Tang See Chim
Singapore
“In this Bill, Sir, 4 1/2 pages of the Bill out of 20 1/2 pages are devoted to the definition of terms used in the Bill and almost every other clause defines one term or another. Finally, Sir, what about the agent of the corrupt person, the go-between, the abettor of the crime?”
“Sir, maybe it was a misplaced metaphor. Maybe I should say a skunk smells just as evil by any other name. This is exactly the position. There is no point your telling us that conditions have now returned to normal when manufacturers are asked to pay a higher rental. They have to compete.”
“Sir, the Minister said that he has not increased rent but he just revalued the value of the land. This is exactly the same as increasing rent. I mean you call a rose a rose. You increase the rent whether you call it the rent or call it the base value of the property. To the manufacturer, it is still the same.”
“The Senior Parliamentary Secretary said that the rent demanded by the JTC is comparable to that for private premises outside. But I think the JTC has almost a monopoly on industrial property. I just do not see how the Senior Parliamentary Secretary could make such a comparison.”
“Sir, the difference is that once they get the entry visa, they will be allowed permanent residence in the United Kingdom. Whereas here, we may allow them to enter for two weeks and after that we will turf them out. Also, may I just take up this further point.”
“Sir, I just want to take up with the Minister on the regulations he read out from the booklet. Indeed, if all those conditions are met, the person will be given an entry clearance and then he will be able to enter the United Kingdom.”
The complete record
Every one of 698 lines we hold for Tang See Chim, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 14.
“When we find it so difficult to fill even one post, I think if we were to increase the number of posts of Research Officers, we will find greater difficulty in filling them. But this year I am told that the Public Service Commission will try to fill this post. And when we have filled this post, we will see how it works out. If it does provide useful service to the GPC chairmen and also to the other Members of Parliament, then we can consider increasing the number of Research Officers who could provide assistance to the GPCs. The GPCs, of course, also receive help from resource persons but in addition to that I am sure they all agree with me that they also receive a lot of help from the Ministries concerned. Speaking for myself, our GPC has received a lot of information which I think if they were to spend time in reading it they will find a lot of useful information which they can use. If they are able to sieve the information from there, I am they you could make full use of the information that we provide. The other question concerns a larger Parliament House. Sir, this Parliament House is probably one of the oldest, if not the oldest, building the Government has right now. It has history. Parts of it dated back to 1827. And it will be a shame if we were to move out of this Parliament House into something new because this Parliament House has tradition, has history. And the laws that we have legislated so far since 1954 came from this place. So I think we should preserve it. We should remain in this House for as long as we can. There is still enough room for a few more Members and, if need be, we can extend this Parliament sitting room to the Public Gallery or even slightly backwards nearer the Speaker's room. But we will consider this possibility when the time comes.”
“Yes, with all the exhibits around. Or an annexe of the High Court. The third matter I want to bring up, Sir, is the televising of the proceedings of Parliament. As you know, we changed our meeting times so that our proceedings can be brought to the homes of Singaporeans on the same day. I for one am finding the present meeting times rather inconvenient. I am sure the Ministers do too. Previously, we had the whole morning to ourselves. Meeting times were from 2.30 pm in the afternoon to 8.00 pm in the evening, with a break in between. But now, Sir, when the meeting finishes at 4.30 pm, today it is 5.30 pm, it is too late to go back to the office and yet too early to go home, except possibly for golfers who may have time to put in 18 holes. I am glad that the Leader of the House has asked the Standing Orders Committee to review the Standing Orders. I hope it will take my plea into account when considering amendments to the Standing Orders. I would urge that we revert to the old times for meetings. I am sure TV Singapore is now experienced enough to be able to manage. The Leader of the House (Mr Wong Kan Seng): With your permission, Sir, I shall reply on behalf of Parliament. The Member for Chua Chu Kang has spoken up for the GPC chairmen. He said that they are very busy people and need a lot of research help. For the Member's information, there is, in fact, a Research Officer's post in Parliament since 1983. There have been five recruitment exercises. In 1984, 1985 and 1986 there were mass recruitment exercises but no candidate was selected. On two separate occasions in 1984 and 1985, in-service officers were also asked to apply for this post. Again, no candidate was selected.”
“I should feel most uncomfortable speaking from the Opposition Bench, lest in the heat of debate the Minister should take me to be one of the real Opposition. But this is less likely to happen if the GPC chairmen were to speak from the Government side of the House but, of course, this Chamber is too small. It is not big enough. This leads me to appeal to you, Sir, that we should have a bigger Chamber. I see that it is the fashion nowadays for every Ministry and every statutory board to have its own building, its own very posh building. All, of course, except Parliament which, I am afraid, seems to be the Cinderella in this case.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head F be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead FA-03 of the Main Estimates. Sir, in the last two days during the budget debate, Members of the House have made their contributions to the debate. Special efforts were made by the chairmen of the Government Parliamentary Committees. But I cannot help feeling, Sir, that if the various GPCs could get some research help the Finance Minister may not be so economical in the use of words in his reply. There is a vote for a Parliamentary Research Officer in the Estimates. It has been there since 1984 but it has never been filled. And it is only for a single researcher. I know that GPCs are supposed to empanel their resource persons but I am afraid that would be of no help. Resource persons are there more for feedback than for research. I would imagine that if a chairman of a GPC were to come to this House and air any matter that the resource persons point out, I am afraid that the Minister concerned will dismiss such an airing gently if he is in a good mood and unceremonially if he is not, all with facts and figures, of course. So I think it is absolutely necessary to have more research help if the GPCs were to do a good job. Sir, I see that some of the GPC chairmen are present and seated in the front row. All of them are supposed to be seated in the front row, and you too, Sir, when you are not presiding in this Chamber. All GPC chairmen are given seats in the front row, a row traditionally reserved for the Opposition. These GPC chairmen are supposed to analyze Government policies and, if necessary, take the Ministers to task.”
“Sir, would the Minister not agree that his cost-control measures in hospital services only result in periodic cost-raising announcements?”
“I am not withdrawing, Sir. I would like to put it to the vote. Amendment negatived. The sum of $10,050,000 for Head R ordered to stand part of the First Supplmentary Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1986 to 31st March, 1987. Question, "That the sum of $60,783,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1986 to 31st March, 19878 contained in Paper Cmd. 4 of 1987", put and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.”
“The National Productivity Board should have better statistics on which to base its forecast. And if the NPB cannot look after its own building programme, I wonder how effective it would be in training personnel that would increase the productivity of the country. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the project was approved by Parliament on all those three occasions.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead RL-01-8201. Sir, I would like to know what is the rationale for the National Productivity Board to have its own building. It would seem to be the fashion nowadays for every Ministry and every statutory board to have its own building. I wonder to what extent this desire to have its own building has led to the present glut in office and commercial buildings.”
“In view of the Minister's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $15,000,000 for Head N ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Main Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1986 to 31st March, 1987. Head W -”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in rspect of Subhead NK-02-2611(03)*. Sir, in moving this amendment, my purpose is to ask for information and clarification. In the note to the Supplementary Main Estimates, it is said that the payment is necessary because there were two loans in default in the current financial year, ie, loans which were reinsured by the Ministry of Finance. I should have thought, Sir, that the default would not be in the two loans but possibly default by the importer in the foreign country. I just want to know how this default comes about and why is it necessary that there should be a shortfall of something like $28 million, out of which we are now being asked to vote for a supplementary provision of $15 million.”
“Does the Minister appreciate that these single persons have been happily minding their own farms until the Government resettles them?”
“What does the Minister think that these single persons should do in the meantime when they are being resettled?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Minister know that these single persons are resettled not out of their own volition and does he think that it is better to leave the flats unoccupied rather than allocating them to these single person resettlers?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister confirm that some of these 3-room flats have been vacant for more than a year and, if so, why not allocate them to single person resettlement cases?”
“Sir, would the Government be prepared to consider allocating these 3-room flats to single person resettlement cases?”
“Although the resettlement in this case is not done by the Government, I feel that the Government is under a moral obligation to see to the rehousing of these people. I hope the Minister will look into the matters I have raised here and do something to help my constituents. Thank you.”
“He only wants a flat in exchange and the Government is denying him that. He sees his neighbours,some of whom do not even own a house of their own, being allocated HDB flats. Yet he cannot get one. He cannot understand why he should be discriminated against. I am sure you understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the poor fellow's frustration and feelings. I think this is a case where the Ministry sticks too rigidly to the rules, and I submit this is a case in which the Ministry can afford to be flexible. After all, how many cases there are in Singapore where a bachelor owns two houses, both of which are acquired by the Government for development? The Government is under a moral obligation, as I see it, to allocate him a flat even if, under the existing rules, the Government is under no legal obligation to do so. Another case of unhappiness is where two families are farming on land covered by only one TOL (Temporary Occupation Licence). It appears to be Government policy not to compensate, at farmer's rate, farm structures and other improvements where two farms are covered by only one TOL. There are many instances where two families farm one holding of land with one family having a farm licence and the other family not. Although the other family can satisfy the criteria of being a farmer set by the Primary Production Department and can prove that at the material time he was a farmer farming that particular plot of land yet he is denied compensation at farmer's rate. This is unfair to the farmer and is causing a great deal of unhappiness. Sir, recently a large number of my constituents living in the Kranji and the Woodlands areas are affected by resettlement.”
“However, the result of the tender would not be known for another two months. In the meantime, he is asked to quit. Where is he going to move all his orchids - tens of thousands of pots of them? He cannot sell them all fast enough and even if he could, what is he going to do if he were successful in tendering for another site? The Resettlement Department, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, comes under the portfolio of the Minister for National Development. So does the Primary Production Department. Yet there does not seem to be any coordination on the policy of these two departments. Something should be done. The policy of not allowing a single person to buy a Housing Board flat has been raised in this House many times. There is now a new twist to this policy. A farmer in my constituency owns two farm houses. Both of the houses are acquired by the Government because the land is being resettled. He is prepared to cooperate with the Government. He is a bachelor and has been happily minding his own farm; until now, that is. He does not mind being resettled and giving up his two houses. But he has to have a roof over his head. He applied for the allocation of a flat under the Resettlement Scheme but was told that he was not entitled to one because he is a bachelor and, therefore, has got no family nucleus. He promptly produced his niece who was prepared to stay with him to form a family nucleus. He was told, however, by the Resettlement Department that that was not good enough. An uncle and a niece do not in the eyes of the Resettlement Department form a family nucleus. The poor fellow is frustrated, puzzled, angry and outraged. He just cannot understand why the Government cannot allocate him a flat. He owns two houses, both of which the Government takes away.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, resettlement is changing the face of Chua Chu Kang. All farmers in Chua Chu Kang are to be moved out and in their place a new breed of farmers called, I suppose, agrotechnologists, are to move in. Farms in Chua Chu Kang are to be redesignated technological parks. In the process, a great deal of unhappiness is created and a great deal of problems, and the livelihood of a large number of farmers is affected. Singapore has limited land area. This fact is accepted. We must make the most efficient use of land. This too is not disputed. But what are the criteria for the efficient use of land? Does it necessarily mean that larger farms are more efficient than smaller ones? Even if we do accept this definition that large farms are more efficient than small farms, do we have to turn everybody out of their existing farms and then let out the farms by tender instead of getting existing farmers to combine themselves and form into larger units? Furthermore, existing farmers do not get any special consideration. If, for example, they can meet the criteria set by the Primary Production Department to manage an agrotechnological park and can equal the tender price, they still have to compete with non-farmers on a non-preferential basis. Indeed, it is perceived by the existing farmers that preference is given to outside entrepreneurs rather than the original farmers. This is causing a great deal of unhappiness amongst the farmers in Chua Chu Kang. Added to this general unhappiness are other instances of unhappiness caused by the resettlement process. A farm is resettled. The farmer is under notice to quit. He is an orchid farmer. He has tens of thousands of pots of orchids. He is told that he can tender for an alternative site to continue his orchid farming.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether proceedings are to be instituted to recover the $200,000 allegedly received by Mr Liaw?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, that is precisely what we are asking - special consideration for resettlement cases. SHOPKEEPERS RESETTLED OUTSIDE CBD (Cash grants) 4. Mr Goh Choon Kang asked the Minister for National Development, in view of the high failure rate of doing business in Housing and Development Board estates, whether the HDB will consider offering cash grants as an option to shopkeepers who are resettled outside the Central Business District.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, would the Minister not agree that it was he in the first place who is resettling them and therefore, he is, in fact, disturbing market forces? Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think the Member must decide whether he wants to allow market forces to have complete free play or to give special consideration to resettlement cases. We have always decided on a compromise in which we do not allow market forces to completely determine the allocation of shops. And we have taken a decision that resettlement cases should be given certain priority. The question is to what degree the priority should be given, and that is what I thought we are discussing. This is a question of judgment.”
“Sir, the Minister, in answering the question, said that he was against resettling shopkeepers as a single group because these shopkeepers were mostly engaged in traditional trades. Is it not then that the Minister is imposing his judgment over market forces?”
“In some of these cases, the authorities have had no choice but to proceed by way of court proceedings, simply because the relevant legislation did not have provisions for composition. The amendments to the Acts mentioned in the Schedule will make these offences compoundable and therefore this would help to relieve the Subordinate Courts of some of these cases and permit them to be dealt with expeditiously by the authorities and will permit the Courts to deal with the more serious and important cases. By this Bill offences under the various enactments which may be compounded will be prescribed by rules or regulations made under those Acts. Mr Speaker, 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. - [Prof. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. INCOME TAX (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“9 of 1983)", presented by the Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. PROPERTY TAX (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Property Tax Act (Chapter 144 of the Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau); 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 121 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Acting 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. CENTRAL SIKH GURDWARA BOARD (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Central Sikh Gurdwara Board Act 1981 (No. 17 of 1981)", presented by the Acting Minister for Community Development (Mr Wong Kan Seng); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. STATUTES (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL Order for Second Reading read. The Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this is a very short Bill. It seeks to amend the various Acts which are referred to in the First Column of the Schedule. The intention is to provide for offences under those Acts to be compoundable where at the present time provision does not exist. Summons cases for various offences which are not comparatively serious or technical offences take up a disproportionate amount of time and workload of the Subordinate Courts. These amounted, for example, to more than 137,000 cases in 1985 alone.”
“Sir, I just want to know what proportion of water is actually flushed down the drain, and whether the Government has any plans to use sea water for the purpose? BG Lee Hsien Loong: In answer to the Member's question, I do not have a precise fraction of water which is flushed down the drain. I think PUB has done some of these studies. It is relatively small. PUB has also considered sea water. It is not an absurd idea. There is a possibility of sea water or recycled water, not of such a high standard of cleanliness, being used for domestic washing or for toilet flushing. We have not found it feasible because it would require installing a completely new reticulation system. That means a whole new network of pipes has to be laid out. You have to make sure that you never misconnect the pipes and interconnect the two systems, which is a real danger. Thirdly, even if you do that, sea water is highly corrosive. The maintenance problems will be very expensive. If we use recycled water, for example, from your washing machine in order to save the water, and use it to flush toilets, it is dirty water. There is bacteria and bacteria will breed. It will smell. It is unhealthy. So far, we have not found it worthwhile to do. BILLS INTRODUCED 11.52 pm ENLISTMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Enlistment Act (Chapter 229 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister of State for Defence (BG Lee Hsien Loong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. STATUTE LAW REVISION (NO. 2) BILL "to provide for amendments, additions and omissions considered desirable by the Law Revision Commissioners in their preparation of a revised edition of Acts pursuant to the Revised Edition of the Laws Act 1983 (No.”
“I think in that development they have made significant contributions. This is not meant to be a list of complaints against the HDB and HDB officers, most of whom I think really do a good job in very difficult circumstances. But there are a few black sheep and others who are the ones who really give the Housing Board, especially the Resettlement Department, a bad name. This afternoon's motion, Sir, is really a plea on behalf of the farmers and people in Chua Chu Kang who are affected by resettlement, a plea for better understanding and more consideration, which they richly deserve. 5.49 pm”
“According to the present criterion, these people do not form a family nucleus. They are not allowed to buy a Housing Board flat. But why can we not relax the rules? These are special circumstances. They have been farming and staying happily on the land. It is through no fault of their own that you come to the place and say, "Look, I want this land. You get out." And yet you do not allow them alternative accommodation. You do not allow them to buy a flat to move into. Surely these people are entitled to be looked after and an exception should be made to the single person criterion that they cannot be allowed to buy flats. I would submit that these cases are really different from single person sub-tenants in tenements in the City area and therefore they should be allowed to buy flats so long as they have been farming on the land and meet all other resettlement requirements. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I must appeal to the Minister not to initiate resettlement before the land is really required for development. There are too many of these cases around. In the Murai area in Chua Chu Kang, for example, land was resettled more than three years ago which are still lying undeveloped. Lallangs grow on them and mosquitoes breed and all sorts of animals and insects and reptiles abound. I think it is this sort of inconsiderate action that turned the people against the Government. It may be convenient for the bureaucrats to get the site ready well in advance of requirement. But for the bureaucrats' convenience a farmer could lose his livelihood. Farmers and people in Chua Chu Kang have made their sacrifices. I think it is because of their cooperation that we could develop the Jurong Industrial Estate so efficiently and so smoothly.”
“Both the Resettlement Department and the Sales Section are departments of the HDB. The Resettlement Department pays the compensation. The Sales Section offers the flat. Yet, invariably, offers of flats seem to come first before the payment of compensation money. I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is a case where the left hand does not seem to know what the right hand is doing. I would suggest that the Minister look into the matter. I do not really see any problem in this. After all, in these days of the computer age, we could simply "input" into the computer the data and the proper coordination is achieved. And where there is compensation money due to a farmer, surely this compensation money could be offset against the price of the flat. This leads on to the next point, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the allocation of flats in good time. Very often, a farmer would receive a notice to quit the land only days after taking the key to a Housing Board flat. I have got an actual case here, Sir. This is a case in which the squatter received his key on the 5th of June 1986. And on the 19th of July 1986, he received a notice to quit his land by the 31st of July, ie, hardly two weeks' notice was given for the squatter to move out and less than two months after he was allocated a flat. Surely sufficient time must be given to the people so that they could have time to renovate the flat and to make the flat habitable to move into. Now I come to the question that has been raised many times in this Chamber and this is the allocation of flats to single persons, persons who in the opinion of the HDB do not form a family nucleus. These are the single farmers. Two brothers may be farming on the land or a husband who has left the house leaving the wife with the children on the land.”
“I am happy, however, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that since the filing of this adjournment motion, the Resettlement Department has seen the light and I am told that the matter will be amicably settled. To that, I think I must thank the Minister and also must thank all the Resettlement officers concerned. Recently, I have received many complaints from farmers that no compensation was given for farm structures on the land. Pigsties and chicken runs have been left out in the assessment notice allegedly on the ground that the structures are unauthorized. These sort of complaints never happened before but they seem to be quite prevalent now. I would ask the Minister to look into this complaint. I suggest that the Resettlement officers should record all structures and other improvements on the land whether they are authorized or not. However, making a note against those that are not authorized so that there would be a record and when matters are taken further, the record can be looked into. The second ground of complaint is the delay in payment of compensation. There are many complaints of delay in the payment of compensation. And compensation money is often not paid when offers of flats are received by the person resettled. Farmers are self-employed. They have got no CPF. Many live from hand to mouth. They depend on the compensation money to pay for their flats. They dare not accept any offer of flats before receipt of the compensation money. But they are told by the HDB that if they do not accept after three offers, they would lose their right to the allocation of a flat and would therefore have to find their own accommodation. This seems to be a lack of coordination among departments in the Housing and Development Board.”
“And if those improvements do not belong to the landowner, the landowner should not be paid. In quite a few cases, squatters planted trees on land that has been acquired and when it now comes to claiming for compensation, the Government tells them, "Well, I have paid the landowner for your trees." But this is not fair because the trees do not belong to the landowner. The trees belong to the squatter and the squatter should be paid. If the Government had paid the landowner by mistake, I think the Government must pay again. It is the Government's mistake. Why should the squatter be made to suffer because of the Government's mistake? There is a very interesting case that I have here, Sir, and this is in respect of delay in resettlement. Land in my constituency was gazetted for resettlement in 1967 and yet no action was taken to move the persons affected out until 1985, some 18 years later. That in itself is bad enough. But when it comes to resettlement benefits, the squatters were compensated according to a survey done in 1967 and not on what was on the site in 1985. Furthermore, only those who were eligible in 1967 were given housing benefits. There was this young boy on the land. When the land was gazetted for resettlement, he was only 11 years old. He has since grown up and is married. He is, however, denied housing benefits on the ground that at the cut-off date, ie, in 1967, he was not married. I do not know how the Resettlement Department expects a boy of 11 to be married. He is denied housing benefits on that ground. His subsequent marriage, in spite of the fact that the marriage certificate was produced, did not cut any ice with the Resettlement Department. This is one of those absurd cases where the Resettlement Department adheres rigidly to the rules.”
“And assuming that a fruit tree farmer has got 20 durian trees, in one year his takings could be as high as $40,000 and yet the ceiling for compensation on fruit trees is $39,000. Therefore, what the farmer takes in a year is more than what he gets for all his life's farming in cultivating those fruit trees. It is understandable that in some cases, for example, where all trees are really small trees, that the ceiling should be put on them. This is to prevent farmers from planting trees just for the sake of claiming compensation. But so far as mature trees are concerned, Sir, there is really no justification for this ceiling. And I would appeal to the Minister to lift this ceiling for mature trees. At the moment, there are also different rates for authorized structures. Some plans of farm structures are approved by the Primary Production Department. But before 1972, the approving authority was the Rural Board or some other Government authority. And yet in the payment of compensation, a different rate is paid depending upon whether the structure is approved by the PPD or by a Government authority other than the PPD. This is really not fair. It is not fair that for approved structures that some should get less while others get more. Also, trees and other structures on land acquired by the Government are not compensated. The reason for this is that the acquiring authorities say that the landowner had been compensated on vacant possession basis. But this argument, Sir, I submit, does not hold water. If the Government department has paid the landowner for improvements which do not belong to the landowner himself, then they have paid by mistake. They should really have enquired whether those improvements on the land belong to the landowner.”
“I would like to speak this evening, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on resettlement problems in Chua Chu Kang. The development and progress of Singapore have impinged upon Chua Chu Kang. In the early 60s, farmers and squatters were resettled from Jurong into Chua Chu Kang to make way for the development of the industrial estate in Jurong. Now, because of other developments in Chua Chu Kang itself, eg, for housing and for commercial farms, the resettlement is reversed. People are being resettled out of Chua Chu Kang back into Jurong but this time into Housing Board flats. Resettlement, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, presents a traumatic experience for those who are affected. It uproots their way of life and for the farmers in Chua Chu Kang it also takes away their means of livelihood. In the circumstances, the least the Government can do is to ensure that resettlement is achieved with as little difficulty as possible for those who are affected. As I see it, there are the following four problems facing those who are resettled. These are: (1) The amount of compensation; (2) Delay in the payment of the compensation; (3) Delay in the allocation of flats and connected to that inadequate notice to move out; and (4) Resettlement where the area is really not immediately required for redevelopment. On the first point of the amount of compensation, certain practices of the Resettlement Department attract a great deal of complaint. One of these is the ceiling of $39,000 put on compensation for fruit trees. This can work tremendous injustice to the farmers. Take, for example, a fruit tree farmer. A good durian tree can in one season fetch the farmer as much as $1,000 and there are two seasons in a year. So a durian tree can fetch a farmer $2,000 in a year.”
“The new provision is a major innovation in the general structure of the insolvency procedure and will provide an interregnum during which the affairs of the company can be sorted out. It also provides an opportunity for the company and its creditors to reach some sort of compromise or accommodation. The Bill sets out the circumstances under which a company or its creditors can apply to court for the appointment of a judicial manager. It also sets out the judicial manager's powers and functions. The exact powers and functions of the judicial manager will no doubt be looked at carefully when the Bill is before the Select Committee. The Bill provides that only an approved company auditor can be appointed judicial manager unless the appointment is made by the court or on the nomination of the Minister. The question that may be asked is whether an approved company auditor is the best qualified person to be appointed judicial manager whose primary task is not to liquidate the company but to chartits path back to profitability and, possibly, future growth. Entrepreneurs with proven abilities may be a better person. But who is a proven entrepreneur? Perhaps the Registrar of Companies can compile a list of such capable persons for selection and appointment by the court. A merchant banker or a retired top administrator from the Civil Service or even a retired Minister of the Government can go on the list. These people may have a broader perspective than an approved company auditor. I am happy that the Bill is to be committed to a Select Committee and no doubt these and other details will be looked at closely. Sir, I support this Bill in principle.”
“If the aim is to catch the guilty, surely the logical thing to do is to allow the court in a winding-up to pronounce whether or not any director involved in the company is guilty for having mismanaged the affairs of the company and, if so, whether he should be disqualified to sit as a director in another company and for how long. The Minister has referred to the UK Insolvency Act, 1985. The UK Act does not provide for automatic disqualification. It empowers the court to pronounce on the director whether he is fit or not in any case before it. The court can do so on its own motion or on the application of the Secretary of State, the UK equivalent of a Minister in Singapore. I hope the Minister will look at the provision closely when the Bill is before the Select Committee and to make the necessary amendments. This would have a stimulating effect on the formation of companies and in however small a way may help in the recovery of the economy from its present recession. Sir, I would now like to say a few words on the provision enabling financially troubled companies to be put under judicial management. This is a totally new concept in the insolvency laws of Singapore. It is to be welcomed, especially in view of the present economic condition. The new procedure will enable financially troubled companies to have a certain degree of protection from its creditors. At present, our insolvency laws are pro-creditor. There is no formal protection of the debtor from the creditors. A company unable to pay its debt may be wound up for temporary liquidity problems even though its long-term prospects are good.”
“The Minister says that there should be a presumption of incompetence to protect investors. But this presumption offends against the fundamental legal principle that a person is presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty. The present amendment which seeks a cut-off period of three years for the second company and provides for a defence to any prosecution will afford some degree of relief but I am afraid it does not go far enough. The purpose of the provision, as I see it, Mr Speaker, Sir, is to disqualify directors who are incompetent and who have made a mess of the affairs of the companies of which they are directors. These people should be prevented from being directors of other companies and to make further messes. The present automatic disqualification, even as amended, does not discriminate the innocent from the guilty. As long as a person is a director of two companies which go into liquidation within five years of each other and the companies are insolvent at the time of being wound up, he is automatically disqualified. This works hardship especially in the present economic recession where it is likely, particularly in respect of companies with family connections, that if one company goes down the other would soon follow within a fairly short time all for no reason other than the general economic condition over which he has no control. Yet he is disqualified and can only prove his innocence by an application to court to lift his disqualification.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this latest Companies (Amendment) Bill is 120 pages long, excluding the explanatory notes. It is a formidable technical document. It seeks to amend the present company law on various aspects and to provide for the creation of a judicial manager to look after financially troubled companies with a view to their rehabilitation. This afternoon I would like to concentrate on two aspects of the amendments. The first relates to the amendment to section 149 of the Companies Act on double liquidation and the second on judicial management of a financially troubled company. Section 149 of the Companies Act has generated a fair amount of controversy. This provision automatically disqualifies a person who had been a director of two companies which were wound up because of insolvency within five years of each other from being a director for five years. The working of it has been seen to be harsh. Fairly prominent businessmen whose conduct the business community views as blameless have been disqualified under this provision. The unfairness comes in because, firstly, the disqualification is automatic and, secondly, there is no cut-off period for the second company that goes into liquidation. Under the existing law, a person could have resigned from a company, say, 20 years ago and had absolutely no dealing with the company for the last 20 years and yet he could be automatically disqualified as a director if the company should go into liquidation within five years of another company from which he had also resigned but less than three years before its liquidation. This automatic disqualification may be convenient for the bureaucrats but would definitely discourage genuine entrepreneurs from sitting on boards of companies.”
“I wonder what progress has been made and would he inform the House of the current situation?”
“Sir, I have got three amendments standing in my name on hawkers and hawker centres and I would like your permission to speak on them now. Sir, there is a hawker centre in my constituency in Lim Chu Kang. This hawker centre caters to residents in the Lim Chu Kang area but the whole of the Lim Chu Kang area, I understand, will be resettled in about two years' time. Even now, Sir, many of the hawkers complain that business is very bad and I wonder what would be the case when the whole of the Lim Chu Kang area is resettled. I am also not aware of any plans by the Ministry of the Environment to resettle the hawkers presently in the Lim Chu Kang hawker centre. I would urge the Minister to get in touch with the Minister for National Development to set out a coordinated plan so that, in the event the residents in the Lim Chu Kang area are resettled, the hawkers there who are now catering for their needs would also be resettled and would not have to worry about their livelihood. I would like the Minister to look into this and give some word of comfort to the hawkers presently in the Lim Chu Kang area. Also on hawker centres, Sir, a question was raised in this House last year and I was told that the Ministry was looking into the matter of having more cooked food centres in place of market produce stalls. At the moment, in our meet-the-people sessions, there are a lot of applications for cooked food stalls but invariably it would seem that the reply from the Ministry of the Environment is that there are no cooked food stalls. However, there are market produce stalls and would the applicants mind taking the market produce stalls instead? The Parliamentary Secretary promised to look into this question and to have more cooked food stalls in place of market produce stalls.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this reminds me of Parkinson's law which says that if you want to build a bicycle stand for, say, $10,000, people will argue and argue for days before deciding on it. But if you want to build an atomic power station which will cost billions of dollars, it will be voted for just like that, simply because, I suppose, people have knowledge about bicycle parks but very little knowledge about atomic stations. So I would like, Sir, that if possible, that the Minister should let the House know how the $5 billion is to be spent.”
“Yes, Sir. Even though my constituency is known as a rural area, it has now a large housing estate, and that is the Teck Whye Estate. At the moment, there are extensions to Teck Whye Estate, to make it into what is known as the Teck Whye Town Centre. But I have not been provided with information on the number of flats to be built or what are the facilities that are to be built. I have asked for reservation of a place for a community centre. I hope that will be acceded to. I complained last year that no market had been built in the Teck Whye Estate. The answer then was that Teck Whye Estate had got only about 3,000 units and therefore it could not support a market. But with the new addition, I hope a market will be available. Sir, on the question of financing, under the Main Estimates some $150 million is going to be voted for, and under the Development Estimates $5 billion is to be voted for, the HDB has got no information on how this $5 billion is to be spent. This is rather interesting, Mr Speaker, Sir. For a vote of $5 billion, there is just one line to say "Financing of the Housing and Development Board." However, under PWD, for example, at page 518 of the Budget, detailed information indeed is provided. There is a list of the various projects, including a project for an pedestrian underpass at Bedok North Road which costs only $561,000. For half a million dollars, we are given information, but for $5 billion no information is provided as to how this amount is to be spent. I would like the Minister to let the House know how the money is to be spent, where the housing estates are to be built, so that Members will have a clearer idea.”
“I therefore appeal to the Minister to give consideration to the small farmers and allow them, at least during this period of recession, to stay on. It would be good for them. It would also be good for the country. I come to the subject of resettlement, Sir. When farmers are resettled, they are asked to go and select a Housing Board flat. They are not going to be resettled back into another farm. But they cannot select simply because they have not received compensation, the money that is paid to them for resettlement. There is a lack of coordination between the Resettlement Department and the HDB. The HDB appears to be very quick in getting farmers to select flats but the Resettlement Department appears to be a bit slow in paying compensation money. The farmers have got no CPF, Sir. Unless they receive their compensation money, it would be difficult for them to make the downpayment for the flat. And if they do not finally select a flat after having been invited to do so for a third time, they would be told that they would have to join the end of the queue. This is really not very fair. I would suggest to the Minister to ensure some sort of coordination between the Resettlement Department and the HDB, so that when they are invited to select a flat they would have the necessary money to pay for the flat. I have also filed an amendment, No. (12). I just want to ask the Minister for information on the type of farming that would be available at Sungei Tengah and Murai, which are in my Constituency. Perhaps the Minister could also let the House know what the type of farming would be carried out in Loyang, which is outside of Chua Chu Kang. That is all for the moment, Mr Speaker. I shall speak again later, on the Housing and Development Board.”
“In any case, Sir, how do you measure high-technology or efficiency in farming? As of now, most of the farms in my constituency have an area of about an acre or, at the most, an acre and a half. But under the new regulation it would appear that the minimum size of a farm should be two hectares. And unless the Government is prepared to give land to the farmers, the farmers cannot really farm anything other than in a small one-acre site. Also, how do you measure efficiency because, as of now, I think Singapore is self-sufficient in poultry and in eggs. Until the recent intervention of the Government, Singapore was also self-sufficient in pork. I think this really is no small credit to a country that has got only 245 square miles of land area, and to a country that is, in fact, a metropolitan city more than a country known for being a big and agricultural country. So how do you measure efficiency? If a farm of an acre in size can, say, produce 10,000 birds of poultry a year, it would then be no less efficient than a farm of two hectares, which is about five acres, which can produce 50,000 birds a year. As of now, some of our small farms are really efficient and have the advantage of being cost-effective because the farms are run by the family. They work hard; they do not have the high salaries to pay. While on the industrial front we are asking our workers to exercise restraint, here is a family farm producing farm products at a reasonable cost, and we are asking them to upgrade. We are moving them out. We are then replacing them with big farms. Then if the big farms become an industry, I think the same ailment that afflicts industry would apply.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have several amendments on the Primary Production Department as well as on Resettlement, and I wish to speak on these two subjects. I would, first of all, like to support my colleague, the Member for Bukit Batok, on his appeal to the Minister to consider slowing down resettlement in view of the present economic recession in Singapore. I understand that all the farms in the Lim Chu Kang Constituency will be resettled in two years' time. These farmers will be moved out to make way for what is known as agrotechnology parks. I wonder what these are. Are they some sort of a park where we can bring school children to see what are pigs and what are chickens? I would like the Minister to explain to the House why is it necessary that ordinary farms should be moved out to make way for what are known as agrotechnology parks. I wonder whether this is, in fact, one way of upgrading agriculture. If so, I think the Primary Production Department has succeeded marvellously because by one simple change of the name, farmers are now called "agrotechnologists" and farms are now called "agrotechnology parks". 12.30 pm I wonder whether this is really necessary because I remember during the debate on the Presidential Address, the First Deputy Prime Minister did say that so long as firms can make a profit, the Government would treat those firms equally, whether they are high-tech or low-tech. There is a saying attributed to Vice-Chairman, Deng Xiaoping, of China, which says that it really does not matter what is the colour of the cat so long as the cat can catch rats. In the present condition, it really befits us to think carefully whether or not we must thrust high-technology farming down the throat of existing farmers.”
“Sir, can the Minister tell the House when he expects the study of the Committee to be finalized so that he could report to the House?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, has the Minister considered the reason why he prefers allowing CPF members to withdraw from the investable funds and invest in stocks and shares to the more stable and better investment of higher education for children of CPF members? Has he considered the reason for his preference for shares and stocks rather than for education?”
“The Member for Anson has not been giving any reasons to this House why these were draconian powers. In fact, the conditions on which a tenant can be asked to quit are amply spelt out in the Act itself, and if the Member for Anson wants an inquiry there is really no reason for it. Does he know how much it costs to appoint a commission of inquiry? He simply thinks that at the drop of a hat he could get a commission of inquiry. I would reject his amendment to appoint a commission of inquiry. As far as the allegations of the Member for Potong Pasir are concerned, I think they have been adequately answered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. All I can say is that what he quoted are not facts and figures but just lies and lies. [Interruption] Anyway, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. He has been offered the opportunity to build houses, and he has not accepted it. If he had accepted it, why did he not build the houses? Therefore, I would suggest that if he thinks the Housing and Development Board is making such large profits, he should accept the offer to him to build the flats so that he would make a lot of money for his Party. For all these reasons, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would reject the amendment moved by the Member for Anson.”
“--- if there is a notice to quit without reason, why does he not take the Housing and Development Board to court? The court would then be able to adjudge that the Housing and Development Board has, for no reason, served a notice on the tenant, and the order would be that the tenant can stay put. The Housing and Development Board will be pronounced wrong. That is precisely why the Member for Anson is always telling half-truths to this House. Mr Chiam See Tong rose --- Mr Tang See Chim remained standing.”
“My main point is that the Housing and Development Board cannot serve a notice to quit without any reason and ---”
“That is precisely the reason why I say that the Member for Anson is telling half-truths to this House. The notice to quit need not contain the reason itself but you must have a reason before you can serve the notice to quit. What does that mean? Do you mean to say that the Housing and Development Board can serve a notice to quit on a tenant and get him out of the place without any reason at all? It must have a reason. Mr Jeyaretnam rose ---”