E.W. Barker
Singapore
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This is a simple Bill which seeks to amend section 33 of the Land Acquisition Act on the amount of compensation payable to owners of land compulsorily acquired under the Act.”
“For the five-year period from 1st July, 1981 to 30th June, 1986, the HDB demolished a total of 8,098 units. As the HDB's new accounting system was only implemented from 1st April, 1985, the Board does not have ready information on the value of flats demolished prior to 1st April, 1985. RELOCATION OF CREMATORIUMS 4.”
“The HDB did not allocate any MP's office to the previous PAP MPs for Anson and Potong Pasir constituencies. NUMBER OF H.D.B. UNITS DEMOLISHED 3.”
“I would not know. Why don't you ask them? I don't know. Sir, to put things in a nutshell, it is the legal profession amongst all the professions that help in the administration of Singapore. Doctors help to cure you of diseases.”
“I am not saying it's wrong. I am not telling you stories. I am relating. So they decided to take us on. When we went into Select Committee, the first day and the later part of the second day, there was confrontation between the Committee and the lawyers.”
“As the Member for Anson would know, the Minister for Law is not in charge of prosecutions or the conduct of any criminal proceedings in court, nor does he give any directives on these matters.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,152 lines we hold for E.W. Barker, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 16 of 44.
“(b) The Swimming Lagoon, shown coloured blue and yellow on the same plan, which has been developed to provide a major tropical beach and waterfront recreational area for the use not only of tourists but also the residents of Singapore. The Golf Course Island which was completed in March 1971 necessitated the reclamation of about 1.9 acres of the foreshore and approval for this reclamation was given under the proviso to section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Cap. 270). The development of the Swimming Lagoon which is expected to be completed at the end of this year involves the dredging and reclamation of about 27.7 acres off Sentosa Island and approval of the House for this reclamation is now being sought. It is also proposed to reclaim Kuching Creek Estuary shown coloured green on the plan for the purpose of constructing a Ferry Terminal and Plaza Building. The Port of Singapore Authority will on behalf of the Corporation undertake the reclamation works which are expected to be completed in a year's time at an estimated cost of $900,000. Fill for this reclamation will be obtained from surplus material from the PSA's own dredging operations. The cost of constructing the Ferry Terminal and Plaza Building including the cost of ferry boats is estimated at $4.5 million. The building which will incorporate ticketing offices and Information Centre, medical facilities, locker rooms and display cases, shops, snack bar and a restaurant are expected to be completed in two years' time after the reclamation of Kuching Creek. On completion, the reclaimed land will be proclaimed as State land and alienated to the Sentosa Development Corporation on terms and conditions to be agreed with the Commissioner of Lands. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name, as it appears on the Order Paper. * The motion reads as follows: `That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves: - (a) the dredging of the seabed off Sentosa Island for the creation of the Swimming Lagoon as shown coloured blue on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 14/73", which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore; (b) the reclamation of approximately 27.7 acres of the foreshore at Sentosa Island for the formation of the berms enclosing the Swimming Lagoon as shown coloured yellow on the said plan; (c) the construction of five timber bridges linking the five openings on the berms of the Swimming Lagoon and the timber bridge linking Sentosa to the Golf Course Island as shown coloured blue on the said plan; and (d) the reclamation of approximately 6.7 acres of the Kuching Creek estuary at Sentosa Island as shown coloured green on the said plan.' Sir, with the zoning of Sentosa Island as a tourist resort area and consequent on the confirmation of the feasibility of developing the Island far such a resort, certain basic infrastructure projects were undertaken on the Island by the Jurong Town Corporation on behalf of the Government, before the establishment of the Sentosa Development Corporation. Two of these projects were - (a) The Golf Course Island, shown coloured brown on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 14/73", a copy of which is displayed in the Library of this House for the information of hon. Members. I have also a copy of the plan here. Plan handed in to the Clerk.”
“Fill for the reclamation will be obtained from dredging the nearby navigation channels. The cost of the reclamation, including foreshore protection, estimated at $4.4 million will be borne by the Authority. A further sum of $6.2 million will be expended on infrastructure and recreational facilities at these islands. This reclamation, together with the reclamation at Coney Island which will be carried out soon and at other islands currently under study by the Authority, will be spread out over the next five years. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves the reclamation by Government of those portions of the foreshores and seabed off Pulau Hantu Besar and Pulau Hantu Kechil (also known as the Pulau Hantu Twins), Pulau Subar Darat and Pulau Subar Laut (also known as the Sisters Islands) containing a total area of approximately 32.3 acres as shown coloured pink on the plans marked `LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 12/73 AND LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 13/73", which are deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. RECLAMATION AT SENTOSA ISLAND 5.25 p.m.”
“In fact, I have all the plans here. Plans handed in to the Clerk.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name, as it appears on the Order Paper. * The motion reads as follows: `That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves the reclamation by Government of those portions of the foreshores and seabed off Pulau Hantu Besar and Pulau Hantu Kechil (also known as the Pulau Hantu Twins), Pulau Subar Darat and Pulau Subar Laut (also known as the Sisters Islands) containing a total area of approximately 32.3 acres as shown coloured pink on the plans marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 12/73 AND LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 13 / 73", which are deposited in the Land Office, Singapore.' Sir, the Port of Singapore Authority is presently conducting preliminary studies on the development of seaward recreational facilities for the benefit of our citizens as well as tourists. Broadly, the development consists of the reclamation of land on some of the islands around Singapore and the provision of electricity and water, washing and bathing facilities and regular and frequent fast ferry services between the mainland and the islands. For a start, the Authority proposes to develop Pulau Hantu (Besar and Kechil) and Pulau Subar Laut and Subar Darat (Sisters Islands) and Coney Island. For this purpose, it is now proposed to reclaim a total area of approximately 32.3 acres of the fore-shores at Pulau Hantu (Besar and Kechil) and Pulau Subar Laut and Subar Darat (Sisters Islands) as shown coloured pink on the plans marked as "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 12/73" and "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 13/73" respectively, copies of which are displayed in the Library of this House for the information of hon. Members. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you are interested, I have the plan here.”
“5 acres of foreshore and seabed at Jurong as shown coloured green, orange and red on the plan marked as "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 10/73", which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore; (b) the construction by Government of the foreshore structures, namely a dock as shown edged in dark green, quay walls as indicated by broken black lines, and a jetty as shown edged in pink on the said plan; and (c) the dredging by Government of the seabed as shown coloured blue on the said plan. RECLAMATION AT PULAU HANTU AND PULAU SUBAR 5.21 p.m.”
“It also proposes to construct in the areas shown coloured green and purple on the plan a dock, (shown edged in dark green), quay walls (shown in broken black lines) and a jetty (shown edged in pink). All these proposed structures are also shown in an enlarged fashion in the inset drawn on the plan. To provide suitable access to these structures, it is necessary to dredge the nearby seabed shown coloured blue on the plan to a depth of 35 feet below mean sea level. The Jurong Town Corporation which supports the above proposals also proposes to reclaim an additional area of 94 acres of the foreshore as shown coloured brown on the plan for allotment to other shipyards and to create two basins (about 800 feet wide and 1,200 feet wide respectively) as shown hatched in blue on the plan. These basins will provide more water frontage for marine and marine-oriented industries and will further improve the use of the reclaimed land. The Corporation will bear the cost of additional reclamation estimated at about $17 million and the fill for the reclamation will be obtained from the dredging of the areas shown coloured blue and hatched in blue on the plan and, if necessary, from the hills at Jurong which are being levelled to provide additional industrial sites. On completion of the reclamation, this reclaimed land will again be proclaimed as State land and alienated to the Corporation on terms and conditions to be agreed with the Commissioner of Lands. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves : - (a) the additional reclamation by Government of a total of 208.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name as it appears on the Order Paper. * The motion reads as follows: `That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves: - (a) the additional reclamation by Government of a total of 208.5 acres of fore-shore and seabed at Jurong as shown coloured green, orange and red on the plan marked as "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 10/73", which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore; (b) the construction by Government of the foreshore structures, namely a dock as shown edged in dark green, quay walls as indicated by broken black lines, and a jetty as shown edged in pink on the said plan; and (c) the dredging by Government of the seabed as shown coloured blue on the said plan.' Sir, you will recall that in October, 1972, this House approved the reclamation of a total of about 1,110.2 acres of the foreshore at Jurong shown coloured yellow, purple and hatched in purple on the plan marked as "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 10/73", a copy of which is displayed in the Library of this House for the information of hon. Members. The reclamation was to provide additional land for industrial development. About 50 per cent of this area has already been reclaimed commencing from the eastern side. Messrs. Mitsubishi (Singapore) Heavy Industries Private Limited, which was allotted the areas shown coloured purple and hatched in purple on the same plan for ship-building and ship-repairing, has, in order to save time and costs, decided to alter the original proposed pattern of the reclamation by abandoning the area shown hatched in purple (about 91.3 acres in area) and substituting in lieu thereof the areas shown coloured green and orange (about 114.5 acres in area).”
“On the advice and with the concurrence of the Port of Singapore Authority, it is therefore proposed to realign the original southern limit of the reclamation by filling up the basin and cutting off part of the projection as shown coloured yellow and hatched red on the plan, resulting in a new southern limit of the reclamation as shown edged in red broken lines. The realignment of the reclamation limit necessitates the reclamation of about 41 acres of the foreshore shown coloured purple on the plan. The approval of the House is now sought for this reclamation which will be undertaken by the Jurong Town Corporation, as agent of the Government, at an estimated cost of $2.5 million. Earth from the nearby hills will be utilised as fill for this reclamation. On completion, the reclaimed land will be proclaimed as State land and alienated to the Corporation on terms and conditions to be agreed with the Commissioner of Lands. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves the reclamation by Government of those portions of foreshore and seabed at Ulu Pandan containing a total area of approximately 41 acres as shown coloured purple and edged in broken red and blue lines on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 7/73" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. RECLAMATION AT JURONG 5.16 p.m.”
“Sir, I beg to move the motion+ standing in my name as it appears on the Order Paper. + The motion reads as follows: `That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves the reclamation by Government of those portions of foreshore and sea-bed at Ulu Pandan containing a total area of approximately 41 acres as shown coloured purple and edged in broken red and blue lines on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 7/73" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore.' Sir, you will recall that at its sitting on 19th October, 1971, this House approved the reclamation of about 371.8 acres of the foreshore and seabed at Ulu Pandan shown coloured green and yellow on the plan marked as "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 7/73", a copy of which is displayed in the Library of this House for the information of hon. Members. This reclamation, which has since been completed except for the portion shown coloured yellow and hatched red on the plan, was in line with the development layout plan approved by the Master Plan Committee for the integral development of the foreshores and adjoining land as an extension of the Jurong Industrial Estate. The approved limit of the reclamation of the foreshore line east of Caltex's properties (shown coloured pink), comprising about 182 acres and shown coloured yellow and edged in blue broken lines on the plan, provides for the creation of a sizable basin of water. However, on further investigation, it has been found that this basin (shown coloured purple on the plan) is liable to siltation and is therefore unsuitable for shipping.”
“Resolved, That this Parliament, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Nature Reserves Act (Chapter 295), resolves that paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the said Act be deleted. RECLAMATION AT ULU PANDAN 5.11 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name as it stands in the Order Paper. * The motion reads as follows: `That this Parliament, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Nature Reserves Act (Chapter 295), resolves that paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the said Act be deleted.' The motion deals with the Kranji Forest Reserve, Lot 162-5 Mukim XIII, Sembawang, which has been sub divided into two Lots: - (1) Lot 162-8 which has an area of 51.313 acres (21 hectares), and (2) Lot 162-7 which has an area of 2.097 acres (.8 hectare). Sir, the Sewerage Department of the Ministry of the Environment requires the first Lot for the proposed Woodlands Sewage Treatment Works which will serve Woodlands New Town and the Kranji area. The site was chosen, after careful evaluation of several locations, as the most suitable for the proposed sewage treatment works. The Nature Reserves Board has agreed to the release of this Lot 162-8. The other subdivided Lot 162-7 was excised on 30th August, 1958, and taken up for the widening of Wood-lands Road. A resolution approving this excision was passed by the Legislative Assembly on 26th January, 1959. Unfortunately, the deletion was not followed by the requisite Gazette notification. It is now necessary to move a fresh resolution in Parliament so that the relevant notification may be subsequently published in the Government Gazette. It is therefore proposed to delete the above two areas forming the Kranji Reserve from the Schedule to the Nature Reserves Act in the manner provided under section 4 thereof. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 10, to leave out from line 39 to line 4 in page 11. Sir, with the introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill which was read for the first time today, it is necessary to effect this amendment and the earlier amendments, as provision for pegging of land values for purposes of compulsory acquisition of land has already been made in clause 7 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, which will be taken through its Second and Third Reading stages at the next sitting of Parliament. These are the reasons for the amendments which I have just moved, Sir. Amendment agreed to. Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments. Third Reading”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to give notice that I wish to propose amendments to clause 18 of the Bill. Typed copies of the Notice handed in and distributed to Members.”
“(2) The Building Authority may at any time suspend or revoke any licence under subsection (I) without assigning any reason therefor. (3) Any person who uses or permits to be used any premises without a licence for any of the trades or purposes specified in subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence under this Act. (4) Where the Building Authority is satisfied that any premises have been or are being used in contravention of this section he may enter the premises and seize all movable property found therein.'.-[Mr Barker]. Brought up, and read the First time. Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 14, line 31, to leave out "27" and insert "28". This and the following amendments are all consequential amendments. Amendment agreed to. Amendments made: In page 15, after line 26, to insert - "Section 77 and 78 Repeal.".-[Mr Barker]. In page 15, after line 33, to insert under the second column thereof - "Delete paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 appearing under the heading "Fire Brigade".".-[Mr Barker]. The Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause - `Dangerous (1) No premises shall, except in trades accordance with a licence from not to the Building Authority, be used be by any person for any of the carried following trades or purposes - on without licence. (a) tallow-melting and candle making; (b) making or storing matches, fireworks, carbide or any industrial gas; (c) making or storing charcoal; (d) a sawmill or place for depositing or storing coal, wood, timber, attap, kajang, thatching, grass, hay, straw or other flammable materials otherwise than for domestic use in that place; (e) a foundry or smithy; (f) the manufacture, storage, treatment, smoking or preparation of rubber, gutta pereha, jelutong and any other form of getah; (g) the manufacture, storage or treatment of cinematograph or other films; (h) a garage or place kept or used for repairing, painting, washing, storing, housing or parking motor vehicles or a place where a pump is maintained from which petrol or oil is supplied to motor vehicles, except a garage or place used in connection with a private dwelling-house and kept for private use only; and (i) such other trades or purposes as the Minister may, by notification in the Gazette, specify.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 13, after line 40, to insert - "(m) the control, regulation and supervision by registration, licensing or otherwise of premises used for any trade or purpose specified in section 14; (n) measures for the construction, installation and inspection of lifts and escalators; (o) the provision for air and open spaces within or between buildings;". Sir, this amendment is necessary because the functions of the Fire Brigade, as the Minister for Social Affairs pointed out earlier, are being transferred to the Building Control Division of the Public Works Department, and the measures under paragraphs (n) and (o), which I have just spelt out, are really additional measures taken following the Robinson fire and the recommendations made in respect of that fire. Amendment agreed to.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 12, line 12, after "Act", to insert "or any regulations made thereunder". Sir, this is for further additional clarification. Amendment agreed to. Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 26 -”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 9, line 39, after "he", to insert "had". This is to correct a grammatical error. Amendment agreed to. Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 15 to 23 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 24 -”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 9, line 12, after "such", to insert "investigation or". This would assure that the cost of such investigation could be recovered from the owner. Amendment agreed to. Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 14 -”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 9, to leave out "26 of this Act" and insert "27". This is a consequential renumbering due to the introduction of a new clause 14. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 to 12 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 13 -”
“Sir, first, I would like to thank the Member for his kind remarks. We will certainly take his comments into consideration. If the Building Authority or the Assistant Director of Public Works Department is not flexible, there is always recourse for an appeal to the Minister. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Barker]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 3.47 p.m. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -”
“Such confiscated property may be returned to the owner within two weeks of the seizure or removal on such terms and conditions as the Authority thinks fit. Any property or thing which has been confiscated may be disposed of in such manner as the Minister may direct. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“In respect of any unauthorised building works, the Authority is authorised under the Bill to charge sums not exceeding 50 times the prescribed fees, for the approval of plans to cover such unauthorised works. The existing maximum penalty is ten times the prescribed fee. Clause 6 which is substantially similar to the existing law confers on the Authority power to stop the construction of unauthorised building works and to demolish the structures and to recover the cost and expenses of demolition from the persons responsible. Clause 7 empowers the Authority to enter a building and seize all movable property found therein if it is satisfied that the building has been converted for any purpose or use other than the purpose or use for which the building has been approved. Such movable property may be confiscated or returned to the owner. This clause is designed to enable speedy and effective action to be taken against any unauthorised change of use of a building. Clause 13 of the Bill confers wide powers on the Authority to deal with any building which is dangerous or liable to become dangerous by fire, wind, rain, dilapidation, use, lack of fire escapes or any other cause. Among other things, the Authority may require the closure and the demolition of the whole or even part of such building. The provisions of this clause will enable the Authority to deal more effectively with dangerous buildings than the existing system under which a mandatory order will have to be obtained from a Magistrate's Court resulting in undue delay and protracted action. The Authority is also conferred powers by clause 19 of the Bill to confiscate any property seized or removed in the exercise of statutory powers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." A new Building Control Division within the Public Works Department was established in February, 1972, to speed up the processing of building plans. However, the existing building control legislation is inadequate to meet our present requirements. The Bill therefore seeks to amend and consolidate the existing law and to repeal Part III of the Local Government Integration Act (Cap. 210) dealing with building activities. The general scheme of the Bill is similar to Part III of the Local Government Integration Act, but substantive changes have been made to simplify the law and to confer greater powers on the Building Authority (who is defined under the Bill as the Assistant Director (Building Control) of the P.W.D.) to deal with unauthorised building works and dangerous or dilapidated buildings. Penalties for offences in relation to unauthorised building works have been increased under the Bill, as the present penalties are considered inadequate. There are also other new provisions which will strengthen the hands of the Authority. I will only draw Members' attention to some of the more significant clauses. Clause 5 provides that no person shall commence or carry out any building works without the written permission of the Building Authority. This is not new. But "building works" is defined to include any kind of construction, site formation, repairs, demolition, alteration, addition and every kind of building operations. Provisions will be made in the Regulations to exempt minor repairs and alterations from the requirements of this clause.”
“The other two minor amendments in this Bill are being introduced in order to allow the President power to increase the number of Assistant Registrars in the High Court, as and when the need to do so arises. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Barker]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Enacting Clause -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Bill seeks to introduce certain amendments to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Chapter 15) in order to enable the Public Prosecutor to appeal against judgments of the High Court made in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. As the law now stands, the Public Prosecutor is only empowered to refer points of law to the Court of Criminal Appeal for the Appellate Court's review and, where a person has been acquitted by the High Court, only a declaratory judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal may be sought which will not have the effect of reversing the order. Furthermore, there can be no appeal by the Public Prosecutor in respect of sentence imposed. Whereas there are these restrictions on the Public Prosecutor, there are no corresponding restrictions on the accused person who, upon conviction by the High Court, is entitled as of right to take his case on appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal; and in every case where he is dissatisfied with the sort of punishment meted out on him by the Court, lodge an appeal against sentence. In order to correct this imbalance as it were, the changes contemplated by the Bill have been introduced. In practice, it is not envisaged that there would be many such appeals. Nevertheless, there is a need to allow the Public Prosecutor in any given case, a freer hand than the law now allows, so that he would be in the same position, not less nor more advantageous than counsel for the defence, in regard to exercising a discretion whether to appeal against an order of the High Court or not.”
“As a result of the shorter time that will be needed in preparing revised registers of electors, the cut-off date for the inclusion of names in the registers can be extended from 1st February at present to 1st July in any year in respect of which registers are prepared. Clause 2 of the Bill, which amends section 5 of the Act, seeks to do this. In the past it has also been the practice to amend section 10 of the Act whenever fresh registers of electors (as distinct from revised registers) are required to be prepared for a general election. This method is somewhat unsatisfactory and cumbersome, and clause 3 of the Bill now simply provides that, whenever a notification is made under section 8 of the Act to specify the names and boundaries of the electoral divisions for purposes of a general election, the Registration Officer will prepare fresh registers of electors for that year. The Bill contains one other important amendment which seeks to increase the amount required to be deposited by a candidate for election from $500 to $1,200. The amendment, which is contained in clause 14, will also empower the Minister to vary the amount of deposit up to a maximum of 10 per cent of the total allowances payable to a Member of Parliament in each year. This amendment is necessary because the present amount of deposit was fixed as long ago as 1954 and is therefore somewhat unrealistic by present day standards. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Barker]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clauses 1 to 14 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 15 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The amendments contained in this Bill are mainly designed to simplify the method and procedure for the revision of the registers of electors so as to facilitate the process of revision and enable revised registers to be prepared within a much shorter time than is at present possible. It has been found that the present method and procedure of revising the registers of electors causes unnecessary delay because of the requirement laid down by section 16 of the Parliamentary Elections Act that, apart from the revised registers, two additional lists referred to as "List A" (dealing with deletions from the registers) and "List B" (dealing with additions to the registers) must also be prepared. The preparation of both these Lists takes time but serves very little purpose as they are hardly known to the public, most of whom are merely interested in finding out whether their names are in the revised registers or not. Clause 10 of the Bill, therefore, dispenses with this requirement. It has also been found that the existing section 15 of the Act is unduly rigid as it imposes a mandatory requirement to revise the registers of electors every year even though there may not be any real need for such revision. Clause 9 of the Bill, therefore, seeks to amend section 15 so as to introduce greater flexibility by empowering the Minister to require the registers of electors to be revised from time to time but in any case not less than three years after the last general election.”
“I will have to work out the details. All I can say is that it is unlikely that compensation rates will be increased by the end of this year.”
“The answer is, yes, no more flats will be balloted for the rest of the year. Sir, the next ballot will be sometime next year, and prices will go up. We must have a cut-off date. There have been letters to the press grumbling about the flats in Marine Parade which are nearly ready, "Why don't we sell them now?" The objection is this. If we balloted away one or two blocks of flats in Marine Parade in December, and they would have to be sold at the old prices, then if we have a second ballot next year with the increased prices, those who buy in the second ballot will grumble. They will point to their neighbours next door and say, "That person paid $2,000 or $4,000 less." This policy is not a pleasant one. But unless we increase the prices of flats, it will be uneconomical for the Housing Board and the Minister for Finance to increase considerably the subsidies that Government is already providing for cheap low-cost housing.”
“Sir, I have said just now that consideration will be given to such an increase sometime next year. But we do not want to do everything at one blow. All I can tell is that if the rents go up, they will not go up for the next six months.”
“Perhaps the hon. Member does not know that even the Housing Board, when it purchases land from the Government or from the private sector, has to pay for the land at market prices. One of the reasons I gave for the increase in building costs was the increase in land costs which have gone up considerably in Singapore. Hence, Government's policy statement last September barring foreigners from purchasing land in Singapore without permission; and I shall be tabling the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill very soon after this. This is Government's effort to prevent speculation in land prices in order to stabilise, if not lessen, land prices. But we have always been concerned with the amount of compensation payable either to farmers in the rural areas or to urban dwellers. It was not long ago that the compensation rates went up, and if conditions are such that the amount of rates should go up, they will go up.”
“I do not follow the question. Is the Member referring to the landowner or just the tenant? Mr N. Govindasamy: Both tenants and landowners, Sir. You have computed compensation based on the old rate for the house, land, etc. But the prices of houses have gone up or are likely to go up further from 1st January.”
“Sir, in direct reply, charges for service and conservancy must go up. The cost, I believe, is about $6.50 a day, but the costs of providing these services have gone up, particularly the amenities for Housing Board flats which have improved considerably. The Housing Board is responsible for maintenance of parks, playing fields and other improved amenities. But there is one peculiarity and, that is, that the old Singapore Improvement Trust flats have been totally exempted from all service and conservancy charges ever since they were built. It is time this policy was changed. All I can assure the Member is that if these charges go up, they will go up only sometime next year. As for rents, the likelihood is that they will go up, but we will give consideration to these increases only after receipt of the recommendations of the National Wages Council, which will probably be in the middle of next year. As for energy conservation, every alternate lighting point along the common corridors of Housing Board flats, except along the staircases, has been cut off. Altogether 23,000 fluorescent tubes have been removed and kept in the stores. Further, the lighting hours have been cut down by two hours, the common lights are switched on an hour later than before and switched off an hour earlier in the morning.”
“Sir, over the last several years, prices have gone up, but they have gone up significantly over the last twelve months. The percentage increases in the main building materials were cement about 33 per cent, steel about 100 per cent, timber 100 per cent, and labour 50 per cent. Roughly, the overall increase in building materials and labour per unit of 3-room flats works out to be about 35 per cent over the last twelve months.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, soon after the last elections, I received a paper from the Housing and Development Board asking for an increase in the sale prices of flats. Because of the rising cost of living, I have resisted the proposed increases for more than a year; but we cannot resist it forever, and I have given reasons why the costs of these flats have gone up. As for the various categories of applicants, whether they are affected by urban renewal, or whether they have applied three years ago, or whether their house is affected by some Government project and have to move, there must be a dividing line; there must be a cutoff date. We therefore chose the 1st of January next year. Whatever date you choose, people will grumble; but the best date one can choose is the beginning of the new year.”
“Sir, will the Member get on to his question? In a Ministerial Statement a Member may ask questions, but not make speeches.”
“Urban Sub- New Types of Flat urban Town Two-room Improved $11,000 $ 9,500 $8,000 Three-room Standard $14,500 $11,800 $10,200 Three-room Improved $17,500 $13,500 $11,800 Three-room Corner $18,500 $15,000 $12,800 Four-room flats $26,000 $21,500 $18,500 Five-room flats $41,000 $35,500 $30,000”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the present selling prices of Housing and Development Board flats were fixed in 1965 when the "Home Ownership for the People" scheme was first introduced. In the last eight years the cost of providing public housing has risen considerably, mainly due to increases in, firstly, the prices of building materials and wages pushing up construction costs; secondly, land cost; thirdly, clearance and resettlement costs; and lastly, additional costs due to improvement in the design of flats and better communal and recreational facilities. The Housing and Development Board can, therefore, no longer continue to sell flats at prevailing prices without incurring heavy losses. There are over 100,000 applicants on the waiting list for Housing Board flats; more than 75,000 wanting to buy and more than 25,000 wanting to rent. The Board can only satisfy this great demand for flats without suffering a great financial loss if the selling prices of Housing Board flats are raised. As from 1st January of next year, the selling price of Housing Board flats will he increased by $2,000 for two-room fiats, $4,000 for three-room flats, $6,000 for four-room flats and $8,000 for five-room flats. In order to help the lowest income groups, there will be no increase in the selling price of one-room flats. The new selling prices will be as follows: one-room flat, no change. Two-room (standard), Urban $9,500, Suburban $8,200, New Town $6,900. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will proceed to give the prices of various other categories of flats in the Urban, Suburban and New Town areas respectively.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is considered inappropriate to introduce legislation to freeze all ground rents and house rents not more than $250 per month for premises which are not subject to the Control of Rent Act. The premises subject to rent control are those built before 7th September, 1947, and it is undesirable at this stage to extend this Act beyond its present limits. The Government is conscious of the need to safeguard the legitimate interests of tenants, particularly those in the lower income groups. Towards this end, the Housing and Development Board has stepped up its development programme to meet the housing requirements of the lower income groups, thus keeping rents for them within bounds. Action on the lines suggested by the Member for Jalan Kayu will tend to retard the pace of building both of new residential estates, condominiums, and housing in urban renewal areas. SOUVENIR COINS (Sale at Community Centres) 2. Mr Teong Eng Siong asked the Minister for Finance if he will consider arranging for souvenir coins, like the 7th SEAP Games $5 silver coins, to be sold in future at the various community centres as this will avoid long queues and waste of time and also enable the rural people to have the opportunity of obtaining such coins.”
“In addition, the Chief Surveyor is also given the authority to alter the boundaries of a Mukim or Town Sub-division when the alteration is required by reason of any change in the boundaries of a land holding or of any reclamation of the foreshore or the seabed. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Barker]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. MENTAL DISORDERS AND TREATMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.00 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Land holdings appearing in maps published under the Boundaries and Survey Maps Act are identified by reference to Lot numbers and appropriate Town Sub-division or Mukim numbers, The boundaries of Town Subdivisions or Mukims usually follow existing roads or other prominent boundary-marks. With the accelerated real estate development in recent years, the existing boundary-marks of many Town Sub-divisions or Mukims have been obliterated. It has, therefore, become necessary, in some cases, to alter Town Sub-division or Mukim boundaries. Furthermore, some development projects are sited in two different Town Sub-divisions or Mukims, and in such cases before any new title can be issued the existing Town Sub-division or Mukim boundaries have had to be changed. The practice has been for the Chief Surveyor to alter the boundaries of Town Sub-divisions or Mukims by the publication of the alteration in the Government Gazette for public information. While such a practice is not prohibited by the provisions of the said Act, it is nevertheless not expressly provided for by the Act. It is desirable that such alterations should be covered by specific statutory authority. The Bill, therefore, seeks to amend the Act in order to confer upon the Chief Surveyor the express authority to make the alterations of the boundaries of a Mukim or a Town Sub-division when the alteration is required by reason of any change, or revision of any boundary-marks of the Mukim or Town Sub-division boundaries.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, after that long lecture on urban redevelopment from the Member for Serangoon Gardens, I do not think I need add much further to my speech. At this stage also, I do not propose to answer any of the criticisms or queries of either Member, because I accept their suggestion to commit this Bill to a Select Committee. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, "That the Urban Redevelopment Authority Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman, and the following seven Members: Mr Ivan Baptist (Potong Pasir) Mr E. W. Barker (Tanglin) Mr N. Govindasamy (Telok Blangah) Mr Hwang Soo Jin (Jalan Kayu) Mr Ong Teng Cheong (Kim Keat) Mr L. P. Rodrigo (Serangoon Gardens) Dr Tan Eng Liang (River Valley)."--[Mr Barker], BOUNDARIES AND SURVEY MAPS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 2.57 p.m.”
“Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 2.37 p.m.”
“The other provisions of the Bill are many, but I will draw the attention of Members to only some of the special features. The first of these is that the Authority, in addition to its main function of comprehensive planning of the Central area, is empowered to sell land to the private sector for development and to carry out any finance development on its own or in conjunction with the private sector. The Authority will, therefore, continue the series of urban renewal sales that have been so successful in promoting the participation of private entrepreneurs in our efforts to rebuild the city. Secondly, the Authority with the approval of the Minister may declare certain areas as urban redevelopment areas and may acquire any land in the designated area within three years from the date of declaration, or for such extended periods as the Minister thinks fit, at market values prevailing at the date or dates of declaration. This provision will in effect freeze land and property prices and prevent land speculation in an area earmarked for urban redevelopment. It will also give the Authority sufficient time to carry out a survey and census of the area. The third special feature confers upon the Authority the responsibility of controlling, developing and running car park facilities. The Authority will take over the Chief Planner's functions in the provision of car parks in new developments, and will in due course also take over the responsibilities of the existing Car Parks Division. The main objective is to reduce over a period of time kerb-side parking, which tends to obstruct the traffic flow, so that streets will be freed for their right vehicular use and traffic congestion thereby relieved. It is intended to build multi-storey car parks at strategic locations.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Members of this House will recall that the President, at the opening of this session of Parliament last year, indicated in an addendum to his Speech that an Urban Redevelopment Authority would be established to implement a systematic programme of redevelopment of the Central area. The objective is to create a new and gracious city with better environment for business, residences as well as social activities. To achieve this aim, the upgrading of the present Urban Renewal Department to an independent Urban Redevelopment Authority with increased planning responsibilities and wider functions is necessary. Towards this end, this Bill is now before the House. The Bill establishes the Urban Redevelopment Authority as a body corporate with a Board, consisting of a Chairman, a Deputy Chairman and at least three but not more than seven other members. The Authority is given the responsibility and power on all matters relating to urban redevelopment, including the clearance of land, development of land and management of buildings therein. The Bill therefore provides for the transfer to the Authority of all such lands, buildings and other properties belonging to Government and the Housing and Development Board, as the Minister may think fit. Provision is also made for the transfer to the Authority of every person employed by the Housing and Development Board in its Urban Renewal Department as well as such employees of the Government who are engaged in discharging the functions to be vested in the Authority on terms not less favourable than those they enjoyed immediately prior to the coming into operation of the Act.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to repeal the Services' Lands Board Act and to transfer all the assets and liabilities of the Services' Lands Board to the Singapore Government. During the Constitutional Conference held in the United Kingdom in 1958, it was agreed, inter alia, that the United Kingdom Services should retain the land which they occupied in Singapore for defence purposes and that there should be established by statute a Services' Lands Board. It was also agreed that lands paid for by or on behalf of the Services should be transferred to and vested in the Board. The Services' Lands Board Ordinance was, therefore, enacted in 1959. Since its incorporation, the Services' Lands Board has been granted leases of State Lands. In the recent Exchange of Notes on Defence Arrangements between the Governments of Singapore and the United Kingdom, it was agreed, inter alia, that all lands in Singapore held by the Board should, with effect from 1st November, 1971, be transferred to and be vested in the Government of Singapore. The Bill seeks to give effect to this agreement and to abolish the Board. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Barker]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn."-[Mr Barker]. Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes to Six o'clock p.m.”
“Sir, I am not in charge of the Marine Police. But with the amendments proposed in the Bill, which give police officers the same powers as fishery officers, there will be more police patrols. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. --[Mr Barker]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. SERVICES' LANDS BOARD (REPEAL) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 5.52 p.m.”
“In order to effectively prohibit this practice of trawl-net fishing within our coastal waters, the Government has decided to introduce the amendments now before the House. Their main purpose is to provide for the imposition of a more salutary punishment upon those found guilty. Under the existing Act any person convicted of an offence under the Act, including trawling in coastal waters, is liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding one year or to both such fine and imprisonment. The court may also order the confiscation of any vessel or appliance used in the commission of the offence. However, in practice, none of those convicted has so far been jailed and no vessel or appliance has been confiscated. The Bill seeks to amend the Act so that it shall he compulsory for the courts to impose on anybody convicted of inshore trawling a mandatory term of imprisonment of not less than three months and not more than three years, without the option of a fine. It also provides that the courts may make an order for the confiscation of any vessel, net, instrument or appliance used in the commission of the offence on the written application of the Public Prosecutor. Finally, the Bill confers on police officers the same powers as fishery officers to stop, search, detain and arrest any person found committing or attempting to commit an offence under the Act. This will enable the Marine Police to assist the Primary Production Department more effectively in its efforts to stamp out coastal trawling. It is our hope that with these amendments to the Fisheries Act, a wasteful and destructive method of fishing within our territorial waters will completely cease or at least be reduced to negligible proportions. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”