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 2 of 44.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, reclamation of a total of about 962 hectares of the foreshore and sea-bed off the north-eastern coast of the Island was approved by this House in March 1983 (about 277 hectares) and in October 1984 (about 685 hectares). These reclamation projects are currently being undertaken by the Housing and Development Board in several phases. Of the 962 hectares, 500 hectares cover the area at the north-eastern part of Punggol Road and the remaining 462 hectares in the north-western part. At the north-eastern part, the Housing and Development Board has, to date, reclaimed some 181 hectares, leaving the remaining 319 hectares to be reclaimed only towards January 1990. At the north-western part of Punggol Road, reclamation works have not yet been carried out. However, tenders for the reclamation of about 315 hectares (east of Sungei Punggol) have been awarded and work is expected to commence in April 1986. The remaining 147 hectares will be reclaimed sometime in 1987.”
“17 am Order read for Resumption of Motion [30th August, 1985], "That this House, noting with concern the present problems with the economy, commends the Trade Unions and the workers for their responsible attitude towards wages; and supports the measures so far taken by the Government and urges the Government to take all further steps necessary for the Nation to adapt to the changing environment, including steps to strengthen the role of local businesses in the economy." - [Dr Ow Chin Hock].”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I started off by reading the relevant section of the relevant Act. I shall read it again for the Member for Anson. It says: 'Subject to the provisions of this Act, any person who ceases to be President shall be granted pension of such amount and on such terms as Parliament may by resolution determine.' It is obvious from this section and from the terms of my motion that the pension that we are discussing this morning is purely a Presidential pension. As for his trade union service, for which I express great admiration, the Member for Anson may have different views. Whether the trade union movement proposes to pay a pension to Mr Nair is not my concern. That is entirely up to them. As for his medical expenses, the Government bore his medical expenses in New York. Whether we continue to pay his expenses is a matter for consideration. Under the Pensions Act, you can pay the medical expenses of a pensioner. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, THIS PARLIAMENT: Noting the letter of resignation dated 27 March 1985 from Mr C V Devan Nair addressed to the Speaker tendering his resignation as President of the Republic of Singapore; Recalling the statement of the Prime Minister made in Parliament on 28 March 1985; RESOLVES that, pursuant to Section 8 of the Civil List and Pension Act (Cap 52), there be paid to the former President Mr C V Devan Nair, a pension of $5,000 p.m. with effect from 1st April 1985 provided that the former President continues to receive, and abide by, such medical advice and treatment as may be prescribed for him by the panel of doctors who have been treating him or who will be appointed to treat him. STATE OF THE ECONOMY 11.”
“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: THIS PARLIAMENT: Noting the letter of resignation dated 27 March 1985 from Mr C V Devan Nair addressed to the Speaker tendering his resignation as President of the Republic of Singapore; Recalling the statement of the Prime Minister made in Parliament on 28 March 1985; RESOLVES that, pursuant to Section 8 of the Civil List and Pension Act (Cap 52), there be paid to the former President Mr C V Devan Nair, a pension of $5,000 p.m. with effect from 1st April 1985 provided that the former President continues to receive, and abide by, such medical advice and treatment as may be prescribed for him by the panel of doctors who have been treating him or who will be appointed to treat him.”
“Sir, I beg to move. That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. 3.39 pm NEIGHBOURHOOD POLICE POSTS IN PRIVATE HOUSING ESTATES”
“Some years ago, the Prime Minister told me that Dr Goh would be retiring at the end of this term and asked me to try and persuade him to stay on. I did not because I think Dr Goh has done more than enough for Singapore. He is not here in this House today but will you join me in saluting him? Sir, at our next sitting, you will have to appoint another Deputy Speaker because the Member for Jalan Kayu has regrettably decided to call it a day. He has done admirably in your Chair whenever you were absent or needed a rest. Like you, Sir, we will miss him. Sir, I cannot refer to all those who are stepping down but perhaps you will allow me to refer to the oldest both in age and seniority amongst the Backbenchers. He has on many occasions, when not slumbering, injected life into our debates. His frequent interruptions have sometimes annoyed you, Sir, and on one occasion the Member for Anson who, I am sure, will miss the Member for Khe Bong provided he himself is not missing from this House. Sir, there are many others who are stepping down. I shall not go through the list. They can retire with the satisfaction of having served their constituents and Singapore. To all, I say, "Good luck and God bless." Over the years, I have answered so many questions and queries in this House. Allow me to just ask one question and I ask this of the younger Members: "Have you not had enough of me as Leader of the House?" ADJOURNMENT MOTION”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this is most likely to be the last sitting of this House before the coming general elections. Election fever has hit this town. If it is the last sitting, then I think it would be appropriate for me to take this opportunity to thank Members and wish a warm farewell to those who will not be returning to this House after the general elections. Sir, of the 20 or more Members of Parliament who are stepping down, the longest serving Member is the Honourable the First Deputy Prime Minister. He was elected to what was then the Legislative Assembly of Singapore in May 1959 and has been returned unopposed in every subsequent general elections. Rumour has it that aspiring candidates stayed away from Kreta Ayer for fear of being beaten up by the Minister's supporters in the backlanes of Chinatown. It was he, Sir, who was responsible for reclaiming the swamps in Jurong. Today, Jurong is a vast, thriving and humming industrial estate. He is the man behind the Singapore dollar, a dollar that has grown from strength to strength ever since he first put his signature on our currency notes. After the separation of Singapore from Malaysia, he built up our Armed Forces into what it is today, a credible and formidable deterrent to any potential invader. He has had his finger in almost every pie. Today, he is responsible for the changes in our education policy. Not satisfied, he is now decimating our pig population in order to reduce pollution and put our land to better use. I need hardly add that he will be missed in this House. We remember his short answers, sometimes just an abrupt "No" to simple oral questions. He will be even more badly missed in Cabinet.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. 25 YEARS OF NATION BUILDING CELEBRATIONS 6.01 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if the hon. Member is a bit giddy, how does he think I feel? I am not responsible for these names. My knowledge of Mandarin does not exist. But he has a good point. I would prefer to retain the older names, like Au Kang, Teck Kah and even Alexandra, which our taxi drivers are conversant with. But some of these new names are completely beyond me. SCHEME FOR MUSLIMS TO MAKE MONTHLY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE COUNCIL ON EDUCATION FOR MUSLIM CHILDREN (MENDAKI) (Statement by the Minister for Social Affairs)”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a White Paper on the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Delineation Committee has been presented to Parliament as Command 8 of 1984. The Government has decided to accept all the recommendations of the Committee. The Committee recommended that the boundaries of 31 constituencies be re-defined so as to have a more equal representation of electors for all constituencies. The re-delineation will result in the elimination of the following three constituen- cies:- (1) Bukit Ho Swee (2) Havelock (3) Katong. The electorates of these three constituencies will be absorbed by the adjacent electoral divisions. As the total electorate for the next General Elections is expected to increase by about 251,000 electors, the Committee recommended the creation of seven new constituencies, namely:- (1) Bo Wen (2) Fengshan (3) Hong Kah (4) Eunos (5) Changkat (6) Teck Ghee (7) Yuhua. The acceptance of the Committee's recommendations will increase the number of electoral divisions from 75 to 79. This increase will come into effect as from the next General Elections. It is, therefore, necessary to introduce the Parliamentary Membership Bill, 1984, to provide for the increase in the number of members to 79. Hence, item 6 of the Introduction of Government Bills.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. CASHLESS PAYDAYS”
“Mr Speaker, honourable Members, we come once again to the end of a long debate and, as usual, some Members have been extremely long-winded and you have shown great patience, Sir. This has not been the most interesting debate for the last few years. If there is anyone to blame, perhaps it is the Minister for Finance for presenting such a good Budget that is difficult for Members to criticize. The Budget debate itself only lasted one day instead of the usual two. That perhaps set the tone for the debate in the Committee of Supply which ended today when it was scheduled to end tomorrow. Perhaps I should have reminded Members earlier that this might be, for some, the last opportunity to speak in this House. Election fever has hit Singapore and if (i say if) Parliament is dissolved and an election held this year, sometime in the middle of the year, let us say, then some of us might not return to this House. I will not point my finger at anyone, but let me take this opportunity in that event to wish them a fond farewell. Sir, now it remains for me to thank you for having so patiently and courteously listened to us for the last seven days. ADJOURNMENT TO A DATE TO BE FIXED (Motion) Resolved, "That at its rising today Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed." - [Mr E. W Barker] ADJOURNMENT MOTION”
“Lot 45pt Mk 23 Paya Lebar ) 27. Lot 24-5 Mk 28 Upper Changi Mary Tan & Khan Tat Inn Trustees of "Chee Tor Un" Temple 28. Lot 9 Mk 8 Choa Chu Kang Aw Ah Kee 29. Lot 34-22 Mk 27 Upper Chee Ah Kin Changi Road Chew Nam 30. Lot 322-2 Mk 17 Toa Payoh ) Chew Khiam Siong 31. Lot 322-7 Mk 17 Toa Payoh ) 32. Lot 187 Mk 5 West Coast Road Omar b Hadjee Suleiman Dahran b Hadjee Osman and Marhabi b Mat Sarip 33. Lot 322 Mk 1 Telok Blangah Khoo Teck Chuan 34. Lot 28-16 Mk 1 Telok Blangah Tan Cheng Eng 35. Lot 28-49 Mk 1 Henderson Road Singapore Glass Manufacturers Co Ltd. 36. Lot 34 Mk 1 Henderson Road Wee Soon Chuan 37. Lot 12-57 Mk 15 Sime Road ) Trustees of Singapore 38. Lot 12-48 Mk 15 Sime Road ) Island Country Club 39. Lot 64 Mk 15 Sime Road Woo San Yin 40. Lot 78-2 TS 1 Philip Street Matterhorn (Pte) Ltd 41. Lot 345 TS 3 Maxwell Road Lim Yew Hock Abdul Rahman Sahib (S/o Koya Sahib) Sarangapany Maideen (s/o Achukatty Nagore) the Umar Pulavar Tamil School PROPERTIES RETURNED TO OWNERS AFTER ACQUISITION (cont.) 42. Lot 8-14 Mk 22 Upper Ching Khye Loke and Serangoon Road Chong Luan Yuen 43. Lot 8-15 Mk 22 Upper Ang Soon Teck Serangoon Road LEGISLATION ON LABELLING OF DISPENSED MEDICINES 3. Dr Tan Cheng Bock asked the Minister for Health if he will consider introducing legislation for all dispensed medicines to be labelled.”
“Government acquisitions of land have been numerous and extensive. The number of properties returned to their owners after acquisition have been few. However, the information asked for in respect of these properties covers a period of nearly two decades. A search has to be made, This will take some time and the information will be provided as soon as it is available. PROPERTIES RETURNED TO OWNERS AFTER ACQUISITION (cont.) [Following is the information subsequently provided] Since 1959 a total of 95 lots of private land which were gazetted for acquisition, were subsequently withdrawn for various reasons. The number of lots withdrawn from acquisition, from 1965, is 43. The addresses of the properties and the names of the owners to whom the properties were returned, in these 43 cases, are listed hereunder. 1. Lot 96pt Mk 21 Ponggol Road The Bishop of Malacca 2. Lot 30-25 Mk 23 Paya Lebar Estate of Lim Lip Chong 3. Lot 30-52 Mk 23 Paya Lebar Estate of Lim Lip Chong 4. Lot 30-34 Mk 23 Paya Lebar Tan Jeng Chong 5. Lot 31-4 Mk 23 Paya Lebar Ang Oon Her 6. Lot 30-37 Mk 23 Paya Lebar Goh Ngia Lee 7. Lot 29-10 Mk 23 Paya Lebar Ng Siew Siong 8. Lot 147-48 Mk 23 Paya Lebar ) 9. Lot 147-50 MK 23 Paya Lebar ) Goh Seng Choo 10. Lot 147-52 Mk 23 Paya Lebar ) 11. Lot 147-85 Mk 23 Paya Lebar Sam Daniel Francis 12. Lot 45 Mk 23 Paya Lebar ) 13. Lot 46-8 Mk 23 Paya Lebar ) 14. Lot 147-91 Mk 23 Paya Lebar ) 15. Lot 147-93 Mk 23 Paya Lebar ) 16. Lot 147-95 Mk 23 Paya Lebar ) 17. Lot 147-157 Mk 23 Paya Lebar ) 18. Lot 147-158 Mk 23 Paya Lebar ) 19. Lot 143-1 Mk 23 Paya Lebar ) Tan Lark Sye 20. Lot 143-2 Mk 23 Paya Lebar ) 21. Lot 143-3 Mk 23 Paya Lebar ) 22. Lot 46-5 Mk 23 Paya Lebar ) 23. Lot 46-6 Mk 23 Paya Lebar ) 24. Lot 46-7 Mk 23 Paya Lebar ) 25. Lot 147-92 Mk 23 Paya Lebar ) 26.”
“I did not interfere with you. You had 20 minutes. In fact, 22 minutes.”
“I am not giving way to you. On a point of order, I will give way to you.”
“You have not even been here for two years and you tell us that Parliament does not exist in Singapore. We are spending $6 million and for what purpose? Why do you think we came today? To have the Budget. We are having a debate on the Budget, a debate in the Committee of Supply. And when we choose to call Parliament, we will do it on our own wish, not at the beck and call of the hon. Member. We have got work to do. We have got to come here and pass Bills, but not to satisfy him or his conscience. The Member grumbles that he has not been given enough time. Sir, I have made an estimate of the percentage of time the hon. Member has taken in this House. Of all the Sittings since he was elected to this House, on the average he has taken 13.68%, roughly 13% of the whole time of this House. Does he expect us to give him 50%? We will carry on as in the past. Having listened to his lecture, I know he is a great believer in British institutions. We do not run British institutions down here. And we cannot follow them to the tee. Sir, he asked another question - he wants a Committee to be formed to look into these Committees. I am afraid I cannot agree.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the People's Action Party has been in power in this House since 1959. This is the most patronizing lecture I have heard about parliamentary democracy since then. He asked a direct question: Why has he not been appointed to any of these Committees? I will tell him why. The relevant Standing Order 95(l)(b) says: 'The Committee of Selection shall consist of the Speaker as Chairman, and seven Members of Parliament to be appointed by Parliament, in such manner as shall ensure that, so far as is possible, the balance between the Government benches and the Opposition benches in Parliament is reflected in the Committee.' Mr Speaker, Sir, there are about seven Committees, for which the same phrase is used, which consist of yourself as Speaker and seven Members of Parliament. Seven times seven is 49. The balance in this House is 74 to one. The hon. Member, therefore, does not qualify. He would be well advised to try and get some other Workers' Party members in this House. When he has a few, then one of them can be sitting on these Committees. But 74 to one, you have no chance. He talks of the Executive. He talks of the Government ignoring Parliament. We are in power. The Legislature consists of Parliament and the President. In Parliament there are, besides yourself Sir, 73 of us, and one of him. The Executive has been for a long time one-man band consisting of the President and the Cabinet all of whom belong to one Party. On this question of the Executive reporting to Parliament, we have been reporting to ourselves for years. Why should we report to you? If I may say, you are like a one-man band, knocking your own drums, clashing your cymbals and blowing a trumpet. We have been here for a long time.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed.”
“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, pursuant to Article 42 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the allowance of the Deputy Speaker shall be $1,735.85 p.m. (inclusive of the 1982 and 1983 NWC wage increases) with effect from 1st July, 1983 and thereafter he shall be paid, in addition, all such NWC wage increases and other allowances as would be payable to office-holding Members of Parliament. Sir, clause (3) of Article 42 of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that the Deputy Speaker shall be paid such salary or allowance as Parliament may from time to time determine. The Motion seeks approval to pay the wage increases in the case of the Deputy Speaker as well. As in the case of the Speaker, the Motion also seeks general approval of the House for the Deputy Speaker to be paid all NWC wage increases and other allowances as would be payable to office-holding Members of this House. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That, pursuant to Article 42 of the Constitution of the R(?public of Singapore, the allowance of the Deputy Speaker shall be $1,735.85 p.m. (inclusive of the 1982 and 1983 NWC wage increases) with effect from 1st July, 1983 and thereafter he shall be paid, in addition, all such NWC wage increases and other allowances as would be payable to office-holding Members of Parliament. FIRING GROUND RULES, 1983 3.59 p.m.”
“92 p.m. ($9,500 p.m. plus the 1982 and 1983 NWC wage increases of $1,493.75 p.m. on part-time appointment) with effect from 1st July, 1983 and thereafter he shall be paid, in addition, all such NWC wage increases and other allowances as would be payable to office-holding Members of Parliament. ALLOWANCE OF DEPUTY SPEAKER 3.57 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, pursuant to Article 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the salary of the Speaker shall be $17,400 p.m. plus the 1982 and 1983 NWC wage increases of $2,735.92 p.m. ($9,500 p.m. plus the 1982 and 1983 NWC wage increases of $1,493.75 p.m. on part-time appointment) with effect from 1st July, 1983 and thereafter he shall be paid, in addition, all such NWC wage increases and other allowances as would be payable to office-holding Members of Parliament. Sir, Article 41 of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that the Speaker shall be paid such salary as Parliament may from time to time determine. When the 1979 to 1981 NWC wage increases were consolidated into salaries, the salary of the Speaker was revised to $17,400 pm ($9,500 pm on part-time appointment) by a resolution passed at the sitting of this House on 3rd December, 1982. The 1982 NWC wage increase has been paid to all Members of Parliament and the 1983 NWC wage increase is also being paid to Members with effect from 1st July, 1983. In order that such payment (including the 1982 NWC wage increase) may be made to the Speaker, a resolution in this House is required. Members will note that the Motion also seeks general approval of the House for the Speaker to be paid all NWC wage increases and other allowances as would be payable to office-holding Members of Parliament. This is to avoid the necessity for further similar resolutions in this House. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That, pursuant to Article 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the salary of the Speaker shall be $17,400 p.m. plus the 1982 and 1983 NWC wage increases of $2,735.”
“Sir, I beg to move that the Motion for the Adjournment be taken at 6.30 p.m. today. Many Members have indicated that they would like to speak on item 8, the Medisave Scheme. Instead of having a long-winded debate today, I thought we ought to break it into two days and continue tomorrow after we break off at 6.30 p.m. today. With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, "That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, this House do adjourn at 6.30 p.m. today." - [Mr EW Barker]. MASS RAPID TRANSIT CORPORATION BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.35 p.m.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. GOVERNMENT'S POLICY ON EDUCATION 6.02 p.m.”
“Oh, I do not know. Or the next by-election. Meanwhile you, Sir, will have to continue to put up with us and with some of our antics which you, Sir, and Mr Speaker, have handled with considerable patience. I thank you, Sir. ADJOURNMENT TO A DATE TO BE FIXED (Motion) Resolved, "That at its rising today Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed." - [Mr E.W. Barker]. ADJOURNMENT MOTION”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are nearly coming to the end of a long and lively debate. There have been some moments of merriment, others when Members were serious and others when some got excited. Sometimes the sparks flew across the Floor. But some speeches were so boring and dull that hon. Backbenchers sitting in the front were sent almost into a state of blissful snoring slumber. The debate began in the Committee of Supply when the Member for Rochore expressed curiosity about the work going on in our garden. As far as the garden is concerned, I have made only one suggestion and that was, we should plant clumps of bamboo because bamboo, swaying with the wind, softens the harshness of the stone and cement you see around us. The Speaker rejected my suggestion because he said that bamboo attracts snakes. Perhaps he was thinking of the Garden of Eden where you have Adam and Eve and the serpent. But thanks to Mr Speaker, we have no serpent in our garden. We do not even have an Eve in this House. Sir, half of our population comes from the fairer sex. I cannot speak on your behalf or on behalf of the other Members. But after listening for so long to the voices of merely males in this House, I say it would be a refreshing change if we had an Eve in this House. But that will have to wait until the general elections.”
“Member that the entire question will be reviewed to ascertain how the cost of public projects would be adversely affected if compensation awards under the Act are to be paid at current market value instead of the 1973 value. Increased cost of public developments would necessarily mean that ordinary citizens would have to pay more for public housing and public amenities. Government must therefore, bear in mind the interest of the general public as against the land owners.”
“Sir, under section 33 (1) (a) of the Land Acquisition Act, the amount of compensation awarded shall be the market value as at 30th November 1973 or the market value as at the date of Gazette notification, whichever is the lower. The appeal by the hon. Member for a review of this provision is not new as it has been raised and debated here previously. 7.15 p.m. From 1974 to early 1979, the open market value of land was lower than the 1973 level, It was only with the escalation of property prices after 1979 that compensation awards have generally been paid at the November 1973 values. This disparity between the compensation awards under the Act and the open market value as at the date of acquisition has widened, and Government is aware that compensation under the Act to owner-occupiers of dwelling houses or flats may be inadequate to allow such owner-occupiers to obtain suitable alternative accommodation. To provide relief in such instances, Members are aware of Government's recent decision to make ex-gratia payment in addition to compensation payable under the Act. The relief payment together with the acquisition award or the Appeals Board award, if any, would be up to the market value of the acquired property as at the date of Gazette notification for acquisition, or $600,000 whichever is less. This ceiling of $600,000 should enable owner-occupiers of dwelling properties whose land is acquired to buy an average semi-detached house or medium-sized flat. Further, this ex-gratia payment takes retrospective effect from 1st January 1981. In the meantime, I can assure the hon.”
“Sir, the hon. Member made a good point.It is for this reason that this Act was enacted in 1976 but had the force of law from 1973. But times change. The Government made a statement in November 1973 to say that all foreigners cannot buy flats. So my Ministry administered this policy, but it took three years before the Bill which went into Select Committee came into force. Meanwhile policies had changed. During those three years the Government relaxed the policy and said, "Ah, foreigners can buy buildings above six storeys." Later they relaxed further, and went on to say that they can buy condominiums. When I was ready to enact the law, there was a change of mind in some Ministries who felt that the Act was not necessary. But I replied that I had to have it enforced; otherwise there would have to be a lot of unscrambling to do. So over the years, at the start, the Act was administered rather elastically and approvals were given quite easily. Then minds changed and today we are administering the Act very strictly. I can assure the Member that my Ministry is in constant contact with the Ministry of National Development as to the number of terrace houses and bungalows and semi-detached houses that are available.”
“In the case of applicants who are foreign companies or other foreign organizations, like manufacturing factories or trading companies, they are also considered case by case based on the assessment of their economic contribution to Singapore over the past few years. Every application is processed by the Controller of Residential Property in consultation with various Government Departments. They are then considered by a Committee of officials headed by my Permanent Secretary, and this Committee's recommendations come up to the Minister for approval.”
“Sir, I have with me a table (Cols. 1127 - 1128) showing the approvals and disapprovals on a yearly basis both in respect of persons and companies which I will hand over for the information of Members of this House. [Copies distributed to Members.] In all there have been 2,585 approvals and 884 disapprovals. For the earlier years, some of these figures are not readily available as they are kept in old files and it will take me longer than a week to get the exact numbers. table - NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS APPROVED/DISAPPROVED UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ACT, 1976 (Cols. 1127 - 1128) As for criteria, the Act itself lays down the general basis on which approvals to purchase, acquire or retain residential property should be considered. Section 25 of the Act, in particular, sets up the Residential Property Advisory Committee which considers every application and makes recommendations thereon to the Minister as required under the Act. Sir, applications from foreign persons who are individuals are considered if the applicant is a permanent resident of Singapore and the family does not own any residential property other than units within approved condominiums or units within buildings of six storeys or more. Approval is given on the basis that a house is to be used solely as a residence and not for letting out, and no foreign person is permitted to purchase vacant land. The applicant must also satisfy certain criteria. He must hold academic or professional or technical qualifications combined with relevant years of experience needed by the Republic. He can also qualify if he makes sufficient economic contribution to this country, or has equity participation in enterprises needed here.”
“Specially selected boulders and rocks and suitable plants are carefully arranged along the stream to complete the landscape. Such a garden is normally created when there is site limitation and to reduce maintenance. I do not think I need give details of the cost, but the total cost is about $1 million. With your permission, Sir, I think Members should not concentrate on what is going on outside this House. They had better concentrate on what is going on inside! This building was the old Legislative Assembly of Singapore. It was this building that I stepped into in 1963. At that time, there were 51 Members. Today there are 75. Not much money has been spent on this building. It is not like other Parliaments where they have special rooms for each Member; grand Parliaments. This is a cosy Parliament. But space is running out. From 51 Members in 1963, the number has increased to 75. In a decade or two, there will hardly be space for more. We either have to cut the Public Gallery and keep some of those people out, which would be a shame, or we have to push Mr Speaker back, which would also be a shame. I myself would be sorry to see this House demolished and rebuilt because, as I have said, it is a cosy House. The Member for Anson can come right here and point his finger at me. But in other Houses he will be far away. This is the seat of our Legislature. We make laws here. I am sure Members will agree with me that we need a better environment outside and a million dollars is well spent.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would assure the Member that, though I am the Leader of the House, I am not responsible for the garden behind. I have the details, and I will start off by saying that in 1980 the piece of State land abutting the south-western corner of Parliament grounds bounded by North Boat Quay and Hallpike Street was being cleared together with other lands behind for urban renewal. At the suggestion of the Speaker, it was agreed that the site be incorporated in the Parliament Complex as an extension of the existing garden. The area of the site is about 910 square metres. The inclusion of the site provided a regular western boundary along Hallpike Street and more open space in the immediate vicinity of Parliament House. What are the works being carried out? The first project is really to landscape the new site as well as the existing garden. A Japanese architect is doing the landscaping. The works include earthworks to raise the level of the new site to the level of the surrounding land, erection of a low wall and iron grille fencing to enclose the new site, constructing three pavilions, a dry rock pond and footpaths, planting of flowers and shrubs and the installation of garden lighting. Members will be interested to know that a dry rock pond is being constructed instead of a water pond to avoid wastage of water. Apparently, the dry rock garden is based on a Japanese-style garden concept. The theme and essence of this garden is essentially similar to that of a pond. Instead of a waterfall and pool, varying shades of pebbles are used to symbolize the flow of water through the valley and the plain and thence to the ocean. The ocean is not far away - Singapore River.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this debate was originally fixed for one day. Now that we have two, I seek your consent and the general assent of hon. Members to move a motion for the adjournment of Parliament before 8.00 p.m. today. I propose to move that the adjournment be taken at 7.00 p.m. With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to. Resolved, "That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, this House do adjourn at 7.00 p.m. today." - [Mr E.W. Barker]. ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT Debate resumed. 5.37 p.m.”
“8 of 1982, accepts the recommendations of the Commission as contained in paragraph 10 thereof and resolves in accordance with such recommendations. CIVIL LIST”
“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, noting the Report of the Commission on Parliament Staff as contained in Paper Misc. 8 of 1982, accepts the recommendations of the Commission as contained in paragraph 10 thereof and resolves in accordance with such recommendations. Hon. Members are aware from the Report which was presented to this House as Paper Misc. 8 of 1982 that a Commission consisting of you, Mr Speaker, the Minister for Finance, the Minister of Defence and Second Minister for Health, the Minister for Trade and Industry, and a member of the Public Service Commission was appointed to study the revision of salary scales of posts in the Parliament service consequent on the revision of salary scales of posts in other services in the Civil Service. The Commission has met and made its recommendations. The Report is brief and speaks for itself. I have no comments to make thereon but have no hesitation in saying, Mr Speaker, that your staff have always set a high standard of performance and lent a willing and able helping hand to Members of this House, some of whom, sometimes, grope, as if in the dark, with our Standing Orders. Members, I am sure, will agree with me that an increase in the salaries of the staff of this House is long overdue and the Commission has recommended that the increases be as set out in paragraph 10 of the Report and take effect from the 1st June, 1982. Sir, I move that this House resolves accordingly. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, noting the Report of the Commission on Parliament Staff as contained in Paper Misc.”
“Amendments are also made to clarify ambiguities in the Act. The Bill also amends the Land Titles Act (Chapter 276) to empower the Registrar to issue a single certificate of title for a large development comprising two or more parcels of land of different tenure. This will reduce the administrative workload of the staff at the Registry of Titles and will make it easier for conveyancing lawyers to carry out their searches on titles. 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 E W Barker]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. VIGILANTE CORPS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 5.42 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." In March 1982, this Parliament enacted the Planning (Amendment) Act, 1982, which amended the Planning Act (Chapter 279) inter alia, to empower the Planning Authority to grant written permission for the development of land under section 9(3) of the Act, subject to the condition that 30% of the floor area of the development must be owned by a single person for a period of 10 years from the date of the latest grant of a temporary occupation licence issued by the competent authority prior to the issue of the certificate of fitness in respect of the development. This Bill introduces amendments to the Land Titles (Strata) Act (Chapter 277) to empower the Registrar of Titles to prohibit the registration of any instrument disposing of any interest in any flat or unit comprised in the aforesaid 30% of the floor area of a development in contravention of the aforesaid condition imposed by the Planning Authority and to enter a notification on the certificate of title or any subsidiary strata certificate of title affected by the condition so that intending purchasers are put on notice regarding that condition. The Registrar will also be empowered to cancel the registration of any instrument disposing of such a flat or unit if it has been inadvertently registered. The Bill also introduces other amendments to the Land Titles (Strata) Act for the purposes of - (a) changing the requirements of strata title plans to be filed with the Registrar of Titles; and (b) making changes in the practice and procedure affecting the issue of strata titles and the filing of schedules of strata units in respect of the share value to be allocated for the strata units in a subdivided building.”
“In other words, a single foreign person may lease all the flats in a high-rise building or all the units of a condominium development for a term not exceeding seven years, including any farther term which may be granted by way of an option for renewal. Amendment agreed to. Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 4 to 17 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed. TRUSTEES (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 5.34 p.m.”
“The new section 3A seeks to clarify that whilst foreign persons are allowed to purchase flats, not being HUDC flats in buildings of six or more levels of units in a condominium development, the approval of the Minister must be obtained if a single foreign person wishes to acquire all the flats in all the buildings consisting of six or more levels in a particular development or all the units in a condominium development. This policy is now spelt out in subsections (1) and (2) of the new section 3A in clause 3 of the Bill. 5.30 p.m. Sir, in view of these amendments it is necessary to prescribe a penalty for non-compliance of these new provisions. The new subsection (3) of section 3A makes it an offence punishable with a fine not exceeding $10,000 for a foreign person to commit an offence under section 3A (3). The new subsection (4) of section 3A empowers the Minister to direct the Controller of Residential Property to issue a notice to a foreign person who is convicted of an offence under section 3A (3) to require him to divest his interest in his residential properties in the development concerned. If no such power is given to the Minister, then a foreign person, who has paid a fine for the commission of an offence, can retain the residential properties which he was not permitted to acquire or buy in the first instance. The new subsection (6) prescribes the penalty for non-compliance with the notice issued by the Controller at the direction of the Minister requiring a foreign person to divest his interest in the properties which he acquired in contravention of the new section 3A. The new subsection (7) of section 3A clarifies that the prohibition in section 3A (3) does not apply to short-term leases acquired by a foreign person.”
“(b) if the foreign person is a company, a related company within the meaning of the Companies Act. (5) The Minister may, on an application being made by a foreign person before the expiry of the period of six months of the date of service of the notice referred to in subsection (4), grant sch extension of time as he thinks fit for the transfer of his estate or interest in the development. (6) Any foreign person who fails to comply with the Controller's notice referred to in subsection (4) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars and to a further fine not exceeding five hundred dollarrs for every day during which the offence is continued after conviction. (7) Nothing in subsection (3) shall prevent a foreign person from acquiring any estate or interest in any development under any agreement, lease or assignment for a term not exceeding seven years, inclusive of any further term which may be granted by way of an option for renewal." Sir, the existing section 3 of the Act prohibits a foreign person from purchas- ing or acquiring any estate or interest in any residential property save as provided in the Act. The existing provisions of the Act permit foreign persons to purchase flats in buildings of six or more levels of units in condominium developments. The new section 3A seeks to replace the existing subsection (3) of section 2 of the Act, which is being repealed.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, to leave out lines 4 to 12 and insert new subsections (2) to (7) to section 3A as set out in the Order Paper Supplement.* *The amendment, standing in the name of the Minister for Law, reads as follows:- "(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall be construed to permit a foreign person to purchase or acquire - (a) all the flats in every building consisting of six or more levels in a development permitted to be used under Cap. 279. the Planning Act for residential purposes; or (b) all the units in a development approved by the competent authority under the Planning Act as a condominium development, without having obtained the approval of the Minister. (3) A foreign person who purchases or acquires any estate or interest in (a) all the flats in every building consisting of six or more levels in any development permitted to be used under the Planning Act for residential purposes; or (b) all the units of a development approved by the competent authority under the Planning Act as a condominium development, without having obtained the approval of the Minister shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars. (4) Where a foreign person is convicted of an offence under subsection (3), the Minister may direct the Controller to serve a notice on that person of six months of the date of service of the notice on that person to divest and transfer, within a period of six months of the date of service of the notice on that person or within any extension of time granted by the Minister under section (5), all his estate or interest in the development in respect of which such offence is committed to another person who is not - (a) his nominee; or cap. 185.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 1, line 5, to leave out "12 and 15" and insert "14 and 17". Sir, this is merely to rectify a drafting error. Amendment agreed to. Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 -”
“The Bill also introduces amendments to the Residential Property Act, 1976, for the purpose of overcoming practical difficulties encountered by the Controller of Residential Property in the administration of the Act. Amendments are also made to section 23, which exempts certain transactions from the provisions of the Act, to clarify the intended meaning of that section. 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 E.W Barker]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clause 1 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to amend the Residential Property Act, 1976, to prohibit foreigners from purchasing HUDC flats without the approval of the Controller of Residential Property. The prohibition will take effect from 31st May, 1982, the date when an announcement was made in the Press regarding the introduction of such a prohibition. HUDC flats have been sold to Singapore citizens and permanent residents under the Middle Income Housing Scheme. This is to help Singapore citizens and those with permanent ties in Singapore to own their homes. The existing provisions of the Residential Property Act, 1976, only prohibit foreigners from purchasing flats in buildings of less than six storeys unless they have obtained the prior approval of the Controller of Residential Property. Many of the HUDC housing estates have buildings higher than six storeys and the prohibition in the Act does not apply to these high-rise buildings. Under the leases issued by the Housing and Urban Development Company (Private) Limited to the owners of the flats, the flat owners are not allowed to resell their flats within five years from the date they occupy their flats. After this 5-year period, these flat owners will be entitled to sell their flats without having to seek the prior approval of the lessor. The amendment to the Act will restrict the sale of HUDC flats by their present owners to Singapore citizens. Persons who are not Singapore citizens can only purchase these flats if they have the prior consent of the Controller of Residential Property.”
“Sir, to the first question, the offer was for permanent judgeship, not on year-to-year basis. As for his second point, I do not argue with the Member. We cannot afford to pay our Judges the amounts that are being earned in private practice. We do raise their salaries but that is absolutely no comparison to what a private practitioner can earn at the Bar. 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 Hon Sui Sen]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. CHARITIES BILL Order for Second Reading read. 4.22 p.m.”
“The main reason for this unsatisfactory state of affairs is because many senior members of the Bar who were offered appointments to the Supreme Court Bench by the Prime Minister, after consulting the Chief Justice, have refused to accept the appointments. They said that they could not afford it since their earnings at the Bar are five to 10 times what the Supreme Court Judges are paid and they had heavy family commitments.' Sir, this was in 1969. The position has not changed, not as far as advocates and solicitors wanting to sit on the Bench or not wanting to because of their high incomes at the Bar. The Member for Anson mentioned three of four Judges who were appointed on a yearly basis. I think I had better correct that wrong impression. There is only one Judge at present who has been appointed on a yearly basis. The others had retired when they reached the retiring age of 65. But because we were short of Judges and because they still had their wits with them, they were appointed either from year to year or on a two-year basis. The particular Judge the hon. Member referred to was appointed on a year-to-year basis from 1969. He retired five years after retiring age. Retiring age is 65. He was so useful that he was only retired at 70 years.”
“The Member for Anson has raised questions about the appointments and salaries of Judges. I think it would be odious to make a comparison of how much our Judges are paid with how much Judges in Malaysia or Australia or England are paid. Conditions are different. There was a time when our Judges were paid very low salaries. That was when I joined the Government. Ministers too were paid very low salaries. But wages have increased over the years. As for Judges, it is difficult to get Judges who qualify to sit on the Bench. That is because, as the Member knows, advocates and solicitors in Singapore make so much more money than Judges do. The last Judge who was appointed earned at the Bar about four or five times more than what he is being paid now. It was a sacrifice for him to leave private practice and be appointed to the Bench. There are not many who are willing to sacrifice their income at the Bar to sit on the Bench. The Member says that the independence of the Judiciary should not be related to their salaries. Of course it should not. It has never been, nor will it be. As for the appointment of ad hoc Judges, he says that we have breached the cardinal principle of our Constitution. In fact, he said it as long ago as 1969 when the Ministry of Law issued a statement in reply. If you will bear with me, Sir, I will read the statement. 'Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam alleges (Straits Times, 1st September) that the Government is weakening the Judiciary by amending the law to appoint Judges from year to year. This amendment was passed recently at the specific request of the Chief Justice. He felt that he could not recommend one of the District Judges as a permanent Puisne Judge until after he had been given a chance to prove that he was qualified to be so.”
“All Members were for this Report and for the recommendation. Thank you, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will bear with me for a few moments. The Member for Anson, as he has said, referred extensively to resolutions and reports of the House of Commons. But these resolutions were not entirely in his favour. Nor did he cite a case in the House of Commons where an advocate and solicitor spoke on matters concerning his clients and was brought up for a breach before the Committee of Privileges. It is obvious when you are an advocate and solicitor and you have acted in several cases in the High Court that, if you raise these matters in this House, you would be well advised to declare your interest. If you do not do so, then you are exposing yourself to a breach of privilege. What was there to prevent the hon. Member declaring his interest? We do not want to muzzle him. He is free to speak provided he declares his interest, whether it be a direct personal interest. He questioned why we did not send these proceedings to the Law Society. In Committee, I asked him whether we should. He replied that we should not because the Law Society or the Committee of the Law Society is more concerned with the etiquette of the Bar rather than a breach of privilege in this House. But if he so desires, there is nothing to prevent this House sending a copy of this Parliamentary Report to the Committee of the Law Society for its comments, if any. Lastly, he spoke of two Members in the Committee whom he objected to because, he thought, they might be prejudiced against him. Sir, the Members of the Committee of Privileges were appointed soon after the General Elections, long before the Member for Anson took his seat in this House. All I can assure him is that these Members were not prejudiced against him. In fact, the decision of the Committee was a unanimous one.”