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 34 of 44.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, 69 unauthorised structures were detected on State land in the Jurong Constituency by the Land Office during the period January 1963 to December 1967. Forty-six of these were demolished and the rest were regularised. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TECHNICIANS (Number of, and reasons for, resignations) 8. Mr S. V. Lingam asked the Minister for Law and National Development the number of technicians of the Public Works Department who resigned from the service between 1st January, 1965, and 1st December, 1967, and the reasons for their resignations.”
“I am much obliged, Sir. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. REGISTRATION OF IMPORTS AND EXPORTS RULES, 1967 7.03 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Members of the House will recall that the Land Titles (Strata) Bill was referred to the Select Committee on the 27th June this year. Written representations were received from the Estates Manager. Housing and Development Board, the Land and Housing Development Association of Singapore, and the Real Estate Valuers Association (Singapore). In addition, the Select Committee also heard oral evidence from the Real Estate Valuers Association. A number of useful suggestions which were made have been accepted. The amendments made by the Select Committee are set out on pages C4, C5 and C6 of the Committee's Report tabled in this Parliament on 7th December this year as Paper Parl. 12 of 1967. I will not burden the House with details of these amendments, many of which are drafting amendments which merely refine the Bill. One particular clause, however, in the original Bill `dealing with the collection of pioperty tax in respect of flats has been deleted, as it appears that such a provision, if necessary or advisable, should properly be in the Property Tax Ordinance. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill as now tabled before the House incorporates the recommendations of the Select Committee. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to.”
“Sir, these tontine companies, which the Member for Farrer Park is rather worried about, will be caught by section 38 (1) of the Companies Act which was read for the Third time a few hours ago. Section 38 (1) provides that: 'An invitation to the public to deposit money with or lend money to a corporation or proposed corporation shall not be issued circulated or distributed by the corporation or by any other person unless -' paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are complied with. Section 38 (9) provides for heavy penalties - 'conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars.' I doubt very much whether these tontine operators will be caught by the Finance Companies Act which strictly covers finance companies which borrow money and then lend it out. A tontine operator does not strictly borrow or lend. What he does is to invite people to subscribe to a certain fund and then it is more of a debt. I say $20, you say $21, someone else says $22, and the highest bidder gets the money for the month, after which he has to return a fixed sum. It is a group of people getting together, putting in a certain sum a month, and every month someone takes it away. All the operator does is to get his little commission. So, strictly speaking, he is not borrowing and then lending out. They are all perhaps borrowing and lending to one another. I doubt whether they would be caught by the Act. I may be wrong but, in the final analysis, it is for the courts to decide, and if we are wrong here, we can always amend our laws.”
“The object of clause 17 (1) (a) is to prevent finance companies from acting like banks. Hence, anyone who deposits money with a finance company cannot get it back, as it were, on demand by writing out a cheque, as one does with a bank account. You deposit money in a bank which issues you with a cheque book, and by writing out a demand note by cheque, draft or order, you can immediately draw on that account. This is the object of clause 17 (1) (a) . I myself cannot see how it can be drafted in a better way. It does not prevent finance companies from returning money by cheque, draft or order. One deposits money not for immediate return but for return after three months, six months or a year, when it can be done by cheque, draft or order. What clause 17 (1) (a) seeks to prevent is a deposit followed by an immediate demand for payment by the depositor. As far as clause 17 (1) (c) is concerned, I need not add more to what the Minister for Finance has said. It is aimed at everybody. But the drafters felt it would be safer specifically to mention partner, manager or agent or any individual or firm of which any of its directors is a guarantor. This is to prevent ambiguity, and it is to make sure that these people do not get away with it that they are specifically mentioned.”
“Most of the amendments are drafting amendments, while a number of them have been incorporated as a result of representations made by the Singapore Society of Accountants, the Singapore Association of the Chartered Institute of Secretaries, the Singapore Advocates and Solicitors Society, the Association of Certified Public Accountants, the Singapore International Chamber of Commerce and the Association of Banks in Malaysia. To these bodies and to others who made representations to the Committee, I wish to extend our thanks for their valuable suggestions and assistance. Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendments as have been made by the Select Committee, while they have gone a long way to refine the Bill, do not substan tially alter the character of the Bill. One Part of the Bill, Part XIII, relating to reciprocal provisions with Malaysia, which authorises the Minister to make arrangements with Malaysia for their extension to Singapore of winding-up orders made in Malaysia and for the extension to Malaysia of winding-up orders made in Singapore, has been deleted. Deletion of this Part is considered necessary as clause 340 of the Bill, which is similar to section 340 of the Malaysian Companies Act, with necessary modifications agreed to be tween Singapore and Malaysia, should meet the reciprocal requirements. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill, as now tabled before this House, incorporates the recommendations of the Select Committee. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. FINANCE COMPANIES BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.42 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Hon. Members will recall that this Bill, which is comprehensive and far-reaching in its effects, was referred to a Select Committee on the 21st of December last year. Since it has taken one year for it to come back to this House and the memories of some Members may be short, I think it would be of advantage for me to read part of the Explanatory Statement to the Bill: `The need for an up-to-date Company law has long been felt, as the existing law, which is based upon the English Companies Act of 1929, is now completely obsolete. Whilst Singapore was a component of Malaysia, it was associated with the drafting of a new Companies Act for Malaysia which took over eighteen months to prepare. The Malaysian Companies Act, 1965, was enacted soon after Singapore was separated from Malaysia and came into operation in April, 1966. This Bill follows closely the provisions contained in the Malaysian Companies Act, 1965, as it is considered that Singapore's new law relating to companies should not be different from the legislation in force in Malaysia in order to facilitate trade and commercial intercourse with and within this region.' Sir, the response to invitations for representations was good. Fourteen written representations were received and the Select Committee heard oral evidence from eleven of them. Some of these contributions were valuable and a number of suggestions have been accepted. I will not burden Members of the House with details of the amendments which have been made during the Select Committee stage. These are listed out at pages C8 to C37 of the Select Committee's Report which was tabled in this House on the 7th of December, 1967, as Paper Parl. 11 of 1967.”
“Sir, I am glad that the Member has pointed out that it is not only the P.W.D. but also the P.U.B. and the Singapore Telephone Board that use our roads. But I understand why he feels very strongly about this is because his motor-car was badly damaged as a result of its running into earthen stones that had been heaped up, according to him, right in the middle of the road. He has my sympathies and I would advise him to see an advocate and solicitor and sue the Government for damages! But, strictly speaking, instructions have been issued to the P.W.D. that whenever road repairs, sewage, and other works are undertaken, suitable warning signs to be lighted at night should be set up to warn motorists and pedestrians. But should the Member for Serangoon Gardens come across other obstacles or danger spots without any warning signs, I shall be grateful if he will inform the Director of the P.W.D., so that precautionary measures can be taken and other road users will not follow in his footsteps and be without their motor-cars for about two weeks.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am well aware that Punggol adjoins Serangoon and Upper Serangoon. But I regret to inform the Member for Punggol that there is as yet no concrete plan for sewage facilities in his constituency, which is essentially a rural area with a low population density! Priority on the basis of economic feasibility has to be taken into consideration for phasing out the overall sewage schemes. In view of this, no site for a sewage pumping station or sewage treatment work has been selected for this area. But in the long term, I am sure sewage facilities will reach Punggol. 7.15 p.m.”
“Sir, subhead 109 refers to the extension of Sungei Kallang. This scheme is one of the schemes under the Development Estimates. During the First Five-Year Development Plan prior to 1966, Sungei Kallang between Braddell Road and Upper Serangoon was realigned, straightened, widened and deepened. As a result, flooding at Potong Pasir has been greatly reduced. In 1966, the improvement in realignment of Sungei Kallang was extended beyond Braddell Road by 2,500 feet towards Peirce Reservoir to alleviate flooding of the low-lying Lorong Chuan area. This year the improvement was extended further from 2,000 feet upstream of Braddell Road to 5,900 feet. In 1968, it will be extended by another 3,000 feet. So we are not neglecting Upper Serangoon, as it were. The flooding in Bukit Timah has been neglected for the last ten years. In my view, it should have been done in 1955 or 1957, because the floods along the main trunk road between Singapore and Johore Bahru lead to utter chaos on the island. During the last floods, school children had to be rescued and it was fortunate for us that, when these areas were flooded a few days ago, the schools were having their holidays. But the effect of floods along Bukit Timah Road is to cause traffic diversion to Holland Road --- 7.10 p.m.”
“Head 65 - The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Ng Kah Ting - That the sum to be allocated for Head 65 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 106.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before the implementation of any mass transit or transportation system, a careful and detailed study is essential. The P.W.D, is now carrying out the study with the assistance of the United Nations Development Programme Special Fund. A special unit was formed in September this year and its aim is to formulate long-term comprehensive guiding concepts for the development of the Republic in the fields of transportation, urban renewal and redevelopment and even in industrial development. But a comprehensive transportation study forms an important component of all these projects and is aimed at producing a long-range plan for the most efficient transportation system possible within the limitations of our financial resources. The first phase of the scheme comprises a series of traffic surveys to collect data on the nature and pattern of the distribution of people and goods on the island of Singapore. This data, when collected, will provide the basis for traffic forecasting which is necessary for the preparation of road network and mass transportation plans. In October and November this year, pilot surveys were carried out. A pilot survey was carried out also on taxi-passengers and the main surveys are scheduled to be launched within the next few months and are expected to be completed by August 1968. Following this, the data collected will be processed and work on planning of the transportation system will then follow. The whole project is expected to be completed within three or four years, but the surveys and experts cost money. Hence the provision. Mr Sim Boon Woo: I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $14,155,920 for Head 64 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.”
“This law can be passed. but it will probably be a very unpopular law. I feel it is better to encourage people to use the bridges perhaps by placing traffic policemen at strategic spots and getting the policemen to ask them to use the bridges. At this stage when pedestrian bridges are somewhat new to the island. I myself would not favour laws forcing people to use these bridges. I would much rather persuade them to use them.”
“Sir, I am well aware of the position at 6¼ m.s. Upper Serangoon Road. Previously there was no overhead pedestrian bridge. There was a zebra crossing and people using the crossing interfered with the traffic. In compliance with popular demand headed by the Member for Upper Serangoon, we built a pedestrian bridge and we took away one of the pedestrian crossings. 7.00 p.m. But if people do not choose to use the overhead bridge but prefer to cross the road where the pedestrian crossing was and no longer is, what can my Ministry do? I say again that it is a matter of education. We can block the centre. We can prevent people crossing the road by building this safety device about four or five feet right along the central divider. But even that will not prevent them. They are in a hurry to get across to do whatever they want to do. But basically, Sir, I say once again that we have to educate our people.”
“Sir, the answer to the questions posed by the Member for Telok Blangah is to educate the public. We must educate them not only not to dirty our beaches; we must even educate them on how to cross roads. If we do not build pedestrian bridges in Singapore, we will be criticised because anyone trying to cross Finlayson Green/Collyer Quay at rush hours without the use of a pedestrian bridge will be attempting to commit suicide. But we build the bridges in the interest of pedestrians to enable them to cross roads safely. And these bridges should help to reduce traffic accidents and provide for a smoother and faster flow of vehicular traffic. If the pedestrians do not want to use them and are prepared to risk their lives and limbs, perhaps sometimes through sheer laziness, then I do not see how a set of rules could serve to force these people to do so. However, my Ministry has not been idle. We are not prepared to watch these people just risk their lives trying to cross roads. So we have built safety fences along the centre divider and on the edge of the footpaths to deter these people from crossing the road and to encourage them to use the overhead bridges. But if some high jumper decides to take a jump over that fence, I say let him do it. The position is continually under review and it is hoped that, in conjunction with the assistance of the traffic police, more effective measures will be taken to ensure that all pedestrians will eventually use the available overhead crossings. But, as I have pointed out earlier, this is a matter of education.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, to come to the point, the gyratory system at Woodsville Circus will only affect one building, a cane factory. No other families or squatters will be involved. In fact, clearance action is in progress. The affected property has been acquired by Government. The owner of the factory will be offered alternative land not to exceed one-quarter acre in a resettlement area. The second project is for the widening and extension of Jalan Kolam Ayer. About 83 squatter families have been affected. Of these, 60 families, including a family occupying a shop, have been accommodated in Housing and Development Board flats. About 18 families have found their own accommodation. One shopkeeper has done the same. They have also been paid cornpensation. There are five other squatter cases. The total amount of compensation so far paid is in the region of $55,000. The third scheme is widening of Upper Serangoon Road to Paya Lebar Road. Twenty-two huts have been affected and 65 squatter families disturbed. Of these, 14 have taken up Housing and Development Board accommodation. Twenty-four families have found their own alternative accommodation. Twenty families were only partly affected and therefore were not required to vacate the site. Seven families still remain on the site but we hope to clear them soon. They will be offered alternative accommodation in Housing Board flats and they will be paid compensation of about $5,000. In all, in this third case, compensation amounting to about $15,000 has been paid. So there really is no problem and the Member for Aijunied will not have so much trouble for the next elections.”
“From the estimates before me, though subhead 205 comes under Primary Production, no vote appears throughout the years. But as the Member for Mountbatten has pointed out, the Botanic Gardens does research in orchids and the botanists there are really interested in improving our species of orchids and crossing orchids. The Primary Production Department also has a nursery, but I can assure the Member that there is no du plication of work. In fact, the Botanic Gardens will be transferred from the Ministry of Social Affairs to the Ministry of National Development very soon. This would mean that orchid research by the Botanic Gardens could be tied up with orchid research by the Primary Production Department.”
“It is the private sector which does that, and it is the private sector that has its contacts abroad. We have done nothing in this respect and, if we do, perhaps objections will be raised on the ground that we are helping private persons to make money. We can do a little by way of the Tourist Promotion Board advertising Singapore abroad - "Singapore is the land for orchids." The Land Office has favourably considered applications for temporary occupation licences from orchid growers and I can assure the Member that in this respect there have been no delays by the Land Office as alleged by some other Members. We are definitely behind the campaign to grow more orchids and sell them abroad. We will make available whatever land we have for the propagation of orchids. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 6.37 p.m.”
“They are poor, as the Member for Changi has pointed out. I did visit these islands not very long ago and I myself felt that there was scope for the lands to be put to use. My Ministry has carried out a survey of the possibilities which these two islands may have to offer. The survey has been completed and the recommendations have been made to Government. According to preliminary information, the lands on both islands are most suitable for intensive agricultural use. We have as yet not acted on these recommendations, but I can assure the Member for Changi that the matter is well in hand and Government will soon act on the recommendations of the report. Next, the Member dealt with the question of orchids. As the Minister for Finance pointed out the other day, we have little land in Singapore and perhaps the most economic way of using the little land we have is to cultivate orchids, sell them abroad and bring in a lot of foreign exchange. The Member for Changi has pointed out that we only have a $10 vote. But I can assure him that the Primary Production Department has recognised the importance of the annual export of orchids which, as the Member has pointed out, amounts to about US$250,000 per year, and the Department has taken steps to encourage more farmers to grow more orchids. Pamphlets and bulletins are distributed to farmers for the purpose of instructing them on the technical as pects of growing orchids. In fact, the Department is planning a larger orchid nursery than the one that it has now. It is envisaged that more orchid saplings will be propagated and sold to farmers at a nominal charge. The question of selling orchids abroad, of course, is another matter. The Government does not sell orchids.”
“Sir, in order to make maximum utilisation of whatever land resources we have in Singapore, the Government realises that it is necessary for us to investigate into lands which are not yet fully utilised. Though we are a small island, we have smaller islands around us, three of which are in Changi - i.e., Pulau Ubin, Pulau Tekong Besar and Pulau Tekong Kehil. The two biggest islands are Pulau Ubin and Pulau Tekong. They have areas of approximately 2,500 acres and 4,500 acres respectively. The populations are small, about 2,000 in Ubin and about 6,000 in Tekong.”
“The mission recommended, inter alia, soil surveys and physical and chemical analysis of soil samples taken from swamp land as well as experiments in cover crops, vegetable crop selection and rotation, soil improvement and fertilisation. Farming in Singapore is extremely intensive in that a wide variety of crops, mainly vegetables, are grown in small plots of land about an acre per farm. Due to perennial planting and in the absence of seasons, soil fertility, crop varieties, and pests and disease control play an important part in sustaining the economic returns from the land. The proposed laboratory, therefore, has an important role to play. The third item, Sir - Factory Farming Pilot Scheme. In view of the limited land area in Singapore, farming must of necessity be of an intensive nature so that farmers can carry out their activities in the minimum area of land to achieve maximum production. This is as the Member for Choa Chu Kang has advised. He thinks that it is particularly desirable, and so do we. In live stock production, animals or poultry can be reared in livestock houses and cages, so that the minimum area of land is required. It is the intention of the department to carry out a series of experiments on livestock husbandry with particular emphasis on intensive housing for livestock. We hope such methods will achieve some measure of success and that they will be introduced by the farmer subsequently for general application.”
“Sir, first, the $10 vote for Agriculture Extension Centres. There are 10 Agriculture and Veterinary Centres at present in various parts of the rural areas in Singapore where there are large concentrations of farming communities. Workers from the Primary Production Department operate from these centres. However, there is quite a large number of smaller concentrations of farming communities quite remote from existing centres where farmers cannot regularly obtain the services of the Primary Production Department. The department, therefore, proposes to set up smaller extension centres, each comprising a house-cum-office where an extension centre worker will be permanently based in these remote farming communities, so that the farmers there will also benefit from the services provided by the Primary Production Department. The second item - Intensive Farm Improvement Schemes. In order to find ways and means of increasing the agricultural productivity of existing farms in Singapore and to improve the fertility of swamp land reclaimed for agricultural use, the Primary Production Department proposes to establish facilities for research in soil and fertilisers, plant breeding and selection of seeds, insecticides and control of plant diseases. The establishment of this proposed soil and fertiliser laboratory is complementary to the schemes for re claiming swamp land for agricultural use and improving and intensifying the production of vegetable crops from existing farms. The Member for Choa Chu Kang may be interested to know that a U.N, team was invited to Singapore in 1965 to make a feasibility study of reclamation of tidal swamps for agricultural use.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if they have been suffering, they must have been suffering for many a year! Were there rural abattoirs which we have demolished? Surely not. All I ask the Member is to be patient. We are aware of these problems. We do not expect Jurong to satisfy the needs of the whole island. The only reason, as I have said, for the $10 vote is that we do not have immediate plans to build these abattoirs, but we certainly have not forgotten the need for such abattoirs.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, shortly, the Central Abattoir at Jurong was built not only for the slaughter of livestock for local needs but also for export. However, the facilities that the abattoir provides may not be made use of by residents in rural areas remote from Jurong. Their needs are fully appreciated, and accordingly it is proposed to build three rural abattoirs of smaller units in the rural areas. These would provide convenient slaughtering facili -ties for the people in the rural areas, enable the implementation of veterinary public health measures to be carried out effectively in the supply of wholesale meat, and reduce illegal slaughter. The vote of $10 is only nominal. The reason is this: these three projects can only be implemented after the new Jurong abattoir has been in full operation, so that a full assessment of the needs of subsidiary rural abattoirs can be made, after which we can decide whether or not to have these rural abattoirs and where to build them. We have not chosen the sites yet and I am afraid the Member for Punggol will have to wait.”
“If you want a shop, you have to apply for it. But preferential treatment is given to shop-keepers under clearance. The Member for Delta also wanted to know whether the vote of $5 million for 1968 is for Urban South or Urban North. I think it would be better if I told her the exact clearance areas for which this vote is intended. The areas are (1) Upper Changi area and Kallang Basin Reclamation; (2) Jurong industrial development; (3) Tiong Bahru, Queenstown extension and Telok Blangah housing projects; and (4) minor sites required by the P.W.D. for its projects such as schools, roads, sewerage and other essential services. Perhaps it would satisfy the Member if I gave her some figures of the amounts of compensation paid to families affected by clearances from 1961. In 1961, 294 families were paid $273,000 as compensation. In 1962, 817 families were paid $883,000. In 1963, 1,181 families were paid $1,700,000. In 1964, 3,643 families were paid $3,200,000. In 1965, about 6,500 families were paid $5½ million. In 1966, about 6,000 families were paid $5,100,000. I am only hoping, Sir, that the provision for this year will be adequate and that I will not have to come back to this House to ask for a supplementary vote.”
“I suggest that the Member should send me a copy of the letter so that proper investigations can be carried out. With regard to the Member for Delta, I did not say yesterday that we do not help shop-keepers at all. What I said yesterday was that the Government is :subsidising housing and that it cannot subsidise businesses. But we do give preferential treatment to shop-keepers under clearance. In fact, they are given priority for Board shops at concessional rents without going through the normal tender system. The concessional rents take the form of a scheme known as the rising rental system, that is to say, paying less for the first year and gradually rising year by year for three years until the rents reach the market rents. Madam Chan Choy Siong: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification. Mr Barker resumed his seat. Madam Chan Choy Siong(In Mandarin): I would like to clarify one point. The Minister has said that these resettled merchants and traders have been given concessional rents without going ahrough the normal system of tendering. I think this is a mistake, because they have to go through this procedure to obtain shop accommodation.”
“If there was an instance, I think the Member should give me the particulars by way of a letter or quote a letter from the Housing Board so that I can look into it. I do not think it is the Board's duty to ask people to change, their trades or occupations. Mr Ng Yeow Chong rose - Mr Barker resumed his seat.”
“I will deal first with the Member for Mountbatten who agrees that the charcoal trade is an obnoxious trade. He has asked my Ministry to find accommodation for such trades in Housing and Development Board shop-, houses. If this is done, it will lead to protests by residents of Housing Board' flats. The only solution appears to me to be that these traders should find their' own accommodation. But I am not aware that the Housing Board has ad-vised them to change their trades. I do not think they have done so.”
“Sir, only these projects are let out on contract. Administration fees still have to be charged for supervisory works carried out. These expenses include supervisory staff, telephones and postages, printing, stationery and office supplies, office equipment and furniture, advertising of tenders and notices and legal fees. The above expenses are incurred by the Housing and Development Board acting as agents for the Government in administering the projects.”
“Sir, in the case of improvements to the foreshore made by T.O.L. holders, due compensation will be made if they are affected by clearance. But under land acquisition, no ex gratia payment is made if that is what the Member for Mountbatten is thinking of. Compensation, yes. As the Member is well aware, compensation is paid under the Land Acquisition Act, and if the compensation is considered madequate, there is provision in the Act for appeals to the Appeals Board which has only recently begun sittings and has heard, I think, about six appeals up to date. In connection with resettlement, it has been the practice to award compensation to settlers and squatters who have no legal title to the land, provided they are in occupation when such land is required or cleared for development purposes. Compensation is calculated on the basis of improvements found on the land according to a fixed scale which has been in force for some time. And the reason for paying compensation is to minimise the hardships caused by the dislocation of settlers and squatters.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the provision of $300,000 for 1968 is earmarked for the proposed underground car park at St. Andrew's Cathedral grounds. The total cost for the project will be in the region of $1 million. The section of North Bridge Road from Stamford Road to Elgin Bridge is one of the busiest in Singapore, forming the main thoroughfare of the central business district, and it carries about 35,000 vehicles daily and 2,740 vehicles per hour at peak hours. Over 75,000 vehicles a'ppear daily at the intersections at the same time because of obstructions caused by cars parked in front of the shops flanking both sides of the road. This section is the scene of almost continuous traffic jams and delays blocking up entirely the road and intersections. From the financial point of view, this project is also very advantageous. The estimated cost of the project is SI million and there will be about 250 parking lots and the net income is expected to be about $300,000 per year. It will, in addition, as I have mentioned, give enormous advantages from the traffic point of view.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1963 Government acquired about 44,650 square feet of land in Kampong Eunos affected by fire. The acquisition was undertaken in anticipation of future development of the area. The site, however, is too small to be developed independently. The Member for Kampong Kembangan wishes to use the site for a community centre or a centre for his Citizens' Consultative Committee. The People's Association appear to have completed their development programme for community centres, which may account for the fact that no applications have been received by the Land Office for the use of this site as a community centre. I can assure the Member that the land will be released to the People's Association if it is prepared to undertake the construction, maintenance and manage ment of a community centre there. But taking into consideration the fact that there is another community centre in Jalan Pengaga which is about a quarter of a mile away from the fire site, it is not unlikely that the People's Association may feel that another community centre in such close proximity may not be justified. But that is a matter for the People's Association. Providing land for Citizens' Consultative Committees is an entirely different matter. There are about 51 such corninittees on the island, and giving one means meeting demands from others. I think we should have a policy decision from Government before Government land or State land is made available to Citizens' Consultative Committees.”
“I think it is a little unfair if I have only 30 seconds to answer questions about why I do not develop beaches and all that. I think if Members of the House want answers from me, they should give me a little more time. Shortly, Sir, this item - improvement to beaches - was previously under the Parks and Recreation Division. In July this year Government decided that the Tourist Promotion Board be charged with this responsibility. The Board has drawn up schemes for the maintenance and improvement of beaches and for their development. The cleaning and maintenance by the Board will take effect from 1st of January next year. As regards development, several major as well as minor schemes to offer both simple and sophisticated seaside facilities have been prepared. They include land concessions, tenders for which have been drawn up and are ready for publication, and construction projects which will require capital investment, in some cases amounting to millions of dollars. These schemes, which are at present being studied, will, it is hoped, be finalised and announced shortly. Government has accepted responsibility for assisting with the infrastructure necessary to make these schemes possible. I assure the Member for Mountbatten and Members of this House that 1968 will see cleaner and more attractive beaches in Singapore provided, of course, ---”
“Shortly, in answer to the Member for Sembawang, our policy is to sell as many flats as possible. We want to encourage home ownership in Singapore. But not everybody can afford to buy a flat. So I would suggest that the Member for Sembawang gets his facts right before he asks me to sell all Housing Board flats in Singapore. Rented houses are subsidised and houses which are purchased are not. And besides it is because of lack of finance that many a tenant cannot buy his flat. As for the question of lifts, he alleges that I was not listening to him last year. I can assure him that I did. I did listen Land surveys have been carried out asking tenants whether they want lift attendants. Surveys were conducted in Queens-town and MacPherson estates. But the xesponse to these surveys showed a very negligible percentage of tenants who are in favour of an additional charge in rder to pay for these lift attendants. The last survey was carried out in MacPherson estate, resulting in 3.6 per cent who agreed in principle to pay the :additional charge of $2.50 per month, 19.5 per cent were not in favour, and 76 per cent did not bother to reply. So this is the reason why I suggest to the Member that he gets his facts right.”
“I do not come to this House for praise. What I am trying to point out to Members is that they do not realise the position. They grumble about one-room flats and narrow passages and doors through which tenants can look at each other. Their constituents are lucky that they have rooms over their heads. That is the point and for which I take no credit. I have only recently joined the Ministry. My predecessors take all the credit. To deal with the specific point raised by the Member for Choa Chu Kang, he says build better flats. We are doing so. We have built four-room flats in Henderson Road. We thought of putting them up for sale, but then we changed our minds and agreed to let these flats out. At the moment, unfortunately, only about half of these flats have been let out. But we hope in a month or two all will be taken up. There are, roughly, a little less than 400 flats at Henderson Road. One reason might be that the rent is too high. It is $120 for a month with conservancy charges of about $6.50. And should these flats not be taken up, we will either have to reduce the rent to suit everyone's pocket or, in the final analysis, sell the flats to those who want to buy.”
“Obviously Singapore. As for open spaces for children, wherever there are open spaces available, if only the M.P. for the area approaches the Housing Board and makes a suggestion to convert an open space into a field or playground, I can assure you that the Housing Board will give it every consideration. The Member for Telok Blangah grumbles about tenant A asking for flat B and getting another flat and someone asking for flat A and instead getting flat B. There are many reasons why this can happen. One possible explanation is that the applicant for estate A may have been far behind in the waiting list and hence was given another flat which was lower down as far as priority is con cerned. But if the Member for Telok Blangah knows of two tenants, one living in, say, flat A and the other living in flat B and both are unhappy about it and wish to do an exchange, this will be granted readily, provided, of course, the rents are the same. This has been done. There are thousands of flats being allocated. Sometimes these things happen. If you live in a flat in Tiong Bahru and you do not like it, and you have a friend who likes Tiong Bahru and is prepared to give up his flat for yours, we say good luck to you both. But tenants of Housing Board estates are very fussy, as I pointed out yesterday. They not only want a particular estate, but they want a particular room on a particular floor in a particular block. And we cannot accommodate everybody.”
“The money does belong to the people. Hence the subsidy. But elsewhere you do not have these houses. I challenge you to name one country in South-east Asia which can come anywhere near us in respect of housing. An hon. Member: Singapore.”
“You are paying part. The Government is subsidising the other part.”
“Macpherson Estate is already up and the constituents of Aljunied should consider themselves lucky to have a roof over their heads. You cannot expect the Government to give you everything. 4.30 p.m. All you have to do is to go round South-east Asia and you can see that there are millions of people without homes. We are in a happy position. We supply you with houses, electricity, water and comfortable accommodation.”
“I am not expecting praise. This is more the work of my predecessor and of the Housing Board itself. But all we hear are grumbles about one room and two rooms. "When you sell a house, give it free," they say. But to deal with the specific complaints of the Member for Aljunied. He says the staircases are too narrow and the doors are on the opposite side of each other. But one-room flats are one-room flats. They are not very big. Neither is the room big nor the staircase or the corridors in between. But if the doors are opposite to each other, I will ask my housing experts to look into the complaint and try to satisfy the Member for Aljunied. As for the down-payments, it is our policy to accept 20 per cent of the purchase price. But we must have some sort of deposit, and in many cases the 20 per cent deposit has been reduced to 10 per cent. In fact, there is no problem about the flats at Tiong Bahru. All have been bought. Those who have refused to buy for reasons of their own have been transferred to other accommodation. Then again the Member for Aljunied grumbles about the lack of facilities in Housing Board Estates. He says there are no community centres and no community halls. They are not completely absent. There is a community hall at Queenstown and we are building two community halls at Toa Payoh. An hon. Member: How about Macpherson Estate?”
“My point is this, Sir,In Singapore we have housed one-quarter of our population. My predecessor, the former Minister for National Development, was awarded the Magsaysay Award for his efforts at housing and community work. But all we hear in this House is "I want flat A. You have given me flat B. The passages are too narrow. You can see through your neighbour's door." Members of this House cannot distinguish the wood from the trees. We are in a happy position today where we have housed one-quarter of our population in Housing Board flats. An hon. Member: Well done!”
“Sir, may I first say that our efforts at housing the population do not appear to be appreciated by Members of this House? But they have been appreciated all over the world.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolution." Question put, and agreed to. Resolution accordingly agreed to. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That the House do now adjourn." -[Mr Barker]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Seven minutes past Seven o'clock p.m. Appendix to Speaker's Announcement (Cols 901-904)”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has come to a certain resolution. Resolution reported - That the sum of $555,810,150 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Estimates of Expenditure for 1968 contained in Paper Cmd. 26 of 1967.”
“Yes, there is. But it was $6 for renewal in the urban area. That is admitted. But I think we are wasting our time over these figures. With the integration of the two and in view of the increase in administrative costs, the fees were changed with a flat rate of $12 per annum for a temporary permit for renewal. On this, I am some what inclined to agree with the Member for Punggol that the present fee appears to be rather high and I promise him that I will look into it. I make no promise of any decrease. But I promise him that I will look into it with a view to meeting his request. I think that winds up the session.”
“But here the Member for Punggol is speaking generally and I am replying generally. I cannot do otherwise until he gives me the facts and the specific cases. I say once again in this House, if you have a case of delay or if you have dozens of cases of delay, fling them at the Minister for National Development. He will look into them. The third point which was raised by the Member for Punggol is the increase of fees from $2 to $12. The facts are as follows. Prior to the coming into force of the Local Government Building Re gulations, 1966, the temporary permit fee charged for the rural areas by the Rural Board was $5 per annum for the permit and $2 per annum for renewals. This was the previous position. In the city area the Chief Building Surveyor charged a fee of $6 per annum for each permit for renewal. So for the rural areas, $5 per permit, $2 for renewal. For the city area $6 for the permit. $6 for renewal, So it has not gone up six times, as the Member's speech may have indicated.”
“But the Development Control Committee of the Ministry of National Development has, in fact, relaxed its control in many cases to allow industries on a temporary basis in an area strictly prohibited under the Master Plan zoning. But there are some cases, where, because of the previous history of the premises and the nature of the industry, the applications have had to be refused. 7.15 p.m. If I may now deal with the Member for Punggol who has raised two or three points. The first is the increase of fees from $2 to $12 for temporary structures; second, he complains about delays; and, thirdly, he complains about landowners refusing to sign applications either to build or rebuild the premises. If I can deal with landowners first. Under our building by-laws, landowners have to give their consent and, if the landowners refuse to give their consent, surely you cannot blame the Chief Building Surveyor. Blame the landowner, blame our laws, but not the Chief Building Surveyor. But we happen to be discussing the Chief Building Surveyor's Department. Perhaps I can go on to the delays which the Member alleges. He says it is no use pretending that there are no delays. I am instructed that it is not true that applications are delayed for six months or more as alleged. What usually happens is that the applicants have not put up their applications properly. Sometimes certain details have been left out, and when the application is flung back, so to speak, to the applicant, nothing comes back. And one common reason for the delays is the fact that many applicants cannot get the approval of the landowner to carry out whatever they want to do. If I may say so, to complicate matters, Members of Parliament are often misinformed when they try to intervene on behalf of the applicants.”
“That is the point I am getting to, Sir,I mentioned that most of the cases have been satisfactorily solved and a few have not. And these few cases have not been settled because, having left the "Golden Mile", they sought other accommodation and occupied other pieces of land without consulting the relevant department. If they had consulted the proper authority, they would have been advised what land they could occupy and for what purpose. Buying a piece of residential land, setting up a factory, and then running to the Planning Chief and saying, "Please give me permission to change the zone from residential to industrial," after the event as it were, has led to all these problems. In fact, these people do not deserve sympathy. But every consideration is being given by the relevant department. For the information of the Member for Mountbatten, besides areas which are presently zoned as industrial land on the Master Plan, there are areas which can allow for industries and ware houses. The Planning Department in the Ministry have designated three other large areas for the resettlement of industries affected by the Urban Re newal Scheme. These three large areas are Kampong Chai Chee (7th mile Changi), Teck Hock Village (8th mile Tampines Road), and the South-east portion of Bukit Panjang Town Map Area, which adjoins the existing industrial zone. But if the Member's con stituents choose to go into other areas and then decide to apply for rezoning, I say they are looking for trouble. Each application for a change of use of premises is considered on its own merits. This must be so, having regard to the nature of the proposed use and the existing surrounding development.”
“Mr Speaker, if I may deal with the Member for Mountbatten first. Various problems have arisen when owners of industries, workshops and warehouses affected by the "Golden Mile" development have had to be resited. As I stated in answer to a question by the hon. Member some time ago, most of those affected by the "Golden Mile" scheme have been accommodated to their satisfaction. But there are still cases outstanding.”
“Sir, before I reply, perhaps we can take amendment (3)* together? * Amendment No. (3), standing in the names of Inche Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi, Mr. Tang See Chim, and Madam Chan Choy Siong, reads as follows: That the total sum to be allocated for Head 1111 be reduced by $100.”