S. Dhanabalan
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification. I said in my intervention on Tuesday that the general election is the right forum to determine the electorate's support because it puts the issue in a total and correct context.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with hindsight, of course, we can be very wise. But since one of the three islands was excluded, it was a substantial reduction in the scope of works. The assessment then, which I agreed with, was that if you called for a re-tender, you would get a substantially reduced tender.”
“To the extent that we can, we should work with countries that have a common interest, to come together and form economic groupings targeted at trade liberalisation. We have started this process within ASEAN under the AFTA Scheme. Economic linkages in groupings like APEC are also growing in significance.”
“Mr Speaker, all these questions make a lot of sense when the events are finished, and you look back. But the officer looking at the case at that time had to deal with the facts as they were at that time.”
“ASEAN countries agreed to publish all the Inclusions and Exclusions lists, as well as the full list of actual tariff reductions. The ASEAN Secretariat had since followed up and released, as scheduled, on 1st November 1993, the publications showing these lists.”
“Kallang Theatre was closed for five months in 1992 for cyclical maintenance and upgrading costing $3 million. This included a major upgrading of the toilets, recarpeting the auditorium, rewiring and repainting.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,635 lines we hold for S. Dhanabalan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 22 of 33.
“Mr Jeyaretnam's answer was that he stood by everything that he said, and he further broadened and repeated his allegations during the course of the hearings of the Committee of Privileges. The Committee has found that Mr Jeyaretnam was not able to substantiate any of his allegations. I would like to quote a summary of the Committee's findings in paragraph 5.1, page 20, of the Report: 'General Findings 5.l.l The allegations made by Mr Jeyaretnam are of an extremely serious nature. The allegations accuse the Executive arm of Government of having acted unconstitutionally by interfering with the Judiciary. It was also alleged that the independence, impartiality and integrity of the Judiciary had been compromised. Such allegations erode public confidence in the administration of justice and demanded thorough investigation. 5.1.2 Mr Jeyaretnam wilfully and deliberately made the allegations with full knowledge of their seriousness. He was given several opportunities to apologise and withdraw his allegations in Parliament. 5.1.3 Mr Jeyaretnam has not, at any time, retracted his allegations. Instead, during the Committee's hearings, Mr Jeyaretnam repeated and broadened his allegations.' And the conclusion, in paragraph 5.1.9, states: 'The Committee find there is no truth in any of Mr Jeyaretnam's allegations and he had no evidence from which he could reasonably base the allegations. Accordingly, the Committee specifically find that Mr Jeyaretnam is guilty of a serious abuse of privilege.' This whole episode, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, must be considered as a low and shameful point in Singapore's experience of Parliamentary meetings and procedures. These were not merely allegations against persons whether in the House or outside the House.”
“So much for the independence of the District Judges who administer the criminal law.' "So much for the independence of the District Judges who administer the criminal law." Are these the words of a man merely conveying public disquiet, or are these the allegations of a man? And further down he quoted another instance, and then "two other instances that I know of personally" and those were the instances I mentioned, Mr Yong and Mr Jeffrey Chan. And he asked (col. 712): 'So what independence of the Subordinate Judiciary is there if the public see these things happening? The District Judges are under threat or fear of being transferred from their posts when they administer justice, whether it is civil or criminal.' Those are not the words of a man who was merely concerned with rumours and talk in the market and who wanted to convey to Parliament these rumours for the Government to deal with them. Those are the words of a man who was himself making an allegation. Again, in the other instance which is recorded in Hansard (Vol. 47, col. 706, 19th March 1986) which relates to the letter given by the Chief Justice to the Prime Minister, he asked in these words: 'He [that is the Prime Minister] says the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General were responsible. Who initiated it? How did it come about? Well, come clean.' These are not the words of a man who was just expressing public disquiet. Members will recollect that I offered Mr Jeyaretnam at the beginning of the hearings of the Committee of Privileges that if he confirmed that he was not making these allegations, that we had somehow misunderstood him completely, and if he categorically said "I am not making these allegations", then I would withdraw my complaint, and that would be the end of the matter.”
“I would just like to quote two instances to prove this point, lest the public are still under the impression that Mr Jeyaretnam was just merely conveying public disquiet. The first instance was in the debate on 10th January, and it is in Hansard (Vol. 46, col. 710). Members can judge for themselves whether these words are the words of a man who was concerned with rumours circulating outside about Executive interference in the Judiciary, a man who did not believe these rumours but wanted to draw Parliament's attention so that the Government could clarify. Or whether these are the words of a man who was himself making an accusation and, in fact, quoting public disquiet to buttress his own allegation. In col. 710, he says, in replying to the Second Minister for Law's Statement: 'I mentioned, speaking on the other Bill, about the free transferability of District Judges from the courts to the Attorney-General's Chambers or to other departments. The Minister, in replying, would seem to dismiss the idea that there is any compulsion or there is any fear felt among District Judges about displeasing the Executive. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the beginning of 1984 a Senior District Judge, and he is the head of the Subordinate Courts, a man whose next elevation should be the High Court Bench, delivered judgment in a criminal case. Some months later, he was removed and he was transferred ...'. This was not just conveying public disquiet. He said he was quoting his own knowledge of a case to back his allegation. Then he said, further down: 'But in this particular case, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Senior District Judge, a very senior qualified man, was removed from that post ... May I say that ... that transfer was a demotion for that District Judge.”
“Yet when the key witnesses, including the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General and even the Prime Minister himself were in the stand, he never challenged the evidence or put to them questions to pursue his allegations of his interpretation of their actions. In fact, it was clear that he was on a fishing expedition, as I said, pursuing irrelevant and inane points, hoping that the witnesses would say something that he could chase. It was a pathetic performance, even laughable if it were not for the fact that the allegations were very serious and no laughing matter and the allegations were grave and calculated to injure the national well-being. The Committee of Privileges has quite rightly concluded that Mr Jeyaretnam showed complete lack of good faith and that he acted with malice. Under the guise of caring for the rights of the Judiciary, he was in fact doing his utmost to undermine it. The second point that I would like to make is Mr Jeyaretnam's defence that he never made any allegations about the Judiciary or Executive interference in the Judiciary and that he was merely conveying to Parliament public disquiet. Throughout the debates in this House and in the Committee hearings, he now and then made this claim and he seemed to have been torn between wanting to plead this defence and at the same time wanting to give in to his urge to make wild, reckless and unsubstantiated allegations. His urge to vilify always got the better of his discretion. Members of this House have heard him. They can refresh their memory by reading the relevant portions of the Official Reports of Parliament. The Committee of Privileges went through these portions of the Official Reports and was satisfied that Mr Jeyaretnam made specific allegations and was not merely conveying public disquiet.”
“In other words, the Committee did not insist that Mr Jeyaretnam should show before he called the witnesses what he wanted to prove through these witnesses. Members will recollect that when I moved that the complaint be referred to a Committee of Privileges, he insisted that instead of him calling for the witnesses, we, the Government, should give an undertaking to make available witnesses for his cross-examination. It was clear from his conduct during the hearings why he did not want to call the witnesses but wanted the Government to call them for his cross-examination. He asked for this because he did not know precisely what he wanted to prove through the cross-examination of the witnesses. He was afraid that if he called the witnesses he would have to show what he wanted to prove through them. He therefore wanted the Government to call them so that he could embark on an expedition to fish and hope that in the process of this fishing expedition something would emerge which would support his allegation or which could be of use to him. When the findings of the Commision of Inquiry were debated in July, the question of another Inquiry was mooted in this House and the Prime Minister many times asked Mr Jeyaretnam for an assurance that he would give evidence. Now, Mr Jeyaretnam is a lawyer and he should know that to give evidence does not mean just to appear to answer questions but to provide, to supply, evidence on his own to back his allegation. Mr Jeyaretnam categorically said that he would give evidence. His whole argument was that if the witnesses were produced he would prove his case.”
“The Committee was satisfied and concluded that the evidence produced was such that both the prosecution and the conviction were proper and in accordance with the law, and the allegation of Mr Jeyaretnam that the prosecution was politically motivated was a reckless allegation made to take advantage of his Parliamentary immunity. The Committee also considered other allegations which I will not go into in detail, allegations that the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General were beholden to the Prime Minister; that there was public disquiet at Mr Khoo's transfer as it was linked to Mr Khoo's decision on Mr Jeyaretnam's criminal case; that Mr Khoo was demoted; in fact, he consistently and persistently used the word "removed", that "Mr Khoo was removed"; that the Attorney-General was being groomed by the Government and therefore had some undue influence over the Chief Justice. Having made all these allegations, Mr Jeyaretnam did not produce any evidence to substantiate even a single one of these allegations. Neither did he challenge the witnesses when they gave evidence contrary to these allegations. Mr Jeyaretnam, as I said, did not produce evidence even to back a single one of his allegations. I would like to make just two general points about the proceedings in the Committee of Privileges and the Report. First, the Committee gave Mr Jeyaretnam maximum latitude to substantiate his allegations by setting aside the normal rules of evidence. The accepted rule designed to protect witnesses from unwarranted attacks in cross-examination is to require the cross-examiner to make out a basis for asking the questions that would otherwise scandalize or defame. The Committee waived this rule.”
“The Committee "condemns the conduct of Mr Jeyaretnam in impugning the integrity of the Chief Justice by questioning the Chief Justice's statement contained in his note produced in Parliament on 19th March 1986. We find on all the evidence before us that by questioning the note Mr Jeyaretnam was implying that the Chief Justice had not told the truth. We find the allegation totally unfounded and unsubstantiated." The Committee also considered the allegation of Mr Jeyaretnam on 19th March, that the prosecution of the Chairman of the Workers' Party, Mr Wong, and himself was politically motivated. A considerable part of the time of the Committee of Privileges was taken up because the Committee permitted the evidence to be led to show whether the prosecution and subsequent convictions were proper and in accordance with the law. Members of the House, who followed Mr Glenn Knight leading the evidence on this particular allegation, and members of the public must have wondered why the Committee spent so much time on a case that had already been heard before the courts. This was because the Prime Minister told the Committee to consider all the evidence and determine for itself whether the evidence was sufficient for the prosecution and the conviction. If the Committee found that there was no evidence, the Committee was asked to recommend to Parliament that the convictions be set aside. It is for that reason that the Committee spent considerable time considering the evidence led by Mr Glenn Knight.”
“Other officers of the Legal Service also gave evidence that neither they nor others with whom they came into contact connected Mr Khoo's transfer with the decision on Mr Jeyaretnam's case. They stated clearly that they saw this transfer as a normal transfer and they also quoted instances where other transfers had taken place at equally short notice. In examining Mr Khoo, Mr Jeyaretnam did not challenge the evidence of Mr Khoo nor did he challenge the evidence of the Chief Justice. Neither did he produce his own evidence to substantiate his allegation that somehow the Executive had interfered and instructed the Chief Justice to transfer Mr Khoo. The Committee of Privileges found that the allegation that the Executive caused the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo to be wholly untrue and unsubstantiated. In the course of the debate on 19th March which I referred to earlier, Mr Jeyaretnam also impugned the integrity of the Chief Justice when he did not accept as conclusive the Chief Justice's note to the Prime Minister that he (the Chief Justice) had taken the decision to transfer Mr Khoo. Mr Jeyaretnam wanted to know who "initiated" or who "originated" Mr Khoo's transfer, thus raising doubts about the integrity of the Chief Justice and questioning the words that he had put in the note to the Prime Minister. Mr Jeyaretnam, of course, said, "I accept the note." But immediately after that, he challenged and asked "Who originated? Who initiated? Well, come clean." He spoke with a forked tongue, as the Red Indians would say. And it was clear what he meant, that he did not accept the letter of the Chief Justice. Mr Jeyaretnam did not substantiate or produce any evidence why the Chief Justice's statement should not be the last word on the subject.”
“But what is interesting in the two cases of Mr Yong and Mr Chan, instances which Mr Jeyaretnam claimed he knew of personally, is that the evidence is exactly the opposite of what he claimed. In the case of Mr Yong, evidence was shown that he was promoted seven months after the decision that Mr Jeyaretnam claimed displeased the Executive and transferred out of the Courts and then after another six months, he was transferred back as a Magistrate. It was also shown in the case of Mr Jeffrey Chan that he was transferred at his own request three years after the case that Mr Jeyaretnam referred to. Not only that, Mr Jeffrey Chan had several promotions after this case that Mr Jeyaretnam claimed displeased the Government. And Mr Chan is now a Superscale G officer. The Chief Justice gave evidence that there was never any request or interference in respect of the transfer of Mr Yong or Mr Chan. These, as I said, were cases that Mr Jeyaretnam claimed he knew, personally, of instances where Magistrates were transferred out because they gave decisions that displeased the Government. The evidence of these two witnesses as well as the Chief Justice clearly showed that Mr Jeyaretnam's allegation was totally unfounded, and this was the Committee's finding. In the case of Mr Michael Khoo, Mr Jeyaretnam alleged that Mr Khoo was transferred from his post as a Senior District Judge after he had acquitted Mr Jeyaretnam on three criminal charges in January 1984. The Chief Justice testified again in the course of the hearings of the Committee of Privileges that he made the decision to transfer Mr Michael Khoo and that there was absolutely no Executive interference of any kind.”
“Therefore, he was well aware of the procedures and knew that it was the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General who had this function. Thus he made a false allegation, and not only did he make a false allegation but he persisted in it wilfully and without substance. After the matter was clarified in Parliament, he continued to pursue it during the course of the hearings of the Committee of Privileges. The Committee has found that the allegation is without basis and Mr Jeyaretnam, by his own admission, was unable to substantiate it. He never put the question during the course of the hearings to the Chief Justice or the Attorney-General on this matter - whether the three PSC members and the Attorney-General, in fact, overruled the Judges in deliberations of the Legal Service Commission. Mr Jeyaretnam further alleged in support of his accusation that the Executive determined transfers by giving what he claimed were specific examples of three District Judges who, he claimed, were transferred after they had made decisions that displeased the Government. The three instances he quoted were those of Mr Michael Khoo, Mr Yong Yung Sui and Mr Jeffrey Chan. He dealt at some length with Mr Michael Khoo's case in the first debate and mentioned the instances of Mr Yong Yung Sui and Mr Jeffrey Chan in passing, without mentioning names. But in a subsequent debate on the Report of the Commission of Inquiry in July, he gave details and the names of Mr Yong Yung Sui and Mr Jeffrey Chan. I am not saying that a Subordinate Courts Officer who gives a decision that goes against the Government prosecutor should never be transferred.”
“After the debate was over, I made a complaint again of gross abuse of privilege and I moved that this latter complaint should be merged with my first complaint in March and that the two complaints should be considered together by the Committee of Privileges. The Report that is before us today represents the findings of the Committee of Privileges on these two complaints. The details of each of the allegations made by Mr Jeyaretnam during the course of the debates that I have referred to and the findings on each of the allegations are in the Report. I would just like to take the House through only the main allegations that were made in January and March which gave rise to this complaint. On 10th January 1986, Mr Jeyaretnam alleged that District Judges were afraid of giving decisions that displeased the Government or the Attorney-General because the PSC members, whom he called "administrative men", and the Attorney-General determined their transfers because they outnumbered the Judges on the Legal Service Commission. On this particular allegation, during the course of the hearings of the Committee of Privileges, Mr Jeyaretnam admitted that the allegation was wrong. But he claimed that he was not aware, that he did not know, that it was the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General to whom the powers had been delegated to determine transfers. He claimed that he only knew of this when the Prime Minister informed him in the House on 19th March. From the Chief Justice's evidence before the Committee of Privileges, it was clear that Mr Jeyaretnam knew that the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General were responsible for transfers, as Mr Jeyaretnam was himself a member of the Legal Service for many years and he was, in fact, the Registrar to the Chief Justice in 1963.”
“But Mr Jeyaretnam did not accept this note as the final word on the matter and, in fact, challenged the letter and asked who originated or who initiated this decision. Arising out of this, I made a complaint of abuse of privilege which was referred to the Committee of Privileges. I made this complaint because, in spite of the evidence shown to the Member, he did not accept the word of the Chief Justice. When the Prime Minister made a statement to the House on the 21st March, the debate took a turn which resulted in the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry, and this Commission of Inquiry was established on the 11th April. We all know what happened at this Commission of Inquiry. The Committee of Privileges in considering the first complaint that I made decided that it would not commence hearings on the complaint until the deliberations of the Commission of Inquiry had been completed and a report had been received. As I said, Members are familiar with the Report of the Commission of Inquiry which was debated in this House on the 29th July 1986. We all know what happened at the Commission of Inquiry - that Mr Jeyaretnam, who loudly proclaimed that he could produce evidence, first insisted that he would not call the witnesses but that the Government should call the witnesses or that he should be given an assurance that the witnesses would be produced. And then in the afternoon he said that he could not give any evidence because it was absolutely prohibited by law. During the course of the debate on the Report of the Commission of Inquiry, Mr Jeyaretnam repeated the allegations and made further insinuations against the Judiciary.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their First Report contained in Paper Parl. 3 of 1987 and resolves - (1) that Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam is guilty of abuse of the privileges of Parliament in his allegation of Executive interference in the Judiciary; and (2) that a fine of $1,000 be imposed upon him. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is just over a year since this House first heard the outrageous allegation that District Judges were under threat or fear of being transferred from their posts when they made decisions which displeased the Executive. The then Member for Anson, Mr Jeyaretnam, made his allegation during the debate on two Bills that were before this House. The allegation was made, as I said, a year ago on 19th January 1986 and it was further embellished and the smear widened to include the Chief Justice in statements that Mr Jeyaretnam made in this House on 19th March during the Committee of Supply's debate. One of the allegations that Mr Jeyaretnam made during the course of that debate was that the three members of the PSC and the Attorney-General who are members of the Legal Service Commission outnumbered the Chief Justice and another Judge of the Committee, and thus insinuated that through these PSC members and the Attorney-General the Government interfered in the decisions of the Legal Service Commission. And he made these allegations specifically when he discussed the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo. During the course of that debate, the Prime Minister produced a note from the Chief Justice which indicated very clearly that the decision to transfer Michael Khoo was taken by the Chief Justice himself.”
“The HDB's relocation exercise spans over a period of 15 years. Existing tenants will be encouraged to purchase Home Ownership flats and various incentive schemes have been implemented to assist them to own a flat. Those who cannot afford to buy a home ownership flat will be rehoused in vacant rental flats in blocks to be retained for rental. When vacancies in such blocks are taken up, the HDB will rehouse tenants who cannot purchase a flat in vacant flats in blocks earmarked for relocation in the later phase. There are sufficient home ownership flats and vacant rental flats to rehouse the tenants affected by the HDB's relocation exercise.”
“(a) With the recent revision in policy, all tenants affected by the HDB's relocation programme are given a removal allowance of $500/-. Affected tenants who have opted to purchase a Home Ownership flat are given an additional $500/- making a total of $1,000/-. This is an incentive to the tenants who purchase a home ownership flat in line with the government's objective of encouraging home ownership. (b) The HDB therefore has no intention at this juncture to increase the removal allowance for tenants moving to another rental flat under the present relocation exercise. SUFFICIENCY OF HDB RENTAL FLATS 2. Dr S. Vasoo asked the Minister for National Development whether there will be sufficient rental flats available for those tenants affected by the Housing and Development Board's relocation scheme and who are unable to opt for home ownership scheme.”
“I must emphasise that this ex-gratia compensation is over and above the assessed com- pensation where they assess the farm, the number of trees, plants and all kinds of other improvements to a TOL. That is assessed and compensation is paid for that. This is ex-gratia payment made for each farmer. So this is already a concession. To the person who has no farming licence, we say that for one lot one person with such farming activity without a licence will be considered for ex-gratia payment. Now we are being asked: what if there are more than one, two or three families, all farmers? I think we have to draw the line somewhere. I know it is not acceptable, it may cause difficulties; but we have to draw the line somewhere and I am afraid that, under the existing policy, only one farmer without a farm licence on a TOL will qualify for ex-gratia compensation. Thank you, Sir. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen minutes to Five o'clock pm. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS REMOVAL ALLOWANCE FOR HDB TENANTS 1. Dr S. Vasoo asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the rationale for the differences in payment of removal allowance between those tenants who opt for home ownership flats and rental flats under the Housing and Development Board's relocation scheme of tenants in rental blocks; and (b) whether the HDB will consider a flat removal allowance of $1,000 to tenants affected under the relocation scheme.”
“In the example of the resettlement case that was quoted by the Member for Chua Chu Kang, perhaps we can consider some flexibility in applying the age criterion if the person is not over 50 years but is being cleared from his house and he is able to combine with somebody else to buy a house. We can consider such an application. I shall ask HDB to look into this. But I think we must not deviate from this requirement that a single person must combine with one other person in order to buy a flat or to rent a flat. The last point raised by the Member has to do with farmers on temporary occupation licence land. I am informed, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that farmers holding farm licences in their own names are granted ex-gratia compensation at farmer's rate, even if there are a number of such farmers in one holding. In other words, in one TOL if there are two or three families, each one holding a farm licence, then each one will be considered for compensation. The problem arises when we have farmers without a farm licence. What kind of compensation should be given to them? Because of various representations made from MPs, a concession was made that one farmer holding one TOL without a farming licence will still be able to get this ex-gratia compensation provided he satisfies the criteria laid down by the Primary Production Department. The first criterion is that the level of farming activity exceeds the minimum level set up by the Primary Production Department. The second condition is a certification from his MP that he has been engaged in farming activities since 22nd March 1979. As I said, this is a concession to those who have no farm licence. Otherwise they would have been regarded as non-farming squatters and compensated at lower rates.”
“So I must emphasise that while there is coordination, we cannot coordinate to a point where we appear to give a farmer or any other person the impression that his quitting the site would be determined by whether he is successful for another tender because, the moment that concession is made, then it will be almost impossible to clear site. The third point that he raised has to do with single persons wanting to buy Housing Board flats. This is a serious point and the Housing and Development Board has always held, quite rightly, to the rule that single persons will not be allocated rental or purchase flats unless they can combine with somebody else. Sir, I think we know that this problem of housing for single persons is going to become an increasing problem in Singapore in the years to come. If we concede that a single person can have a Housing Board flat, then I think we will never be able to build enough flats for Singapore to accommodate everybody who wants a flat. The present policy is to require that a single person combines with another person to rent a flat. And if he is a senior citizen, who is defined as a person over 50 years for males and over 40 years for females, then he can buy a flat with another single person who is not below the age of 21, but the flat must be in the joint names of the two persons. In other words, a senior citizen cannot merely buy in his name and have somebody else staying with him. Two persons who are siblings and whose parents have died can also get together to buy a flat in their joint names if they come under what is known as the Orphan Classification. In other words, if the parents are dead, two siblings, two brothers, or brother and sister, or two sisters, if they want to buy a flat, can buy a flat together in their joint names.”
“If we concede, whether it be a farmer or a shopkeeper, that his resiting or his quitting a particular site should be subject to his success in tendering for another site, then there will be no way of really clearing most of these resettlement cases. For example, I have been told of one farmer in Chua Chu Kang who was asked to quit his land by June 1985 (that is about 1(r) years ago). He has been on the site with one extension after another until the final extension has been given up to 15th January this year, and he has tendered for a site and is awaiting the result of the tender. And he says he should be allowed to stay on the site until the tender results are known. Suppose he is not successful in his tender, then what happens? He tenders for another site and he would ask that he be permitted to remain on that site until the tender results of his second tender are known. I think the determining factor is not whether that particular farmer or shopkeeper is able to get another site but why is the first site needed. And if the need is such that the farmer has to be cleared, then he has to be cleared. In this particular case that the Member has quoted, I do not know whether the farmer was given sufficient notice and how many extensions have been given. From my experience, even in my own constituency and from other letters that I received, I know that most of these cases involve many many extensions. And when finally the authority concerned is not prepared to give any more extension, then the farmer or the shopkeeper concerned presents the whole thing as a very unfair case where he has been asked to quit, without being given sufficient notice. Very often investigations would reveal that, in fact, many extensions have been given.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to take the points made by the Member for Chua Chua Kang one at a time. His first point was the complaint from farmers who were resettled - that they are not given some preference over non-farmers when it comes to tendering for farmlands. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think one fact that we must recognize is that many of these farmers on TOL lands are able to subsist because they pay rentals on the land which are well below market rates. But if a number of such small farmers get together and tender for a larger farming unit and their tender is equal to a tender from somebody else who is not a farmer, then it would appear that some preference should be given to these ex-farmers. But we know that in real life it is very seldom the case that two tenders are equal. But if there are such cases and a decision has to be made as to who should be awarded the tender, then certainly the past record of the tenderer, in terms of what he was doing, should be a consideration. I shall ask the Department concerned to give this consideration. The second point that the Member raised has to do with what he perceives as a lack of coordination between the Resettlement Department and the Primary Production Department. He quoted the example of an orchid farmer who has been asked to quit and who has tendered for another piece of land and is awaiting the tender results but the tender results will come much later after the date by which he is expected to quit his site. Sir, I must emphasise that the need for a site is determined by the particular department that wants the site.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. RESETTLEMENT IN CHUA CHU KANG”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in areas required for public development, the Resettlement Department clears and resettles the residents. The demolition of vacated structures and removal of debris are handled by the development authorities requesting for the clearance. As and when structures are vacated by residents, the Resettlement Department liaises with the development authority concerned to demolish these structures. In most cases, vacant structures are demolished within a month. However, there are sometimes difficulties and delays in demolition. This is because, firstly, vacated structures in congested squatter areas are scattered among other houses which are still occupied. They are inaccessible to lorries and bulldozers which therefore cannot carry out the work. Secondly, vacated structures are adjoining occupied buildings and they share common overhead cables. The demolition of such structures may endanger the lives of other residents. Under such circumstances, the Department usually persuades the residents to accept rehousing and move out as early as possible so that the site as a whole can be tidied up. Where necessary, demolition and debris removal are carried out manually but this requires more manpower and is not the most cost effective way of doing things. The Resettlement Department will coordinate closely with the development authority to see that vacated structures are demolished within the shortest time. MR TEH CHEANG WAN'S DEATH (Statement by the Prime Minister) 11.55 am”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the original completion date was supposed to have been April. There is a delay of about two months but this is not due to any decision to upgrade the interchange. It is just due to some delay in getting sanitary approval from the Sewerage Department. As far as I am aware, there is no decision to suddenly upgrade our bus interchanges to a very much higher standard than what they are today. REMOVAL OF DEBRIS IN RESETTLEMENT AREAS 20. Mr Teo Chong Tee asked the Minister for National Development whether, in the resettlement areas, structures vacated by residents will be immediately demolished and the debris removed.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Yishun New Town bus interchange, bounded by Yishun Central and Yishun Avenue 2, is scheduled to be completed by end of July 1987. Currently, there is a temporary interchange along Yishun Central. Dr Koh Lip Lin: Sir, can the Minister give an assurance that the new bus interchange at Yishun New Town will not suffer from the same fate as the Yishun North Area Office, ie, there will be a long delay after its completion?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is true that the building was completed some months ago, in fact, almost a year ago. The delay is due to the fact that the HDB decided that it should upgrade its Area Offices and when this particular Area Office was built it was under the old standards. This upgrading programme includes central air-conditioning, planning the office for open-office concept using system furniture and this required re-partitioning of the offices and so on. It is this that has caused the delay. There are a number of Area Offices which are affected by this decision of HDB to upgrade the standards of the Area Offices. YISHUN NEW TOWN BUS INTERCHANGE (Completion date) 19. Dr Koh Lip Lin asked the Minister for National Development when is the scheduled completion date of Yishun New Town Bus Interchange.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the new Housing and Development Board Yishun North Area Office is likely to be opened in May 1987. In the meantime, the Yishun Area Office at Block 102, Yishun Avenue 5, is providing the necessary services to residents in Yishun North.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the plot of land above the Mass Rapid Transit Station bounded by Toa Payoh Central and Lorong 2 is reserved for commercial development. An eating house and a single-storey covered walkway leading up to the entrance of the MRT station are presently under construction at the site. There are no immediate plans to develop this plot of land as there is no demand at present for additional facilities. HDB AREA OFFICE AT YISHUN NORTH (Opening date) 18. Dr Koh Lip Lin asked the Minister for National Development when is the scheduled opening date of the new Housing and Development Board Yishun North Area Office.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, people complain about all kinds of things. Surely, we should be able to sift these complaints and determine what is serious and what is frivolous. On the rentals that these shops pay, well, that is what they offered to pay. So they should not complain. VACANT LAND ABOVE MRT STATION AT TOA PAYOH CENTRAL (Development plans) 17. Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board has any plans to develop the vacant plot of land above the Mass Rapid Transit station bounded by Toa Payoh Central and Lorong 2.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Blocks 146 and 148 are low-rise blocks located in the Neighbourhood Centre of Potong Pasir Estate. These comprise 10 offices and 89 3- and 4-room flats on the upper floors. The 20 offices have all been let since 1985. Block 147 is a shop and office block and has no dwelling units. It is the HDB's policy to rent and not sell flats in low-rise blocks in Neighbourhood Centres. This is to ensure that, if necessary, the site can be redeveloped in future. In February 1987, the HDB will be relocating non-citizen middle level executives currently housed in high-rise flats in Ang Mo Kio and Hougang to these low-rise flats in Potong Pasir as well as to some other areas. This relocation will enable the flats in the high-rise blocks to be renovated and offered for sale under the Home Ownership Scheme. The flats in the low-rise blocks in Potong Pasir will therefore be occupied very shortly.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in fact, this aspect of safety also came up for discussion when I discussed with the PWD. I have also noticed that there are telephone booths along expressways and that people use these telephones not for the purpose for which they are intended, which is to call for breakdown vehicles and so on. Many Singaporeans nowadays carry beepers and the moment the beeper goes, they just stop at the nearest telephone along the expressway. It is not at all safe to have telephone booths of this kind along expressways. So I have asked the PWD to consider removing as many of these telephones as possible and installing some other kind of telephone which will only give access to breakdown service. Perhaps we can persuade the Automobile Association or one of the NTUC organizations to join in this system where you pick up the telephone and it will only ring at a place where you can ask for assistance for breakdown, or accidents, or whatever it is, and not make a personal or business call from telephones along the expressways. VACANT HDB UNITS IN POTONG PASIR ESTATE (Reasons for) 16. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for National Development why nearly all the units in the upper floors of Blocks 146, 147 and 148 in Potong Pasir Estate have been left vacant from the time they were ready for occupation to the present date.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there are various degress of flouting of the rules. But I can tell the Member that up to 10 errant contractors are suspended on the average each year.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, all contractors carrying out works along expressways and other roads have to provide adequate warning signs and lighting to ensure the safety of motorists and pedestrians at all times. They are required to comply with temporary traffic sign guidelines laid down by the Public Works Department. Generally, contractors abide by these guidelines but there are some who flout these regulations. Regular checks are carried out by PWD and action taken against contractors found not following the guidelines on safety measures. The penalty imposed on recalcitrant contractors includes suspension and debarment. The PWD will step up enforcement action to ensure that contractors adhere strictly to safety measures.”
“Yes, it happens that the education service or education centres are run by the PAP. But the HDB will be making available education centres to bona fide foundations or education centres running such educational services.”
“This concession is not given to political parties. It is given to a service, an educational service.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is not $5 a unit. I think it works out to $1.30 per sq. metre, or something like that.”
“Education centres in constituencies are let out by the HDB to the PAP on a concession rental basis because it provides a service to the constituents and their children. This has been the policy and we will continue to follow this policy.”
“Education centres are non-profit organizations but my reference was to other organizations such as old folks homes, child creches and so on.”
“Sir, I do not have the details. If the Member would write to me, I can give the answer.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as at 31st December 1986, there were 650 vacant HDB shops which were being offered to tenderers and resettlement cases. In addition to this, there are another 500 shops which are either left vacant pending redevelopment under the current exercise to redevelop old rental blocks or are earmarked for other uses, such as letting out to non-profit organizations. Presently, there are 200 shopkeepers affected by resettlement who are awaiting allocation of HDB shops. In addition, there are an estimated 1,000 new resettlement cases who are expected to request for shops.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Dempsey Road car park is a fringe car park with 340 lots. To park there for a whole day costs only a flat 60 cents compared to 60 cents hourly or half-hourly for other URA car parks. As the cost of parking there is already extremely low and as it is also a fringe car park meant for other motorists, I regret that we cannot agree to allowing free parking at the Dempsey Road car park during National Service registration periods.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, under current resettlement policy, there is no provision for cash grants in lieu of alternative shop accommodation. However, as I have stated just now in answer to the other question, my Ministry is currently reviewing this policy and the Member's suggestion will be taken into account in the review. SMALLER CLASSES FOR PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS 5. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Education whether his Ministry has taken steps to reduce the number of children in the classes of our Primary and Secondary schools, in the light of his findings on enrolments of independent schools abroad.”
“If we want to really allow allocation to be determined by market forces, we should not give any priority at all. We should just allow them to tender together with the members of the public. But HDB has to exercise some judgment because, in any particular town centre or neighbourhood centre, there must be a certain distribution of shops to cater for the needs of the residents. That is why we do not, as I said, resettle shops en bloc into a particular area.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, from my answer, I said that special consideration will be given to resettlement cases where they are residing in a particular town. In other words, from the example that the Member has given, a resettled family in Town A will be given some sort of priority to get a shop in Town A and will not be treated on the same basis as a resettlement case living in Town B.”
“Sir, priority is only given to resettlement cases. Residents who want to tender for shops in their own area have to take their chances just like everybody else. There is no priority of any kind.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not think I have quite got the point.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the review is in progress. I cannot inform Members of the House exactly when I can release the results of the review, but we will certainly try to do it as soon as possible.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it may not be possible to resettle shopkeepers in an affected area as a single group to a specific location because of the following constraints. Firstly, the number of shops in an HDB estate is planned with due consideration to the number of dwelling units. This is to avoid a situation of having too many shops catering to a small clientele. Out of the total supply of shops in an HDB estate, only about 50% are set aside for shopkeepers affected by resettlement. Secondly, there is usually an unbalanced spread of trades among resettlement shopkeepers. Traditional trades such as provision shops and departmental stores are always larger in numbers, whereas clinics and other specialized trades like launderettes, photo-processing shops, etc. are few. To relocate the resettlement shopkeepers en bloc to a specific area would deprive HDB residents of a wide variety of goods and services. The traditional traders will also suffer from fierce competition. This is not desirable for both the shopkeepers and the residents. Thirdly, shopkeepers affected by resettlement are given priority for shops in a new town where their families are residing. However, such allocation is dependent upon the demand and supply situation, the urgency of development affecting the shopkeepers, competing demand from similar cases, and compatibility of trades. My Ministry is currently reviewing the policy of allocation of shops to resettlement cases. The Member's suggestion about monetary compensation will be taken into account in this review.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is no intention to turn it into a park. The area will be turfed and will be kept clean because it has to be made available for development, maybe, in the next one or two years. There is no need for a park in that area at the present moment. RESETTLEMENT OF SHOPKEEPERS IN RURAL AREAS 3. Mr Heng Chiang Meng asked the Minister for National Development whether, in the resettlement of shopkeepers in rural areas, he will consider (i) resettling shopkeepers in an affected area as a single group to a specific location; (ii) giving priority to shopkeepers for shops in a new town if they are already residing in that new town; and (iii) giving monetary compensation to those who are eligible for allocation of shops on resettlement terms but do not wish to avail themselves of such benefits.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Housing and Development Board has no immediate development plans for the vacant lot bounded by Bedok South Road Extension, Bedok South Avenue 3 and Upper East Coast Road.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, ASEAN has been a strong association because member states have concentrated on building on common interests instead of dwelling on bilateral differences, even where there have been serious bilateral differences. I am confident that this approach will continue to hold and that ASEAN solidarity and cooperation will not be affected. DIVESTMENT OF GOVERNMENT COMPANIES 6. Mr Chng Hee Kok asked the Minister for Finance how many companies have been divested and are about to be divested by the Government as a result of a review by the Divestment Committee.”