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 8 of 33.
“It is not a sharing of power in the normal administration of the nation's affairs. The elected Government can conduct its business without interference from the President. It is only a sharing of power in certain special and exceptional circumstances and these are laid out in the Bill as well as in the White Paper. Since we became independent, we have changed our Constitution a number of times in order to meet our own peculiar circumstances and needs. This particular Bill that is before the House today is one way of shaping what we have inherited to meet our needs as we see them today and as we see them developing over the next few decades.”
“If this is so in UK, with its very long tradition in operating the system, it should not be surprising that it is so in Singapore and that power is so very concentrated in one group. We have a much shorter experience of parliamentary democracy and with few, if any, non-Government institutions which have any significant influence on our society and nation. The First Deputy Prime Minster pointed out that the system has worked and worked very well, not because of the quality of the institution but because of the quality of the people and quality of the leadership. We cannot assume that our past experience will be in fact projected into the future, that what has happened in the past will continue to be the case in the future. I think it will be tempting fortune beyond prudence to continue a system that depends so overwhelmingly on having persons of integrity and competence in political leadership. There must be a combination of good people and sound institutions. I think I need not elaborate on this. Members must be aware of many countries which have very fine constitutions but have, nevertheless, come to grief. So we must have a balance of both good constitutional provisions, good institutions and good leaders. The institution of an Elected President with only veto powers is one way of introducing some check on the power of the Government. When we in Cabinet considered this subject and we have in fact thought about it for a very long time, we were very conscious of the problems and dangers of giving too much power to one man. We were conscious that we should not tilt the balance and make the Elected President an executive President. The Bill has been very carefully crafted so that the elected Government is not fettered unduly.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. The arguments in support of an Elected President were quite exhaustively stated by the First Deputy Prime Minister yesterday in the Second Reading on this Bill. They are also set out quite clearly in the White Paper and I do not intend to repeat these arguments. I would really like to just underline one main point made by the First Deputy Prime Minister yesterday, and that is, our present system lacks checks and balances. We have, of course, operated this system for the last 25 years and this system is one where power is very highly concentrated, I would say even entirely reposed, in one institution. There is not the same diffusion of power or the sharing of power that we have in many other nations with a parliamentary democracy system, such features as two Houses of Parliament, Councils of Rulers, State Governments, Local Councils and so on. In these countries, power is in fact shared among many institutions. In fact, offhand, I cannot think of any other nation that has power as highly concentrated in one institution as we have here in Singapore. And the power is in fact concentrated in the Cabinet. We have, of course, Parliament, but in a system with strong party discipline, it is in fact the top leadership, ie, the Cabinet, that exercises real power. Even in the United Kingdom with its very long parliamentary tradition, there is a strong view emerging that the ability of party leaders to appeal directly to the public through the mass media, coupled with strong party discipline, has in fact resulted in a very significant and marked shift of power from Parliament to the Government leaders, ie, the Cabinet.”
“Clause 4 of the Bill will allow fees and charges collected under the Act to be paid to Urban Redevelopment Authority since the Urban Redevelopment Authority will be designated as the body responsible for the administration of the Act. Clause 5 of the Bill contains consequential amendments. 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 S. Dhanabalan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. PREVENTION OF POLLUTION OF THE SEA BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Since the Government announced, on 6th October 1988, its intention to phase out rent control through the Controlled Premises (Special Provisions) Act, the Urban Redevelopment Authority has received more than 300 applications from landlords to restore their rent-controlled premises. Some of these cases may eventually be heard by the TCB, ie, if the tenants and the owners cannot settle the compensation on their own. When more areas are brought under the Controlled Premises (Special Provisions) Act, the volume of applications to the TCB is bound to increase. The present TCB will not be able to cope with the increased workload because the existing Act requires the Chairman and at least four other members to hear every case. As all who serve on the TCB do so on a part-time basis, it is difficult for them to meet often and quickly. The inability of the TCB to meet regularly could lead to a backlog of cases. Development will be held back and unsightly buildings and potentially unsafe buildings will continue to be occupied. Mr Speaker, Sir, to enable more sittings to be convened to handle the anticipated increase in cases, one or more Deputy Chairmen will be appointed to preside in the Chairman's absence. The Deputy Chairmen will possess the qualifications of a District Judge to maintain the judicial nature of the sittings. The membership of the Board will be increased from 10 to 15. The quorum for each sitting will, however, be reduced from five to three. This therefore means that a number of committees can work at the same time. Clause 3 of the Bill will enable the Minister to appoint the required number of Deputy Chairmen, to increase the number of TCB members to 15, and to reduce the quorum to three.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Controlled Premises (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Bill seeks to achieve two objectives. First, it seeks to streamline the procedure before an application may be submitted to the Tenants' Compensation Board. Second, it seeks to restructure and increase the membership of the Tenants' Compensation Board to handle, more expeditiously, the increasing number of applications from owners who wish to recover their rent-controlled properties in order to develop their properties. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Tenants' Compensation Board (TCB) was set up under the Controlled Premises (Special Provisions) Act. It is empowered to assess the amount of compensation tenants, sub-tenants and occupiers are entitled to. The decisions by the TCB are final and binding on both owners and occupiers. At present, owners are required to do two things before they may present their case to the TCB. They must first obtain approval from the Planning Authority to develop their properties. They are then required to apply to the Permanent Secretary (National Development) for approval of their plans for development. The present procedure is cumbersome and inconvenient because owners have to deal with two organisations to obtain approval for their plans. The new Bill will give the Minister the power to combine the two steps. Under clause 2 of the Bill, the Minister can appoint any person, not only the Permanent Secretary (National Development), to approve the plan for development under the Act. He can therefore authorise the Planning Authority to exercise the present power of the Permanent Secretary on this matter and approve the plan for development.”
“CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE (AMENDMENT NO. 3) BILL "to amend the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore", presented by the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (Mr Goh Chok Tong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. NATIONAL REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the National Registration Act (Chapter 201 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Dr Lee Boon Yang); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament; and to be printed. CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL "to amend the Central Provident Fund Act (Chapter 36 of the 1988 Revised Edition)', presented by the Minister for Labour (Mr Lee Yock Suan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. EMPLOYMENT OF FOREIGN WORKERS BILL "to repeal and re-enact with amendment the Regulation of Employment Act (Chapter 272 of the 1985 Revised Edition) and to provide for matters connected therewith", recommendation of President signified; presented by Mr Lee Yock Suan; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. CONTROLLED PREMISES (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 1.30 pm”
“But in addition to this minimum, worked out on the basis of rent, the Act also specifies items which the Board has to consider in assessing compensation and the items would be items such as loss of income in the case of commercial properties, loss of goodwill, cost of removal, annual rent paid which I have already mentioned, location and siting of the premises. The Board will also take into account any other relevant matters depending on the facts of each case. So it is difficult to give clear guidelines because every case will have its own peculiar problem. Each case is therefore examined by the Board according to its own merits and I am not able to give a fixed formula that can be applied in all cases. But the criteria are fairly clear and what these criteria will do is that they will prevent tenants from being unreasonable in their demands for compensation. I think the Member also raised the question of old folks. Yes, there is a special scheme to assist many old single persons, especially in the Central Area, who now live in rent controlled premises. What we do is we get the owners to pay four years' rent for a one-room flat in advance and then we will house these old single persons in these flats. We have had this scheme for some time but very few people have taken advantage because many of these old single persons have found their own solutions or they have gone back to live with their own families. But we will certainly give publicity to this scheme and owners who cannot remove their tenants or tenants who feel that their owners are not being reasonable can approach the URA and we will help them. But the owners have to pay the rentals in advance as part of the compensation. I think I have answered the questions that the Member has raised.”
“There will be nothing Singapore about it. There will be nothing to distinguish it from any other modern city elsewhere. We think it is better to identify critical masses of old buildings, conserve them and combine these with new developments so that the city will have a distinctive character and at the same time such old buildings will be reminders to our people of our past. It is for this reason that we think that conservation is a worth while policy to pursue. The Member also asked about the compensation and whether we should give publicity to the compensation offered under the Act. The first point to make is that measures announced so far to phase out rent control under the Controlled Premises (Special Provisions) Act do not allow landlords to indiscriminately increase rents. They cannot increase rents. The rent controlled properties continue to be rent controlled properties even after they are gazetted. It is only after the owner has submitted plans for redevelopment and the plans are approved that he can begin to get his tenants out. If tenants feel that owners are interpreting Government's measures to their own advantage, then they should seek either legal advice or at least go and see their MP and perhaps the MP can give them some general advice and refer them to some lawyers. The Controlled Premises (Special Provisions) Act only sets out the minimum compensation that has to be awarded, but there are certain criteria that are set out. The minimum, for example, for a commercial premise would be 8 years' rent. In the case of residential property, it is 6 years' rent.”
“In other words, the owner of the conservation property will at the end of the day be able to get the same amount of gross floor area as a new developer next door if there happens to be a vacant lot next door. How can we achieve this? This can be achieved by allowing owners to keep the front part of the old building, restore it, and building a new 3- or 5-storey development at the rear abutting the old building so that the streetscape will still be the old conserved buildings, but behind there would be a 3-or 5-storey building. This is quite often done even in other cities which have very active conservation programmes. The owner would therefore be able to achieve the same intensity of development under conservation guidelines as he would if he were allowed to demolish the old building and build a new one. Experience in Tanjong Pagar and Chinatown conservation areas also shows that buildings which are conserved appreciate more in value than similar new developments. There seems to be a premium now attached to conservation buildings. So I do not think the owners of properties in the conservation areas would lose out. First of all, they will be able to develop as much gross floor area in more than 90% of the cases, as much as somebody who puts up a new building. Secondly, under present circumstances, conserved buildings seem to command a premium over new buildings in the same area. The question may still be asked, of course, why go through the bother of keeping all these old buildings. Would it not be better to knock them down and build completely new buildings? The answer really is related to the kind of city that we want. We can knock down all the old buildings and have a city of new buildings which looks like any new area in a foreign city.”
“These areas will be progressively gazetted as conservation areas before the properties are designated as development areas under the Controlled Premises (Special Provisions) Act. In other words, by the time we designate these areas as areas ready for decontrol under the Controlled Premises (Special Provisions) Act, the owners would know whether their particular properties are affected by conservation. In these conservation areas, owners can recover their properties for rehabilitation in the same way as they have been allowed to do under Phase 1. In such cases, "development" would be defined to mean renovation works as specified in URA's conservation guidelines. On the question of development potential in conservation areas, in the areas that we are looking at, most of the properties being considered for conservation will not be adversely affected and will not suffer any loss of development potential. In fact, initial studies show that more than 90% of the properties in the conservation areas will not suffer any development potential loss. The proposed conservation areas are already subject to certain development control guidelines under the Master Plan. They are, for example, height restrictions and plot ratio restrictions for the whole area. These restrictions have been applied to new building built in these conservation areas. One way of measuring the development potential would be to measure the gross floor area that an owner is allowed to build. For properties which are gazetted as conservation areas, the gross floor area in more than 90% of the cases will be no less than that allowed for new developments on vacant lots in the area.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the first point I would like to make is that this phasing out of rent control is not limited to conservation areas. In fact, Phases 2 to 4 will for the larger part be non-conservation areas. However, there will be some conservation areas in these Phases 2 to 4. In fact, the URA is now studying some new areas to be conserved and therefore these three more phases that I have mentioned will include both conservation and non-conservation areas. I must emphasise that conservation should not be linked with the phasing out of rent control. They are two quite separate exercises. Conservation is one of the tools of planning control in order to regulate development just like other tools that we have such as usage, density and micro zoning plans such as height that we specify for areas within the city or in some cases even outside the city. So conservation is just one type of development control tool that we have. Owners of properties, whether rent-controlled or not, are required to conform to these planning controls. The areas that we are looking at for conservation in addition to those that have already been gazetted are as follows. Within the Central Area, certain areas in Blair Plain, River Valley/Mohamed Sultan Roads and Jalan Besar are being actively looked at and if the present studies are confirmed that we should declare these areas as conservation areas, then they will be declared very soon. Details will be released, within the next few months. Other areas for conservation have also been identified outside these areas that I have just mentioned and these will be in Joo Chiat, East Coast, Geylang and Pasir Panjang.”
“The Control of Rent Act applies to buildings completed on or before 7th September 1947. The Act was designed to protect tenants from unscrupulous landlords during the housing shortage in the post-war years. Conditions today are different. Our successful public housing programme has made the Control of Rent Act unnecessary. Because rents have been kept at nominal levels, relative to market rates, landlords have allowed their buildings to deteriorate into unsightly structures. The structures are a blight on our environment and hamper the efforts of our planners to develop a more elegant city. The Act has, in fact, virtually frozen the development of some areas in Singapore. By designating more and more areas under the Controlled Premises (Special Provisions) Act, we can redevelop our city without any further delay.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in October 1988, my Ministry announced that it would use the Controlled Premises (Special Provisions) Act to phase out rent control. Under Phase 1 of the exercise, which covered the conservation areas, 1,590 tenanted and rent-controlled properties were gazetted on 31st March 1989. Today, I would like to announce the other phases of this exercise. Under Phase 2 of the exercise, about 1,250 tenanted premises in the Central Area will be designated for development under the Controlled Premises (Special Provisions) Act in September this year. Under Phase 3, about 2,720 tenanted premises in Kallang, Geylang, Marine Parade and Bedok areas will be designated as development areas in March 1991. Under Phase 4, the last Phase, about 2,260 tenanted premises in the rest of the island will be designated in December 1991. Mr Speaker, Sir, by designating areas under the Controlled Premises (Special Provisions) Act, owners of rent-controlled properties in such areas can recover possession of their properties if they have development plans approved by the Urban Redevelopment Authority. Owners and tenants can settle the matter of compensation between themselves. Where the owners and tenants are unable to reach agreement, they can turn to the Tenants' Compensation Board, which is provided for under the Act, to assess the amount of compensation that tenants, sub-tenants and occupiers are entitled to. The Tenants' Compensation Board is being restructured, and its membership increased, to cope with the anticipated increase in workload when more areas are designated for development. Both tenants and landlords can avail themselves of the Board's jurisdiction to expeditiously resolve compensation disputes.”
“I think he will be glad to note that we have set aside an area in Sungei Buloh, an area of about 85 hectares, to develop as a bird sanctuary. This is an area which is at present used for prawn farming. We basically intend to leave the area as it is, with some very minor developments to provide visitors easy access, and it would be an attractive bird sanctuary. The programme will be completed about July next year. It is an area where many migratory wet land birds now come twice a year and I think some of us have been there and have seen some very attractive bird life. So this area will be preserved as a bird sanctuary. It will be managed by the Singapore Bird Park people because they know best how to manage this type of area. So we have provided another nature reserve near the sea. Question put, and agreed. 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 S. Dhanabalan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment, read a Third time and passed. CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“And before you know it, the trees in the area begin to die although the trees have never been dire- ctly touched by the SAF personnel. The top soil is very thin and once it is washed away the trees in the area just begin to die. This is one of the things that we have to educate Singaporeans in, that nature is very fragile, especially in our Nature Reserves, and that we have to be very careful about how we use the Nature Reserves for our various recreational or other pursuits. Mr Ng also asked whether some of the areas in the Nature Reserves could be used for golf courses. I think this is the hope now. Everybody is interested in golf. We are, of course, constantly looking for areas that are not usable for other economic uses to be put to recreational use, such as golf. But we must realise that golf courses are no substitute for the intrinsic value that a natural stand of forest trees can provide. In developing a golf course, the established trees must of course be removed and we have to manicure the place with grass and the whole natural condition of the area has to be completely changed. It would be wrong to think that as long as we keep the area open for catchment purposes, it does not matter what kind of vegetation we have there. Having said that, we are looking at parts of the central catchment area which can be converted to golf courses, especially where we can justify the golf course as a buffer between the forest and the built-up areas. So to the extent that we can do this without affecting the nature of the Nature Reserves, we will do so. The last point I have is Dr Koh's request that we also consider a nature reserve near the sea.”
“Mr Ng raised the question of those who use the Botanic Gardens in the mornings for their exercise. I am sure some Members of the House have noticed the rather incongruous sight every morning of about 1,000 young and old doing some ancient Chinese exercise to some very upbeat Seven Lonely Days kind of music. We do not want to discourage this use, but one must note that, with the development that we have in mind, some of the open spaces would be reduced. Facilities for the kind of exercise that people now do in the Botanic Gardens are provided in the other parks that the Parks and Recreation Department is developing. But we will continue to keep the park open for such morning exercise enthusiasts. Mr Ng also expressed some concern about the use of the Nature Reserves by various Government agencies which have had a negative impact upon the Reserves. I think he has in mind basically the use by the SAF. Members must concede that in land scarce Singapore, multiple land use is a national necessity. Certain activities have to be allowed in the Nature Reserves. This Bill, of course, will enable the Board to have the power to manage the Nature Reserves properly and to mitigate potential dangers posed by such activities and avoid irreversible negative impact on the Nature Reserves. I think people are not quite aware of the rather fragile nature of the Nature Reserves. SAF men who use the Nature Reserves for the various exercises think that as long as they do not damage the trees or the bushes they do not do any damage. But they are not aware, for example, that by constantly stopping at one spot, and damaging and destroying the grass, they cause the top soil to be washed away during heavy rains.”
“I think Members will agree that the Botanic Gardens should be made accessible to all, not just to the young and the physically fit, but also to the ageing population. It is with this in mind that the transport system is being planned. But I want to assure Members as well as members of the public that in the planning and design of this system, we will exercise great care to choose a system that will not intrude upon the quiet nature of the Botanic Gardens. We will choose the right vehicles and decide on the most appropriate routes and operating times to ensure that we preserve the present atmosphere. A question was raised as to why the Fort Canning Park is under-utilized. The trouble is that the present Fort Canning Park is sub-standard and requires considerable infrastructural improvements and better maintenance to upgrade it. In the process of upgrading this park, we are not carrying out the work in isolation. It is being done in conjunction with the overall development plan of the Civic District and proper access to the park will have to be provided. I think access is one of the problems. It is a rather steep access from most directions and we have to do something to try and make it more attractive to get to Fort Canning Park. One access, for example, that is being considered is an overhead connection between Fort Canning Park and the Clarke Quay conservation programme so that members of the public can gain easy access to the park. We intend to integrate the development of Fort Canning Park together with the whole Civic District programme and make the park more visible and more accessible to members of the public. I think the programme that we have in mind should achieve this purpose.”
“I think Members here as well as the public can be assured that there is no intention at present to impose an admission charge on the public to enter the gardens, but of course there may be, as part of the development programme, particular attractions in the gardens which may require an admission fee. We have not decided on that. But whatever we do we do not intend to over-commercialize the Botanic Gardens. The Government, in this case the Ministry of Finance, has agreed to continue to support the Board financially through annual grants to enable it to use its creative energy in carrying out its mandate rather than in trying to be financially self-sufficient. But if the Board wants to embark on programmes outside those that we have approved, they may have to also present a scheme to raise funds to fund such programmes. I want to tell Dr Koh Lip Lin that it is not a question of me being generous. All of us have to go to the same Minister for funds, ie, the Minister for Finance. All Government Ministers follow more or less the same principles. It is just that the Government as a whole has decided that these programmes should be funded by public funds. Dr Koh mentioned that there used to be some public amenities which have fallen into disrepair. I want to assure him that there will be better amenities and visitor orientation facilities that would be provided as part of the redevelopment programme. I note that, in the process of dialogue with the public, some concern has been expressed over the proposal to provide an internal transport system in the gardens. Some are concerned that such a system may spoil the rather quiet and tranquil nature of the park.”
“Sir, I thank the two Members, Mr Ng Pock Too and Dr Koh Lip Lin, for their support of this Bill. They raised a number of points. I intend to group them together and take them in the order of interest. First of all, on development programmes in the Botanic Gardens and Fort Canning Park. The programme for the development of both these areas was approved at the end of 1988. A conceptual master plan for the Singapore Botanic Gardens was produced with inputs from a study tour of American and European Botanic Gardens. Thereafter, we employed a consultant to translate this physical mas- ter plan for the needs of the Botanic Gardens here. This began in October 1989. This phase will end this month and will be followed by design and development and proper construction will begin in 1991. Some of the works such as the diversion of Cluny Road should be finished by early 1992. In Fort Canning Park, renovation is underway to convert the former Squash Centre into a Cultural Centre. The Singapore Dance Theatre and Theatre Works would be housed in this facility. Structural investigations have been completed on the former Singapore Command and Staff College building and improvement works will follow to preserve the building for adaptive reuse. The development programme for both these areas would be completed some time in 1994. As I said, work will begin next year. In the development of the Botanic Gardens, we are very conscious of the need to preserve the present tranquil beauty and ambience of the gardens. It is something that Singaporeans have come to expect and they enjoy the present Botanic Gardens and we intend, in the redevelopment, to ensure that we do not spoil the gardens.”
“The formation of the National Parks Board is our commitment to conserve our national heritage. It is also another step towards improving the quality of life of the present and future generations of Singaporeans. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“As appointed guardians, the proposed National Parks Board will be given the proper staffing and financial resources to enable it to properly conserve and manage the Nature Reserves. Members may be interested in the details of the development programme of these three areas. These are found in a note that I have asked the Clerk to circulate to Members. Some of the details indicated on these plans are the subject of further feasibility and technical studies. But the programme as presented should give Members and the public some idea of the extent of development that is envisaged. Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry has considered several organisational options to manage these national parks and nature reserves. To fully realise their potential, the unique features and character of these parks should be properly integrated. The management must have the acumen and flexibility to manage and promote these national parks. We have concluded that the best solution is to establish a statutory board with a clear mission and the requisite powers to realise the full potential of these parks and nature reserves. The House will be glad to learn that the Government will continue to support the Board financially through annual grants. Our national heritage will not be compromised for commercial ends. Freedom from financial worries will enable the Board to use its creative energy in carrying out its mandate rather than in trying to be financially self-sufficient. The present Nature Reserves Board will be dissolved when the National Parks Board is formed. The present Chairman and members of the Nature Reserves Board will be appointed en bloc to the National Parks Board. Sir, Singapore is a city state. It is easy to let the urban sprawl encroach into our green and open spaces.”
“This will ensure that the Gardens is a leading institution for equatorial botany and horticulture, and also create an outstanding educational and recreational garden for Singaporeans and tourists alike. Fort Canning Park Sir, no other park in Singapore enjoys the unique historical legacy of Fort Canning Park. Here, the history of Singapore can be traced continuously to the 14th century. The park served as the seat of administration in early Singapore, the heart of the island's defence and the site of our first Botanic Gardens. Today, it is an under-utilised recreational park. Situated in the city's civic district, it deserves to be promoted as a historical and cultural attraction. The Government will spend $25 million to redevelop the park into a history park to enable visitors to trace Singapore's multi-racial history through exhibits, reconstruction and multi-media events. Provision is also made to house cultural activities within the park. Nature Reserves The 2,795 ha of Nature Reserves serve as the last bastion and refuge for Singapore's native flora and fauna. Properly protected, managed and conserved, the Nature Reserves are invaluable as living classrooms for educators and their students and for Singaporeans in general. The Nature Reserves also provide the type of recreational space, not found in any man-made park, which is increasingly being sought after by our urban populance. The Nature Reserves are administered under the trusteeship of the Nature Reserves Board which depends on the Parks and Recreation Department for administrative and technical support. The potential of the Nature Reserves for recreation and education has not been fully tapped.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The proposed National Parks Bill seeks to establish the National Parks Board and provides for the Board to manage the Singapore Botanic Gardens, Fort Canning Park and the Nature Reserves. The Bill also seeks to repeal the Nature Reserves Act. The Singapore Botanic Gardens, Fort Canning Park and the Nature Reserves have distinct historical backgrounds and great potential for development as educational, cultural and recreational amenities. They are part of our heritage and can contribute towards enhancing the quality of life in Singapore. Development programmes have been approved for the improvement of the Singapore Botanic Gardens and Fort Canning Park. Action is being taken to make the Nature Reserves more accessible. Sir, the Bill is to provide for the formation of the National Parks Board to manage these national parks and Nature Reserves effectively so that we realise their full potential. The Bill provides for the following: (a) the Nature Reserves to be held in trust and managed by the National Parks Board; (b) the Singapore Botanic Gardens and Fort Canning Park, designated as national parks, to be owned and managed by the Board; and (c) the National Parks Board to be empowered to make regulations, compound offences and be given powers to keep law and order within the parks. Singapore Botanic Gardens The Singapore Botanic Gardens, established at its present site in 1859, has been acclaimed as a world-class botanical institution. In recent years, Singaporeans have come to know of it primarily as a recreational park. The Government has approved a $51 million development programme for the Singapore Botanic Gardens.”
“If we had not switched over to this system, we would have 40,000 on our waiting list, and HDB would have built 40,000 flats and then found that people were not prepared to buy them because they were not in the location that they wanted. Then we would have the problem of vacant flats. The system otherwise is working well.”
“For people to relate to and feel a sense of belonging and a sense of responsibility for the area, the areas need to be fairly small. And upgrading will be done by precincts, and the precincts will be defined by easily identifiable boundaries which could be either roads or big monsoon drains or parks or whatever that exists on the site. So we will be extending the concept. Defective flats. Yes, we are aware that during the boom period, there were defects caused by poor workmanship and the Board has drawn up a defects rectification programme to repair defects that are caused by poor workmanship. Lessees can report any defect found within the flat to the HDB Branch Offices for them to determine the cause and take appropriate action. Regarding the new booking system, it is coming on well. One of the major results of the new booking system is that it has shown up exactly who really seriously requires a flat. When we started the system, we had 40,000 on the waiting list, and even in the first exercise, 7,000 decided to withdraw because they did not require a flat immediately. They had just put their names in the hope that somehow, some time, they would be able to get a flat in the ideal location. And 3,000 others, decided to opt for the walk-in selection system, which left only 30,000 in the booking system. These 30,000 were allocated flats in the new towns that they chose. Then they were called to come and actually book a specific flat. Our experience shows that even out of these 30,000, 10-15% may not finally book a flat because they cannot get the particular flat that they have in mind. One of the very important results of the booking system is that it has given us a clear idea of the actual real demand for housing.”
“HDB has been providing, in fact, most of the community and social service organizations with this type of subsidized rental premises. There is some rethinking on this, not from the point of view whether we should subsidize or not, but purely from the point of view of how this subsidy should be shown so that the population at large would know what kind of financial assistance is being given to community and social organisations. The present system where HDB, in fact, gives a hidden subsidy is not a good system. Financial assistance to non-profit making organisations in the form of subsidies should be properly accounted for by the relevant Ministry or the relevant authority. This will give a much better accounting of the cost of welfare services provided by the Government. The HDB is now in the process of thinking through this policy. It has not made a decision yet on this policy of whether it should continue to make available subsidised rental premises for community and social organisations. It may revise the rentals charged for these premises. But obviously such revision can only be done after discussions with, for example, the Ministry of Community Development or other authorities, and after suitable arrangements have been made for the subsidies, if any, to be met out of the budget of these various agencies. So that is what is being considered at the present moment. No decision has been made. Mr Yatiman talked about HUDC flats and the precinct concept. I was not quite clear. He asked whether we were prepared to extend the precinct concept. When I explained the upgrading programme of the HDB, I did mention that the upgrading programme will in fact create precincts that people can relate to. Neighbourhoods are rather large, New Towns are even larger.”
“So there is some delay in that respect. The other problem is that HDB's overall building programme is now in the region of 12,000 to 15,000 flats. Many of these flats will in fact be built in the new towns. Some of them will be in redevelopment areas within the central area, like Tiong Bahru. But there is only a certain number that we can build within the city because, from now onwards, the flats will reflect the cost of the land on which the flats are built. So if a flat is in a new town, it will cost less than a similar flat or the same type of flat in the city area. If we build, for example, next year, all the flats in the city area, then all the flats are going to be very expensive and the people who want to buy may find that they cannot afford them. So we have to mix the building programme to include a large proportion of flats in the new towns, which everybody can afford, and some part of it in the central area which will be more expensive. It is for this reason that we cannot redevelop all the sites vacated by the one-room blocks in the city area. But we have a programme of redevelopment and this programme will be implemented over the next few years. But we do not have a quick solution to the problem of the older estates. Mrs Yu-Foo asked about the use of void deck space. I think she wanted to know whether these void deck spaces will continue to be made available to non-profit making organizations and at cheap rentals. These are community and social service organizations. As Members know, for many years now, HDB has in fact converted and let out void deck space in housing blocks on a monthly tenancy basis to various social and community organizations and these have been at nominal rates of $3 per square metre per month or even $5 for the whole premises.”
“Sir, I will first take Dr Vasoo's question on how the older estates can be improved. I really have no new programmes to announce apart from the two programmes that are currently in hand, or which will be implemented over the course of the next few years. First of all, is the upgrading programme which involves the upgrading of the existing buildings. We are trying to bring them as close as possible to the current standards. The other programme is the redevelopment programme. This is the clearance of old blocks, rental blocks and then using the vacated land for new buildings which could be in many cases HDB development of large flats, ie, 4-room, 5-room, Executive-type flats, or even in some cases, private development. The mixture of the existing flats, upgraded existing flats, and the new flats in the redevelopment sites should improve the overall tone and activity in the area. But this is something that cannot be done overnight. It is a long term programme. In fact, many Members have raised with me the question of delay in the redevelopment of sites that have already been cleared in their constituencies. I would like to take this opportunity to tell them why there is a delay. Some of these sites are prime sites and we have cleared a number of blocks, amalgamated the little pieces of land into a fairly good sizable piece of property that can be redeveloped. The intention is, in some of these cases, to sell it to the private sector for development. There are certain infrastructural investments that have been made, like MRT, for example. We want to make sure that the advantages of these infrastructural developments are factored in to property values before we sell these sites so that our people as a whole, society as a whole, can get the maximum out of these lands.”
“I think Mr Chiam should know that the words "required for public scheme" covers a lot of things. As a lawyer, he should know that.”
“We assume that when businessmen acquire land they have development proposals. Before anybody buys land, as a lawyer, Mr Chiam would know they will make the necessary enquiries from the departments concerned as to whether there is any public scheme in the area. And public scheme includes acquisition for conservation, acquisition for road widening, or acquisition for any other purposes.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I will make one last point. Mr Chiam is being alarmist. We acquire land that is available for redevelopment. Land that is already developed where there are buildings, we do not acquire. If you look at any of the MRT stations, you will find that there are new private developments around the MRT station that we have not acquired. These are developments by the owners. They have put up new buildings, shopping centres, and other kind of developments, and we have left them alone. But where there are sites for redevelopment, sites which are either vacant or sites occupied by old buildings which are due for redevelopment, we acquire them. We have done so all over the city. If Mr Chiam has been walking around and looking at what has been happening, he would know. I am surprised that he is surprised.”
“Sir, let me answer Dr Lee's point. The evidence was for all to see as they drove by Stamford Road. Nothing was done for years and I think that is sufficient evidence. Coming to Mr Chiam's point, I am very surprised that he draws a parallel between Singapore and Hong Kong. In fact, he is a bit outdated. The cycle is not five years. It is two years. Because of 1997, anybody who invests anything now wants his money back in two years. Is that what we are? Surely Singapore thinks well ahead of requirement. And one of the principles in acquiring is also to spruce up the whole city and the whole of Singapore. There are areas that we have resettled where we may not use the land for maybe another five or 10 years. We have resettled and rehoused the people because they were living in poor unsanitary conditions. We are doing that all the time and we are not at all apologetic about it. We plan well ahead. We intend to clean up the city and rehouse the people properly. Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, this is the first time I have heard that the Government acquires land 15 years ahead of time. What is the cut-off period? Why 15 years? Make it 20, 30, 50 years. We can acquire all land. Whichever valuable land we see we acquire first. We are going to make use of it in future, 30 years from today. It is long-term planning. So where is the security for business people to invest in Singapore? They do not know when their land will be taken away. This is like the Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. Anytime their land could be taken away at the slightest reason. 15 years, 20 years, it may or may not come.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have to plan well in advance. Let us just take the example of these three buildings. If Government had not acquired these three buildings, the owners would not have been able to get rid of their tenants. It would have continued to be a slum in the centre of a city that is being spruced up and redeveloped. Owners were not making the attempt and they were not able to get rid of their tenants. Government had plans for the area. Yes, even 15 years from now, so what? When it comes to land development, you must think well ahead of requirement. You do not wait for 15 years when the whole area is redeveloped and this little slum is there before you acquire it. Government acquires well in advance of requirement and in order to spruce up the civic area, we had to acquire. We have evicted the tenants. We are now restoring the buildings and they will be rented out and there will be good usage that we can be proud of in that area.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Dr Lee knows the compensation policy. All owners and tenants were compensated according to the policy. One of the very important considerations in fixing compensation is the fact that these are rent controlled properties. Being rent controlled properties, rents were fixed. Owners, of course, paid the penalty for low rentals and tenants benefitted by paying very low rentals for a long, long time. Compensation was fixed on the basis of the existing situation, which was a low value for the property because it was rent controlled and rentals were low. It is an established principle and everybody there was compensated according to this established principle. As to why the other properties were not acquired, when you draw a line as to where to acquire properties there will always be areas just outside the border. All these buildings that we have acquired were on sites that were meant for redevelopment. The fact that we are not redeveloping immediately does not mean that they will not be redeveloped. As I said, the land supply and the projected building is such that we do not require these sites immediately. So we might as well put them to some interim use. The final development plan of the site has not been determined yet.”
“But at least for the next 10-15 years, there is no intention to pull them down unless, as I said just now, we do not proceed with the other option of extending the road that has been built from Neil Road to the Central Fire Station. Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Government has no plans to make use of that area for the next 15 years and since Eu Court has not been gazetted as a conservation building, how come that the tenants who were there were evicted and on very poor compensation? On what excuse was that done? Again, if the buildings were acquired because they were near the MRT station, how come buildings just next to this building were not similarly acquired, just around the corner? How does the Government explain all this?”
“There is some rethinking on the road widening proposal and I explained the options that we are considering. As far as the three buildings are concerned - Capitol Building, Shaw Building and Eu Court - we will keep them for the moment. They are not declared as conservation buildings nor as conservation areas. The plan now is that it is unlikely that we will need the sites in the next 15 years or so. But if the need arises and there is great pressure to redevelop that particular area comprehensively, then I think we should seriously at that stage consider knocking them down. The land there is not immediately required. It is just like the row of buildings opposite Dhoby Ghaut MRT station. They have been leased out for short periods of up to 10 years. They have been restored. They are being used. But that whole site is still the subject of comprehensive redevelopment. So the question of Eu Court and the other buildings there is still not settled. But we have acquired them. They are part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan. In any case, conservation is part of an urban redevelopment programme. Urban renewal does not mean just knocking down buildings and putting up new buildings. It also covers the conservation of existing buildings. I think he is being very simplistic when he says that all owners just put on a coat of paint, but that is not conservation. In the case of Eu Court, there were some extensive repairs that had to be done. Of course, from the outside, it looks the same but cleaner. As I have already mentioned, it is not yet gazetted and at the present moment we still have not decided whether we want to consider it as a conservation area.”
“The project is targeted to start in July next year and should be completed by late 1992. The rest of the area will take longer to complete. I am afraid that I cannot state exactly how long it will take because, as I said, it is not just a straight question of architectural and engineering problems, but there are also some legal problems to be sorted out. On the question of conservation raised by Dr Lee, he reminds me of a very well-known Danish pianist, Victor Borge. You can give him any tune, any composer, and he can make them all sound the same. You want it to sound like a waltz, you can give him anything and he will make it sound like a waltz. So regardless of what subject we are dealing with, Dr Lee really makes the same old points. He talks about a conservation programme as an eviction programme. I think he well knows that all these areas which are designated as conservation areas were rent-controlled areas. When I announced that these areas would be decontrolled, I said that they would not be decontrolled in the sense that the owner could just evict the tenant. The owner will first of all have to produce plans, show that he has the money to complete his redevelopment plans and only then would the Tenants Compensation Board look at the case and fix the compensation for the tenant, ie, if the tenant and owner cannot come to an agreement on their own. It is not just a question of owners evicting tenants to repossess their properties without any reason. The reason must be a redevelopment plan which is approved by the URA. He asked about Eu Court. I have already explained this. Perhaps I should explain again. As I said, Eu Court and the other buildings were acquired partly because they were near the MRT station and partly because of road widening proposals.”
“Sir, can I first answer Mr Wan Hussin's question about Kampong Glam? I take the opportunity to inform him and other Members of the progress made in the conservation work in this area. We announced and in fact gazetted the area as a conservation area in March 1989. Since then, owners of 43 units of shophouses in Kampong Glam area have submitted plans for formal approval. Of course, this is still less than 10% of the units in the area, but it is a good start. We did consult community leaders from Kampong Glam and invited them to view an exhibition on conservation of historic districts and their feedback on the conservation area was sought and, wherever possible, useful ideas will be incorporated in the final plans for the area. One of the important and significant buildings in the area is of course the Istana Kampong Glam. There are plans to restore and repair this Istana to its original splendour, but there are some legal problems and legal matters which have to be cleared up first before we can proceed with this. Arab Street and Bussorah Street being the core of the Kampong Glam area will continue to maintain the commercial activities and promote the cultural heritage of the area. We intend to pedestrianise some of the streets there leading to the mosque so that we can retain the more quiet ambience around the mosque, although the mosque fronts fairly well trafficked roads. Other areas within the Kampong Glam area will be for general commercial as well as residential activities. There are some shophouses owned by the State in the area. These would be renovated by the URA as a pilot project and also to demonstrate to the other owners in the area what can be done with the buildings in the Kampong Glam area.”
“The Ministry will be gradually improving the state of more vacant lands in various areas, and I think the Member for Changi would be pleased to note that some of the sites in his constituency are slated for early sprucing over the next year or so. Regarding the sand dunes, I want to thank Mr Yatiman for his overture which was a fanfare of praise to HDB. I want to tell him that the one suggestion that he made which looks, I think, even absurd to the Members here, that the sand pile should be moved, is, in this particular case, the one solution that is going to be adopted. Not because the sand pile is a nuisance, but because the site is needed for another purpose. The new polytechnic will be built there. Therefore, the sand pile is going to be moved to a site far away from residential areas. But in the meantime, no sand is being transported into the area. In fact, since December last year there has been no transportation of sand to this sand stockpile. We cannot of course allow anything to grow on the sand because the sand is needed for construction purposes and it is being used by the construction industry. But not all of it can be consumed overnight. In the meantime, it has to be transported to another place and stored. I think the nuisance that the residents who live in the area now face should disappear once the sand pile is removed.”
“Sir, on the question of maintenance of resettled land which, as Mr Teo has said, is becoming a nuisance to those living in the area, I would explain that these vacant lands are maintained by the HDB. In general, it has term contractors to cut the grass at least once a month to prevent mosquito breeding. Wherever it is necessary, of course, other measures, such as oil spraying is carried out. The general policy is to pay much more attention to vacant land near residential areas, precisely for the reason that the Member mentioned. They are normally turfed and the grass is cut twice a month. But where there is any failure on the part of the contractors to do a proper job, I would appreciate it if Members would bring them to the attention of the Housing Board. I agree entirely that such areas or such vacant sites should not become the dumping ground for refuse or for abandoning dogs or animals. We will do everything possible to prevent that. But I must also point out that there is not much purpose in keeping all large tracts of vacant land completely manicured. I think we are so used to the very high standard of work of the Parks and Recreation Department that Singaporeans do not want to see anything that looks wild and unkempt, so much so that when we allow grass to grow along East Coast Parkway, we have to put up signs to explain to people why the grass is being allowed to grow. So some areas will be left a little more wild or left in their natural state. But this does not mean that they will become dumping grounds. While it is HDB's responsibility to ensure that the places are well maintained, we can do our own bit to help the HDB by reporting cases where people dump things at such sites.”
“I think he is referring to my previous answer. I was talking about the Victoria Street end where there is already an MRT station and there is an MRT tunnel running under the road. So we cannot really build high buildings above the tunnel and we intend to use that part of Victoria Street to widen Victoria Street.”
“Sir, the first point I would like to clarify is that the Capitol Building, Stamford House and Eu Court Building were acquired for two reasons. One, as the Member has mentioned, is road widening. The other, which is perhaps a more important consideration, is that we have a policy of acquiring all sites near MRT stations so that society as a whole can benefit from the increased values of sites around MRT stations. We have got to bear in mind that there are two reasons. Regarding the stretch of road between Coleman Street and Stamford Road, we have two options for that stretch in order to connect the road that has been completed up to the Central Fire Station to the stretch that has already been built at the Crawford Street end. One option is to widen this stretch of Hill Street to eight lanes which will require the demolition of Eu Court. The second option is to upgrade Armenian Street and Queen Street for traffic going eastwards from Coleman Street to Middle Road. Then Hill Street will be converted into a five-lane road with two lanes for traffic going eastwards and three lanes for west-bound traffic. This means no demolition will be required. My Ministry is of the view that the second option is a better option. It allows the buildings along Hill Street to Victoria Street, between Coleman Street and Middle Road, to be retained. But this option has still to be worked out. I do not know which houses he is referring to when he says he is not aware of future plans. I do not know whether he is talking of Eu Court or ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the question of how much more traffic capacity can be increased by all these improvements is precisely one of the factors that we are studying right now to determine whether or not it is worthwhile embarking on this tunnel programme. I cannot give a ballpark figure or a cock shy figure because whatever figures I give will pro- bably be later thrown back at me. But this is precisely one of the points. Very preliminary studies show that the increase is not going to be very dramatic. So I do not want to give the impression that with all these investments we can completely lift or we can liberalise the present policies on curbing the car population. But we intend to try and extract the maximum that we can from the system and this is a very key consideration that we will have to settle before we embark on this plan. I am sorry I cannot be more clear than that. As to the facilities around MRT stations, I think I mentioned the details of where the bicycle parks will be. The question of where the park-and-ride scheme will be, that is still not determined. We are looking at various places. But the other schemes, like properly shaded walkways and so on, will be done for all MRT stations. In fact, I have asked PWD together with MRT to make sure that every station has a proper system of pedestrian walkways from population centres to the MRT station. As regards speed limit on semi-expressways, I cannot tell him offhand. I think it should not be any different from Bukit Timah and Dunearn Road semi-expressways.”
“Land does not depreciate but you still have to recover the cost of the land. All these things should go into a proper costing of car parks. As to the $9 million that he mentioned, I do not have the report here with me. I think he also mentioned the figure of $108 million and that there is a detailed breakdown, except for $9 million. If he wants to know what the $9 million is made up of, please file a question and I will answer it. Sir, I think I have answered all the points raised by the Members.”
“But as I said, it is entirely for the CAAS to determine whether the demand and supply situation is such that they can reduce the car parking charges. On the second causeway, there has been some discussion with the Malaysian authorities. There seems to be a general agreement that the second crossing should be at the extension of Jalan Ahmad Ibrahim. But there are many details to be further discussed, the exact nature of the crossing and whether it should be a causeway or causeway plus bridge or entirely a bridge. These have still to be settled and among the items to be discussed and settled will be the question of whether there would be toll charges. If there are toll charges, obviously the charges will have to apply at both ends or it has got to be a system where both sides will have a share of the toll charges. You cannot have a situation where one side charges and the other side does not. Lastly, I come to Dr Lee's reading of the HDB annual accounts. He wants to know what kind of loans, what kind of depreciation, how car parks can depreciate. Sir, the HDB has different cost and activity centres and cost is allocated to different centres in accordance with normal accounting practices. HDB borrows money for all its activities and how the cost of these loans is allocated is based upon principles agreed with the auditors. And a part of the loans will be applied to car parking charges. I cannot tell Dr Lee offhand how much interest will be charged. If he wants to file a question, I can have an answer prepared. What kind of depreciation? How can car parks depreciate? The question is not whether car parks depreciate or not. When you have a capital investment, you have to recover the capital investment as well as the cost of the land.”
“As I explained, for the older roads, this is a little more difficult to do. I now come to the question of car parking charges in Changi. It is true that the URA manages the car parks but the car parks belong to the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore. But regardless of who manages, there are certain parameters that will determine car parking charges. There is a limit to the number of car parks that can be provided in the vicinity of the Airport. So car parking charges are not determined purely by congestion considerations. It is determined by demand and supply. The demand for car parking lots at Changi Airport is consistently high. As at February 1990, I am told that there were just over a thousand season ticket holders paying $75 a month for the various season car parks at Changi Airport. It is necessary to strike a balance between the demand for season car parks with other demands, ie, the hourly car parks, reserved lots, long-term requirement and so on. There may be lots which are empty now and it is entirely up to the Civil Aviation Authority to determine whether it would be preferable to reduce the rate and increase the usage or convert the land on which the car parks now stand for some other use. But ultimately, it must be determined by supply and demand, regardless of where the car park is in Singapore. The car parks in Changi have to cater not only for the needs of the workers but also for the members of the public who go to the Airport to send people off or to receive them. It seems fair to me that those car parks that are used exclusively or reserved exclusively for workers should have a premium attached to them.”
“In fact, I am going to suggest that we give some blank forms to all MPs which they can keep in their cars and when they note such instances, they can just fill up the form or telephone the PWD. We will take action, and action is taken against contractors who do not follow the guidelines laid down by the PWD for road opening. The other point is a suggestion which has been made very often and that is the question of a common service duct. This is something that is being looked into, especially for the new areas like Marina South, where the area has not been built up yet and we can start laying the system. But for existing areas, it would be a very expensive proposition because we have to redirect the existing services. While on this subject, I ought to again clarify a misconception that some people have that if you have a common duct, then you can put all the services in the common duct. It is not possible. It is dangerous to have, for example, a gas pipe next to an electric cable. If there is a gas leak and if there is also a leak in the electrical cable and there is a spark, there will be a huge explosion. It is not possible, for example, to have a sewer line in a common duct because sewer lines work on gravity and they go very deep. While we should do everything possible to minimise road openings, the solution is not so simple. But wherever possible, we are trying to lay these services off the main road, ie, on the roadside table or verge. In fact, major services will no longer be allowed along our expressways and all the services will be laid off the road on the roadside table. Our newer arterial roads have similarly adopted this concept of a segregated services area at the roadside table. So the road itself may not be opened.”
“Let me now take some of the specific points made. Dr Wang proposed that we adopt the turn on red system that is practised in some American cities. The PWD has considered this alternative, but they are not very much in favour because, even in America, it does not work well. It requires great discipline on the part of a motorist, and I do not think that our drivers have the greatest discipline in the world to try out this method. We have to take into account the safety of pedestrians. As we begin to lay more and more emphasis on public transportation, there will be more and more pedestrians and we must give pedestrians some priority. For the moment, we do not intend to proceed or to implement any turn on red programme. But wherever there is land and wherever it is possible, we would try and institute free left turning lanes. I think regarding the other points about efficient use of traffic lights through computerisation and vehicle loop detectors, I have already touched on them. Mr Chin Harn Tong described vividly his frustration at being caught in traffic jams caused by road works. Sir, in any economy that is developing, there are bound to be road works. The only way that we would not have road works and building is when we stop growing. But I agree entirely that we must minimise the disruption. We have laid down very strict guidelines for those contractors who have to open up roads to lay services on how they should have clear signals and signs and do their work in such a way that they do not impede the flow of traffic unnecessarily. I would appreciate very much if Members who come across cases where contractors do not have clear signs would let the Ministry know.”
“The PWD will announce details of the revised requirements soon. Sir, all these big plans that we have to build interchanges, viaducts and road tunnels do not come cheap. They are expensive. An interchange costs something like $20 million. The Keppel Viaduct costs $68 million. The CTE tunnels now under construction cost about $100 million per kilometre. And future tunnels may cost even more. The underground roads identified in PWD's preliminary study are estimated to cost $1.4 billion, ie, $1,400 million. So those who benefit and use these expensive alternatives must pay a reasonable part of the cost of building and maintaining these investments. Electronic road pricing and other methods will have to be used to do this. Besides assessing the financial cost of these viaducts, flyovers and tunnels, we must also assess their cost to the quality of life in Singapore. I think anybody who has been to Los Angeles must be very conscious of how the quality of life can be affected, even if a society has the land and the money to spend all that it wants on building viaducts, roads, tunnels and so on. These investments, these types of measures, can encroach into our precious greenery, generate noise and increase the level of air pollution. They can also be a blight on our landscape. Our desire to build these facilities is ultimately limited by how we are going to strike a balance, a balance between our desire to maintain the quality of the environment for all Singaporeans and meeting the desire to own cars by those who can afford them. This is really the test. It is not just a question of how much money we are prepared to spend, what technology we have, but what kind of quality of life we want for Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is so much for the general road planning.”