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 41 of 44.
“I do not know what particular case he has in mind, but where a Temporary Occupation Licence has a condition that you are to farm on the land and not to plant rubber trees, you are supposed to farm on the land. If you plant rubber trees, and we find that out later, then we cut down the trees, because you have already broken the conditions of the Temporary Occupation Licence. You are lucky we did not revoke the licence. Do not expect the Government to pay you for planting rubber trees, which is in direct breach of one of the express terms of the Temporary Occupation Licence. But if we give you a T.O.L. to plant rubber trees, we will pay you when we cut down the rubber trees, but not otherwise. The Member for Changi should know that some of the Temporary Occupation Licences were granted long before the P.A.P. came to power, even before the last war. Before I close, Mr Speaker, I should tell Members of the House about the present resettlement policy of the Government, and it is this. Farmers - Category A. Genuine farmers are provided with alternative land in developed resettlement areas plus cash compensation for their houses, improvements and cultivation. If they elect to find their own accommodation, they are paid a rehabilitation grant of $1,000 per acre of cultivated land. Transport allowance ranging from $50 for a sub-tenant to $100 for a hut owner is paid, irrespective of whether they are resettled in a resettlement area or elect to find their own accommodation. Category B - non-farmers. Non-farmers are given suitable alternative accommodation in Housing Board flats, if they want such flats, plus payment of disturbance and transport allowance ranging from $300 for a sub-tenant to $350 for a hut owner or occupier.”
“For all purposes. But it is difficult to get the farmers to leave the main island for the small islands. That is the point, they will not move. The Member for Bukit Merah has made one point which, I think, I must reply to, and that is this. He says that when a church or a mosque is demolished, there is always another piece of land for another church or another mosque. When it is a temple, he says, we demolish the temple and never supply the land. Let me reassure him that we have a multi-religious policy and we do not discriminate between churches, mosques, and temples. It is not easy to find alternative land in Housing Board estates where a temple wants to be, and each particular problem or temple must be dealt with on the facts of the case. I think the Member will realise that religion is a very sensitive problem, and people are very touchy. I would be the last person in the world to break into a temple and pull the walls down. All these matters have to be handled with the utmost tact, and we do our best not to be forced into a position to demolish. In fact, we never demolish. We behave, I should say, with a lot of sincerity and we finally after a long time get them to move, but not after they have extracted from us many a concession! Another Member has referred to the question of rubber trees. He says that the Government promised to pay compensation for cutting down rubber trees, and then this poor farmer engaged a contractor to cut down the rubber trees. And when the rubber trees were cut down, no compensation was paid. We have, in fact, paid compensation for rubber trees in some cases and we have refused to pay in others.”
“It could be; very rightly so. But we query not to down them. We query to down the crooks. But there must be grouses on this point. Perhaps I could now refer to the Member for Sembawang who is not here. I think he has made a very valuable suggestion that we start farming on the outer islands. We have about 40 islands round Singapore, and I can assure him that an intensive survey has been made by a committee who has done a lot of field work on the islands, and it has made certain recommendations. Land is scarce and we need more land and we propose to use these islands. I cannot give details at the moment as the report is still quite secret, but I can assure him that we are going to make use of these islands.”
“And in registration you can distinguish between the genuine farmer and the bogus farmer. One of the Members has pointed out that we give land to one farmer and the next month he transfers it; so we are at fault. He says, "Sometimes you do not give land to a genuine farmer," and so we are at fault. When you give, it is wrong. When you do not give, it is wrong. When you query him about his identity card, it is wrong. The address is in Changi, but he is supposed to be farming in Choa Chu Kang. So we look at his identity card and ask, "What is this?" Oh, he does not like it; he is a genuine farmer. Or his name is different, and we query. And when we query, he does not like it. But the idea of querying is merely to find ample evidence or proof that they are genuine farmers. There must be bogus farmers; there are crooks. I am not saying that the whole lot are crooks, but we must catch the crooks.”
“The Primary Production Department was of the view that registration was essential. For some reason or other, this registration of farmers met with considerable opposition from the farming population, perhaps more through ignorance but perhaps they had their valid reasons. To cover administrative costs, we intended to charge them $5 registration fee per farmer. They did not like it. Another reason is probably this. They do not pay income tax. The moment they register, the Minister for Finance chases them. So we give away money when we do not know who the farmers are. But that $5 is incidental. We are not charging them annually. It was just this once. They did not like the idea. They did not like us to know more about them than what they told us. If they have their problems, we are prepared to help them. But how can you help any body of people unless you know who these people are, how many there are, and what their problems are? One method is registration.”
“A new set of building regulations came into effect from the 1st of August, 1966, the aim being to replace two sets of former building by-laws which consisted of City Council by-laws applicable to the city area and those of the Rural Board bylaws which were applicable to areas outside the city. In doing so, this simplified administrative procedure overcame discrepancies experienced in the past because of the two sets of building by-laws. The fee for a temporary permit for any temporary building in the city area was $12 per annum. This fee was not increased but was made applicable to the whole of Singapore island, and it affected the Rural Board so that a temporary permit fee of $3 to $5 per annum in the past was increased to $12. The Minister for Finance had a hand in this. His scale of fees in the rural areas had not been revised since 1953 and he felt that it was fair and reasonable that a fee of $12 per annum charged for a temporary permit in the city area should be made applicable in the rural area. But to come back again to the subject of "We are doing nothing for the farmers;" "you must have a new policy in farming;" "the Minister does not know what is happening in his Resettlement Department, people are grumbling." Let me tell you this. In 1965, we introduced legislation to register all farmers. This incidentally was done by way of the Animals and Birds (Amendment) Ordinance. The object of this legislation was to register the farmers. The idea of registering them was to find out how many farmers we had and what type of farmers we had. The intention was to try to see the size of the problem and, if possible, to make sure that the, services provided by the Primary Production Department should benefit those people who needed these expansion services most.”
“He transfers his two acres, either through non-interest in farming or because his farming did not succeed, to a successful farmer. So the Land Office hears about this and says to him, "You have no business to transfer without telling us. One of the conditions is that you should not transfer." So they impose a premium which is in the region of $150 per acre. They also increase the rent. The previous licence - or rent if you like to call it was a subsidised fee. We were not making any money out of it. But when a transfer like that takes place, we charge an economic rent or a licence fee. The reason is this -- - that the land is our land. Because of the transfer, the transferor gets a few thousand dollars. Do not think that out of the goodness of his heart he transferred his licence fee. He got a big fat fee for that transfer. Normally in order to avoid stamp duty, they declare the transfer fee at $4,000 in order not to avoid but to reduce the amount of stamp fee attracted. So this is Government land let out on a T.O.L. and someone practically sells it. They sell our land. We should be making the profit, but they are making the profit. If we do not either revoke the T.O.L. or impose these new transfer fees and increases in annual fees, they will be buying and selling State land like nobody's business. This is the mistake. The land is ours; it is not theirs. We let it out on certain conditions provided they keep to the conditions. They will always have the land, but the trouble is that they do not keep to the conditions. That is the second point raised by the Member for Bras Basah. The third point raised by the Livestock Association. We come now to the building permits which have been raised to $12 per annum. There is a history behind this, and, shortly, it is this.”
“But as the Member for Choa Chu Kang puts it, it is a question of priority - land for industry, land for farms. Do we sacrifice everything for the farmers? Another wrong impression Members have is that all farmers are poor. They say, "Why do you not help the rural folk? You are doing nothing for the rural folk. They are all poor." But the Member for Choa Chu Kang has quoted one case in his constituency where someone was occupying ten acres of Government land and the turnover was $1 million a year. This person said that we took away this land and gave him two acres. I say, what is wrong with that? The land never belonged to him; the land belonged to us. It was not to cut down his production. If he had so much money, he could have bought 10, 20 or 30 acres. But as I have put it just now, they all want to take; they never give. What has the Government to give? The Government has land. So everybody gets T.O.L.s. Once the T.O.L. is given - whether it is for 10, 15 or 20 acres -they behave as if the land is theirs. Now this is where they are wrong. The land is State land and it is let out very cheaply -$15 per annum for one acre, which is well below the economic rent. It is practically a gift - a gift on a year's licence. But the land is not the farmers'. The land is State land. Subject to certain conditions, that licence is given and one of the conditions is no transfer, no subletting without the consent of the Commissioner of Lands, which makes me come to the second point raised by the Livestock Association in their letter to the Member for Bras Basah. We give Mr X two acres of land. He claims to be a genuine farmer. We go into his bona fides and we are satisfied that he is a farmer. We give him two acres of land. What does he do?”
“To drive in a motor road is a different thing. You have a road along MacRitchie Reservoir. To put it in short, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have not got sufficient land. Everybody in Singapore expects the Government to give all the time; they themselves never give. In Singapore, we have large acres of land occupied by, say, one person. A few years ago, investigations revealed that, a woman in Singapore had a Temporary Occupation Licence from the Government and she was occupying 300 acres of State land. She was supposed to be in occupation, but all she was doing was making money out of that. All 300 acres were sublet to others who were paying her fees or rent. Of course, these 300 acres were taken away. Her Temporary Occupation Licence was revoked and licences were given to the actual occupants. This is our policy. We give land to people who want land and who occupy it. An hon. Member: What about the Singapore Island Club where they play golf? Mr Barker: But this is just one example. If you have any noises to make about the Golf Club, do not address them to me. I am not a golfer. To come back to our subject. If we have in Singapore land as much as the Malaysians have in Johore or the Australians in Australia or the New Zealanders in New Zealand, I would he happy to comply with their wishes. Instead of giving them two acres, I would give them two square miles. But we have not got the land. That is why our buildings go up and up. We are not building sideways; we are going up. As the Minister of Defence has pointed out, it would not be realistic to give farmers more than two acres of land. I realise that production will not be as great as if a farmer had three acres or twenty acres. That is logical.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard practically all the Members of this House speak with one voice, except the Minister of Defence, and they make general allegations against the Resettlement Department of the Housing and Development Board. I, of course, have no answers to the general allegations. I remember, in particular, the Member for Bukit Merah shouting about the devils in the Resettlement Department. I would suggest that he give me the names of these devils and what the allegations are, because anyone who is resettled is dissatisfied. You give him a thousand dollars; he wants two thousand dollars. You give him one acre; he wants five acres. Mr Speaker, Sir, as the hon. Members themselves have admitted, land is a scarce commodity in Singapore. In fact, land is very scarce. We have only 225 square miles of land in Singapore. We are trying to reclaim more land. We have a reclamation scheme in Kallang. We are reclaiming land in Kranji, along the East Coast Road and in the Port Authority. But all the reclamation we do in Singapore cannot double the size of the island, and a great part of the land in Singapore is swampy land. A large part, too, forms part of the land adjacent to our reservoirs and we cannot allow farmers in. This is the catchment area and it is a wide area. If yon allow them in with their pigs and chickens, the water will be polluted.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member is being completely irrelevant. We are discussing resettlement and not the Tiong Bahru flats.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. RESETTLEMENT OF FARMERS OCCUPYING STATE LANDS”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill makes certain consequential amendments arising out of the repeal of the Trustees Ordinance (Chapter 34) and the opportunity has also been taken to make a number of amendments considered desirable from the accounting point of view. It is proposed to delete the provisions requiring the Minister to arrange from time to time the fees chargeable by the Public Trustee so as to produce an annual amount sufficient to discharge the salaries and expenses of the office of the Public Trustee. The Public Trustee administers mostly small estates. The fees chargeable by the Public Trustee are already much higher than the fees chargeable in England and New Zealand by the Public Trustees there. As it is unlikely that the Public Trustee fees will be increased, it is proposed to delete the provisions contained in subsection (4) of section 18 of the Public Trustee Ordinance. The Public Trustee Ordinance contains no provisions relating to the disposal of unclaimed funds in the hands of the Public Trustee. The Bill seeks to introduce provisions whereby unclaimed funds remaining in the hands of the Public Trustee at the conclusion of the administration of the estate of a person dying testate or intestate shall be credited to the Unclaimed Estates Account to be kept there for seven years, after which such funds, if they remain unclaimed, will be paid into the Consolidated Fund. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Barker]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. PUBLIC TRUSTEE (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 4.42 p.m.”
“Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.”
“If there are neither surviving spouse, descendants, nor parents, the brothers and sisters and children of deceased brothers or sisters of the intestate will share the estate in equal portions and the children of any deceased brother or sister shall take according to their stocks the share which he or she would have taken. If there are no surviving spouse, descendants, parents, brothers and sisters but grandparents of the intestate, the grandparents will take the whole of the estate in equal portions. If there are no surviving spouse, descendants, parents, brothers and sisters or their children or grandparents but uncles and aunts of the intestate, the uncles and aunts will take the whole of the estate in equal portions. In default of such distribution, the Government will be entitled to the whole of the estate. If a person so dying intestate is permitted by his personal law a plurality of wives and leaves more than one wife, such wives will share among them equally the share which the wife of the intestate would have been entitled to had such intestate left only one wife surviving him. For the purpose of distribution under the Bill, it is provided that there shall be no distinction between those related to the deceased person through his father and those related through his mother nor between those who are related to him by full blood and those who are related by half-blood. A "child" is defined as a legitimate child and includes any child adopted or registered as such under any written law for the time being in force. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill has been referred to the Singapore Bar Committee who have indicated that they support its provisions. It is proposed to refer the Bill to a Select Committee so that full consideration can be given to its provisions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The law of distribution on intestacy applicable in Singapore at present for non-Muslims follows the provisions of the English law as contained in the Statute of Distributions - a 17th century statute in England which has, in fact, been repealed there. The rules relating to the distribution of the estate of a deceased person on intestacy as contained in that statute are outmoded, especially in regard to the shares of the respective spouses. Under these rules, if a woman dies intestate leaving a husband, the whole of her estate goes to him. But if a man dies intestate leaving a widow and issue, the widow is entitled to one-third of the estate. And if he leaves a widow and no issue, she is entitled to one-half of the estate. The Bill seeks to amend the existing law so as to give equal rights to the spouses. When a person dies intestate, his property will be distributed in the manner set out in clause 7 of the Bill. If the intestate dies leaving a surviving spouse but no issue or parent, the spouse will be entitled to the whole of the estate. Subject to the rights of a surviving spouse and issue, the spouse will be entitled to one-half of the estate. Subject to the rights of a surviving spouse, the estate of an intestate who leaves issue will be distributed in equal portions to and amongst the children of such person dying intestate and such persons as legally represent such children, in case any of the said children be dead and buried. If there are no descendants, the parent or parents of the intestate will take the estate, in equal portions if there are two parents, subject to the rights of the surviving spouse, if any.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I came here today prepared to argue that the sum of $182,000, which we spent on repairs and extensions to the Istana and on the renovation of the old Attorney-General's bungalow, was well spent. I thought that the Member for Delta was criticising the spending of such money. But I agree with all that she has said and, if we can spend more money on the Istana, I will be the first to spend it. It is true that if there is rain on certain days when we have functions in the grounds, then it is rather congested in the small hall. The only alternative is to pull down the whole building and put up something even more substantial instead. From the repairs alone, Sir, you will see that the building itself is an extensive building. But whether or not we can afford to pull it down and put up a new one, or whether we can afford to make very extensive alterations to improve it is a question which only the Minister for Finance can answer, as he is the one who hands out the money.”
“In my view, the less said about our differences with Malaysia and what should have been done or should not have been done, the better. Of this sum of $121,419, about $20,616 was spent on the City Hall, $30,835 on the Criminal and District Courts, $19,404 on Changi Prison, $46,702 on the General Post Office, and $3,862 on the Telecommunications Station at Kim Chuan Road, making a total of $121,419. I can assure the Member for Changi that this sum is being paid by the Central Government. As a result of Malaysia, they owe us some money and we owe them some money. At the moment, negotiations are about to be completed on who owes whom and how much, and this sum of $121,000, or nearly $122,000, falls within the figure of about $3 million which we are claiming from the Malaysian Government and which they have agreed to pay under an item of this nature.”
“In spite of the rain, the present arrangements continue. On five or six days a week, these mobile centres reach the Member's constituency. There are approximately 10,000 consumers in this estate, of whom only 20 per cent pay at the estate centre. It is difficult to find suitable office space and also it is uneconomical to open up centres in every housing estate. Payments are usually made for about five or six days after the receipt of bills by consumers in the area, and for the rest of the month there is a lull. The mobile system seems to be working fairly satisfactorily in meeting all requirements. I understand that the vans, though parked in the open, are usually stationed at most sites in the shade of trees or adjoining shop-houses with five-foot ways which provide some shelter to the public queueing up to pay their bills. So although rain is an inconvenience, it does not stop the collection. 3.15 p.m. BILL INTRODUCED DEVELOPMENT LOAN BILL "to authorise a sum of one thousand million dollars to be raised by way of loan for the purposes of the Development Fund", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Mr Lim Kim San); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting, and to be printed. ADJOURNMENT TO A LATER DAY MOTION Resolved, "That at its rising this day Parliament do stand adjourned to 14th December, 1966." - [Dr Toh Chin Chye] THIRD SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR 1966 OF SINGAPORE 3.16 p.m. Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [Allotted Day]. [Mr Speaker in the Chair]”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Public Utilities Board, in fact, consulted The Housing Board on the setting up of a sub-collection centre at the Housing Board Area Office in Aljunied. Unfortunately, however, the Housing Board Area Office is already too congested with tenants paying their dues. The present arrangement whereby the Mobile Collection Unit calls at Block 35, Persiaran Keliling Estate, on six days every month subsequent to the dispatch of bills to customers in the area was then instituted, and appears to be working satisfactorily.”
“If the intention of requesting the zebra crossing is for the students, then a school crossing patrolman is more justified than a zebra crossing. Observation will be kept at this place when the school re-opens in January, and if it is found necessary to have a school crossing patrolman at this place, recommendations will a be submitted. To answer the second part of the question. Tanjong Pagar Road is 41 feet wide and there are several side roads. This road caters for two-way traffic, and parking is permitted on both sides of the road. In addition, hawkers have pitched their stalls on both sides of Tanjong Pagar Road from Wallich Street to Gopeng Street. This leaves only sufficient room for one-lane traffic in either direction. Vehicles will have to crawl along this portion of Tanjong Pagar Road. There are sufficient breaks in the flow of traffic to allow pedestrians to cross safely. There is no particular spot along Tanjong Pagar Road where pedestrians concentrate to cross the road. Therefore, if a zebra crossing is provided along Tanjong Pagar Road, it will not be of much practical use, since the pedestrians will not take the trouble to walk all the way to the crossing to cross the road, as they can cross the the road safely from wherever they approach Tanjong Pagar Road. In view of this, a zebra crossing is not recommended. RESIDENTS AT MACPHERSON ESTATE (Payments of consolidated bills at Area Office) 14. Mr S. V. Lingam asked the Minister for Law and National Development if he will suggest to the Public Utilities Board that the Board consider receiving payments of consolidated bills from residents of the Housing and Development Board MacPherson Estate at the Area Office of the Estate instead of the mobile centre as at present.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the statement that there are many serious accidents at the bend of Meyer Road opposite the former Sea View Hotel is not strictly correct. In the past two years, there were about 10 minor accidents there, none of which resulted in any serious injury. In order to widen or straighten this bend at Meyer Road, expensive acquisition of land will have to be undertaken. Since this road only serves a residential area with a not very heavy traffic, there is, therefore, no justification to pursue such a course of action. However, to reduce the rate of accidents at this spot, steps are being taken to impose a speed limit of 20 miles per hour and it is felt that this measure, together with the existing double white line, should produce the desired effects. ZEBRA CROSSINGS AT ANSON AND TANJONG PAGAR ROADS 13. Mr P. Govindaswamy asked the Minister of State (Prime Minister's Department) if he will consider the establishment of zebra crossings (i) at Anson Road in front of the Gan Eng Seng School and (ii) at Tanjong Pagar Road between Wallich Street and Tapah Street. Tuan Haji Yaacob Bin Mohamed(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, Anson Road is 58 feet wide and the volume of traffic is fairly constant and heavy. However, there are sufficient breaks in the flow of traffic to allow pedestrians to cross the road safely, provided care and caution is taken. Observation by the Traffic Police has disclosed that the number of pedestrians crossing Anson Road in front of Gan Eng Seng School is negligible. The majority of persons crossing Anson Road in front of Gan Eng Seng School are the students of this school. A zebra crossing is not recommended at this place.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, of the total number of families to be cleared, it has been established that four are genuine farmers, and 25 do not depend entirely on farming for their livelihood as they have other sources of income, like driving taxis or working as labourers. Under the resettlement policy, these 25 families are not considered as genuine farming cases and do not qualify for land allocation in the resettlement areas. However, as I have stated, they have been offered alternative accommodation in Housing and Development Board flats. The four families who rely solely on farming for their livelihood have been given alternative farm land in the various resettlement areas according to their choice. WIDENING AND STRAIGHTENING OF BEND AT MEYER ROAD 12. Mr Ng Yeow Chong asked the Minister for Law and National Development if he will take steps to widen or straighten the bend at Meyer Road opposite the former Sea View Hotel, in view of the many serious accidents at that point.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, under the resettlement policy of the Housing and Development Board, only bona fide farmers who are to be resettled by Government are eligible for alternative farm land up to a maximum of two acres in the resettlement areas. I understand that the cases referred to by the hon. Member for Ulu Pandan were not genuine farmers and as such were only offered alternative accommodation in flats.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am fully aware of the policy involving the resettlement of farmers not only in Choa Chu Kang but also in the whole of Singapore. The present practice of restricting two acres of farmland to each bona fide farmer who is resettled is the best the Government can do to distribute limited farm land equally amongst the dispossessed farmers. Under present conditions in Singapore, the question of economic size of farms does not arise, as the majority of our farmers practise mixed farming. Very few farms, in fact, occupy more than five acres of land. Modern scientific methods of farming by way of the proper use of fertilizers, the selection of good strains, crop rotation and pest control are the most sensible and economically feasible in the context of our local farming conditions. To this end the Primary Production Department has been helping farmers to achieve improved yields through the application of such scientific methods. The effect of fragmentation is, therefore, not necessarily detrimental to the farming community and may have to be accepted in a situation of acute land shortage. FARMERS AT HOLLAND ROAD AND ULU PANDAN ROAD (Allocation of alternative farm land) 11. Mr Chow Chiok Hock asked the Minister for Law and National Development whether he is aware that some farmers, residing at Holland Road and Ulu Pandan Road who were served with notices of removal by Government, are not satisfied with alternative accommodation of flats offered to them, and if he will consider allocating alternative farm land to them.”
“Again, Mr Speaker, this is a question for the Economic Development Board, as it is their project. But I am given to understand that the Economic Development Board has already reclaimed, as a first phase of the development, some 40 to 50 acres of land which are now ready for allocation to timber industries. But, unfortunately, water and electric power is as yet not available, because their supply will entail the laying down of big mains. It is, however, expected that these mains will be laid in the Kranji area in about the middle of next year. In the meantime, the Economic Development Board is planning phase II of the reclamation, and the size, duration and completion of this phase will depend, of course, on the availability of earth from the nearby areas, such as Mandai. RESETTLEMENT POLICY IN CHOA CHU KANG (Fragmentation of farm lands) 10. Mr Tang See Chim asked the Minister for Law and National Development whether he is aware that the resettlement policy of the Housing and Development Board as practised in the Choa Chu Kang Constituency is leading to the fragmentation of the farm lands there and is preventing farms from achieving an economic size whereby they can take advantage of modern scientific methods of farming and reduce costs of production; and what action he proposes to take to correct the situation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a substantial part of Choa Chu Kang Constituency has been set aside for farming and resettlement. The villages in this area are also earmarked for expansion to provide such facilities as schools, community centres and clinics to serve the rural people. The sites presently occupied by the Royal Air Force and the cemetery will remain for some time, but a large portion of the swamp land lying between the proposed Woodlands New Town and Sungei Kranji is being reclaimed and developed for sawmills.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member's supplementary question should be directed at the Trade Division of the Ministry of Finance under which the Economic Development Board comes. However, I am aware of the import figures of plywood quoted by the hon. Member for Telok Blangah. I understand these figures are accurate, but I would like to point out that, in addition to imports, Singapore also exports plywood. In 1963 10 million square feet of plywood was exported at a cost of about $1.7 million, and from January to June this year about 15 million square feet of plain plywood was exported, costing about $2.2 million. In order to protect local plywood industries, a quota system was introduced in April 1966 under which only 50 per cent of the total 1963 imports were allowed to be imported. Imports from Malaysia were, however, exempted. On the 29th October this year, this quota was further restricted to only 5 per cent of the 1963 figures. Malaysia was again exempted. I would like to say that we are reluctant to impose a ban or quota on plywood coming from Malaysia, as we do not want to do anything to hinder trade between Malaysia and Singapore. Plywood is, in fact, practically a Common Market item. OVERALL DEVELOPMENT OF CHOA CHU KANG 9. Mr Tang See Chim asked the Minister for Law and National Development what plans he has for the overall development of the Choa Chu Kang Constituency.”
“Mr Speaker, in May 1965 the Government, with a view to encouraging local industries, issued a directive to all departments and statutory boards requiring them to use locally-manufactured goods as listed in the Economic Development Circular No. 2 of 1965 dated 7th May, 1965. Among the items covered in this list were plywood and veneer, corrugated cardboard and corrugated fibre board, and a host of other products already being manufactured in Singapore. This directive also required that in every contract a clause should be included requiring the contractor, wherever possible, to give preference to the use of locally-manufactured materials in lieu of equivalent imported materials. This policy of encouragement of local industries was further confirmed and strengthened by Economic Development Circular No. 8 of 1965 dated 4th December, 1965, which prescribed that preferential purchase of locally-made products should be carried out even though the cost of such products was 5 per cent higher than the imported equivalents. Since the issue of these two circulars, Government departments and statutory boards, including the Housing and Development Board, have been using locally-manufactured materials where such materials meet the required standards and specifications of their projects. No further directive is, therefore, considered necessary.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore citizens by birth who are holding Malaysian identity cards will be issued with the new Singapore citizen identity cards if they reside in Singapore. The onus of proof that one is a Singapore citizen by birth will have to be on the applicant. METALLING OF WEI HUA ROAD IN SEMBAWANG 7. Mr Teong Eng Siong asked the Minister for Law and National Development when will the reconstruction and metalling of Wei Hua Road in the Sembawang Constituency be carried out. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Mr Ho Cheng Choon) (for the Minister for Law and National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, plans for reconstruction and metalling of Wei Hua Road are ready. Tenders are being called and work will commence in early January 1967. Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang)(In Mandarin): I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary this question. If the work was approved in April this year, why can it only start from next year?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I will certainly direct the General Manager of the Central Provident Fund to send his team of investigators right round our bars in Singapore in order to satisfy the Member for Bras Basah, in whose constituency I believe there are several bars! SINGAPORE IDENTITY CARDS FOR PERSONS BORN IN SINGAPORE BUT HOLDING MALAYSIAN IDENTITY CARDS 6. Mr Ng Yeow Chong asked the Minister for Labour whether persons born in Singapore, at present holding Malaysian identity cards and residing in Singapore, will be issued with new Singapore Citizen identity cards.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there must be cases where contributions to the Central Provident Fund by bar waitresses are not paid. But unless the Member can give me specific cases to follow up, I am afraid I am at a loss to do so.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, from figures available in the Ministry of Labour, there were 964 bar waitresses employed as on the 31st March, 1966. 338 of these are non-Singapore citizens from West Malaysia. This is the number that has applied for work permits under the Regulation of Employment Act.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the total number of persons registered with the Employment Exchange for employment assistance as at 30th November, 1966, was 69,556. The number of persons who have been placed in employment by the Employment Exchange since the 1st January, 1966, to the 30th November, 1966, was 2,318. It must be emphasised that the Employment Exchange is not the only labour market in Singapore, as workers are also recruited directly by employers. The Government is fully conscious of the need to find jobs for its unemployed citizens. It has, in fact, already taken a number of measures to create jobs. Under the industrialisation programme, 10,500 new jobs have already been created in the industrial sector up to the end of last year. We expect that 10,000 to about 12,000 new jobs will be created every year from 1967 onwards with the progress of industrialisation. The Regulation of Employment Act was passed to safeguard employment opportunities of Singapore citizens. The Ministry of Labour is now considering the introduction of a training scheme in the hotel and catering industry for training persons as waiters, waitresses and chamber-maids, as there will be an increased demand for these categories of employees as hotel expansion to cater for the tourist industry is expected in the near future. The scheme is expected to come into operation early next year. We also have a scheme to expand the dockyard in the Port Authority and we are at the moment inviting foreign participation in our dockyard, the main object being to get foreign know-how on dockyard expansion so that our dockyard can repair ships much more than can be done at present. If the dockyard is expanded, we expect that a few more thousand jobs will be created for those unemployed in Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, this is a difficult question. Some people would prefer to have their drinks in rather dark and cool surroundings. On the other hand, the hon. Member's concern is the protection of these young girls. But I wonder what can happen even in a dimly-lighted bar? I am only the Acting Minister for Labour, and when the Minister returns from Manila, I will submit to him the Member's request. UNEMPLOYMENT 4. Mr Ng Kah Ting asked the Minister for Labour (a) what is the total number of unemployed persons registered with the Labour Department as at 30th November, 1966; (b) since 1st January how many persons were successful in gaining employment through the assistance of the Employment Exchange of the Labour Department; and (c) what measures he will take to reduce the number of unemployed persons in the Republic.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the present prohibition of employment of waitresses under 17 years of age is contained in the Liquors Licensing Regulations, 1962, which were made under the Customs Ordinance, 1960. Rule 43 (1) of the Liquors Licensing Regulations reads: 'No licensee shall employ or permit to be employed in his licensed premises any waitress - (a) who has not reached the age of 17 years, or (b) who he knows or has reason to believe is a prostitute or of bad character.' The relevant regulations dealing with bars make no restriction as to the time within which such girls should work. But if the Member for Bras Basah feels so strongly about the matter, I will certainly look into it and perhaps extend the relevant section of the Labour Ordinance to bar girls.”
“Under the existing law, waitresses under the age of 17 years are prohibited from being employed in bars. This age ceiling for employment to bar waitresses is considered to be adequate in the interest of such workers. Unless there are very strong and compelling reasons for the proposal made by the Member for Bras Basah, the Government does not propose to raise the age restriction to under 21 years.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, subject to the general assent of the House, I wish to move, That notwithstanding Standing Orders 18 and 20, the Questions for Oral Answer today which were not reached be set down for oral answer on 12th December, 1966, if Members who asked them give notice to Mr Speaker by the 8th December, 1966, that they so desire. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will remember that earlier today the Member for Choa Chu Kang was anxious to have oral answers to his questions which were mainly directed at my Ministry, and several of the questions directed at my Ministry were not answered today. I somehow feel that Members of the House, judging from today's happenings, are rather anxious to have many a supplementary question. So with that in mind, I am moving the motion. Hon. Members: Hear, hear!”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the debate be now adjourned.”
“There has not been a word of criticism. I have nothing much to add except to say that I am glad that our Back-benchers have realised the importance and the necessity for this piece of socialist legislation. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That this Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed."- [Mr Barker]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two minutes past Seven o'clock p.m.”
“It is envisaged, however, that the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, both of whom will have the status of High Court Judges, will be persons who are either legally qualified or have considerable experience in land administration and other matters. The panel of assessors will be persons with objective minds who will be able to assist the Commissioner in assessing fair compensation after listening to expert evidence on values. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 7.00 p.m.”
“Again, development by Government and public authorities in areas like Jurong, Kallang Basin and Kranji has resulted in phenomenal increases in land values in these neighbourhoods. It was ironical that under the existing legislation, when additional lands in these areas had to be acquired for public purposes, Government had to pay compensation at values which Government itself had helped to enhance. The element of enhancement attributable in these cases to public participation (as opposed to participation by the private sector), is the element which under the new Bill will be creamed off when land is acquired for public purposes. The second point I wish to make today involves the concept of the Appeals Board. Mr Speaker, Sir, a number of representations were received by the Select Committee in which the same point was made. And the point was this: all appeals should be heard by a Court of Law presided by a Judge of the High Court instead of the Appeals Board, as proposed. Mr Speaker, Sir, the move to take appeals away from the Courts and place them in the hands of an Appeals Board or tribunal is in conformity with prevailing trends else. where in the world of entrusting matters of specialist evaluation to Administrative Tribunals where persons with the requisite expertise can deal with issues involving subjects with which they are themselves familiar. Furthermore, procedures before such tribunals are less formal, less expensive, more expeditious and, perhaps, more satisfactory. The provision of the Appeals Board envisaged in the Bill is similar to the set-up in the United Kingdom, but we have not laid down statutory limitations prescribing minimum legal or professional qualifications in order not to restrict the field of selection.”
“I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Members of the House will recall that this Bill was referred to the Select Committee on 22nd June this year. Members will also recall that during the Second Reading, I expressed the hope that when the Select Committee calls for representations, persons with positive contributions will come forward with suggestions. I am, indeed, happy to report that the response to invitations for representation was good. Eleven written representations were received and the Select Committee heard oral evidence from six of them. Some of these contributions were valuable and many sug gestions have been accepted. The Committee's Report was published on 10th September, 1966, as Paper Parl. 9 of 1966. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill as now tabled before the House incorporates the recommendations of the Select Committee. I do not propose to burden the Members of this House with unnecessary explanations, but there are two fundamental provisions on which there have been representations which were unacceptable and which I wish to take this opportunity to reiterate. The first of these is the compensation provision in the Bill. As has already been explained in this House previously, the principle underlining this provision is that no landowner should benefit at the public's expense, from any windfall gains resulting from enhancement of land values either through Acts of God or because of public expenditure in the neighbourhood. Members are aware of the phenomenal increases in land values which result when heavily encumbered lands are devastated by fire. This fortuitous increase in value will not now go to the landowner.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page A24, lines 5 and 6, to leave out "whether before or after the enactment of this subsection,". This phrase seems redundant and it is accordingly being deleted. Sir, I beg to move. Amendment agreed to. Clause 48, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments. Third Reading”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page A17, line 24, to leave out "such devastation" and insert "the time when such land was devastated or affected as aforesaid". Sir, it was suggested to the Select Committee that there must be a definite period of time during which Government may acquire land under the provisions of the law. It is in the spirit of this suggestion that I have now moved the two aforesaid amendments so as to restrict the application of this provision to only six months from the date of the occurrence of a fire or any other act of God. Sir, I beg to move. Amendment agreed to. Clause 33, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 48 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page A15, line 37, to leave out "act", and insert "Act". This amendment corrects a slight printing error in the Bill now before the House. Sir, I beg to move. Amendment agreed to. Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 33 - Amendment made: In page A17, line 21, after "not", to insert ", in the case of any such acquisition within a period of six months of such land being devastated or affected as aforesaid,"- [Mr Barker].”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move In page A11, line 17, after "appellant", to insert "by delivering or tendering such copy to him or sending it to him by registered letter". Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment has been moved as it is considered advisable here to specify the methods whereby a copy of the grounds of an award is to be served by the Registrar upon the appellant. Sir, I beg to move. Amendment agreed to. Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 31 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page A10, to leave out lines 29 and 30. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Select Committee, clause 32 (1) was amended to provide that the costs of an appeal shall be in the discretion of the Board and shall either be fixed by the Board or, on the order of the Board, taxed by the Registrar or the Deputy Registrar of the High Court in accordance with the scale prescribed under the rules of the Supreme Court. Accordingly it becomes necessary to delete clause 22 (1) (e) of the Bill. Sir, I beg to move. Amendment agreed to. 6.45 p.m.”
“Now, Sir. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 6.44 p.m. Clause 22 - Amendment made: In page A10, line 28, at end, to insert "and".-[Mr Barker].”