Ng Kah Ting
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I ask my supplementary question, may I declare, on behalf of the Member for Kebun Baru and myself, that we are both involved in the building of Montfort Secondary School and Montfort Junior School both of which are Government-aided schools. My question now, Sir, is: when will this take effect?”
“But, Sir, at the end of this debate on the Second Reading and the Bill committed to a Select Committee, I sincerely hope that all those who have the interest of Singapore at heart should come forward and make their contributions, be they critical or ways and means on how better we can improve upon this Bill.”
“But the basic foundation, I submit, and that is, the political stability-honest, efficient and an incorruptible political leadership-is paramount to the future well-being of Singapore, and that is, if we are to continue to enjoy our good standard of living, our good government and of course as an independent, sovereign entity or nation.”
“Sir, I knew that the NCMP would come out and say that-don't mix up the ISA with PPSO because basically it is the same. I say, no. Because in 1958, PAP was not in power. It was the Lim Yew Hock government. That is the difference I am trying to make. So let us not go around in this wild political rhetoric. I understand that.”
“Sir, before I make my observations, I just want to make a couple of points in reply to the Non-Constituency MP, Dr Lee. He said that in 1958 when he was asked to stand as a PAP candidate in Kallang he was afraid of the ISA. I do not think that is quite correct because in 1958, Sir, there was no ISA.”
“We should take advantage of the present political stability to provide for the future. In conclusion, Sir, let me draw an analogy. With Singapore being the No. 1 port in the world, this analogy is not inappropriate.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,870 lines we hold for Ng Kah Ting, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 38.
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, one last question. Does it mean that this statement takes immediate effect vis-a-vis the resettlement cases?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since my Question No. 15 has prompted the Hon. Minister to make a Ministerial statement, it gives me an opportunity to ask him more questions as a result, and I hope he will take them down. (1) Can the Hon. Minister indicate where these 100 shops will be located? (2) Will HDB provide loans to the successful tenderers for the shops? If not, who will provide the financing of such purchases? How long will the leases be then? Can lessees of HDB shops purchase their shops? (3) As regards rental shops, will there be a review of the terms governing their tenancies upon renewal? (4) As regards resettlement cases, what is the rationale for allowing those shops affected by clearance schemes to lose their priority of shop allocation? (5) No doubt the Minister has just now mentioned, but is he of the view that these shopkeepers affected by clearance schemes are unable to survive in new environment and to compete with the others? (6) Would HDB consider allocating a shop if a shopkeeper affected by such clearance scheme elects or chooses to forgo the compensation, as mentioned by him?”
“Sir, I think the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has not answered the second part of the question, ie, what is the total labour force that these contractors employ?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary inform the House what is the total volume of business carried out each year by these contractors in the various activities mentioned, and what is the total labour force of these contractors?”
“You are not the Minister. How can you say the answer is no? Third, could the Hon. Minister enlighten the House as to why structural plans are not checked as it is done, I am told, in some other countries like Hong Kong and Japan? And fourthly, since Chapter 11 of the Report questions the practice of not checking structural plans, may I ask why DBCD only checks architectural plans and not structural plans?”
“Whilst the Commission of Inquiry is to be commended for the thoroughness in which it set out to conduct the inquiry into the Hotel disaster, at the same time noting that Government was swift to set up the Commission of Inquiry, does it mean that great emphasis was put on the importance that buildings should stand a much longer time? So with these remarks, may I ask the Hon. Minister for the following clarifications. Since he has mentioned just now that the Working Committee will take five to six months to complete its work, may we know what plans does the Government have on safety or preventive measures to be taken in the interim period? Second, since the safety of lives is of utmost importance, would the Government be prepared to absorb any additional cost to private developers arising from whatever measures that may be implemented as a result of the Working Committee's report? An hon. Member: No.”
“Middle Road Hospital (14) That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead PD-09 of the Development Estimates. Development of Hospital Services (15) That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead PD-00-8100 of the Development Estimates.”
“Minor Improvements for Health Services (6) That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead PA-01-8101 of the Development Estimates. Medisave Scheme (7) That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead PA-01-8103 of the Development Estimates. New Building for Department of Scientific Services and Blood Transfusion Services (8) That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead PA-01-8104 of the Development Estimates. Dr Ang Kok Peng:”
“Allowances (2) That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead PA-01-1410 of the Main Estimates. Staff Development (3) That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead PA-01-2510 of the Main Estimates.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Hon. Acting Minister how much this polyclinic will cost?”
“Could the Hon. Minister indicate what is the total estimated cost of these additional works? And he has not answered the third part of my question, that is, whether he will make available a copy of the plan of works to the House?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, could the Hon. Minister indicate to the House what other lands are to be reclaimed in the Punggol area? When will such works take place and whether he will make available a copy of the plan indicating the works to be carried out to the House?”
“In that case, will consideration be given to the size of Hougang New Town which will have some 40,000 units when completed? In other words, can I ask the Hon. Minister to request the National Library to make provision for a branch library to be built in Hougang New Town, say, after 1992? Mr Wong Kan Seng:Yes. As I have said, we will consider the development and the building of a library in Hougang New Town under the second five-year plan. Definitely, if all goes well, the Member is likely to have a new branch library in Hougang after 1990. INFLATION IN 1987 11. Mr Chew Heng Ching asked the Minister for Trade and Industry if he will give the outlook for inflation in Singapore in 1987.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, can I ask the Hon. Minister, why does it take so long for the National Library to draw up such plans to build branch libraries elsewhere?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Hon. Minister of State where will these two overhead pedestrian bridges be located?”
“Minor Improvement to Markets/Hawker Centres (13) That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead MC-05-8102 of the Development Estimates.”
“Development and Improvement to Market and Hawker Sites (12) That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead MC-05-8101 of the Development Estimates.”
“Purchase of Mechanical Sweepers (11) That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead MC-03-8102 of the Development Estimates.”
“Food Control (7) That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead MC-04-1210 of the Main Estimates.”
“Environmental Health Division (3) That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead MC-01-1210 of the Main Estimates.”
“Government-Aided Primary Schools (25) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LE-01 of the Main Estimates. Government-Aided Secondary Schools (26) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LE-02 of the Main Estimates. Government-Aided Junior Colleges (27) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LE-03 of the Main Estimates. Capital Grants to Government-Aided Schools and Junior Colleges (28) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LE-00-8200 of the Development Estimates.”
“Relocation of Schools (22) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LD-01-8108 of the Development Estimates. Installation of Water-Saving Devices in Primary Schools (23) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LD-01-8111 of the Development Estimates.”
“Development of Campsite at Ponggol Malay School (21) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LD-01-8106 of the Development Estimates.”
“Provision of Audio-Visual Materials and Equipment for Primary Schools (20) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LD-01-8104 of the Development Estimates.”
“New Primary Schools (18) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LD-01-8101 of the Development Estimates. Major Extensions to Existing Primary Schools (19) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LD-01-8102 of the Development Estimates.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you very much. There has got to be an end. And I ask for Question No. 7 to be answered. HOUGANG NEIGHBOURHOOD POLICE POST 7. Mr Ng Kah Ting asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether and when a Neighbourhood Police Post will be constructed in the vicinity of Hougang Avenues 2 and 10.”
“Ministry of National Development (37) That the total sum to be allocated for Head T of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. (38) That the total sum to be allocated for Head T of the Development Estimates be reduced by $100. The sum of $280,393,550 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $7,344,548,600 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head L -”
“Loan to the Housing and Development Board (33) That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TH-01-8301 of the Development Estimates.”
“Land Reclamation and Infrastructural Works (29) That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TG-02-8101 of the Development Estimates.”
“Sir, although I am not happy with the replies, I wish to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The time allotted for Head T having expired, the following amendments were not proceeded with:-”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TG-01-2170 of the Main Estimates*. Sir, in moving this amendment, I merely wish to ask the Hon. Minister to consider the plight of those affected by resettlement. When I say this, I am sure I get the support of those Members of Parliament whose constituencies are faced with land acquisition and resettlement problems. Many of those people affected by clearance schemes are invariably farmers and they are asking for more ex gratia compensation as well as seeking assistance for hawker stalls and shops owing to the loss of livelihood as a consequence. From the replies we get, it is very unlikely that there will be enough shops or even hawker stalls to go round. Despite the fact that some of these farm lands could be used for non-pollutive farming, some of those affected will still suffer, particularly those who are above 40 and who have been farming on these lands for the last two or three generations. And also if they have got bigger families to relocate, they need more flats. More flats mean that they have got to pay more for their flats. And with the little ex gratia compensation that they get, I do not think this is sufficient. I hope the Hon. Minister will be kind enough to consider their request favourably.”
“I am not moving, Sir. The Chairman: Amendment No. (26), Mr Ng.”
“I thank the Hon. Minister of State for his kind advice, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Dr Koh Lip Lin: Primary Production Department: (23) That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TF-01 of the Main Estimates.”
“What about the 10-13 hectares of land in Punggol that the Minister of State mentioned the other day, and also those lands that will not be used until the year 2000? Will these lands be taken into account also?”
“Sir, I am heartened by the fact that the Minister has been positive in his reply to my request for the plight of the farmers on TOL. I would certainly convey his sentiments and he can be rest assured that at least it will be forthcoming. Sir, can I come to the point that the Hon. Minister made? By the year 1995 there will only be 2,000 hectares of land for non-pollutive farming. It is a pity that we will have only 2,000 hectares and he has stated that this area of land will be used for intensive farming or agrotechnology and, hopefully, it will meet 80% of our needs. Could he enlighten the House how this Department proposes to carry out such a heavy task?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TF-01-1210 of the Main Estimates.* Sir, under this head of expenditure, Primary Production Department, there will be some $23.5 million to be spent. As indicated earlier, pig farming will be phased out eventually. I would just like to know how the objectives of the Primary Resources Programme can be achieved when so much money is to be voted for, and when one part of it, like pig farming, has to be phased out. My second question is this. There are farmers who are holders of Temporary Occupation Licences, particularly the medium-sized farmers. Because of the present poor pig prices and also because they know that the future of pig farming is very very bleak, they have asked me to make representation to the Minister and to request that they be phased out sooner. In other words, they could enjoy resettlement benefits sooner so that they can set up other forms of livelihood because of the present poor pig prices. On the other hand, Sir, I would like to draw the Minister's attention to the programme description of Animal Health and Production Services amongst other services provided. It states, "The identification of sources of wholesome meat ... public health control measures including meat inspection" and so on. We all know that the eating habit of Singaporeans is changing towards a greater dependence on hawker centres. In this respect, how will these objectives as specifically spelt out in the Main Estimates be achieved?”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for his kind reply and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I just want to take up one point with the Minister of State and, that is, to suggest to him that before the introduction of these simplified procedures and changes in the planning policies concerning development and so on and so forth, whether there could be a meeting with those who are directly concerned, ie, the professionals, the architects, engineers and planners, including those private developers and contractors.”
“There should be some form of proper control and supervision over the building works. It is no use, as I see it, having everything correct on paper and, in the implementation of such approval, by way of translating the building project plan from paper into reality, there is no sufficient supervision or control by the Department concerned. I hope this will be looked into. As I said, except for reading the second report of the Business Enterprise Committee headed by the Minister of State for National Development, I would merely like to draw the attention that this is what we have read.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TE-01-1210 of the Main Estimates*. Sir, this concerns the Planning Department. In moving this amendment, Sir, I have not envisaged that the Business Enterprise Committee would be releasing a second report. So I was quite gratified to note that the Committee has looked into this question of application for planning and building approvals, with particular reference to simplifying procedures with effect from next month and also on other planning matters. Therefore, I would like to make some observations with particular emphasis on applications for approval of additions, alterations, or even extensions, to existing residential properties. Sir, the procedures must be as simple as possible. I make this observation, Sir, by drawing the attention of Members of the House. One has to merely take a drive round the private housing estates to see for himself the numerous additions and alterations in these old estates. Sir, I am not here to make a complaint but to find out whether these additions and alterations have been legalized or are they unauthorized. These must have been carried out a long, long time ago. What I am trying to say is that applications for such works should not take too long a time to be processed and subsequently approved. I have received some complaints that even for some additions they are advised to approach architects and this requires some time. Sir, I hope this sort of red tape can be cut down. On the question of accessibility of information with regard to seeking planning approvals for building projects, I think this should be made readily available so as to minimize undue delay. Besides this planning approval, I would like to come to another point.”
“Sir, in the light of the Minister of State's replies to the various queries, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“So we must consider this point very carefully.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TD-02-8100 of the Development Estimates.* Sir, in moving this amendment, I just wish to speak more on the development of parks. Particularly in the Development Estimates, two parks stand out and they involve some $50 million in terms of development. One is Pasir Ris Park which will cost $24.6 million; in fact, it is nearly completed. The other one is the Fort Canning Park redevelopment which is projected to cost $26.2 million and, out of which, for this year FY 87, $9.5 million will be needed. I just want to ask the Hon. Minister the concept of parks with regard to the planning and design where you have different types of facilities. For example, in Pasir Ris Park, as you know, there is a children's play area of varied designs where during the weekends and public holidays parents can bring their children along and have a family picnic whilst their children can make use of the various apparatus available in the park. Also, the Pasir Ris Park is developed into other uses for the children, for joggers, and even for the senior citizens, I am told. What about this Fort Canning Park redevelopment? What will be the unique character of this Fort Canning Park? I ask this question, Sir, purely to illustrate the point that in Singapore, as I see it, some of the parks are almost all the same, with due respect. If each park were to have its own unique character and facilities, then during the weekends and public holidays our people could go there. We must note the fact that some 80% of our population live in high-rise HDB flats and if there is no outlet for these people, such as recreational areas and facilities, I think the pressure of living in these flats is great.”
“Sir, the Hon. Minister has not covered my suggestion on the setting up of the Committee.”
“I thank the Hon. Minister of State for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, in view of the huge sums of money to be spent on this project and that it will take seven years to complete and the benefits will be felt thereafter, could the Hon. Minister of State enlighten the House whether greater publicity on this particular project will be given? So that the users, the professionals, be they the architects, engineers or the developers, will have access to such information. Dr Lee Boon Yang:Mr Chairman, Sir, the benefit to the general public arising from the ILUS project will not only be available after seven years. As I pointed out, the project will be implemented in phases and the first on-line system will be available to the public by 1988. So as and when various phases of the project are completed, the public will be able to enjoy the benefits. Publicity will also be released at the right time and the professionals in the field of development and construction will be kept fully informed of the status of the project.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TB-01-8103 of the Development Estimates. Again, Sir, I notice that in this development exercise under the subhead Computer Services, there is this item of Integrated Land Use System for which the project cost is $36.2 million, and that a sum of $4.275 million is being sought for FY 87. I would like to know how this money will be spent. The Hon. Minister for National Development is not here now but his Minister of State is here to reply, I hope. Will he elaborate: how long this will take and what is the benefit to Singapore? And how will it help to achieve the objective of optimal utilization of our land resources? As we all know, land resource is finite in Singapore.”
“Sir, I thank the Hon. Minister for his very frank reply and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I am aware that the Ministry of National Development is only acting as an agent in the acquisition of land by way of providing services with regard to resettlement, etc. But as the Hon. Minister has mentioned that this provision of $29 million is for the acquisition of some 105 hectares of land, it does seem to me that he is quite aware of the question that I have asked of him, and that is, the move towards acquiring land at market value. This is being asked by the public, particularly those who fear that their lands will be acquired. And, if it is so, "at market value" means at what particular date? Certainly, not 1973. The other part of my question is that this will have an impact on the future housing policy, the cost of which is centred on the word "affordability". I hope he will try to answer that, then I will withdraw my amendment.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TA-01-8401 of the Development Estimates. Sir, this concerns the question of purchase of lands and also land acquisition. One need only look at this item to understand that huge sums of money have been spent on acquiring land and even purchase lands. In FY 84 the actual figure is $1,000 million; Actual FY 85 - $323 million; Estimated FY 86 - $44 million; when revised, it was $44 million. But for FY 87 (Estimated), it is only $29 million. There is a sharp decrease of some $15 million in the need for such appropriation. Sir, we have heard from Hon. Ministers that acquiring land will be at market value because a lot of representations have been made. May I know how this will be done? Will there be a need to have the Land Acquisition Act amended? On top of this, how will such a move affect the cost of public housing, particularly when an announcement has been made that there is going to be a review of public housing by a committee which is chaired by the First Deputy Prime Minister? In short, what will be the impact?”