Tan Eng Liang
Singapore
“Sir, in the light of Government's emphasis on road safety and the strong measures indicated by the Hon. Minister, I would draw the Minister's attention to the conviction in court of a school bus driver who caused the death of two students in my constituency. He was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment.”
“Furthermore, the concessions in personal income tax rates effective from Year of Assessment 1978 have benefitted most taxpayers in the higher income group. I, therefore, do not see any justification to warrant a revision of the $4,000 limit allowable for purposes of tax deduction.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not in a position to debate with the hon. Member whether or not the 5% increase given in 1974 was adequate. But if he feels that the situation now warrants another increase, perhaps we can have a look at the position. Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, just as a matter of interest, what would the Hon.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to a certain resolution. Resolution reported - "That the sum of $250,000,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the head of expenditure for the public services shown in the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st Apri…”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Consumer Price Index at constant prices in 1972 was taken as 100. In 1973 it was 117.7. In 1974 it went up to 144. That was the period when the ex-gratia allowance was given. In 1975 it was almost the same, 147.7. In 1976 it was 144.9. In 1977 it was 149.5.”
“ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn sine die." - [Mr E.W. Barker]. Adjourned accordingly sine die at Twenty-six minutes past Four o'clock p.m.”
The complete record
Every one of 441 lines we hold for Tan Eng Liang, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 9.
“However, we are prepared to concede that if certain plots in these high lands are not taken up by pig farmers, then when the time comes, we will consider converting it into poultry farming.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Primary Production Department is not an expert in hydrographical surveys such as the detection and digging of wells. If I remember correctly, there are firms which specialise on this. In fact, some firms also give guarantee that if no water is detected you do not have to pay any money at all. I think it is best left to the private sector to do that type of work. Now, the Punggol area was extensively acquired by Government for the sole purpose of resettling the affected pig farmers from the Kranji catchment area, so that Punggol, being a non-catchment area, could be made into the place for pig-rearing in Singapore. The 62 poultry farmers were retained on the condition that they should be prepared to switch over to pig-farming. The criterion used was to allow any farmer with more than 3,000 birds to stay. I am sympathetic with those who have to switch from poultry farming to pig farming as it involves some costs but the PPD has really no money to help them in financing this transaction. But due to the representations made by the Member for Punggol on the plight of these poultry farmers, the Primary Production Department has given them a grace period to switch over. Instead of asking them to resettle elsewhere immediately, the PPD has indicated that farmers will be given three years to switch from poultry farming to pig farming. It is true that certain parts of Punggol are high land where pig farming in the conventional sense may not be attractive. But we have figures to indicate that even in these high lands, where PUB water is available, and using modern commercial methods the total cost of water per pig after slaughtering is only $4.”
“Sir, the Singapore Mass Transit Study was undertaken in two phases. In Phase I, various mass transit systems including both the all-bus and the bus-rail systems were examined. Phase I was completed in early 1974 with the recommendation to study in greater detail a bus-rail system and this was carried out in Phase II. Both phases of the MTS were undertaken by a firm of consultants appointed by the World Bank which acted as executing agencies for the UNDP. To assure the hon. Member for Anson, local counterpart staff were attached to the MTS Unit throughout the feasibility study. The Phase II study was completed by the consultants in March 1976 and the draft final report which was submitted by the consultants is now under review by the World Bank. The consultants had concluded that the rail-base mass transit system is technically feasible. The World Bank, however, has taken some time for their review because of the many factors to be considered, including a close scrutiny of the bases and assumptions used in this study. The World Bank has indicated that the review will be finalised shortly. My colleague, the Senior Minister of State for Communications is still extremely interested in this project and he has just told me that they are pursuing the report of the World Bank very closely. My Minister has just been to Hong Kong but it was on an unofficial visit. So do not believe what the newspapers have said.”
“Sir, the Government is appreciative of the understanding of these resettled families in the importance of water and the need to move them out from the catchment area. The Ministry does not believe that the Resettlement Department would really harass the families concerned in order to achieve its objectives but, if it pleases the hon. Member, we can perhaps advise the Resettlement Department to be more persuasive in its approach. I am surprised at the incidence quoted where the Resettlement Department did not try to persuade the 103 resettled families to other areas. The likely reason would be that there are available flats, for example, in Bedok, Ang Mo Kio and even as far away as Woodlands, but the families have been so used to Punggol and the good efforts done by the MP that they choose to stay in Punggol. So they would prefer to rent the flats at Punggol Estate I and do not mind waiting to purchase the flats at Punggol Estate II. I think that is more likely the reason and not the fact that the HDB's Resettlement Department had not given them any alternative accommodation. As to his query on the need to be more humane and sympathetic to alleviate the bitterness of these people concerned, we share his sentiments and I can only reiterate by saying that we could advise the Resettlement Department to be more persuasive in its approach. The original time given for those to resettle from the Kranji catchment area was much shorter and I think, due to the urgency of the project, extended time was given to allow them to move out from the catchment area. Similarly. I suppose the same reasons are applicable to Punggol where the families have been resettled outside so as to make the land available to resettle those pig farmers from the catchment area.”
“Sir, clearance of the site at Ah Hood Road will commence in the middle of this year. As the site is heavily encumbered clearance is likely to take some years to complete. The HDB, on the other hand, is unable to indicate a firm date for development. However, construction work is expected to begin sometime in 1979. The Member's suggestion for the inclusion of a market, open space and recreational facilities will be included in the development plan. Mr Sia Khoon Seong: In view of the Minister of State's reply. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1st March, 1978 sit again tomorrow.”
“Sir, I have indicated just now that it is based on the tender system. But as he knows, one of the requirements is that for each call of tenders there is a minimum rental. In other words, before anyone can tender for a particular shop the HDB tells him that there is a minimum rental of say. $500. He must be a bad businessman who expects to get a shop by tendering at $450, when the stipulated minimum is $500 rental. So where there is no demand, or when there is only one tender below the stipulated minimum of $500, then it is up to the Shop Committee to decide whether to re-tender it or to let it go. But chances are that there will be a second tender to see whether we could attract a higher tender price.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member has always complained that the HDB has not helped to alleviate the plight of the large families living in one- or two-room flats. However, in the past, overcrowding was accepted as one of the reasons for transfer to a larger flat. But I think he is aware of the new policy where the HDB will now register all applications for transfer provided the two-year period of qualification has been complied with, and this is not restricted by the number of persons in the family. His second query is on the balloting of HDB shops. I have spent a lot of time just now explaining to hon. Members the rationale behind the tendering system of HDB shops. It merely suffices me to mention to him now that the system has proved to be working satisfactorily and that there is no necessity at this stage to change this system. But to satisfy him we can monitor the situation and, if at a much later stage a better system is required, we will look into it. Finally, regarding his question of how many dwelling units and shop houses will be constructed at the Woodlands New Town, the answer is that 5,231 dwelling units and 65 shops will be constructed at the Woodlands New Town. Another 153 dwelling units and 59 shops are under construction. Ultimately Woodlands New Town will have a projected total number of 55,000 dwelling units. Sites have been kept aside for the building of a library and a community centre in Woodlands New Town.”
“No. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 7.30 p.m.”
“Sir, as far as money is concerned. he is aware that that comes under the Ministry of Finance. To satisfy him that I am sincere in conveying his sentiments to the Monuments Board, I am actually having lunch with the Chairman of the Preservation of Monuments Board as well as the Chairman of the Tourist Promotion Board to discuss what can be done to improve or to stimulate this interest on the need to preserve some historical sites or buildings.”
“Sir, the hon. Member for Katong has brought up two valid points. He suggested that something should be done to preserve the site in view of the centenary of rubber planting. I am glad to report that the Ministry has given in principle approval to the interested party and that a site will be set aside to preserve its historical value. As to his observation that there is a need for a historian on the Preservation of Monuments Board, I think his suggestion could be looked into. At the next round of appointments, this could be taken into consideration. Finally, as to his observation that insufficient efforts have been made to publicise and stimulate interest on the need to preserve buildings or locations of historical interest, I can merely say that the Board is aware of this need to stimulate public interest and, in fact, members of the Board have given talks to the public and participated in Radio and TV programmes. They have also given talks to selected bodies, such as the Tourist Promotion Board, the Housing and Development Board as well as the Urban Redevelopment Authority. But if this does not come up to the expectation of the Member, would he please bear in mind that the Board is an extremely small one and that it has only a secretary and one or two clerical staff. Most of the members on the Board are volunteers. So one should not expect too much from members of the Board. But I would convey his observation and comments to the Board accordingly.”
“I can only assure the House that whatever efforts that we have put in will come up to your high expectation but. I think like any big organisation, problems are bound to arise. I can only say that when they do arise, we will try our best to solve them.”
“Sir, each passing year must find different problems. In fact, I have not failed in that when I did say last year that I would look into a problem, I think those MPs who had brought up problems to me then can testify that these problems have been looked into. But one must bear in mind that the HDB is a big organisation, and like any big organisation, it has problems. I for one do not say that the HDB has no problems at all. As far as the Ministry is concerned, the HDB is a big statutory board under the Ministry of National Development. It suffices for me to say that the Ministry is paying a lot of attention in trying to strengthen the administration of the HDB. In fact, by personal example, since I have taken the trouble to chair both the Allocation Committee and the Shops Committee as far as tender is concerned, must clearly reflect a sincere attempt by the Ministry to try and do something to improve and strengthen its administration.”
“Sir, perhaps I can answer the Member for Kampong Kembangan. The answer is yes. The HDB has a research unit. The HDB has done many sociological surveys and, in fact, the results are being implemented on a day-to-day basis, and the very fact that he sees the difference between old estates and the new ones such as Marine Parade, and that he himself has noticed the flexibility of the HDB in improving on the newer estates, must indicate to him that the HDB is fully aware of the problem. To satisfy him, we actually have a consultant professor from Hawaii who is helping us to do this survey now and then.”
“Sir, I have already explained that because it is so minor it could be easily handled by the Area Office. There is no need for me to intervene at this juncture. If the unhappiness in a marriage could be resolved at a very low level why go to the Bishop when it could be very easily handled by the priest!”
“Sir, as I have indicated, there is a standard period. According to my architects, it is six months. In some cases, depending on the nature of the particular complaint, it is one year. I do concede that if it is a structural defect, which means a basic defect right from the word "go", then on moving in the defect is found to be due to structurally unsound construction, it is fair that the HDB will have to look at it and perhaps re-do the whole thing at no extra cost. So a lot depends on the type of complaint that one is making.”
“I can tell the Member that there are many instances where the Housing and Development Board has ruled in favour of cases that are not strictly according to policy. As to his statement that the HDB is unreasonable in the purchase of a shophouse by placing a limit on the ownership of commercial property and that the limit set is arbitrary as no thought has been given, let me assure him that the Allocation Committee, in which I am also the Chairman, has gone through this question thoroughly. The limit that we set is that an applicant should not own a commercial property with a market value of $250,000 or more. That means if he can afford to own property worth one-quarter million dollars, it is hard to convince us that he needs to rent subsidised housing or that he needs to purchase subsidised housing of, say, $15,000 or $20,000. If he can afford to buy a $250,000 commercial property, it is more appropriate for him to purchase HUDC housing, which is about $60,000. As far as this particular ceiling is concerned, plenty of thought has been put into it, and it is a reasonable ceiling. How can one borrow $250,000 if one has no collateral to support the loan? I can merely say that HDB has put in plenty of thought into it and the ceiling of a quarter million dollars is a very reasonable limit.”
“I see no reason why the Licensing Coordinating Committee should not give sympathetic consideration. I would say that each case should be treated on its own merit. In this particular case which the Member has mentioned (I happen to be the Chairman of the Allocation Committee), I would be prepared to look into it. A more important question brought forward by the Member for ba Payoh is his illustration of two cases of unreasonableness and unsympathetic consideration by the HDB - throwing out deserved cases of ownership. I must say that the HDB operates on the line of policy. Not only has the Member for Toa Payoh, but at the Presidential debates the Member for Kuo Chuan had also brought up four cases. In fact, the four examples he gave look reasonable on paper. I have managed to get a satisfactory explanation from the HDB as to why they could not concede. In one of the two cases, the one with permanent residence, appears reasonable to me, and I think that can be considered. But in the second case where the son wants to transfer the name to the father so that he himself can buy another HDB flat, I would say that his application has been thoroughly thought out by the HDB. The reason given by the HDB is to prevent this man from taking advantage of having another HDB unit because he is on the list of original householders. So if he wants to buy another HDB unit, he goes through the normal routine of registration with his spouse or whoever he wants, and he goes through the pace. He should not be given priority. HDB has thought of all these possibilities. Where discretion and sympathy could be exercised, it has been done.”
“The Member also suggested that the HDB should be more sympathetic towards those living in one-room flats by giving them stalls in HDB hawker centres. I think the question of hawker stalls has been debated quite heatedly during the Head on the Ministry of the Environment. Members are aware that the issuing of hawker licences is under the Licensing and Coordinating Committee, under the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment, and that the HDB provides the stalls. I suppose if the Member feels strongly, the HDB can make recommendations to the Coordinating Committee. 7.00 p.m. But last week, I have already answered the Member for Thomson on this point. There are a number of stalls available in his constituency, but then the Coordinating Committee has over 11,000 street hawkers to resettle. Therefore, I regret to say that this has to go through the Coordinating Committee, but if the Member feels strongly about these hardship cases this could be referred to me for attention. I have here figures to show that in financial hardship cases the Licensing Committee has allocated through the Board something like 100 families, and more than half of these 100 cases are from one-room flat tenants. As to the request for transfer of hawker stalls from one particular place to another, the same answer is applicable to the Member for Changi. When business is not too well, they blame the HDB, but when it is good, they say "Well. I did the right choice." But if there is really a strong case such as the family is now living in Thomson but because he had been given a stall in Toa Payoh in the past and now wants a transfer back to Thomson, I think that is a reasonable case for consideration.”
“Sir, if the Member is strictly talking on that point, I concede and I think that it should be improved. I personally feel that if the Member is referring strictly to those cases with the five-year qualification, I personally feel that the case should be looked into.”
“It could be made in most offices of Commissioner of Oaths, and I personally do not see the difficulty in getting a sworn statement made. Anyway, I would convey his suggestion to the HDB and if the HDB has told him so, I tend to agree that it will be done. The Member has suggested a better system for the resale of flats, and has complained that in some cases the owner of a particular resale flat has to wait something like five or six months. I share his sentiments. But then the difficulty that the HDB is facing is this. Those who sell their flats within five years will get the same price that they have purchased. But those who have owned the flats for more than five years can sell at whatever price they can fetch provided somebody is prepared to buy over. Here again, the HDB is faced with the problem of first-come-first-served and is faced with the problem of fairness. Let me give an example. Let us say in Toa Payoh there is a heavy demand for flats and there is a long queue of people wanting to purchase HDB flats. Mr X wants to sell. Let us say there are 1,000 people waiting to buy a three-room flat or a five-room flat in ba Payoh. An owner of such a flat wants to sell to Applicant No. 1,000 on the queue because that person happens to be his friend or his relative or just happens to be someone interested to purchase because he has the money and can pay a lump sum.”
“I am implying that it was not deliberately done. Here again, the lift maintenance unit is supposed to do regular servicing and I would say that if there is any serious, abnormal and frequent breakdowns, then I would be happy to look into it myself. As regards facilities, it is true that the older estates are not provided with the same facilities, such as children's playgrounds, when compared to the new estates. I think the Member is agreeable that there is a limitation in what the HDB can do because the old estates have already been built and it would be difficult to introduce certain facilities even if the HDB wants to. For example, if there is no space for a children's playground, it is just impossible to build. What the HDB can do is to try and keep the appearance of the old estate as best as it can by giving it a whitewash every now and then and maintaining its cleanliness by more efficient supervision over the contractors doing the servicing. There is, of course, a plan. These old estates have been built since the 1960s and I think it is a matter of time - I do not know when, five years from now maybe - when there must be some fundamental change. The old blocks may have to be knocked down and replaced with newer blocks or even knocked down merely to provide certain facilities. That I think will take time. Finally, the Member for Toa Payoh has brought up a number of points. First of all, let me handle the most difficult ones. He asked me whether I am aware that the HDB is looking into the possibility of getting somebody to handle the sworn declarations. I do not know. But I think if the HDB has told him so, then it must be so because they do not take the words of the MP in vain. Anyway, it is quite easy to make a sworn declaration.”
“Let me say that there is no distinction in the standard of maintenance between the old and new estates because the residents are paying more or less the same conservancy fees. Last year, I tried to argue out with statistics to show that there was no let-up in the cleanliness of the old estates and, in fact, gave results of a survey which showed that the cleanliness of the old estates had improved. This is borne out by a survey conducted and reported by the Straits Times in January 1977. I think the improvement of the cleanliness of the old estates must be due to the growing civic awareness of the residents `themselves and, I think to claim credit, to the better awareness of maintenance by the HDB authorities. The Member is also aware that there is a 24-hour essential maintenance unit which has been set up to attend to urgent matters. The same is true for the breakdown of lifts. I am in sympathy with him over the incident when he was caught in a lift breakdown during one of his tours. But I think that is not peculiar to his estate. I myself was caught in a lift breakdown when I was touring the new HDB area in my constituency. This is not to give any excuse but, being an old estate, there must be lifts in the many blocks that the Member has in his constituency which need to be repaired or even replaced by new lifts. And it could be just a coincidence that when the Member got into one of these old lifts, it broke down.”
“Sir, let me next answer the hon. Member for Henderson who has suggested that there is a need for a special unit in the HDB. If I remember correctly, last year when I answered this question, I said that there was no necessity to have a special unit because the Ministry of Home Affairs at that time was looking into the setting up of Block committees. I was told that the Ministry of Home Affairs has proceeded with the formation of Block committees consisting of uniformed groups such as the VCs and the police who have been given priority for HDB flats. So actually there is no need for the HDB to look into this. The Member also complained about the inefficiency of the administration, and quoted the example of both the HDB headquarters and the Area Office issuing summonses on hawkers. Well, I do concede here that if this is so, then it shows a lack of co-operation on the part of the Area Office and HQ. In fact, if he can give me particulars of the incident, I am prepared to investigate. Arising from this, I could inform the Area Offices and the Estates Management in HQ to ensure that such things are not repeated again. Finally, the Member for Aljunied has brought up a number of points. He complained about the regular breakdown of lifts. He also said that inadequate attention was given to the maintenance and cleanliness of the old housing estates. He complained that there is a lack of adequate facilities for old people and children in the old estates. And he compared the old estates with the new housing estates and said that there are better facilities in the new housing estates and are better maintained.”
“My answer to the Member for Katong is that there is a general programme depending on situation and circumstances. In fact, the Member may have noted that during Question time last week, I said that it would take a number of years before all the emergency flats could be renovated and converted. For the Member for Katong's constituency, I do not know how high or how low the priority is. But it would take a number of years.”
“In fact, the interest derived merely helps to reduce the subsidy the HDB gets from Government. I regret to say that the HDB or the Ministry is not agreeable to a reduction of the 20% down payment nor would it agree to payment at the balloting date instead of at the time of application. The Member for Telok Blangah, as he himself has pointed out, has brought up very minor points. I think those minor points could be easily settled by the HDB Area Office. I would like to thank him for his comment that the HDB is doing a good job. Next comes the Member for Katong. As usual, he has put very difficult questions for the HDB to reply. He wants to know the criteria used for the selection of a programme to improve the one-room emergency flats. I regret to tell him that honestly the priority is, first stage is merely to improve the lighting in the emergency flats. I have indicated to the Member for Tiong Bahru during Question time last week that the first stage is to provide better lighting along the corridors and then to improve on other facilities, such as staircases, or simply turn on, the lights during the day. The next stage would, therefore, be the conversion of these units into larger units. But, here again, it depends on whether the residents living in a particular block of one-room emergency flats can afford the better one-room improved flats, which means a higher rental. Can they afford to move to a larger flat? If they cannot, then it would take some time before any renovation can be carried out on any particular block of flats.”
“To be fair to the HDB, there are cases - I do not know whether or not it is in Jalan Kayu, but definitely in other areas - where payment of 50% of the rental makes life extremely difficult for a particular resettlement case, a concession which the HDB or the Shop Committee has allowed, instead of a 10% increment every year over the next five years. So the Shop Committee has allowed the rental in that particular resettlement case to remain at 50%. I would say that if there is any particular case which requires urgent attention and the tenant is really finding it difficult to maintain his livelihood, the Shop Committee has the discretion to recommend, for resettled cases a stagnating rent, at a particular rate for a particular period of time. 6.45 p.m. To continue with the request of the Member for Tiong Bahru, he has suggested that the 20% down payment should be reduced to 10% or adjusted to 10% on application and 10% on allocation. I regret to say that, as in the purchase of houses in both the public and private sectors, one has to make the down payment on application. While I am sympathetic with the cases of those who are not contributors to the CPF such as taxi drivers and hawkers who may not be able to make the down payment. I regret to say that in the case of public housing where Government subsidy is already high, sometimes the 20% down payment does not even pay towards the land cost which is apportioned over a period of time. Sir, it is also true that the HDB derives a certain amount of interest because, as the Member has correctly pointed out, it takes maybe two or three years before an applicant gets a balloted flat. So the HDB does derive interest from the time of application up to the balloting date.”
“To counter the complaint that the rental is as high as $4,000 and $5,000 or even $5,300 p.m., we have an actual case of $7,300 rental in an estate which is not a tourist attraction. But somehow because of its locality it is doing reasonably well and it has survived the last two years or so. But it is true that in certain areas the rental tendered could be on the high side. I think the rental should be left to market forces. In other words, if a particular businessman or a particular shopowner chooses to tender at a certain price, then it is difficult for the HDB to say, "Well, you have tendered it too high." Each businessman must decide what he thinks is a reasonable rental and he must also know what are the chances of his survival. From my experience, I would say that whenever we received tenders for coffee shops, for example, what is surprising about a tender of $5,500 is that there are a number of other tenders at around $5,000. So if there is only one tender of $5,500 against other tenders at about $3,000, then I do concede there is something wrong with that tender as far as that particular locality is concerned. But if all five tenders for a particular shop are at the rate of approximately between $5,000 and $5,500, then as far as the Shop Committee of the HDB is concerned, it is a reasonable tender. It reflects the rental rate for that particular area. But to satisfy Members here, if this tender system can be improved, as has been suggested by other MPs, the HDB will look into it. But in the meantime I think we should carry on with this system.”
“Sir, let me explain. During the planning stage when the HDB is considering facilities for resettlement cases, the HDB is in no position to know whether those facilities will be taken up by the resettlement cases. In fact, this is one of the problems of resettlement. That is why resettlement cannot proceed as fast as it should. Once the shophouses are ready, the HDB offers them to the resettlement cases as a first priority. It is only after the resettlement cases have turned down the offer, as in the case of Changi Village, that the HDB offers them to the public. Once it is open to the public, it is on the open tender system. I would say that the HDB does give some thought to the proportion between shophouse requirements and the number of housing units built. Here again, it is just accidental that the Jalan Kayu shops at Seletar Air Base or in the Housing Board estates do not have too good a business. This is unfortunate. I think that during the planning stage the HDB did not foresee the British withdrawal. It is also a fact that it could not foresee what a particular shopping complex will turn out to be in, say, two, three or five years from now. Now, the tender system. The HDB is undertaking public housing which is highly subsidised by the Government. It is true that the HDB derives certain revenue from the tender system, which is used, in turn, to help reduce the subsidy that the HDB gets from the Government. Whilst I am sympathetic with the Member that this tender system is not ideal and perhaps even incomplete, from the record of the HDB's rental of shops, the majority of the shops are doing reasonably well. I cannot give the exact figure, but I know it because I also happen to be the Chairman of the Shop Committee.”
“My good friend, the Member for Jalan Kayu, supports strongly the Member for Tiong Bahru, as far as the tender system is concerned. First of all, let me say that when the HDB plans a housing estate it does know approximately the number of shophouses in relation to the number of residential units that it wants to build. Of course, consideration is given to resettlement cases. In other words, if there is a heavy resettlement programme in the vicinity of Jalan Kayu or perhaps in Yio Chu Kang, the HDB will try its best to provide a reasonable amount of facilities for resettlement cases.”
“If it is still poor, HDB is trying its best to make sure that it is not so poor. I have stated previously what the HDB has done. To save time, I am prepared to send to the hon. Member a statement to show what the HDB has done because this matter has been debated over the last few years. The next query was from the Member for Changi regarding the hardship of the shopkeepers and market stall-holders at Changi Village. In the first place, Changi Village was never intended to be developed as a public housing project. What the HDB has done was merely to resettle the temporary shophouses at Changi Village when business was good during the boom when the British military forces were around. What the HDB did was merely to provide them with better housing, hoping that business would be still better. I am sure the HDB itself did not know that the British forces were pulling out so soon. In fact, during the period of resettlement some of the shopkeepers which the Member referred to were offered alternative accommodation at Chai Chee New Town but they turned it down. They had made a wrong choice. So I think it is unfair to complain. To put the blame on the HDB for bad planning because their business today is bad is unreasonable. I can only sympathise with the Member and hope that the Tourist Promotion Board would encourage tour groups to go to Changi Village so that the businessmen there will have less to complain about. To be fair to the HDB, the Ministry is monitoring the situation, and I have given a satisfactory reply to the hon. Member during the debate on the Presidential Address when he brought up the question of the Changi Village shophouses, the vacancies, rentals and so on.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me start with the last speaker, the Member for Potong Pasir. Whether or not the major defect is due to structure or poor workmanship, and if it occurs within a certain guarantee period it will be the responsibility of the HDB to rectify; but if it exceeds that period then I think it is the owner-occupier's responsibility. This is applicable to both private and public sectors. As to the need for greater vigilance on the part of the HDB, I think we have gone through that many times. An hon. Member: It is still poor.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member for Geylang Serai has suggested that there is a need to reserve sites to replace suraus and mosques affected by development projects. In the process of urban renewal, as people move out from old areas to be developed, temples, mosques or churches will have to give way to new development. The Government's policy, however, is to reserve adequate sites for religious buildings in the new towns into which people are moving. In the limited land space of Singapore it is, of course, not possible to replace all religious buildings on a one-to-one basis. But, depending on the size of the congregation in each of these housing estates, adequate space will be reserved for religious buildings. In line with this policy one new mosque will be built in each HDB new town where the Muslim population is 20,000 or more, The relevant religious authorities have been advised of this new policy. 5.45 p.m. Currently, new mosques are under construction in Queenstown, Toa Payoh and Jurong. In addition, three new mosques are being planned in Chai Chee, Woodlands and Ang Mo Kio over the next two or three years. When these mosques are completed, the Muslim community will be able to conduct their religious activities in well-designed buildings and in better environmental conditions. The new mosques will be bigger and will serve not only the Muslim residents in the new towns but also Muslims in the surrounding areas. Hence the Muslim residents in Geylang Serai Constituency will be adequately served by the mosque planned for Kampong Chai Chee.”
“There is a plan to renovate the whole building as well as the machinery to ensure that efficiency could be maintained at all times.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Primary Production Department has no jurisdiction over the management of the Jurong Abattoir. Actually the management of the Jurong Abattoir is under a Government company called the Primary Industries Enterprise (Pte) Ltd. I was on the Board of Directors of the Primary Industries Enterprise until last year. I do not believe his allegation that the management employs beautiful girls on their staff at the expense of efficiency and at the expense of the necessary skilled workmanship. The fact of the matter is that the abattoir operates six nights a week. If I remember correctly, all the six nights are on shift work. Because of constant usage there is insufficient time for the proper maintenance of machinery. But the management knows that during certain periods, for example, during the Chinese New Year season the usage is greater than usual. Time was set purposely aside to strip all the machinery, to repair it and make sure that it is in tip-top condition for continuous use, in particular during the festive seasons. Now, the problem of inadequate labourers. The abattoir, in particular the slaughtering section, operates from 11.00 p.m. at night to 5.00 a.m. in the morning. This is to ensure the availability of fresh, warm meat for consumers in the early morning. This is a practice peculiar to Singapore. In other countries, the supply of fresh warm meat has been taken over by frozen meat. Because of the nature of the work from 11.00 p.m. to 5.00 a.m. the difficulty of getting labourers to do the work of slaughtering is great. I have been told that, on the other hand, the company is trying its best to improve the staffing situation.”
“I think some rural MPs have appealed on their behalf and until their positions have been reassessed by the panel of experts and if it is true that they are bona fide farmers, then the bona fide status could be given to them. Lastly, the question on the need for a comprehensive agricultural policy by the Ministry of National Development. This was brought up by the Member for Jalan Kayu. The Ministry of National Development believes that agriculture has a part to play. But it is obviously a limited part. It can only play its part in terms of the overall development because of other priorities. The PPD is the instrument of the Ministry of National Development to ensure that there is self-sufficiency in pork, meat, and eggs. The very fact that the Punggol farming area has been designated as an area for pig farming and that poultry farming is allowed to be carried on must indicate that agriculture has a part to play.”
“Here again. I would say that I beg to differ. I think the PPD officers have tried to help but certain things which are beyond their control have been levelled at them and criticised. For example, resettlement benefits. Resettlement benefits are arrived at Ministry level. In fact, the enhanced rate of compensation paid by Government to all resettlement cases, be it farmers, residential, commercial, shop-houses and so on, is decided by a committee. The Ministry of National Development has to convince the Ministry of Finance who then agrees on the rates of compensation to be paid to each farmer. 5.00 p.m. Here again, the last review of compensation rates was made in April 1975. If there is justification for a re-assessment, the Ministry of National Development could suggest it. But once the schedule of rates has been agreed, then the PPD, like any other department for example, the Resettlement Department, JTC and the HDB, has to comply with the rates. If the Member complains that there is inadequate compensation, then it is a different issue from the status of a bona fide farmer. Arguing that he is not a bona fide farmer is a different issue, and I have given the reasons. They must comply with certain requirements. If one is a bona fide farmer, it means that he is totally dependent on farming for a livelihood. I think it is difficult for us to decide on this issue as we are laymen. But there is a panel of experts which has the expertise to determine farming activities. I think it is most unfair to look at a farming family where the son is just helping out now and then and then conclude that he is totally dependent on farming for a livelihood. I think that is too simple to be true. But I stand corrected.”
“I would say that if there is difficulty in terms of coordinating with the different Ministries, the PPD can have a go at it. As to another allegation that the PPD has done nothing about fluctuations of produce prices, such as eggs, poultry, and pigs. The PPD monitors the situation constantly. PPD knows when the prices of pigs and eggs go up or down, and it liaises with the Livestock Association most of the time. But, like everyone else, when the price of pigs goes up steeply, every farmer is happy. But when it goes down, then every farmer appeals to the PPD or the Government to do something. Here again, the market forces take care of this. In going into pig and poultry rearing, one of the basic requirements that any farmer or anybody who goes into the business should know that when you over-produce you get a situation of excess, and this excess comes periodically. In fact, if the farmer is of any good calibre, he will know that after several years, normally there is a cycle of three to four years, he will have a situation of this nature, an excess. Therefore, if he is a good businessman, he should keep something for a rainy day. I would say that the Government should not interfere with market forces, unless the situation really demands it, because the market forces will always balance it. So the PPD is aware of all the situations as far as price movements are concerned. In fact, it even has to monitor the prices of raw materials used in making feeds for feeding chickens and pigs. So it is unfair to say that the PPD is not coming out to help. The PPD is aware of the situation but, as it should be, it leaves it to market forces to take care of it. The Member for Punggol has brought up the question of the PPD officers being unsympathetic and not wanting to help.”
“In other words, I am saying that ultimately when the whole area is developed, the Punggol pig farming area will be as good, if not better, than the areas where they have come from, but it takes sometime for the infrastructure to be laid down. As to the query of difficulties to obtain a permit to even repair or erect poultry or pig sites, here again the difficulties involve a number of departments. For example, the application form has to go to the Land Office which is under the Ministry of Law. If it involves pollution, it goes to the Ministry of the Environment and then, of course, building comes under the Building Control Division. If the difficulty in getting a permit is due to the inability on the part of the PPD, then I think the PPD will try its best to expedite matters. But here again the difficulty is not just the PPD, It involves three big Ministries. For the Ministry of National Development, while I can say that the PPD can help to send the applications on behalf of the farmers to BCD, the farmers may still have to wait for land clearance by the Ministry of Law and clearance from the Ministry of the Environment.”
“The question on why we resettle farmers from Sembawang and Kranji areas to Punggol, I think an explanation has been given before, that is, the priority for the supply of water is more important than the rearing of pigs. That explanation has been given before and, in fact, to show that the Government is serious in its intention to resettle those affected in the catchment areas, the Sembawang Pig Farm which was a project of the PPD was aborted completely because of this new policy to conserve water. As a result, no money was spent at all to proceed with this pig farm project. All these suggestions that the Primary Production Department has done very little to help the farmers are to me unfair. I would say that the PPD, like all other departments, has to follow Government policy. It is not the fault of the PPD to resettle people from one area, be it in Jurong or Chua Chu Kang, to Punggol. The blame should not be entirely levelled at the PPD, which only follows Government policy. On the other hand, the complaint from the Member for Jalan Kayu that in the resettlement from particular areas to Punggol where there is at the moment inadequate or improper infrastructure, is a valid observation. But I have already indicated that, as far as the new Punggol pig farming area is concerned, it will be the pig farming area in Singapore and that infrastructure like drainage, water, electricity and so on, are being provided, but this has to be done on a phase-to-phase basis. I have the figures here and if Members are interested, Phase I has already been completed and all the infrastructural amenities are there. As I said, I can quote the necessary amount of money spent to lay the necessary infrastructure as far as electricity, roads and so on are concerned.”
“He has criticised the PPD for having done so little to help, in particular, the farming and fishing communities. Of course, he is still unhappy over the question of bona fide farmers, and implies that the PPD is most unfair in its assessment. Regarding resettlement by the Jurong Town Corporation, here again the PPD assists the HDB and JTC in assessing farming activities. I have previously indicated that it is not done by just an officer of the PPD. There is a panel which meets regularly to assess cases. There are criteria to comply with. Just to give Members an indication, I have here the figures which show that for the period 1971 to 1976 this panel has actually assessed 2,025 cases. If he is, in fact, complaining of the processing of these cases to decide whether or not they are bona fide farmers, then I have indicated just now that they meet regularly. They meet weekly or fortnightly depending on the urgency of the cases. I am purposely leaving the other questions on the PPD activities last, and answer some of his other queries first, for example, the Auditor-General's report on improper control of finances at the PPD under the Ministry of National Development. I can merely reiterate here that the Department has noted the observation of the Auditor-General and, in fact, improvements are being made to correct the weaknesses of the accounting system. The Ministry has informed the PPD to constantly review the accounting system. He wanted some idea on how many officers are involved in monetary matters. Actually it involves 86 officers from the public counter up to the authorising officer.”
“As to his comments that the Primary Production Department has done insufficiently as far as the publication is concerned, that there is inadequate compensation and that there are too strict regulations involving assessment, perhaps he does not know that the assessment of the Resettlement Department is referred to the Primary Production Department for approval. In other words, PPD being the authority where farming activities are concerned, will say which item, whether it is the pot, the flower or whatever it is, should be compensated. If PPD gives that assurance, in most cases it is a formality for the Resettlement Department to approve. I cannot see the logic of a non-technical department, such as the Resettlement Department, telling PPD or disagreeing totally with PPD on the technical assessment. I am not in a position to argue whether the pot is for the growing of orchids or for something else, but I am talking generally that the PPD does the assessment. And if the PPD gives its approval, the Resettlement Department, in all cases that I know of, automatically approves. He has also made a number of suggestions which I do not think he is serious about, for example, giving hawker licences to orchid growers who have to be resettled. The reason is very simple. During the Budget debate on the Ministry of the Environment we have indicated that sympathetic consideration would be given to real hardship cases, and so on and so forth. So if these are legal orchid growers, and they come under the resettlement guidelines, then the same consideration will be given to them as that for the resettlement of pig farmers or poultry farmers. The Member for Jurong has brought up a number of points.”
“As to his observation on illegal slaughtering of pigs, the Primary Production Department has an enforcement unit. In fact, it has intensified its raids on illegal slaughtering of pigs. Just to convince him, 342 checks on market stalls were carried out, and 81 raids were conducted on suspected areas of illegal slaughtering. As a result of this, 6 1/2 tons of illegal pork were seized, 40 prosecutions were carried out, and a total sum of $21,000 in fine was imposed. As to his observation on cheating on the sale of mutton, frozen mutton is sold in the market at about $1.90 per pound against fresh mutton which is sold at about $2.40 per pound. The hon. Member did complain of the high price of mutton two years ago. At that time fresh mutton was sold at $2.70 per pound. If the butcher is cheating the housewife by charging fresh mutton price for frozen mutton, perhaps he can report the matter to CASE for their investigation. I will now take the comments made by the hon. Member for Sembawang. I somehow feel that he has a fantastic interest in orchid growing. In fact, he has appealed very strongly to ensure that the orchid industry does not go down. I have during the debate on the Presidential Address answered some queries made by some rural MPs, in particular, the Member for Nee Soon. I did say that the Primary Production Department was looking into alternative sites to help resettle some of the orchid growers. I could also perhaps state here that if he is referring to orchid growers who are at the moment cultivating orchids within forest reserves, then that is not legal and, in fact, no licence has ever been given.”
“Sir, I would like to deal with the resettlement problem last because the Ministry is under heavy fire. I would rather deal with the Member for Anson first by saying that what is good for India is not necessarily good for Singapore. He has brought up a number of points. The first point was about a cartoon on the growing of vegetables on the rooftops of HDB flats. The Primary Production Department has studied his good suggestion previously on the growing of brinjals on rooftops of HDB flats and the proposition has been found to be uneconomical. HDB flats are not designed to carry loads. So if the Member's suggestion is to be carried out, perhaps the structure of these buildings has to be modified and this means higher costs. Moreover, to accommodate farming activities on top of a residential block of flats somehow is incompatible. He also queried why no efforts have been made to develop agriculture or poultry industry in the outlying islands of Singapore. The PPD has considered the usage of the outlying islands for rearing of both pigs and poultry, but to introduce the basic infrastructure for pig and poultry rearing large sums of money will be required. Here again, economic factors dissuade us from developing the outlying islands into pig farming areas. The Member also questioned whether Singapore could not only be self-sufficient in food but also be an exporter of food. I can merely reiterate what we have mentioned here before. We are self-sufficient in pigs, poultry and eggs. As for exports, he has heard the complaints from some of the rural Members of Parliament - that there are now and then excess supplies of eggs and meat. But as a policy matter, self-sufficiency in the particular areas of pigs, poultry and eggs will be maintained. 4.45 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in case of urgency, in particular where an MP comes out in support of a particular application as was suggested in the case of the damaged zinc roof, I personally see no difficulty really. For example, if the damage is directly to the roof of a bedroom and it needs immediate repair within a few days, I see no difficulty in convincing, perhaps not the clerk at the counter, but the head of the Division, that it is necessary that immediate approval for repairs be given. If approval or permit is necessary, and if the owner's signature is required, and so on, these requirements could be processed at a later date. I have already given an assurance that even if that situation cannot achieve approval for immediate urgent repairs, I would be very happy to intervene, if necessary.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree that the BCD, in particular should expedite the application. If it is a situation as in the case that we are talking about, that is, a minor repair, then I agree that there should not be an unnecessary delay. But if the repairs are of an extensive nature, then I think the minimum requirements of a planning permission and building permit must be complied with. And, as I have said, that depends on how many parties are involved. However, if the delay is on the part of other Government departments or Ministries, then it is incorrect for me to suggest that the delay is due to this party or that party. But as far as the BCD is concerned, if it pleases the hon. Member, we can, of course, send them a reminder to suggest that the applications should be expeditiously processed but with the proviso that there is always a minimum period required. I can tell the BCD to see how best they can further improve on what I think is a reasonable period of processing. I have indicated to Members just now a period of one month. But here again it is not too worthwhile to debate on what is the minimum period. We can say that in the few cases of unnecessary delay, I agree that action should be taken to look into them,”
“Here again, if the Member feels that there is unnecessary impediment on the part of the officer, let us know and perhaps we can give him some good advice. I would therefore sum up by saying that as far as the simplification of procedures for minor repairs is concerned, it is being done. If it could be further simplified, we would be happy to look into it. If hon. Members have good suggestions on how to further simplify the procedure, we will welcome their suggestions.”
“Now, the Member for Bukit Panjang has suggested that if the repair area is less than 50% of the structure, then no permit should be required. I have already indicated that, from what BCD has told me, minor repairs and alterations do not require planning permission or building permit. But I can pursue the matter further if he could tell me roughly what he has in mind so that I can refer his suggestion to the Building Control Division. The point made by the Member for Punggol was about the unnecessary delays in granting approvals. He gave an example of an application to repair a zinc roof which was made during the Chinese New Year season and that up till now no permit has been given. I cannot give any excuse on the part of the BCD. But if it is a straight-forward and simple application for repairs and if the damage is not extensive, I think it should not take a month or so. But, s'.s he has said, if it requires another two weeks for approval, I would be happy to look into it if he wants to pursue the matter further. As to the comments that the officers are unnecessarily over-enthusiastic and critical, here again, I think one must appreciate that it depends on the degree of enthusiasm. I share the sentiments made by the three rural MPs who have spoken, that if it is for minor repairs, such as changing one plank in a wall, and they are making a big fuss about it, then by all means complain. They can complain to the highest authority if they choose to do so. But, on the other hand, I cannot believe that all members of the staff in the Building Control Division are of that nature. There could be one or two members of the staff who are unnecessarily uncooperative.”
“On the other hand, if the repairs and alterations are extensive and involve rebuilding and additional floor areas, then planning permission, building permit and the landowner's consent will be required. That is the procedure from the information given to me. Coming to the question of simplifying procedure. The procedure in applying for extension and minor repairs, as I have said, has already been simplified since the middle of 1976. As an example, in the past, an applicant has to submit two separate applications for the same extension and minor repairs: one to the Development Control Division for planning approval and the other to the Building Control Division for a building permit. But now one application is sufficient. I have also information on the simplification of procedures, if hon. Members are interested. In the past, generally speaking, something like 11 copies of five different types of forms were required to be submitted. But now, the applicant only needs to fill one form, and only four copies are necessary. The reason for the need to have sketch plans is that it is difficult for the Building Control Division itself to know exactly which particular plot in the rural area that is referred to. It could be a stituation where the site concerned is Government land and therefore comes under the Ministry of Law. So it is necessary for the applicant to tell us exactly where the location is when applying for repairs or minor extensions. The BCD, being in the Ministry of National Development. therefore, requests an indication of where the site is. But if, on the other hand, where there is a need to coordinate, perhaps I can suggest to the BCD to look into it.”
“I am sure he does not mean the business of servicing and lubrication of cars, because this is being carried out in petrol stations all over Singapore, even in the Central area. We have already got a problem of resettling authorised premises in the Central area - that is, the clearance of all types of related motor business, not only of motor garages. We cannot cope with the problem of resettlement. Yet he has suggested that we load ourselves with illegal and unauthorised usage of land. It is difficult to expect the Government to consider at this juncture. To come to the plea of the rural MPs, in particular the Members for Bukit Panjang, Punggol and Jalan Kayu. I am in sympathy with them. But I beg to disagree when the Member for Punggol said that we are not doing anything. I cannot remember exactly, but maybe partly because of him or some other MPs; after the Budget session in March 1976, the Ministry went ahead to modify the application procedure - correct me if I am wrong. In fact, I would be happy to take up this matter again if whatever I say is contradictory to what he thinks it is. I stand corrected. According to the BCD's information given to me, minor repairs and alterations which do not involve reconstruction or the addition of floor areas do not require planning permission or building permit. In fact; a person can apply for a "No objection" letter. A "No objection" letter means just a letter to proceed with the work. It is a letter, not a permit, from the BCD to carry out any minor repairs and alterations. In this respect, the landowner's consent is also not required.”