situation of
budget deficits since the 1920s as a result of increases in government expenditure.
The structure of government finance in Singapore has changed significantly after
World War II due to the introduction of income tax and the complete abolition of
revenue derived from the sales of opium/chandu by the British colonial authority.
Within a short period of time, the size of revenue from income tax experienced an
increase and this was matched by increases in government expenditure. In terms of
budget management, the balance of government finance constantly showed a surplus
since the 1950s. Importantly, this structure remained unchanged even after the
attainment of independence and its absolute amount of budget surplus increased over
time particularly so in the last two decades.
Secondly, it is possible to say that the government expenditure behavior was
basically conservative and prudent throughout the period despite the differing
underlying motives during the pre-war and post-war periods. In the pre-war period, one
of the major concerns of British colonial authority was to attain a balanced budget or
even budget surplus with a conservative spending tendency. In fact, large amounts of
accumulated government budget surpluses were funneled to the British homeland and
other British colonies in the form of portfolio financial investment. This principle,
however, could not be sustained since the mid-1920s mainly due to the complete
absence of earnings from export duty and partially due to the relative reduction of the
revenue earnings from the sales of opium. However, the situation reverted to the
245
original status in the post-war period. The British colonial government was again able to
successfully obtain budget surpluses for most of the years after the introduction of
income tax. After the formation of self-government, not only have budgetary surpluses
been chronic but they have grown larger and larger over the years. By conventional
wisdom, this budget operation should raise hackles of crowding-out and contractionary
effects. Nevertheless, these effects have been obviated in part by the government
recycling funds back into the economy. One way was been means of direct investment
especially in the productive economic infrastructure projects as well as in field of
education, training and health. Additionally, outside the domestic economy, investments
by the state in global assets and activities brought in more investment income as well as
secured a wider portfolio of investments. The point is that surpluses were productively
utilized rather than locked up to cause potential adverse deflationary effects (Low,
1998:148).
Thirdly, based on the observation made above, it is possible to draw a hypothesis
that government finance behavior under British colonial rule (particularly, prior to
WWII period) could not afford to focus on the economic growth of Singapore.
Maintaining the principle of “free port status” caused weakness in the revenue raising
capacity. Under this serious constraint, government expenditure allocation must be
highly constrained in order to maintain a balanced budget. Consequently, the British
colonial government fiscal behavior was somewhat different from the type of
government involvement experienced in the developed countries since the end of 1920s
as described by Tanzi and Schuknecht (2000). In fact, as pointed out by Booth (2002) on
the experiences in the Netherland Indies, the British colonial government’s policy in
Singapore also hardly reflected a conversion to Keynesian economics, but rather was a
manifestation of its inability to allocate expenditures in the face of rapidly falling
revenues.
246
On the other hand, the self-government period was one which was geared for the
economic growth of Singapore. It is crucial to note here that the Singapore Government
implemented efficient government intervention by maintaining the principle of a small-
sized government though most of the developed countries experienced a rapid
expansion in the share of government expenditure to GDP during the period of the
1960s-1970s. In developed countries, growing skepticism of excessive government
intervention emerged in the 1980s due to the rising fiscal deficit and public debt.
Governments of the developed countries reformed their policy regimes towards less
state involvement and consequently led to cuts in public expenditure. However, many
developed countries faced difficulties due to the past commitments and resistance of
groups with strong entitlements on public spending (Tanzi and Schuknecht, 2000:20). In
this sense, the principle of a small-sized government in Singapore established during the
British colonial period spilled over to the period of self-government.
In the following section, this study conducts econometric tests to examine the
statistical relationship between government fiscal behavior and economic growth of
Singapore in the twentieth century and clarify whether we can find any notable
differences between these two distinct periods.
5.4 Econometric Test
5.4.1 Testing Methodology
In 1893, Adolph Wagner offered a model of the determination of public expenditure
in which it was stated that public expenditure growth was a natural consequence of
economic growth. Later, his views were formulated as a law, often referred to as
“Wagner’s Law”. His main contribution in this field was that he tried to establish
generalisations about public expenditures, not from postulates about the logic of choice,
but rather by direct inference from historical evidence (Halicioğlu, 2003, Demirbas,
247
1999 and Henrekson, 1993). The interpretation of Wagner’s Law, however, seems to be
more controversial in a sense that several versions of the law have been introduced and
tested empirically since the 1960s. The most common functional forms of Wagner’s
Law cited in the literature are given below:
lnTGEt = α + β ln Yt + εt ...(1) Peacock-Wiseman (P-W) (1961, 1968)

lnGFCEt = α + β ln Yt + ε ...(2) Pryor (1968)
lnGFCFt = α + β ln Yt + εt ...(3)
ln (TGE/ Y)t = α + β ln Yt + εt ...(4) Mann (1980)
ln (GFCE/ Y)t = α + β ln Yt + εt ...(5)
ln (GFCF/ Y)t = α + β ln Yt + εt ...(6)
(B/ Y)t = α + β Yt + εt ...(7)
where TGE, GFCE,GFCF and B refers to real total government expenditure, real
government final consumption expenditure, real government fixed capital formation and
government overall budget surplus respectively. The notation Y refers to real GDP. The
first version comprising equation (1) was originally employed by Peacock and Wiseman
(1961, 1968), Musgrave (1969), Goffiman and Mahar (1971), Chang (2002) and Huang
et al, (2006). This is the simplest of all the versions of Wagner’s hypothesis and has
been widely used in many studies concerning total government expenditure. The second
version (equation (2)) was used by Pryor (1969). Similarly, this study was with regards
to government fixed capital formation.
Equations (1) through (3) may be perceived as the level version while (4)-(6) is the
relative versions of Wagner’s Law. Versions (4)-(6) represent the Musgrave and Mann’s
idea that Wagner’s Law is interpreted as postulating a rising share of government
expenditure to GDP. Similar to versions (1)-(3), Wagner’s hypothesis is validated if the
elasticity of the government expenditure as a share of GDP exceeds unity.100
In addition to the six versions mentioned above, this study tests the share of overall
government budget surplus to GDP as in equation (7). This test is especially relevant
100
In fact, ambiguity exists as to whether the law refers to the relative share of government in an economy or merely to the absolute
size of the government (Islam, 2001).
248
since both the British colonial government and the self-government after independence
paid particular attention to balancing budgets.
This study decides to empirically investigate all versions of Wagner’s Law for
Singapore for the periods 1900-39 and 1950-2000.
Proceeding to test Wagner’s Law relating to the statistical properties of data, it is
necessary to go through the following three steps. In Step 1, it is necessary to
investigate the stationarity properties of the data, in particular whether it is trend
stationarity (TS) or difference stationarity (DS) and the order of integration of the data.
In this regards, it is necessary to examine the time series properties of the variables
because of the implicit assumption that the data were stationary. However, recent
developments in time series analysis found that most macroeconomic time series have a
unit root (a stochastic trend) and this property is described as difference stationarity, so
that the first difference of a time series is stationary (Nelson and Plosser, 1982). Hence,
for stage 1, the non-stationary property of the series must be examined first.
To test the stationarity of the time-series data, Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test
and the Philipps-Perron (PP) regression test are attempted.101 If the variables are found
to be non-stationary in their levels, then one needs to apply the cointegration test that is
discussed below. In other words, the cointegration test is carried out only on the first-
difference stationary variables.
Once unit root was confirmed for a data series, the question is whether there exits
some long-run equilibrium relationship among variables. Step 2 tests this issue which is
reffered to as cointegration in most of the literature works. The concept of cointegration
was first introduced by Granger (1981). From the statistical point of view, a long-term
relationship means that the variables move together over time so that short-term
disturbances from the long-term trend will be corrected (Manning and Andrianacos,
101
The equation and methodology for both ADF and PP tests were described earlier in detail in Chapters 3 and 4. Therefore,
description regarding this is not discussed in this chapter to avoid duplicity.
249
1993). A lack of cointegration suggests that such variables have no long-run
relationship: in principal they can wander arbitrarily far away from each other (Dickey
et al., 1991). 102 If cointegration exists between the two variables, there can be no
systematic divergence between the variables from some long run equilibrium
relationship. In other words, cointegration constitutes a sufficient condition for causality.
Hence if variables are cointegrated, then either unidirectional or bi-directional causal
relationship must exist between them.
Cointegration tests in this study are conducted using the method developed by
Johansen (1988) and Johansen and Juselius (1990). This procedure is regarded as the
most reliable test for cointegration and avoids the problems with the Engle and
Granger’s (1987) two-step procedure, as shown in Kremers et al.(1992), Gonzola, 1994.
Johansen method applies the maximal likelihood procedure to determine the presence of
cointegrating vectors in non-stationary time series.
Following Johansen (1988) and Johansen and Juselius (1990), a two-dimensional (2
x 1) vector autoregressive model with Gaussian errors can be expressed by
Yt = A1Yt-1 + A2Yt-2….+ AkYt-k+ µ + εt
t= 1,2,….,T
where Yt =[Real GDP and government expenditure] and εt is i.i.d. N(0,Σ). By taking
first-differencing on the vector level, the model in error correction form is
∆Yt = Γ1∆Yt −1 + Γ 2∆Yt −2 + ... + Γk −1∆Yt −k +1 − ΠYt −1 + µ + ε t
Where
Γi = − I + A1 + A2 + ... + Ai ,
For i=1,2,…, k-1, and Π = I − A1 − A2 − ... − Ak . The П matrix conveys information about
the long-run relationship between Yt variables (Real GDP and government expenditure),
and the rank of П is the number of linearly independent and stationary linear
102
Many early researchers who looked at Wagner’s Law ignored the stationarity requirement of the variables. However, the
standard regression techniques are invalid when applied to non-stationary variables.
250
combination of real GDP and government spending. Thus, testing for cointegration
involves testing for the rank of П matrix r by examining whether the eigenvalues of П
are significantly different from zero. Three possible conditions exists: (a) the П matrix
has full column rank, implying that the Yt was stationary in level to begin with; (b) the
П matrix has zero rank, in which case the system is a traditional first-differenced VAR;
and (c) the П matrix has rank r such that 0<r<2, implying that there exist r linear
combinations of Yt that are stationary or cointegrated. If condition (c) prevails, then П
can be decomposed into two 2 x r matrices, α and β, such that П =αβ΄. The vectors of β
represent the r linear cointegrating relationships such that β΄Yt is stationary. By testing
the significance of the β-coefficients, whether the variables entering the cointegrating
relationship significantly will be known. The loading matrix α represents the error-
correction parameters which can be interpreted as speed of adjustment parameters.
Johansen (1988) and Johansen and Juselius (1990) propose two test statistics for
testing the number of cointegrating vectors (or the rank of П): the trace (Tr) and the
maximum eigenvalue (L-max) statistics. The likelihood ratio statistic for the trace test is
p−2
Tr = −T ∑ ln(1 − λî )
i = r +1
Where λˆr+1, ….., λˆp
are the estimated p – r smallest eigenvalues. The null hypothesis to be tested is that
there are at most r cointegrating vectors. That is, the number of cointegrating vectors is
less than or equal to r, where r is 0 or 1 (in this study). In each case, the null hypothesis
is tested against the general alternative. Alternatively, the L-max statistic is
L-max = -T ln(1-λˆr+1)
In this test, the null hypothesis of r cointegrating vectors is tested against the
alternative of r + 1 cointegrating vectors. Thus, the null hypothesis r = 0 is tested against
the alternative that r = 1, r=1 against the alternative r=2, and so forth. Is is well known
the cointegration tests are very sensitive to the choice of lag length. Here, the Schwartz
251
Criterion (SC) is used to select the number of lags required in the cointegration test. The
Schwartz criterion (SC) is defined as follows:
 y ' M 1 y  K1 ln T
SC = ln +
 T  T
Where M 1 = I − X 1 ( X 1' X 1 ) −1 X 1' , T is the sample size. Here, K1 is chosen so as to
numerically minimize SC above.
Finally, Step 3 carries out Granger-type causality tests augmented with the error-
correction term derived from the appropriate cointegrating relationship, as identified in
Step 2. Engle and Granger (1987) show that if two nonstationary variables are
cointegrated, then a vector autoregression in the first differences is misspecified.
Therefore it is necessary to conduct cointegration test before running the causality test.
An appropriate formulation for such a Granger causality test is presented in
equations below:
n n
∆ ln Gt = αo + ∑α
i =1
1i ∆ ln Gt −i + ∑ α 2i ∆ ln Yt −i + α 3 z t −1 + η 0t
i =1
n n
∆ ln Yt = βo + ∑β
i =1
1i ∆ ln Gt −i + ∑ β 2i ∆ ln Yt −i + β 3 zt −1 + η 0t
i =1
where ∆ is the difference operator, z is the estimated cointegrating vector. Y can be said
to Granger cause G if α3 is statistically significant. Similarly, statistical significance of
β3 would imply G Granger causing Y. Bi-directional causality arises when both
parameters are statistically significant. Hence, Wagner’s Law would be validated if Y
Granger causes G.
In case of non-cointegration between the variables, the standard Granger causality
approach may be relied upon to study their lead-lag relationships that involve the
specification of the following Vector Autoregression (VAR) model:
n n
∆ ln Gt = αo + ∑α1i ∆ ln Gt −i +∑α 2i ∆ ln Yt −i + η 0t
i =1 i =1
252
n n
∆ ln Yt = βo + ∑β
i =1
1i ∆ ln Gt −i + ∑ β 2i ∆ ln Yt −i + η 0t
i =1
Y would be said to Granger cause G if α2i’s are jointly significantly different from zero
while the converse holds if β1i’s have such joint significance. Bi-directional causality
appears if both conditions are established.
5.4.2 Data
For conducting this empirical analysis, various time-series data are required. For
consistency purposes, the time-series data which stretches over the twentieth century
were all standardized in 1990 prices.
In the case of GDP and government final consumption expenditure (GFCE), the
figures presented in Chapter Three were utilized. Figures on government fixed capital
formation (GFCF) was estimated based on official publications such as the Blue Book,
Straits Settlements, Financial Statement, Straits Settlements and Administration Report
on Singapore Municipality for the period 1900-39. For the period 1950-60, Financial
Statement, Colony of Singapore, Financial Statement, State of Singapore and
Administration Report on Singapore City Council were utilized. Nevertheless, figures
provided in the government expenditure account were not detailed enough, a case in
point being that of public works. If the works were contracted out to the private
contractors, it is necessary to take into account the additional, not declared value for the
computation. On the other hand, in case where public works are internally implemented,
we should take this given figure as own fixed capital formation (Please see Appendix
Figure 1). Due to absence of detailed accounts, this figure has been treated as
government fixed capital formation.
For deflating purposes, these government fixed capital formation was classified into
fixed capital formation comprising (a) construction and (b) machinery and equipment
and transport. These respective figures were then firstly deflated to 1914 prices by
253
utilizing the price indices of cement for construction and the UK price indices on
Machinery and Plant in the case of the latter.
Subsequently, the official publications entitled Singapore System of National
Account 1995 and Yearbook of Statistics, Singapore were utilized to obtain the
information on government fixed capital formation for the period 1960-2000. Implicit
deflators of government fixed capital formation (1990=100) for the 1960-2000 were
then connected with the implicit deflators for 1900-39 and 1950-60 to obtain the long-
term deflators which stretched over the entire 20th century.
In the case of total government expenditure for the period 1900-39 and 1950-60, the
same sources stated above were again utilized. For deriving the constant prices (1914
prices), total government expenditure was then deflated by the major classification of
expenditure, namely, [1] personal emoluments, [2] intermediate consumption
expenditure, [3] fixed capital formation pertaining to construction, [4] fixed capital
formation on machinery, equipment and transport and [5] transfer and others. Each
component of government expenditure was deflated respectively as follows. All the
above items were deflated by CPI with the exception of [4] which used the UK price
indices on Machinery and Plant. Subsequently, data on total government expenditure for
the period 1960-2000 in current and 1990 prices were compiled from the Singapore
System of National Accounts 1995, Yearbook of Statistics, Singapore and IMF
International Financial Statistics, 2006. For the conversion of 1914 prices to 1990
prices for the period 1900-39 and 1950-1960, a methodology similar to that as described
earlier was employed.
5.5 Empirical Results
5.5.1 Unit Root Test
Because cointegration test requires the use of non-stationary variables and error-
correction equations require the use of stationary variables, each data series is first
254
examined for the probable order of difference stationarity. Table 5.7 reports the result of
non-stationary tests for real GDP (LY), real total government expenditure (LTGE), real
government final consumption expenditure (LGFCE), real government fixed capital
formation (LGFCF), the share of real total government expenditure to real GDP
(LSTGY), the share of real government final consumption expenditure to real GDP
(LSGFCEY), real total government fixed capital formation to real GDP (LSGFCFY)
and share of government budget deficit surplus to current GDP (SBY) for the following
specified periods, namely 1900-39 and 1950-2000 using Augmented Dickey-Fuller
(ADF) tests and Philips-Perron (PP) test.
For the period 1900-39, the ADF test showed mixed results. The variables for LY,
LTG, LGFCE, LGCF and LSGFCEY were non-stationarity (unit root) in levels but
stationary in first differences, that is, they are integrated of order one (I(1)). On the other
hand, non-stationarity for the level can be rejected for LSTGY, LGFCFY and SBY. Thus,
those variables were integrated of order zero (I(0)). In the case PP test, the non-
stationarity of LSGFCEY at the level can be rejected at the significance level of 5%.
Based on these results, integrated of order one, I(1) was assigned for LY, LTG, LGFCE
and LGFCF for the period 1900-39. For the period 1950-2000, in turn, all variables
were non-stationary at all levels. In contrast, when the data are differenced, non-
stationarity can be rejected for all data series. This unit-root test (ADF and PP test)
indicates that all the data series for the period 1950-2000 are integrated of order one (I
(1)).
255
Table 5.7
Unit Root (Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test and Phillips-Perron Test)
Test for Stationary
1900-39
Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test (Constant and Trend)

Levels lags1 First Difference lags1 Second Difference lags1 Order
[A] LY -2.78374 0 -6.731818*** 0 -11.01584*** 0 I(1)
[B] LTG -3.814653** 0 -8.033059*** 0 -4.987201*** 4 I(0)
[C] LGFCE -2.469285 0 -6.470095*** 0 -8.205939*** 1 I(1)
[D] LGCF -3.770553** 0 -9.052408*** 0 -5.09191*** 6 I(0)
[E] LSTGY -3.837329** 0 -5.047314*** 3 -4.902809*** 6 I(0)
[F] LSGFCEY -3.141115 0 -6.386649*** 0 -4.648197*** 9 I(1)
[G] LSGCFY -4.126179** 0 -8.909765*** 0 -5.641769*** 6 I(0)
[H]SBY -5.590353*** 0 -9.830936*** 0 -6.292099*** 4 I(0)
Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test (Constant)
[A] LY -0.15100 0 -6.755893*** 0 -11.18046*** 0 I(1)
[B] LTG -1.130992 0 -8.138393*** 0 -5.025721*** 4 I(1)
[C] LGFCE -0.746311 0 -6.556167*** 0 -8.306657*** 1 I(1)
[D] LGCF -2.383191 0 -9.178221*** 0 -5.205502*** 6 I(1)
[E] LSTGY -3.250663** 0 -7.137025*** 0 -4.974354*** 5 I(0)
[F] LSGFCEY -3.205802** 0 -6.464899*** 0 -5.711237*** 9 I(0)
[G] LSGCFY -3.807094*** 0 -9.03616*** 0 -5.752735*** 6 I(0)
[H]SBY -4.391307*** 0 -9.969996*** 0 -6.35749*** 4 I(0)
Phillips-Perron Test (Constant and Trend)
Levels Bandwidth2 First Difference Bandwidth2 Second Difference Bandwidth2 Order
[A] LY -2.838095 3 -7.637926*** 9 -30.44664*** 20 I(1)
[B] LTG -3.789503** 3 -20.02938*** 37 -35.446*** 17 I(0)
[C] LGFCE -2.524723 2 -6.501746*** 2 -22.99899*** 9 I(1)
[D] LGCF -3.742731** 2 -15.79308*** 20 -50.31967*** 26 I(0)
[E] LSTGY -3.497332** 8 -18.2599*** 37 -30.76099*** 17 I(0)
[F] LSGFCEY -3.300951* 2 -7.111945*** 6 -27.57471*** 20 I(0)
[G] LSGCFY -4.093705** 1 -22.361*** 37 -43.7105*** 21 I(0)
[H]SBY -5.573819*** 3 -32.00957*** 37 -59.46965*** 33 I(0)
Phillips-Perron Test (Constant)
[A] LY 0.605039 11 -7.335052*** 8 -30.98098*** 20 I(1)
[B] LTG -0.902239 26 -17.1768*** 32 -36.08674*** 17 I(1)
[C] LGFCE -0.728743 1 -6.591153*** 2 -21.88664*** 10 I(1)
[D] LGCF -2.383191 0 -15.54101*** 20 -20.54456*** 3 I(1)
[E] LSTGY -3.10222** 7 -13.63349*** 37 -31.28533*** 17 I(0)
[F] LSGFCEY -3.362399** 2 -7.228611*** 6 -28.11533*** 20 I(0)
[G] LSGCFY -3.780956*** 2 -22.79482*** 37 -44.16968*** 21 I(0)
[H]SBY -4.332332*** 1 -32.58154*** 37 -59.35003*** 35 I(0)
1950-2000
Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test (Constant and Trend)

[A] LY -3.078195 1 -8.407613*** 0 -5.038208*** 3 I(1)
[B] LTG -1.298083 0 -6.997054*** 0 -13.03122*** 0 I(1)
[C] LGFCE -1.724503 0 -6.260416*** 0 -11.24465*** 0 I(1)
[D] LGCF -2.659453 0 -10.77978*** 0 -16.45091*** 0 I(1)
[E] LSTGY -1.251329 1 -9.328335*** 0 -14.74253*** 0 I(1)
[F] LSGFCEY -2.914305 0 -8.253654*** 0 -13.96485*** 0 I(1)
[G] LSGCFY -2.701623 0 -10.58573*** 0 -16.45671*** 0 I(1)
[H]SBY -2.579934 3 -13.81956*** 0 -11.18855*** 1 I(1)
256
Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test (Constant)
[A] LY 0.753408 1 -8.344712*** 0 -14.64466*** 0 I(1)
[B] LTG -1.458986 0 -6.971704*** 0 -13.18521*** 0 I(1)
[C] LGFCE -0.694785 0 -6.238491*** 0 -11.38402*** 0 I(1)
[D] LGCF -1.785802 0 -10.65997*** 0 -16.63653*** 0 I(1)
[E] LSTGY -1.605284 1 -9.324743*** 0 -14.9659*** 0 I(1)
[F] LSGFCEY -2.305553 6 -7.965965*** 0 -14.06737*** 0 I(1)
[G] LSGCFY -2.724488* 0 -10.46779*** 0 -16.64528*** 0 I(0)
[H]SBY -0.652582 1 -13.70274*** 0 -11.24676*** 1 I(1)
Phillips-Perron Test (Constant and Trend)
[A] LY -3.227707* 4 -8.382089*** 4 -15.47021*** 1 I(0)
[B] LTG -1.326666 1 -6.995509*** 2 -45.31031*** 36 I(1)
[C] LGFCE -1.845273 1 -6.260416*** 0 -33.05377*** 31 I(1)
[D] LGCF -2.552074 4 -13.64865*** 8 -54.50292*** 18 I(1)
[E] LSTGY -2.374247 1 -9.169686*** 3 -53.19499*** 31 I(1)
[F] LSGFCEY -2.914305 0 -8.214355*** 1 -37.5317*** 28 I(1)
[G] LSGCFY -2.600917 5 -11.55729*** 6 -50.39451*** 17 I(1)
[H]SBY -3.467982* 3 -13.17839*** 2 -21.78444*** 0 I(0)
Phillips-Perron Test (Constant)
[A] LY 0.818733 4 -8.318235*** 4 -14.64466*** 0 I(1)
[B] LTG -1.450364 3 -6.968625*** 2 -16.07731*** 3 I(1)
[C] LGFCE -0.677723 3 -6.238491*** 0 -13.44321*** 3 I(1)
[D] LGCF -1.958535 3 -11.01277*** 5 -55.21298*** 18 I(1)
[E] LSTGY -2.878653* 1 -9.065948*** 2 -19.63955*** 3 I(0)
[F] LSGFCEY -3.186071** 0 -7.94208*** 1 -29.23749*** 20 I(0)
[G] LSGCFY -2.687726* 11 -10.48893*** 4 -50.93432*** 17 I(0)
[H]SBY -1.806544 3 -12.70184*** 5 -22.0251*** 0 I(1)
Notes:
1 Automatic selection of lag based on the Schwartz Info Criterion
2 Bandwidth was determined based on the Newey-West using Bartlett kernel
All variables are in natural logs exclusive of share of budget deficit to GDP.
I(0) = stationary, I(1) = unit root.
5.5.2 Cointegration Tests
Since a difference stationary on relevant variables has been identified for both
periods, the next question seeks to answer whether there are any long-run equilibrium
relationship between real government expenditure and real GDP growth. Regarding the
Johansen method, a VAR model was first fitted to the data to find an appropriate lag
structure. The Schwartx Criterion (SC) likelihood ratio test suggest two lags for most of
the VAR models examined for different versions of Wagner’s hypothesis models based
on the specified period 1900-39 and 1950-2000.
As presented in Table 5.8, the results of Max-Eigen test and Trace test show that the
null hypotheses of no cointegration between (1) LTG and LYSBY, (2) LGFCE and LY
were rejected at 5% levels of significance respectively for the period 1900-39. For the
rest of the versions, the null hypothesis of no cointegration can not be rejected. For the
257
period 1950-2000, the results of Max-Eigen test and Trace test presented that the null
hypotheses of no cointegration between SBY and LY (7) can be rejected at 1% level of
significance respectively. Other than these versions, the null hypothesis of no
cointegration was not rejected.
Table 5.8
Johansen Maximum Likelihood Procedure Cointegration LR test based on the
Max-Eigen Test and Trace Test of the Stochastic Matrix,
1900-39
Critical Critical The Critical Critical
Max-
Eigenvalues Value Value Trace Value Value
Eigen Test
(λ) (λmax) (λmax) Test (λtrace) (λtrace)
(λmax)
(5%) (1%) (λtrace) (5%) (1%)
(1) LTG and LY (VAR lag=2)
H0:r=0 0.356107 16.24* 14.07 18.63 16.53* 15.41 20.04
H0:r≤1 0.006578 0.24 3.76 6.65 0.24 3.76 6.65
(2)LGFCE and LY (VAR lag=2)
H0:r=0 0.342847 15.53* 14.07 18.63 15.53* 15.41 20.04
H0:r≤1 0.0000014 0.0001 3.76 6.65 0.0001 3.76 6.65
(3) LGFCF and LY (Var Lag=2)
H0:r=0 0.180713 7.37 14.07 18.63 7.42 15.41 20.04
H0:r≤1 0.001134 0.04 3.76 6.65 0.04 3.76 6.65
1950-2000
Max- Critical Critical The Critical Critical
Eigenvalues Eigen Value Value Trace Value Value
(λ) Test (λmax) (λmax) Test (λtrace) (λtrace)
(λmax) (5%) (1%) (λtrace) (5%) (1%)
(1) LTG and LY (VAR lag=2)
H0:r=0 0.130486 6.57 14.07 18.63 6.60 15.41 20.04
H0:r≤1 0.000628 0.03 3.76 6.65 0.03 3.76 6.65
(2)LGFCE and LY (VAR lag=2)
H0:r=0 0.208156 11.20 14.07 18.63 11.27 15.41 20.04
H0:r≤1 0.001325 0.06 3.76 6.65 0.06 3.76 6.65
(3) LGFCF and LY (Var Lag=2)
H0:r=0 0.149644 7.62 14.07 18.63 8.03 15.41 20.04
H0:r≤1 0.008777 0.41 3.76 6.65 0.41 3.76 6.65
(4)LSTGY and LY (VAR lag=2)
H0:r=0 0.130486 6.57 14.07 18.63 6.60 15.41 20.04
H0:r≤1 0.000628 0.03 3.76 6.65 0.03 3.76 6.65
(5)LSGFCEY and LY (VAR lag=2)
H0:r=0 0.208156 11.20 14.07 18.63 6.60 15.41 20.04
H0:r≤1 0.001325 0.06 3.76 6.65 0.03 3.76 6.65
(6)LSGFCFY and LY (VAR lag=2)
H0:r=0 0.149644 7.62 14.07 18.63 8.03 15.41 20.04
H0:r≤1 0.008777 0.41 3.76 6.65 0.41 3.76 6.65
(7)SBY and LY (VAR lag=2)
H0:r=0 0.540674 14.18* 14.07 18.63 14.29 15.41 20.04
H0:r≤1 0.200965 0.11 3.76 6.65 0.11 3.76 6.65
Notes: (λmax) is the maximal eigenvalue test statistic for at most r cointegrating vectors against the alternative of r + 1
cointegrating vectors; (λtrace) is the stochastic matrix trace test for at most r cointegrating vectors. * indicates significance at
the 95% level.
258
5.5.3 Granger Causality Tests
After obtaining the results from the cointegration tests, the procedure adopted is as
follows. When the variables are not cointegrated, the causality tests are conducted by
running the standard Granger regressions (as indicated in p.252 without the error
correction terms). However, if the cointegration hypothesis is not rejected the standard
Granger regressions are misspecified. Thus, error-correction models (as indicated in
p.252) can be applied to these time series for determining Granger causality.
The difficulty in fitting these models revolves around determining the appropriate
lag lengths. Both lags are frequently chosen to have the same value, and lag lengths of 1,
2, 3 and 4 are usually used. There are several criteria to determine “optimum” lag
lengths, such as Akaike’s information criterion, Akaike’s FPE and Schwarz criterion.
Following Afxentiou and Serletis (1992), this study have chosen four different
commonly chosen lag lengths 1, 2, 3, and 4. The null hypothesis of non-causality is
tested using F-statistics. The results of F-tests for the periods, 1900-39 and 1950-2000
are furnished in Tables 5.9.
Table 5.9
The Results of Granger Causality tests, 1900-39 and 1950-2000
1900-39
F Values Direction(s)
1 lag 2 lags 3 lags 4 lags
LY does not Granger Cause LTG 8.24 4.06 2.86 1.31 LY→LTG
1
LTG does not Granger Cause LY 3.40 2.90 2.64 1.51
LY does not Granger Cause LGFCE 8.36 5.03 3.69 3.70 LY→LGFCE
2
LGFCE does not Granger Cause LY 1.88 0.87 1.14 1.12
LY does not Granger Cause LGFCF 11.11 3.78 2.26 1.23 LY→LGCF
3
LGFCF does not Granger Cause LY 0.88 0.40 0.39 0.41
LY does not Granger Cause LSTGY 3.17 2.40 1.84 1.08
4 LY~LSTGY
LSTGY does not Granger Cause LY 3.41 2.90 2.64 1.51
LY does not Granger Cause LSGFCEY 0.00 0.03 0.41 2.42
5 LY~LGFCEY
LSGFCEY does not Granger Cause LY 1.89 0.88 1.15 1.12
LY does not Granger Cause LSGFCFY 3.41 1.60 1.09 0.58
6 LY~LGFCFY
LSGFCFY does not Granger Cause LY 0.89 0.40 0.39 0.42
Y does not Granger Cause SBY 10.53 5.69 3.92 3.23 Y→SBY
7
SBY does not Granger Cause Y 0.18 0.68 0.65 0.11
259
1950-2000
F Values Direction(s)
1 lag 2 lags 3 lags 4 lags
LY does not Granger Cause LTG 2.07 2.99 1.73 2.64
1
LTG does not Granger Cause LY 4.33 0.72 1.93 3.69 LY←LTG
LY does not Granger Cause LGFCE 0.34 1.16 2.37 1.77
2
LGFCE does not Granger Cause LY 9.23 5.44 0.64 1.43 LY←LGFCE
LY does not Granger Cause LGFCF 3.36 0.34 0.67 1.09
3 LY~LGFCF
LGFCF does not Granger Cause LY 2.02 1.61 2.65 1.47
LY does not Granger Cause LSTGY 0.02 2.44 1.38 1.08
4
LSTGY does not Granger Cause LY 4.33 0.72 1.93 3.69 LY←LSTGY
LY does not Granger Cause LSGFCEY 0.10 1.73 2.49 1.12
5
LSGFCEY does not Granger Cause LY 9.23 5.44 0.93 1.43 LY←LSGCY
LY does not Granger Cause LSGFCFY 0.84 0.05 0.46 0.83
6 LY~LSGFCEY
LSGFCFY does not Granger Cause LY 2.02 1.61 2.65 1.47
Y does not Granger Cause SBY 17.95 7.08 8.19 6.25 Y→SBY
7
SBY does not Granger Cause Y 0.09 0.17 0.94 1.01
Notes:
→ indicates direction of causality running from the variable on the left to the one on the right.
← indicates the reverse.
~ indicates absence of causality
The related F-critical values at 5% significance level are (4.11), (3.30), (2.92) and (2.73) respectively.
In the tests, causality is hypothesized to run from Y to the dependent variable, which
takes three different forms; TGE, GFCE and GFCF for the period 1900-39 and seven
different forms; TGE, GFCE, GFCF, STGY SGFCEY, SGFCFY and SBY for the period
1950-2000 respectively. In other words, the hypothesis that the change in GDP causes a
change in government expenditure requires that the reverse is not true.
In respect of the pre-war period, the growth of real GDP caused the growth of Total
Government Expenditure, Government Final Consumption Expenditure, Government
Fixed Capital Formation and share of Government deficit to GDP. These results indicate
that unidirectional causality ran mainly from economic growth to various components
of government expenditure (TGE, GFCE and GFCF), but not vice versa;- results
consistent with Wagner’s hypothesis. In the case of the post-war period, however, the
direction has reversed. Causality is observed from various components and types of
government expenditure to GDP. The growth of total government expenditure,
government final consumption expenditure, share of total government expenditure to
260
GDP and share of government final consumption expenditure to GDP were found to
cause the growth of real GDP.
5.6 Concluding Remarks
This study examines the relationship between government fiscal behavior and
economic growth of Singapore for the twentieth century. This research is driven by the
hypothesis that the government finance behavior in Singapore has experienced a
significant shift due to the administrative changes from British colonial rule to that of
self-government. Firstly, this study conducts literature review and seeks the
characteristics of colonial government finance behavior. Unlike self-government, the
general principle of government finance behavior during the colonial period was the
establishment of a balanced budget system so as not to create a financial burden to the
colonial master’s home country. To achieve this objective, the budgetary process was
authorized by the people who represented the interests of the home country. Under these
circumstances, the colonial government only undertook passive measures and did not
implement any significant fiscal policy for economic growth.
Subsequently, the long-term transition of Singapore’s government fiscal behavior
from the viewpoint of revenue raising, expenditure allocation and budget management
are examined. Significant changes in government finance behavior were observed
between the pre-WWII and post WWII period due to the abolishment of revenue from
the sales of chandu and introduction of income tax. Within a short period of time, the
size of revenue had experienced increases. Similarly, government expenditure also
increased. Nevertheless, government expenditure management in Singapore has been
conservative and prudent for the entire twentieth century. This is mainly due to the fact
that during both periods the aim was to obtain a budget surplus, the proceeds of which
were invested overseas in the form of portfolio financial investment though the motives
261
differed between the colonial and post-colonial periods.
Based on this recognition, focus was given to identify whether any notable
differences and similarities exist in the relationship between real government
expenditure (total government expenditure (TGE), government consumption
expenditure (GFCE), government fixed capital formation (GFCF) share of TGE, GFCE
and GFCF to GDP and share of government budget balance to GDP (SBY) in terms of
direction and magnitude. For analytical purposes, two econometric techniques of
cointegration and Granger Causality test were initiated. Cointegration test results
provide the existence of long run equilibrium between (1) real GDP and real total
government expenditure (equation 1) and (2) government final consumption
expenditure and real GDP (equation 2) in pre-war Singapore while post-war Singapore
recorded the cointegration of share of government budget balance to GDP and real GDP
(equation 7). Hence a sufficient condition for causality was proved. However, the result
of cointegration test could not establish any consistencies between the pre-WWII and
post-WWII periods. Subsequently, Granger Causality test results suggest a different
picture. In respect of the pre-war period, the growth of real GDP caused the growth of
TGE, GFCE and GFCF. Similar phenomenon was observed for share of real total
government expenditure and share of real total government capital formation.
Additionally, the share of government budget surpluses to real GDP also depicted a
similar direction. Generally, this result somewhat appeared to obey Wagner’s Law. Thus,
it was economic growth that nurtured the expansion of government expenditure in the
pre-war period.
On the other hand, in the case of the post-war period, the direction and magnitude
was the reverse. The growth of total government expenditure, government final
consumption expenditure, share of total government expenditure to GDP and share of
government final consumption expenditure to GDP were found to cause the growth of
262
real GDP. The policy of the post-independence government of Singapore was to foster
high economic growth to facilitate meeting its socio-economic redistribution objectives.
This may be based on the conviction that increasing government expenditure could help
sustain economic growth. The need to spend to enhance the underlying productive
capacity of the economy and preserve the sense of economic well-being of its
population was also being constantly borne in mind.
263
CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSION
This study provides the estimates of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of
Singapore for the periods 1900-39 and 1950-60, in both current and constant prices.
Subsequently, time-series data stretching over the twentieth century with one base year
(1990 prices) was constructed for the purpose of econometric analysis.103 Based on this
historical GDP series and relevant time-series data, two types of empirical
investigations on the long-term economic growth of Singapore were made, namely (i)
economic instability and economic growth and (ii) government fiscal behavior and
economic growth.
This chapter firstly reviews the significance of the construction of historical GDP
estimates as a new branch of research of the economic history of Singapore. Secondly, it
describes the major findings on the overall patterns of Singapore’s GDP and related
empirical investigations on the long-term economic growth of Singapore. Lastly,
limitations of this study and the area of future research area are outlined.
6.1. Significance of the Construction of Historical GDP Estimates of Singapore
Research on the long-term economic growth of Singapore has been hampered until
now by the absence of long-term statistical series on national accounts prior to 1956.
This explains why the existing literature on the economic development of Singapore
prior to independence has been confined merely to studies on specific sectors. This
phenomenon is not merely observed for Singapore. In fact, most of the former colonies
in Asia and Africa faced a similar predicament.
103
Time-series data on GDP and its components for both pre-war and post-war series were constructed based on the concept and
definitions of System of National Account 1968.
264
In western industrialized nations, however, the field of the construction of historical
GDP estimates has been regarded as one of the dynamic branches of economic history.
In fact, the construction of historical GDP estimates was closely associated with the
creation and development of “The System of National Accounts (SNA)”. Historical
statistical data was scrutinized and recompiled in the form of national accounts and its
validity was tested.
This existing research gap between developed and developing countries could
mainly be attributed to the lack of statistical information in the case of the latter. More
importantly, the absence of local experts who could initiate these types of exercises was
another major obstacle as commented by Simon Kuznets. The emergence of interest for
the construction of historical economic statistics in Asian countries began in the
mid-1990s. In this regard, the Hitotsubashi University in Japan initiated the Asian
Historical Statistic Project (ASHSTAT). Another research project by H.R.H. Raja Dr.
Nazrin Shah in 1998 focused on the construction of historical GDP estimates of Malaya
for the period 1900-39. This research project of Malaya has, in the process, immensely
helped in the construction of a similar series for Singapore which was a part of British
Malaya during the British colonial period.
Based on the constraints of data availability during the period under study, it was
decided to apply the expenditure approach rather than production and income
approaches to obtain GDP estimates of Singapore. Various creative methodologies were
applied but always consciously conforming, as closely as possible, to the definitions as
outlined in “The System of National Accounts (SNA) 1968”. The construction of
historical GDP estimates series of Singapore has in some measure helped to fill the
existing research gap in quantifying the long-term economic growth of Singapore.
265
6.2 Major Findings
6.2.1 Overall Patterns of Singapore GDP for the Twentieth Century
The estimate of long-term historical GDP series helped in the overview of the
economic performance of Singapore. In constant terms (1990 prices), the annual
average growth rates of GDP for the periods 1900-1939 and 1950-2000 were 4.4% and
7.2% while growth rates of real per-capita GDP for similar periods were 1.4% and 4.6%
respectively. Both results reinforce the historical fact that the overall growth rate of
GDP during the post-World War II period was significantly higher than that of the
pre-World War II period. Most notable negative growth rates during the twentieth
century were recorded during the world economic depression years of 1930-31, namely
-21% and -23% respectively. In the pre-independence period (1900-39, 1950-64) the
share of each component of GDP was relatively stable over time though there were
occasional fluctuations. In contrast to this period, long-term structural changes were
observed after the attainment of independence in 1965. In particular, private final
consumption expenditure by resident households (PFCE) showed drastic falls from
about 74 per cent of GDP in the 1960s to around 40 per cent at the end of the 20th
century.
A large fall of PFCE can be explained by the remarkable increase in Gross Domestic
Savings (GDS) over this long period (Peebles and Wilson, 2002: 78). This increase of
the saving rate can be attributed to “forced savings” due to the compulsory public
contribution system in the form of the Central Provident Fund (CPF). Increases in
savings provided the source for financing domestic investments as well as lending
abroad. On the other hand, the share of government final consumption expenditure
(GFCE) to GDP remained fairly constant over the period. Generally, the share of gross
capital formation (GCF) has gradually increased after independence, registering an
increase from 20% to 40% within the 20-year period (1971-90). Thereafter, the share of
266
GCF, however, has somewhat declined slightly to around 35% during the post 1990
period.
The most remarkable change was observed in the net exports of goods and services.
From the beginning the twentieth century up till 1970s the figures on net exports of
goods and services were negative, that is imports of goods and services exceeded
exports for these years. However from 1985 onwards these figures on the net exports of
goods and services began to turn positive with exports of goods and services exceeding
imports of goods and services over the next 15 years. Healthy current account balances
were the result of gross national savings exceeding domestic investments.
6.2.2 Economic Instability and Economic Growth in Singapore in the Twentieth

Century
Firstly, this study adopts a historical perspective in examining the relationship
between economic instability and economic growth of Singapore in the twentieth
century. As has been observed, one unique characteristic of Singapore’s economic
structure was its high degree of openness to international trade. Inevitably, this
economic structure which strongly relied on the external economic environment led to
economic instability. In this study, economic instability is defined as the short-term
fluctuations of real GDP after adjusting for trend. This study attempts to deal with three
questions. Firstly, the focus of the study was to ascertain whether the degree of output
volatility had dampened over time. The second was to seek the explanatory variables
which could statistically explain real GDP volatility. The third aims to seek the effect of
economic instability on economic growth.
Relating to the first question above, GDP and its components experienced increases
in economic instability from the pre-WWI period (1900-13) to the inter-war period
(1914-39). Subsequently, the degree of instability has constantly dampened in the third
quarter (1950-74) and fourth quarter (1975-2000) of the twentieth century. Nevertheless,
267
the degree of instability of exports and imports of goods and services has not fallen as
compared with other components of GDP. With regards to the second question, possible
explanatory variables of sources of real GDP volatility were empirically tested.
Contrary to findings made in other studies, the major sources of output volatilities were
not determined by explanatory variables such as share of government deficit to GDP,
changes in trade as a share of GDP (%) and changes in terms of trade with one year time
lag were not statistically significant. Relating to third question of the effect of
economic instability to economic growth, econometric tests found that export instability
had a negative effect on economic growth both during the pre-war as well as the
post-war periods. However, it became less of a problem in the later half of twentieth
century as the structure of the economy became more diversified. Other than export
instability, the coefficients of annual growth rate of exports as a proportion of GDP and
annual growth rate of government final consumption expenditure as a proportion of
GDP for the 1975-2000 turned positive and was statistically significant at 1% and 5%
levels respectively. However, the coefficient was very small and negligible.
6.2.3. Government Fiscal Behavior and Economic Growth in Singapore

in the Twentieth Century
This study examined the issue on government fiscal behavior and economic growth
of Singapore in the twentieth century. This research is driven by the hypothesis that
government fiscal behavior in relation to economic growth in Singapore might have
experienced a significant shift due to the administrative changes brought about in the
process of transition from British colonial rule to one of self-government. Firstly, this
study examines the nature the of Colonial government’s fiscal behavior from the
viewpoint of budgetary process, revenue raising, expenditure allocation and budget
balance management and the observation of long-term government fiscal behavior by
extending the information to cover the rest of the twentieth century. Significant changes
268
in government fiscal behavior were observed between the pre-WWII and post WWII
period due to the abolishment of revenue from the sale of opium and the subsequent
introduction of income tax. This transition impacted on the revenue raising capacity as
well as the size of government expenditure. Nevertheless, both the British colonial
government and self-government after independence attempted to establish a balanced
or even a budget surplus structure. The proceeds of government budget surplus were
invested overseas in the form of portfolio financial investment though the motives
differed between the colonial and post-colonial periods. Subsequently, in this chapter,
the validity of Wagner’s Law was tested. The hypothesis of a long-run equilibrium
relationship between various government expenditure components and real GDP were
tested using Johansen maximum likelihood technique. For the period 1900-39,
long-term equilibrium relationships were found for (1) real GDP and total government
expenditure, (2) real GDP and government final consumption expenditure and (3) real
GDP and government fixed capital formation for the period 1900-39. For the period
1950-2000, long-term equilibrium relationship was found between real GDP and share
of budget surplus to GDP. The above results showed that there were no consistencies in
terms of long-run equilibrium relationship between various government expenditure
components and real GDP in the pre-WWII and post-WWII period.
Subsequently, the Granger causality test was conducted between GDP and various
government expenditure components. The results suggest a different picture between
pre-WWII and post-WWII periods. In respect of the pre-war period, the growth of real
GDP caused the growth of total government expenditure, government final consumption
expenditure and gross fixed capital formation. A similar phenomenon was observed for
share of overall balance of budget to GDP. Generally, this result somewhat appeared to
obey Wagner’s Law. Thus, it was economic growth that nurtured the expansion of
government expenditure in the pre-war period. On the other hand, in the case of the
269
post-war period, the direction was the reverse. The growth of total government
expenditure, government final consumption expenditure, share of total government
expenditure to GDP and share of government final consumption expenditure to GDP
were found to cause the growth of real GDP. The policy of the post-independence
government of Singapore was to foster high economic growth to facilitate meeting its
socio-economic redistribution objectives. This may be based on the conviction that
increasing government expenditure could help sustain economic growth.
6.3 Limitations of This Study and Future Research Area
Confidence in the results obtained from a study can be reinforced if alternative
approaches used yield results which are close and not too dissimilar. One major
handicap of this study is that the alternative approaches, mainly the production and
income methods in the construction of GDP estimates cannot be undertaken simply
because of the absence of statistical information required for their estimation. Unlike
other agricultural-based countries, the major economic activities in Singapore were
wholesale and retail trade. Thus, it was impossible to trace various types of relevant
statistical information to conduct these estimates based on the available British Colonial
data series. Under these constraints, historical GDP estimates of Singapore were
confined to using only the expenditure approach and no other estimates were available
for comparative purposes.
Notwithstanding the above constraints, the methodologies used in this study were
tested for their reliability from the viewpoint of annual growth and share of each
component of GDP. Consistency check was done for data generated by this study with
official figures available for certain overlapping years in particular 1959 and 1960.
Additionally, the estimation procedures used in the study yielded results that were in
conformity with economic events as contained in the official documents and records.
Finally, the historical GDP estimates of Singapore were compared with the figures
270
available for other countries for checks on patterns, levels and trends and were found to
be reasonable.
Future research in this area can include studies which cover several other aspects not
covered in this study. Firstly, the construction of historical GDP estimates can be
undertaken for Singapore by extending the period of estimates of GDP to cover the
earlier period 1870-1900. During this period, statistical data on government finance and
trade were fortunately available with Singapore being treated as a separate entity and
not treated as part of the Colony of Straits Settlements. It is significant to examine the
economic performance of Singapore before the emergence of rubber as a major export
commodity. Secondly, collection of supportive descriptive and quantitative information
would be helpful to improve the reliability of historical GDP estimates. Thirdly, it might
be useful to construct estimates of purchasing power parity (PPP) converters for the
expenditure side of the GDP of Singapore vis-à-vis other countries such as Japan, UK
and United State etc for the pre-WWII period.104 These efforts will help to identify the
level of real per-capita GDP of Singapore in relation to other countries. Fourthly, it is
important to conduct other empirical investigations in relation to the long-term
economic growth of Singapore. One of the potential research areas is to conduct
econometric modeling of Singapore during the British colonial period, as a follow up to
the study initiated by Abeysinghe, Tilak and Keen Meng Choy (2007) for the period
1960-2000. Lastly, it might be interesting to know whether the methodology employed
for the construction of historical GDP estimates of Singapore could be replicated for
other former British Colonies in Asia and Africa.
104
The estimation of purchasing power parity (PPP) converters for expenditure side GDP of Singapore to Common Comparable
Unit (CCU) with proper base year requires a detailed matching of prices for many goods and services in private consumption,
capital formation and government expenditure. In the case of Asia, studies by Fukao, Kyoji et al. (2006) and Fukao Kyoji and Ma,
D (2006) provided estimates of purchasing power parity (PPP) converters for Japan, Korea, Taiwan and China with base year of
1933-34.
271
APPENDICES
272
Appendix 1
Singapore: Cost of Living Indices by Major Object of Consumption and
Consumption Standard, 1899-1914
No official cost of living indices were available throughout this period. Therefore,
information on market prices and import unit value index were utilized to estimate the
price indices for the period 1899-1914. The same classification of consumption
standards and major objects of consumption item was used for the period, 1914-39. The
following estimating procedures were applied for each major object of consumption.
1 Food Price Indices
Information on annual average of market price of food items was available in the
Blue Book, Straits Settlements for the period of 1899-1914. Twelve (12) food items
were available throughout the period. Each market price was then converted into price
indices (1914 =100). Unfortunately, weights within food items for the year 1914 were
not available. In view of this, the weights reported in the per-capita private final
consumption expenditure on food in 1949 as published in Annual Report of Labour
Department, Colony of Singapore,1949 was compared and evaluated with the one
derived for the Malay and Chinese labour standard (1936) and Indian labour standards
(1933). These three sources provided us a guideline in arriving at what were deemed to
be the most likely weights of the food items, the results of which are presented in
Appendix Table 1 below.
273
Appendix Table 1
The Assigned Weights of Food by Item for the Construction of Food Price Indices
for All Standards
Items Quantity Weights for 1914
1 Rice, white per 133.3 lbs. 35.00%
2 Sugar, white per kati 2.00%
3 Salt per kati 2.00%
4 Beef per lb 4.50%
5 Mutton per lb 4.50%
6 Pork per kati 4.50%
7 Fish per kati 4.50%
8 Wheaten Flour per barrel of 196 lbs. 2.00%
9 Milk per quart 3.00%
10 Tea per lb. 1.00%
11 Coffee per 133.3 lbs. 1.00%
12 Others Food Index 36.00%
100.00%
2 Tobacco / Tobacco and Beverages Price Indices
Statistical information on imports unit value of tobacco in Singapore for the years
1899-1912 was available in the Statistical Tables Relating to the Colonial and Other
Possessions and Protectorates for the period 1908-12. Subsequently, the import unit
value indices derived from the Annual Report on Report of Trade and Customs,
Federated Malay States series were alternatively applied for the period 1913-14.
Tobacco and beverages price indices for the European Standard were constructed using
a two-step procedure. At first, the price indices of beverages were constructed based on
the simple arithmetic average of market price indices of wine, brandy and beer provided
in the Blue Book, Straits Settlements. Subsequently, weights of tobacco and beverages
was taken to be 0.85 and 0.15 respectively based on the European Standard as presented
in the survey of Household Expenditure of Singapore, 1930.
274
3 Clothing Price Indices
No market or import unit value of clothing was available throughout the period.
Nevertheless, Singapore’s import unit value of textiles comprising dyed, cotton yarn,
gray cotton yarn, raw bleached cotton and silk piece goods was used for the period
1899-1912 based on the Statistical Tables Relating to the Colonial and Other
Possessions and Protectorates for the period 1908-12. Price indices (1914=100) were
then computed by using a simple arithmetic average. Due to the lack of figures for the
period 1913-14, import unit values of cotton piece goods for FMS were utilized for the
period 1912-14 and linked with that of Singapore, based on the conversion ratio of 1.10
in 1912.
4 Rent Price Indices
For the period 1908-14, the Report created by the Commissions Appointed by the
Excellency The Governor of The Straits Settlements and The High Commissioner of The
Federated Malay States (1919) was utilized to compute the rent price indices for the
European standard. For the years 1900-07, however, no specific data was available to
estimate the price movements of rent of dwellings. There is no other option but to apply
the average growth rate of rental prices for the Asiatic and European Standards for the
period 1900-07 based on the average growth rate of 1908-14. The Asiatic standard was
then taken to represent the movement of rent for all labour standards. Owing to the
weakness of the underlying data, the computation of these indices is inevitably subject
to errors.
275
5 Servant Price Indices
The movement of the wage index of non-agricultural workers was found to move in
tandem with the Singapore’s cost-of-living index on servants from 1920-38. Taking into
account this close relationship in the movement of these two indices, it was assumed
that this relationship would also hold good for the period 1900-13 and the servants price
index was calculated accordingly.
6 Club Price Indices
The price index for expenditure on clubs was based on the simple arithmetic
average prices of “food” and “tobacco and beverages” consumed by those of the
European Standard.
Appendix 2
Singapore: Cost of Living Indices by Major Object of Consumption and
Consumption Standard, 1914-39
The Average Prices, Declared Trade Values, Exchange, Currency and Cost of
Living, Malaya, 1939 publication presented a continuous series of Singapore’s cost of
living indices (1914=100) for the period 1914 and 1918-38 for the European, Eurasian
and Asiatic Clerical standards for various consumption categories such as food,
beverages and tobacco, clothing and rental. In addition, indices on servants and
transport were available for the Eurasian and European standards while the clubbing
index for the European standard only. However, official data on cost of living index for
the labour standard was not available. In view of this, the cost of living index of the
Asiatic clerical standard was applied to the Chinese, Malay and Indian labour standards.
The following computation procedures were undertaken to establish the price indices
for the missing years of 1915-17 and 1939 for each major object of consumption.
276
1 Food price indices for the period 1915-17 and 1939
1.1 Asiatic Standard
For the construction of weighted food price indices for the Asiatic standard, the
following steps were taken. Firstly, information on the full meat diet of Malay and
Chinese labour standards in 1936 and that of Indian labourer’s specimen monthly
budget in 1933 were gathered to identify the appropriate weights for each food item for
each labour standard. Secondly, unit market price series for each expenditure item for
each standard was then constructed for the period 1914-39 based on the market price
data provided in the Blue Book, Straits Settlements. The unit market price series was
then converted to an index with base year 1914=100. Thirdly, using the weights on food
items and the relevant price index of each labour standard, the weighted price index for
each labour standard was then derived for the period 1914-39. The overall price index
was then calculated by taking into account the base weights (1914) of private final
consumption expenditure on food for each of the labour standards. This derived price
index on food for the year 1918 stood at 155.72 while the cost-of-living index on food
for the Asiatic Clerical standard was recorded at 140.40 for the year 1918 using 1914
=100. In the light of this, the price index estimate on food required some minor
adjustments. In order to bring it in line with the given cost-of-living index of food, an
adjustment factor of 0.9016 (140.40/155.72) was applied for the period 1915-17. The
food price index for the year 1939 was derived by applying the movement of the food
prices which had been constructed.
1.2 European and Eurasian Clerical Standards
Data on the food index for European and Eurasian standards are available in respect
of 1914 and 1918-38. Hence in order to fill the 1915-17 and 1939 gaps in the data, it is
postulated that some relationship exists between the food index for the European and
Eurasian standards and the food index for Asiatic clerical standard for which data is
277
available throughout 1914-39. The Ordinary Least Squares estimate of the relationship
over the period 1918-38 is as follows:
ln EPSFt = 2.4317 + 0.54119 ln ASFt – 0.015457 T

(5.5175) (6.6167) (-4.3191)
R2=0.9093
where ln = Natural Logarithm
EPSF = Food Index for European and Eurasian standards
ASF = Food Index for Asiatic clerical standard
T = Time trend
and figure in parentheses refer to the t-statistics
The above estimated equation could explain about 91% of the movements in the
food index for European and Eurasian standards and the estimated coefficients are all
highly statistically significant.
The 1915-17 and 1939 figures of the food index for the European and Eurasian
standards were then derived by substituting the figures of the index for Asiatic clerical
standard and the value of the time trend variable for the corresponding years in the
above estimated equation and then taking the anti-logs of such derived figures.
2 Price Indices of “Tobacco” and “Beverages and Tobacco” for the period 1915-17
and 1939
2.1 Tobacco Price Indices for the Asiatic and Eurasian Standards, 1915-17
The price indices for tobacco were based on the import unit value of tobacco. The
import unit value was then converted into price indices with the 1914 as base year. The
price movements based on the import unit value were then compared with the price
movements as recorded by Singapore’s cost-of-living indices for tobacco for the period
1914 to 1918. It was noted that the import unit value index showed a price increase of
32.8% from 1914 to 1918 whereas the Singapore cost-of-living index showed a price
increase of 74.3% for the same period. In other words, the import unit value index for
1918 was only 76.2% of Singapore’s cost-of-living index. Based on this observation, it
is felt that the under-estimation for the years 1915, 1916 and 1917 would also be of the
278
same magnitude and thereafter applied a conversion factor (0.762) to ensure that the
import unit value price indices were in line with the Singapore cost-of-living index for
tobacco for the period 1915-17. The Singapore cost of living index for tobacco for the
year 1938 was available but not for 1939. The movement of tobacco price from 1938 to
1939 was solely based on the price movement of “unmanufactured tobacco” from 1938
to 1939.
2.2 Beverages and Tobacco Price Indices for European Standard
The methodology adopted to determine the tobacco price indices for the European
Standard was similar to that for the Asiatic and Eurasian Standards. It was noted that
there were no separate tobacco indices for the European standard. Indices were only
available for beverages and tobacco. Therefore, a beverages and tobacco index was
constructed for the European Standard. The weights for expenditure on beverages
(85%) and tobacco (15%) were based on the European Standard as contained in the
survey of Household Expenditure of Singapore, 1930. The price index for beverages for
1914-18 were based on the simple arithmetic average of the import unit value of brandy,
gin, whisky and wine and for the years 1938 and on beer and ale, brandy and whisky for
1939. The weighted indices of beverages and tobacco were then computed. For the
period 1914-18, the Singapore cost-of-living indices showed that there was a 74.8%
increase in price from 1914 to 1918 whereas the import unit value index showed a price
increase of 114.46%. In other words, the indices computed based on the import unit
value overstated the Singapore cost-of-living indices increase by 22.7% for the year
1918. The 1915, 1916 and 1917 data was adjusted accordingly based on the import unit
value indices. For the price increase from 1938 to 1939, the weighted (tobacco and
beverages) import unit value price indices were applied.
279
3 Price Indices of Clothing for the period 1915-17 and 1939
Detailed statistics on prices of clothing (c.i.f. values or market prices) were not
available during this period. The only information available was the import unit value of
“sarongs and selendangs” and “woolen cloth”. It was not possible to assign the
appropriate weights for each of these items. It was necessary to obtain detailed
information on a number of clothing items to assign the proper weights for each of the
items. The latter information was also not available. Therefore, there is no other option
but to take the simple arithmetic average of the two groups of commodities to determine
the price movements of clothing. This approach is rather crude in nature and is,
therefore, subject to errors. It is noted that the price index from 1914 to 1918 had risen
from 100.00 to 129.13 based on the import unit value index whereas the Singapore cost-
of-living index for clothing showed that the price index had risen from 100.00 in 1914
to 189.80 in 1918. This meant that the import unit value index for 1918 was only 68%
of Singapore’s cost-of-living index in 1918. Based on this observation, it was felt that
the under-estimation for the year 1915, 1916 and 1917 would be of the same magnitude
and thereafter applied an adjustment factor of 0.68 to ensure that the import unit value
indices were in line with the Singapore cost-of-living indices for clothing for the period
1915-17. The Singapore cost-of-living indices for clothing for all standards were
identical from 1918-30. From 1931 and thereafter, the European standard prices on
clothing differed from the price movements of clothing of all other standards. However,
the price movement of clothing for all standards (except the European Standard from
1931 and thereafter) continued to be identical throughout the period 1918-38. The
estimates for clothing for the year 1939 were based on the simple arithmetic average of
the import unit value of silk piece goods, woolen cloth, cotton piece goods (dyed &
other) and cotton sarong. There was an 8.7% increase in cloth prices from 1938 to 1939.
280
It is then applied this price increase to the Singapore cost-of-living price indices for
1938 to arrive at the clothing price indices of the respective standards.
4 Price Indices of Rental of Dwellings, 1915-17 and 1939
4.1 Asiatic and All Labour Standards
There were no comprehensive housing censuses prior to World War I. No data was
available on the total number of dwellings by types of units (e.g. bungalows, semi-
detached, etc). Only scanty data was available on rental values of dwellings from 1908-
19 in Singapore in the urban areas. Information on the rental values in Singapore was
available ranging from $25 to $60 per month for 26 housing units. Based on this data, it
was assumed that the movements of the rental values of these types of units would
provide a fairly reliable movement in the price of rentals of dwellings of the Asiatic and
all labour standards in Malaya. This data was utilized to compute the rental of dwelling
indices from 1908-19 (1914=100). Figures on the Asiatic rental value indices of
dwellings were available from the Singapore cost-of-living indices for the years 1918
and 1919. A comparison was made with the Singapore rental price indices (cost of
living) with that of the data computed using the 26 sample dwellings from the
Commissions Appointed by the Excellency The Governor of The Straits Settlements and
The High Commissioner of The Federated Malay States (1919). The results are
presented in Appendix Table 2.
Appendix Table 2
Price Indices on Rent for Asiatic Standard
1918 1919
Bucknill Report 117.40 130.60
Singapore Cost of Living Indices (rental of 120.00 130.00
dwellings)
The fact that the 1918 and 1919 rental indices from the two sources of data are
almost identical or close to each other, provides us the confidence that the indices
computed from the 26 housing units will also provide a fairly reasonable estimate of the
281
rental value of dwellings from 1908-17. Consequently, it was decided that for the
Asiatic Clerical and all labour standards, the rental indices computed in this manner
would be used in the computation of the cost-of-living indices for Singapore.
4.2 European Standard
Commissions Appointed by the Excellency The Governor of The Straits Settlements
and The High Commissioner of The Federated Malay States (1919) listed down the
rental value price indices of 23 units of dwellings whose rentals ranged from S$65 a
month to S$ 170. Using the data set from the Bucknill report, it was noted that for the
years 1918 and 1919 when compared with the Singapore cost-of- living indices on
rentals, the estimates based on the 23 units of dwellings from the “Bucknill Report” far
exceeded the Singapore Cost-of-Living rental indices. This being the case, it was
decided that an alternative approach need to be taken to identify and compute the rental
of dwelling indices that would conform to the 1918 and 1919 cost-of-living Indices. The
seven selected housing units provided us a series in which the 1918 and 1919 data
conformed to the 1918 and 1919 cost-of-living indices data on rentals of dwellings in
Singapore. It was felt that this series for some reason or other provided us a probable
estimate for the years 1908-17 for the European Standard.
4.3 Price of rental value indices for the year 1939 for the different standards
The cost-of-living indices on rent by standards were not available for the year 1939.
Surrogate data had to be used to estimate the rent by standards for the year 1939. It was
felt that the change in the assessment values from 1938 to 1939 as contained in Average
Prices, Declared Trade Values, Exchange and Currency, Malaya, 1939 report would
provide a reasonable estimate of the changes in the rental values (price) from 1938 to
1939. For the European standard, the average of group III (rental price range: $100-
282
$350) was selected while that for the Eurasians, Asiatic Clerical and all labour standards,
the average of Group I (rental price range: less than $49) was taken.
5 Servant price indices for Asiatic, Eurasian and European Standards
Data for the servant price indices for the period 1915-17 and 1939 are rather weak.
An attempt was made to establish whether there was a relationship between the
Singapore cost-of-living price indices of servants to that of nominal wage indices of
non-agriculture (trades and Indian factory labour) and agriculture (Indian rubber estate
tappers) workers. It was noted that from 1920-29 the nominal wage rate of non-
agriculture workers and that of Singapore cost-of-living indices for servants remained
rather stable though the levels differed. In general, the nominal wage of non-agriculture
workers by and large moved in the same direction as the Singapore cost-of-living
indices of servants from 1920-38. Taking into account the stable relationship of
movements of non-agricultural worker’s wage indices to the Singapore cost-of-living
indices of servants, particularly 1900-29, the relationship of 1918 indices of non-
agriculture workers to that of Singapore cost-of-living indices of servants were applied
for the period 1915-17. The estimates done in this manner are admittedly subject to
errors. It was noted that the nominal wage rate indices of non-agriculture workers in
1937 and 1938 remained relatively stable. The Singapore cost-of-living indices of
servants also remained relatively stable in 1937 and 1938. The price indices in 1939 for
non-agricultural workers continued to remain as in 1937 and 1938 and it is therefore felt
that the Singapore cost-of-living servant indices would also remain the same in 1939 as
in 1938.
283
6 Transport price indices for Asiatic, Eurasian and European Standards
Per-capita transport and traveling allowances price indices (Straits Settlements) for
the European standard were computed based on the UK travel and vehicle consumer
price index for the period 1900-17 (Prest, A.R, 1954: 135). Surprisingly the price index
for this item was generally stable from 1900-16. Notable price increases were observed
in 1917, 1918 and 1919 as compared to 1914. It was then assumed that the transport
price index of UK would more or less portray the movements of transport price indices
of the European standard. However, for the year 1917, my educated guess is that the
UK indices overstates the actual price indices and therefore an adjustment factor had to
be introduced to smooth the price increase from 1917 to 1918. The price index of
Singapore for transport for 1918 to 1938 remained status quo. The 1939 price indices
were estimated based on the wholesale prices of petrol (London Chamber of Commerce
Journal).
7 Price Indices of Clubs for European Standard for the Period 1915-17 and 1939
The price indices for expenditure in clubs was based on the simple arithmetic
average of “food” and “beverages and tobacco” consumed by the European Standard. It
was noted that the “club” price index based on the import unit value showed a price
increase of 55.65% from 1914 to 1918 whereas the Singapore cost-of-living index
showed a price increase of 34% for the same period. In other words, the import unit
value index for 1918 overstated the price increase by 16.2%. Based on this observation,
it was felt that the over-estimation for the years 1915-17 would also be of the same
magnitude and consequently applied an adjustment factor of 1.162 to ensure that the
import unit value price indices were in line with the Singapore cost-of-living indices for
“clubbing” for the period 1915-17. The Singapore cost of living index for “clubbing”
for the year 1938 was available but not for 1939. The price index for “clubbing” was
284
solely based on the simple arithmetic average price movements of “food” and
“beverages and tobacco” from 1938 to 1939.
Appendix 3
Singapore: Cost-of- Living Indices by Major Object of Consumption and
Consumption Standard, 1939 and 1947-60
The Monthly Statistical Bulletin, Federation of Malaya provided the cost-of-living
indices by major object of consumption for the labour standards with the base year of
1947 and 1959 and other standards (Chinese, Indian and Eurasian Clerical standard,
Malay Clerical standard and European standard) with the base year 1939 and 1947
respectively. For the labour standards, price data by major object of consumption was
not available for the reference years 1939 and 1948 while that for the other standards it
was not available for the year 1947. The missing year data for each of the consumer
standards was computed in the following manner.
The price data for Chinese and Indian labour standards for the year 1948 was based
on the given price movements by each major object of consumption of the Chinese,
Indian and Eurasian standards from 1948-49. The price indices for the same year,
Malay labour standard on the other hand, was based on the price movements of each
major object of consumption of the Malay clerical grades standard from 1948-49.
The price movements by major object of consumption for the year 1947 for all other
consumption standards was computed as follows:-
[a] The Chinese, Indian and Eurasian Clerical standard price index was based on the
price movements of each major object of consumption of the Chinese labour standard
from 1947-48.
[b] The Malay clerical grades standard price index was based on the price movement of
each major object of consumption of the Malay labour standard from 1947-48.
285
[c] The European standard price index was based on the price movement of each major
object of consumption of the Chinese labour standard from 1947-48.
The price index of transport and servants for the year 1947 for the “Chinese, Indian
and Eurasian Clerical” and “European” standards was based on the price movements of
petrol prices and non-agricultural wage indices from 1947-48. These estimates are,
therefore, subject to large errors.
In the case of European standard the price index for clubbing for the year 1947 was
based on the simple arithmetic average of “food and beverages” and “tobacco”. The
price indices for the Chinese and Indian labour standards in 1939 was based on the
derived price movements of the Chinese, Indian and Eurasian Clerical Standard from
1939 to 1947 while that of the Malay labour standard was based on the price
movements of the Malay clerical grades standard for the same period. The different
base years data were then linked to derive price indices for the entire period 1939-60
with 1949 as the base year.
286
Appendix Table 3
Singapore: Computation of Consumer Price Indices by Major Object of
Consumption (1914=100), 1899-1914
1914 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903

Price Index Weighted Index Price Index Weighted Index Price Index Weighted Index Price Index Weighted Index Price Index Weighted Index
Food & Groceries Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
Chinese Labour Standard 0.479 81.12 38.88 81.97 39.28 82.91 39.73 85.51 40.98 85.51 40.98
Malay Labour Standard 0.130 81.12 10.55 81.97 10.65 82.91 10.78 85.51 11.11 85.51 11.11
Indian Labour Standard 0.058 81.12 4.73 81.97 4.78 82.91 4.84 85.51 4.99 85.51 4.99
Asiatic Clerical Standard 0.095 81.12 7.73 81.97 7.82 82.91 7.90 85.51 8.15 85.51 8.15
Eurasian Clerical Standard 0.012 81.12 0.99 81.97 1.00 82.91 1.01 85.51 1.04 85.51 1.04
European Standard 0.225 81.12 18.25 81.97 18.44 82.91 18.65 85.51 19.23 85.51 19.23
1.000 81.12 81.97 82.91 85.51 85.51
1914 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903

Tobacco Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 81.32 83.55 81.61 86.19 91.42
1914 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903

Weight
Clothing (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 76.31 78.94 84.45 86.79 92.79
1914 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903

Weight
Rent (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 75.02 76.46 77.93 79.43 80.96
1914 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903

Weight
Servant (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 69.64 75.00 73.21 82.14 82.14
1914 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903

Weight
Transport (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 109.66 107.87 107.44 107.23 107.34
1914 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903

Weight
Club (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
88.18 88.88 89.10 90.99 91.66
1914 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903

Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
Food 0.5429 81.12 44.04 81.97 44.50 82.91 45.01 85.51 46.42 85.51 46.42
Tobacco 0.0561 81.32 4.56 83.55 4.69 81.61 4.58 86.19 4.83 91.42 5.13
Clothing 0.1082 76.31 8.26 78.94 8.54 84.45 9.14 86.79 9.39 92.79 10.04
Rent 0.0594 75.02 4.46 76.46 4.54 77.93 4.63 79.43 4.72 80.96 4.81
Servant 0.1218 69.64 8.48 75.00 9.13 73.21 8.91 82.14 10.00 82.14 10.00
Transport 0.0739 109.66 8.11 107.87 7.98 107.44 7.94 107.23 7.93 107.34 7.94
Club 0.0377 88.18 3.33 88.88 3.35 89.10 3.36 90.99 3.43 91.66 3.46
1.0000 81.23 82.73 83.57 86.73 87.79
287
Appendix Table 3(Continued)
Consumption (1914=100), 1899-1914
1914 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908

1.000 87.28 90.18 87.80 85.69 87.02
1914 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908

Tobacco Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 86.94 89.41 86.21 89.90 90.40
1914 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908

Weight
Clothing (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 90.19 87.98 84.42 82.99 86.31
1914 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908

Weight
Rent (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 82.53 84.12 85.74 87.40 89.09
1914 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908

Weight
Servant (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 78.57 78.57 82.14 91.07 91.07
1914 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908

Weight
Transport (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 107.23 107.12 107.23 105.07 104.64
1914 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908

Weight
Club (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
91.97 93.74 92.14 91.55 92.28
1914 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908

Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
Food 0.5429 87.28 47.39 90.18 48.96 87.80 47.67 85.69 46.52 87.02 47.24
Tobacco 0.0561 86.94 4.88 89.41 5.02 86.21 4.84 89.90 5.04 90.40 5.07
Clothing 0.1082 90.19 9.76 87.98 9.52 84.42 9.13 82.99 8.98 86.31 9.34
Rent 0.0594 82.53 4.90 84.12 5.00 85.74 5.09 87.40 5.19 89.09 5.29
Servant 0.1218 78.57 9.57 78.57 9.57 82.14 10.00 91.07 11.09 91.07 11.09
Transport 0.0739 107.23 7.93 107.12 7.92 107.23 7.93 105.07 7.77 104.64 7.74
Club 0.0377 91.97 3.47 93.74 3.54 92.14 3.48 91.55 3.45 92.28 3.48
1.0000 87.89 89.51 88.13 88.04 89.25
288
Consumption (1914=100), 1899-1914
1914 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913

1.000 85.83 87.09 102.81 105.84 105.09
1914 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913

Tobacco Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 87.90 90.09 88.10 88.64 99.12
1914 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913

Weight
Clothing (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 76.42 84.38 84.03 83.07 99.53
1914 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913

Weight
Rent (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 86.37 86.05 84.75 85.45 90.86
1914 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913

Weight
Servant (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 91.07 91.07 91.07 91.07 91.07
1914 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913

Weight
Transport (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 103.67 103.24 102.91 103.02 99.46
1914 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913

Weight
Club (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
91.37 92.28 99.88 101.47 102.43
1914 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913

Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
Food 0.5429 85.83 46.60 87.09 47.28 102.81 55.82 105.84 57.46 105.09 57.05
Tobacco 0.0561 87.90 4.93 90.09 5.05 88.10 4.94 88.64 4.97 99.12 5.56
Clothing 0.1082 76.42 8.27 84.38 9.13 84.03 9.09 83.07 8.99 99.53 10.77
Rent 0.0594 86.37 5.13 86.05 5.11 84.75 5.03 85.45 5.08 90.86 5.40
Servant 0.1218 91.07 11.09 91.07 11.09 91.07 11.09 91.07 11.09 91.07 11.09
Transport 0.0739 103.67 7.66 103.24 7.63 102.91 7.61 103.02 7.62 99.46 7.35
Club 0.0377 91.37 3.45 92.28 3.48 99.88 3.77 101.47 3.83 102.43 3.86
1.0000 87.13 88.78 97.35 99.03 101.09
289
Appendix Table 4
Consumption (1914=100), 1914-39
1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920
Price Index Price Index Weighted Index Price Index Weighted Index Price Index Weighted Index Price Index Weighted Index Price Index Weighted Index Price Index Weighted Index
Food Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
Chinese Labour Standard 0.479 100.00 96.60 46.29 98.98 47.43 109.53 52.49 140.40 67.28 191.20 91.63 253.20 121.34
Malay Labour Standard 0.130 100.00 96.60 12.56 98.98 12.87 109.53 14.24 140.40 18.25 191.20 24.85 253.20 32.91
Indian Labour Standard 0.058 100.00 96.60 5.64 98.98 5.77 109.53 6.39 140.40 8.19 191.20 11.15 253.20 14.77
Asiatic Clerical Standard 0.095 100.00 96.60 9.21 98.98 9.44 109.53 10.44 140.40 13.39 191.20 18.23 253.20 24.14
Eurasian Clerical Standard 0.012 100.00 130.89 1.60 130.59 1.59 135.83 1.66 136.50 1.66 160.30 1.95 214.30 2.61
European Standard 0.225 100.00 130.89 29.44 130.59 29.37 135.83 30.55 136.50 30.70 160.30 36.05 214.30 48.20
1.000 100.00 104.73 106.47 115.77 139.48 183.87 243.98
1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920

Beverage and Tobacco Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 100.00 91.83 135.91 127.84 174.54 201.99 236.50
1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920

Clothing Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 100.00 138.32 161.28 144.02 189.80 229.60 291.60
1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920

Rent Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 100.00 100.28 102.44 102.29 114.34 124.90 160.76
1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920

Servant Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 100.00 103.82 103.82 113.09 116.80 116.80 155.50
1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920

Transport Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 100.00 101.83 103.13 108.64 112.50 122.90 126.80
1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920

Club Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 100.00 91.31 103.77 113.88 134.00 147.40 163.50
1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920

Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
Food 0.543 100.00 104.73 56.86 106.47 57.81 115.77 62.85 139.48 75.72 183.87 99.83 243.98 132.46
Beverage and Tobacco 0.056 100.00 91.83 5.15 135.91 7.62 127.84 7.17 174.54 9.79 201.99 11.33 236.50 13.27
Clothing 0.108 100.00 138.32 14.96 161.28 17.45 144.02 15.58 189.80 20.53 229.60 24.84 291.60 31.55
Rent 0.059 100.00 100.28 5.96 102.44 6.09 102.29 6.08 114.34 6.79 124.90 7.42 160.76 9.55
Servant 0.122 100.00 103.82 12.64 103.82 12.64 113.09 13.77 116.80 14.22 116.80 14.22 155.50 18.93
Transport 0.074 100.00 101.83 7.53 103.13 7.62 108.64 8.03 112.50 8.32 122.90 9.09 126.80 9.37
Club 0.038 100.00 91.31 3.44 103.77 3.91 113.88 4.30 134.00 5.05 147.40 5.56 163.50 6.17
1.000 100.00 106.54 113.14 117.78 140.43 172.28 221.30
290
Appendix Table 4 (Continued)
Consumption (1914=100), 1914-39
1914 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926
Food Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 100.00 167.96 144.20 144.28 144.61 149.58 158.49
1914 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926

1.000 100.00 237.22 233.57 201.55 188.81 186.19 187.93
1914 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926

Clothing Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 100.00 237.20 182.80 163.60 157.10 158.10 157.50
1914 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926

Rent Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 100.00 168.16 186.66 209.64 217.54 225.57 236.04
1914 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926

Servant Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 100.00 155.50 155.50 155.50 155.50 155.50 155.50
1914 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926

1.000 100.00 122.80 112.00 94.80 99.40 105.30 103.50
1914 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926

Club Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 100.00 176.70 177.40 169.20 164.10 164.20 161.70
1914 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926

Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
Food 0.543 100.00 167.96 91.19 144.20 78.29 144.28 78.33 144.61 78.51 149.58 81.21 158.49 86.05
Clothing 0.108 100.00 237.20 25.66 182.80 19.78 163.60 17.70 157.10 17.00 158.10 17.10 157.50 17.04
Rent 0.059 100.00 168.16 9.99 186.66 11.09 209.64 12.45 217.54 12.92 225.57 13.40 236.04 14.02
Servant 0.122 100.00 155.50 18.93 155.50 18.93 155.50 18.93 155.50 18.93 155.50 18.93 155.50 18.93
Transport 0.074 100.00 122.80 9.08 112.00 8.28 94.80 7.01 99.40 7.35 105.30 7.78 103.50 7.65
Club 0.038 100.00 176.70 6.66 177.40 6.69 169.20 6.38 164.10 6.19 164.20 6.19 161.70 6.10
1.000 100.00 174.82 156.16 152.11 151.49 155.07 160.33
291
Consumption (1914=100), 1914-39
1914 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
Food Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 100.00 154.85 150.77 147.73 138.26 104.59 89.18
1914 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932

1.000 100.00 180.99 181.13 176.61 170.09 174.80 168.76
1914 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932

Clothing Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 100.00 155.40 151.90 141.00 139.80 136.57 121.38
1914 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932

Rent Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 100.00 253.41 275.75 277.40 255.60 221.46 181.20
1914 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932

Servant Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 100.00 155.50 155.50 155.50 152.90 138.00 124.70
1914 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932

1.000 100.00 94.20 93.10 89.70 85.50 96.20 89.00
1914 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932

Club Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 100.00 159.50 159.50 155.30 156.10 160.50 160.10
1914 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932

Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
Food 0.543 100.00 154.85 84.07 150.77 81.86 147.73 80.21 138.26 75.06 104.59 56.78 89.18 48.42
Clothing 0.108 100.00 155.40 16.81 151.90 16.43 141.00 15.25 139.80 15.12 136.57 14.78 121.38 13.13
Rent 0.059 100.00 253.41 15.05 275.75 16.38 277.40 16.48 255.60 15.18 221.46 13.15 181.20 10.76
Servant 0.122 100.00 155.50 18.93 155.50 18.93 155.50 18.93 152.90 18.62 138.00 16.80 124.70 15.18
Transport 0.074 100.00 94.20 6.96 93.10 6.88 89.70 6.63 85.50 6.32 96.20 7.11 89.00 6.58
Club 0.038 100.00 159.50 6.02 159.50 6.02 155.30 5.86 156.10 5.89 160.50 6.05 160.10 6.04
1.000 100.00 158.00 156.66 153.27 145.73 124.49 109.58
292
Consumption (1914=100), 1914-39
1914 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939
Price Index Price Index Weighted Index Price Index Weighted Index Price Index Weighted Index Price Index Weighted Index Price Index Weighted Index Price Index Weighted Index Price Index Weighted Index
Food Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
Chinese Labour Standard 0.479 100.00 78.80 37.76 83.40 39.97 93.90 45.00 91.00 43.61 101.50 48.64 93.70 44.90 92.83 44.48
Malay Labour Standard 0.130 100.00 78.80 10.24 83.40 10.84 93.90 12.21 91.00 11.83 101.50 13.19 93.70 12.18 92.83 12.07
Indian Labour Standard 0.058 100.00 78.80 4.60 83.40 4.87 93.90 5.48 91.00 5.31 101.50 5.92 93.70 5.47 92.83 5.42
Asiatic Clerical Standard 0.095 100.00 78.80 7.51 83.40 7.95 93.90 8.95 91.00 8.68 101.50 9.68 93.70 8.93 92.83 8.85
Eurasian Clerical Standard 0.012 100.00 93.80 1.14 96.10 1.17 97.20 1.18 96.10 1.17 102.60 1.25 96.20 1.17 88.53 1.08
European Standard 0.225 100.00 93.80 21.10 96.10 21.61 97.20 21.86 96.10 21.61 102.60 23.08 96.20 21.64 88.53 19.91
1.000 100.00 82.36 86.41 94.68 92.21 101.76 94.29 91.81
1914 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939

Beverage and Tobacco Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 100.00 155.09 156.31 147.01 146.72 146.72 145.90 154.10
1914 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939

Clothing Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 100.00 115.68 110.78 109.81 109.12 112.79 113.92 123.83
1914 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939

Rent Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 100.00 159.06 159.06 159.06 159.06 161.78 169.58 182.26
1914 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939

Servant Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 100.00 115.80 123.70 127.40 125.70 130.00 128.20 128.20
1914 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939

Transport Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 100.00 85.40 84.50 82.40 80.00 81.40 81.50 82.18
1914 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939

Club Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
1.000 100.00 158.40 159.50 157.70 157.40 157.70 159.40 152.87
1914 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939

Weight (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100) (1914=100)
Food 0.543 100.00 82.36 44.71 86.41 46.91 94.68 51.40 92.21 50.06 101.76 55.25 94.29 51.19 91.81 49.84
Beverage and Tobacco 0.056 100.00 155.09 8.70 156.31 8.77 147.01 8.25 146.72 8.23 146.72 8.23 145.90 8.18 154.10 8.64
Clothing 0.108 100.00 115.68 12.52 110.78 11.99 109.81 11.88 109.12 11.81 112.79 12.20 113.92 12.32 123.83 13.40
Rent 0.059 100.00 159.06 9.45 159.06 9.45 159.06 9.45 159.06 9.45 161.78 9.61 169.58 10.07 182.26 10.83
Servant 0.122 100.00 115.80 14.10 123.70 15.06 127.40 15.51 125.70 15.31 130.00 15.83 128.20 15.61 128.20 15.61
Transport 0.074 100.00 85.40 6.31 84.50 6.25 82.40 6.09 80.00 5.91 81.40 6.02 81.50 6.03 82.18 6.08
Club 0.038 100.00 158.40 5.97 159.50 6.02 157.70 5.95 157.40 5.94 157.70 5.95 159.40 6.01 152.87 5.77
1.000 100.00 101.76 104.44 108.53 106.70 113.08 109.42 110.16
293
Appendix Table 5
Consumption (1949=100), 1939 and 1947-60
1949 1939 1947 1948 1949 1950
Food Weight (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100)
Chinese, Indian and Eurasian Clerical 0.1277 26.39 3.37 120.48 15.39 107.65 13.75 100.00 12.77 112.66 14.39
Malay Clerical Grades Standard 0.0150 24.63 0.37 104.17 1.56 109.61 1.64 100.00 1.50 111.33 1.67
1.0000 27.26 117.03 107.25 100.00 107.01
1949 1939 1947 1948 1949 1950

Tobacco Weight (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100)
1.0000 36.90 118.23 96.87 100.00 106.46
1949 1939 1947 1948 1949 1950

Clothing Weight (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100)
1.0000 31.83 161.54 99.19 100.00 106.79
1949 1939 1947 1948 1949 1950

Rent Weight (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100)
1.0000 35.70 107.53 90.24 100.00 103.23
1949 1939 1947 1948 1949 1950

Servant Weight (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100)
1.0000 39.78 113.70 95.16 100.00 103.86
1949 1939 1947 1948 1949 1950

Transport Weight (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100)
1.0000 54.62 120.62 100.96 100.00 103.43
1949 1939 1947 1948 1949 1950

Club Weight (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100)
0.3558 34.97 96.92 101.57 100.00 107.34
1949 1939 1947 1948 1949 1950

Weight (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100)
Food 0.49011243 27.26 13.36 117.03 57.36 107.25 52.56 100.00 49.01 107.01 52.45
Tobacco 0.09010465 36.90 3.32 118.23 10.65 96.87 8.73 100.00 9.01 106.46 9.59
Clothing 0.12456521 31.83 3.96 161.54 20.12 99.19 12.36 100.00 12.46 106.79 13.30
Rent 0.09482084 35.70 3.38 107.53 10.20 90.24 8.56 100.00 9.48 103.23 9.79
Servant 0.12216267 39.78 4.86 113.70 13.89 95.16 11.63 100.00 12.22 103.86 12.69
Transport 0.04617403 54.62 2.52 120.62 5.57 100.96 4.66 100.00 4.62 103.43 4.78
Club 0.03206017 34.97 1.12 96.92 3.11 101.57 3.26 100.00 3.21 107.34 3.44
1.00000 32.54 120.90 101.75 100.00 106.04
294
Consumption (1949=100), 1939 and 1947-60
1949 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955

Food Weight (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100)
1.0000 142.59 149.09 141.72 128.65 123.52
1949 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955

Tobacco Weight (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100)
1.0000 121.30 123.14 124.96 129.83 129.38
1949 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955

Clothing Weight (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100)
1.0000 135.18 132.23 121.48 115.28 112.87
1949 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955

Rent Weight (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100)
1.0000 125.81 133.33 140.86 144.09 141.94
1949 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955

Servant Weight (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100)
1.0000 118.19 131.46 139.07 141.07 141.98
1949 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955

1.0000 115.28 114.28 110.78 109.13 110.24
1949 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955

Club Weight (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100)
0.3558 125.00 129.02 127.27 125.00 124.48
1949 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955

Weight (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100)
Food 0.49011243 142.59 69.89 149.09 73.07 141.72 69.46 128.65 63.05 123.52 60.54
Tobacco 0.09010465 121.30 10.93 123.14 11.10 124.96 11.26 129.83 11.70 129.38 11.66
Clothing 0.12456521 135.18 16.84 132.23 16.47 121.48 15.13 115.28 14.36 112.87 14.06
Rent 0.09482084 125.81 11.93 133.33 12.64 140.86 13.36 144.09 13.66 141.94 13.46
Servant 0.12216267 118.19 14.44 131.46 16.06 139.07 16.99 141.07 17.23 141.98 17.34
Transport 0.04617403 115.28 5.32 114.28 5.28 110.78 5.12 109.13 5.04 110.24 5.09
Club 0.03206017 125.00 4.01 129.02 4.14 127.27 4.08 125.00 4.01 124.48 3.99
1.00000 133.35 138.75 135.39 129.05 126.14
295
Consumption (1949=100), 1939 and 1947-60
1949 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960

Food Weight (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100)
1.0000 124.25 129.70 127.69 124.58 124.38
1949 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960

Tobacco Weight (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100)
1.0000 129.83 131.67 131.72 131.09 131.02
1949 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960

Clothing Weight (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100)
1.0000 112.61 114.34 114.00 112.10 112.61
1949 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960

Rent Weight (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100)
1.0000 150.54 154.84 158.06 160.22 160.22
1949 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960

Servant Weight (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100)
1.0000 142.43 142.43 142.43 142.43 142.43
1949 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960

1.0000 111.85 115.65 116.19 117.95 119.12
1949 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960

Club Weight (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100)
0.3558 125.70 127.80 128.50 129.72 131.02
1949 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960

Weight (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100) (1949=100)
Food 0.49011243 124.25 60.90 129.70 63.57 127.69 62.58 124.58 61.06 124.38 60.96
Tobacco 0.09010465 129.83 11.70 131.67 11.86 131.72 11.87 131.09 11.81 131.02 11.81
Clothing 0.12456521 112.61 14.03 114.34 14.24 114.00 14.20 112.10 13.96 112.61 14.03
Rent 0.09482084 150.54 14.27 154.84 14.68 158.06 14.99 160.22 15.19 160.22 15.19
Servant 0.12216267 142.43 17.40 142.43 17.40 142.43 17.40 142.43 17.40 142.43 17.40
Transport 0.04617403 111.85 5.16 115.65 5.34 116.19 5.37 117.95 5.45 119.12 5.50
Club 0.03206017 125.70 4.03 127.80 4.10 128.50 4.12 129.72 4.16 131.02 4.20
1.00000 127.49 131.20 130.52 129.03 129.08
296
Appendix Table 6
European Standard –Food in Current and 1914 Prices, (Straits $)
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita European Total Real Private Food Price Total Private Final
Capita Indices of Real Wages Real Private Final Population Final Indices Consumption
Private Final Agriculture and Non- (%) Consumption Consumption Standard Consumption (1914=100) Expenditure on
Consumption agriculture Sectors (%) Expenditure based (Numbers) Expenditure on Food in the
Expenditure (1914=100 ) on Rel Wages and Food in the Domestic Market
in Real Income Elasticities Domestic Market (Current Prices)
Terms (1914 of Demand (1914 Prices) (Straits $)
Prices) (1914 Prices) (Straits $)
(Straits $) (Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1899 116.03 397.96 13,667 5,439,107 81.12 4,412,406
1900 113.92 -1.81% -1.27% 392.91 13,566 5,330,194 81.97 4,369,042
1901 112.77 -1.01% -0.71% 390.14 13,911 5,427,068 82.91 4,499,325
1902 108.67 -3.64% -2.55% 380.20 14,310 5,440,909 85.51 4,652,316
1903 107.35 -1.21% -0.85% 376.97 14,720 5,548,916 85.51 4,744,669
1904 107.24 -0.11% -0.07% 376.69 15,141 5,703,397 87.28 4,977,968
1905 105.29 -1.82% -1.27% 371.91 15,575 5,792,605 90.18 5,223,634
1906 106.94 1.56% 1.09% 375.97 16,023 6,024,044 87.80 5,289,017
1907 107.05 0.10% 0.07% 376.24 16,483 6,201,579 85.69 5,313,974
1908 107.87 0.77% 0.54% 378.27 16,958 6,414,603 87.02 5,582,067
1909 110.50 2.44% 1.71% 384.73 17,445 6,711,682 85.83 5,760,682
1910 108.44 -1.86% -1.30% 379.72 17,946 6,814,297 87.09 5,934,800
1911 98.90 -8.80% -6.16% 356.32 18,503 6,592,851 102.81 6,778,183
1912 97.22 -1.70% -1.19% 352.09 19,118 6,731,180 105.84 7,124,071
1913 95.24 -2.04% -1.43% 347.07 19,750 6,854,720 105.09 7,203,681
1914 100.00 5.00% 3.50% 359.21 20,400 7,327,950 100.00 7,327,950
1915 93.86 -6.14% -4.30% 343.76 21,069 7,242,660 104.73 7,585,155
1916 88.38 -5.83% -4.08% 329.73 21,756 7,173,622 106.47 7,638,020
1917 100.72 13.95% 9.77% 361.94 22,464 8,130,391 115.77 9,412,300
1918 104.36 3.61% 2.53% 371.09 23,192 8,606,305 139.48 12,003,667
1919 92.87 -11.01% -7.70% 342.50 23,941 8,199,725 183.87 15,077,106
1920 89.13 -4.03% -2.82% 332.84 24,711 8,224,894 243.98 20,066,803
1921 112.82 26.58% 18.61% 394.78 27,757 10,957,825 167.96 18,404,853
1922 123.66 9.60% 6.72% 421.32 29,018 12,225,691 144.20 17,628,945
1923 126.94 2.66% 1.86% 429.16 30,082 12,909,727 144.28 18,626,209
1924 127.47 0.41% 0.29% 430.40 31,165 13,413,301 144.61 19,396,465
1925 124.53 -2.31% -1.62% 423.44 32,515 13,768,225 149.58 20,594,430
1926 120.44 -3.28% -2.30% 413.71 33,811 13,987,688 158.49 22,169,479
1927 127.57 5.93% 4.15% 430.87 35,143 15,141,927 154.85 23,446,884
1928 131.90 3.39% 2.38% 441.10 36,493 16,097,336 150.77 24,270,469
1929 131.51 -0.30% -0.21% 440.19 37,864 16,667,209 147.73 24,622,799
1930 434.85 129.23 -1.73% -1.21% 434.85 37,403 16,264,686 138.26 22,486,856
1931 115.38 -10.72% -7.50% 402.22 36,586 14,715,907 104.59 15,391,167
1932 122.09 5.82% 4.07% 418.60 35,489 14,855,891 89.18 13,248,386
1933 136.87 12.10% 8.47% 454.06 33,443 15,185,011 82.36 12,505,866
1934 130.38 -4.74% -3.32% 439.00 34,140 14,987,527 86.41 12,950,916
1935 137.02 5.09% 3.56% 454.65 37,200 16,913,087 94.68 16,013,727
1936 148.89 8.66% 6.06% 482.21 39,206 18,905,496 92.21 17,432,618
1937 150.08 0.80% 0.56% 484.91 42,347 20,534,128 101.76 20,895,697
1938 155.10 3.35% 2.34% 496.27 46,152 22,904,054 94.29 21,596,868
1939 154.06 -0.67% -0.47% 493.94 47,292 23,359,018 91.81 21,445,527
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita European Total Real Private Food Price Total Private Final

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1947 164.71 324.32 56,289 18,255,364 394.16 71,954,987
1948 344.90 179.65 9.067% 6.347% 344.90 57,648 19,882,898 361.21 71,818,963
1949 220.02 22.473% 15.731% 399.16 58,722 23,439,406 336.79 78,941,707
1950 203.15 -7.666% -5.366% 377.74 61,326 23,165,302 360.41 83,489,050
1951 181.26 -10.776% -7.543% 349.25 64,086 22,381,866 480.24 107,486,516
1952 176.19 -2.797% -1.958% 342.41 67,620 23,153,681 502.13 116,261,314
1953 206.53 17.217% 12.052% 383.68 71,508 27,435,948 477.30 130,950,539
1954 208.97 1.183% 0.828% 386.85 74,892 28,972,205 433.27 125,527,001
1955 204.74 -2.023% -1.416% 381.38 78,330 29,873,146 415.99 124,269,457
1956 230.57 12.617% 8.832% 415.06 82,296 34,157,654 418.47 142,939,681
1957 215.81 -6.401% -4.481% 396.46 86,756 34,395,185 436.83 150,249,636
1958 215.37 -0.205% -0.144% 395.89 90,840 35,962,661 430.04 154,652,705
1959 194.19 -9.837% -6.886% 368.63 94,776 34,937,265 419.57 146,586,615
1960 230.48 18.691% 13.084% 416.86 98,046 40,871,439 418.89 171,204,779
297
Eurasian Standard [1899-1939] Chinese, Indian and Eurasian Clerical Standard
[1947-1960]– Food in Current and 1914 Prices, (Straits $)
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Eurasian Total Real Private Food Price Total Private Final

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1899 116.03 129.40 2,278 294,754 81.12 239,115
1900 113.92 -1.814% -1.270% 127.75 2,261 288,852 81.97 236,765
1901 112.77 -1.008% -0.705% 126.85 2,318 294,102 82.91 243,826
1902 108.67 -3.637% -2.546% 123.62 2,385 294,852 85.51 252,117
1903 107.35 -1.214% -0.850% 122.57 2,453 300,705 85.51 257,121
1904 107.24 -0.106% -0.074% 122.48 2,523 309,076 87.28 269,764
1905 105.29 -1.816% -1.271% 120.93 2,596 313,911 90.18 283,077
1906 106.94 1.562% 1.094% 122.25 2,670 326,453 87.80 286,620
1907 107.05 0.102% 0.071% 122.33 2,747 336,074 85.69 287,973
1908 107.87 0.772% 0.541% 123.00 2,826 347,618 87.02 302,501
1909 110.50 2.437% 1.706% 125.09 2,908 363,717 85.83 312,181
1910 108.44 -1.861% -1.303% 123.46 2,991 369,278 87.09 321,616
1911 98.90 -8.802% -6.162% 115.86 3,084 357,277 102.81 367,321
1912 97.22 -1.696% -1.187% 114.48 3,186 364,774 105.84 386,065
1913 95.24 -2.036% -1.425% 112.85 3,292 371,468 105.09 390,379
1914 100.00 4.995% 3.497% 116.80 3,400 397,113 100.00 397,113
1915 93.86 -6.142% -4.299% 111.77 3,511 392,491 104.73 411,052
1916 88.38 -5.833% -4.083% 107.21 3,626 388,750 106.47 413,917
1917 100.72 13.954% 9.768% 117.68 3,744 440,599 115.77 510,068
1918 104.36 3.614% 2.530% 120.66 3,865 466,390 139.48 650,498
1919 92.87 -11.007% -7.705% 111.36 3,990 444,356 183.87 817,053
1920 89.13 -4.028% -2.819% 108.22 4,118 445,720 243.98 1,087,453
1921 112.82 26.583% 18.608% 128.36 4,270 548,144 167.96 920,667
1922 123.66 9.603% 6.722% 136.99 4,464 611,566 144.20 881,853
1923 126.94 2.658% 1.861% 139.54 4,628 645,784 144.28 931,739
1924 127.47 0.412% 0.288% 139.94 4,795 670,974 144.61 970,270
1925 124.53 -2.308% -1.615% 137.68 5,002 688,728 149.58 1,030,196
1926 120.44 -3.285% -2.299% 134.52 5,202 699,707 158.49 1,108,985
1927 127.57 5.925% 4.148% 140.10 5,407 757,445 154.85 1,172,884
1928 131.90 3.394% 2.376% 143.43 5,614 805,238 150.77 1,214,082
1929 131.51 -0.296% -0.208% 143.13 5,825 833,744 147.73 1,231,707
1930 141.39 129.23 -1.734% -1.214% 141.39 5,754 813,609 138.26 1,124,861
1931 115.38 -10.717% -7.502% 130.78 2,814 368,067 104.59 384,956
1932 122.09 5.817% 4.072% 136.11 2,730 371,568 89.18 331,362
1933 136.87 12.102% 8.471% 147.64 2,573 379,800 82.36 312,791
1934 130.38 -4.738% -3.316% 142.74 2,626 374,861 86.41 323,922
1935 137.02 5.092% 3.564% 147.83 2,862 423,022 94.68 400,528
1936 148.89 8.661% 6.062% 156.79 3,016 472,855 92.21 436,016
1937 150.08 0.798% 0.558% 157.67 3,257 513,590 101.76 522,633
1938 155.10 3.348% 2.343% 161.36 3,550 572,865 94.29 540,170
1939 154.06 -0.672% -0.470% 160.60 3,638 584,244 91.81 536,385
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Chinese, Total Real Private Food Price Total Private Final
Capita Indices of Real Wages Real Private Final Indian and Final Indices Consumption
Private Final Agriculture and Non- (%) Consumption Consumption Eurasian Consumption (1914=100) Expenditure on
Consumption agriculture Sectors (%) Expenditure based Clerical Expenditure on Food in the
Expenditure (1914=100 ) on Rel Wages and Population Food in the Domestic Market
in Real Income Elasticities Standard Domestic Market (Current Prices)
Terms (1914 of Demand (Numbers) (1914 Prices) (Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1947 164.71 109.19 14,072 1,536,486 394.16 6,056,184
1948 116.12 179.65 9.067% 6.347% 116.12 14,412 1,673,470 361.21 6,044,736
1949 220.02 22.473% 15.731% 134.38 14,681 1,972,808 336.79 6,644,231
1950 203.15 -7.666% -5.366% 127.17 15,332 1,949,738 360.41 7,026,964
1951 181.26 -10.776% -7.543% 117.58 16,022 1,883,799 480.24 9,046,742
1952 176.19 -2.797% -1.958% 115.28 16,905 1,948,759 502.13 9,785,284
1953 206.53 17.217% 12.052% 129.17 17,877 2,309,182 477.30 11,021,621
1954 208.97 1.183% 0.828% 130.24 18,723 2,438,483 433.27 10,565,142
1955 204.74 -2.023% -1.416% 128.40 19,583 2,514,312 415.99 10,459,300
1956 230.57 12.617% 8.832% 139.74 20,574 2,874,923 418.47 12,030,703
1957 215.81 -6.401% -4.481% 133.47 14,459 1,929,943 436.83 8,430,637
1958 215.37 -0.205% -0.144% 133.28 15,140 2,017,896 430.04 8,677,697
1959 194.19 -9.837% -6.886% 124.10 15,796 1,960,360 419.57 8,225,101
1960 230.48 18.691% 13.084% 140.34 16,341 2,293,332 418.89 9,606,448
298
Asiatic Clerical Standard [1899-1939] Malay Clerical Standard [1947-1960]– Food
in Current and 1914 Prices, (Straits $)
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Asiatic Total Real Private Food Price Total Private Final
Capita Indices of Real Wages Real Private Final Clerical Final Indices Consumption
Private Final Agriculture and Non- (%) Consumption Consumption Population Consumption (1914=100) Expenditure on
Consumption agriculture Sectors (%) Expenditure based Standard Expenditure on Food in the
Expenditure (1914=100 ) on Rel Wages and (Numbers) Food in the Domestic Market

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1899 116.03 122.17 19,362 2,365,451 81.12 1,918,941
1900 113.92 -1.814% -1.270% 120.62 19,219 2,318,085 81.97 1,900,083
1901 112.77 -1.008% -0.705% 119.77 19,707 2,360,215 82.91 1,956,742
1902 108.67 -3.637% -2.546% 116.72 20,273 2,366,234 85.51 2,023,278
1903 107.35 -1.214% -0.850% 115.73 20,853 2,413,206 85.51 2,063,442
1904 107.24 -0.106% -0.074% 115.64 21,449 2,480,389 87.28 2,164,903
1905 105.29 -1.816% -1.271% 114.17 22,065 2,519,186 90.18 2,271,742
1906 106.94 1.562% 1.094% 115.42 22,699 2,619,838 87.80 2,300,177
1907 107.05 0.102% 0.071% 115.50 23,351 2,697,047 85.69 2,311,031
1908 107.87 0.772% 0.541% 116.13 24,023 2,789,691 87.02 2,427,624
1909 110.50 2.437% 1.706% 118.11 24,714 2,918,889 85.83 2,505,303
1910 108.44 -1.861% -1.303% 116.57 25,423 2,963,516 87.09 2,581,026
1911 98.90 -8.802% -6.162% 109.39 27,137 2,968,406 102.81 3,051,851
1912 97.22 -1.696% -1.187% 108.09 28,039 3,030,688 105.84 3,207,586
1913 95.24 -2.036% -1.425% 106.55 28,967 3,086,311 105.09 3,243,430
1914 100.00 4.995% 3.497% 110.27 29,920 3,299,381 100.00 3,299,381
1915 93.86 -6.142% -4.299% 105.53 30,901 3,260,980 104.73 3,415,187
1916 88.38 -5.833% -4.083% 101.22 31,909 3,229,896 106.47 3,438,989
1917 100.72 13.954% 9.768% 111.11 32,947 3,660,677 115.77 4,237,852
1918 104.36 3.614% 2.530% 113.92 34,015 3,874,956 139.48 5,404,605
1919 92.87 -11.007% -7.705% 105.14 35,113 3,691,895 183.87 6,788,409
1920 89.13 -4.028% -2.819% 102.18 36,243 3,703,227 243.98 9,035,001
1921 112.82 26.583% 18.608% 121.19 46,973 5,692,752 167.96 9,561,594
1922 123.66 9.603% 6.722% 129.34 49,107 6,351,428 144.20 9,158,498
1923 126.94 2.658% 1.861% 131.75 50,907 6,706,794 144.28 9,676,592
1924 127.47 0.412% 0.288% 132.13 52,741 6,968,408 144.61 10,076,751
1925 124.53 -2.308% -1.615% 129.99 55,025 7,152,797 149.58 10,699,112
1926 120.44 -3.285% -2.299% 127.00 57,218 7,266,811 158.49 11,517,373
1927 127.57 5.925% 4.148% 132.27 59,473 7,866,456 154.85 12,181,004
1928 131.90 3.394% 2.376% 135.41 61,758 8,362,805 150.77 12,608,868
1929 131.51 -0.296% -0.208% 135.13 64,077 8,658,862 147.73 12,791,909
1930 133.49 129.23 -1.734% -1.214% 133.49 63,298 8,449,746 138.26 11,682,255
1931 115.38 -10.717% -7.502% 123.48 61,915 7,645,132 104.59 7,995,939
1932 122.09 5.817% 4.072% 128.51 60,059 7,717,856 89.18 6,882,733
1933 136.87 12.102% 8.471% 139.39 56,595 7,888,838 82.36 6,496,983
1934 130.38 -4.738% -3.316% 134.77 57,775 7,786,242 86.41 6,728,193
1935 137.02 5.092% 3.564% 139.57 62,954 8,786,599 94.68 8,319,369
1936 148.89 8.661% 6.062% 148.03 66,348 9,821,685 92.21 9,056,503
1937 150.08 0.798% 0.558% 148.86 71,663 10,667,783 101.76 10,855,624
1938 155.10 3.348% 2.343% 152.35 78,104 11,898,996 94.29 11,219,893
1939 154.06 -0.672% -0.470% 151.63 80,032 12,135,356 91.81 11,141,269
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Malay Total Real Private Food Price Total Private Final
Capita Indices of Real Wages Real Private Final Clerical Final Indices Consumption

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1947 164.71 117.49 126,649 14,880,415 394.16 58,652,354
1948 124.95 179.65 9.067% 6.347% 124.95 129,708 16,207,060 361.21 58,541,478
1949 220.02 22.473% 15.731% 144.61 132,125 19,106,061 336.79 64,347,408
1950 203.15 -7.666% -5.366% 136.85 137,984 18,882,632 360.41 68,054,065
1951 181.26 -10.776% -7.543% 126.52 144,194 18,244,033 480.24 87,615,014
1952 176.19 -2.797% -1.958% 124.05 152,145 18,873,159 502.13 94,767,577
1953 206.53 17.217% 12.052% 139.00 160,893 22,363,745 477.30 106,741,141
1954 208.97 1.183% 0.828% 140.15 168,507 23,615,987 433.27 102,320,276
1955 204.74 -2.023% -1.416% 138.16 176,243 24,350,367 415.99 101,295,220
1956 230.57 12.617% 8.832% 150.37 185,166 27,842,779 418.47 116,513,798
1957 215.81 -6.401% -4.481% 143.63 267,497 38,420,248 436.83 167,832,451
1958 215.37 -0.205% -0.144% 143.42 280,090 40,171,155 430.04 172,750,785
1959 194.19 -9.837% -6.886% 133.55 292,226 39,025,764 419.57 163,740,769
1960 230.48 18.691% 13.084% 151.02 302,309 45,654,378 418.89 191,239,850
299
Chinese Labour Standard – Food in Current and 1914 Prices, (Straits $)
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Chinese Total Real Private Food Price Total Private Final
Capita Indices of Real Wages Real Private Final Labour Final Indices Consumption

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1899 116.03 78.77 135,535 10,676,299 81.12 8,661,010
1900 113.92 -1.814% -1.270% 77.77 134,530 10,462,517 81.97 8,575,892
1901 112.77 -1.008% -0.705% 77.22 137,948 10,652,668 82.91 8,831,623
1902 108.67 -3.637% -2.546% 75.26 141,912 10,679,836 85.51 9,131,925
1903 107.35 -1.214% -0.850% 74.62 145,970 10,891,840 85.51 9,313,202
1904 107.24 -0.106% -0.074% 74.56 150,145 11,195,067 87.28 9,771,141
1905 105.29 -1.816% -1.271% 73.61 154,457 11,370,172 90.18 10,253,353
1906 106.94 1.562% 1.094% 74.42 158,890 11,824,459 87.80 10,381,691
1907 107.05 0.102% 0.071% 74.47 163,456 12,172,938 85.69 10,430,678
1908 107.87 0.772% 0.541% 74.87 168,162 12,591,079 87.02 10,956,913
1909 110.50 2.437% 1.706% 76.15 172,999 13,174,207 85.83 11,307,512
1910 108.44 -1.861% -1.303% 75.16 177,962 13,375,628 87.09 11,649,283
1911 98.90 -8.802% -6.162% 70.53 185,643 13,093,203 102.81 13,461,266
1912 97.22 -1.696% -1.187% 69.69 191,815 13,367,921 105.84 14,148,191
1913 95.24 -2.036% -1.425% 68.70 198,160 13,613,267 105.09 14,306,294
1914 100.00 4.995% 3.497% 71.10 204,683 14,553,088 100.00 14,553,088
1915 93.86 -6.142% -4.299% 68.04 211,389 14,383,705 104.73 15,063,889
1916 88.38 -5.833% -4.083% 65.27 218,286 14,246,597 106.47 15,168,877
1917 100.72 13.954% 9.768% 71.64 225,385 16,146,711 115.77 18,692,545
1918 104.36 3.614% 2.530% 73.45 232,691 17,091,862 139.48 23,838,921
1919 92.87 -11.007% -7.705% 67.79 240,206 16,284,408 183.87 29,942,678
1920 89.13 -4.028% -2.819% 65.88 247,933 16,334,393 243.98 39,852,067
1921 112.82 26.583% 18.608% 78.14 258,351 20,188,023 167.96 33,907,970
1922 123.66 9.603% 6.722% 83.39 270,088 22,523,862 144.20 32,478,485
1923 126.94 2.658% 1.861% 84.95 279,989 23,784,087 144.28 34,315,783
1924 127.47 0.412% 0.288% 85.19 290,074 24,711,841 144.61 35,734,856
1925 124.53 -2.308% -1.615% 83.82 302,638 25,365,732 149.58 37,941,912
1926 120.44 -3.285% -2.299% 81.89 314,698 25,770,056 158.49 40,843,686
1927 127.57 5.925% 4.148% 85.28 327,100 27,896,556 154.85 43,197,098
1928 131.90 3.394% 2.376% 87.31 339,668 29,656,743 150.77 44,714,421
1929 131.51 -0.296% -0.208% 87.13 352,424 30,706,641 147.73 45,363,531
1930 129.23 -1.734% -1.214% 86.07 348,138 29,965,058 138.26 41,428,401
1931 115.38 -10.717% -7.502% 79.62 354,606 28,232,001 104.59 29,527,465
1932 122.09 5.817% 4.072% 82.86 343,972 28,500,555 89.18 25,416,607
1933 136.87 12.102% 8.471% 89.88 324,135 29,131,961 82.36 23,992,107
1934 130.38 -4.738% -3.316% 86.90 330,894 28,753,094 86.41 24,845,921
1935 137.02 5.092% 3.564% 89.99 360,555 32,447,220 94.68 30,721,827
1936 95.45 148.89 8.661% 6.062% 95.45 379,993 36,269,593 92.21 33,443,923
1937 150.08 0.798% 0.558% 95.98 410,436 39,394,071 101.76 40,087,730
1938 155.10 3.348% 2.343% 98.23 447,323 43,940,700 94.29 41,432,906
1939 154.06 -0.672% -0.470% 97.77 458,365 44,813,534 91.81 41,142,562
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Chinese Total Real Private Food Price Total Private Final
Capita Indices of Real Wages Real Private Final Labour Final Indices Consumption

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1947 164.71 85.89 562,886 48,347,790 394.16 190,566,709
1948 179.65 9.067% 6.347% 91.34 576,480 52,658,176 361.21 190,206,461
1949 105.71 220.02 22.473% 15.731% 105.71 587,220 62,077,288 336.79 209,070,446
1950 203.15 -7.666% -5.366% 100.04 613,260 61,351,347 360.41 221,113,702
1951 181.26 -10.776% -7.543% 92.50 640,860 59,276,484 480.24 284,668,964
1952 176.19 -2.797% -1.958% 90.68 676,200 61,320,570 502.13 307,908,275
1953 206.53 17.217% 12.052% 101.61 715,080 72,661,792 477.30 346,811,448
1954 208.97 1.183% 0.828% 102.45 748,920 76,730,440 433.27 332,447,666
1955 204.74 -2.023% -1.416% 101.00 783,300 79,116,505 415.99 329,117,168
1956 230.57 12.617% 8.832% 109.92 822,960 90,463,664 418.47 378,563,678
1957 215.81 -6.401% -4.481% 105.00 788,031 82,742,576 436.83 361,447,159
1958 215.37 -0.205% -0.144% 104.85 825,130 86,513,364 430.04 372,039,375
1959 194.19 -9.837% -6.886% 97.63 860,882 84,046,628 419.57 352,635,234
1960 230.48 18.691% 13.084% 110.40 890,585 98,322,138 418.89 411,857,778
300
Malay Labour Standard – Food in Current and 1914 Prices, (Straits $)
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Malay Labour Total Real Private Food Price Total Private Final

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1899 116.03 75.66 41,002 3,102,431 81.12 2,516,807
1900 113.92 -1.814% -1.270% 74.70 40,698 3,040,308 81.97 2,492,072
1901 112.77 -1.008% -0.705% 74.18 41,732 3,095,564 82.91 2,566,385
1902 108.67 -3.637% -2.546% 72.29 42,931 3,103,458 85.51 2,653,650
1903 107.35 -1.214% -0.850% 71.67 44,159 3,165,065 85.51 2,706,328
1904 107.24 -0.106% -0.074% 71.62 45,422 3,253,180 87.28 2,839,400
1905 105.29 -1.816% -1.271% 70.71 46,726 3,304,063 90.18 2,979,527
1906 106.94 1.562% 1.094% 71.48 48,068 3,436,075 87.80 3,016,820
1907 107.05 0.102% 0.071% 71.54 49,449 3,537,340 85.69 3,031,056
1908 107.87 0.772% 0.541% 71.92 50,873 3,658,847 87.02 3,183,974
1909 110.50 2.437% 1.706% 73.15 52,336 3,828,299 85.83 3,285,855
1910 108.44 -1.861% -1.303% 72.20 53,837 3,886,830 87.09 3,385,171
1911 98.90 -8.802% -6.162% 67.75 52,424 3,551,601 102.81 3,651,440
1912 97.22 -1.696% -1.187% 66.94 54,167 3,626,119 105.84 3,837,772
1913 95.24 -2.036% -1.425% 65.99 55,959 3,692,671 105.09 3,880,658
1914 100.00 4.995% 3.497% 68.30 57,801 3,947,602 100.00 3,947,602
1915 93.86 -6.142% -4.299% 65.36 59,695 3,901,656 104.73 4,086,160
1916 88.38 -5.833% -4.083% 62.69 61,642 3,864,465 106.47 4,114,638
1917 100.72 13.954% 9.768% 68.82 63,647 4,379,881 115.77 5,070,452
1918 104.36 3.614% 2.530% 70.56 65,710 4,636,258 139.48 6,466,434
1919 92.87 -11.007% -7.705% 65.12 67,832 4,417,232 183.87 8,122,110
1920 89.13 -4.028% -2.819% 63.28 70,014 4,430,791 243.98 10,810,085
1921 112.82 26.583% 18.608% 75.06 55,513 4,166,847 167.96 6,998,671
1922 123.66 9.603% 6.722% 80.11 58,035 4,648,969 144.20 6,703,623
1923 126.94 2.658% 1.861% 81.60 60,163 4,909,082 144.28 7,082,845
1924 127.47 0.412% 0.288% 81.83 62,330 5,100,572 144.61 7,375,744
1925 124.53 -2.308% -1.615% 80.51 65,030 5,235,537 149.58 7,831,285
1926 120.44 -3.285% -2.299% 78.66 67,621 5,318,990 158.49 8,430,216
1927 127.57 5.925% 4.148% 81.92 70,286 5,757,904 154.85 8,915,965
1928 131.90 3.394% 2.376% 83.87 72,986 6,121,210 150.77 9,229,144
1929 131.51 -0.296% -0.208% 83.69 75,727 6,337,911 147.73 9,363,121
1930 129.23 -1.734% -1.214% 82.68 74,807 6,184,846 138.26 8,550,903
1931 115.38 -10.717% -7.502% 76.48 56,287 4,304,542 104.59 4,502,062
1932 122.09 5.817% 4.072% 79.59 54,599 4,345,488 89.18 3,875,278
1933 136.87 12.102% 8.471% 86.33 51,450 4,441,759 82.36 3,658,084
1934 130.38 -4.738% -3.316% 83.47 52,523 4,383,993 86.41 3,788,265
1935 137.02 5.092% 3.564% 86.44 57,231 4,947,238 94.68 4,684,166
1936 91.68 148.89 8.661% 6.062% 91.68 60,316 5,530,036 92.21 5,099,205
1937 150.08 0.798% 0.558% 92.20 65,149 6,006,426 101.76 6,112,188
1938 155.10 3.348% 2.343% 94.36 71,004 6,699,652 94.29 6,317,288
1939 154.06 -0.672% -0.470% 93.91 72,756 6,832,733 91.81 6,273,019
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Malay Labour Total Real Private Food Price Total Private Final

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1947 164.71 72.48 84,433 6,119,372 394.16 24,119,997
1948 179.65 9.067% 6.347% 77.08 86,472 6,664,937 361.21 24,074,400
1949 89.20 220.02 22.473% 15.731% 89.20 88,083 7,857,112 336.79 26,462,012
1950 203.15 -7.666% -5.366% 84.41 91,989 7,765,230 360.41 27,986,325
1951 181.26 -10.776% -7.543% 78.05 96,129 7,502,615 480.24 36,030,503
1952 176.19 -2.797% -1.958% 76.52 101,430 7,761,334 502.13 38,971,899
1953 206.53 17.217% 12.052% 85.74 107,262 9,196,791 477.30 43,895,867
1954 208.97 1.183% 0.828% 86.45 112,338 9,711,759 433.27 42,077,846
1955 204.74 -2.023% -1.416% 85.23 117,495 10,013,763 415.99 41,656,305
1956 230.57 12.617% 8.832% 92.75 123,444 11,449,971 418.47 47,914,742
1957 215.81 -6.401% -4.481% 88.60 144,593 12,810,660 436.83 55,961,232
1958 215.37 -0.205% -0.144% 88.47 151,400 13,394,474 430.04 57,601,177
1959 194.19 -9.837% -6.886% 82.38 157,960 13,012,560 419.57 54,596,921
1960 230.48 18.691% 13.084% 93.16 163,410 15,222,773 418.89 63,766,080
301
Indian Labour Standard – Food in Current and 1914 Prices, (Straits $)
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Indian Labour Total Real Private Food Price Total Private Final

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1899 116.03 84.91 15,945 1,353,955 81.12 1,098,379
1900 113.92 -1.814% -1.270% 83.83 15,827 1,326,844 81.97 1,087,584
1901 112.77 -1.008% -0.705% 83.24 16,229 1,350,958 82.91 1,120,016
1902 108.67 -3.637% -2.546% 81.12 16,696 1,354,404 85.51 1,158,099
1903 107.35 -1.214% -0.850% 80.43 17,173 1,381,290 85.51 1,181,089
1904 107.24 -0.106% -0.074% 80.37 17,664 1,419,745 87.28 1,239,164
1905 105.29 -1.816% -1.271% 79.35 18,171 1,441,951 90.18 1,300,318
1906 106.94 1.562% 1.094% 80.22 18,693 1,499,563 87.80 1,316,593
1907 107.05 0.102% 0.071% 80.28 19,230 1,543,757 85.69 1,322,806
1908 107.87 0.772% 0.541% 80.71 19,784 1,596,785 87.02 1,389,542
1909 110.50 2.437% 1.706% 82.09 20,353 1,670,737 85.83 1,434,005
1910 108.44 -1.861% -1.303% 81.02 20,937 1,696,281 87.09 1,477,348
1911 98.90 -8.802% -6.162% 76.03 21,586 1,641,156 102.81 1,687,291
1912 97.22 -1.696% -1.187% 75.12 22,304 1,675,590 105.84 1,773,393
1913 95.24 -2.036% -1.425% 74.05 23,042 1,706,343 105.09 1,793,210
1914 100.00 4.995% 3.497% 76.64 23,800 1,824,144 100.00 1,824,144
1915 93.86 -6.142% -4.299% 73.35 24,580 1,802,913 104.73 1,888,170
1916 88.38 -5.833% -4.083% 70.35 25,382 1,785,727 106.47 1,901,330
1917 100.72 13.954% 9.768% 77.23 26,208 2,023,895 115.77 2,343,001
1918 104.36 3.614% 2.530% 79.18 27,057 2,142,365 139.48 2,988,069
1919 92.87 -11.007% -7.705% 73.08 27,931 2,041,155 183.87 3,753,139
1920 89.13 -4.028% -2.819% 71.02 28,829 2,047,420 243.98 4,995,223
1921 112.82 26.583% 18.608% 84.23 34,162 2,877,603 167.96 4,833,245
1922 123.66 9.603% 6.722% 89.90 35,714 3,210,554 144.20 4,629,487
1923 126.94 2.658% 1.861% 91.57 37,023 3,390,186 144.28 4,891,375
1924 127.47 0.412% 0.288% 91.83 38,357 3,522,428 144.61 5,093,650
1925 124.53 -2.308% -1.615% 90.35 40,018 3,615,634 149.58 5,408,244
1926 120.44 -3.285% -2.299% 88.27 41,613 3,673,266 158.49 5,821,863
1927 127.57 5.925% 4.148% 91.93 43,253 3,976,378 154.85 6,157,319
1928 131.90 3.394% 2.376% 94.12 44,915 4,227,275 150.77 6,373,598
1929 131.51 -0.296% -0.208% 93.92 46,602 4,376,928 147.73 6,466,122
1930 129.23 -1.734% -1.214% 92.78 46,035 4,271,222 138.26 5,905,208
1931 115.38 -10.717% -7.502% 85.82 50,658 4,347,565 104.59 4,547,059
1932 122.09 5.817% 4.072% 89.32 49,139 4,388,921 89.18 3,914,011
1933 96.88 136.87 12.102% 8.471% 96.88 46,305 4,486,154 82.36 3,694,646
1934 130.38 -4.738% -3.316% 93.67 47,271 4,427,810 86.41 3,826,128
1935 137.02 5.092% 3.564% 97.01 51,508 4,996,684 94.68 4,730,984
1936 148.89 8.661% 6.062% 102.89 54,285 5,585,307 92.21 5,150,171
1937 150.08 0.798% 0.558% 103.46 58,634 6,066,459 101.76 6,173,279
1938 155.10 3.348% 2.343% 105.89 63,903 6,766,614 94.29 6,380,428
1939 154.06 -0.672% -0.470% 105.39 65,481 6,901,025 91.81 6,335,717
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Indian Labour Total Real Private Food Price Total Private Final

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1947 164.71 98.37 93,814 9,228,276 394.16 36,373,992
1948 179.65 9.067% 6.347% 104.61 96,080 10,051,011 361.21 36,305,230
1949 121.07 220.02 22.473% 15.731% 121.07 97,870 11,848,863 336.79 39,905,851
1950 203.15 -7.666% -5.366% 114.57 102,210 11,710,300 360.41 42,204,580
1951 181.26 -10.776% -7.543% 105.93 106,810 11,314,265 480.24 54,335,548
1952 176.19 -2.797% -1.958% 103.85 112,700 11,704,426 502.13 58,771,299
1953 206.53 17.217% 12.052% 116.37 119,180 13,869,156 477.30 66,196,855
1954 208.97 1.183% 0.828% 117.33 124,820 14,645,750 433.27 63,455,200
1955 204.74 -2.023% -1.416% 115.67 130,550 15,101,185 415.99 62,819,499
1956 230.57 12.617% 8.832% 125.89 137,160 17,267,048 418.47 72,257,490
1957 215.81 -6.401% -4.481% 120.25 144,593 17,387,123 436.83 75,952,748
1958 215.37 -0.205% -0.144% 120.08 151,400 18,179,498 430.04 78,178,545
1959 194.19 -9.837% -6.886% 111.81 157,960 17,661,150 419.57 74,101,053
1960 230.48 18.691% 13.084% 126.44 163,410 20,660,936 418.89 86,545,791
302
European Standard –Beverages and Tobacco in Current and 1914 Prices,
(Straits $)
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita European Total Real Private Beverage Total Private Final
Capita Private Indices of Real Wages Real Private Final Population Final and Tobacco Consumption
Final Agriculture and Non- (%) Consumption Consumption Standard Consumption Price Indices Expenditure on
Consumption agriculture Sectors (%) Expenditure based (Numbers) Expenditure on (1914=100) Beverages and
Expenditure in (1914=100 ) on Rel Wages and Beverage and Tobacco in the
Real Terms Income Elasticities Tobacco in the Domestic Market
(1914 Prices) of Demand Domestic Market (Current Prices)
(Straits $) (1914 Prices) (1914 Prices) (Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1899 116.03 90.52 13,667 1,237,123 81.32 1,006,048
1900 113.92 -1.814% -1.814% 88.87 13,566 1,205,668 83.55 1,007,297
1901 112.77 -1.008% -1.008% 87.98 13,911 1,223,844 81.61 998,791
1902 108.67 -3.637% -3.637% 84.78 14,310 1,213,228 86.19 1,045,724
1903 107.35 -1.214% -1.214% 83.75 14,720 1,232,766 91.42 1,126,968
1904 107.24 -0.106% -0.106% 83.66 15,141 1,266,683 86.94 1,101,209
1905 105.29 -1.816% -1.816% 82.14 15,575 1,279,398 89.41 1,143,900
1906 106.94 1.562% 1.562% 83.43 16,023 1,336,684 86.21 1,152,353
1907 107.05 0.102% 0.102% 83.51 16,483 1,376,497 89.90 1,237,471
1908 107.87 0.772% 0.772% 84.15 16,958 1,427,061 90.40 1,289,998
1909 110.50 2.437% 2.437% 86.21 17,445 1,503,887 87.90 1,321,965
1910 108.44 -1.861% -1.861% 84.60 17,946 1,518,242 90.09 1,367,792
1911 98.90 -8.802% -8.802% 77.15 18,503 1,427,567 88.10 1,257,645
1912 97.22 -1.696% -1.696% 75.85 19,118 1,450,015 88.64 1,285,291
1913 95.24 -2.036% -2.036% 74.30 19,750 1,467,479 99.12 1,454,517
1914 100.00 4.995% 4.995% 78.01 20,400 1,591,505 100.00 1,591,505
1915 93.86 -6.142% -6.142% 73.22 21,069 1,542,697 91.83 1,416,584
1916 88.38 -5.833% -5.833% 68.95 21,756 1,500,116 135.91 2,038,877
1917 100.72 13.954% 13.954% 78.57 22,464 1,765,031 127.84 2,256,424
1918 104.36 3.614% 3.614% 81.41 23,192 1,888,105 174.54 3,295,554
1919 92.87 -11.007% -11.007% 72.45 23,941 1,734,547 201.99 3,503,645
1920 89.13 -4.028% -4.028% 69.53 24,711 1,718,239 236.50 4,063,634
1921 112.82 26.583% 26.583% 88.02 27,757 2,443,086 237.22 5,795,380
1922 123.66 9.603% 9.603% 96.47 29,018 2,799,341 233.57 6,538,468
1923 126.94 2.658% 2.658% 99.03 30,082 2,979,109 201.55 6,004,534
1924 127.47 0.412% 0.412% 99.44 31,165 3,099,131 188.81 5,851,452
1925 124.53 -2.308% -2.308% 97.15 32,515 3,158,753 186.19 5,881,150
1926 120.44 -3.285% -3.285% 93.96 33,811 3,176,734 187.93 5,970,117
1927 127.57 5.925% 5.925% 99.52 35,143 3,497,568 180.99 6,330,153
1928 131.90 3.394% 3.394% 102.90 36,493 3,755,238 181.13 6,801,976
1929 131.51 -0.296% -0.296% 102.60 37,864 3,884,714 176.61 6,860,973
1930 100.82 129.23 -1.734% -1.734% 100.82 37,403 3,770,935 170.09 6,413,916
1931 115.38 -10.717% -10.717% 90.01 36,586 3,293,262 174.80 5,756,654
1932 122.09 5.817% 5.817% 95.25 35,489 3,380,337 168.76 5,704,685
1933 136.87 12.102% 12.102% 106.78 33,443 3,570,870 155.09 5,538,235
1934 130.38 -4.738% -4.738% 101.72 34,140 3,472,617 156.31 5,428,029
1935 137.02 5.092% 5.092% 106.90 37,200 3,976,569 147.01 5,846,102
1936 148.89 8.661% 8.661% 116.15 39,206 4,553,910 146.72 6,681,596
1937 150.08 0.798% 0.798% 117.08 42,347 4,957,979 146.72 7,274,456
1938 155.10 3.348% 3.348% 121.00 46,152 5,584,471 145.90 8,147,533
1939 154.06 -0.672% -0.672% 120.19 47,292 5,683,862 154.10 8,758,684
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita European Total Real Private Beverage Total Private Final

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1947 164.71 160.64 56,289 9,042,300 493.82 44,652,793
1948 175.21 179.65 9.067% 9.067% 175.21 57,648 10,100,362 404.61 40,866,858
1949 220.02 22.473% 22.473% 214.58 58,722 12,600,687 417.66 52,628,319
1950 203.15 -7.666% -7.666% 198.13 61,326 12,150,708 444.64 54,026,729
1951 181.26 -10.776% -10.776% 176.78 64,086 11,329,303 506.62 57,396,914
1952 176.19 -2.797% -2.797% 171.84 67,620 11,619,665 514.31 59,761,353
1953 206.53 17.217% 17.217% 201.42 71,508 14,403,412 521.93 75,175,582
1954 208.97 1.183% 1.183% 203.81 74,892 15,263,446 542.23 82,763,618
1955 204.74 -2.023% -2.023% 199.68 78,330 15,641,213 540.39 84,523,091
1956 230.57 12.617% 12.617% 224.88 82,296 18,506,546 542.24 100,349,254
1957 215.81 -6.401% -6.401% 210.48 86,756 18,260,581 549.94 100,422,640
1958 215.37 -0.205% -0.205% 210.05 90,840 19,080,983 550.13 104,970,472
1959 194.19 -9.837% -9.837% 189.39 94,776 17,949,441 547.50 98,273,495
1960 230.48 18.691% 18.691% 224.79 98,046 22,039,388 547.21 120,602,695
303
[1947-1960]– Beverages and Tobacco in Current and 1914 Prices, (Straits $)
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Eurasian Total Real Private Beverage Total Private Final

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1899 116.03 4.56 2,278 10,389 81.32 8,448
1900 113.92 -1.814% -1.814% 4.48 2,261 10,125 83.55 8,459
1901 112.77 -1.008% -1.008% 4.43 2,318 10,277 81.61 8,387
1902 108.67 -3.637% -3.637% 4.27 2,385 10,188 86.19 8,781
1903 107.35 -1.214% -1.214% 4.22 2,453 10,352 91.42 9,464
1904 107.24 -0.106% -0.106% 4.22 2,523 10,637 86.94 9,247
1905 105.29 -1.816% -1.816% 4.14 2,596 10,744 89.41 9,606
1906 106.94 1.562% 1.562% 4.20 2,670 11,225 86.21 9,677
1907 107.05 0.102% 0.102% 4.21 2,747 11,559 89.90 10,392
1908 107.87 0.772% 0.772% 4.24 2,826 11,984 90.40 10,833
1909 110.50 2.437% 2.437% 4.34 2,908 12,629 87.90 11,101
1910 108.44 -1.861% -1.861% 4.26 2,991 12,749 90.09 11,486
1911 98.90 -8.802% -8.802% 3.89 3,084 11,988 88.10 10,561
1912 97.22 -1.696% -1.696% 3.82 3,186 12,176 88.64 10,793
1913 95.24 -2.036% -2.036% 3.74 3,292 12,323 99.12 12,214
1914 100.00 4.995% 4.995% 3.93 3,400 13,365 100.00 13,365
1915 93.86 -6.142% -6.142% 3.69 3,511 12,955 91.83 11,896
1916 88.38 -5.833% -5.833% 3.47 3,626 12,597 135.91 17,121
1917 100.72 13.954% 13.954% 3.96 3,744 14,822 127.84 18,948
1918 104.36 3.614% 3.614% 4.10 3,865 15,855 174.54 27,674
1919 92.87 -11.007% -11.007% 3.65 3,990 14,566 201.99 29,422
1920 89.13 -4.028% -4.028% 3.50 4,118 14,429 236.50 34,124
1921 112.82 26.583% 26.583% 4.43 4,270 18,938 237.22 44,923
1922 123.66 9.603% 9.603% 4.86 4,464 21,699 233.57 50,683
1923 126.94 2.658% 2.658% 4.99 4,628 23,093 201.55 46,544
1924 127.47 0.412% 0.412% 5.01 4,795 24,023 188.81 45,358
1925 124.53 -2.308% -2.308% 4.89 5,002 24,485 186.19 45,588
1926 120.44 -3.285% -3.285% 4.73 5,202 24,625 187.93 46,277
1927 127.57 5.925% 5.925% 5.01 5,407 27,111 180.99 49,068
1928 131.90 3.394% 3.394% 5.18 5,614 29,109 181.13 52,726
1929 131.51 -0.296% -0.296% 5.17 5,825 30,112 176.61 53,183
1930 5.08 129.23 -1.734% -1.734% 5.08 5,754 29,230 170.09 49,718
1931 115.38 -10.717% -10.717% 4.54 2,814 12,764 174.80 22,311
1932 122.09 5.817% 5.817% 4.80 2,730 13,101 168.76 22,110
1933 136.87 12.102% 12.102% 5.38 2,573 13,840 155.09 21,465
1934 130.38 -4.738% -4.738% 5.13 2,626 13,459 156.31 21,038
1935 137.02 5.092% 5.092% 5.39 2,862 15,412 147.01 22,658
1936 148.89 8.661% 8.661% 5.85 3,016 17,650 146.72 25,896
1937 150.08 0.798% 0.798% 5.90 3,257 19,216 146.72 28,194
1938 155.10 3.348% 3.348% 6.10 3,550 21,644 145.90 31,578
1939 154.06 -0.672% -0.672% 6.06 3,638 22,029 154.10 33,947
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Chinese, Total Real Private Beverage Total Private Final
Capita Private Indices of Real Wages Real Private Final Indian and Final and Tobacco Consumption
Final Agriculture and Non- (%) Consumption Consumption Eurasian Consumption Price Indices Expenditure on
Consumption agriculture Sectors (%) Expenditure based Clerical Expenditure on (1914=100) Beverages and
Expenditure in (1914=100 ) on Rel Wages and Population Beverage and Tobacco in the
Real Terms Income Elasticities Standard Tobacco in the Domestic Market
(1914 Prices) of Demand (Numbers) Domestic Market (Current Prices)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1947 164.71 4.69 14,072 66,009 493.82 325,966
1948 5.12 179.65 9.067% 9.067% 5.12 14,412 73,733 404.61 298,328
1949 220.02 22.473% 22.473% 6.27 14,681 91,985 417.66 384,187
1950 203.15 -7.666% -7.666% 5.79 15,332 88,700 444.64 394,396
1951 181.26 -10.776% -10.776% 5.16 16,022 82,704 506.62 418,998
1952 176.19 -2.797% -2.797% 5.02 16,905 84,824 514.31 436,258
1953 206.53 17.217% 17.217% 5.88 17,877 105,145 521.93 548,782
1954 208.97 1.183% 1.183% 5.95 18,723 111,423 542.23 604,175
1955 204.74 -2.023% -2.023% 5.83 19,583 114,181 540.39 617,019
1956 230.57 12.617% 12.617% 6.57 20,574 135,098 542.24 732,550
1957 215.81 -6.401% -6.401% 6.15 14,459 88,868 549.94 488,724
1958 215.37 -0.205% -0.205% 6.13 15,140 92,861 550.13 510,857
1959 194.19 -9.837% -9.837% 5.53 15,796 87,354 547.50 478,265
1960 230.48 18.691% 18.691% 6.56 16,341 107,258 547.21 586,934
304
Asiatic Clerical Standard [1899-1939] Malay Clerical Standard [1947-1960]–
Beverages and Tobacco in Current and 1914 Prices, (Straits $)
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Asiatic Total Real Private Beverage Total Private Final
Capita Private Indices of Real Wages Real Private Final Clerical Final and Tobacco Consumption
Final Agriculture and Non- (%) Consumption Consumption Population Consumption Price Indices Expenditure on
Consumption agriculture Sectors (%) Expenditure based Standard Expenditure on (1914=100) Beverages and
Expenditure in (1914=100 ) on Rel Wages and (Numbers) Beverage and Tobacco in the

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1899 116.03 4.56 19,362 88,304 81.32 71,810
1900 113.92 -1.814% -1.814% 4.48 19,219 86,059 83.55 71,899
1901 112.77 -1.008% -1.008% 4.43 19,707 87,356 81.61 71,292
1902 108.67 -3.637% -3.637% 4.27 20,273 86,598 86.19 74,642
1903 107.35 -1.214% -1.214% 4.22 20,853 87,993 91.42 80,441
1904 107.24 -0.106% -0.106% 4.22 21,449 90,414 86.94 78,603
1905 105.29 -1.816% -1.816% 4.14 22,065 91,322 89.41 81,650
1906 106.94 1.562% 1.562% 4.20 22,699 95,411 86.21 82,253
1907 107.05 0.102% 0.102% 4.21 23,351 98,252 89.90 88,329
1908 107.87 0.772% 0.772% 4.24 24,023 101,862 90.40 92,078
1909 110.50 2.437% 2.437% 4.34 24,714 107,345 87.90 94,360
1910 108.44 -1.861% -1.861% 4.26 25,423 108,370 90.09 97,631
1911 98.90 -8.802% -8.802% 3.89 27,137 105,494 88.10 92,937
1912 97.22 -1.696% -1.696% 3.82 28,039 107,153 88.64 94,980
1913 95.24 -2.036% -2.036% 3.74 28,967 108,444 99.12 107,486
1914 100.00 4.995% 4.995% 3.93 29,920 117,609 100.00 117,609
1915 93.86 -6.142% -6.142% 3.69 30,901 114,002 91.83 104,682
1916 88.38 -5.833% -5.833% 3.47 31,909 110,855 135.91 150,669
1917 100.72 13.954% 13.954% 3.96 32,947 130,432 127.84 166,745
1918 104.36 3.614% 3.614% 4.10 34,015 139,527 174.54 243,534
1919 92.87 -11.007% -11.007% 3.65 35,113 128,179 201.99 258,912
1920 89.13 -4.028% -4.028% 3.50 36,243 126,974 236.50 300,294
1921 112.82 26.583% 26.583% 4.43 46,973 208,314 237.22 494,153
1922 123.66 9.603% 9.603% 4.86 49,107 238,691 233.57 557,514
1923 126.94 2.658% 2.658% 4.99 50,907 254,019 201.55 511,987
1924 127.47 0.412% 0.412% 5.01 52,741 264,253 188.81 498,934
1925 124.53 -2.308% -2.308% 4.89 55,025 269,336 186.19 501,466
1926 120.44 -3.285% -3.285% 4.73 57,218 270,870 187.93 509,052
1927 127.57 5.925% 5.925% 5.01 59,473 298,226 180.99 539,751
1928 131.90 3.394% 3.394% 5.18 61,758 320,197 181.13 579,982
1929 131.51 -0.296% -0.296% 5.17 64,077 331,237 176.61 585,013
1930 5.08 129.23 -1.734% -1.734% 5.08 63,298 321,535 170.09 546,894
1931 115.38 -10.717% -10.717% 4.54 61,915 280,806 174.80 490,851
1932 122.09 5.817% 5.817% 4.80 60,059 288,230 168.76 486,420
1933 136.87 12.102% 12.102% 5.38 56,595 304,476 155.09 472,227
1934 130.38 -4.738% -4.738% 5.13 57,775 296,099 156.31 462,830
1935 137.02 5.092% 5.092% 5.39 62,954 339,069 147.01 498,478
1936 148.89 8.661% 8.661% 5.85 66,348 388,297 146.72 569,718
1937 150.08 0.798% 0.798% 5.90 71,663 422,751 146.72 620,269
1938 155.10 3.348% 3.348% 6.10 78,104 476,170 145.90 694,713
1939 154.06 -0.672% -0.672% 6.06 80,032 484,644 154.10 746,824
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Malay Total Real Private Beverage Total Private Final
Capita Private Indices of Real Wages Real Private Final Clerical Final and Tobacco Consumption

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1947 164.71 4.69 126,649 594,080 493.82 2,933,692
1948 5.12 179.65 9.067% 9.067% 5.12 129,708 663,595 404.61 2,684,956
1949 220.02 22.473% 22.473% 6.27 132,125 827,866 417.66 3,457,684
1950 203.15 -7.666% -7.666% 5.79 137,984 798,302 444.64 3,549,560
1951 181.26 -10.776% -10.776% 5.16 144,194 744,336 506.62 3,770,982
1952 176.19 -2.797% -2.797% 5.02 152,145 763,413 514.31 3,926,325
1953 206.53 17.217% 17.217% 5.88 160,893 946,305 521.93 4,939,041
1954 208.97 1.183% 1.183% 5.95 168,507 1,002,810 542.23 5,437,576
1955 204.74 -2.023% -2.023% 5.83 176,243 1,027,629 540.39 5,553,173
1956 230.57 12.617% 12.617% 6.57 185,166 1,215,881 542.24 6,592,953
1957 215.81 -6.401% -6.401% 6.15 267,497 1,644,063 549.94 9,041,395
1958 215.37 -0.205% -0.205% 6.13 280,090 1,717,926 550.13 9,450,852
1959 194.19 -9.837% -9.837% 5.53 292,226 1,616,050 547.50 8,847,900
1960 230.48 18.691% 18.691% 6.56 302,309 1,984,282 547.21 10,858,275
305
Chinese Labour Standard – Beverages and Tobacco in Current and 1914 Prices,
(Straits $)
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Chinese Total Real Private Beverage Total Private Final
Capita Private Indices of Real Wages Real Private Final Labour Final and Tobacco Consumption

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1899 116.03 4.68 135,535 634,748 81.32 516,187
1900 113.92 -1.814% -1.088% 4.63 134,530 623,181 83.55 520,648
1901 112.77 -1.008% -0.605% 4.60 137,948 635,151 81.61 518,353
1902 108.67 -3.637% -2.182% 4.50 141,912 639,147 86.19 550,904
1903 107.35 -1.214% -0.728% 4.47 145,970 652,633 91.42 596,623
1904 107.24 -0.106% -0.064% 4.47 150,145 670,873 86.94 583,233
1905 105.29 -1.816% -1.089% 4.42 154,457 682,620 89.41 610,325
1906 106.94 1.562% 0.937% 4.46 158,890 708,796 86.21 611,052
1907 107.05 0.102% 0.061% 4.46 163,456 729,611 89.90 655,920
1908 107.87 0.772% 0.463% 4.48 168,162 754,094 90.40 681,666
1909 110.50 2.437% 1.462% 4.55 172,999 787,127 87.90 691,910
1910 108.44 -1.861% -1.117% 4.50 177,962 800,668 90.09 721,326
1911 98.90 -8.802% -5.281% 4.26 185,643 791,114 88.10 696,949
1912 97.22 -1.696% -1.017% 4.22 191,815 809,099 88.64 717,184
1913 95.24 -2.036% -1.221% 4.17 198,160 825,651 99.12 818,358
1914 100.00 4.995% 2.997% 4.29 204,683 878,391 100.00 878,391
1915 93.86 -6.142% -3.685% 4.13 211,389 873,739 91.83 802,313
1916 88.38 -5.833% -3.500% 3.99 218,286 870,673 135.91 1,183,372
1917 100.72 13.954% 8.372% 4.32 225,385 974,253 127.84 1,245,490
1918 104.36 3.614% 2.168% 4.42 232,691 1,027,646 174.54 1,793,684
1919 92.87 -11.007% -6.604% 4.12 240,206 990,775 201.99 2,001,285
1920 89.13 -4.028% -2.417% 4.03 247,933 997,935 236.50 2,360,115
1921 112.82 26.583% 15.950% 4.67 258,351 1,205,725 237.22 2,860,168
1922 123.66 9.603% 5.762% 4.94 270,088 1,333,129 233.57 3,113,811
1923 126.94 2.658% 1.595% 5.01 279,989 1,404,044 201.55 2,829,917
1924 127.47 0.412% 0.247% 5.03 290,074 1,458,213 188.81 2,753,243
1925 124.53 -2.308% -1.385% 4.96 302,638 1,500,309 186.19 2,793,363
1926 120.44 -3.285% -1.971% 4.86 314,698 1,529,348 187.93 2,874,142
1927 127.57 5.925% 3.555% 5.03 327,100 1,646,128 180.99 2,979,282
1928 131.90 3.394% 2.037% 5.13 339,668 1,744,191 181.13 3,159,306
1929 131.51 -0.296% -0.178% 5.13 352,424 1,806,475 176.61 3,190,499
1930 129.23 -1.734% -1.040% 5.07 348,138 1,765,942 170.09 3,003,659
1931 115.38 -10.717% -6.430% 4.75 354,606 1,683,084 174.80 2,942,047
1932 122.09 5.817% 3.490% 4.91 343,972 1,689,597 168.76 2,851,379
1933 136.87 12.102% 7.261% 5.27 324,135 1,707,761 155.09 2,648,650
1934 130.38 -4.738% -2.843% 5.12 330,894 1,693,811 156.31 2,647,587
1935 137.02 5.092% 3.055% 5.28 360,555 1,902,031 147.01 2,796,246
1936 5.55 148.89 8.661% 5.196% 5.55 379,993 2,108,734 146.72 3,093,981
1937 150.08 0.798% 0.479% 5.58 410,436 2,288,577 146.72 3,357,850
1938 155.10 3.348% 2.009% 5.69 447,323 2,544,360 145.90 3,712,126
1939 154.06 -0.672% -0.403% 5.67 458,365 2,596,653 154.10 4,001,375
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Chinese Total Real Private Beverage Total Private Final

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1947 164.71 6.51 562,886 3,664,934 493.82 18,098,222
1948 179.65 9.067% 9.067% 7.10 576,480 4,093,777 404.61 16,563,744
1949 8.70 220.02 22.473% 22.473% 8.70 587,220 5,107,184 417.66 21,330,782
1950 203.15 -7.666% -7.666% 8.03 613,260 4,924,803 444.64 21,897,571
1951 181.26 -10.776% -10.776% 7.17 640,860 4,591,879 506.62 23,263,541
1952 176.19 -2.797% -2.797% 6.96 676,200 4,709,566 514.31 24,221,871
1953 206.53 17.217% 17.217% 8.16 715,080 5,837,846 521.93 30,469,411
1954 208.97 1.183% 1.183% 8.26 748,920 6,186,426 542.23 33,544,918
1955 204.74 -2.023% -2.023% 8.09 783,300 6,339,539 540.39 34,258,050
1956 230.57 12.617% 12.617% 9.11 822,960 7,500,887 542.24 40,672,552
1957 215.81 -6.401% -6.401% 8.53 788,031 6,722,752 549.94 36,971,252
1958 215.37 -0.205% -0.205% 8.51 825,130 7,024,789 550.13 38,645,566
1959 194.19 -9.837% -9.837% 7.68 860,882 6,608,204 547.50 36,180,030
1960 230.48 18.691% 18.691% 9.11 890,585 8,113,945 547.21 44,400,671
306
Malay Labour Standard – Beverages and Tobacco in Current and 1914 Prices,
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1899 116.03 5.86 41,002 240,359 81.32 195,464
1900 113.92 -1.814% -1.088% 5.80 40,698 235,979 83.55 197,153
1901 112.77 -1.008% -0.605% 5.76 41,732 240,512 81.61 196,284
1902 108.67 -3.637% -2.182% 5.64 42,931 242,025 86.19 208,610
1903 107.35 -1.214% -0.728% 5.60 44,159 247,132 91.42 225,922
1904 107.24 -0.106% -0.064% 5.59 45,422 254,039 86.94 220,852
1905 105.29 -1.816% -1.089% 5.53 46,726 258,487 89.41 231,111
1906 106.94 1.562% 0.937% 5.58 48,068 268,399 86.21 231,386
1907 107.05 0.102% 0.061% 5.59 49,449 276,281 89.90 248,376
1908 107.87 0.772% 0.463% 5.61 50,873 285,552 90.40 258,126
1909 110.50 2.437% 1.462% 5.70 52,336 298,060 87.90 262,005
1910 108.44 -1.861% -1.117% 5.63 53,837 303,188 90.09 273,144
1911 98.90 -8.802% -5.281% 5.33 52,424 279,638 88.10 246,353
1912 97.22 -1.696% -1.017% 5.28 54,167 285,995 88.64 253,505
1913 95.24 -2.036% -1.221% 5.22 55,959 291,845 99.12 289,267
1914 100.00 4.995% 2.997% 5.37 57,801 310,488 100.00 310,488
1915 93.86 -6.142% -3.685% 5.17 59,695 308,843 91.83 283,596
1916 88.38 -5.833% -3.500% 4.99 61,642 307,760 135.91 418,290
1917 100.72 13.954% 8.372% 5.41 63,647 344,372 127.84 440,247
1918 104.36 3.614% 2.168% 5.53 65,710 363,245 174.54 634,019
1919 92.87 -11.007% -6.604% 5.16 67,832 350,212 201.99 707,401
1920 89.13 -4.028% -2.417% 5.04 70,014 352,743 236.50 834,237
1921 112.82 26.583% 15.950% 5.84 55,513 324,295 237.22 769,279
1922 123.66 9.603% 5.762% 6.18 58,035 358,562 233.57 837,499
1923 126.94 2.658% 1.595% 6.28 60,163 377,635 201.55 761,142
1924 127.47 0.412% 0.247% 6.29 62,330 392,205 188.81 740,520
1925 124.53 -2.308% -1.385% 6.21 65,030 403,527 186.19 751,310
1926 120.44 -3.285% -1.971% 6.08 67,621 411,338 187.93 773,037
1927 127.57 5.925% 3.555% 6.30 70,286 442,747 180.99 801,316
1928 131.90 3.394% 2.037% 6.43 72,986 469,122 181.13 849,736
1929 131.51 -0.296% -0.178% 6.42 75,727 485,874 176.61 858,125
1930 129.23 -1.734% -1.040% 6.35 74,807 474,972 170.09 807,872
1931 115.38 -10.717% -6.430% 5.94 56,287 334,402 174.80 584,539
1932 122.09 5.817% 3.490% 6.15 54,599 335,696 168.76 566,524
1933 136.87 12.102% 7.261% 6.59 51,450 339,305 155.09 526,245
1934 130.38 -4.738% -2.843% 6.41 52,523 336,534 156.31 526,034
1935 137.02 5.092% 3.055% 6.60 57,231 377,904 147.01 555,570
1936 6.95 148.89 8.661% 5.196% 6.95 60,316 418,972 146.72 614,725
1937 150.08 0.798% 0.479% 6.98 65,149 454,704 146.72 667,152
1938 155.10 3.348% 2.009% 7.12 71,004 505,524 145.90 737,541
1939 154.06 -0.672% -0.403% 7.09 72,756 515,914 154.10 795,010

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1947 164.71 7.16 84,433 604,470 493.82 2,985,000
1948 179.65 9.067% 9.067% 7.81 86,472 675,200 404.61 2,731,914
1949 9.56 220.02 22.473% 22.473% 9.56 88,083 842,345 417.66 3,518,157
1950 203.15 -7.666% -7.666% 8.83 91,989 812,264 444.64 3,611,639
1951 181.26 -10.776% -10.776% 7.88 96,129 757,354 506.62 3,836,933
1952 176.19 -2.797% -2.797% 7.66 101,430 776,764 514.31 3,994,994
1953 206.53 17.217% 17.217% 8.98 107,262 962,855 521.93 5,025,422
1954 208.97 1.183% 1.183% 9.08 112,338 1,020,348 542.23 5,532,675
1955 204.74 -2.023% -2.023% 8.90 117,495 1,045,601 540.39 5,650,294
1956 230.57 12.617% 12.617% 10.02 123,444 1,237,146 542.24 6,708,259
1957 215.81 -6.401% -6.401% 9.38 144,593 1,356,338 549.94 7,459,072
1958 215.37 -0.205% -0.205% 9.36 151,400 1,417,274 550.13 7,796,871
1959 194.19 -9.837% -9.837% 8.44 157,960 1,333,227 547.50 7,299,441
1960 230.48 18.691% 18.691% 10.02 163,410 1,637,015 547.21 8,957,982
307
Indian Labour Standard – Beverages and Tobacco in Current and 1914 Prices,
(Straits $)
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Indian Total Real Private Beverage Total Private Final

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1899 116.03 8.94 15,945 142,574 81.32 115,943
1900 113.92 -1.814% -1.814% 8.78 15,827 138,949 83.55 116,087
1901 112.77 -1.008% -1.008% 8.69 16,229 141,044 81.61 115,107
1902 108.67 -3.637% -3.637% 8.37 16,696 139,820 86.19 120,516
1903 107.35 -1.214% -1.214% 8.27 17,173 142,072 91.42 129,879
1904 107.24 -0.106% -0.106% 8.26 17,664 145,981 86.94 126,910
1905 105.29 -1.816% -1.816% 8.11 18,171 147,446 89.41 131,830
1906 106.94 1.562% 1.562% 8.24 18,693 154,048 86.21 132,805
1907 107.05 0.102% 0.102% 8.25 19,230 158,636 89.90 142,614
1908 107.87 0.772% 0.772% 8.31 19,784 164,464 90.40 148,668
1909 110.50 2.437% 2.437% 8.52 20,353 173,318 87.90 152,352
1910 108.44 -1.861% -1.861% 8.36 20,937 174,972 90.09 157,633
1911 98.90 -8.802% -8.802% 7.62 21,586 164,522 88.10 144,939
1912 97.22 -1.696% -1.696% 7.49 22,304 167,109 88.64 148,125
1913 95.24 -2.036% -2.036% 7.34 23,042 169,122 99.12 167,628
1914 100.00 4.995% 4.995% 7.71 23,800 183,415 100.00 183,415
1915 93.86 -6.142% -6.142% 7.23 24,580 177,790 91.83 163,256
1916 88.38 -5.833% -5.833% 6.81 25,382 172,883 135.91 234,973
1917 100.72 13.954% 13.954% 7.76 26,208 203,414 127.84 260,045
1918 104.36 3.614% 3.614% 8.04 27,057 217,597 174.54 379,801
1919 92.87 -11.007% -11.007% 7.16 27,931 199,900 201.99 403,783
1920 89.13 -4.028% -4.028% 6.87 28,829 198,021 236.50 468,319
1921 112.82 26.583% 26.583% 8.69 34,162 297,027 237.22 704,595
1922 123.66 9.603% 9.603% 9.53 35,714 340,340 233.57 794,938
1923 126.94 2.658% 2.658% 9.78 37,023 362,196 201.55 730,023
1924 127.47 0.412% 0.412% 9.82 38,357 376,788 188.81 711,412
1925 124.53 -2.308% -2.308% 9.60 40,018 384,037 186.19 715,022
1926 120.44 -3.285% -3.285% 9.28 41,613 386,223 187.93 725,839
1927 127.57 5.925% 5.925% 9.83 43,253 425,230 180.99 769,611
1928 131.90 3.394% 3.394% 10.16 44,915 456,557 181.13 826,975
1929 131.51 -0.296% -0.296% 10.13 46,602 472,298 176.61 834,148
1930 129.23 -1.734% -1.734% 9.96 46,035 458,465 170.09 779,795
1931 115.38 -10.717% -10.717% 8.89 50,658 450,439 174.80 787,372
1932 122.09 5.817% 5.817% 9.41 49,139 462,349 168.76 780,264
1933 10.55 136.87 12.102% 12.102% 10.55 46,305 488,409 155.09 757,498
1934 130.38 -4.738% -4.738% 10.05 47,271 474,971 156.31 742,424
1935 137.02 5.092% 5.092% 10.56 51,508 543,899 147.01 799,606
1936 148.89 8.661% 8.661% 11.47 54,285 622,866 146.72 913,882
1937 150.08 0.798% 0.798% 11.57 58,634 678,132 146.72 994,971
1938 155.10 3.348% 3.348% 11.95 63,903 763,821 145.90 1,114,387
1939 154.06 -0.672% -0.672% 11.87 65,481 777,416 154.10 1,197,978
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Indian Total Real Private Beverage Total Private Final

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1947 164.71 6.96 93,814 652,519 493.82 3,222,275
1948 179.65 9.067% 9.067% 7.59 96,080 728,872 404.61 2,949,071
1949 9.29 220.02 22.473% 22.473% 9.29 97,870 909,302 417.66 3,797,812
1950 203.15 -7.666% -7.666% 8.58 102,210 876,830 444.64 3,898,726
1951 181.26 -10.776% -10.776% 7.65 106,810 817,555 506.62 4,141,928
1952 176.19 -2.797% -2.797% 7.44 112,700 838,509 514.31 4,312,553
1953 206.53 17.217% 17.217% 8.72 119,180 1,039,392 521.93 5,424,888
1954 208.97 1.183% 1.183% 8.82 124,820 1,101,455 542.23 5,972,463
1955 204.74 -2.023% -2.023% 8.65 130,550 1,128,715 540.39 6,099,432
1956 230.57 12.617% 12.617% 9.74 137,160 1,335,486 542.24 7,241,494
1957 215.81 -6.401% -6.401% 9.11 144,593 1,317,737 549.94 7,246,790
1958 215.37 -0.205% -0.205% 9.09 151,400 1,376,939 550.13 7,574,974
1959 194.19 -9.837% -9.837% 8.20 157,960 1,295,284 547.50 7,091,701
1960 230.48 18.691% 18.691% 9.73 163,410 1,590,426 547.21 8,703,041
308
European Standard –Clothing in Current and 1914 Prices, (Straits $)
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita European Total Real Private Clothing Total Private Final
Capita Private Indices of Real Wages Real Private Final Population Final Price Indices Consumption
Final Agriculture and Non- (%) Consumption Consumption Standard Consumption (1914=100) Expenditure on
Consumption agriculture Sectors (%) Expenditure based (Numbers) Expenditure on Clothing in the
Expenditure in (1914=100 ) on Rel Wages and Clothing in the Domestic Market
Real Terms Income Elasticities Domestic Market (Current Prices)
(1914 Prices) of Demand (1914 Prices) (Straits $)
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1899 116.03 184.96 13,667 2,527,895 76.31 1,928,921
1900 113.92 -1.814% -1.814% 181.60 13,566 2,463,621 78.94 1,944,855
1901 112.77 -1.008% -1.008% 179.77 13,911 2,500,760 84.45 2,111,789
1902 108.67 -3.637% -3.637% 173.23 14,310 2,479,068 86.79 2,151,594
1903 107.35 -1.214% -1.214% 171.13 14,720 2,518,992 92.79 2,337,290
1904 107.24 -0.106% -0.106% 170.95 15,141 2,588,296 90.19 2,334,473
1905 105.29 -1.816% -1.816% 167.85 15,575 2,614,278 87.98 2,300,023
1906 106.94 1.562% 1.562% 170.47 16,023 2,731,334 84.42 2,305,847
1907 107.05 0.102% 0.102% 170.64 16,483 2,812,687 82.99 2,334,320
1908 107.87 0.772% 0.772% 171.96 16,958 2,916,007 86.31 2,516,708
1909 110.50 2.437% 2.437% 176.15 17,445 3,072,991 76.42 2,348,477
1910 108.44 -1.861% -1.861% 172.87 17,946 3,102,323 84.38 2,617,633
1911 98.90 -8.802% -8.802% 157.66 18,503 2,917,040 84.03 2,451,054
1912 97.22 -1.696% -1.696% 154.98 19,118 2,962,911 83.07 2,461,380
1913 95.24 -2.036% -2.036% 151.83 19,750 2,998,597 99.53 2,984,482
1914 100.00 4.995% 4.995% 159.41 20,400 3,252,027 100.00 3,252,027
1915 93.86 -6.142% -6.142% 149.62 21,069 3,152,293 138.32 4,360,216
1916 88.38 -5.833% -5.833% 140.89 21,756 3,065,285 161.28 4,943,690
1917 100.72 13.954% 13.954% 160.55 22,464 3,606,604 144.02 5,194,086
1918 104.36 3.614% 3.614% 166.36 23,192 3,858,088 189.80 7,322,652
1919 92.87 -11.007% -11.007% 148.05 23,941 3,544,313 229.60 8,137,742
1920 89.13 -4.028% -4.028% 142.08 24,711 3,510,990 291.60 10,238,046
1921 112.82 26.583% 26.583% 179.85 27,757 4,992,118 237.20 11,841,303
1922 123.66 9.603% 9.603% 197.12 29,018 5,720,077 182.80 10,456,300
1923 126.94 2.658% 2.658% 202.36 30,082 6,087,408 163.60 9,958,999
1924 127.47 0.412% 0.412% 203.20 31,165 6,332,657 157.10 9,948,604
1925 124.53 -2.308% -2.308% 198.51 32,515 6,454,486 158.10 10,204,542
1926 120.44 -3.285% -3.285% 191.99 33,811 6,491,229 157.50 10,223,685
1927 127.57 5.925% 5.925% 203.36 35,143 7,146,810 155.40 11,106,142
1928 131.90 3.394% 3.394% 210.27 36,493 7,673,324 151.90 11,655,779
1929 131.51 -0.296% -0.296% 209.64 37,864 7,937,891 141.00 11,192,426
1930 206.01 129.23 -1.734% -1.734% 206.01 37,403 7,705,398 139.80 10,772,146
1931 115.38 -10.717% -10.717% 183.93 36,586 6,729,338 136.57 9,190,219
1932 122.09 5.817% 5.817% 194.63 35,489 6,907,263 121.38 8,384,352
1933 136.87 12.102% 12.102% 218.18 33,443 7,296,593 115.68 8,440,766
1934 130.38 -4.738% -4.738% 207.85 34,140 7,095,826 110.78 7,860,931
1935 137.02 5.092% 5.092% 218.43 37,200 8,125,584 109.81 8,922,564
1936 148.89 8.661% 8.661% 237.35 39,206 9,305,302 109.12 10,154,225
1937 150.08 0.798% 0.798% 239.24 42,347 10,130,963 112.79 11,427,130
1938 155.10 3.348% 3.348% 247.25 46,152 11,411,114 113.92 12,999,532
1939 154.06 -0.672% -0.672% 245.59 47,292 11,614,208 123.83 14,381,984
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita European Total Real Private Clothing Total Private Final
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1947 164.71 226.14 56,289 12,729,149 628.50 80,002,359
1948 246.65 179.65 9.067% 9.067% 246.65 57,648 14,218,619 385.91 54,870,439
1949 220.02 22.473% 22.473% 302.07 58,722 17,738,411 389.07 69,015,383
1950 203.15 -7.666% -7.666% 278.92 61,326 17,104,959 415.49 71,069,104
1951 181.26 -10.776% -10.776% 248.86 64,086 15,948,640 525.93 83,879,148
1952 176.19 -2.797% -2.797% 241.90 67,620 16,357,393 514.47 84,153,642
1953 206.53 17.217% 17.217% 283.55 71,508 20,276,166 472.64 95,832,640
1954 208.97 1.183% 1.183% 286.90 74,892 21,486,865 448.54 96,377,177
1955 204.74 -2.023% -2.023% 281.10 78,330 22,018,661 439.15 96,694,939
1956 230.57 12.617% 12.617% 316.57 82,296 26,052,286 438.15 114,148,908
1957 215.81 -6.401% -6.401% 296.30 86,756 25,706,033 444.86 114,355,030
1958 215.37 -0.205% -0.205% 295.70 90,840 26,860,940 443.56 119,143,258
1959 194.19 -9.837% -9.837% 266.61 94,776 25,268,030 436.17 110,210,741
1960 230.48 18.691% 18.691% 316.44 98,046 31,025,587 438.13 135,932,938
309
[1947-1960]–Clothing in Current and 1914 Prices, (Straits $)
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Eurasian Total Real Private Clothing Total Private Final
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1899 116.03 20.04 2,278 45,643 76.31 34,828
1900 113.92 -1.814% -1.814% 19.67 2,261 44,482 78.94 35,115
1901 112.77 -1.008% -1.008% 19.48 2,318 45,153 84.45 38,130
1902 108.67 -3.637% -3.637% 18.77 2,385 44,761 86.79 38,848
1903 107.35 -1.214% -1.214% 18.54 2,453 45,482 92.79 42,201
1904 107.24 -0.106% -0.106% 18.52 2,523 46,733 90.19 42,150
1905 105.29 -1.816% -1.816% 18.18 2,596 47,202 87.98 41,528
1906 106.94 1.562% 1.562% 18.47 2,670 49,316 84.42 41,633
1907 107.05 0.102% 0.102% 18.49 2,747 50,785 82.99 42,147
1908 107.87 0.772% 0.772% 18.63 2,826 52,650 86.31 45,441
1909 110.50 2.437% 2.437% 19.08 2,908 55,485 76.42 42,403
1910 108.44 -1.861% -1.861% 18.73 2,991 56,014 84.38 47,263
1911 98.90 -8.802% -8.802% 17.08 3,084 52,669 84.03 44,255
1912 97.22 -1.696% -1.696% 16.79 3,186 53,497 83.07 44,442
1913 95.24 -2.036% -2.036% 16.45 3,292 54,141 99.53 53,886
1914 100.00 4.995% 4.995% 17.27 3,400 58,717 100.00 58,717
1915 93.86 -6.142% -6.142% 16.21 3,511 56,916 138.32 78,726
1916 88.38 -5.833% -5.833% 15.26 3,626 55,345 161.28 89,261
1917 100.72 13.954% 13.954% 17.39 3,744 65,119 144.02 93,782
1918 104.36 3.614% 3.614% 18.02 3,865 69,660 189.80 132,215
1919 92.87 -11.007% -11.007% 16.04 3,990 63,995 229.60 146,931
1920 89.13 -4.028% -4.028% 15.39 4,118 63,393 291.60 184,854
1921 112.82 26.583% 26.583% 19.48 4,270 83,202 237.20 197,355
1922 123.66 9.603% 9.603% 21.36 4,464 95,335 182.80 174,272
1923 126.94 2.658% 2.658% 21.92 4,628 101,457 163.60 165,983
1924 127.47 0.412% 0.412% 22.01 4,795 105,544 157.10 165,810
1925 124.53 -2.308% -2.308% 21.51 5,002 107,575 158.10 170,076
1926 120.44 -3.285% -3.285% 20.80 5,202 108,187 157.50 170,395
1927 127.57 5.925% 5.925% 22.03 5,407 119,113 155.40 185,102
1928 131.90 3.394% 3.394% 22.78 5,614 127,889 151.90 194,263
1929 131.51 -0.296% -0.296% 22.71 5,825 132,298 141.00 186,540
1930 22.32 129.23 -1.734% -1.734% 22.32 5,754 128,423 139.80 179,536
1931 115.38 -10.717% -10.717% 19.93 2,814 56,078 136.57 76,585
1932 122.09 5.817% 5.817% 21.08 2,730 57,561 121.38 69,870
1933 136.87 12.102% 12.102% 23.64 2,573 60,805 115.68 70,340
1934 130.38 -4.738% -4.738% 22.52 2,626 59,132 110.78 65,508
1935 137.02 5.092% 5.092% 23.66 2,862 67,713 109.81 74,355
1936 148.89 8.661% 8.661% 25.71 3,016 77,544 109.12 84,619
1937 150.08 0.798% 0.798% 25.92 3,257 84,425 112.79 95,226
1938 155.10 3.348% 3.348% 26.79 3,550 95,093 113.92 108,329
1939 154.06 -0.672% -0.672% 26.61 3,638 96,785 123.83 119,850
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Chinese, Total Real Private Clothing Total Private Final
Capita Private Indices of Real Wages Real Private Final Indian and Final Price Indices Consumption
Final Agriculture and Non- (%) Consumption Consumption Eurasian Consumption (1914=100) Expenditure on
Consumption agriculture Sectors (%) Expenditure based Clerical Expenditure on Clothing in the
Expenditure in (1914=100 ) on Rel Wages and Population Clothing in the Domestic Market
Real Terms Income Elasticities Standard Domestic Market (Current Prices)
(1914 Prices) of Demand (Numbers) (1914 Prices) (Straits $)
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1947 164.71 13.39 14,072 188,357 628.50 1,183,817
1948 14.11 179.65 9.067% 5.440% 14.11 14,412 203,400 385.91 784,933
1949 220.02 22.473% 13.484% 16.02 14,681 235,127 389.07 914,815
1950 203.15 -7.666% -4.599% 15.28 15,332 234,260 415.49 973,321
1951 181.26 -10.776% -6.465% 14.29 16,022 228,975 525.93 1,204,255
1952 176.19 -2.797% -1.678% 14.05 16,905 237,547 514.47 1,222,103
1953 206.53 17.217% 10.330% 15.50 17,877 277,156 472.64 1,309,941
1954 208.97 1.183% 0.710% 15.61 18,723 292,332 448.54 1,311,224
1955 204.74 -2.023% -1.214% 15.42 19,583 302,041 439.15 1,326,411
1956 230.57 12.617% 7.570% 16.59 20,574 341,357 438.15 1,495,664
1957 215.81 -6.401% -3.841% 15.95 14,459 230,689 444.86 1,026,237
1958 215.37 -0.205% -0.123% 15.93 15,140 241,252 443.56 1,070,087
1959 194.19 -9.837% -5.902% 14.99 15,796 236,849 436.17 1,033,057
1960 230.48 18.691% 11.214% 16.68 16,341 272,499 438.13 1,193,904
310
Clothing in Current and 1914 Prices, (Straits $)
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Asiatic Total Real Private Clothing Total Private Final
Capita Private Indices of Real Wages Real Private Final Clerical Final Price Indices Consumption
Final Agriculture and Non- (%) Consumption Consumption Population Consumption (1914=100) Expenditure on
Consumption agriculture Sectors (%) Expenditure based Standard Expenditure on Clothing in the
Expenditure in (1914=100 ) on Rel Wages and (Numbers) Clothing in the Domestic Market
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1899 116.03 20.04 19,362 387,962 76.31 296,036
1900 113.92 -1.814% -1.814% 19.67 19,219 378,097 78.94 298,481
1901 112.77 -1.008% -1.008% 19.48 19,707 383,797 84.45 324,101
1902 108.67 -3.637% -3.637% 18.77 20,273 380,468 86.79 330,210
1903 107.35 -1.214% -1.214% 18.54 20,853 386,595 92.79 358,709
1904 107.24 -0.106% -0.106% 18.52 21,449 397,232 90.19 358,277
1905 105.29 -1.816% -1.816% 18.18 22,065 401,219 87.98 352,990
1906 106.94 1.562% 1.562% 18.47 22,699 419,184 84.42 353,883
1907 107.05 0.102% 0.102% 18.49 23,351 431,669 82.99 358,253
1908 107.87 0.772% 0.772% 18.63 24,023 447,526 86.31 386,245
1909 110.50 2.437% 2.437% 19.08 24,714 471,619 76.42 360,426
1910 108.44 -1.861% -1.861% 18.73 25,423 476,120 84.38 401,734
1911 98.90 -8.802% -8.802% 17.08 27,137 463,485 84.03 389,445
1912 97.22 -1.696% -1.696% 16.79 28,039 470,774 83.07 391,086
1913 95.24 -2.036% -2.036% 16.45 28,967 476,444 99.53 474,201
1914 100.00 4.995% 4.995% 17.27 29,920 516,711 100.00 516,711
1915 93.86 -6.142% -6.142% 16.21 30,901 500,864 138.32 692,790
1916 88.38 -5.833% -5.833% 15.26 31,909 487,040 161.28 785,497
1917 100.72 13.954% 13.954% 17.39 32,947 573,049 144.02 825,283
1918 104.36 3.614% 3.614% 18.02 34,015 613,007 189.80 1,163,488
1919 92.87 -11.007% -11.007% 16.04 35,113 563,152 229.60 1,292,997
1920 89.13 -4.028% -4.028% 15.39 36,243 557,857 291.60 1,626,712
1921 112.82 26.583% 26.583% 19.48 46,973 915,222 237.20 2,170,906
1922 123.66 9.603% 9.603% 21.36 49,107 1,048,681 182.80 1,916,988
1923 126.94 2.658% 2.658% 21.92 50,907 1,116,025 163.60 1,825,816
1924 127.47 0.412% 0.412% 22.01 52,741 1,160,987 157.10 1,823,911
1925 124.53 -2.308% -2.308% 21.51 55,025 1,183,322 158.10 1,870,833
1926 120.44 -3.285% -3.285% 20.80 57,218 1,190,059 157.50 1,874,342
1927 127.57 5.925% 5.925% 22.03 59,473 1,310,248 155.40 2,036,126
1928 131.90 3.394% 3.394% 22.78 61,758 1,406,776 151.90 2,136,893
1929 131.51 -0.296% -0.296% 22.71 64,077 1,455,280 141.00 2,051,945
1930 22.32 129.23 -1.734% -1.734% 22.32 63,298 1,412,656 139.80 1,974,894
1931 115.38 -10.717% -10.717% 19.93 61,915 1,233,712 136.57 1,684,873
1932 122.09 5.817% 5.817% 21.08 60,059 1,266,332 121.38 1,537,131
1933 136.87 12.102% 12.102% 23.64 56,595 1,337,709 115.68 1,547,474
1934 130.38 -4.738% -4.738% 22.52 57,775 1,300,901 110.78 1,441,171
1935 137.02 5.092% 5.092% 23.66 62,954 1,489,690 109.81 1,635,803
1936 148.89 8.661% 8.661% 25.71 66,348 1,705,972 109.12 1,861,608
1937 150.08 0.798% 0.798% 25.92 71,663 1,857,343 112.79 2,094,974
1938 155.10 3.348% 3.348% 26.79 78,104 2,092,038 113.92 2,383,247
1939 154.06 -0.672% -0.672% 26.61 80,032 2,129,271 123.83 2,636,697
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Malay Total Real Private Clothing Total Private Final
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1947 164.71 13.72 126,649 1,737,312 628.50 10,918,961
1948 14.96 179.65 9.067% 9.067% 14.96 129,708 1,940,600 385.91 7,488,881
1949 220.02 22.473% 22.473% 18.32 132,125 2,420,991 389.07 9,419,425
1950 203.15 -7.666% -7.666% 16.92 137,984 2,334,536 415.49 9,699,723
1951 181.26 -10.776% -10.776% 15.10 144,194 2,176,718 525.93 11,448,076
1952 176.19 -2.797% -2.797% 14.67 152,145 2,232,506 514.47 11,485,540
1953 206.53 17.217% 17.217% 17.20 160,893 2,767,352 472.64 13,079,524
1954 208.97 1.183% 1.183% 17.40 168,507 2,932,591 448.54 13,153,844
1955 204.74 -2.023% -2.023% 17.05 176,243 3,005,173 439.15 13,197,214
1956 230.57 12.617% 12.617% 19.20 185,166 3,555,694 438.15 15,579,383
1957 215.81 -6.401% -6.401% 17.97 267,497 4,807,857 444.86 21,388,077
1958 215.37 -0.205% -0.205% 17.94 280,090 5,023,862 443.56 22,283,630
1959 194.19 -9.837% -9.837% 16.17 292,226 4,725,936 436.17 20,612,961
1960 230.48 18.691% 18.691% 19.19 302,309 5,802,785 438.13 25,423,841
311
Chinese Labour Standard –Clothing in Current and 1914 Prices, (Straits $)
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Chinese Total Real Private Clothing Total Private Final
Capita Private Indices of Real Wages Real Private Final Labour Final Price Indices Consumption
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1899 116.03 8.83 135,535 1,197,216 76.31 913,540
1900 113.92 -1.814% -1.088% 8.74 134,530 1,175,398 78.94 927,894
1901 112.77 -1.008% -0.605% 8.68 137,948 1,197,975 84.45 1,011,641
1902 108.67 -3.637% -2.182% 8.49 141,912 1,205,513 86.79 1,046,270
1903 107.35 -1.214% -0.728% 8.43 145,970 1,230,948 92.79 1,142,156
1904 107.24 -0.106% -0.064% 8.43 150,145 1,265,352 90.19 1,141,265
1905 105.29 -1.816% -1.089% 8.34 154,457 1,287,507 87.98 1,132,739
1906 106.94 1.562% 0.937% 8.41 158,890 1,336,879 84.42 1,128,620
1907 107.05 0.102% 0.061% 8.42 163,456 1,376,138 82.99 1,142,092
1908 107.87 0.772% 0.463% 8.46 168,162 1,422,316 86.31 1,227,553
1909 110.50 2.437% 1.462% 8.58 172,999 1,484,621 76.42 1,134,594
1910 108.44 -1.861% -1.117% 8.49 177,962 1,510,162 84.38 1,274,222
1911 98.90 -8.802% -5.281% 8.04 185,643 1,492,141 84.03 1,253,777
1912 97.22 -1.696% -1.017% 7.96 191,815 1,526,064 83.07 1,267,747
1913 95.24 -2.036% -1.221% 7.86 198,160 1,557,281 99.53 1,549,951
1914 100.00 4.995% 2.997% 8.09 204,683 1,656,756 100.00 1,656,756
1915 93.86 -6.142% -3.685% 7.80 211,389 1,647,983 138.32 2,279,471
1916 88.38 -5.833% -3.500% 7.52 218,286 1,642,200 161.28 2,648,538
1917 100.72 13.954% 8.372% 8.15 225,385 1,837,565 144.02 2,646,386
1918 104.36 3.614% 2.168% 8.33 232,691 1,938,270 189.80 3,678,837
1919 92.87 -11.007% -6.604% 7.78 240,206 1,868,726 229.60 4,290,595
1920 89.13 -4.028% -2.417% 7.59 247,933 1,882,231 291.60 5,488,584
1921 112.82 26.583% 15.950% 8.80 258,351 2,274,151 237.20 5,394,285
1922 123.66 9.603% 5.762% 9.31 270,088 2,514,449 182.80 4,596,412
1923 126.94 2.658% 1.595% 9.46 279,989 2,648,205 163.60 4,332,463
1924 127.47 0.412% 0.247% 9.48 290,074 2,750,374 157.10 4,320,837
1925 124.53 -2.308% -1.385% 9.35 302,638 2,829,772 158.10 4,473,869
1926 120.44 -3.285% -1.971% 9.17 314,698 2,884,543 157.50 4,543,156
1927 127.57 5.925% 3.555% 9.49 327,100 3,104,805 155.40 4,824,867
1928 131.90 3.394% 2.037% 9.69 339,668 3,289,765 151.90 4,997,153
1929 131.51 -0.296% -0.178% 9.67 352,424 3,407,240 141.00 4,804,209
1930 129.23 -1.734% -1.040% 9.57 348,138 3,330,790 139.80 4,656,444
1931 115.38 -10.717% -6.430% 8.95 354,606 3,174,509 136.57 4,335,409
1932 122.09 5.817% 3.490% 9.26 343,972 3,186,794 121.38 3,868,276
1933 136.87 12.102% 7.261% 9.94 324,135 3,221,054 115.68 3,726,145
1934 130.38 -4.738% -2.843% 9.65 330,894 3,194,742 110.78 3,539,215
1935 137.02 5.092% 3.055% 9.95 360,555 3,587,470 109.81 3,939,339
1936 10.47 148.89 8.661% 5.196% 10.47 379,993 3,977,339 109.12 4,340,192
1937 150.08 0.798% 0.479% 10.52 410,436 4,316,545 112.79 4,868,808
1938 155.10 3.348% 2.009% 10.73 447,323 4,798,985 113.92 5,467,000
1939 154.06 -0.672% -0.403% 10.68 458,365 4,897,616 123.83 6,064,765
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Chinese Total Real Private Clothing Total Private Final
Capita Private Indices of Real Wages Real Private Final Labour Final Price Indices Consumption
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1947 164.71 11.63 562,886 6,546,285 628.50 41,143,226
1948 179.65 9.067% 5.440% 12.26 576,480 7,069,120 385.91 27,280,126
1949 13.92 220.02 22.473% 13.484% 13.92 587,220 8,171,768 389.07 31,794,152
1950 203.15 -7.666% -4.599% 13.28 613,260 8,141,626 415.49 33,827,502
1951 181.26 -10.776% -6.465% 12.42 640,860 7,957,961 525.93 41,853,538
1952 176.19 -2.797% -1.678% 12.21 676,200 8,255,871 514.47 42,473,861
1953 206.53 17.217% 10.330% 13.47 715,080 9,632,474 472.64 45,526,626
1954 208.97 1.183% 0.710% 13.57 748,920 10,159,906 448.54 45,571,240
1955 204.74 -2.023% -1.214% 13.40 783,300 10,497,341 439.15 46,099,065
1956 230.57 12.617% 7.570% 14.42 822,960 11,863,753 438.15 51,981,406
1957 215.81 -6.401% -3.841% 13.86 788,031 10,923,900 444.86 48,595,710
1958 215.37 -0.205% -0.123% 13.85 825,130 11,424,079 443.56 50,672,165
1959 194.19 -9.837% -5.902% 13.03 860,882 11,215,593 436.17 48,918,686
1960 230.48 18.691% 11.214% 14.49 890,585 12,903,726 438.13 56,535,315
312
Malay Labour Standard –Clothing in Current and 1914 Prices, (Straits $)
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Malay Labour Total Real Private Clothing Total Private Final
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1899 116.03 8.96 41,002 367,190 76.31 280,186
1900 113.92 -1.814% -1.088% 8.86 40,698 360,499 78.94 284,588
1901 112.77 -1.008% -0.605% 8.80 41,732 367,423 84.45 310,274
1902 108.67 -3.637% -2.182% 8.61 42,931 369,735 86.79 320,894
1903 107.35 -1.214% -0.728% 8.55 44,159 377,536 92.79 350,303
1904 107.24 -0.106% -0.064% 8.54 45,422 388,088 90.19 350,030
1905 105.29 -1.816% -1.089% 8.45 46,726 394,883 87.98 347,415
1906 106.94 1.562% 0.937% 8.53 48,068 410,025 84.42 346,152
1907 107.05 0.102% 0.061% 8.54 49,449 422,066 82.99 350,283
1908 107.87 0.772% 0.463% 8.57 50,873 436,229 86.31 376,495
1909 110.50 2.437% 1.462% 8.70 52,336 455,338 76.42 347,984
1910 108.44 -1.861% -1.117% 8.60 53,837 463,172 84.38 390,808
1911 98.90 -8.802% -5.281% 8.15 52,424 427,194 84.03 358,952
1912 97.22 -1.696% -1.017% 8.07 54,167 436,906 83.07 362,951
1913 95.24 -2.036% -1.221% 7.97 55,959 445,844 99.53 443,745
1914 100.00 4.995% 2.997% 8.21 57,801 474,323 100.00 474,323
1915 93.86 -6.142% -3.685% 7.90 59,695 471,811 138.32 652,604
1916 88.38 -5.833% -3.500% 7.63 61,642 470,155 161.28 758,266
1917 100.72 13.954% 8.372% 8.27 63,647 526,088 144.02 757,650
1918 104.36 3.614% 2.168% 8.44 65,710 554,919 189.80 1,053,237
1919 92.87 -11.007% -6.604% 7.89 67,832 535,009 229.60 1,228,381
1920 89.13 -4.028% -2.417% 7.70 70,014 538,875 291.60 1,571,360
1921 112.82 26.583% 15.950% 8.92 55,513 495,416 237.20 1,175,127
1922 123.66 9.603% 5.762% 9.44 58,035 547,764 182.80 1,001,313
1923 126.94 2.658% 1.595% 9.59 60,163 576,903 163.60 943,813
1924 127.47 0.412% 0.247% 9.61 62,330 599,160 157.10 941,280
1925 124.53 -2.308% -1.385% 9.48 65,030 616,456 158.10 974,618
1926 120.44 -3.285% -1.971% 9.29 67,621 628,388 157.50 989,711
1927 127.57 5.925% 3.555% 9.62 70,286 676,372 155.40 1,051,081
1928 131.90 3.394% 2.037% 9.82 72,986 716,664 151.90 1,088,613
1929 131.51 -0.296% -0.178% 9.80 75,727 742,256 141.00 1,046,581
1930 129.23 -1.734% -1.040% 9.70 74,807 725,601 139.80 1,014,391
1931 115.38 -10.717% -6.430% 9.08 56,287 510,857 136.57 697,674
1932 122.09 5.817% 3.490% 9.39 54,599 512,834 121.38 622,501
1933 136.87 12.102% 7.261% 10.07 51,450 518,347 115.68 599,628
1934 130.38 -4.738% -2.843% 9.79 52,523 514,113 110.78 569,547
1935 137.02 5.092% 3.055% 10.09 57,231 577,312 109.81 633,937
1936 10.61 148.89 8.661% 5.196% 10.61 60,316 640,052 109.12 698,444
1937 150.08 0.798% 0.479% 10.66 65,149 694,638 112.79 783,511
1938 155.10 3.348% 2.009% 10.88 71,004 772,275 113.92 879,775
1939 154.06 -0.672% -0.403% 10.83 72,756 788,147 123.83 975,970
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Malay Labour Total Real Private Clothing Total Private Final
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1947 164.71 10.36 84,433 874,505 628.50 5,496,240
1948 179.65 9.067% 5.440% 10.92 86,472 944,349 385.91 3,644,297
1949 12.39 220.02 22.473% 13.484% 12.39 88,083 1,091,650 389.07 4,247,316
1950 203.15 -7.666% -4.599% 11.82 91,989 1,087,623 415.49 4,518,948
1951 181.26 -10.776% -6.465% 11.06 96,129 1,063,088 525.93 5,591,129
1952 176.19 -2.797% -1.678% 10.87 101,430 1,102,885 514.47 5,673,997
1953 206.53 17.217% 10.330% 12.00 107,262 1,286,783 472.64 6,081,810
1954 208.97 1.183% 0.710% 12.08 112,338 1,357,241 448.54 6,087,770
1955 204.74 -2.023% -1.214% 11.94 117,495 1,402,318 439.15 6,158,281
1956 230.57 12.617% 7.570% 12.84 123,444 1,584,855 438.15 6,944,091
1957 215.81 -6.401% -3.841% 12.35 144,593 1,785,079 444.86 7,941,043
1958 215.37 -0.205% -0.123% 12.33 151,400 1,866,813 443.56 8,280,357
1959 194.19 -9.837% -5.902% 11.60 157,960 1,832,744 436.17 7,993,820
1960 230.48 18.691% 11.214% 12.90 163,410 2,108,603 438.13 9,238,457
313
Indian Labour Standard –Clothing in Current and 1914 Prices, (Straits $)
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Indian Labour Total Real Private Clothing Total Private Final
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1899 116.03 7.46 15,945 118,954 76.31 90,768
1900 113.92 -1.814% -1.814% 7.32 15,827 115,929 78.94 91,518
1901 112.77 -1.008% -1.008% 7.25 16,229 117,677 84.45 99,373
1902 108.67 -3.637% -3.637% 6.99 16,696 116,656 86.79 101,247
1903 107.35 -1.214% -1.214% 6.90 17,173 118,535 92.79 109,985
1904 107.24 -0.106% -0.106% 6.90 17,664 121,796 90.19 109,852
1905 105.29 -1.816% -1.816% 6.77 18,171 123,019 87.98 108,231
1906 106.94 1.562% 1.562% 6.88 18,693 128,527 84.42 108,505
1907 107.05 0.102% 0.102% 6.88 19,230 132,355 82.99 109,845
1908 107.87 0.772% 0.772% 6.94 19,784 137,217 86.31 118,428
1909 110.50 2.437% 2.437% 7.10 20,353 144,604 76.42 110,511
1910 108.44 -1.861% -1.861% 6.97 20,937 145,984 84.38 123,177
1911 98.90 -8.802% -8.802% 6.36 21,586 137,266 84.03 115,338
1912 97.22 -1.696% -1.696% 6.25 22,304 139,424 83.07 115,824
1913 95.24 -2.036% -2.036% 6.12 23,042 141,103 99.53 140,439
1914 100.00 4.995% 4.995% 6.43 23,800 153,029 100.00 153,029
1915 93.86 -6.142% -6.142% 6.03 24,580 148,336 138.32 205,177
1916 88.38 -5.833% -5.833% 5.68 25,382 144,242 161.28 232,633
1917 100.72 13.954% 13.954% 6.48 26,208 169,714 144.02 244,416
1918 104.36 3.614% 3.614% 6.71 27,057 181,548 189.80 344,578
1919 92.87 -11.007% -11.007% 5.97 27,931 166,783 229.60 382,934
1920 89.13 -4.028% -4.028% 5.73 28,829 165,215 291.60 481,767
1921 112.82 26.583% 26.583% 7.25 34,162 247,819 237.20 587,826
1922 123.66 9.603% 9.603% 7.95 35,714 283,956 182.80 519,072
1923 126.94 2.658% 2.658% 8.16 37,023 302,191 163.60 494,385
1924 127.47 0.412% 0.412% 8.20 38,357 314,366 157.10 493,869
1925 124.53 -2.308% -2.308% 8.01 40,018 320,414 158.10 506,574
1926 120.44 -3.285% -3.285% 7.74 41,613 322,238 157.50 507,524
1927 127.57 5.925% 5.925% 8.20 43,253 354,782 155.40 551,331
1928 131.90 3.394% 3.394% 8.48 44,915 380,919 151.90 578,617
1929 131.51 -0.296% -0.296% 8.46 46,602 394,053 141.00 555,615
1930 129.23 -1.734% -1.734% 8.31 46,035 382,512 139.80 534,751
1931 115.38 -10.717% -10.717% 7.42 50,658 375,815 136.57 513,249
1932 122.09 5.817% 5.817% 7.85 49,139 385,752 121.38 468,243
1933 8.80 136.87 12.102% 12.102% 8.80 46,305 407,495 115.68 471,394
1934 130.38 -4.738% -4.738% 8.38 47,271 396,283 110.78 439,012
1935 137.02 5.092% 5.092% 8.81 51,508 453,792 109.81 498,301
1936 148.89 8.661% 8.661% 9.57 54,285 519,676 109.12 567,086
1937 150.08 0.798% 0.798% 9.65 58,634 565,787 112.79 638,174
1938 155.10 3.348% 3.348% 9.97 63,903 637,280 113.92 725,989
1939 154.06 -0.672% -0.672% 9.91 65,481 648,622 123.83 803,195
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Indian Labour Total Real Private Clothing Total Private Final
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1947 164.71 6.75 93,814 633,385 628.50 3,980,807
1948 179.65 9.067% 5.440% 7.12 96,080 683,972 385.91 2,639,485
1949 8.08 220.02 22.473% 13.484% 8.08 97,870 790,658 389.07 3,076,239
1950 203.15 -7.666% -4.599% 7.71 102,210 787,742 415.49 3,272,975
1951 181.26 -10.776% -6.465% 7.21 106,810 769,971 525.93 4,049,534
1952 176.19 -2.797% -1.678% 7.09 112,700 798,796 514.47 4,109,553
1953 206.53 17.217% 10.330% 7.82 119,180 931,989 472.64 4,404,923
1954 208.97 1.183% 0.710% 7.88 124,820 983,020 448.54 4,409,239
1955 204.74 -2.023% -1.214% 7.78 130,550 1,015,669 439.15 4,460,309
1956 230.57 12.617% 7.570% 8.37 137,160 1,147,876 438.15 5,029,454
1957 215.81 -6.401% -3.841% 8.05 144,593 1,163,604 444.86 5,176,372
1958 215.37 -0.205% -0.123% 8.04 151,400 1,216,883 443.56 5,397,554
1959 194.19 -9.837% -5.902% 7.56 157,960 1,194,675 436.17 5,210,775
1960 230.48 18.691% 11.214% 8.41 163,410 1,374,494 438.13 6,022,092
314
European Standard –Rent in Current and 1914 Prices, (Straits $)
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita European Total Real Private Rent Price Total Private Final
Capita Private Indices of Real Wages Real Private Final Population Final Indices Consumption
Consumption agriculture Sectors (%) Expenditure based (Numbers) Expenditure on Rent in the
Expenditure in (1914=100 ) on Rel Wages and Rent in the Domestic Market
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1899 116.03 102.34 13,667 1,398,722 75.02 1,049,375
1900 113.92 -1.814% -1.451% 100.85 13,566 1,368,195 76.46 1,046,185
1901 112.77 -1.008% -0.806% 100.04 13,911 1,391,648 77.93 1,084,573
1902 108.67 -3.637% -2.910% 97.13 14,310 1,389,990 79.43 1,104,127
1903 107.35 -1.214% -0.971% 96.19 14,720 1,415,847 80.96 1,146,330
1904 107.24 -0.106% -0.085% 96.11 15,141 1,455,109 82.53 1,200,835
1905 105.29 -1.816% -1.452% 94.71 15,575 1,475,151 84.12 1,240,873
1906 106.94 1.562% 1.250% 95.89 16,023 1,536,461 85.74 1,317,418
1907 107.05 0.102% 0.081% 95.97 16,483 1,581,902 87.40 1,382,617
1908 107.87 0.772% 0.618% 96.56 16,958 1,637,498 89.09 1,458,920
1909 110.50 2.437% 1.950% 98.45 17,445 1,717,441 86.37 1,483,334
1910 108.44 -1.861% -1.489% 96.98 17,946 1,740,410 86.05 1,497,671
1911 98.90 -8.802% -7.042% 90.15 18,503 1,668,057 84.75 1,413,662
1912 97.22 -1.696% -1.357% 88.93 19,118 1,700,133 85.45 1,452,722
1913 95.24 -2.036% -1.629% 87.48 19,750 1,727,760 90.86 1,569,881
1914 100.00 4.995% 3.996% 90.98 20,400 1,855,955 100.00 1,855,955
1915 93.86 -6.142% -4.914% 86.51 21,069 1,822,581 100.28 1,827,636
1916 88.38 -5.833% -4.666% 82.47 21,756 1,794,230 102.44 1,838,075
1917 100.72 13.954% 11.163% 91.68 22,464 2,059,383 102.29 2,106,508
1918 104.36 3.614% 2.891% 94.33 23,192 2,187,614 114.34 2,501,224
1919 92.87 -11.007% -8.806% 86.02 23,941 2,059,410 124.90 2,572,247
1920 89.13 -4.028% -3.222% 83.25 24,711 2,057,170 160.76 3,307,149
1921 112.82 26.583% 21.267% 100.95 27,757 2,802,144 168.16 4,712,102
1922 123.66 9.603% 7.682% 108.71 29,018 3,154,495 186.66 5,888,314
1923 126.94 2.658% 2.127% 111.02 30,082 3,339,684 209.64 7,001,195
1924 127.47 0.412% 0.330% 111.39 31,165 3,471,381 217.54 7,551,596
1925 124.53 -2.308% -1.846% 109.33 32,515 3,554,879 225.57 8,018,871
1926 120.44 -3.285% -2.628% 106.46 33,811 3,599,400 236.04 8,496,106
1927 127.57 5.925% 4.740% 111.50 35,143 3,918,585 253.41 9,930,205
1928 131.90 3.394% 2.715% 114.53 36,493 4,179,648 275.75 11,525,328
1929 131.51 -0.296% -0.237% 114.26 37,864 4,326,329 277.40 12,001,198
1930 112.68 129.23 -1.734% -1.387% 112.68 37,403 4,214,435 255.60 10,772,146
1931 115.38 -10.717% -8.574% 103.02 36,586 3,768,943 221.46 8,346,614
1932 122.09 5.817% 4.654% 107.81 35,489 3,826,061 181.20 6,932,753
1933 136.87 12.102% 9.681% 118.25 33,443 3,954,455 159.06 6,289,972
1934 130.38 -4.738% -3.790% 113.76 34,140 3,883,900 159.06 6,177,747
1935 137.02 5.092% 4.073% 118.40 37,200 4,404,442 159.06 7,005,723
1936 148.89 8.661% 6.929% 126.60 39,206 4,963,500 159.06 7,894,962
1937 150.08 0.798% 0.638% 127.41 42,347 5,395,361 161.78 8,728,801
1938 155.10 3.348% 2.678% 130.82 46,152 6,037,748 169.58 10,239,108
1939 154.06 -0.672% -0.538% 130.12 47,292 6,153,523 182.26 11,215,586
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita European Total Real Private Rent Price Total Private Final
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1947 164.71 136.11 56,289 7,661,571 549.01 42,063,009
1948 145.99 179.65 9.067% 7.254% 145.99 57,648 8,415,776 460.76 38,776,736
1949 220.02 22.473% 17.978% 172.23 58,722 10,113,781 510.58 51,639,140
1950 203.15 -7.666% -6.132% 161.67 61,326 9,914,543 527.05 52,254,829
1951 181.26 -10.776% -8.621% 147.73 64,086 9,467,595 642.35 60,814,625
1952 176.19 -2.797% -2.238% 144.43 67,620 9,766,131 680.78 66,485,468
1953 206.53 17.217% 13.774% 164.32 71,508 11,750,190 719.21 84,508,170
1954 208.97 1.183% 0.946% 165.87 74,892 12,422,689 735.68 91,390,893
1955 204.74 -2.023% -1.618% 163.19 78,330 12,782,712 724.70 92,635,925
1956 230.57 12.617% 10.094% 179.66 82,296 14,785,499 768.62 113,644,003
1957 215.81 -6.401% -5.121% 170.46 86,756 14,788,541 790.58 116,915,026
1958 215.37 -0.205% -0.164% 170.18 90,840 15,459,313 807.05 124,764,207
1959 194.19 -9.837% -7.870% 156.79 94,776 14,859,864 818.03 121,558,016
1960 230.48 18.691% 14.953% 180.23 98,046 17,671,171 818.03 144,555,328
315
[1947-1960]–Rent in Current and 1914 Prices, (Straits $)
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Eurasian Total Real Private Rent Price Total Private Final
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1899 116.03 25.58 2,278 58,280 75.02 43,724
1900 113.92 -1.814% -1.451% 25.21 2,261 57,008 76.46 43,591
1901 112.77 -1.008% -0.806% 25.01 2,318 57,985 77.93 45,191
1902 108.67 -3.637% -2.910% 24.28 2,385 57,916 79.43 46,005
1903 107.35 -1.214% -0.971% 24.05 2,453 58,994 80.96 47,764
1904 107.24 -0.106% -0.085% 24.03 2,523 60,630 82.53 50,035
1905 105.29 -1.816% -1.452% 23.68 2,596 61,465 84.12 51,703
1906 106.94 1.562% 1.250% 23.97 2,670 64,019 85.74 54,892
1907 107.05 0.102% 0.081% 23.99 2,747 65,913 87.40 57,609
1908 107.87 0.772% 0.618% 24.14 2,826 68,229 89.09 60,788
1909 110.50 2.437% 1.950% 24.61 2,908 71,560 86.37 61,806
1910 108.44 -1.861% -1.489% 24.25 2,991 72,517 86.05 62,403
1911 98.90 -8.802% -7.042% 22.54 3,084 69,502 84.75 58,903
1912 97.22 -1.696% -1.357% 22.23 3,186 70,839 85.45 60,530
1913 95.24 -2.036% -1.629% 21.87 3,292 71,990 90.86 65,412
1914 100.00 4.995% 3.996% 22.74 3,400 77,331 100.00 77,331
1915 93.86 -6.142% -4.914% 21.63 3,511 75,941 100.28 76,151
1916 88.38 -5.833% -4.666% 20.62 3,626 74,760 102.44 76,586
1917 100.72 13.954% 11.163% 22.92 3,744 85,808 102.29 87,771
1918 104.36 3.614% 2.891% 23.58 3,865 91,151 114.34 104,218
1919 92.87 -11.007% -8.806% 21.51 3,990 85,809 124.90 107,177
1920 89.13 -4.028% -3.222% 20.81 4,118 85,715 160.76 137,798
1921 112.82 26.583% 21.267% 25.24 4,270 107,775 168.16 181,235
1922 123.66 9.603% 7.682% 27.18 4,464 121,327 186.66 226,474
1923 126.94 2.658% 2.127% 27.76 4,628 128,449 209.64 269,277
1924 127.47 0.412% 0.330% 27.85 4,795 133,515 217.54 290,446
1925 124.53 -2.308% -1.846% 27.33 5,002 136,726 225.57 308,418
1926 120.44 -3.285% -2.628% 26.61 5,202 138,438 236.04 326,773
1927 127.57 5.925% 4.740% 27.88 5,407 150,715 253.41 381,931
1928 131.90 3.394% 2.715% 28.63 5,614 160,756 275.75 443,282
1929 131.51 -0.296% -0.237% 28.57 5,825 166,397 277.40 461,585
1930 28.17 129.23 -1.734% -1.387% 28.17 5,754 162,094 255.60 414,313
1931 115.38 -10.717% -8.574% 25.75 2,814 72,480 221.46 160,512
1932 122.09 5.817% 4.654% 26.95 2,730 73,578 181.20 133,322
1933 136.87 12.102% 9.681% 29.56 2,573 76,047 159.06 120,961
1934 130.38 -4.738% -3.790% 28.44 2,626 74,690 159.06 118,803
1935 137.02 5.092% 4.073% 29.60 2,862 84,701 159.06 134,725
1936 148.89 8.661% 6.929% 31.65 3,016 95,452 159.06 151,826
1937 150.08 0.798% 0.638% 31.85 3,257 103,757 161.78 167,862
1938 155.10 3.348% 2.678% 32.71 3,550 116,111 169.58 196,906
1939 154.06 -0.672% -0.538% 32.53 3,638 118,337 182.26 215,684
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Chinese, Total Real Private Rent Price Total Private Final
Capita Private Indices of Real Wages Real Private Final Indian and Final Indices Consumption
Consumption agriculture Sectors (%) Expenditure based Clerical Expenditure on Rent in the
Expenditure in (1914=100 ) on Rel Wages and Population Rent in the Domestic Market
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1947 164.71 12.24 14,072 172,288 549.01 945,883
1948 13.13 179.65 9.067% 7.254% 13.13 14,412 189,248 460.76 871,984
1949 220.02 22.473% 17.978% 15.49 14,681 227,432 510.58 1,161,224
1950 203.15 -7.666% -6.132% 14.54 15,332 222,951 527.05 1,175,069
1951 181.26 -10.776% -8.621% 13.29 16,022 212,901 642.35 1,367,556
1952 176.19 -2.797% -2.238% 12.99 16,905 219,614 680.78 1,495,078
1953 206.53 17.217% 13.774% 14.78 17,877 264,230 719.21 1,900,360
1954 208.97 1.183% 0.946% 14.92 18,723 279,353 735.68 2,055,133
1955 204.74 -2.023% -1.618% 14.68 19,583 287,449 724.70 2,083,131
1956 230.57 12.617% 10.094% 16.16 20,574 332,486 768.62 2,555,546
1957 215.81 -6.401% -5.121% 15.33 14,459 221,703 790.58 1,752,735
1958 215.37 -0.205% -0.164% 15.31 15,140 231,759 807.05 1,870,406
1959 194.19 -9.837% -7.870% 14.10 15,796 222,772 818.03 1,822,340
1960 230.48 18.691% 14.953% 16.21 16,341 264,918 818.03 2,167,105
316
Asiatic Clerical Standard [1899-1939] Malay Clerical Standard [1947-1960]–Rent
in Current and 1914 Prices, (Straits $)
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Asiatic Total Real Private Rent Price Total Private Final
Capita Private Indices of Real Wages Real Private Final Clerical Final Indices Consumption
Consumption agriculture Sectors (%) Expenditure based Standard Expenditure on Rent in the
Expenditure in (1914=100 ) on Rel Wages and (Numbers) Rent in the Domestic Market
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1899 116.03 25.58 19,362 495,381 75.02 371,654
1900 113.92 -1.814% -1.451% 25.21 19,219 484,569 76.46 370,524
1901 112.77 -1.008% -0.806% 25.01 19,707 492,875 77.93 384,120
1902 108.67 -3.637% -2.910% 24.28 20,273 492,288 79.43 391,045
1903 107.35 -1.214% -0.971% 24.05 20,853 501,446 80.96 405,992
1904 107.24 -0.106% -0.085% 24.03 21,449 515,351 82.53 425,296
1905 105.29 -1.816% -1.452% 23.68 22,065 522,449 84.12 439,476
1906 106.94 1.562% 1.250% 23.97 22,699 544,163 85.74 466,586
1907 107.05 0.102% 0.081% 23.99 23,351 560,257 87.40 489,677
1908 107.87 0.772% 0.618% 24.14 24,023 579,947 89.09 516,701
1909 110.50 2.437% 1.950% 24.61 24,714 608,260 86.37 525,347
1910 108.44 -1.861% -1.489% 24.25 25,423 616,395 86.05 530,425
1911 98.90 -8.802% -7.042% 22.54 27,137 611,621 84.75 518,343
1912 97.22 -1.696% -1.357% 22.23 28,039 623,382 85.45 532,665
1913 95.24 -2.036% -1.629% 21.87 28,967 633,512 90.86 575,623
1914 100.00 4.995% 3.996% 22.74 29,920 680,517 100.00 680,517
1915 93.86 -6.142% -4.914% 21.63 30,901 668,280 100.28 670,133
1916 88.38 -5.833% -4.666% 20.62 31,909 657,884 102.44 673,961
1917 100.72 13.954% 11.163% 22.92 32,947 755,107 102.29 772,386
1918 104.36 3.614% 2.891% 23.58 34,015 802,125 114.34 917,116
1919 92.87 -11.007% -8.806% 21.51 35,113 755,117 124.90 943,157
1920 89.13 -4.028% -3.222% 20.81 36,243 754,296 160.76 1,212,621
1921 112.82 26.583% 21.267% 25.24 46,973 1,185,522 168.16 1,993,582
1922 123.66 9.603% 7.682% 27.18 49,107 1,334,594 186.66 2,491,210
1923 126.94 2.658% 2.127% 27.76 50,907 1,412,943 209.64 2,962,044
1924 127.47 0.412% 0.330% 27.85 52,741 1,468,661 217.54 3,194,906
1925 124.53 -2.308% -1.846% 27.33 55,025 1,503,987 225.57 3,392,599
1926 120.44 -3.285% -2.628% 26.61 57,218 1,522,823 236.04 3,594,507
1927 127.57 5.925% 4.740% 27.88 59,473 1,657,863 253.41 4,201,241
1928 131.90 3.394% 2.715% 28.63 61,758 1,768,312 275.75 4,876,100
1929 131.51 -0.296% -0.237% 28.57 64,077 1,830,370 277.40 5,077,430
1930 28.17 129.23 -1.734% -1.387% 28.17 63,298 1,783,030 255.60 4,557,447
1931 115.38 -10.717% -8.574% 25.75 61,915 1,594,553 221.46 3,531,260
1932 122.09 5.817% 4.654% 26.95 60,059 1,618,718 181.20 2,933,088
1933 136.87 12.102% 9.681% 29.56 56,595 1,673,039 159.06 2,661,142
1934 130.38 -4.738% -3.790% 28.44 57,775 1,643,189 159.06 2,613,662
1935 137.02 5.092% 4.073% 29.60 62,954 1,863,418 159.06 2,963,960
1936 148.89 8.661% 6.929% 31.65 66,348 2,099,942 159.06 3,340,176
1937 150.08 0.798% 0.638% 31.85 71,663 2,282,653 161.78 3,692,954
1938 155.10 3.348% 2.678% 32.71 78,104 2,554,432 169.58 4,331,930
1939 154.06 -0.672% -0.538% 32.53 80,032 2,603,414 182.26 4,745,056
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Malay Total Real Private Rent Price Total Private Final
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1947 164.71 12.24 126,649 1,550,592 549.01 8,512,947
1948 13.13 179.65 9.067% 7.254% 13.13 129,708 1,703,232 460.76 7,847,853
1949 220.02 22.473% 17.978% 15.49 132,125 2,046,884 510.58 10,451,018
1950 203.15 -7.666% -6.132% 14.54 137,984 2,006,561 527.05 10,575,625
1951 181.26 -10.776% -8.621% 13.29 144,194 1,916,105 642.35 12,308,004
1952 176.19 -2.797% -2.238% 12.99 152,145 1,976,524 680.78 13,455,701
1953 206.53 17.217% 13.774% 14.78 160,893 2,378,069 719.21 17,103,236
1954 208.97 1.183% 0.946% 14.92 168,507 2,514,173 735.68 18,496,200
1955 204.74 -2.023% -1.618% 14.68 176,243 2,587,037 724.70 18,748,177
1956 230.57 12.617% 10.094% 16.16 185,166 2,992,372 768.62 22,999,910
1957 215.81 -6.401% -5.121% 15.33 267,497 4,101,502 790.58 32,425,590
1958 215.37 -0.205% -0.164% 15.31 280,090 4,287,536 807.05 34,602,508
1959 194.19 -9.837% -7.870% 14.10 292,226 4,121,283 818.03 33,713,292
1960 230.48 18.691% 14.953% 16.21 302,309 4,900,980 818.03 40,091,441
317
Chinese Labour Standard –Rent in Current and 1914 Prices, (Straits $)
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Chinese Total Real Private Rent Price Total Private Final
Capita Private Indices of Real Wages Real Private Final Labour Final Indices Consumption
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1899 116.03 3.57 135,535 484,243 75.02 363,298
1900 113.92 -1.814% -1.451% 3.52 134,530 473,674 76.46 362,193
1901 112.77 -1.008% -0.806% 3.49 137,948 481,794 77.93 375,483
1902 108.67 -3.637% -2.910% 3.39 141,912 481,220 79.43 382,253
1903 107.35 -1.214% -0.971% 3.36 145,970 490,172 80.96 396,864
1904 107.24 -0.106% -0.085% 3.36 150,145 503,764 82.53 415,734
1905 105.29 -1.816% -1.452% 3.31 154,457 510,703 84.12 429,595
1906 106.94 1.562% 1.250% 3.35 158,890 531,929 85.74 456,095
1907 107.05 0.102% 0.081% 3.35 163,456 547,661 87.40 478,667
1908 107.87 0.772% 0.618% 3.37 168,162 566,908 89.09 505,084
1909 110.50 2.437% 1.950% 3.44 172,999 594,585 86.37 513,536
1910 108.44 -1.861% -1.489% 3.39 177,962 602,537 86.05 518,500
1911 98.90 -8.802% -7.042% 3.15 185,643 584,282 84.75 495,173
1912 97.22 -1.696% -1.357% 3.10 191,815 595,517 85.45 508,855
1913 95.24 -2.036% -1.629% 3.05 198,160 605,194 90.86 549,893
1914 100.00 4.995% 3.996% 3.18 204,683 650,098 100.00 650,098
1915 93.86 -6.142% -4.914% 3.02 211,389 638,408 100.28 640,178
1916 88.38 -5.833% -4.666% 2.88 218,286 628,477 102.44 643,835
1917 100.72 13.954% 11.163% 3.20 225,385 721,354 102.29 737,861
1918 104.36 3.614% 2.891% 3.29 232,691 766,270 114.34 876,121
1919 92.87 -11.007% -8.806% 3.00 240,206 721,364 124.90 900,999
1920 89.13 -4.028% -3.222% 2.91 247,933 720,579 160.76 1,158,418
1921 112.82 26.583% 21.267% 3.52 258,351 910,539 168.16 1,531,168
1922 123.66 9.603% 7.682% 3.80 270,088 1,025,033 186.66 1,913,371
1923 126.94 2.658% 2.127% 3.88 279,989 1,085,209 209.64 2,274,994
1924 127.47 0.412% 0.330% 3.89 290,074 1,128,004 217.54 2,453,844
1925 124.53 -2.308% -1.846% 3.82 302,638 1,155,136 225.57 2,605,682
1926 120.44 -3.285% -2.628% 3.72 314,698 1,169,603 236.04 2,760,757
1927 127.57 5.925% 4.740% 3.89 327,100 1,273,320 253.41 3,226,758
1928 131.90 3.394% 2.715% 4.00 339,668 1,358,150 275.75 3,745,083
1929 131.51 -0.296% -0.237% 3.99 352,424 1,405,813 277.40 3,899,714
1930 129.23 -1.734% -1.387% 3.93 348,138 1,369,454 255.60 3,500,342
1931 115.38 -10.717% -8.574% 3.60 354,606 1,275,302 221.46 2,824,254
1932 122.09 5.817% 4.654% 3.76 343,972 1,294,629 181.20 2,345,844
1933 136.87 12.102% 9.681% 4.13 324,135 1,338,074 159.06 2,128,345
1934 130.38 -4.738% -3.790% 3.97 330,894 1,314,200 159.06 2,090,372
1935 137.02 5.092% 4.073% 4.13 360,555 1,490,336 159.06 2,370,535
1936 4.42 148.89 8.661% 6.929% 4.42 379,993 1,679,505 159.06 2,671,428
1937 150.08 0.798% 0.638% 4.45 410,436 1,825,635 161.78 2,953,575
1938 155.10 3.348% 2.678% 4.57 447,323 2,043,000 169.58 3,464,619
1939 154.06 -0.672% -0.538% 4.54 458,365 2,082,175 182.26 3,795,031
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Chinese Total Real Private Rent Price Total Private Final
Capita Private Indices of Real Wages Real Private Final Labour Final Indices Consumption
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1947 164.71 5.10 562,886 2,872,240 549.01 15,768,966
1948 179.65 9.067% 7.254% 5.47 576,480 3,154,983 460.76 14,536,978
1949 6.46 220.02 22.473% 17.978% 6.46 587,220 3,791,547 510.58 19,358,954
1950 203.15 -7.666% -6.132% 6.06 613,260 3,716,855 527.05 19,589,769
1951 181.26 -10.776% -8.621% 5.54 640,860 3,549,299 642.35 22,798,744
1952 176.19 -2.797% -2.238% 5.41 676,200 3,661,217 680.78 24,924,681
1953 206.53 17.217% 13.774% 6.16 715,080 4,405,019 719.21 31,681,197
1954 208.97 1.183% 0.946% 6.22 748,920 4,657,132 735.68 34,261,455
1955 204.74 -2.023% -1.618% 6.12 783,300 4,792,100 724.70 34,728,204
1956 230.57 12.617% 10.094% 6.74 822,960 5,542,923 768.62 42,603,905
1957 215.81 -6.401% -5.121% 6.39 788,031 5,035,858 790.58 39,812,410
1958 215.37 -0.205% -0.164% 6.38 825,130 5,264,272 807.05 42,485,247
1959 194.19 -9.837% -7.870% 5.88 860,882 5,060,145 818.03 41,393,461
1960 230.48 18.691% 14.953% 6.76 890,585 6,017,464 818.03 49,224,605
318
Malay Labour Standard –Rent in Current and 1914 Prices, (Straits $)
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Malay Labour Total Real Private Rent Price Total Private Final
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1899 116.03 2.83 41,002 116,071 75.02 87,081
1900 113.92 -1.814% -1.451% 2.79 40,698 113,538 76.46 86,817
1901 112.77 -1.008% -0.806% 2.77 41,732 115,484 77.93 90,002
1902 108.67 -3.637% -2.910% 2.69 42,931 115,347 79.43 91,625
1903 107.35 -1.214% -0.971% 2.66 44,159 117,493 80.96 95,127
1904 107.24 -0.106% -0.085% 2.66 45,422 120,751 82.53 99,650
1905 105.29 -1.816% -1.452% 2.62 46,726 122,414 84.12 102,973
1906 106.94 1.562% 1.250% 2.65 48,068 127,502 85.74 109,325
1907 107.05 0.102% 0.081% 2.65 49,449 131,273 87.40 114,735
1908 107.87 0.772% 0.618% 2.67 50,873 135,886 89.09 121,067
1909 110.50 2.437% 1.950% 2.72 52,336 142,520 86.37 123,093
1910 108.44 -1.861% -1.489% 2.68 53,837 144,426 86.05 124,283
1911 98.90 -8.802% -7.042% 2.49 52,424 130,732 84.75 110,794
1912 97.22 -1.696% -1.357% 2.46 54,167 133,246 85.45 113,855
1913 95.24 -2.036% -1.629% 2.42 55,959 135,411 90.86 123,037
1914 100.00 4.995% 3.996% 2.52 57,801 145,458 100.00 145,458
1915 93.86 -6.142% -4.914% 2.39 59,695 142,842 100.28 143,239
1916 88.38 -5.833% -4.666% 2.28 61,642 140,620 102.44 144,057
1917 100.72 13.954% 11.163% 2.54 63,647 161,402 102.29 165,095
1918 104.36 3.614% 2.891% 2.61 65,710 171,451 114.34 196,030
1919 92.87 -11.007% -8.806% 2.38 67,832 161,404 124.90 201,597
1920 89.13 -4.028% -3.222% 2.30 70,014 161,228 160.76 259,194
1921 112.82 26.583% 21.267% 2.79 55,513 155,022 168.16 260,686
1922 123.66 9.603% 7.682% 3.01 58,035 174,515 186.66 325,757
1923 126.94 2.658% 2.127% 3.07 60,163 184,760 209.64 387,324
1924 127.47 0.412% 0.330% 3.08 62,330 192,046 217.54 417,774
1925 124.53 -2.308% -1.846% 3.02 65,030 196,665 225.57 443,625
1926 120.44 -3.285% -2.628% 2.94 67,621 199,128 236.04 470,027
1927 127.57 5.925% 4.740% 3.08 70,286 216,786 253.41 549,365
1928 131.90 3.394% 2.715% 3.17 72,986 231,229 275.75 637,611
1929 131.51 -0.296% -0.237% 3.16 75,727 239,344 277.40 663,938
1930 129.23 -1.734% -1.387% 3.12 74,807 233,154 255.60 595,943
1931 115.38 -10.717% -8.574% 2.85 56,287 160,391 221.46 355,197
1932 122.09 5.817% 4.654% 2.98 54,599 162,821 181.20 295,029
1933 136.87 12.102% 9.681% 3.27 51,450 168,285 159.06 267,675
1934 130.38 -4.738% -3.790% 3.15 52,523 165,283 159.06 262,899
1935 137.02 5.092% 4.073% 3.28 57,231 187,435 159.06 298,135
1936 3.50 148.89 8.661% 6.929% 3.50 60,316 211,226 159.06 335,977
1937 150.08 0.798% 0.638% 3.52 65,149 229,604 161.78 371,462
1938 155.10 3.348% 2.678% 3.62 71,004 256,942 169.58 435,734
1939 154.06 -0.672% -0.538% 3.60 72,756 261,869 182.26 477,289
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Malay Labour Total Real Private Rent Price Total Private Final
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1947 164.71 3.55 84,433 299,869 549.01 1,646,320
1948 179.65 9.067% 7.254% 3.81 86,472 329,388 460.76 1,517,697
1949 4.49 220.02 22.473% 17.978% 4.49 88,083 395,847 510.58 2,021,124
1950 203.15 -7.666% -6.132% 4.22 91,989 388,049 527.05 2,045,221
1951 181.26 -10.776% -8.621% 3.85 96,129 370,556 642.35 2,380,247
1952 176.19 -2.797% -2.238% 3.77 101,430 382,240 680.78 2,602,200
1953 206.53 17.217% 13.774% 4.29 107,262 459,895 719.21 3,307,597
1954 208.97 1.183% 0.946% 4.33 112,338 486,216 735.68 3,576,983
1955 204.74 -2.023% -1.618% 4.26 117,495 500,307 724.70 3,625,712
1956 230.57 12.617% 10.094% 4.69 123,444 578,695 768.62 4,447,955
1957 215.81 -6.401% -5.121% 4.45 144,593 643,127 790.58 5,084,424
1958 215.37 -0.205% -0.164% 4.44 151,400 672,298 807.05 5,425,770
1959 194.19 -9.837% -7.870% 4.09 157,960 646,229 818.03 5,286,339
1960 230.48 18.691% 14.953% 4.70 163,410 768,487 818.03 6,286,450
319
Indian Labour Standard –Rent in Current and 1914 Prices, (Straits $)
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Indian Labour Total Real Private Rent Price Total Private Final
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1899 116.03 5.17 15,945 82,366 75.02 61,794
1900 113.92 -1.814% -1.451% 5.09 15,827 80,568 76.46 61,606
1901 112.77 -1.008% -0.806% 5.05 16,229 81,949 77.93 63,867
1902 108.67 -3.637% -2.910% 4.90 16,696 81,852 79.43 65,018
1903 107.35 -1.214% -0.971% 4.85 17,173 83,374 80.96 67,503
1904 107.24 -0.106% -0.085% 4.85 17,664 85,686 82.53 70,713
1905 105.29 -1.816% -1.452% 4.78 18,171 86,867 84.12 73,071
1906 106.94 1.562% 1.250% 4.84 18,693 90,477 85.74 77,578
1907 107.05 0.102% 0.081% 4.84 19,230 93,153 87.40 81,418
1908 107.87 0.772% 0.618% 4.87 19,784 96,427 89.09 85,911
1909 110.50 2.437% 1.950% 4.97 20,353 101,134 86.37 87,348
1910 108.44 -1.861% -1.489% 4.90 20,937 102,487 86.05 88,193
1911 98.90 -8.802% -7.042% 4.55 21,586 98,226 84.75 83,246
1912 97.22 -1.696% -1.357% 4.49 22,304 100,115 85.45 85,546
1913 95.24 -2.036% -1.629% 4.42 23,042 101,742 90.86 92,445
1914 100.00 4.995% 3.996% 4.59 23,800 109,291 100.00 109,291
1915 93.86 -6.142% -4.914% 4.37 24,580 107,325 100.28 107,623
1916 88.38 -5.833% -4.666% 4.16 25,382 105,656 102.44 108,238
1917 100.72 13.954% 11.163% 4.63 26,208 121,270 102.29 124,045
1918 104.36 3.614% 2.891% 4.76 27,057 128,821 114.34 147,288
1919 92.87 -11.007% -8.806% 4.34 27,931 121,271 124.90 151,471
1920 89.13 -4.028% -3.222% 4.20 28,829 121,140 160.76 194,746
1921 112.82 26.583% 21.267% 5.10 34,162 174,075 168.16 292,725
1922 123.66 9.603% 7.682% 5.49 35,714 195,964 186.66 365,794
1923 126.94 2.658% 2.127% 5.60 37,023 207,468 209.64 434,928
1924 127.47 0.412% 0.330% 5.62 38,357 215,649 217.54 469,121
1925 124.53 -2.308% -1.846% 5.52 40,018 220,836 225.57 498,149
1926 120.44 -3.285% -2.628% 5.37 41,613 223,602 236.04 527,795
1927 127.57 5.925% 4.740% 5.63 43,253 243,430 253.41 616,885
1928 131.90 3.394% 2.715% 5.78 44,915 259,648 275.75 715,977
1929 131.51 -0.296% -0.237% 5.77 46,602 268,760 277.40 745,539
1930 129.23 -1.734% -1.387% 5.69 46,035 261,809 255.60 669,188
1931 115.38 -10.717% -8.574% 5.20 50,658 263,401 221.46 583,322
1932 122.09 5.817% 4.654% 5.44 49,139 267,393 181.20 484,511
1933 5.97 136.87 12.102% 9.681% 5.97 46,305 276,366 159.06 439,589
1934 130.38 -4.738% -3.790% 5.74 47,271 271,435 159.06 431,746
1935 137.02 5.092% 4.073% 5.98 51,508 307,815 159.06 489,611
1936 148.89 8.661% 6.929% 6.39 54,285 346,886 159.06 551,758
1937 150.08 0.798% 0.638% 6.43 58,634 377,067 161.78 610,032
1938 155.10 3.348% 2.678% 6.60 63,903 421,962 169.58 715,584
1939 154.06 -0.672% -0.538% 6.57 65,481 430,053 182.26 783,827
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Indian Labour Total Real Private Rent Price Total Private Final
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1947 164.71 4.48 93,814 420,183 549.01 2,306,859
1948 179.65 9.067% 7.254% 4.80 96,080 461,546 460.76 2,126,630
1949 5.67 220.02 22.473% 17.978% 5.67 97,870 554,669 510.58 2,832,042
1950 203.15 -7.666% -6.132% 5.32 102,210 543,743 527.05 2,865,808
1951 181.26 -10.776% -8.621% 4.86 106,810 519,231 642.35 3,335,252
1952 176.19 -2.797% -2.238% 4.75 112,700 535,603 680.78 3,646,258
1953 206.53 17.217% 13.774% 5.41 119,180 644,415 719.21 4,634,676
1954 208.97 1.183% 0.946% 5.46 124,820 681,297 735.68 5,012,145
1955 204.74 -2.023% -1.618% 5.37 130,550 701,041 724.70 5,080,426
1956 230.57 12.617% 10.094% 5.91 137,160 810,880 768.62 6,232,571
1957 215.81 -6.401% -5.121% 5.61 144,593 811,047 790.58 6,411,963
1958 215.37 -0.205% -0.164% 5.60 151,400 847,834 807.05 6,842,435
1959 194.19 -9.837% -7.870% 5.16 157,960 814,959 818.03 6,666,598
1960 230.48 18.691% 14.953% 5.93 163,410 969,139 818.03 7,927,838
320
European Standard –Servant in Current and 1914 Prices, (Straits $)
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita European Total Real Private Servant Price Total Private Final
Consumption agriculture Sectors (%) Expenditure based (Numbers) Expenditure on Servant in the
Expenditure in (1914=100 ) on Rel Wages and Servant in the Domestic Market
(Straits $)
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1899 116.03 384.73 13,667 5,258,236 69.64 3,661,986
1900 113.92 -1.814% -1.814% 377.75 13,566 5,124,542 75.00 3,843,406
1901 112.77 -1.008% -1.008% 373.94 13,911 5,201,793 73.21 3,808,456
1902 108.67 -3.637% -3.637% 360.34 14,310 5,156,672 82.14 4,235,837
1903 107.35 -1.214% -1.214% 355.97 14,720 5,239,718 82.14 4,304,054
1904 107.24 -0.106% -0.106% 355.59 15,141 5,383,876 78.57 4,230,188
1905 105.29 -1.816% -1.816% 349.13 15,575 5,437,920 78.57 4,272,652
1906 106.94 1.562% 1.562% 354.59 16,023 5,681,407 82.14 4,666,870
1907 107.05 0.102% 0.102% 354.95 16,483 5,850,629 91.07 5,328,251
1908 107.87 0.772% 0.772% 357.69 16,958 6,065,542 91.07 5,523,976
1909 110.50 2.437% 2.437% 366.41 17,445 6,392,082 91.07 5,821,360
1910 108.44 -1.861% -1.861% 359.59 17,946 6,453,095 91.07 5,876,926
1911 98.90 -8.802% -8.802% 327.94 18,503 6,067,692 91.07 5,525,934
1912 97.22 -1.696% -1.696% 322.38 19,118 6,163,108 91.07 5,612,830
1913 95.24 -2.036% -2.036% 315.81 19,750 6,237,336 91.07 5,680,431
1914 100.00 4.995% 4.995% 331.59 20,400 6,764,493 100.00 6,764,493
1915 93.86 -6.142% -6.142% 311.22 21,069 6,557,037 103.82 6,807,662
1916 88.38 -5.833% -5.833% 293.07 21,756 6,376,054 103.82 6,619,761
1917 100.72 13.954% 13.954% 333.96 22,464 7,502,043 113.09 8,484,215
1918 104.36 3.614% 3.614% 346.03 23,192 8,025,152 116.80 9,373,377
1919 92.87 -11.007% -11.007% 307.95 23,941 7,372,472 116.80 8,611,047
1920 89.13 -4.028% -4.028% 295.54 24,711 7,303,157 155.50 11,356,409
1921 112.82 26.583% 26.583% 374.11 27,757 10,384,029 155.50 16,147,166
1922 123.66 9.603% 9.603% 410.03 29,018 11,898,246 155.50 18,501,772
1923 126.94 2.658% 2.658% 420.93 30,082 12,662,326 155.50 19,689,916
1924 127.47 0.412% 0.412% 422.67 31,165 13,172,465 155.50 20,483,183
1925 124.53 -2.308% -2.308% 412.92 32,515 13,425,879 155.50 20,877,242
1926 120.44 -3.285% -3.285% 399.35 33,811 13,502,307 155.50 20,996,088
1927 127.57 5.925% 5.925% 423.01 35,143 14,865,972 155.50 23,116,586
1928 131.90 3.394% 3.394% 437.37 36,493 15,961,166 155.50 24,819,613
1929 131.51 -0.296% -0.296% 436.08 37,864 16,511,488 155.50 25,675,365
1930 428.52 129.23 -1.734% -1.734% 428.52 37,403 16,027,883 152.90 24,506,633
1931 115.38 -10.717% -10.717% 382.59 36,586 13,997,596 138.00 19,316,682
1932 122.09 5.817% 5.817% 404.85 35,489 14,367,695 124.70 17,916,516
1933 136.87 12.102% 12.102% 453.84 33,443 15,177,534 115.80 17,575,584
1934 130.38 -4.738% -4.738% 432.34 34,140 14,759,922 123.70 18,258,023
1935 137.02 5.092% 5.092% 454.35 37,200 16,901,906 127.40 21,533,029
1936 148.89 8.661% 8.661% 493.70 39,206 19,355,820 125.70 24,330,265
1937 150.08 0.798% 0.798% 497.64 42,347 21,073,265 130.00 27,395,245
1938 155.10 3.348% 3.348% 514.30 46,152 23,736,088 128.20 30,429,665
1939 154.06 -0.672% -0.672% 510.84 47,292 24,158,540 128.20 30,971,248
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita European Total Real Private Servant Price Total Private Final
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1947 164.71 405.88 56,289 22,846,173 366.43 83,714,834
1948 442.68 179.65 9.067% 9.067% 442.68 57,648 25,519,462 306.70 78,268,306
1949 220.02 22.473% 22.473% 542.16 58,722 31,836,756 322.29 102,606,622
1950 203.15 -7.666% -7.666% 500.60 61,326 30,699,842 334.74 102,765,611
1951 181.26 -10.776% -10.776% 446.66 64,086 28,624,490 380.93 109,038,351
1952 176.19 -2.797% -2.797% 434.16 67,620 29,358,116 423.69 124,388,376
1953 206.53 17.217% 17.217% 508.92 71,508 36,391,499 448.21 163,109,079
1954 208.97 1.183% 1.183% 514.93 74,892 38,564,451 454.64 175,329,712
1955 204.74 -2.023% -2.023% 504.52 78,330 39,518,915 457.59 180,834,429
1956 230.57 12.617% 12.617% 568.17 82,296 46,758,431 459.05 214,645,047
1957 215.81 -6.401% -6.401% 531.80 86,756 46,136,980 459.05 211,792,270
1958 215.37 -0.205% -0.205% 530.71 90,840 48,209,797 459.05 221,307,556
1959 194.19 -9.837% -9.837% 478.51 94,776 45,350,856 459.05 208,183,557
1960 230.48 18.691% 18.691% 567.94 98,046 55,684,472 459.05 255,620,125
321
[1947-1960]–Servant in Current and 1914 Prices, (Straits $)
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Eurasian Total Real Private Servant Price Total Private Final
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1899 116.03 14.09 2,278 32,102 69.64 22,356
1900 113.92 -1.814% -1.814% 13.84 2,261 31,285 75.00 23,464
1901 112.77 -1.008% -1.008% 13.70 2,318 31,757 73.21 23,251
1902 108.67 -3.637% -3.637% 13.20 2,385 31,482 82.14 25,860
1903 107.35 -1.214% -1.214% 13.04 2,453 31,989 82.14 26,276
1904 107.24 -0.106% -0.106% 13.03 2,523 32,869 78.57 25,825
1905 105.29 -1.816% -1.816% 12.79 2,596 33,199 78.57 26,085
1906 106.94 1.562% 1.562% 12.99 2,670 34,685 82.14 28,491
1907 107.05 0.102% 0.102% 13.00 2,747 35,718 91.07 32,529
1908 107.87 0.772% 0.772% 13.10 2,826 37,030 91.07 33,724
1909 110.50 2.437% 2.437% 13.42 2,908 39,024 91.07 35,539
1910 108.44 -1.861% -1.861% 13.17 2,991 39,396 91.07 35,879
1911 98.90 -8.802% -8.802% 12.01 3,084 37,043 91.07 33,736
1912 97.22 -1.696% -1.696% 11.81 3,186 37,626 91.07 34,266
1913 95.24 -2.036% -2.036% 11.57 3,292 38,079 91.07 34,679
1914 100.00 4.995% 4.995% 12.15 3,400 41,297 100.00 41,297
1915 93.86 -6.142% -6.142% 11.40 3,511 40,031 103.82 41,561
1916 88.38 -5.833% -5.833% 10.74 3,626 38,926 103.82 40,414
1917 100.72 13.954% 13.954% 12.23 3,744 45,800 113.09 51,796
1918 104.36 3.614% 3.614% 12.68 3,865 48,994 116.80 57,225
1919 92.87 -11.007% -11.007% 11.28 3,990 45,009 116.80 52,570
1920 89.13 -4.028% -4.028% 10.83 4,118 44,586 155.50 69,331
1921 112.82 26.583% 26.583% 13.70 4,270 58,518 155.50 90,996
1922 123.66 9.603% 9.603% 15.02 4,464 67,051 155.50 104,265
1923 126.94 2.658% 2.658% 15.42 4,628 71,357 155.50 110,960
1924 127.47 0.412% 0.412% 15.48 4,795 74,232 155.50 115,431
1925 124.53 -2.308% -2.308% 15.13 5,002 75,660 155.50 117,651
1926 120.44 -3.285% -3.285% 14.63 5,202 76,091 155.50 118,321
1927 127.57 5.925% 5.925% 15.50 5,407 83,776 155.50 130,271
1928 131.90 3.394% 3.394% 16.02 5,614 89,947 155.50 139,868
1929 131.51 -0.296% -0.296% 15.97 5,825 93,049 155.50 144,691
1930 15.70 129.23 -1.734% -1.734% 15.70 5,754 90,323 152.90 138,104
1931 115.38 -10.717% -10.717% 14.01 2,814 39,441 138.00 54,429
1932 122.09 5.817% 5.817% 14.83 2,730 40,484 124.70 50,483
1933 136.87 12.102% 12.102% 16.62 2,573 42,766 115.80 49,523
1934 130.38 -4.738% -4.738% 15.84 2,626 41,589 123.70 51,446
1935 137.02 5.092% 5.092% 16.64 2,862 47,624 127.40 60,674
1936 148.89 8.661% 8.661% 18.08 3,016 54,539 125.70 68,555
1937 150.08 0.798% 0.798% 18.23 3,257 59,378 130.00 77,191
1938 155.10 3.348% 3.348% 18.84 3,550 66,881 128.20 85,742
1939 154.06 -0.672% -0.672% 18.71 3,638 68,071 128.20 87,268
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Chinese, Total Real Private Servant Price Total Private Final
Capita Private Indices of Real Wages Real Private Final Indian and Final Indices Consumption
Consumption agriculture Sectors (%) Expenditure based Clerical Expenditure on Servant in the
Expenditure in (1914=100 ) on Rel Wages and Population Servant in the Domestic Market
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1947 164.71 32.31 14,072 454,667 366.43 1,666,027
1948 35.24 179.65 9.067% 9.067% 35.24 14,412 507,868 306.70 1,557,634
1949 220.02 22.473% 22.473% 43.16 14,681 633,590 322.29 2,041,996
1950 203.15 -7.666% -7.666% 39.85 15,332 610,964 334.74 2,045,160
1951 181.26 -10.776% -10.776% 35.56 16,022 569,662 380.93 2,169,995
1952 176.19 -2.797% -2.797% 34.56 16,905 584,262 423.69 2,475,479
1953 206.53 17.217% 17.217% 40.51 17,877 724,235 448.21 3,246,068
1954 208.97 1.183% 1.183% 40.99 18,723 767,479 454.64 3,489,274
1955 204.74 -2.023% -2.023% 40.16 19,583 786,474 457.59 3,598,824
1956 230.57 12.617% 12.617% 45.23 20,574 930,549 459.05 4,271,696
1957 215.81 -6.401% -6.401% 42.33 14,459 612,121 459.05 2,809,948
1958 215.37 -0.205% -0.205% 42.25 15,140 639,622 459.05 2,936,192
1959 194.19 -9.837% -9.837% 38.09 15,796 601,691 459.05 2,762,070
1960 230.48 18.691% 18.691% 45.21 16,341 738,792 459.05 3,391,433
322
Servant in Current and 1914 Prices, (Straits $)
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Asiatic Total Real Private Servant Price Total Private Final
Consumption agriculture Sectors (%) Expenditure based Standard Expenditure on Servant in the
Expenditure in (1914=100 ) on Rel Wages and (Numbers) Servant in the Domestic Market
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1899 116.03 14.09 19,362 272,863 69.64 190,030
1900 113.92 -1.814% -1.814% 13.84 19,219 265,926 75.00 199,444
1901 112.77 -1.008% -1.008% 13.70 19,707 269,934 73.21 197,630
1902 108.67 -3.637% -3.637% 13.20 20,273 267,593 82.14 219,808
1903 107.35 -1.214% -1.214% 13.04 20,853 271,902 82.14 223,348
1904 107.24 -0.106% -0.106% 13.03 21,449 279,383 78.57 219,515
1905 105.29 -1.816% -1.816% 12.79 22,065 282,188 78.57 221,719
1906 106.94 1.562% 1.562% 12.99 22,699 294,823 82.14 242,176
1907 107.05 0.102% 0.102% 13.00 23,351 303,604 91.07 276,497
1908 107.87 0.772% 0.772% 13.10 24,023 314,756 91.07 286,653
1909 110.50 2.437% 2.437% 13.42 24,714 331,701 91.07 302,085
1910 108.44 -1.861% -1.861% 13.17 25,423 334,868 91.07 304,969
1911 98.90 -8.802% -8.802% 12.01 27,137 325,981 91.07 296,876
1912 97.22 -1.696% -1.696% 11.81 28,039 331,107 91.07 301,544
1913 95.24 -2.036% -2.036% 11.57 28,967 335,095 91.07 305,176
1914 100.00 4.995% 4.995% 12.15 29,920 363,416 100.00 363,416
1915 93.86 -6.142% -6.142% 11.40 30,901 352,271 103.82 365,735
1916 88.38 -5.833% -5.833% 10.74 31,909 342,547 103.82 355,640
1917 100.72 13.954% 13.954% 12.23 32,947 403,040 113.09 455,806
1918 104.36 3.614% 3.614% 12.68 34,015 431,144 116.80 503,576
1919 92.87 -11.007% -11.007% 11.28 35,113 396,079 116.80 462,620
1920 89.13 -4.028% -4.028% 10.83 36,243 392,355 155.50 610,112
1921 112.82 26.583% 26.583% 13.70 46,973 643,699 155.50 1,000,951
1922 123.66 9.603% 9.603% 15.02 49,107 737,564 155.50 1,146,912
1923 126.94 2.658% 2.658% 15.42 50,907 784,929 155.50 1,220,564
1924 127.47 0.412% 0.412% 15.48 52,741 816,552 155.50 1,269,738
1925 124.53 -2.308% -2.308% 15.13 55,025 832,261 155.50 1,294,165
1926 120.44 -3.285% -3.285% 14.63 57,218 836,998 155.50 1,301,533
1927 127.57 5.925% 5.925% 15.50 59,473 921,531 155.50 1,432,981
1928 131.90 3.394% 3.394% 16.02 61,758 989,421 155.50 1,538,550
1929 131.51 -0.296% -0.296% 15.97 64,077 1,023,535 155.50 1,591,598
1930 15.70 129.23 -1.734% -1.734% 15.70 63,298 993,557 152.90 1,519,149
1931 115.38 -10.717% -10.717% 14.01 61,915 867,701 138.00 1,197,427
1932 122.09 5.817% 5.817% 14.83 60,059 890,643 124.70 1,110,632
1933 136.87 12.102% 12.102% 16.62 56,595 940,845 115.80 1,089,498
1934 130.38 -4.738% -4.738% 15.84 57,775 914,957 123.70 1,131,802
1935 137.02 5.092% 5.092% 16.64 62,954 1,047,737 127.40 1,334,817
1936 148.89 8.661% 8.661% 18.08 66,348 1,199,854 125.70 1,508,216
1937 150.08 0.798% 0.798% 18.23 71,663 1,306,317 130.00 1,698,212
1938 155.10 3.348% 3.348% 18.84 78,104 1,471,383 128.20 1,886,313
1939 154.06 -0.672% -0.672% 18.71 80,032 1,497,571 128.20 1,919,886
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Malay Total Real Private Servant Price Total Private Final
Consumption agriculture Sectors (%) Expenditure based Standard Expenditure on Servant in the
Expenditure in (1914=100 ) on Rel Wages and (Numbers) Servant in the Domestic Market
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1947 164.71 32.31 126,649 4,091,999 366.43 14,994,239
1948 35.24 179.65 9.067% 9.067% 35.24 129,708 4,570,814 306.70 14,018,707
1949 220.02 22.473% 22.473% 43.16 132,125 5,702,310 322.29 18,377,964
1950 203.15 -7.666% -7.666% 39.85 137,984 5,498,676 334.74 18,406,441
1951 181.26 -10.776% -10.776% 35.56 144,194 5,126,958 380.93 19,529,957
1952 176.19 -2.797% -2.797% 34.56 152,145 5,258,359 423.69 22,279,314
1953 206.53 17.217% 17.217% 40.51 160,893 6,518,114 448.21 29,214,614
1954 208.97 1.183% 1.183% 40.99 168,507 6,907,313 454.64 31,403,462
1955 204.74 -2.023% -2.023% 40.16 176,243 7,078,268 457.59 32,389,417
1956 230.57 12.617% 12.617% 45.23 185,166 8,374,945 459.05 38,445,267
1957 215.81 -6.401% -6.401% 42.33 267,497 11,324,242 459.05 51,984,046
1958 215.37 -0.205% -0.205% 42.25 280,090 11,833,011 459.05 54,319,556
1959 194.19 -9.837% -9.837% 38.09 292,226 11,131,289 459.05 51,098,293
1960 230.48 18.691% 18.691% 45.21 302,309 13,667,657 459.05 62,741,517
323
European Standard –Transport in Current and 1914 Prices, (Straits $)
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita European Total Real Private Transport Total Private Final
Consumption agriculture Sectors (%) Expenditure based (Numbers) Expenditure on Transport in the
Expenditure in (1914=100 ) on Real Wages and Transport in the Domestic Market
(1914 Prices) of Demand (1914 (1914 Prices) (Straits $)
(Straits $) Prices) (Straits $) (Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1899 116.03 202.12 13,667 2,762,442 109.66 3,029,367
1900 113.92 -1.814% -1.814% 198.45 13,566 2,692,205 107.87 2,904,213
1901 112.77 -1.008% -1.008% 196.45 13,911 2,732,789 107.44 2,936,201
1902 108.67 -3.637% -3.637% 189.31 14,310 2,709,085 107.23 2,904,887
1903 107.35 -1.214% -1.214% 187.01 14,720 2,752,714 107.34 2,954,639
1904 107.24 -0.106% -0.106% 186.81 15,141 2,828,448 107.23 3,032,877
1905 105.29 -1.816% -1.816% 183.42 15,575 2,856,840 107.12 3,060,240
1906 106.94 1.562% 1.562% 186.28 16,023 2,984,757 107.23 3,200,484
1907 107.05 0.102% 0.102% 186.47 16,483 3,073,659 105.07 3,229,497
1908 107.87 0.772% 0.772% 187.91 16,958 3,186,564 104.64 3,334,377
1909 110.50 2.437% 2.437% 192.49 17,445 3,358,114 103.67 3,481,281
1910 108.44 -1.861% -1.861% 188.91 17,946 3,390,168 103.24 3,499,882
1911 98.90 -8.802% -8.802% 172.28 18,503 3,187,694 102.91 3,280,539
1912 97.22 -1.696% -1.696% 169.36 19,118 3,237,821 103.02 3,335,619
1913 95.24 -2.036% -2.036% 165.91 19,750 3,276,817 99.46 3,259,143
1914 100.00 4.995% 4.995% 174.20 20,400 3,553,762 100.00 3,553,762
1915 93.86 -6.142% -6.142% 163.50 21,069 3,444,774 101.83 3,507,813
1916 88.38 -5.833% -5.833% 153.97 21,756 3,349,694 103.13 3,454,539
1917 100.72 13.954% 13.954% 175.45 22,464 3,941,238 108.64 4,281,761
1918 104.36 3.614% 3.614% 181.79 23,192 4,216,056 112.50 4,743,063
1919 92.87 -11.007% -11.007% 161.78 23,941 3,873,167 122.90 4,760,122
1920 89.13 -4.028% -4.028% 155.27 24,711 3,836,752 126.80 4,865,002
1921 112.82 26.583% 26.583% 196.54 27,757 5,455,304 122.80 6,699,114
1922 123.66 9.603% 9.603% 215.41 29,018 6,250,806 112.00 7,000,903
1923 126.94 2.658% 2.658% 221.14 30,082 6,652,219 94.80 6,306,304
1924 127.47 0.412% 0.412% 222.05 31,165 6,920,224 99.40 6,878,702
1925 124.53 -2.308% -2.308% 216.93 32,515 7,053,356 105.30 7,427,184
1926 120.44 -3.285% -3.285% 209.80 33,811 7,093,508 103.50 7,341,781
1927 127.57 5.925% 5.925% 222.23 35,143 7,809,917 94.20 7,356,941
1928 131.90 3.394% 3.394% 229.78 36,493 8,385,282 93.10 7,806,698
1929 131.51 -0.296% -0.296% 229.10 37,864 8,674,397 89.70 7,780,935
1930 225.12 129.23 -1.734% -1.734% 225.12 37,403 8,420,333 85.50 7,199,385
1931 115.38 -10.717% -10.717% 201.00 36,586 7,353,711 96.20 7,074,270
1932 122.09 5.817% 5.817% 212.69 35,489 7,548,144 89.00 6,717,849
1933 136.87 12.102% 12.102% 238.43 33,443 7,973,597 85.40 6,809,452
1934 130.38 -4.738% -4.738% 227.13 34,140 7,754,203 84.50 6,552,301
1935 137.02 5.092% 5.092% 238.70 37,200 8,879,506 82.40 7,316,713
1936 148.89 8.661% 8.661% 259.37 39,206 10,168,682 80.00 8,134,945
1937 150.08 0.798% 0.798% 261.44 42,347 11,070,951 81.40 9,011,754
1938 155.10 3.348% 3.348% 270.19 46,152 12,469,879 81.50 10,162,951
1939 154.06 -0.672% -0.672% 268.37 47,292 12,691,816 82.18 10,429,918
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita European Total Real Private Transport Total Private Final
(1914 Prices) of Demand (1914 (1914 Prices) (Straits $)
(Straits $) Prices) (Straits $) (Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1947 164.71 283.86 56,289 15,978,038 181.50 28,999,745
1948 309.60 179.65 9.067% 9.067% 309.60 57,648 17,847,669 151.91 27,113,007
1949 220.02 22.473% 22.473% 379.17 58,722 22,265,825 150.46 33,502,172
1950 203.15 -7.666% -7.666% 350.11 61,326 21,470,696 155.63 33,413,802
1951 181.26 -10.776% -10.776% 312.38 64,086 20,019,247 173.46 34,725,344
1952 176.19 -2.797% -2.797% 303.64 67,620 20,532,327 171.95 35,304,987
1953 206.53 17.217% 17.217% 355.92 71,508 25,451,297 166.69 42,424,734
1954 208.97 1.183% 1.183% 360.13 74,892 26,971,005 164.20 44,287,727
1955 204.74 -2.023% -2.023% 352.85 78,330 27,638,533 165.87 45,843,506
1956 230.57 12.617% 12.617% 397.37 82,296 32,701,669 168.29 55,035,046
1957 215.81 -6.401% -6.401% 371.93 86,756 32,267,041 174.01 56,147,121
1958 215.37 -0.205% -0.205% 371.17 90,840 33,716,717 174.83 58,946,746
1959 194.19 -9.837% -9.837% 334.65 94,776 31,717,246 177.47 56,287,324
1960 230.48 18.691% 18.691% 397.20 98,046 38,944,316 179.24 69,804,046
324
[1947-1960]–Transport in Current and 1914 Prices, (Straits $)
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Eurasian Total Real Private Transport Total Private Final
(Straits $)
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1899 116.03 27.82 2,278 63,378 109.66 69,502
1900 113.92 -1.814% -1.814% 27.32 2,261 61,766 107.87 66,630
1901 112.77 -1.008% -1.008% 27.04 2,318 62,697 107.44 67,364
1902 108.67 -3.637% -3.637% 26.06 2,385 62,154 107.23 66,646
1903 107.35 -1.214% -1.214% 25.74 2,453 63,155 107.34 67,787
1904 107.24 -0.106% -0.106% 25.72 2,523 64,892 107.23 69,582
1905 105.29 -1.816% -1.816% 25.25 2,596 65,543 107.12 70,210
1906 106.94 1.562% 1.562% 25.64 2,670 68,478 107.23 73,428
1907 107.05 0.102% 0.102% 25.67 2,747 70,518 105.07 74,093
1908 107.87 0.772% 0.772% 25.87 2,826 73,108 104.64 76,499
1909 110.50 2.437% 2.437% 26.50 2,908 77,044 103.67 79,870
1910 108.44 -1.861% -1.861% 26.00 2,991 77,779 103.24 80,297
1911 98.90 -8.802% -8.802% 23.72 3,084 73,134 102.91 75,264
1912 97.22 -1.696% -1.696% 23.31 3,186 74,284 103.02 76,528
1913 95.24 -2.036% -2.036% 22.84 3,292 75,179 99.46 74,773
1914 100.00 4.995% 4.995% 23.98 3,400 81,533 100.00 81,533
1915 93.86 -6.142% -6.142% 22.51 3,511 79,032 101.83 80,479
1916 88.38 -5.833% -5.833% 21.19 3,626 76,851 103.13 79,256
1917 100.72 13.954% 13.954% 24.15 3,744 90,422 108.64 98,235
1918 104.36 3.614% 3.614% 25.02 3,865 96,727 112.50 108,818
1919 92.87 -11.007% -11.007% 22.27 3,990 88,861 122.90 109,210
1920 89.13 -4.028% -4.028% 21.37 4,118 88,025 126.80 111,616
1921 112.82 26.583% 26.583% 27.05 4,270 115,531 122.80 141,873
1922 123.66 9.603% 9.603% 29.65 4,464 132,378 112.00 148,264
1923 126.94 2.658% 2.658% 30.44 4,628 140,880 94.80 133,554
1924 127.47 0.412% 0.412% 30.57 4,795 146,555 99.40 145,676
1925 124.53 -2.308% -2.308% 29.86 5,002 149,375 105.30 157,292
1926 120.44 -3.285% -3.285% 28.88 5,202 150,225 103.50 155,483
1927 127.57 5.925% 5.925% 30.59 5,407 165,397 94.20 155,804
1928 131.90 3.394% 3.394% 31.63 5,614 177,582 93.10 165,329
1929 131.51 -0.296% -0.296% 31.54 5,825 183,705 89.70 164,783
1930 30.99 129.23 -1.734% -1.734% 30.99 5,754 178,324 85.50 152,467
1931 115.38 -10.717% -10.717% 27.67 2,814 77,868 96.20 74,909
1932 122.09 5.817% 5.817% 29.28 2,730 79,927 89.00 71,135
1933 136.87 12.102% 12.102% 32.82 2,573 84,432 85.40 72,105
1934 130.38 -4.738% -4.738% 31.27 2,626 82,109 84.50 69,382
1935 137.02 5.092% 5.092% 32.86 2,862 94,024 82.40 77,476
1936 148.89 8.661% 8.661% 35.70 3,016 107,675 80.00 86,140
1937 150.08 0.798% 0.798% 35.99 3,257 117,229 81.40 95,425
1938 155.10 3.348% 3.348% 37.19 3,550 132,042 81.50 107,615
1939 154.06 -0.672% -0.672% 36.94 3,638 134,393 82.18 110,441
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Chinese, Total Real Private Transport Total Private Final
Capita Private Indices of Real Wages Real Private Final Indian and Final Price Indices Consumption
Consumption agriculture Sectors (%) Expenditure based Clerical Expenditure on Transport in the
Expenditure in (1914=100 ) on Real Wages and Population Transport in the Domestic Market
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1947 164.71 43.51 14,072 612,284 181.50 1,111,280
1948 47.46 179.65 9.067% 9.067% 47.46 14,412 683,928 151.91 1,038,979
1949 220.02 22.473% 22.473% 58.12 14,681 853,234 150.46 1,283,814
1950 203.15 -7.666% -7.666% 53.66 15,332 822,764 155.63 1,280,428
1951 181.26 -10.776% -10.776% 47.88 16,022 767,144 173.46 1,330,686
1952 176.19 -2.797% -2.797% 46.54 16,905 786,805 171.95 1,352,898
1953 206.53 17.217% 17.217% 54.56 17,877 975,302 166.69 1,625,729
1954 208.97 1.183% 1.183% 55.20 18,723 1,033,538 164.20 1,697,120
1955 204.74 -2.023% -2.023% 54.08 19,583 1,059,117 165.87 1,756,738
1956 230.57 12.617% 12.617% 60.91 20,574 1,253,138 168.29 2,108,961
1957 215.81 -6.401% -6.401% 57.01 14,459 824,322 174.01 1,434,384
1958 215.37 -0.205% -0.205% 56.89 15,140 861,357 174.83 1,505,906
1959 194.19 -9.837% -9.837% 51.30 15,796 810,277 177.47 1,437,966
1960 230.48 18.691% 18.691% 60.88 16,341 994,906 179.24 1,783,276
325
Transport in Current and 1914 Prices, (Straits $)
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Asiatic Total Real Private Transport Total Private Final
Consumption agriculture Sectors (%) Expenditure based Standard Expenditure on Transport in the
Expenditure in (1914=100 ) on Real Wages and (Numbers) Transport in the Domestic Market
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1899 116.03 27.82 19,362 538,711 109.66 590,764
1900 113.92 -1.814% -1.814% 27.32 19,219 525,014 107.87 566,358
1901 112.77 -1.008% -1.008% 27.04 19,707 532,928 107.44 572,596
1902 108.67 -3.637% -3.637% 26.06 20,273 528,305 107.23 566,489
1903 107.35 -1.214% -1.214% 25.74 20,853 536,813 107.34 576,191
1904 107.24 -0.106% -0.106% 25.72 21,449 551,583 107.23 591,449
1905 105.29 -1.816% -1.816% 25.25 22,065 557,119 107.12 596,785
1906 106.94 1.562% 1.562% 25.64 22,699 582,065 107.23 624,134
1907 107.05 0.102% 0.102% 25.67 23,351 599,402 105.07 629,792
1908 107.87 0.772% 0.772% 25.87 24,023 621,420 104.64 650,245
1909 110.50 2.437% 2.437% 26.50 24,714 654,874 103.67 678,893
1910 108.44 -1.861% -1.861% 26.00 25,423 661,125 103.24 682,521
1911 98.90 -8.802% -8.802% 23.72 27,137 643,580 102.91 662,325
1912 97.22 -1.696% -1.696% 23.31 28,039 653,701 103.02 673,446
1913 95.24 -2.036% -2.036% 22.84 28,967 661,574 99.46 658,006
1914 100.00 4.995% 4.995% 23.98 29,920 717,488 100.00 717,488
1915 93.86 -6.142% -6.142% 22.51 30,901 695,484 101.83 708,211
1916 88.38 -5.833% -5.833% 21.19 31,909 676,287 103.13 697,455
1917 100.72 13.954% 13.954% 24.15 32,947 795,717 108.64 864,467
1918 104.36 3.614% 3.614% 25.02 34,015 851,202 112.50 957,602
1919 92.87 -11.007% -11.007% 22.27 35,113 781,974 122.90 961,046
1920 89.13 -4.028% -4.028% 21.37 36,243 774,622 126.80 982,221
1921 112.82 26.583% 26.583% 27.05 46,973 1,270,846 122.80 1,560,599
1922 123.66 9.603% 9.603% 29.65 49,107 1,456,163 112.00 1,630,903
1923 126.94 2.658% 2.658% 30.44 50,907 1,549,675 94.80 1,469,092
1924 127.47 0.412% 0.412% 30.57 52,741 1,612,108 99.40 1,602,435
1925 124.53 -2.308% -2.308% 29.86 55,025 1,643,122 105.30 1,730,208
1926 120.44 -3.285% -3.285% 28.88 57,218 1,652,476 103.50 1,710,312
1927 127.57 5.925% 5.925% 30.59 59,473 1,819,367 94.20 1,713,844
1928 131.90 3.394% 3.394% 31.63 61,758 1,953,402 93.10 1,818,618
1929 131.51 -0.296% -0.296% 31.54 64,077 2,020,754 89.70 1,812,616
1930 30.99 129.23 -1.734% -1.734% 30.99 63,298 1,961,568 85.50 1,677,140
1931 115.38 -10.717% -10.717% 27.67 61,915 1,713,092 96.20 1,647,994
1932 122.09 5.817% 5.817% 29.28 60,059 1,758,386 89.00 1,564,964
1933 136.87 12.102% 12.102% 32.82 56,595 1,857,498 85.40 1,586,303
1934 130.38 -4.738% -4.738% 31.27 57,775 1,806,389 84.50 1,526,398
1935 137.02 5.092% 5.092% 32.86 62,954 2,068,535 82.40 1,704,473
1936 148.89 8.661% 8.661% 35.70 66,348 2,368,856 80.00 1,895,085
1937 150.08 0.798% 0.798% 35.99 71,663 2,579,045 81.40 2,099,343
1938 155.10 3.348% 3.348% 37.19 78,104 2,904,934 81.50 2,367,521
1939 154.06 -0.672% -0.672% 36.94 80,032 2,956,636 82.18 2,429,713
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita Malay Total Real Private Transport Total Private Final
Consumption agriculture Sectors (%) Expenditure based Standard Expenditure on Transport in the
Expenditure in (1914=100 ) on Real Wages and (Numbers) Transport in the Domestic Market
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1947 164.71 48.94 126,649 6,198,403 181.50 11,249,949
1948 53.38 179.65 9.067% 9.067% 53.38 129,708 6,923,694 151.91 10,518,022
1949 220.02 22.473% 22.473% 65.38 132,125 8,637,641 150.46 12,996,588
1950 203.15 -7.666% -7.666% 60.36 137,984 8,329,185 155.63 12,962,306
1951 181.26 -10.776% -10.776% 53.86 144,194 7,766,120 173.46 13,471,096
1952 176.19 -2.797% -2.797% 52.35 152,145 7,965,161 171.95 13,695,958
1953 206.53 17.217% 17.217% 61.37 160,893 9,873,390 166.69 16,457,941
1954 208.97 1.183% 1.183% 62.09 168,507 10,462,934 164.20 17,180,657
1955 204.74 -2.023% -2.023% 60.84 176,243 10,721,890 165.87 17,784,194
1956 230.57 12.617% 12.617% 68.51 185,166 12,686,046 168.29 21,349,893
1957 215.81 -6.401% -6.401% 64.13 267,497 17,153,529 174.01 29,848,453
1958 215.37 -0.205% -0.205% 63.99 280,090 17,924,193 174.83 31,336,766
1959 194.19 -9.837% -9.837% 57.70 292,226 16,861,251 177.47 29,922,986
1960 230.48 18.691% 18.691% 68.48 302,309 20,703,245 179.24 37,108,630
326
European Standard –Club in Current and 1914 Prices, (Straits $)
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita European Total Real Private Club Price Total Private Final
Consumption agriculture Sectors (%) Expenditure based (Numbers) Expenditure on Club in the
Expenditure in (1914=100 ) on Rel Wages and Club in the Domestic Market
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1899 116.03 126.30 13,667 1,726,248 88.18 1,522,127
1900 113.92 -1.814% -1.814% 124.01 13,566 1,682,357 88.88 1,495,309
1901 112.77 -1.008% -1.008% 122.76 13,911 1,707,718 89.10 1,521,632
1902 108.67 -3.637% -3.637% 118.30 14,310 1,692,905 90.99 1,540,360
1903 107.35 -1.214% -1.214% 116.86 14,720 1,720,168 91.66 1,576,648
1904 107.24 -0.106% -0.106% 116.74 15,141 1,767,494 91.97 1,625,589
1905 105.29 -1.816% -1.816% 114.62 15,575 1,785,237 93.74 1,673,405
1906 106.94 1.562% 1.562% 116.41 16,023 1,865,172 92.14 1,718,521
1907 107.05 0.102% 0.102% 116.53 16,483 1,920,727 91.55 1,758,489
1908 107.87 0.772% 0.772% 117.43 16,958 1,991,281 92.28 1,837,625
1909 110.50 2.437% 2.437% 120.29 17,445 2,098,482 91.37 1,917,380
1910 108.44 -1.861% -1.861% 118.05 17,946 2,118,513 92.28 1,954,977
1911 98.90 -8.802% -8.802% 107.66 18,503 1,991,987 99.88 1,989,693
1912 97.22 -1.696% -1.696% 105.83 19,118 2,023,312 101.47 2,052,994
1913 95.24 -2.036% -2.036% 103.68 19,750 2,047,680 102.43 2,097,491
1914 100.00 4.995% 4.995% 108.86 20,400 2,220,743 100.00 2,220,743
1915 93.86 -6.142% -6.142% 102.17 21,069 2,152,636 91.31 1,965,530
1916 88.38 -5.833% -5.833% 96.21 21,756 2,093,221 103.77 2,172,126
1917 100.72 13.954% 13.954% 109.64 22,464 2,462,876 113.88 2,804,673
1918 104.36 3.614% 3.614% 113.60 23,192 2,634,610 134.00 3,530,377
1919 92.87 -11.007% -11.007% 101.10 23,941 2,420,339 147.40 3,567,579
1920 89.13 -4.028% -4.028% 97.03 24,711 2,397,583 163.50 3,920,048
1921 112.82 26.583% 26.583% 122.82 27,757 3,409,015 176.70 6,023,730
1922 123.66 9.603% 9.603% 134.61 29,018 3,906,123 177.40 6,929,463
1923 126.94 2.658% 2.658% 138.19 30,082 4,156,966 169.20 7,033,587
1924 127.47 0.412% 0.412% 138.76 31,165 4,324,442 164.10 7,096,409
1925 124.53 -2.308% -2.308% 135.56 32,515 4,407,636 164.20 7,237,339
1926 120.44 -3.285% -3.285% 131.10 33,811 4,432,727 161.70 7,167,720
1927 127.57 5.925% 5.925% 138.87 35,143 4,880,410 159.50 7,784,254
1928 131.90 3.394% 3.394% 143.59 36,493 5,239,956 159.50 8,357,730
1929 131.51 -0.296% -0.296% 143.16 37,864 5,420,624 155.30 8,418,228
1930 140.68 129.23 -1.734% -1.734% 140.68 37,403 5,261,859 156.10 8,213,762
1931 115.38 -10.717% -10.717% 125.60 36,586 4,595,328 160.50 7,375,501
1932 122.09 5.817% 5.817% 132.91 35,489 4,716,829 160.10 7,551,643
1933 136.87 12.102% 12.102% 148.99 33,443 4,982,694 158.40 7,892,588
1934 130.38 -4.738% -4.738% 141.93 34,140 4,845,595 159.50 7,728,723
1935 137.02 5.092% 5.092% 149.16 37,200 5,548,796 157.70 8,750,451
1936 148.89 8.661% 8.661% 162.08 39,206 6,354,401 157.40 10,001,827
1937 150.08 0.798% 0.798% 163.37 42,347 6,918,228 157.70 10,910,045
1938 155.10 3.348% 3.348% 168.84 46,152 7,792,417 159.40 12,421,112
1939 154.06 -0.672% -0.672% 167.71 47,292 7,931,105 152.87 12,124,274
Year Annual Per Weighted Real Wage Changes in Changes in Real Per Capita European Total Real Private Club Price Total Private Final
Consumption agriculture Sectors (%) Expenditure based (Numbers) Expenditure on Club in the
Expenditure in (1914=100 ) on Rel Wages and Club in the Domestic Market
(Straits $)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]=[5]x[6] [8] [9]=[7]x[8]/100
1947 164.71 94.15 56,289 5,299,353 423.73 22,454,709
1948 102.68 179.65 9.067% 9.067% 102.68 57,648 5,919,444 444.09 26,287,488
1949 220.02 22.473% 22.473% 125.76 58,722 7,384,791 437.21 32,286,894
1950 203.15 -7.666% -7.666% 116.12 61,326 7,121,074 469.31 33,419,962
1951 181.26 -10.776% -10.776% 103.61 64,086 6,639,680 546.51 36,286,513
1952 176.19 -2.797% -2.797% 100.71 67,620 6,809,850 564.09 38,413,686
1953 206.53 17.217% 17.217% 118.05 71,508 8,441,300 556.45 46,971,319
1954 208.97 1.183% 1.183% 119.44 74,892 8,945,334 546.51 48,887,140
1955 204.74 -2.023% -2.023% 117.03 78,330 9,166,729 544.22 49,886,891
1956 230.57 12.617% 12.617% 131.79 82,296 10,845,993 549.57 59,606,038
1957 215.81 -6.401% -6.401% 123.36 86,756 10,701,842 558.74 59,795,428
1958 215.37 -0.205% -0.205% 123.10 90,840 11,182,649 561.80 62,823,782
1959 194.19 -9.837% -9.837% 110.99 94,776 10,519,494 567.15 59,661,041
1960 230.48 18.691% 18.691% 131.74 98,046 12,916,459 572.82 73,987,920
327
Appendix Table 7
Total Private Final Consumption Expenditure by ajor Object of Consumption and Standard in Constant Prices,
Singapore,1900-39 and 1947-1960
(Straits $)
Food Total Beverages & Tobacco
Year European Eurasian Asiatic Clerical Chinese Labour Malay Labour Indian Labour Total European Standard Eurasian Asiatic Clerical Chinese Labour Malay Labour Indian Labour Total
Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard
1899 5,439,107 294,754 2,365,451 10,676,299 3,102,431 1,353,955 23,231,996 1,237,123 10,389 88,304 634,748 240,359 142,574 2,353,498
1900 5,330,194 288,852 2,318,085 10,462,517 3,040,308 1,326,844 22,766,800 1,205,668 10,125 86,059 623,181 235,979 138,949 2,299,961
1901 5,427,068 294,102 2,360,215 10,652,668 3,095,564 1,350,958 23,180,574 1,223,844 10,277 87,356 635,151 240,512 141,044 2,338,184
1902 5,440,909 294,852 2,366,234 10,679,836 3,103,458 1,354,404 23,239,693 1,213,228 10,188 86,598 639,147 242,025 139,820 2,331,007
1903 5,548,916 300,705 2,413,206 10,891,840 3,165,065 1,381,290 23,701,021 1,232,766 10,352 87,993 652,633 247,132 142,072 2,372,949
1904 5,703,397 309,076 2,480,389 11,195,067 3,253,180 1,419,745 24,360,854 1,266,683 10,637 90,414 670,873 254,039 145,981 2,438,627
1905 5,792,605 313,911 2,519,186 11,370,172 3,304,063 1,441,951 24,741,887 1,279,398 10,744 91,322 682,620 258,487 147,446 2,470,016
1906 6,024,044 326,453 2,619,838 11,824,459 3,436,075 1,499,563 25,730,431 1,336,684 11,225 95,411 708,796 268,399 154,048 2,574,563
1907 6,201,579 336,074 2,697,047 12,172,938 3,537,340 1,543,757 26,488,733 1,376,497 11,559 98,252 729,611 276,281 158,636 2,650,837
1908 6,414,603 347,618 2,789,691 12,591,079 3,658,847 1,596,785 27,398,623 1,427,061 11,984 101,862 754,094 285,552 164,464 2,745,015
1909 6,711,682 363,717 2,918,889 13,174,207 3,828,299 1,670,737 28,667,532 1,503,887 12,629 107,345 787,127 298,060 173,318 2,882,366
1910 6,814,297 369,278 2,963,516 13,375,628 3,886,830 1,696,281 29,105,829 1,518,242 12,749 108,370 800,668 303,188 174,972 2,918,190
1911 6,592,851 357,277 2,968,406 13,093,203 3,551,601 1,641,156 28,204,494 1,427,567 11,988 105,494 791,114 279,638 164,522 2,780,323
1912 6,731,180 364,774 3,030,688 13,367,921 3,626,119 1,675,590 28,796,272 1,450,015 12,176 107,153 809,099 285,995 167,109 2,831,548
1913 6,854,720 371,468 3,086,311 13,613,267 3,692,671 1,706,343 29,324,781 1,467,479 12,323 108,444 825,651 291,845 169,122 2,874,864
1914 7,327,950 397,113 3,299,381 14,553,088 3,947,602 1,824,144 31,349,279 1,591,505 13,365 117,609 878,391 310,488 183,415 3,094,773
1915 7,242,660 392,491 3,260,980 14,383,705 3,901,656 1,802,913 30,984,406 1,542,697 12,955 114,002 873,739 308,843 177,790 3,030,026
1916 7,173,622 388,750 3,229,896 14,246,597 3,864,465 1,785,727 30,689,057 1,500,116 12,597 110,855 870,673 307,760 172,883 2,974,884
1917 8,130,391 440,599 3,660,677 16,146,711 4,379,881 2,023,895 34,782,154 1,765,031 14,822 130,432 974,253 344,372 203,414 3,432,324
1918 8,606,305 466,390 3,874,956 17,091,862 4,636,258 2,142,365 36,818,134 1,888,105 15,855 139,527 1,027,646 363,245 217,597 3,651,976
1919 8,199,725 444,356 3,691,895 16,284,408 4,417,232 2,041,155 35,078,771 1,734,547 14,566 128,179 990,775 350,212 199,900 3,418,179
1920 8,224,894 445,720 3,703,227 16,334,393 4,430,791 2,047,420 35,186,445 1,718,239 14,429 126,974 997,935 352,743 198,021 3,408,340
1921 10,957,825 548,144 5,692,752 20,188,023 4,166,847 2,877,603 44,431,195 2,443,086 18,938 208,314 1,205,725 324,295 297,027 4,497,385
1922 12,225,691 611,566 6,351,428 22,523,862 4,648,969 3,210,554 49,572,071 2,799,341 21,699 238,691 1,333,129 358,562 340,340 5,091,761
1923 12,909,727 645,784 6,706,794 23,784,087 4,909,082 3,390,186 52,345,661 2,979,109 23,093 254,019 1,404,044 377,635 362,196 5,400,096
1924 13,413,301 670,974 6,968,408 24,711,841 5,100,572 3,522,428 54,387,524 3,099,131 24,023 264,253 1,458,213 392,205 376,788 5,614,612
1925 13,768,225 688,728 7,152,797 25,365,732 5,235,537 3,615,634 55,826,654 3,158,753 24,485 269,336 1,500,309 403,527 384,037 5,740,447
1926 13,987,688 699,707 7,266,811 25,770,056 5,318,990 3,673,266 56,716,518 3,176,734 24,625 270,870 1,529,348 411,338 386,223 5,799,137
1927 15,141,927 757,445 7,866,456 27,896,556 5,757,904 3,976,378 61,396,665 3,497,568 27,111 298,226 1,646,128 442,747 425,230 6,337,010
1928 16,097,336 805,238 8,362,805 29,656,743 6,121,210 4,227,275 65,270,606 3,755,238 29,109 320,197 1,744,191 469,122 456,557 6,774,414
1929 16,667,209 833,744 8,658,862 30,706,641 6,337,911 4,376,928 67,581,294 3,884,714 30,112 331,237 1,806,475 485,874 472,298 7,010,712
1930 16,264,686 813,609 8,449,746 29,965,058 6,184,846 4,271,222 65,949,168 3,770,935 29,230 321,535 1,765,942 474,972 458,465 6,821,080
1931 14,715,907 368,067 7,645,132 28,232,001 4,304,542 4,347,565 59,613,214 3,293,262 12,764 280,806 1,683,084 334,402 450,439 6,054,758
1932 14,855,891 371,568 7,717,856 28,500,555 4,345,488 4,388,921 60,180,279 3,380,337 13,101 288,230 1,689,597 335,696 462,349 6,169,311
1933 15,185,011 379,800 7,888,838 29,131,961 4,441,759 4,486,154 61,513,524 3,570,870 13,840 304,476 1,707,761 339,305 488,409 6,424,663
1934 14,987,527 374,861 7,786,242 28,753,094 4,383,993 4,427,810 60,713,527 3,472,617 13,459 296,099 1,693,811 336,534 474,971 6,287,491
1935 16,913,087 423,022 8,786,599 32,447,220 4,947,238 4,996,684 68,513,850 3,976,569 15,412 339,069 1,902,031 377,904 543,899 7,154,884
1936 18,905,496 472,855 9,821,685 36,269,593 5,530,036 5,585,307 76,584,972 4,553,910 17,650 388,297 2,108,734 418,972 622,866 8,110,429
1937 20,534,128 513,590 10,667,783 39,394,071 6,006,426 6,066,459 83,182,457 4,957,979 19,216 422,751 2,288,577 454,704 678,132 8,821,359
1938 22,904,054 572,865 11,898,996 43,940,700 6,699,652 6,766,614 92,782,881 5,584,471 21,644 476,170 2,544,360 505,524 763,821 9,895,990
1939 23,359,018 584,244 12,135,356 44,813,534 6,832,733 6,901,025 94,625,911 5,683,862 22,029 484,644 2,596,653 515,914 777,416 10,080,519
European Malay Clerical Chinese, Indian, Chinese Labour Malay Labour Indian Labour Total European Standard Malay Clerical Chinese, Indian, Chinese Labour Malay Labour Indian Labour Total
Standard Standard Eurasian Clerical Standard Standard Standard Standard Eurasian Clerical Standard Standard Standard
Grades Standard Grades Standard
1947 18,255,364 1,536,486 14,880,415 48,347,790 6,119,372 9,228,276 98,367,703 9,042,300 66,009 594,080 3,664,934 604,470 652,519 14,624,311
1948 19,882,898 1,673,470 16,207,060 52,658,176 6,664,937 10,051,011 107,137,551 10,100,362 73,733 663,595 4,093,777 675,200 728,872 16,335,539
1949 23,439,406 1,972,808 19,106,061 62,077,288 7,857,112 11,848,863 126,301,538 12,600,687 91,985 827,866 5,107,184 842,345 909,302 20,379,370
1950 23,165,302 1,949,738 18,882,632 61,351,347 7,765,230 11,710,300 124,824,549 12,150,708 88,700 798,302 4,924,803 812,264 876,830 19,651,608
1951 22,381,866 1,883,799 18,244,033 59,276,484 7,502,615 11,314,265 120,603,062 11,329,303 82,704 744,336 4,591,879 757,354 817,555 18,323,131
1952 23,153,681 1,948,759 18,873,159 61,320,570 7,761,334 11,704,426 124,761,929 11,619,665 84,824 763,413 4,709,566 776,764 838,509 18,792,741
1953 27,435,948 2,309,182 22,363,745 72,661,792 9,196,791 13,869,156 147,836,614 14,403,412 105,145 946,305 5,837,846 962,855 1,039,392 23,294,955
1954 28,972,205 2,438,483 23,615,987 76,730,440 9,711,759 14,645,750 156,114,625 15,263,446 111,423 1,002,810 6,186,426 1,020,348 1,101,455 24,685,908
1955 29,873,146 2,514,312 24,350,367 79,116,505 10,013,763 15,101,185 160,969,277 15,641,213 114,181 1,027,629 6,339,539 1,045,601 1,128,715 25,296,880
1956 34,157,654 2,874,923 27,842,779 90,463,664 11,449,971 17,267,048 184,056,039 18,506,546 135,098 1,215,881 7,500,887 1,237,146 1,335,486 29,931,045
1957 34,395,185 1,929,943 38,420,248 82,742,576 12,810,660 17,387,123 187,685,735 18,260,581 88,868 1,644,063 6,722,752 1,356,338 1,317,737 29,390,339
1958 35,962,661 2,017,896 40,171,155 86,513,364 13,394,474 18,179,498 196,239,048 19,080,983 92,861 1,717,926 7,024,789 1,417,274 1,376,939 30,710,772
1959 34,937,265 1,960,360 39,025,764 84,046,628 13,012,560 17,661,150 190,643,727 17,949,441 87,354 1,616,050 6,608,204 1,333,227 1,295,284 28,889,559
1960 40,871,439 2,293,332 45,654,378 98,322,138 15,222,773 20,660,936 223,024,995 22,039,388 107,258 1,984,282 8,113,945 1,637,015 1,590,426 35,472,315
Total Private Final Consumption Expenditure by ajor Object of Consumption and Standard in Current Prices,
Singapore, 1900-39 and 1947-1960
(Straits $)
Food Total Beverages & Tobacco

Year European Eurasian Asiatic Clerical Chinese Labour Malay Labour Indian Labour Total European Standard Eurasian Asiatic Clerical Chinese Labour Malay Labour Indian Labour Total
Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard
1899 4,412,406 239,115 1,918,941 8,661,010 2,516,807 1,098,379 18,846,658 1,006,048 8,448 71,810 516,187 195,464 115,943 1,913,901
1900 4,369,042 236,765 1,900,083 8,575,892 2,492,072 1,087,584 18,661,438 1,007,297 8,459 71,899 520,648 197,153 116,087 1,921,544
1901 4,499,325 243,826 1,956,742 8,831,623 2,566,385 1,120,016 19,217,917 998,791 8,387 71,292 518,353 196,284 115,107 1,908,216
1902 4,652,316 252,117 2,023,278 9,131,925 2,653,650 1,158,099 19,871,385 1,045,724 8,781 74,642 550,904 208,610 120,516 2,009,177
1903 4,744,669 257,121 2,063,442 9,313,202 2,706,328 1,181,089 20,265,850 1,126,968 9,464 80,441 596,623 225,922 129,879 2,169,297
1904 4,977,968 269,764 2,164,903 9,771,141 2,839,400 1,239,164 21,262,341 1,101,209 9,247 78,603 583,233 220,852 126,910 2,120,055
1905 5,223,634 283,077 2,271,742 10,253,353 2,979,527 1,300,318 22,311,651 1,143,900 9,606 81,650 610,325 231,111 131,830 2,208,422
1906 5,289,017 286,620 2,300,177 10,381,691 3,016,820 1,316,593 22,590,920 1,152,353 9,677 82,253 611,052 231,386 132,805 2,219,527
1907 5,313,974 287,973 2,311,031 10,430,678 3,031,056 1,322,806 22,697,516 1,237,471 10,392 88,329 655,920 248,376 142,614 2,383,102
1908 5,582,067 302,501 2,427,624 10,956,913 3,183,974 1,389,542 23,842,622 1,289,998 10,833 92,078 681,666 258,126 148,668 2,481,368
1909 5,760,682 312,181 2,505,303 11,307,512 3,285,855 1,434,005 24,605,538 1,321,965 11,101 94,360 691,910 262,005 152,352 2,533,693
1910 5,934,800 321,616 2,581,026 11,649,283 3,385,171 1,477,348 25,349,243 1,367,792 11,486 97,631 721,326 273,144 157,633 2,629,012
1911 6,778,183 367,321 3,051,851 13,461,266 3,651,440 1,687,291 28,997,351 1,257,645 10,561 92,937 696,949 246,353 144,939 2,449,384
1912 7,124,071 386,065 3,207,586 14,148,191 3,837,772 1,773,393 30,477,078 1,285,291 10,793 94,980 717,184 253,505 148,125 2,509,879
1913 7,203,681 390,379 3,243,430 14,306,294 3,880,658 1,793,210 30,817,653 1,454,517 12,214 107,486 818,358 289,267 167,628 2,849,470
1914 7,327,950 397,113 3,299,381 14,553,088 3,947,602 1,824,144 31,349,279 1,591,505 13,365 117,609 878,391 310,488 183,415 3,094,773
1915 7,585,155 411,052 3,415,187 15,063,889 4,086,160 1,888,170 32,449,613 1,416,584 11,896 104,682 802,313 283,596 163,256 2,782,327
1916 7,638,020 413,917 3,438,989 15,168,877 4,114,638 1,901,330 32,675,770 2,038,877 17,121 150,669 1,183,372 418,290 234,973 4,043,304
1917 9,412,300 510,068 4,237,852 18,692,545 5,070,452 2,343,001 40,266,218 2,256,424 18,948 166,745 1,245,490 440,247 260,045 4,387,899
1918 12,003,667 650,498 5,404,605 23,838,921 6,466,434 2,988,069 51,352,193 3,295,554 27,674 243,534 1,793,684 634,019 379,801 6,374,266
1919 15,077,106 817,053 6,788,409 29,942,678 8,122,110 3,753,139 64,500,495 3,503,645 29,422 258,912 2,001,285 707,401 403,783 6,904,447
1920 20,066,803 1,087,453 9,035,001 39,852,067 10,810,085 4,995,223 85,846,631 4,063,634 34,124 300,294 2,360,115 834,237 468,319 8,060,724
1921 18,404,853 920,667 9,561,594 33,907,970 6,998,671 4,833,245 74,627,000 5,795,380 44,923 494,153 2,860,168 769,279 704,595 10,668,498
1922 17,628,945 881,853 9,158,498 32,478,485 6,703,623 4,629,487 71,480,891 6,538,468 50,683 557,514 3,113,811 837,499 794,938 11,892,913
1923 18,626,209 931,739 9,676,592 34,315,783 7,082,845 4,891,375 75,524,543 6,004,534 46,544 511,987 2,829,917 761,142 730,023 10,884,148
1924 19,396,465 970,270 10,076,751 35,734,856 7,375,744 5,093,650 78,647,736 5,851,452 45,358 498,934 2,753,243 740,520 711,412 10,600,918
1925 20,594,430 1,030,196 10,699,112 37,941,912 7,831,285 5,408,244 83,505,179 5,881,150 45,588 501,466 2,793,363 751,310 715,022 10,687,900
1926 22,169,479 1,108,985 11,517,373 40,843,686 8,430,216 5,821,863 89,891,602 5,970,117 46,277 509,052 2,874,142 773,037 725,839 10,898,465
1927 23,446,884 1,172,884 12,181,004 43,197,098 8,915,965 6,157,319 95,071,153 6,330,153 49,068 539,751 2,979,282 801,316 769,611 11,469,181
1928 24,270,469 1,214,082 12,608,868 44,714,421 9,229,144 6,373,598 98,410,583 6,801,976 52,726 579,982 3,159,306 849,736 826,975 12,270,701
1929 24,622,799 1,231,707 12,791,909 45,363,531 9,363,121 6,466,122 99,839,190 6,860,973 53,183 585,013 3,190,499 858,125 834,148 12,381,941
1930 22,486,856 1,124,861 11,682,255 41,428,401 8,550,903 5,905,208 91,178,483 6,413,916 49,718 546,894 3,003,659 807,872 779,795 11,601,853
1931 15,391,167 384,956 7,995,939 29,527,465 4,502,062 4,547,059 62,348,648 5,756,654 22,311 490,851 2,942,047 584,539 787,372 10,583,774
1932 13,248,386 331,362 6,882,733 25,416,607 3,875,278 3,914,011 53,668,377 5,704,685 22,110 486,420 2,851,379 566,524 780,264 10,411,382
1933 12,505,866 312,791 6,496,983 23,992,107 3,658,084 3,694,646 50,660,477 5,538,235 21,465 472,227 2,648,650 526,245 757,498 9,964,319
1934 12,950,916 323,922 6,728,193 24,845,921 3,788,265 3,826,128 52,463,346 5,428,029 21,038 462,830 2,647,587 526,034 742,424 9,827,942
1935 16,013,727 400,528 8,319,369 30,721,827 4,684,166 4,730,984 64,870,600 5,846,102 22,658 498,478 2,796,246 555,570 799,606 10,518,660
1936 17,432,618 436,016 9,056,503 33,443,923 5,099,205 5,150,171 70,618,437 6,681,596 25,896 569,718 3,093,981 614,725 913,882 11,899,799
1937 20,895,697 522,633 10,855,624 40,087,730 6,112,188 6,173,279 84,647,151 7,274,456 28,194 620,269 3,357,850 667,152 994,971 12,942,892
1938 21,596,868 540,170 11,219,893 41,432,906 6,317,288 6,380,428 87,487,553 8,147,533 31,578 694,713 3,712,126 737,541 1,114,387 14,437,878
1939 21,445,527 536,385 11,141,269 41,142,562 6,273,019 6,335,717 86,874,479 8,758,684 33,947 746,824 4,001,375 795,010 1,197,978 15,533,818
European Malay Clerical Chinese, Indian, Chinese Labour Malay Labour Indian Labour Total European Standard Malay Clerical Chinese, Indian, Chinese Labour Malay Labour Indian Labour Total
Standard Standard Eurasian Clerical Standard Standard Standard Standard Eurasian Clerical Standard Standard Standard
1947 71,954,987 6,056,184 58,652,354 190,566,709 24,119,997 36,373,992 387,724,223 44,652,793 325,966 2,933,692 18,098,222 2,985,000 3,222,275 72,217,948
1948 71,818,963 6,044,736 58,541,478 190,206,461 24,074,400 36,305,230 386,991,268 40,866,858 298,328 2,684,956 16,563,744 2,731,914 2,949,071 66,094,871
1949 78,941,707 6,644,231 64,347,408 209,070,446 26,462,012 39,905,851 425,371,655 52,628,319 384,187 3,457,684 21,330,782 3,518,157 3,797,812 85,116,942
1950 83,489,050 7,026,964 68,054,065 221,113,702 27,986,325 42,204,580 449,874,685 54,026,729 394,396 3,549,560 21,897,571 3,611,639 3,898,726 87,378,621
1951 107,486,516 9,046,742 87,615,014 284,668,964 36,030,503 54,335,548 579,183,286 57,396,914 418,998 3,770,982 23,263,541 3,836,933 4,141,928 92,829,296
1952 116,261,314 9,785,284 94,767,577 307,908,275 38,971,899 58,771,299 626,465,648 59,761,353 436,258 3,926,325 24,221,871 3,994,994 4,312,553 96,653,355
1953 130,950,539 11,021,621 106,741,141 346,811,448 43,895,867 66,196,855 705,617,470 75,175,582 548,782 4,939,041 30,469,411 5,025,422 5,424,888 121,583,127
1954 125,527,001 10,565,142 102,320,276 332,447,666 42,077,846 63,455,200 676,393,132 82,763,618 604,175 5,437,576 33,544,918 5,532,675 5,972,463 133,855,426
1955 124,269,457 10,459,300 101,295,220 329,117,168 41,656,305 62,819,499 669,616,949 84,523,091 617,019 5,553,173 34,258,050 5,650,294 6,099,432 136,701,060
1956 142,939,681 12,030,703 116,513,798 378,563,678 47,914,742 72,257,490 770,220,091 100,349,254 732,550 6,592,953 40,672,552 6,708,259 7,241,494 162,297,063
1957 150,249,636 8,430,637 167,832,451 361,447,159 55,961,232 75,952,748 819,873,862 100,422,640 488,724 9,041,395 36,971,252 7,459,072 7,246,790 161,629,873
1958 154,652,705 8,677,697 172,750,785 372,039,375 57,601,177 78,178,545 843,900,284 104,970,472 510,857 9,450,852 38,645,566 7,796,871 7,574,974 168,949,592
1959 146,586,615 8,225,101 163,740,769 352,635,234 54,596,921 74,101,053 799,885,694 98,273,495 478,265 8,847,900 36,180,030 7,299,441 7,091,701 158,170,832
1960 171,204,779 9,606,448 191,239,850 411,857,778 63,766,080 86,545,791 934,220,726 120,602,695 586,934 10,858,275 44,400,671 8,957,982 8,703,041 194,109,598
328
Total Private Final Consumption Expenditure by ajor Object of Consumption and Standard in Constant Prices,
Singapore,1900-39 and 1947-1960
(Straits $)
Clothing Rent
Year European Standard Eurasian Standard Asiatic Clerical Chinese Labour Malay Labour Indian Labour Total European Eurasian Asiatic Clerical Chinese Labour Malay Labour Indian Labour Total
Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard
1899 2,527,895 45,643 387,962 1,197,216 367,190 118,954 4,644,859 1,398,722 58,280 495,381 484,243 116,071 82,366 2,635,062
1900 2,463,621 44,482 378,097 1,175,398 360,499 115,929 4,538,027 1,368,195 57,008 484,569 473,674 113,538 80,568 2,577,553
1901 2,500,760 45,153 383,797 1,197,975 367,423 117,677 4,612,785 1,391,648 57,985 492,875 481,794 115,484 81,949 2,621,735
1902 2,479,068 44,761 380,468 1,205,513 369,735 116,656 4,596,200 1,389,990 57,916 492,288 481,220 115,347 81,852 2,618,613
1903 2,518,992 45,482 386,595 1,230,948 377,536 118,535 4,678,089 1,415,847 58,994 501,446 490,172 117,493 83,374 2,667,324
1904 2,588,296 46,733 397,232 1,265,352 388,088 121,796 4,807,497 1,455,109 60,630 515,351 503,764 120,751 85,686 2,741,291
1905 2,614,278 47,202 401,219 1,287,507 394,883 123,019 4,868,108 1,475,151 61,465 522,449 510,703 122,414 86,867 2,779,049
1906 2,731,334 49,316 419,184 1,336,879 410,025 128,527 5,075,265 1,536,461 64,019 544,163 531,929 127,502 90,477 2,894,550
1907 2,812,687 50,785 431,669 1,376,138 422,066 132,355 5,225,701 1,581,902 65,913 560,257 547,661 131,273 93,153 2,980,158
1908 2,916,007 52,650 447,526 1,422,316 436,229 137,217 5,411,945 1,637,498 68,229 579,947 566,908 135,886 96,427 3,084,894
1909 3,072,991 55,485 471,619 1,484,621 455,338 144,604 5,684,657 1,717,441 71,560 608,260 594,585 142,520 101,134 3,235,500
1910 3,102,323 56,014 476,120 1,510,162 463,172 145,984 5,753,775 1,740,410 72,517 616,395 602,537 144,426 102,487 3,278,773
1911 2,917,040 52,669 463,485 1,492,141 427,194 137,266 5,489,796 1,668,057 69,502 611,621 584,282 130,732 98,226 3,162,420
1912 2,962,911 53,497 470,774 1,526,064 436,906 139,424 5,589,576 1,700,133 70,839 623,382 595,517 133,246 100,115 3,223,231
1913 2,998,597 54,141 476,444 1,557,281 445,844 141,103 5,673,410 1,727,760 71,990 633,512 605,194 135,411 101,742 3,275,610
1914 3,252,027 58,717 516,711 1,656,756 474,323 153,029 6,111,564 1,855,955 77,331 680,517 650,098 145,458 109,291 3,518,650
1915 3,152,293 56,916 500,864 1,647,983 471,811 148,336 5,978,203 1,822,581 75,941 668,280 638,408 142,842 107,325 3,455,377
1916 3,065,285 55,345 487,040 1,642,200 470,155 144,242 5,864,267 1,794,230 74,760 657,884 628,477 140,620 105,656 3,401,628
1917 3,606,604 65,119 573,049 1,837,565 526,088 169,714 6,778,139 2,059,383 85,808 755,107 721,354 161,402 121,270 3,904,324
1918 3,858,088 69,660 613,007 1,938,270 554,919 181,548 7,215,494 2,187,614 91,151 802,125 766,270 171,451 128,821 4,147,432
1919 3,544,313 63,995 563,152 1,868,726 535,009 166,783 6,741,977 2,059,410 85,809 755,117 721,364 161,404 121,271 3,904,374
1920 3,510,990 63,393 557,857 1,882,231 538,875 165,215 6,718,560 2,057,170 85,715 754,296 720,579 161,228 121,140 3,900,127
1921 4,992,118 83,202 915,222 2,274,151 495,416 247,819 9,007,927 2,802,144 107,775 1,185,522 910,539 155,022 174,075 5,335,077
1922 5,720,077 95,335 1,048,681 2,514,449 547,764 283,956 10,210,261 3,154,495 121,327 1,334,594 1,025,033 174,515 195,964 6,005,927
1923 6,087,408 101,457 1,116,025 2,648,205 576,903 302,191 10,832,188 3,339,684 128,449 1,412,943 1,085,209 184,760 207,468 6,358,513
1924 6,332,657 105,544 1,160,987 2,750,374 599,160 314,366 11,263,088 3,471,381 133,515 1,468,661 1,128,004 192,046 215,649 6,609,256
1925 6,454,486 107,575 1,183,322 2,829,772 616,456 320,414 11,512,025 3,554,879 136,726 1,503,987 1,155,136 196,665 220,836 6,768,230
1926 6,491,229 108,187 1,190,059 2,884,543 628,388 322,238 11,624,644 3,599,400 138,438 1,522,823 1,169,603 199,128 223,602 6,852,995
1927 7,146,810 119,113 1,310,248 3,104,805 676,372 354,782 12,712,131 3,918,585 150,715 1,657,863 1,273,320 216,786 243,430 7,460,699
1928 7,673,324 127,889 1,406,776 3,289,765 716,664 380,919 13,595,337 4,179,648 160,756 1,768,312 1,358,150 231,229 259,648 7,957,744
1929 7,937,891 132,298 1,455,280 3,407,240 742,256 394,053 14,069,019 4,326,329 166,397 1,830,370 1,405,813 239,344 268,760 8,237,013
1930 7,705,398 128,423 1,412,656 3,330,790 725,601 382,512 13,685,380 4,214,435 162,094 1,783,030 1,369,454 233,154 261,809 8,023,976
1931 6,729,338 56,078 1,233,712 3,174,509 510,857 375,815 12,080,310 3,768,943 72,480 1,594,553 1,275,302 160,391 263,401 7,135,068
1932 6,907,263 57,561 1,266,332 3,186,794 512,834 385,752 12,316,535 3,826,061 73,578 1,618,718 1,294,629 162,821 267,393 7,243,200
1933 7,296,593 60,805 1,337,709 3,221,054 518,347 407,495 12,842,002 3,954,455 76,047 1,673,039 1,338,074 168,285 276,366 7,486,266
1934 7,095,826 59,132 1,300,901 3,194,742 514,113 396,283 12,560,997 3,883,900 74,690 1,643,189 1,314,200 165,283 271,435 7,352,698
1935 8,125,584 67,713 1,489,690 3,587,470 577,312 453,792 14,301,562 4,404,442 84,701 1,863,418 1,490,336 187,435 307,815 8,338,147
1936 9,305,302 77,544 1,705,972 3,977,339 640,052 519,676 16,225,885 4,963,500 95,452 2,099,942 1,679,505 211,226 346,886 9,396,511
1937 10,130,963 84,425 1,857,343 4,316,545 694,638 565,787 17,649,701 5,395,361 103,757 2,282,653 1,825,635 229,604 377,067 10,214,077
1938 11,411,114 95,093 2,092,038 4,798,985 772,275 637,280 19,806,784 6,037,748 116,111 2,554,432 2,043,000 256,942 421,962 11,430,193
1939 11,614,208 96,785 2,129,271 4,897,616 788,147 648,622 20,174,650 6,153,523 118,337 2,603,414 2,082,175 261,869 430,053 11,649,370
European Standard Malay Clerical Chinese, Indian, Chinese Labour Malay Labour Indian Labour Total European Malay Clerical Chinese, Indian, Chinese Labour Malay Labour Indian Labour Total
Standard Eurasian Clerical Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Eurasian Clerical Standard Standard Standard
1947 12,729,149 188,357 1,737,312 6,546,285 874,505 633,385 22,708,993 7,661,571 172,288 1,550,592 2,872,240 299,869 420,183 12,976,743
1948 14,218,619 203,400 1,940,600 7,069,120 944,349 683,972 25,060,060 8,415,776 189,248 1,703,232 3,154,983 329,388 461,546 14,254,174
1949 17,738,411 235,127 2,420,991 8,171,768 1,091,650 790,658 30,448,605 10,113,781 227,432 2,046,884 3,791,547 395,847 554,669 17,130,160
1950 17,104,959 234,260 2,334,536 8,141,626 1,087,623 787,742 29,690,745 9,914,543 222,951 2,006,561 3,716,855 388,049 543,743 16,792,701
1951 15,948,640 228,975 2,176,718 7,957,961 1,063,088 769,971 28,145,354 9,467,595 212,901 1,916,105 3,549,299 370,556 519,231 16,035,686
1952 16,357,393 237,547 2,232,506 8,255,871 1,102,885 798,796 28,984,997 9,766,131 219,614 1,976,524 3,661,217 382,240 535,603 16,541,329
1953 20,276,166 277,156 2,767,352 9,632,474 1,286,783 931,989 35,171,919 11,750,190 264,230 2,378,069 4,405,019 459,895 644,415 19,901,819
1954 21,486,865 292,332 2,932,591 10,159,906 1,357,241 983,020 37,211,956 12,422,689 279,353 2,514,173 4,657,132 486,216 681,297 21,040,860
1955 22,018,661 302,041 3,005,173 10,497,341 1,402,318 1,015,669 38,241,202 12,782,712 287,449 2,587,037 4,792,100 500,307 701,041 21,650,647
1956 26,052,286 341,357 3,555,694 11,863,753 1,584,855 1,147,876 44,545,819 14,785,499 332,486 2,992,372 5,542,923 578,695 810,880 25,042,856
1957 25,706,033 230,689 4,807,857 10,923,900 1,785,079 1,163,604 44,617,162 14,788,541 221,703 4,101,502 5,035,858 643,127 811,047 25,601,778
1958 26,860,940 241,252 5,023,862 11,424,079 1,866,813 1,216,883 46,633,828 15,459,313 231,759 4,287,536 5,264,272 672,298 847,834 26,763,010
1959 25,268,030 236,849 4,725,936 11,215,593 1,832,744 1,194,675 44,473,828 14,859,864 222,772 4,121,283 5,060,145 646,229 814,959 25,725,251
1960 31,025,587 272,499 5,802,785 12,903,726 2,108,603 1,374,494 53,487,692 17,671,171 264,918 4,900,980 6,017,464 768,487 969,139 30,592,159
Total Private Final Consumption Expenditure by ajor Object of Consumption and Standard in Current Prices,
Singapore, 1900-39 and 1947-1960
(Straits $)
Clothing Rent
Year European Standard Eurasian Standard Asiatic Clerical Chinese Labour Malay Labour Indian Labour Total European Eurasian Asiatic Clerical Chinese Labour Malay Labour Indian Labour Total
Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard
1899 1,928,921 34,828 296,036 913,540 280,186 90,768 3,544,279 1,049,375 43,724 371,654 363,298 87,081 61,794 1,976,925
1900 1,944,855 35,115 298,481 927,894 284,588 91,518 3,582,451 1,046,185 43,591 370,524 362,193 86,817 61,606 1,970,915
1901 2,111,789 38,130 324,101 1,011,641 310,274 99,373 3,895,308 1,084,573 45,191 384,120 375,483 90,002 63,867 2,043,236
1902 2,151,594 38,848 330,210 1,046,270 320,894 101,247 3,989,063 1,104,127 46,005 391,045 382,253 91,625 65,018 2,080,073
1903 2,337,290 42,201 358,709 1,142,156 350,303 109,985 4,340,644 1,146,330 47,764 405,992 396,864 95,127 67,503 2,159,579
1904 2,334,473 42,150 358,277 1,141,265 350,030 109,852 4,336,047 1,200,835 50,035 425,296 415,734 99,650 70,713 2,262,263
1905 2,300,023 41,528 352,990 1,132,739 347,415 108,231 4,282,927 1,240,873 51,703 439,476 429,595 102,973 73,071 2,337,691
1906 2,305,847 41,633 353,883 1,128,620 346,152 108,505 4,284,640 1,317,418 54,892 466,586 456,095 109,325 77,578 2,481,895
1907 2,334,320 42,147 358,253 1,142,092 350,283 109,845 4,336,941 1,382,617 57,609 489,677 478,667 114,735 81,418 2,604,723
1908 2,516,708 45,441 386,245 1,227,553 376,495 118,428 4,670,869 1,458,920 60,788 516,701 505,084 121,067 85,911 2,748,470
1909 2,348,477 42,403 360,426 1,134,594 347,984 110,511 4,344,395 1,483,334 61,806 525,347 513,536 123,093 87,348 2,794,464
1910 2,617,633 47,263 401,734 1,274,222 390,808 123,177 4,854,838 1,497,671 62,403 530,425 518,500 124,283 88,193 2,821,474
1911 2,451,054 44,255 389,445 1,253,777 358,952 115,338 4,612,821 1,413,662 58,903 518,343 495,173 110,794 83,246 2,680,120
1912 2,461,380 44,442 391,086 1,267,747 362,951 115,824 4,643,429 1,452,722 60,530 532,665 508,855 113,855 85,546 2,754,173
1913 2,984,482 53,886 474,201 1,549,951 443,745 140,439 5,646,705 1,569,881 65,412 575,623 549,893 123,037 92,445 2,976,292
1914 3,252,027 58,717 516,711 1,656,756 474,323 153,029 6,111,564 1,855,955 77,331 680,517 650,098 145,458 109,291 3,518,650
1915 4,360,216 78,726 692,790 2,279,471 652,604 205,177 8,268,983 1,827,636 76,151 670,133 640,178 143,239 107,623 3,464,960
1916 4,943,690 89,261 785,497 2,648,538 758,266 232,633 9,457,886 1,838,075 76,586 673,961 643,835 144,057 108,238 3,484,752
1917 5,194,086 93,782 825,283 2,646,386 757,650 244,416 9,761,603 2,106,508 87,771 772,386 737,861 165,095 124,045 3,993,667
1918 7,322,652 132,215 1,163,488 3,678,837 1,053,237 344,578 13,695,007 2,501,224 104,218 917,116 876,121 196,030 147,288 4,741,997
1919 8,137,742 146,931 1,292,997 4,290,595 1,228,381 382,934 15,479,580 2,572,247 107,177 943,157 900,999 201,597 151,471 4,876,648
1920 10,238,046 184,854 1,626,712 5,488,584 1,571,360 481,767 19,591,322 3,307,149 137,798 1,212,621 1,158,418 259,194 194,746 6,269,926
1921 11,841,303 197,355 2,170,906 5,394,285 1,175,127 587,826 21,366,802 4,712,102 181,235 1,993,582 1,531,168 260,686 292,725 8,971,498
1922 10,456,300 174,272 1,916,988 4,596,412 1,001,313 519,072 18,664,358 5,888,314 226,474 2,491,210 1,913,371 325,757 365,794 11,210,919
1923 9,958,999 165,983 1,825,816 4,332,463 943,813 494,385 17,721,459 7,001,195 269,277 2,962,044 2,274,994 387,324 434,928 13,329,763
1924 9,948,604 165,810 1,823,911 4,320,837 941,280 493,869 17,694,311 7,551,596 290,446 3,194,906 2,453,844 417,774 469,121 14,377,686
1925 10,204,542 170,076 1,870,833 4,473,869 974,618 506,574 18,200,511 8,018,871 308,418 3,392,599 2,605,682 443,625 498,149 15,267,344
1926 10,223,685 170,395 1,874,342 4,543,156 989,711 507,524 18,308,814 8,496,106 326,773 3,594,507 2,760,757 470,027 527,795 16,175,965
1927 11,106,142 185,102 2,036,126 4,824,867 1,051,081 551,331 19,754,651 9,930,205 381,931 4,201,241 3,226,758 549,365 616,885 18,906,384
1928 11,655,779 194,263 2,136,893 4,997,153 1,088,613 578,617 20,651,318 11,525,328 443,282 4,876,100 3,745,083 637,611 715,977 21,943,381
1929 11,192,426 186,540 2,051,945 4,804,209 1,046,581 555,615 19,837,316 12,001,198 461,585 5,077,430 3,899,714 663,938 745,539 22,849,404
1930 10,772,146 179,536 1,974,894 4,656,444 1,014,391 534,751 19,132,162 10,772,146 414,313 4,557,447 3,500,342 595,943 669,188 20,509,379
1931 9,190,219 76,585 1,684,873 4,335,409 697,674 513,249 16,498,009 8,346,614 160,512 3,531,260 2,824,254 355,197 583,322 15,801,159
1932 8,384,352 69,870 1,537,131 3,868,276 622,501 468,243 14,950,374 6,932,753 133,322 2,933,088 2,345,844 295,029 484,511 13,124,547
1933 8,440,766 70,340 1,547,474 3,726,145 599,628 471,394 14,855,747 6,289,972 120,961 2,661,142 2,128,345 267,675 439,589 11,907,684
1934 7,860,931 65,508 1,441,171 3,539,215 569,547 439,012 13,915,383 6,177,747 118,803 2,613,662 2,090,372 262,899 431,746 11,695,229
1935 8,922,564 74,355 1,635,803 3,939,339 633,937 498,301 15,704,299 7,005,723 134,725 2,963,960 2,370,535 298,135 489,611 13,262,689
1936 10,154,225 84,619 1,861,608 4,340,192 698,444 567,086 17,706,173 7,894,962 151,826 3,340,176 2,671,428 335,977 551,758 14,946,127
1937 11,427,130 95,226 2,094,974 4,868,808 783,511 638,174 19,907,823 8,728,801 167,862 3,692,954 2,953,575 371,462 610,032 16,524,686
1938 12,999,532 108,329 2,383,247 5,467,000 879,775 725,989 22,563,871 10,239,108 196,906 4,331,930 3,464,619 435,734 715,584 19,383,882
1939 14,381,984 119,850 2,636,697 6,064,765 975,970 803,195 24,982,460 11,215,586 215,684 4,745,056 3,795,031 477,289 783,827 21,232,473
European Standard Malay Clerical Chinese, Indian, Chinese Labour Malay Labour Indian Labour Total European Malay Clerical Chinese, Indian, Chinese Labour Malay Labour Indian Labour Total
Standard Eurasian Clerical Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Eurasian Clerical Standard Standard Standard
1947 80,002,359 1,183,817 10,918,961 41,143,226 5,496,240 3,980,807 142,725,410 42,063,009 945,883 8,512,947 15,768,966 1,646,320 2,306,859 71,243,984
1948 54,870,439 784,933 7,488,881 27,280,126 3,644,297 2,639,485 96,708,161 38,776,736 871,984 7,847,853 14,536,978 1,517,697 2,126,630 65,677,877
1949 69,015,383 914,815 9,419,425 31,794,152 4,247,316 3,076,239 118,467,331 51,639,140 1,161,224 10,451,018 19,358,954 2,021,124 2,832,042 87,463,502
1950 71,069,104 973,321 9,699,723 33,827,502 4,518,948 3,272,975 123,361,573 52,254,829 1,175,069 10,575,625 19,589,769 2,045,221 2,865,808 88,506,322
1951 83,879,148 1,204,255 11,448,076 41,853,538 5,591,129 4,049,534 148,025,680 60,814,625 1,367,556 12,308,004 22,798,744 2,380,247 3,335,252 103,004,428
1952 84,153,642 1,222,103 11,485,540 42,473,861 5,673,997 4,109,553 149,118,696 66,485,468 1,495,078 13,455,701 24,924,681 2,602,200 3,646,258 112,609,386
1953 95,832,640 1,309,941 13,079,524 45,526,626 6,081,810 4,404,923 166,235,464 84,508,170 1,900,360 17,103,236 31,681,197 3,307,597 4,634,676 143,135,235
1954 96,377,177 1,311,224 13,153,844 45,571,240 6,087,770 4,409,239 166,910,495 91,390,893 2,055,133 18,496,200 34,261,455 3,576,983 5,012,145 154,792,809
1955 96,694,939 1,326,411 13,197,214 46,099,065 6,158,281 4,460,309 167,936,219 92,635,925 2,083,131 18,748,177 34,728,204 3,625,712 5,080,426 156,901,576
1956 114,148,908 1,495,664 15,579,383 51,981,406 6,944,091 5,029,454 195,178,906 113,644,003 2,555,546 22,999,910 42,603,905 4,447,955 6,232,571 192,483,889
1957 114,355,030 1,026,237 21,388,077 48,595,710 7,941,043 5,176,372 198,482,469 116,915,026 1,752,735 32,425,590 39,812,410 5,084,424 6,411,963 202,402,147
1958 119,143,258 1,070,087 22,283,630 50,672,165 8,280,357 5,397,554 206,847,051 124,764,207 1,870,406 34,602,508 42,485,247 5,425,770 6,842,435 215,990,572
1959 110,210,741 1,033,057 20,612,961 48,918,686 7,993,820 5,210,775 193,980,042 121,558,016 1,822,340 33,713,292 41,393,461 5,286,339 6,666,598 210,440,046
1960 135,932,938 1,193,904 25,423,841 56,535,315 9,238,457 6,022,092 234,346,547 144,555,328 2,167,105 40,091,441 49,224,605 6,286,450 7,927,838 250,252,768
329
Total Private Final Consumption Expenditure by ajor Object of Consumption and Standard in
Constant Prices, Singapore, 1900-39 and 1947-1960
(Straits $)
Servant Transport Clubbing Total from
Year European Standard Eurasian Standard Asiatic Clerical Total European Eurasian Asiatic Clerical Total European Total Indirect
Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Approach
1899 5,258,236 32,102 272,863 5,563,201 2,762,442 63,378 538,711 3,364,531 1,726,248 1,726,248 43,519,395
1900 5,124,542 31,285 265,926 5,421,753 2,692,205 61,766 525,014 3,278,985 1,682,357 1,682,357 42,565,436
1901 5,201,793 31,757 269,934 5,503,484 2,732,789 62,697 532,928 3,328,415 1,707,718 1,707,718 43,292,894
1902 5,156,672 31,482 267,593 5,455,746 2,709,085 62,154 528,305 3,299,543 1,692,905 1,692,905 43,233,707
1903 5,239,718 31,989 271,902 5,543,609 2,752,714 63,155 536,813 3,352,682 1,720,168 1,720,168 44,035,842
1904 5,383,876 32,869 279,383 5,696,128 2,828,448 64,892 551,583 3,444,922 1,767,494 1,767,494 45,256,813
1905 5,437,920 33,199 282,188 5,753,306 2,856,840 65,543 557,119 3,479,503 1,785,237 1,785,237 45,877,106
1906 5,681,407 34,685 294,823 6,010,915 2,984,757 68,478 582,065 3,635,300 1,865,172 1,865,172 47,786,197
1907 5,850,629 35,718 303,604 6,189,951 3,073,659 70,518 599,402 3,743,578 1,920,727 1,920,727 49,199,686
1908 6,065,542 37,030 314,756 6,417,329 3,186,564 73,108 621,420 3,881,092 1,991,281 1,991,281 50,930,179
1909 6,392,082 39,024 331,701 6,762,807 3,358,114 77,044 654,874 4,090,032 2,098,482 2,098,482 53,421,376
1910 6,453,095 39,396 334,868 6,827,359 3,390,168 77,779 661,125 4,129,072 2,118,513 2,118,513 54,131,509
1911 6,067,692 37,043 325,981 6,430,716 3,187,694 73,134 643,580 3,904,408 1,991,987 1,991,987 51,964,143
1912 6,163,108 37,626 331,107 6,531,840 3,237,821 74,284 653,701 3,965,806 2,023,312 2,023,312 52,961,585
1913 6,237,336 38,079 335,095 6,610,510 3,276,817 75,179 661,574 4,013,570 2,047,680 2,047,680 53,820,424
1914 6,764,493 41,297 363,416 7,169,206 3,553,762 81,533 717,488 4,352,783 2,220,743 2,220,743 57,816,998
1915 6,557,037 40,031 352,271 6,949,339 3,444,774 79,032 695,484 4,219,290 2,152,636 2,152,636 56,769,278
1916 6,376,054 38,926 342,547 6,757,527 3,349,694 76,851 676,287 4,102,832 2,093,221 2,093,221 55,883,416
1917 7,502,043 45,800 403,040 7,950,883 3,941,238 90,422 795,717 4,827,377 2,462,876 2,462,876 64,138,077
1918 8,025,152 48,994 431,144 8,505,289 4,216,056 96,727 851,202 5,163,985 2,634,610 2,634,610 68,136,920
1919 7,372,472 45,009 396,079 7,813,560 3,873,167 88,861 781,974 4,744,002 2,420,339 2,420,339 64,121,202
1920 7,303,157 44,586 392,355 7,740,098 3,836,752 88,025 774,622 4,699,399 2,397,583 2,397,583 64,050,554
1921 10,384,029 58,518 643,699 11,086,246 5,455,304 115,531 1,270,846 6,841,682 3,409,015 3,409,015 84,608,527
1922 11,898,246 67,051 737,564 12,702,861 6,250,806 132,378 1,456,163 7,839,348 3,906,123 3,906,123 95,328,352
1923 12,662,326 71,357 784,929 13,518,611 6,652,219 140,880 1,549,675 8,342,774 4,156,966 4,156,966 100,954,809
1924 13,172,465 74,232 816,552 14,063,248 6,920,224 146,555 1,612,108 8,678,887 4,324,442 4,324,442 104,941,058
1925 13,425,879 75,660 832,261 14,333,800 7,053,356 149,375 1,643,122 8,845,853 4,407,636 4,407,636 107,434,644
1926 13,502,307 76,091 836,998 14,415,397 7,093,508 150,225 1,652,476 8,896,209 4,432,727 4,432,727 108,737,627
1927 14,865,972 83,776 921,531 15,871,278 7,809,917 165,397 1,819,367 9,794,681 4,880,410 4,880,410 118,452,875
1928 15,961,166 89,947 989,421 17,040,534 8,385,282 177,582 1,953,402 10,516,267 5,239,956 5,239,956 126,394,859
1929 16,511,488 93,049 1,023,535 17,628,073 8,674,397 183,705 2,020,754 10,878,856 5,420,624 5,420,624 130,825,590
1930 16,027,883 90,323 993,557 17,111,764 8,420,333 178,324 1,961,568 10,560,225 5,261,859 5,261,859 127,413,452
1931 13,997,596 39,441 867,701 14,904,738 7,353,711 77,868 1,713,092 9,144,670 4,595,328 4,595,328 113,528,085
1932 14,367,695 40,484 890,643 15,298,822 7,548,144 79,927 1,758,386 9,386,457 4,716,829 4,716,829 115,311,434
1933 15,177,534 42,766 940,845 16,161,144 7,973,597 84,432 1,857,498 9,915,527 4,982,694 4,982,694 119,325,820
1934 14,759,922 41,589 914,957 15,716,468 7,754,203 82,109 1,806,389 9,642,700 4,845,595 4,845,595 117,119,474
1935 16,901,906 47,624 1,047,737 17,997,268 8,879,506 94,024 2,068,535 11,042,065 5,548,796 5,548,796 132,896,572
1936 19,355,820 54,539 1,199,854 20,610,212 10,168,682 107,675 2,368,856 12,645,213 6,354,401 6,354,401 149,927,623
1937 21,073,265 59,378 1,306,317 22,438,960 11,070,951 117,229 2,579,045 13,767,226 6,918,228 6,918,228 162,992,008
1938 23,736,088 66,881 1,471,383 25,274,352 12,469,879 132,042 2,904,934 15,506,855 7,792,417 7,792,417 182,489,473
1939 24,158,540 68,071 1,497,571 25,724,182 12,691,816 134,393 2,956,636 15,782,844 7,931,105 7,931,105 185,968,581
European Standard Malay Clerical Chinese, Indian, Total European Malay Clerical Chinese, Indian, Total European Total
Standard Eurasian Clerical Standard Standard Eurasian Clerical Standard
Total from
Grades Standard Grades Standard Indirect
Approach
1947 22,846,173 454,667 4,091,999 27,392,838 15,978,038 612,284 6,198,403 22,788,724 5,299,353 5,299,353 204,158,665
1948 25,519,462 507,868 4,570,814 30,598,144 17,847,669 683,928 6,923,694 25,455,291 5,919,444 5,919,444 224,760,204
1949 31,836,756 633,590 5,702,310 38,172,656 22,265,825 853,234 8,637,641 31,756,699 7,384,791 7,384,791 271,573,818
1950 30,699,842 610,964 5,498,676 36,809,482 21,470,696 822,764 8,329,185 30,622,644 7,121,074 7,121,074 265,512,804
1951 28,624,490 569,662 5,126,958 34,321,110 20,019,247 767,144 7,766,120 28,552,511 6,639,680 6,639,680 252,620,534
1952 29,358,116 584,262 5,258,359 35,200,737 20,532,327 786,805 7,965,161 29,284,293 6,809,850 6,809,850 260,375,877
1953 36,391,499 724,235 6,518,114 43,633,848 25,451,297 975,302 9,873,390 36,299,989 8,441,300 8,441,300 314,580,444
1954 38,564,451 767,479 6,907,313 46,239,244 26,971,005 1,033,538 10,462,934 38,467,477 8,945,334 8,945,334 332,705,404
1955 39,518,915 786,474 7,078,268 47,383,657 27,638,533 1,059,117 10,721,890 39,419,541 9,166,729 9,166,729 342,127,933
1956 46,758,431 930,549 8,374,945 56,063,925 32,701,669 1,253,138 12,686,046 46,640,853 10,845,993 10,845,993 397,126,531
1957 46,136,980 612,121 11,324,242 58,073,343 32,267,041 824,322 17,153,529 50,244,893 10,701,842 10,701,842 406,315,093
1958 48,209,797 639,622 11,833,011 60,682,431 33,716,717 861,357 17,924,193 52,502,267 11,182,649 11,182,649 424,714,005
1959 45,350,856 601,691 11,131,289 57,083,836 31,717,246 810,277 16,861,251 49,388,773 10,519,494 10,519,494 406,724,469
1960 55,684,472 738,792 13,667,657 70,090,921 38,944,316 994,906 20,703,245 60,642,467 12,916,459 12,916,459 486,227,008
Total Private Final Consumption Expenditure by ajor Object of Consumption and Standard in Current
Prices, Singapore, 1900-39 and 1947-1960
(Straits $)
Servant Transport Clubbing Total from

Year European Standard Eurasian Standard Asiatic Clerical Total European Eurasian Asiatic Clerical Total European Total Indirect
Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Approach
1899 3,661,986 22,356 190,030 3,874,372 3,029,367 69,502 590,764 3,689,633 1,522,127 1,522,127 35,367,896
1900 3,843,406 23,464 199,444 4,066,315 2,904,213 66,630 566,358 3,537,200 1,495,309 1,495,309 35,235,172
1901 3,808,456 23,251 197,630 4,029,337 2,936,201 67,364 572,596 3,576,161 1,521,632 1,521,632 36,191,806
1902 4,235,837 25,860 219,808 4,481,506 2,904,887 66,646 566,489 3,538,022 1,540,360 1,540,360 37,509,586
1903 4,304,054 26,276 223,348 4,553,679 2,954,639 67,787 576,191 3,598,617 1,576,648 1,576,648 38,664,316
1904 4,230,188 25,825 219,515 4,475,529 3,032,877 69,582 591,449 3,693,908 1,625,589 1,625,589 39,775,731
1905 4,272,652 26,085 221,719 4,520,455 3,060,240 70,210 596,785 3,727,235 1,673,405 1,673,405 41,061,784
1906 4,666,870 28,491 242,176 4,937,537 3,200,484 73,428 624,134 3,898,046 1,718,521 1,718,521 42,131,085
1907 5,328,251 32,529 276,497 5,637,277 3,229,497 74,093 629,792 3,933,382 1,758,489 1,758,489 43,351,429
1908 5,523,976 33,724 286,653 5,844,353 3,334,377 76,499 650,245 4,061,122 1,837,625 1,837,625 45,486,428
1909 5,821,360 35,539 302,085 6,158,985 3,481,281 79,870 678,893 4,240,044 1,917,380 1,917,380 46,594,498
1910 5,876,926 35,879 304,969 6,217,773 3,499,882 80,297 682,521 4,262,699 1,954,977 1,954,977 48,090,016
1911 5,525,934 33,736 296,876 5,856,545 3,280,539 75,264 662,325 4,018,129 1,989,693 1,989,693 50,604,042
1912 5,612,830 34,266 301,544 5,948,640 3,335,619 76,528 673,446 4,085,593 2,052,994 2,052,994 52,471,788
1913 5,680,431 34,679 305,176 6,020,286 3,259,143 74,773 658,006 3,991,922 2,097,491 2,097,491 54,399,818
1914 6,764,493 41,297 363,416 7,169,206 3,553,762 81,533 717,488 4,352,783 2,220,743 2,220,743 57,816,998
1915 6,807,662 41,561 365,735 7,214,958 3,507,813 80,479 708,211 4,296,503 1,965,530 1,965,530 60,442,874
1916 6,619,761 40,414 355,640 7,015,815 3,454,539 79,256 697,455 4,231,250 2,172,126 2,172,126 63,080,903
1917 8,484,215 51,796 455,806 8,991,818 4,281,761 98,235 864,467 5,244,463 2,804,673 2,804,673 75,450,340
1918 9,373,377 57,225 503,576 9,934,178 4,743,063 108,818 957,602 5,809,483 3,530,377 3,530,377 95,437,500
1919 8,611,047 52,570 462,620 9,126,238 4,760,122 109,210 961,046 5,830,378 3,567,579 3,567,579 110,285,366
1920 11,356,409 69,331 610,112 12,035,852 4,865,002 111,616 982,221 5,958,838 3,920,048 3,920,048 141,683,342
1921 16,147,166 90,996 1,000,951 17,239,112 6,699,114 141,873 1,560,599 8,401,586 6,023,730 6,023,730 147,298,227
1922 18,501,772 104,265 1,146,912 19,752,948 7,000,903 148,264 1,630,903 8,780,069 6,929,463 6,929,463 148,711,561
1923 19,689,916 110,960 1,220,564 21,021,441 6,306,304 133,554 1,469,092 7,908,950 7,033,587 7,033,587 153,423,890
1924 20,483,183 115,431 1,269,738 21,868,351 6,878,702 145,676 1,602,435 8,626,814 7,096,409 7,096,409 158,912,225
1925 20,877,242 117,651 1,294,165 22,289,059 7,427,184 157,292 1,730,208 9,314,683 7,237,339 7,237,339 166,502,015
1926 20,996,088 118,321 1,301,533 22,415,942 7,341,781 155,483 1,710,312 9,207,576 7,167,720 7,167,720 174,066,084
1927 23,116,586 130,271 1,432,981 24,679,838 7,356,941 155,804 1,713,844 9,226,590 7,784,254 7,784,254 186,892,052
1928 24,819,613 139,868 1,538,550 26,498,031 7,806,698 165,329 1,818,618 9,790,645 8,357,730 8,357,730 197,922,388
1929 25,675,365 144,691 1,591,598 27,411,653 7,780,935 164,783 1,812,616 9,758,334 8,418,228 8,418,228 200,496,066
1930 24,506,633 138,104 1,519,149 26,163,886 7,199,385 152,467 1,677,140 9,028,992 8,213,762 8,213,762 185,828,517
1931 19,316,682 54,429 1,197,427 20,568,538 7,074,270 74,909 1,647,994 8,797,173 7,375,501 7,375,501 141,972,802
1932 17,916,516 50,483 1,110,632 19,077,631 6,717,849 71,135 1,564,964 8,353,947 7,551,643 7,551,643 127,137,902
1933 17,575,584 49,523 1,089,498 18,714,605 6,809,452 72,105 1,586,303 8,467,860 7,892,588 7,892,588 122,463,280
1934 18,258,023 51,446 1,131,802 19,441,270 6,552,301 69,382 1,526,398 8,148,081 7,728,723 7,728,723 123,219,974
1935 21,533,029 60,674 1,334,817 22,928,520 7,316,713 77,476 1,704,473 9,098,661 8,750,451 8,750,451 145,133,879
1936 24,330,265 68,555 1,508,216 25,907,036 8,134,945 86,140 1,895,085 10,116,171 10,001,827 10,001,827 161,195,569
1937 27,395,245 77,191 1,698,212 29,170,648 9,011,754 95,425 2,099,343 11,206,522 10,910,045 10,910,045 185,309,768
1938 30,429,665 85,742 1,886,313 32,401,719 10,162,951 107,615 2,367,521 12,638,087 12,421,112 12,421,112 201,334,103
1939 30,971,248 87,268 1,919,886 32,978,401 10,429,918 110,441 2,429,713 12,970,073 12,124,274 12,124,274 206,695,978
European Standard Malay Clerical Chinese, Indian, Total European Malay Clerical Chinese, Indian, Total European Total
Standard Eurasian Clerical Standard Standard Eurasian Clerical Standard
Total from
Grades Standard Grades Standard Indirect
Approach
1947 83,714,834 1,666,027 14,994,239 100,375,099 28,999,745 1,111,280 11,249,949 41,360,973 22,454,709 22,454,709 838,102,346
1948 78,268,306 1,557,634 14,018,707 93,844,646 27,113,007 1,038,979 10,518,022 38,670,008 26,287,488 26,287,488 774,274,320
1949 102,606,622 2,041,996 18,377,964 123,026,582 33,502,172 1,283,814 12,996,588 47,782,574 32,286,894 32,286,894 919,515,480
1950 102,765,611 2,045,160 18,406,441 123,217,212 33,413,802 1,280,428 12,962,306 47,656,536 33,419,962 33,419,962 953,414,910
1951 109,038,351 2,169,995 19,529,957 130,738,304 34,725,344 1,330,686 13,471,096 49,527,127 36,286,513 36,286,513 1,139,594,633
1952 124,388,376 2,475,479 22,279,314 149,143,169 35,304,987 1,352,898 13,695,958 50,353,844 38,413,686 38,413,686 1,222,757,783
1953 163,109,079 3,246,068 29,214,614 195,569,761 42,424,734 1,625,729 16,457,941 60,508,404 46,971,319 46,971,319 1,439,620,781
1954 175,329,712 3,489,274 31,403,462 210,222,447 44,287,727 1,697,120 17,180,657 63,165,504 48,887,140 48,887,140 1,454,226,953
1955 180,834,429 3,598,824 32,389,417 216,822,670 45,843,506 1,756,738 17,784,194 65,384,438 49,886,891 49,886,891 1,463,249,803
1956 214,645,047 4,271,696 38,445,267 257,362,011 55,035,046 2,108,961 21,349,893 78,493,899 59,606,038 59,606,038 1,715,641,898
1957 211,792,270 2,809,948 51,984,046 266,586,264 56,147,121 1,434,384 29,848,453 87,429,958 59,795,428 59,795,428 1,796,200,000
1958 221,307,556 2,936,192 54,319,556 278,563,305 58,946,746 1,505,906 31,336,766 91,789,418 62,823,782 62,823,782 1,868,864,003
1959 208,183,557 2,762,070 51,098,293 262,043,920 56,287,324 1,437,966 29,922,986 87,648,276 59,661,041 59,661,041 1,771,829,851
1960 255,620,125 3,391,433 62,741,517 321,753,075 69,804,046 1,783,276 37,108,630 108,695,952 73,987,920 73,987,920 2,117,366,586
330
Appendix Table 8
Singapore: Percentage Share of Expenditure Incurred in relation to Straits
Settlements by Class of Account and Department for the period 1900-09
Personal Emoluments Intermediate Construction Machinery & Transfers
Consumption Equipment
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.9 2 3 4 9
1900 100% 100% 100%
1901 100% 100% 100%
1902 100% 100% 100%
1903 100% 100% 100%
1904 100% 100% 100%
Analyst
1905 100% 100% 100%
1906 100% 100% 100%
1907 100% 100% 100%
1908 100% 100% 100%
1909 78% 85% 74% 100%
78% 85% 0% 74% 100%
1900 72% 92% 71%
1901 57% 91% 81%
1902 70% 93% 76%
1903 71% 94% 73%
1904 69% 92% 80% 100%
Audit Department
1905 59% 95% 82% 0%
1906 68% 96% 91%
1907 69% 96% 82%
1908 65% 95% 83% 0%
1909 66% 87% 85%
67% 94% 92% 80% 80%
1900 87% 63% 89%

1901 84% 67% 81%
1902 89% 65% 85%
1903 91% 78% 78%
1904 90% 75% 96%
Bankruptcy
1905 80% 18%
1906 87% 30%
1907 82% 50%
1908 83% 79% 0% 100%
1909 76% 70% 100%
85% 72% 66% 68% 68% 100%
1900 71% 87% 32% 100%

1901 67% 62% 46% 100%
1902 66% 59% 32% 100%
1903 77% 45% 69% 0% 0%
1904 69% 60% 39% 100% 100%
Botanical Gardens
1905 66% 48% 39% 100%
1906 71% 42% 20% 100% 100%
1907 70% 34% 7% 100% 100%
1908 72% 61% 7% 100%
1909 73% 82% 7% 100%
70% 58% 30% 30% 30% 100%
Colonial Secretary 1909 100% 13% 77% 61%

100% 13% 0% 0% 77% 0% 61% 0%
1900 40% 46% 31% 0%
1901 45% 45% 32% 0%
1902 40% 45% 31% 0% 0%
1903 36% 46% 11%
1904 43% 46% 42% 0%
Ecclesiastical
1905 55% 60% 36% 0%
1906 51% 49% 31% 0%
1907 47% 44% 31% 0%
1908 48% 44% 31% 75%
1909 47% 44% 31% 57%
45% 47% 31% 31% 31%
1900 35% 18% 47% 60%

1901 36% 11% 56% 67%
1902 0% 16% 47% 69%
1903 49% 19% 28% 66%
1904 49% 21% 39% 62%
Education
1905 0% 20% 38% 100% 49%
1906 48% 26% 100% 39% 15% 100% 58%
1907 78% 85% 74% 100%
1908 50% 34% 48% 100% 7% 41%
1909 51% 37% 41% 61% 53%
49% 33% 100% 14% 46% 46% 74% 58%
1903 44% 24% 2% 0% 0%

1904 33% 27% 12%
1905 0% 26% 8% 0%
Forest 1906 32% 18% 14%
1907 32% 30% 33%
1908 31% 38% 18% 100%
1909 32% 44% 33% 38%
34% 30% 17% 17% 46% 17%
The percentage data was not taken into account for the computation of the expenditure
incurred by class of account
331
Personal Emoluments Intermediate Construction Machinery & Transfers
Consumption Equipment
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.9 2 3 4 9

1900 4% 0% 1%
1901 45% 0% 76%
1902 4% 0% 6%
1903 3% 0% 8% 0%
Indian Immigration
Department
1904 3% 0% 7%
1905 4% 0% 1% 0%
1906 3% 0% 1%
1907 4% 0% 1%
1908 7% 1%
4% 0% 0% 3% 3%
1900 70% 59% 70% 63%

1901 70% 60% 74% 87%
1902 69% 60% 74% 100%
1903 72% 58% 87% 86% 49%
1904 74% 58% 73% 75% 55%
Marine
1905 73% 68% 72% 68% 25% 9%
1906 70% 70% 72% 33%
1907 68% 71% 75% 100% 91%
1908 69% 66% 100% 67% 22% 63%
1909 67% 59% 71% 43%
70% 64% 100% 60% 73% 70% 61% 9%
1900 52% 41% 53% 90% 100%
1901 54% 36% 54% 89% 100%
1902 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
1903 55% 43% 60% 47% 0%
1904 55% 48% 59% 85% 84%
Medical
1905 56% 43% 58% 68% 83%
1906 56% 48% 59% 78% 98%
1907 57% 36% 100% 58% 70% 99%
1908 56% 30% 58% 87% 99%
1909 58% 35% 60% 100% 40% 99%
55% 36% 55% 36% 58% 58% 73% 85%
1900 68.4% 70.3% 49.4%

1901 60.2% 50.4% 100.0% 61.6%
1902 52.4% 65.6% 100.0% 39.3%
1903 52.3% 67.6% 93.6%
Miscellaneous 1904 48.9% 67.8% 79.6% 93.8%
1905 52.1% 45.0% 81.8% 100.0% 70.7%
1906 58.1% 100.0% 76.7% 13.4% 78.1%
1907 49.4% 100.0% 72.8% 100.0% 76.7%
1908 63.7% 100.0% 100.0% 82.7% 0.9% 72.9%
63.7% 61.3% 86.2% 56.3% 0.0% 70.6% 73.3% 67.0% 70.7%
1900 47% 48% 56% 59%
1901 46% 54% 57% 66%
1902 49% 53% 66% 77%
1903 50% 54% 62% 62%
1904 50% 53% 64% 96%
Police
1905 50% 58% 60% 58%
1906 49% 56% 62% 46%
1907 48% 54% 61% 72%
1908 48% 55% 0% 59% 52%
1909 49% 52% 0% 49% 51%
49% 54% 0% 53% 60% 64%
1900 68% 0% 60% 89% 100% 61%
1901 69% 0% 62% 87% 58%
1902 62% 0% 42% 81% 64%
1903 62% 55% 0% 80% 78% 100% 65%
1904 62% 45% 0% 81% 76% 100% 64%
Post Office
1905 59% 39% 0% 79% 62% 99% 98%
1906 61% 46% 0% 87% 79% 87%
1907 61% 42% 0% 85% 100% 86% 88%
1908 60% 41% 0% 77% 30% 97%
1909 60% 27% 0% 41% 56% 26% 98%
62% 42% 0% 61% 42% 79% 75% 77% 78%
1900 70% 69% 76% 0% 87%
1901 71% 65% 75% 85%
1902 73% 65% 78% 90%
1903 74% 67% 80% 92%
1904 74% 79% 76% 85% 87%
Prisons
1905 72% 81% 76% 100% 100% 91%
1906 74% 81% 78% 93%
1907 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
1908 73% 79% 0% 78% 94%
1909 74% 100% 79% 79%
73% 62% 0% 14% 77% 77% 77% 89%
1900 68% 47% 99%

1901 71% 41% 99% 100%
1902 68% 53% 99%
1903 71% 69% 100% 100%
1904 71% 72% 100% 99%
Treasury
1905 64% 100% 97% 34%
1906 69% 100% 53% 100%
1907 67% 100% 96%
1908 67% 100% 94% 0%
1909 70% 100% 10%
69% 86% 47% 85% 72%
332
Appendix Table 9
Methodology Adopted to Identify the Share of Expenditure Assigned to Singapore
in Relation to Straits Settlements by Departments for the Period 1910-39
STEP 1 Step 1
Major Sub Code Actual SS Malacca Penang Singapore Singapore Penang + Sum Average %applied Major Sub Code
Distribution of
Code (Proper) Malacca to S'pore Code
Item A 1 1 1,000.00 500.00 500.00 50.00% 1 1 compensation of
Item B 2 100.00 20.00 30.00 50.00 50.00 13,796.14 2 employees (Major Code 1)
Item C 4 1 2,000.00 4 1
Item D 3 1 300.00 300.00 300.00 - 3 1
was based on the known
Item E 2 1,000.00 2 distribution of
Item F 2 100.00 20.00 30.00 50.00 50.00 17,165.04 2 intermediate consumption
Item G 2 100.00 20.00 30.00 50.00 50.00 9,616.47 2
Item H 2 100.00 20.00 30.00 50.00 50.00 7,187.00 2 (Major Code 2) for the
Item I 9 150.00 9 respective Settlements.
Item J 2 2,000.00 2
Item K 1 2 400.00 200.00 200.00 50.00% 1 2
Item L 4 1 50.00 20.00 10.00 20.00 20.00 30.00 4 1
STEP 2 Step 2
Code (Proper) Malacca to S'pore Code
Distribution of
Item A 1 1 1,000.00 500.00 500.00 50.00% 1 1 intermediate consumption
Item B 2 100.00 20.00 30.00 50.00 50.00 13,796.14 2 (Major Code 2) was based
Item C 4 1 2,000.00 4 1
Item D 3 1 300.00 300.00 300.00 - 3 1 on the known distribution
Item E 2 1,000.00 500.00 500.00 50.00% 2 of intermediate
Item F 2 100.00 20.00 30.00 50.00 50.00 17,165.04 2 consumption (Major Code
Item G 2 100.00 20.00 30.00 50.00 50.00 9,616.47 2
Item H 2 100.00 20.00 30.00 50.00 50.00 7,187.00 2 2) for the respective
Item I 9 150.00 9 Settlements.
Item J 2 2,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 50.00% 2
Item K 1 2 400.00 200.00 200.00 50.00% 1 2
Item L 4 1 50.00 20.00 10.00 20.00 20.00 30.00 4 1
STEP 3 Step 3
Code (Proper) Malacca to S'pore Code Distribution of Transport
Item A 1 1 1,000.00 500.00 500.00 50.00% 1 1 Equipment (Code 4.1) was
Item B 2 100.00 20.00 30.00 50.00 50.00 13,796.14 2
Item C 4 1 2,000.00 800.00 1,200.00 40.00% 4 1
based on the known
Item D 3 1 300.00 300.00 300.00 - 3 1 distribution of Transport
Item E 2 1,000.00 500.00 500.00 50.00% 2 Equipment (Code 4.1). The
Item F 2 100.00 20.00 30.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 2
Item G 2 100.00 20.00 30.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 2
same methodology was
Item H 2 100.00 20.00 30.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 2 applied for Major Codes
Item I 9 150.00 9 3,4 and 9.
Item J 2 2,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 50.00% 2
Item K 1 2 400.00 200.00 200.00 50.00% 1 2
Item L 4 1 50.00 20.00 10.00 20.00 20.00 30.00 4 1
STEP 4
Step 4
Code (Proper) Malacca to S'pore Code In cases where the
Item A 1 1 1,000.00 500.00 500.00 50.00% 1 1 distribution of a particular
Item B 2 100.00 20.00 30.00 50.00 50.00 13,796.14 2
Item C 4 1 2,000.00 800.00 1,200.00 40.00% 4 1 code (other than Major
Item D 3 1 300.00 300.00 300.00 - 3 1 Code 2) was not known
Item E 2 1,000.00 500.00 500.00 50.00% 2 entirely for a particular
Item F 2 100.00 20.00 30.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 2
Item G 2 100.00 20.00 30.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 2 year by Department, the
Item H 2 100.00 20.00 30.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 2 distribution of Code 2 was
Item I 9 150.00 75.00 75.00 50.00% 9
utilized for the distribution
Item J 2 2,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 50.00% 2
Item K 1 2 400.00 200.00 200.00 50.00% 1 2 of share of expenditure for
Item L 4 1 50.00 20.00 10.00 20.00 20.00 30.00 4 1 all other codes.
333
Appendix Table 10
Percentage Share of Expenditure Incurred in Singapore in relation to Straits
Settlements by Class of Account and Department
Share of
Singapore
Agricultural Department 1919-1939 25%
Civil Services 1905,1921-1934 75%
Colonial Development Fund, Grants-in-aid 1931-1939 75%
Co-Operative Societies 1927-1939 25%
Director of supplies, S.S and F.M.S 1921 75%
Fisheries 1923-1939 25%
General Clerical Service 1927-1939 25%
Immigration 1934-1939 50%
Imports, Exports and Statistics 1922-1923 75%
Malayan Civil Service 1934-1935 25%
Malayan Establishments 1934-1937 25%
Museum and Library 1900-1939 100%
Pensions and Allowances 1910-1939 50%
Political Intelligence 1926-1929 25%
Printing 1910-1939 100%
Public Trustee 1939 50%
Straits Settlements Civil Services 1935-1939 75%
Subventions 1939 75%
Survey Department 1920-1939 50%
Survey Department: Meteorological branch 1937-1938 50%
Veterinary (Principal Veterinary Officer S.S & F.M.S) 1933 25%
War Expenditure 1914-1920 75%
334
Appendix Figure 1
Case 1: All Capitalized Construction work and Machinery and Equipment (M&E) was purchased from Private
Contractors
Public Works Department / Drainage and Irrigation Department
Purchased from Private

Capitalized Construction Output / M&E
Constractors A
1 Compensation of Employees
Output of Producers of
2 Intermediate Consumption
Government Services
Repairs and Maintenance B
3 Consumption of Fixed Assets
Total Construction Output

Other Trading Departments (Industries) Capitalized for Fixed Capital
formation by Government Agencies
(A+C+E)
Capitalized Construction Output
Constractors C
Government Services
Repairs and Maintenance D
3 Consumption of Fixed Assets
General Departments (Producer's of Government Services)

Constractors E
Case 2: Construction work and capital formation in Machinery and Equipment (M&E) was partially done by PWD
and the rest was purchased purchased from Private Contractors
Public Works Department / Drainage and Irrigation Department

Constractors A
Output Capitalized B
Government Services
3 Consumption of Fixed Assets Repairs and Maintenance C
Total Construction Output

Capitalized for Fixed Capital
Other Trading Departments (Industries)
formation by Government Agencies
Purchased from Private (A+B+D+E+G)
Constractors D
Output Capitalized E
Government Services
3 Consumption of Fixed Assets Repairs and Maintenance F
General Departments (Producer's of Government Services)

Constractors G
335
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Published Official Records
Annual Reports
Annual Administration Report, City Council of Singapore, 1947-59.
________________________, Singapore Municipality, 1899-1902, 1904-09, 1911-39.
________________________, Malacca, 1918, 1920, 1922.
________________________, Penang, 1918-22.
Annual Report, Chinese Protectorates Department, Straits Settlements, 1901, 1903-08,

1910-11, 1913, 1915, 1919-30, 1933.
____________, Colony of Singapore, 1948-56.
____________, Education Department, Colony of Singapore, 1948-56.
____________, Education Department, State of Singapore, 1957-60.
____________, Education Department, Straits Settlements, 1899-1905, 1907-13,

1915-16, 1918-24, 1926-27, 1929-38.
____________, Electrical Department, Federation of Malaya, 1948.
____________, Electrical Department, Malayan Union, 1946-47.
____________, Financial Statements, Colony of Singapore, 1948-56.
____________, Financial Statements, State of Singapore, 1957-60.
____________, Financial Statements, Straits Settlements, 1939.
____________, Foreign Trade of Malaya, 1929-30, 1932, 1934, 1936-39.
____________, Forest Department, Straits Settlements, 1899, 1905-06, 1910, 1914,

1918, 1920-24, 1926, 1932-38.
____________, Government Monopoly Department, Straits Settlements, 1910-15,

1918-27, 1932-34.
____________, Indian Immigration Department, Straits Settlements, 1901-02, 1905-07,

1909-11.
336
____________, Johore, 1933.
____________, Labour Department, Colony of Singapore, 1949.
____________, Land Office, Straits Settlements, 1899, 1901-07, 1909-27, 1933-36.
____________, Malayan Agricultural Statistics, 1931-39, 1947-49.
____________, Medical Department, Straits Settlements, 1911, 1913-15, 1923-38.
____________, Medical Department, Colony of Singapore, 1948-56.
____________, Medical Department, State of Singapore, 1957-60.
____________, Post and Telegraphs Department, Straits Settlements, 1899, 1902,

1905-07, 1910-16, 1918-27, 1933-38.
____________, Public Work, Straits Settlements, 1899, 1901-15, 1918-38.
____________, Registration of Births and Deaths Department, Straits Settlements,

1902-03, 1905-07, 1910-35, 1938.
____________, Registration of Births and Deaths, Malayan Union, 1940-46.
____________, Returns of Imports and Exports, British Malaya, 1921-37.
____________, Singapore’s External Trade, 1956-60.
____________, Singapore Harbour Board, 1929, 1936, 1940 and 1963.
____________, State of Singapore, 1957-60.
____________, Straits Settlements, 1899-1938.
____________, Trade and Custom, Federated Malay States, 1903-32.
Appendices to the Report on the Trade, Straits Settlements, 1899-1906, 1908-17,

1921-27.
Blue Book, Straits Settlements, annual series, 1900-38.
Malayan Year Book, 1939.

Possessions and Protectorates, 1908-12.
Statistical Tables Relating to the Colonial and Other Possessions and Protectorates,
1902-07.
337
Statistical Tables Relating to the Colonial and Other Possessions of The United
Kingdom, 1899-1901.
Yearbook of Statistics, Singapore, 1998, 2002.
Monthly Bulletins
Monthly Statistical Bulletin, Federation of Malaya, 1948-53.
Malayan Statistics Monthly Digest of Economic and Social Statistics Relating to the
Colony of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya, 1958-60.
Population Census Reports
Cavendish A. (1911). Report on the Census of Kedah and Perlis, 1911, Penang: The
Criterion Press Ltd.
Chua, S.C. (1957). Report On the Census of Population, 1957, Singapore: State of
Singapore.
Del Tufo, M. V. (1949). A Report on the 1947 Census of Population, Malaya

(Comprising Federation of Malaya and the Colony of Singapore), London: The Crown
Agents for The Colonies.
Innes, J.R. (1901). Report on the Census of the Straits Settlements, 1901, Singapore:
Government Printing Office.
Marriot, Hayes (1912). Census Report of the Straits Settlements, 1911, Singapore:
Nathan, J. E. (1922). The Census of British Malaya (The Straits Settlements, Federated
Malay States and Protected States of Johore, Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan, Trengganu and
Brunei), 1921, London: Waterloo & Sons Limited.
Vlieland, C.A. (1932). A Report On The 1931 Census and On Certain Problems of Vital
Statistics, British Malaya (The Colony of The Straits Settlements and the Malay States
under British Protection, namely The Federated Malay States of Perak, Selangor,
Negeri Sembilan and Pahang and the States of Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Trengganu,
Perlis and Brunei), London: The Crown Agents For The Colonies.
Special Reports
Allen, L.A. (1938). Proclamations, Order, Notices, Rules, Regulations, Declarations,

Appointments, Forms and By-laws in force on 31st day of December 1935 made under
the Laws of the Federated Malay States and of each of them prepared under the
Authority of the Revised Edition of the Laws Enactment, 1932, Vol. V containing the
Subsidiary Legislation made under Enactments, Chapters 138-161(Diet Scales of
Government Hospitals 1936- Chapter 154.), Kuala Lumpur: Government Printer.
338
Commission Appointed to Inquire into Matters Relating to the Use of Opium in the
Straits Settlements and the Federated Malay States and British Malaya Opium
Committee (1924). Proceedings of the British Malaya Opium Committee, Singapore:
Department for Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division, United Nations (1999).
Studies in Methods, Handbook of National Accounting, Series F, No.77, A Systems
Approach to National Accounts Compilation, A Technical Report, New York: United
Nations.
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistical Office of the United Nations
(1968). A System of National Accounts, (SNA68), Studies in Methods, Series F, No.2,
Rev.3, New York: United Nations.
Department of International Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations (1986).

Studies in Methods, Series F No. 39, Handbook of National Accounting, Accounting for
Production: Sources and Methods, New York: United Nations.
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division, United Nations (1997).
Principles and Recommendations for Population and Housing Censuses, Revision 1,
Statistical Papers, Series M No. 67/Rev.1, New York: United Nations.
Department of Statistics, Federation of Malaya (1949). Average Prices, Declared Trade

Values, Exchange, Currency and Cost of Living, 1948, Malaya, Singapore: Government
Printing Office.
___________________, Federation of Malaya (1952). Average Prices, Declared Trade

Values, Exchange and Currency, Volume and Average Values of Imports and Exports,
Market Prices, and Cost of Living for the year 1951, Malaya, Singapore: Government
Printing Office.
___________________, International Monetary Fund (2001). Government Finance

Statistics Manual 2001 (GFSM 2001), Washington, DC: IMF.
___________________, Malaysia (1999). Malaysia Economic Statistics- Time Series,

1999, Kuala Lumpur: Government Printing Office.
___________________, Singapore (1952). Average Prices, Declared Trade Values,

Exchange and Currency, Volume and Average Values of Imports and Exports, Market
Prices, and Cost of Living for the year 1951, Malaya, Singapore: Government Printing
Office.
___________________, Singapore (1975). Singapore National Accounts, 1960-1973,

Singapore: Government Printing Office.
___________________, Singapore (1983). Economic & Social Statistics Singapore

1960-1982, Singapore: Government Printer.
___________________, Singapore (1996). Singapore System of National Accounts

1995, Singapore: Government Printer.
339
___________________, Singapore (2008). Import and Export Price Indices, January
2008, Singapore: Government Printing Office.
___________________, Straits Settlements and Federated Malay States (1940).

Average Prices, Declared Trade Values, Exchange and Currency for the year 1939,
Malaya, Singapore: Government Printing Office.
____________________, Malayan Union (1947). Report on the Registration of Births

and Deaths, Malayan Union, 1940-1946, Kuala Lumpur: Government Press.
Federated Malay States (1932). Third Inter-Departmental Agricultural Conference,

Kuala Lumpur: Government Printing Office.
International Monetary Fund (2001). The Government Finance Statistics Manual, New
York: IMF.
Milles, J.I. (1931). Report of The Commission on The Temporary Allowances, Family
Budget 1930, Singapore: Government Printing Office.
OECD (2007). OECD Fact Book 2007: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics,
Paris: OECD.
Straits Settlements (1909). Proceeding's of the Legislative Council of the Straits

Settlements for the year 1908, Singapore: Government Printing Office.
_______________ (1910). Proceeding's of the Legislative Council of the Straits

Settlements for the year 1909, Singapore: Government Printing Office.
Straits Settlements and Federated Malay States Opium Commission (1908).

Proceedings of the Commission Appointed to Inquire into Matters Relating to the Use
of Opium in the Straits Settlements and the Federated Malay States, Singapore:
The Commissions Appointed by the Excellency The Governor of The Straits

Settlements and The High Commissioner of The Federated Malay States (1919). To
enquire into certain matters relating to the public service, to wit, the salaries, and the
conditons of service as affecting such salaries of certain officers in the public service of
the Straits Settlements and the Federated Malay States, and the provision of free
passages to such officers and to their wives and children when proceeding from and
returning to the Straits Settlements and Federated Malay States on leave of absence,
Singapore: Government Printing Office.
Books and Articles
Abeysinghe, Tilak and Keen Meng Choy (2007). The Singapore Economy: An
Econometric Perspective (Routledge Studies in the Growth Economies of Asia),
London: Routledge.
340
Abizadeh,S. and Gray, J. (1985). “Wagner’s law: a pooled time-series, cross-section
comparison”, National Tax Journal, Vol. 38, pp. 209–218.
Abraha, Gebru Garred (2004). Export Instability and Economic Growth in Ethiopia,
Dakar: African Institute for Economic Development and Planning.
Afxentiou, Panos C. and Serletis, Apostolos (1996). "Government Expenditures In The

European Union: Do They Converge Or Follow Wagner's Law?", International
Economic Journal, Korean International Economic Association, Vol. 10(3), pp.33-47.
Agénor, Pierre-Richard, C. John McDermott, and Eswar S. Prasad (2000).

“Macroeconomic Fluctuations in Developing Countries: Some Stylized Facts, The
World Bank Economic Review, Vol.14, No.2, pp.251-285.
Ahmed, S, Levin, AT and Wilson, B.A. (2004). “Recent US macroeconomic stability:

good policies, good practices, or good luck?”, Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol.
86(3), pp.824-832.
Ahsan, Syed M., Andy, C.C. Kwan and Balbir S. Sahni (1989). “Causality between
Government Consumption Expenditure and National Income: OECD Countries”, Public
Finance, Vol.2, pp.204-24.
____________________________________________ (1996). “Cointegration and

Wagner’s Hypothesis: Time Series Evidence for Canada”, Applied Economics, Vol. 28,
pp. 1055-1058.
Alan Heston, Robert Summers and Bettina Aten, (2002). Penn World Table Version 6.1,
Center for International Comparisons at the University of Pennsylvania (CICUP).
Alexander, W.R (1990). “Growth: Some Combined Cross-Sectional and Time Series
Evidence from OECD countries”, Applied Economics, Vol. 22, pp. 1197-1204.
Ansari, M.I., D.V.Gordon and Akuamoah, C. (1997). “Keynes versus Wagner: Public
Expenditure and National Income for Three African Countries”, Applied Economics,
Vol. 29, pp. 543-550.
Ashworth, J. (1994). “Spurious in Mexico: A Comment on Wagner’s Law”, Public

Finance, 49, pp.282-286.
Backus, David K and Patrick J. Kehoe (1992). “International Evidence on the Historical
Properties of Business Cycles”, The American Economic Review, Vol.82, No.4,
pp.864-888.
Barrell, Ray and Sylvia Gottschalk (2004). “The volatility of the output gap in the G7,”
National Institute of Economic and Social Research Discussion Paper No. 230.
Barro, Robert (1991). “Economic Growth in a Cross-Section of Countries”, Quarterly

Journal of Economics, Vol.106, pp.407-443.
Basu, S. and Taylor, A. (1999). “Business Cycles in International Historical

Perspective”, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol.13, No.2, pp.45-68.
341
Bauer, P.T. (1948). The Rubber Industry, A Study in Competition and Monopoly,
London: Longmans, Green and CO.
Baxter, M and R.G. King (1995). “Measuring Business-cycles: Approximate Band-Pass

Filters for Economic Time Series”, NBER Working paper, No. 5022.
Benham, Frederik (1951). The National Income of Malaya, 1947-1949, Singapore:

Government Printer.
_______________(1959). The National Income of Singapore 1956, London: Oxford

University Press.
Bergman, U.Michael, Bordo, Michael D. and Jonung, Lars, (1998). “Historical

Evidence on Business Cycles, The International Experience”, Working Paper Series in
Economics and Finance, No. 255, Stockholm School of Economics.
Bird, R.M. (1971). “Wagner’s Law of Expanding State Activity”, Public Finance, Vol.
26, pp.1-26.
Biswal, Bagala, Urvashi Dhawan and Hooi-Yean Lee (1999). “Testing Wagner versus
Keynes Using Disaggregated Public Expenditure Data for Canada”, Applied Economics,
Vol. 31, pp.1283-1291.
Blake, D.J. (1968). “Patterns of Singapore’s trade, 1961-66”, Malayan Economic

Review, 13(1), pp.36-69.
Blanchard, O. and Simon, J. (2001). “The long and large decline in U.S. output
volatility”, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Vol.1, pp.135-164.
Blattman, Chiristopher, Hwang, Jason and Williamson, Jeffrey G. (2004). “The Impact
of The Terms of Trade on Economic Development in the Periphery, 1870-1939:
Volatility and Secular Change, NBER Working Paper, No.10600.
Bleaney, Michael, Greenaway, David (2001). “The impact of terms of trade and real
exchange rate volatility on investment and growth in sub-Saharan Africa, Journal of
Development Economics, pp.491-500.
Booth, Anne (1990). “The Evolution of Fiscal Policy and the Role of Government in the
Colonial Economy”, in Anne Booth, W. J. O’ Malley and Anna Weidemann (eds.),
Indonesian Economic History in the Dutch Colonial Era, Monograph Series 35, New
Haven: Yale University, Southeast Asian Studies.
__________(2002). “Growth Collapses in Indonesia: A Comparison of the 1930s and

the 1990s”, Itinerario (European Journal of Overseas History), Vol. 3 No.4, pp.73-99.
Broadberry, Stephen, N.(1986). The British Economy Between the Wars: A

Macroeconomic Survey, Oxford: Blackwell.
___________________(1988). “The Impact of the World Wars on the Long Run

Performance of the British Economy”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 4 (Spring),
pp. 25-37.
342
___________________(1997a). “Anglo-German Productivity Differences, 1870-1990:
A Sectoral Analysis”, European Review of Economic History, Vol. 1, pp. 247-267.
___________________(1997b). “The Long-Run Growth and Productivity Performance

of the United Kingdom”, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Vol.44, pp.403-424.
Brown, Ian (1994). The British Merchant Community in Singapore and Japanese
Commercial Expansion in the 1930s IN Sugiyama, S and Guerrero, M.C. (eds.).
International Commercial Rivalry in Southeast Asia in the Interwar Period, New
Haven: Yale Centre for International and Area Studies, pp.111-132.
Buchanan, James M. (1975). The Limits of Liberty, Between Anarchy and Leviathan,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Carrera, J, Feliz, M, Panigo, D. (1999). “Unit roots and cycles in the main
macroeconomic variables for Argentina”, XXXIV Reunión Annual de la Asociación
Argentina de Economía Política.
Carter, Susan B. et al (2006). Historical Statistics of the United States, Earliest Times to
the Present, Millennial Edition, Volume Three, Part C Economic Structure and
Performance, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cecchetti, Stephen G., Flores-Lagunes, Alfonso and Krause, Stefan (2006). “Assessing
the Sources of Changes in the Volatility of Real Growth”, NBER Working paper,
No.11946.
Cheng, U. Wen (1961). Opium in the Straits Settlements, 1867-1910, Journal of

Southeast Asian History, 2(1), pp.57-75.
Chiang, Hai Ding (1963). A History of Straits Settlements Foreign Trade, 1870-1915,
Singapore: National Museum, Singapore.
______________(1965). “The statistics of the Straits Settlements Foreign Trade,

1870-1915”, Malayan Economic Review, 10(1):73-83.
Chletsos, Michael and Charistos Kollias (1997). “Testing Wagner’s Law Using
Disaggregated Public Expenditure Data in the Case of Greece: 1958-93”, Applied
Economics, Vol. 29, pp. 371-377.
Christina Romer (1986). “Spurious Volatility in Historical Unemployment Data.”

Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 94 (February), pp.1-37.
______________ (1989). “The Prewar Business Cycle Reconsidered: New Estimates of

Gross National Product, 1869-1908.” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 97, pp.1-37.
Clarida, Richard, Gali, Jordi and Gertler, Mark (2000). “Monetary policy rules and
macroeconomic stability: evidence and some theory, Quarterly Journal of Economics,
Vol. 115(1), pp.147-180.
Clark, Colin (1937). National Income and Outlay, London: Macmillan Press Ltd.
343
Courakis, Anthony S, Fatima Moura-Roque and George Tridimas (1993). “Public
Expenditure Growth in Greece and Portugal: Wagner’s Law and Beyond”, Applied
Economics, Vol. 25, pp.125-134.
Craft, N.F.R. (1984). “Economic Growth in France and Britain, 1830-1910: A Review
of the Evidence”, Journal of Economic History, Vol. 44, pp. 49-67.
___________(1987). “British Economic Growth, 1700-1850: Some Difficulties of

Interpretation”, Explorations in Economic History, Vol.24, pp. 245-68.
___________(1988). “The Assessment: British Economic Growth over the Long Run”,
Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 4(1), pp. i-xxi.
___________(1995). “Recent Research on the National Accounts of the UK,

1700-1939”, Scandinavian Economic History Review, Vol. 43, pp. 17-29.
__________(1997). “Economic Growth in East Asia and Western Europe Since 1950:
Implications for Living Standards Since 1950”, National Institute Economic Review,
Vol. 162, pp. 75-84.
__________(1999). “Economic Growth in the Twentieth Century”, Oxford Review of

Economic Policy, Vol. 15(4), pp. 18-34.
Craft, N.F.R. and Broadberry, S.N.(1990a). “European Productivity in the Twentieth

Century: Introduction”, Oxford Bulletin of Economic and Statistics, Vol. 52, pp. 331-41.
Craft, N.F.R.(2002). Britain's Relative Economic Performance, 1870-1999, London:

IEA.
___________________________(1990b). “Explaining Anglo-American Productivity

Differences in the Mid-Twentieth Century”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics,
Vol. 52, pp. 375-402,
Creutzberg, P. and P. Boomgaard (eds.) (1975-96). Changing Economy in Indonesia: A

Selection of Statistical Resource Material from the Early 19th century up to 1940, 16
volumes, Amsterdam: Royal Tropical Institute.
Da Costa, Michael (2007). “Colonial Origins, Institutions and Economic Performance in

the Caribbean: Guyana and Barbados”, IMF Working Paper, No. 07/43.
Dawe, David C. (1996). “A New Look at the Effect of Export Instability on Investment
and Growth”, World Development, Vol. 24, pp. 1905-1914.
De Ferranti D., Perry, G., Gill, I and Serven, L. (2000). “Securing our future in a global
economy” World Bank Latin America and Caribbean Studies.
De Long, J. Bradford and Summers, Lawrence (1991). “Equipment Investment and

Economic Growth”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.106, pp.445-502.
De Long, J. Bradford, Summers, Lawrence and Abel, Andrew B. (1992). “Equipment

Investment and Economic Growth: How Robust is the Nexus?” Brookings Papers on
Economic Activity, pp.157-199.
344
Demirbas, Safa (1999). “Cointegration Analysis-Causality Testing and Wagner’s Law:
The Case of Turkey, 1950-1990”, Annual Meeting of the European Public Choice
Society, Lisbon:
Derksen, J.B.D. and Tinbergen, J. (1945). “Berekeningen over de economische betekenis

van Nederlandsch–Indi·voor Nederland” (Calculations of the economic significance of
the Netherlands Indies to the Netherlands) Maandschrift van het Centraal Bureau voor
de Statistiek [Monthly bulletin of the Central Bureau of Statistics] 40.
Devarajan, S. and S. Vinaya (1993). "What do Governments Buy? The composition of

Public Spending and Economic Performance", Policy Research Working Paper, The
World Bank, Working Paper, No.1082.
Dickey, D. A. and Fuller, W. A. (1979). “Distributions of the Estimators for

Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root” Journal of the American Statistical
Association, Vol.74, pp.427-31.
____________________________ (1981). “The Likelihood Ratio Statistics for

Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root, Econometrica, Vol.49, pp.1057-72.
Dickey, D.A., Jansen, D.W. and Thornton, D.C. (1991). “ A Primer on Cointegration
with An Application to Money and Income”, Review Federal Reserve Bank of ST. Luis,
73(2), pp.58-78.
Drabble, John H. (2000). An Economic History of Malaysia, c.1800-1990, The

Transition to Modern Economic Growth, London: Macmillan Press Ltd.
Dupasquier, Chantal and Patrick N. Osakwe (2006). “Trade Regimes, Liberalization and
Macroeconomic Instability in Africa, Department of Economics, Singapore Centre for
Applied and Policy Economics Working Paper Series, No.2006/04, National University
of Singapore.
Dynan, Elmendorf and Sichel (2006). “Can Financial Innovation Explain the Reduced
Volatility of Economic Activity?”, Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol.53, pp.123-150.
Edward, C.T. (1970). Public Finance in Malaya and Singapore, Canberra: ANU press.
Emerson, Rupert (1969). Malaysia: Study in Direct and Indirect Rule, 3rd ed., Kuala
Lumpur: University of Malaya Press.
Eng, P. Van Der (2002). “Halting progress: Indonesia’s development experience since
1880”, Itinerario, 26, No.3, pp.15-34.
Engle, R.F and C.W.J. Granger (1987). “Cointegration and Error Correction:
Representation, Estimation and Testing”, Econometrica, Vol. 55, pp. 251-276.
Feder, Gershon (1984). “On exports and economic growth”, Journal of Development
Economics, Vol.12, pp.241-250.
Feinstein, C. H. (1972). National Income, Expenditure and Output of the United

Kingdom, 1855-1965. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
345
Figart, David M. (1925). The Plantation Rubber Industry In The Middle East,
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Washington:
Fukao, K. and Ma, D. (2006). “Real GDP in Pre-War East Asia: A 1934-36 Benchmark
Purchasing Power Parity Comparison with the U.S.” Discussion Paper Series, No.132,
Hitotsubashi University Research Unit for Statistical Analysis in Social Sciences (A
COE Program), Tokyo: the Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
Fukao, K., Ma, D., and Yuan, T. (2006). “International Comparison in Historical
Perspective: Reconstructing the 1934-36 Benchmark Purchasing Power Parity for Japan,
Korea and Taiwan,” Discussion Paper Series A, no. 442, Tokyo: the Institute of
Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
Ganti, S. and Kalluri, B.R. (1978). “Wagner’s Law of Public Expenditures: Some
efficient results for the United States”, Public Finance, Vol. 34, pp.225-33.
Ghali, K. H. (1999). “Government size and economic growth: Evidence from a

multivariate cointegration analysis”, Applied Economics, Vol. 31, pp.975-987.
Ghesquiere, Henri (2007). Singapore’s Success, Engineering Economic Growth,

Singapore: Thomson.
Glezakos, C. (1973). “Export Instability and Economic Growth: A Statistical

Verification”, Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol.21, No.4, pp.670-678.
Goffiman, Irving J. and Mahar, D.J. (1971). “The Growth of Public Expenditures in
Selected Developing Nations: Six Caribbean Countries 1940-65”, Public Finance, Vol.
23, pp.359-64.
Goh Keng Swee (1995). The Practice of Economic Growth, Singapore: Federal
Publications.
Gonzola, J. (1994). “Five Alternative Methods of Estimating Long-run Equilibrium

Relationships”, Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 60, pp.203-233.
Goode, Richard (1984). Government Finance in Developing Countries, Wachington

D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
Granger, C.W. (1981). “Some Properties of Time Series Data and Their use in
Econometric Model Specification”, Journal of Econometrics, 16, pp.121-130.
Grist, D.H. (1950). An Outline of Malayan Agriculture, Malayan Planting Manual, No.2,
London: Grand City Press Limited.
Gupta, S.P. (1967). “Public Expenditure and Economic Growth: A Time-Series

Analysis”, Public Finance, Vol. 26, pp. 423-466.
Gyles, A.F. (1991). “A Time-domain Transfer Function Model of Wagner’s Law: the
Case of the United Kingdom Economy”, Applied Economics, Vol. 23, pp. 327-330.
346
Halicioğlu, Ferda (2003). “Testing Wagner’s law for Turkey, 1960-2000”, Review of
Middle East Economics and Finance, Vol.1. No.2, pp.129-140.
Haque, M. Emranul and Osborn, Denise R. (2007). “Public Expenditure and Economic
Growth: A Disaggregated Analysis for Developing Countries”, Manchester School, Vol.
75, No. 5, pp. 533-556.
Havinden, Michael, and Meredith, David (1996). Colonialism and Development:

Britain and Its Tropical Colonies, 1850-1960. London: Routledge.
Hayo, B. (1994). “No Further Evidence of Wagner’s Law for Mexico, Public Finance,
Vol. 49, pp.287-294.
Heikkinen, Sakari and Luiten van Zanden, Jan (eds.) (2004). Explorations in economic
growth, Essays in Measurement and Analysis, A Festschrift for Riitta Hjerppe on her
60th Birthday, Amsterdam: Aksant Academic Publishers.
Helms, L. (1985). “The Effect of State and Local Taxes on Economic Growth: A Time
Series-Cross Section Approach”, Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 67 (3),
pp.574-582.
Henrekson, M. (1993). “Wagner’s Law – A Spurious Relationship”, Public Finance,

Vol. 48, pp.406-415.
Hicks, George H. (eds.) (1993). Overseas Chinese Remittances from Southeast Asia,
1910-1940, Singapore: Select Books.
Hjerppe, Riitta (1996). Finland’s Historical National Accounts 1860-1994: Calculation

Methods and Statistical Tables, Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä University, Departement of
History, Publications of the Finnish History 24.
Hodrick, R. and Prescott, E.C. (1980). “Post-War U.S. Business Cycles: An Empirical
Investigation”, mimeo, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, P.A.
Hondroyiannis, G. and Papapetrou, E. (1995). “An Examination of Wagner’s Law for

Greece: A Cointegration Analysis”, Public Finance, Vol. 50, pp.67-99.
Hooley, Richard (2005). “American economic policy in the Philippines, 1902-1940:

Exploring a Dark Age in Colonial Statistics”, Journal of Asian Economics, 16,
pp.464-488.
Hsieh, E. and Kon S. Lai (1994). “Government Spending and Economic Growth: The
G-7 Experience”, Applied Economics, Vol. 26, pp. 535-542.
Huang, Chiung-Ju (2006). “Testing Wagner’s Law Using Bounds Test and a New
Granger Non-Causality Test: Evidence for Taiwan”, The Journal of American Academy
of Business, Cambridge, Vol.8 (2), pp. 86-90.
Huff, W.G. (1993). “The development of the rubber market in pre-World War II
Singapore”, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 24(2), pp.285-306.
347
__________(1994). The Economic growth of Singapore, Trade and development in the
Twentieth Century, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
__________(2001). “Entitlements, destitution, and emigration in the 1930s Singapore

great depression”, Economic History Review, Vol. LIV, No. 2, pp.290-323.
_________ (2003a). “Currency Boards and Chinese Banks in Malaya and the
Philippines before World War II”, Australian Economic History Review, Vol.43, No.2,
pp.125-139.
_________ (2003b). “Monetization and financial development in Southeast Asia before

the Second World War”, Economic History Review, Vol. LVI, No.2, pp.300-345.
Huff, W.G. and Caggiano, Giovanni (2007). “Globalization, Immigration, and Lewisian
Elastic Labor in Pre–World War II Southeast Asia”, The Journal of Economic History,
Vol. 67, No. 1, pp. 33-68.
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) (1955). The Economic
Development of Malaya, Report of a Mission organized by the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) at the request of The Government of the
Federation of Malaya, the Crown Colony of Singapore and the United Kingdom,
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.
Islam, Anisul, M. (2001). “Wagner’s Law Revisited: Cointegration and Exogeneity test
for the USA”, Applied Economics Letter, Vol. 8, pp. 509-515.
J.-P. Smits, E. Horlings and J. L. van Zanden (2000). Dutch GNP and Its Components,
1800-1913, Groningen: Groningen Growth and Development Centre, Monograph Series
No.5.
Jang, Byung K. and Nakabayashi, Sinichi (2005). “Some Issues in Medium-Term Fiscal
Policy” in Singapore- Selected Issues, IMF Country Report 05/140, Washington, DC:
International Monetary Fund (April).
Johansen, S. (1988). “Statistical Analysis of Cointegration Vectors”, Journal of

Economic Dynamics and Control, 12, pp.231-54.
Johansen, S. and Juselius, K. (1990). “Maximum Likelihood Estimation and Inference

on Cointegration – with Applications to the Demand for Money”, Oxford Bulletin of
Economics and Statistics, Vol. 52, pp.169-210.
Kahn, James A., Margaret Mary McConnell, and Gabriel Perez Quiros (2002). “On the
causes of the increased stability of the U.S. economy”, Economic Policy Review of the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Vol.8 (1), pp.183-206.
Karavitis, Nicholas (1987). “The Causal Factors of Government Expenditure Growth in

Greece, 1950-80”, Applied Economics, Vol. 19, pp.789-807.
Kent, Christopher, Smith Kylie and Hollaway, James (2005). Declining Output
Volatility, What role for Structural Change? , Research Discussion Paper, 2005-08,
Economic Group, Reserve Bank of Australia.
348
Khan, A.H. (1990). “Wagner’s Law and the Developing Economy: A Time-Series
Evidence form Pakistan”, The Indian Journal of Economics, Vol. 38, pp.115-123.
Kneller, R. Bleany, M.F. and Germell, N. (1999a). “Growth, Public Policy and the
Government Budget Constraint: Evidence from OECD Countries”, Discussion Papers
in Economics, DP 98/14, University of Nottingham.
_________________________________ (1999b). “Fiscal Policy and Growth: Evidence

from OECD Countries”, Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 74, pp.171-190.
Knudsen, O.and Parnes, A. (1975). Trade Instability and Economic Development,

Lexington, Massachusetts: Heath-Lexington Press.
Kolluri, B.R., Panik,M.J. and Wahab, M.S.(2000). “Government Expenditure and

Economic Growth: Evidence from G7 Countries, Applied Economics, Vol. 32,
pp.1059-1068.
Kormendi, Roger C. and Philip G. Meguire (1985). “Macroeconomic Determinants of

Growth: Cross-Country Evidence”, Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol.16,
pp.141-163.
Kratoska, Paul H. (1990). The British Empire and the Southeast Asian Rice Crisis of
1919-1921, Modern Asian Studies, Vol.24, No.1, pp.115-146.
_____________ (2000). “Imperial Unity Versus Local Autonomy, British Malaya and
the Depression of the 1930s”, in Weathering The Storm, The Economies of Southeast
Asia in the 1930s Depression edited by Peter Boomgaard and Ian Brown, Singapore:
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, pp.271-294.
Krause, Lawrence B., Koh Ai Tee and Lee (Tsao) Yuen (1987). The Singapore Economy
Reconsidered, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Kravis, I. B., Z. Kenessey, A. Heston and R. Summers (1975). A System of International

Comparisons of Gross Product and Purchasing Power, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Kremers, J.M., Erisccos, N.R. and Dolado, J.J. (1992). “The Power of Cointegration
Test”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 54, pp.325-346.
Kuznets, Simon (1934). “National Income, 1929-1932”, NBER Bulletin, No. 49,
pp.17-19.
Kydland, F.E. and Prescott, E.C. (1982). “Time to Build and Aggregate Fluctuations”,
Econometrica, 50, pp.1345-1370.
Landau, D. (1983). "Government Expenditure and Economic Growth: Across - Country

Study", Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 49, (3) pp. 783-792.
_________ (1986). "Government and Economic Growth in the Less Developed

Countries: An Empirical Study for 1960-1980", Economic Development and Cultural
Change, Vol. 35, pp. 35-75.
349
Lee, Kuan Yew (2000). From Third World To First, The Singapore Story: 1965-2000,
Singapore: Times Media Private Limited.
Lee, Sheng Yi (1990). The Monetary and Banking Development of Singapore and
Malaysia, 3rd ed., Singapore: Singapore University Press.
Lee, Soo Ann (1974). Economic Growth and the Public Sector in Malaya and
Singapore, 1948-1960, Singapore: Oxford University Press.
Levine, R and Renelt, D. (1992). “A Sensitivity Analysis of Cross-Country Growth

Regressions”, American Economic Review, Vol. 82(4), pp. 942-963.
Lim Chong Yah (1967). Economic Development of Modern Malaya, Kuala Lumpur:
Oxford University Press.
_____________(2004). Southeast Asia The Long Road Ahead, 2nd ed., Singapore: World
Scientific.
Lim, David (1974). “Export Instability and Economic Development: The Example of
West Malaysia”, Oxford Economic Papers, Vol.54, No.2 (March), pp.78-92.
__________(1976). Export Instability and Economic Growth: A Return to

Fundamentals”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Vol.38, No.4, pp.311-322.
Lin, S.A.Y. (1994). “Government Spending and Economic Growth”, Applied

Economics, Vol. 26, pp. 83-94.
Lindblad, J.Thomas (1997). “Foreign Investment in Southeast Asia in Historical

Perspective”, Asian Economic Journal, Vol. 11(1), pp. 61-80.
________________ (1998). Foreign Investment in Southeast Asia in the Twentieth

Century, London: Macmillan.
Lloyd, Peter J. and Roger J. Sandilands (1986). “The trade sector in a very open
re-export economy”, in Lim Chong-Yah and Peter Lloyd (eds.), Resources and Growth
in Singapore, Singapore: Oxford University Press.
Loh, Wei Leng (2005). Centering the Periphery: New Forays in Malaysian Economic
History, Kuala Lumpur: Inaugural Lecture, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences,
University of Malaya.
Love, J. (1977). “The Decline in Export Instability?”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and
Statistics, Vol.39, No.4, pp.355-359.
______ (1987). “Export instability in less developed countries: consequences and

causes’, Journal of Economic Studies, Vol.14 (2), pp.73-80.
______ (1992). “Export Instability and the Domestic Economy: Questions of Causality”,
Journal of Development Studies 28, July, pp.735-742.
Low, Linda (1998). The Political Economy of A City-State, Government-made

Singapore, Singapore: Oxford University Press.
350
Maddison, Angus (1998). Chinese Eeconomic performance in the long-run, Paris:
OECD.
______________ (2001). The World Economy, A Millennial Perspective, Development

Centre Seminars, Paris: OECD.
______________ (2003). The World Economy, Historical Statistics, Paris: OECD.
Maede, J.r. and R.Stone (1941). “The Construction of Tables on National Income,
Expenditure, Savings and Investment”, Economic Journal, Jun-Sept, pp.216-233.
Mann, Arthur J. (1980). “Wagner’s Law: An Econometric Test for Mexico, 1925-1976”,
National Tax Journal, Vol. 33, pp. 189-201.
Manning, L.M. and Adriacanos, D. (1993). “Dollar Movements and Inflation: A

Cointegration Analysis”, Applied Economics, 25, pp.1483-1488.
Martin, B. and Rowthorn, R. (2004). “Will stability last?”, UBS research paper, March.
McBean, Alasdair, I. (1966). Export Instability and Economic Development,

Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
McConnell, Margaret Mary, Patricia Mosser and Gabriel Perez-Quiros (1999). “A

decomposition of the increased stability of GDP growth”, Current Issues in Economics
and Finance, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Vol. 5(13).
McConnell, Margaret Mary and Gabriel Perez-Quiros (2000). “Output fluctuations in

the United States: what has changed since the early 1980s?”, American Economic
Review, Vol. 90(5), pp. 1464-1476.
Mendoza, Enrique (1994). “Terms-of-trade uncertainty and economic growth: are risk
indicators significant in growth regressions?”, International Finance Discussion Papers,
No. 491.
__________________ (1995). “The Terms of Trade, the Real Exchange Rate, and
Economic Fluctuations”, International Economic Review, Vol.36 (February),
pp.101-137.
Mills, Lennox A. (1942). British Rule in Eastern Asia, A Study of Contemporary

Government and Economic Development in British Malaya and Hong Kong, London:
Oxford University Press.
Mizoguchi, Toshiyuki and Umemura, Mataji (eds.) (1988). Basic Economic Statistics of
Former Japanese Colonies 1895-1938, Estimates and Findings, Tokyo: Toyo Keizai
Shinposha.
Mofidi, A and Stone, J. (1990). “Do State and Local Taxes affect Economic Growth?”,
Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 72 (4), pp. 686-691.
Moran,Cristian (1983). “Export Fluctuations and Economic Growth: An empirical

Analysis”, Journal of Development Economics, Vol.12, pp.195-218.
351
Muhsam, H.V. (1960). “Population Estimates Based on Census Enumeration and
Coverage Check”, Population Studies, Vol.13, No.3, pp.278-281.
Mullor-Sebastian, Alicia (1988). “A New Approach to the Relationship between Export

Instability and Economic Development”, Economic Development and Cultural Change,
Vol. 36, January, pp.217-36.
Murthy, N.R.V. (1993). “Further Evidence of Wagner’s Law for Mexico: An

Application of Cointegration Analysis”, Public Finance, Vol. 48, pp.92-96.
Musgrave, Richard A. (1969). Fiscal System, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Nagarajan, P. and Spears, A. (1990). “An Econometric Test of Wagner’s Law for
Mexico: A Re-examination, Public Finance, Vol. 45, pp.165-168.
Nathan Balke and Robert J. Gordon (1989). “The Estimation of Prewar Gross National
Product: Methodology and New Evidence, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 97(1),
pp.38-92.
Nelson, C and Plosser, C. (1982). “Trends and Random Walks in Macroeconomic Time
Series: Some Evidence and Implications”, Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 10, pp.
139-162.
Nomura, M. (1995). “Wagner’s Hypothesis and Displacement Effect in Japan,

1960-1991”, Public Finance, Vol. 50, pp.121-135.
Noriega, A. and Ramirez-Zamora, A. (1999). “Unit Roots and Multiple Structural

Breaks in Real Output: How Long Does An Economy Remain Stationary?”, Estudios
Económicos, Vol.14, No.2, pp. 163-188.
Odaka, Konosuke (2007). “Exploring and Sharing Asian Economic History: An Interim
Report on the Asian Historical Statistics Database Project”, Discussion Paper Series,
No.227, Hitotsubashi University Research Unit for Statistical Analysis in Social
Sciences (A 21st-Century COE Program), Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi
University.
Ohkawa, K., Shinohara, Miyohei and Umemura, Mataji (eds.) (1974). Estimates of
Long-Term Economic Statistics of Japan since 1868, Vol. No. 1, National Income.
Tokyo: Toyo Keizai Shinposha.
Oshima, Harry T. (1997). “Fulfilling Kuznets’ Dream: Comments on the Asian

Historical Statistics Project”, Asian Historical Statistics Project, Project Newsletter, No.
7, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
Oxley, Les (1994). “Cointegration, Causality and Wagner’s Law: A Test for Britain
1870-1913”, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 41 (3), pp. 286-298.
Ozler, Sule and Harrigan, James (1988). “Export Instability and Growth”, Department
of Economics Working Paper, No.486, University of California, Los Angeles.
Pack, H. and Westphal, L.E. (1986). “Industrial strategy and technological change:
theory versus reality”, Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 22(1), pp.87-128.
352
Peacock, A.T. and Wiseman, J. (1961). The growth of public expenditure in the United
Kingdom. London: National Bureau of Economic Research.
________________________. (1968). Economic Growth and the Principles of

Educational Finance in Developed Countries. In Financing of Education for Economic
Growth, Paris: OECD, pp.89-101.
Peebles, Gavin and Peter Wilson (1996). The Singapore Economy, Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar.
___________________________(2002). Economic Growth and Development in

Singapore Past and Future, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Philips, P. C. B. and Perron, P. (1988). “Testing for a Unit Root in Time Series
Regression”, Biometrica, Vol. 75, pp.335-346.
Pluta, J.E. (1979). “Wagner’s Law, Public Sector Patterns, and Growth of Public
Enterprises in Taiwan”, Public Finance Quarterly, Vol. 7, pp.25-46.
Premchand, A. (1983). Government Budgeting and Expenditure Controls, theory and

Practirce, Wachington: International Monetary Fund.
Prest, A.R. and Adams, A.A. (1954). Consumers’ Expenditure in the United Kingdom,
1900-1919. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pryor, Frederic L. (1968). Public Expenditures in Communist and Capitalist Nations,

London: George Allen & Unwin.
Ram, Rati (1986). “Government Size and Economic Growth: A New Framework and
Some Evidence from Cross-Section and Time-Series Data”, American Economic
Review, Vol.76 (1), pp.191-203.
_________(1987). ‘Wagner’s Hypothesis in Time-Series and Cross-Section

Perspectives: Evidence from “Real” Data for 115 Countries’, The Review of Economics
and Statistics, Vol. 69, (2), pp. 194-204.
Ramey, Garey and Ramey, Valerie A. (1994). “Cross-Country Evidence on the Link
between Volatility and Growth”, American Economic Review, Vol.85 (5), pp.1138-1151.
Rangarajan, C and Sundararajan, V. (1976). “Impact of Export Fluctuations on Income-

A Cross Country Analysis”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol.58, No.3,
pp.368-372.
Rao, B. (1976). National Accounts of West Malaysia, 1947-1971, Singapore:

Heinemann Educational Books (Asia) Ltd.
Rapach, D. (2002). “Are Real GDP Levels Nonstationary? Evidence from Panel Data
Tests”, Southern Economic Journal, Vol.68, No.3, pp. 473-495.
353
Rouvray, Cristel de (2004). “Seeing the world through a National Accounting
Framework: economic history becomes quantitative” in Programme including New
Researchers Paper & Abstracts of the other Academic Papers, The Economic History
Society Annual Conference 2004, London: The Economic History Society, pp.157-164.
Roy, Tirthankar (2000), The Economic History of India, 1857-1947, New Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
Sachs, Jeffrey D. and Andrew Warner (1995). “Economic reform and the process of
global integration”, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1.
Saw, Swee Hock, (1999). The Population of Singapore, Singapore: Institute of southeast
Asian Studies.
Sharom Ahmat (1965). “American trade with Singapore, 1819-1865”, Journal of the
Malaysian Branch Of the Royal Asiatic Society, 38(2):241-257.
Sheffrin, Steven M. (1988). “Have economic fluctuations been dampened? A look at

evidence outside the United States”, Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol.21, Issue 1,
pp.73-83.
Shimizu, Hiroshi and Hirakawa, Hitoshi (1999). Japan and Singapore in the World
Economy: Japan’s Economic Advance into Singapore, 1870-1965, London: Routledge.
Simon, J.L. (1986). Theory of Population and Economic Growth, New York: Blackwell.
Singh, Ajit and Fagernäs, Sonja (2006). “Globalisation, Instability and Economic
Insecurity”, Centre for Business Research, Working Paper, No.328, University of
Cambridge.
Singh, Balvir and Balbir S. Sahni (1984). “Causality between Public Expenditure and
National Income”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 66 (4), pp. 630-644.
Singh, G. (1996). “Wagner’s Law – A Time Series Evidence from the Indian Economy”,
The Indian Journal of Economics, Vol. 44, pp.349-359.
Sinha, Dipendra (1999). “Export Instability, Investment and Economic Growth in Asian
Countries: A Time Series Analysis”, Center Discussion paper, No. 799, Economic
Growth Center, Yale University.
Sivasubramonian,S.(2000). The National Income of India in the Twentieth Century. New

Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Snodgrass, D.R. (1966). Ceylon: An Export Economy in Transition, Illinois: Irwin.
Sosa-Escudero, W. (1997). “Testing for Unit Roots and Trend-Breaks in Argentine Real
GDP”, Económica, Vol. 43, pp.123-142.
Stock, James H. and mark W. Watson (1988). “Variable Trends in Economic Time
Series”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol.2, No.3, pp.147-174.
354
______________________________ (1999). “Business Cycle Fluctuations in US
macroeconomic Time Series”, in John b. Taylor and Michael Woodford (eds.),
Handbook of Macroeconomics, Vol.1.A, Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V.
Straits Settlements and Federated Malay States (1909). Agricultural Bulletin, No.5,
Vol.8, Appendix B, pp.237-238.
Sugihara, Kaoru (1980). “Patterns of Intra-Asian Trade, 1898-1913”, Osaka City

University Economic Review, pp.55-76.
_____________ (1996). Ajiakan Boeki no Keisei to Kozo (Patterns and Development of

Intra-Asian Trade), Kyoto: Mineruva Shobo.
________________(1998). "Intra-Asian Trade and East Asia's Industrialisation,

1919-1939", in Gareth Austin ed., Industrial Growth in the Third World, c.1870-c.1990:
Depressions, Intra-regional Trade, and Ethnic Networks, LSE Working Papers in
Economic History, 44/98, London School of Economics and Political Science, London,
pp.25-57.
Sugimoto Ichiro (2005). “The Construction of GDP estimates of Singapore, 1900-1939

and 1950-1960, Progress and Prospects”, in Programme including New Researchers
Paper & Abstracts of the other Academic Papers, The Economic History Society Annual
Conference 2005, Leicester: The Economic History Society, pp.103-111.
______________(2007a). “An Analysis of the State of Johore Government Finance,

1910-1939”, Journal of Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol.80, Part 2,
pp.67-87.
Sun, K.N. (1997). “A Political/Economic Analysis of Taiwan Government Spending

Growth”, Public Finance Review, Vol. 29, pp.1-20.
Tan, Eu Chye (2003). “Does Wagner's law or the Keynesian paradigm hold in the case
of Malaysia?”, Thammasat Review, Vol. 8, No.1, pp.62-75.
Tan, Shu-hung (1997). “Budgetary guidelines and fiscal performance in Hong Kong”,
International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 10, No. 7, pp. 547-571.
Tanzi, Vito and L. Schuknecht (2000). Public Spending in the 20th Century, A Global
Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, W.C. (1949). Local Government in Malaya, Alor Star: Kedah Government Press.
Thornton, John (1999). “Cointegration, Causality and Wagner’s Law in 19th Century
Europe”, Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 6, pp. 413-416.
________________(2001). “Population growth and economic growth: long-run

evidence from Latin America”, Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 68, No.2, pp. 464-468.
Trocki, Carl, A. (1990). Opium and Empire: Chinese Society in Colonial Singapore,
1800-1910, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
355
Tsangyao Chang (2002). “An Economic Test of Wagner’s Law for Six Countries Based
on Cointegration and Error-Correction Modeling Techniques”, Applied Economics,
Vol.34, pp. 1157-1169.
Turnovsky, Stephen, J. and Chattopadhyay, Pradip (2003). “Volatility and growth in

developing economies: some numerical results and empirical evidence, Journal of
International Economics, Vol.59, pp.267-295.
Vatter, H.G. and Walker, J.F. (1986). “Real Public Sector Employment Growth,
Wagner’s Law, and Economic Growth in the United States”, Public Finance, Vol. 41,
pp.117-137.
Voivodas, Constantin S. (1974). “The Effect of Foreign Exchange Instability on

Growth”, The Review of Economic and Statistics, Vol.51, No.3, pp.410-412.
Wagner, R.E. and Weber, W.E. (1977). “Wagner’s Law, Fiscal Institutions and the
Growth of Government”, National Tax Journal, Vol. 30, pp.59-68.
Wahab, Mahmoud. (2004). “Economic Growth and Government Expenditure: Evidence

from A New Test Specification”, Applied Economics, Vol.36, pp. 2125-2135.
Warren, James Francis (1986). Rickshaw Coolie: a People’s History of Singapore

1900-1940, Singapore: Oxford University Press.
Westphal, L., Kim, L. and Dahlman, C. (1985). “Reflections on the republic of Korea’s
Acquisition of Technological Capability”, in N. Rosenberg and C. Frischtak (eds.),
International technology Transfer: Concepts, Measures and Comparisons, New York:
Praeger, pp. 167-221.
Wilson, Peter (1994). “Export Earnings Instability of Singapore, 1957-1988: Time

Series Analysis”, Journal of Asian Economics, Vol.5, pp.399-412.
Wilson, Peter and Peebles, Gavin (2005). “Don’t Frighten the Horses- the Political
Economy of Singapore’s Foreign Exchange Rate Regime since 1981”, Singapore Centre
for Applied and Policy Economics (SCAPE) Working Paper No.2005/06.
Wing, Yuk (2005). “Government Size and Economic Growth: Time-Series Evidence for
the United Kingdom, 1830-1993”, Econometric Working Paper EWP0501, Department
of Economics, University of Victoria.
Wong Lin Ken (1978). “Singapore’s growth as an entrepot port 1819-1941”, Journal of
Southeast Asian Studies, 9(1), pp.50-85.
____________ (1979). “Twentieth Century Malayan Economic History: A Select

Bibliographic Survey”, The Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, Vol.10, No.1: 1-24.
______________ (1991). Commercial Growth Before the Second World War, in Chew,
Ernest C.T. and Lee, Edwin (eds.), A History of Singapore, Singapore: Oxford
University Press, pp.41-65.
356
Yeoh, Brend S.A (1993). “Urban Sanitation, Health and Water Supply in Later
Nineteenth and Early Twentiedh Century Colonial Singapore”, South East Asia
Research, 1(2), pp.143-172.
_______________ (1996). Contesting Space: Power Relations and the Urban Built
Environment in Colonial Singapore, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.
Yousefi, M.and Abizadeh.S. (1992). “Growth of State Government Expenditures

Empirical Evidence from the United States, Public Finance, Vol. 47, pp. 322-339.
Unpublished Sources
Choo, Eng Kang (1976). “The Singapore Trade Depression, 1920-22”, Academic
Exerciese, Department of History, National University of Singapore.
Dawe, David C. (1993). “Essays on Price Stabilization and Macroeconomy in Low

Income Countries”, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Economics, Harvard University.
Goh Keng Swee (1956). “Techniques of national income estimation in under-developed

territories, with special reference to Asia and Africa”, Ph.D Thesis, University of
London, London School of Economics.
Hanizah Idris (1995). “Pembangunan dan Perkembangan Infrastruktur Pelabohan

Singapore, 1819-1941” (Construction and Development of Singapore Port
Infrastructure, Singapore, 1819-1941), M.A Thesis, Department of Southeast Asian
Studies, University of Malaya.
Hernaikh Singh Dhaliwal (1989). “Poverty in Singapore in the 1920s and 1930s”,
Academic exercise, Department of History, National University of Singapore.
Khoo, Kay Kim (1960). “The Municipal Government of Singapore, 1887-1940”,

Academic exercise, Department of History, University of Malaya.
Nazrin, Raja (2000). “Essays of Economic Growth of Malaysia in The Twentieth

Century”, Ph.D Thesis, Harvard University.
__________(2002). “Historical GDP Statistics of Malaya, 1900-1939:Progress and

Perspectives”, paper presented at XIII International Economic History Congress,
Session 30, Modern Economic Growth and Distribution in Asia, Latin America and the
European Periphery: A Historical National Accounts Approach, July 22-26, 2002,
Buenos Aires: International Economic History Association.
___________(2006). “Methodology for Deriving the Domestic Private Final

Consumption Expenditure Series of Malaya, 1900-1939”, paper presented at XIV
International Economic History Congress, Session 103, New Experiences with
Historical National Accounts: Methodologies and Analysis, August 21-25, 2006,
Helsinki: International Economic History Association.
Oshima, Harry T. (1956). “A Critique of the National Income Statistics Selected Asian
Countries”, Ph.D thesis, Columbia University.
357
Ruhana Padzil (1999). “Perbekalan Air Johor-Singapura” (Water Supply from State of
Johore to Singapore), M.A Thesis, Department of Southeast Asian Studies, Faculty of
Arts and Social Sciences, Kuala Lumpur, University of Malaya.
Sugimoto, Ichiro (1997). “Analysis Struktur Pentadbiran Kewangan British di Negeri

Johor, 1896-1957” (Analysis of British Colonial Government Finance Structure in the
State of Johore, 1896-1957), MA Thesis, Department of Southeast Asian Studies,
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya.
_____________ (2007b). “Historical GDP in The Colony of Singapore: Methodologies

of Construction and Overall Patterns of Growth, 1900-1939 and 1950-1960”, paper
presented at Singapore Economic Review Conference 2007, Session 9: Empirical
Macroeconomics, August 2-4, 2007, Singapore: Singapore Economic Review and
Brooks World Poverty Institute.
______________(2007c). “Eiryo shokuminchi Singapore niokeru Minkan Saishu

Shishutu Suikei, 1900-39, 1948-60” (Methodology Employed for the Estimation of
Private Final Consumption Expenditure by Resident Household, 1900-39, 1948-60),
paper presented at 76th The Socio-Economic History Society, Annual Conference. May
26-27, 2007, Tokyo: Nihon-Keizaishi Gakkai (The Socio-Economic History Society).
Teo, Mary Celine Kiew Ting (1962). “The Development of the Port of Singapore,
1819-1959”, Academic exercise, Department of Geography, University of Malaya.
Online Sources
National Institute of Health and Nutrition (NIHN), Japan (1995). Health and Nutrition
Information Infrastructure Database System. Available at:
http://health02.nutritio.net:8888/nns/owa/nns_index_e.nk1100 (accessed 6th January
2008).
Asian Development Bank (2001). Key Indicators of Developing Asian and Pacific
Countries. Available at:
http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Key_Indicators/2001/sin_ki2001.xls (accessed
6th January 2008).
Asian Development Bank (2005). Key Indicators of Developing Asian and Pacific
Countries. Available at:
http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Key_Indicators/2005/xls/SIN.xls (accessed 6th
January 2008).
CD-ROM
International Monetary Fund, Department of Statistics (2006). International Financial

Statistics CD-ROM Subscription, New York: IMF.
358
View publication stats

PH DThesisFinal-Janury09 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PH DThesisFinal-Janury09 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PH DThesisFinal-Janury09 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author proﬁles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Economic Growth of Singapore in the Twentieth Century: Historical GDP

Article · January 2011

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded ﬁle.

INSTITUTE OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

Name of Candidate: ICHIRO SUGIMOTO (I.C/Passport No: MZ 0453378)

Field of Study: ECONOMIC HISTORY

I do solemnly and sincerely declare that:

(1) I am the sole author/writer of this Work;

Candidate’s Signature Date

Witness’s Signature Date

Name: Prof. Dr. Tan Eu Chye

THESIS SUBMITTED IN FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

INSTITUTE OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

in the twentieth century.

which conformed to the definitions as outlined in the System of National Accounts.

methodologies employed for the construction of Singapore’s historical GDP estimates

year (1990 prices).

relation to sources of output volatilities, explanatory variables such as the share of

government deficit/surplus to GDP, changes in trade as a share of GDP and changes in

post-WWII periods. With regard to the effect of economic instability on economic

the economy became more diversified.

focused on whether there existed any notable differences or similarities in fiscal

revenue raising capacity and subsequently on the size of government expenditure.

economic growth nurtured the expansion of government expenditure in the pre-WWII

attributed to astute macroeconomic management.

Objektif tesis adalah untuk menganalisis pertumbuhan ekonomi di Singapura pada

Sehingga kini kajian mengenai pertumbuhan ekonomi di Singapura amat terhad

menyeluruh terutamanya bahagian pertama kajian akan menghuraikan dan menjelaskan

metodologi pembentukan anggaran Keluaran Dalam Negara Kasar (KDNK) di

abad ke-20 dengan berdasarkan harga tetap (tahun 1990).

mengenai perhubungan diantara ketidakstabilan ekonomi dan pertumbuhan ekonomi.

Topik ini mengandungi isu-isu seperti kadar ketidakstabilan, sumber ketidakstabilan

perubahan ini tidak dapat diterangkan dalam bentuk statistik. Seterusnya,

kapita KDNK Singapura.

dengan munculnya pelbagai bentuk perdagangan.

Jenis kajian yang kedua ialah menganalisis perhubungan di antara pengurusan

kewangan kerajaan dengan pertumbuhan ekonomi di Singapura. Kajian ini memberi

di bawah pentadbiran kolonial. Selanjutnya, kajian ini meneliti mengenai perubahan

dari aspek pengutipan hasil, peruntukan perbelanjaan dan pengurusan belanjawan

kerajaan daripada penjualan candu kepada cukai pendapatan. Transformasi ini

menyebabkan perkembangan terhadap saiz pengutipan hasil negeri. Sejajar dengan

dengan negara-negara maju, saiz perbelanjaan KDNK terus mengecil dibawah

pentadbiran kerajaan kolonial British dan kerajaan Singapura. Sebenarnya, pihak

membuktikan bahawa pertumbuhan ekonomi menyebabkan perkembangan perbelanjaan

negeri sebelum Perang Dunia Kedua. Sebaliknya, pengurusan makroekonomi yang

Singapura selepas Perang Dunia Kedua.

support and patience he has shown me. Throughout my thesis-writing period he

study at a number of conferences, namely “The Economic History Society Annual

Conference 2005” (Leicester, UK), “The Socio-Economic History Society Annual

2007” (Singapore) before submission of this study.

providing me great encouragement and opportunity to be in his research project entitled

“Historical National Accounts of Pre-Independence Malaya” since 1998. The

personal collections of colonial documents was of immense help to the completion of

Prof. Dr. Osamu Saito.

understanding, endless patience and encouragement when it was most required. I am

also grateful to my late father, Yoshio Sugimoto, my mother, Kazuko Sugimoto, my

TABLES OF CONTENTS viii-xvii

LIST OF TABLES xviii-xxiii