Hansard, 1961-05-31

The following Member has, under the provisions of subsection (2) (g) of Section 42 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly: Madam Sahorah Binte Ahmat (Siglap) - from 29th May to 29th June, 1961.

31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation to proceed with the motion* standing in my name. *The motion reads as follows: That this House expresses its profound sympathy for the victims of the fire at Bukit Ho Swee and calls upon the people to donate generously to the Bukit Ho Swee Fire Relief Fund; That to prevent a recurrence of such disastrous fires the site of the fire be acquired by the Government for the Housing and Development Board for rebuilding, and to this end that no one be allowed to rebuild on this site structures of a temporary or permanent nature; That compensation to private owners for the land to be acquired should be at the value of the land in its encumbered state just before the fire, and that legislation to this end be passed; That the Housing and Development Board regulations relating to the prohibition of sub-letting or sharing of accomodation be relaxed in the case of these fire victims in order that rapid re-housing will be possible; That this House thanks the fire fighting services, the Police and Military Forces for their work in combating the fire and maintaining order on that occasion and thanks the workers in the Government Social Services and the Voluntary organisations who have helped in the relief of the fire victims. The Bukit Ho Swee fire took place on the afternoon of the 25th May, 1961. It was without doubt the worst that Singapore has ever experienced since the war. It devastated an area of some 100 acres and rendered homeless, according to the latest count, a total of 2,833 families - comprising some 15,694 persons, most of whom lost practically all their possessions. Hon. Members of the House have read in the Press of the immediate measures which have been taken by the Government to provide interim relief for the fire victims. They are now housed temporarily in five school buildings in the Kim Seng Road area, where voluntary workers, the Government Social Welfare Service, the Army and the Work Brigade have done all they can to relieve the sufferings of the victims and have provided them with food, clothing and blankets. The Government has also set up the Bukit Ho Swee Fire Relief Committee under the chairmanship of the Minister for Labour and Law. Representatives from political parties, the Trades Union Congress, student bodies of Universities, the Polytechnic, the Chambers of Commerce, the Council of Social Services, rural and other organisations are serving in this Committee. Sir, lessons must be learned from the cause of this fire, and this lesson should strike home with full impact. For the third time since the war, Singapore has bitterly experienced disaster caused by fire. In 1958 the Kampong Koo Chye fire rendered 379 families with 2,050 persons homeless; in 1959 there was the Tiong Bahru fire which affected 1,016 families, comprising 5,200 people; and now the most tragic of them all, the Bukit Ho Swee fire which destroyed the homes of 2,833 families, involving nearly 15,694 people. The common feature about these fires is that they occur in already packed and unauthorised structures of wood and attap. The occupants in all these cases had, in fact, been living in veritable fire traps. If only one house catches fire, then within minutes a blazing inferno would engulf a whole community before the fire fighters could arrive. The unstinted devotion to duty during the disaster of the fire fighting services, the Police and the Military was something to be proud of, but unfortunately They were to a considerable extent hindered by curious crowds who arrived on the scene while the fire was raging and almost choked up the roads, thus delaying the arrival of the fire engines. It is hoped that our citizens would be more civic-minded in future and make an effort to subdue their curiosity and stay away from calamities of this nature which are not really spectacles for enjoyment. I am happy to say that, on the other hand, the fire victims themselves behaved in an exemplary manner and showed no panic. Though the fire took four lives, it would surely have been more disastrous if the crowds of sightseers and spectators had gone out of control and panic had resulted. Let us not ignore the lessons of this catastrophe. The reasons for the existence of building by-laws, the need to enforce minimum building standards, and the basic requirements of proper planning should now be painfully clear. We must not be blind to such lessons. We should now understand why the Chief Building Surveyor's Department of my Ministry conducts its campaign against unauthorised structures, which are built in exactly similar conditions to the houses that went up so quickly in flames at Bukit Ho Swee on 25th May. Most of these unauthorised structures are put up by unscrupulous racketeers who live off the miseries of the poor. It is appreciated that the poor people are forced by circumstances to live in these huts because of the acute shortage of cheap housing in the State and that it will be some time before the building programmes of the Housing and Development Board can catch up with this shortage. But I should like to appeal to these people not to fall into the clutches of the racketeers who put up unauthorised buildings for rent or sale. They should never buy or rent any of these structures. They may not only be cheated, but may also become victims of fire. Any building to be put up should be duly authorised by the Building Surveyor's Department. The procedure for the grant of permits for temporary buildings has now been streamlined, and applications should now be dealt with more expeditiously. Government is firmly resolved to discourage the erection of wooden buildings with attap roofs, and in the congested city area to prohibit it altogether. Firm orders have been given to the Chief Building Surveyor to pull down any unauthorised structures as soon as they are spotted. The Government will not be discharging its responsibilities to the people if it did not clamp down on unauthorised buildings. Sir, it was indeed fortunate that the Bukit Ho Swee fire was brought under control and did not spread further. If circumstances had been adverse the fire could easily have gone out of control with much more disastrous consequences. A conflagration of this magnitude can easily engulf not only attap buildings, but also brick and concrete structures as well. Many brick and concrete buildings were, in fact, destroyed on 25th May, along Havelock Road. If attap and wooden structures were allowed to multiply in the city areas, the next fire might well destroy a considerable section of the city, with considerable loss of lives. I appeal to members of the public to report immediately to the Chief Building Surveyor's Department should they see any unauthorised attap and wooden structures being put up. At the moment, there is a large number of outstanding mandatory orders against unauthorised buildings. Many of these orders require alterations to the unauthorised structures before they can be regularised. Most of the houses, however, cannot be regularised, because they are likely to become dangerous fire traps. There has been a great deal of misunderstanding about the work of the Building Surveyor's Department, particularly when it takes action to demolish unauthorised buildings. But may I repeat that one of the main reasons for this unpleasant action is to save people from the dangers of fire traps, like those of Bukit Ho Swee? This Government will take firm measures to prevent the site of the Bukit Ho Swee fire from being reoccupied by unauthorised structures. The site is to be acquired for re-development by the Housing and Development Board. No doubt, hon. Members will support this proposal as well as the Bill that will be introduced to acquire the land. The project is one designed for the public good and the private owners concerned can be expected not to make a profit out of this disaster. Sir, the relief, re-housing and rehabilitation of the fire victims cannot be an easy matter when so many persons are involved. There are not sufficient numbers of vacant Housing and Development Board flats immediately available to re-house every family. Though the public and various Governments have been most generous with their gifts and donations in cash and kind, whatever relief that the fire victims can receive will only provide temporary rehabilitation until they can definitely find their own feet again. The Government has decided that all available housing units of the Housing Board should be made available for rehousing the fire victims. In this connection, I should like to appeal to those members of the public who have been on the waiting list for Housing Board accommodation to make a certain amount of sacrifice. There are some 13,000 applicants on the housing register and many of them have been waiting for three, four, or even five years. Just when their chances of being allocated accommodation have improved with the completion of more than 1,000 houses, they have to be told again that the fire victims will be given priority. The Government hopes that these applicants will not grudge the fire victims the special priority given to them. These applicants at least have some form of accommodation at present, while the fire victims have lost both homes and most of their possessions. The Housing and Development Board will be building more units soon, and the turn of the applicants who will be given accommodation will not be far off. Sir, the following housing units that are immediately available will be set aside for the re-housing of the fire victims:- 600 flats at Queenstown 100 flats at Clarence Lane, Alexandra 300 flats at Tiong Bahru Fire Site 150 flats at Kallang Estate. In a few days time the Housing Board will have a further 450 units available at the Tiong Bahru Fire Site, and these too will be allotted to fire victims. Within the next three months, 904 units of one-room $20 flats will be ready at the Tiong Bahru Cemetery Site, and 804 units of two-room flats will be completed at MacPherson Estate, while a further 1,448 units of two-and three-room flats will be ready in Queenstown. These flats will be offered to the fire victims at the rents normally charged to members of the public. It is not the intention to upset the very complex rent structure of the Housing and Development Board by introducing rent-free periods or by waiving rents. The Government, while doing all that is right and proper for the fire victims, must not lose sight of the necessity to account to the people for the expenditure of public funds entrusted to its charge. It is considered, therefore, that fire victims should pay the normal rentals charged for the accommodation offered. To assist fire victims further, it is proposed that the Housing Board regulations prohibiting the sub-letting of rooms in flats or the sharing of flats by more than one family be relaxed. The Housing and Development Board does not normally permit its tenants to sub-let any part of their flats, but in order that re-housing of fire victims can be accomplished expeditiously, the Board will be asked to permit fire victims to share accommodation with their friends or relatives now residing in any of the Board's estates. The Board will also accept two small families of fire victims joining together to apply for a flat. The Government intends that the relief to fire victims should take the form of equitable distributions in cash and kind so that the amounts of relief to be distributed to the fire victims will be entirely dependent upon the generosity of the people of Singapore and elsewhere. The distribution will be on a per capita and per family basis and it is felt that this method will be the most equitable. All fire victim families will receive (a) a rent assistance grant of $7 per person up to a maximum of $35 per family. This sum will, in effect, operate as a rent subsidy, and will be paid for a period of three months; (b) a lump sum rehabilitation grant will be paid to these families; the sum to be paid will be dependent on the monies available in the relief fund after meeting other commitments. All families will receive these two grants, whether they accept Housing Board accommodation or not; those not requiring Housing Board accommodation may use their rent assistance grant for finding their own accommodation. Mr Speaker, Sir, I should like now to thank the public of Singapore, especially those from all walks of life who have donated in cash and kind to the fire victims. The Government respects and admires the concern they have shown for their fellowmen in their hour of need. I should like also to take this opportunity to say how grateful we are to the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya for the personal visit he made to the scene of the fire and for the promise of financial aid from his Government. I also wish to express the Government's appreciation of the prompt and generous donation from the U.K. and U.S. Governments. The relief fund which the Government has set up with the initial contribution of $250,000 will, I expect, continue to grow with more and more donations. In conclusion, let me convey to the State and Army Fire fighting services, the Police Force, the Army, and the untiring workers in both the Government social services and the voluntary organisations the heartfelt gratitude of the Government for their devotion to the service of those affected by the disaster and for their selfless efforts in their respective spheres-in combating the fire, in maintaining order and in giving much assistance and much appreciated relief to the fire victims. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Before I propose the Question, the Prime Minister has tabled copies of the Bill he proposes to introduce under item 2, and I think hon. Members should have copies of the Bill with them as soon as possible. I therefore propose that these copies be distributed immediately. Typed copies of the Bill distributed to hon. Members.

I have had an opportunity of glancing rapidly through the Bill, and it seems to me that the subject matter covered by the Bill is the same as the subject matter of paragraph 3 of the motion. Perhaps the Prime Minister would like to confirm that before I proceed.

Sir, that is so. In fact, it spells out the intention which is contained in paragraph 3 of the motion.

Perhaps it would be convenient for hon. Members if the motion should be posed to the House without paragraph 3, so that there will not be a repetition of the debate on the subject matter of paragraph 3. The debate could take place when we come to the Bill. If that is convenient to hon. Members, I suggest that that would be a better way of doing things.

As you propose, Mr Speaker, Sir.

I will propose the Question without paragraph 3. Question proposed, "That this House expresses its profound sympathy for the victims of the fire at Bukit Ho Swee and calls upon the people to donate generously to the Bukit Ho Swee Fire Relief Fund; That to prevent a recurrence of such disastrous fires the site of the fire be acquired by the Government for the Housing and Development Board for rebuilding, and to this end that no one be allowed to rebuild on this site structures of a temporary or permanent nature; That the Housing and Development Board regulations relating to the prohibition of sub-letting or sharing of accommodation be relaxed in the case of these fire victims in order that rapid re-housing will be possible; That this House thanks the fire fighting services, the Police and Military Forces for their work in combating the fire and maintaining order on that occasion and thanks the workers in the Government Social Services and the voluntary organisations who have helped in the relief of the fire victims." 2.56 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all of us are in sympathy with and express our grief for the 16,000 people who have been affected by this great fire. From what we know, this is the greatest fire in the history of Singapore. It has brought much misery and ruin in its wake. Sir, on an occasion like this, all of us in this House will forget and sink all political differences which we may have so that everyone may contribute his best to work out a solution for the rehabilitation of our unfortunate brothers and sisters. Mr Speaker, Sir, I must compliment the Government on all the efforts they have put in on such an occasion. This has been a disaster of magnitude and the Government has, in my opinion, done its best. Tribute must also be paid to all the organisations, both Government and private, which have come to the forefront to rescue and give assistance to the fire victims. However, since we have such a motion, I wish to bring forward a few points to the attention of Government. Sir, these should not be taken as criticisms but rather as suggestions for Government to consider. From what I gather, most of the fire victims have one big common problem, that is, when are they going to settle down and start life again? For this, they have to depend so much on Government as well as on other persons who have come forward courageously and generously to the assistance of the fire victims. The main problem they are worried about is housing. We are happy to learn from the speech of the Minister for National Development that all efforts will be made to re-house the fire victims. But it has been said that it is not possible to re-house all the fire victims at one time. It is fortunate that there are so many vacant flats to re-house a big portion of the fire victims. But I think Government should consider ways and means of resettling the other victims, either by the erection of temporary structures controlled by Government, or by the use of vacant Government bungalows, of which I think there are still quite a few left, or by the deployment of other vacant buildings in the island. Unless the fire victims are resettled, Sir, those who are employed may not be able to go to work, because they have to look after their children in the fire relief centres. It is what we say a double loss. If they are able to be resettled earlier, those who have employment could go back to their work as soon as possible to earn a few extra dollars to help their families. Just now the Minister for National Development has mentioned the question of rent and the question of a free rental period. Sir, the second problem which the fire victims are worried about is the question whether they can afford the rentals and whether the flats allocated to them could be near their place of work. It is not possible to allocate flats to them near their place of work, because there are not many flats being constructed or being completed at the moment near the fire site. I think this is a problem no government can solve. But on the question of rentals, Mr Speaker, Sir, from what I know, most of the houses at present completed, or almost completed, were built at the time when construction costs were the lowest in the last five to 10 years. If we go according to the normal practice of the Housing and Development Board, the rentals charged on these flats should be lower than usual. They are flats which were built during the time of the Korean War, when the cost of construction was much more, and persons who are now staying in those houses are bearing the full heavy construction costs because of the increase in prices due to the war. If such a practice is accepted, Mr Speaker, Sir, then these houses should be rented out at what they cost the Housing and Development Board to build, and not on a so-called rational basis where everything is being brought into the pool and distribution of rental is being accepted as a basis. Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Minister for National Development has also touched on the question of three months' free rental and has suggested an alternative of a rent subsidy allowance of $7 per person, up to a maximum of $35 per family. I think, Sir, this is quite a good scheme because normally, during a fire disaster, there are some persons who go back and who get S.I.T. accommodation, and there are others who receive private accommodation, and it will not be fair to those receiving private accommodation if Government offers a three-month free rental to those who are obtaining S.I.T. accommodation. However, in my opinion, the rent subsidy proposed by the Minister just now is below what was offered to the fire victims of the Upper Chin Chew Street fire, or even much lower compared to that offered in the case of the Lorong 3 fire, where each fire victim was given three months' free rental, water and electricity, plus facilities to pay their deposits on an instalment basis if the need arose. I propose that the Government should find out whether there is a way out to increase the rent subsidies proposed to the fire victims, to raise it to a standard which was accepted in the past. Mr Speaker, Sir, another problem which the fire victims are worried about is their jobs. Many of them have lost their jobs due to the fire - those persons who have been working on the fire site or those persons whose factories, shops or means of livelihood by hawking and labouring have been destroyed by the fire. I think the Government must give consideration to these persons who are unemployed due to the fire, because they have not only lost their belongings and properties, but they also have lost their means of livelihood. A few shops were also affected by the fire, Sir, and it is suggested that, when the Housing Board build new shops around the area, priority be given to those shopkeepers who had shops on the old fire site and preferably these shops should be rented out at lower rentals than usual. Usually the shops are rented out on a tender basis, and the person who bids the highest gets the shop. It has also been suggested. Mr Speaker, Sir, that some of these shops could perhaps be sold to the shopkeepers on an instalment basis. Attention perhaps should also be brought to the Government on the organisation at present in the relief centres. First of all, it must be pointed out that none of the Government departments has been prepared or could ever have foreseen a task of such magnitude. But perhaps members of the Government staff will pay attention to some of the complaints or little irritations which may be very trivial to us but which are causing quite a problem to the fire victims. Food is one of the main problems which they are complaining of, Mr Speaker, Sir, It has been pointed out that it now takes about one or two hours to queue up for food, often under the hot sun, and sometimes the persons at the end of the queue do not get vegetables when the supply is finished, and some do not even get rice. This is perhaps because of the bad system of distribution and not because not enough food is being cooked. It has been suggested that if Government would distribute food cards to heads of families instead of every person having to queue up for his food, then it might mean shorter queues and it would mean also a better distribution of food for the fire victims. Mr Speaker, Sir, in one centre, where I think there are nealy 2,000 to 3,000 inmates, there was only one queue and some of them took about three hours to get their food. In such centres perhaps we could establish three or four queues. Perhaps the Government has a problem in trying to get the utensils and the necessary equipment, but I think it will not cost very much to buy them. Another complaint has been about the cooking of food. It has been said that the rice and vegetables are not properly washed. Yesterday, in one relief centre - I do not know how far this is true - a few persons told us that they found a snake in the vegetables! The rice is of poor quality and quite smelly - perhaps due to lack of washing. I think the question of food can be looked into and improvements made. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is also felt that there is a shortage of doctors and that they are visiting the fire relief centres at periods and not all the time. There have also been complaints of no proper diagnosis of the patients and that many of the patients, especially children, do not get proper treatment. We know this is a drain- on the Government resources of medical staff in the hospitals, but I am putting up this proposal to see whether the Government can try to get supplementary staff either from the Government or from private sources during the next few days to help the victims in the relief centres. Many of the fire victims at night have to sleep with their blankets on in the playing fields, because there is no accommodation in the schools. In the last two days, when there was rain, they found it a problem to get even a place to squat down during the night. Perhaps if a few more tents are erected, the problem can be partially solved. The Government has been doing wonderful work in the past few days erecting more tents, but those have been found to be not sufficient. I wonder whether there are ways and means of getting more tents or marquees for sleeping purposes for the fire victims. Mr Speaker, Sir, it has been proposed that the Ministry of Home Affairs send a special unit to the fire victim centres to help the fire victims get extracts of their lost birth certificates and citizenship certificates and other types of certificates. Perhaps on this occasion fees can either be reduced or waived. If much of the red-tape can be cut for the fire victims particularly in applying for these birth certificates and citizenship certificates, I think they would be very grateful to the Government. The Government has already set up an identity card centre in the fire relief centre, and this is a most welcome act. Another suggestion is whether Government can send vans to tour the residential areas, particularly the more well-to-do residential areas, during evenings or week-ends to collect blankets, clothing, furniture and cooking utensils which the people might like to donate generously since they have no means of delivering their gifts in kind. Most of these donations in kind and even in cash should, in my opinion, be distributed to the fire victims immediately. It should not take a week or two weeks before they are distributed, because it is at this time that those gifts are most needed, particularly cash or clothing. Some clothing has been distributed, but it is found insufficient. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to repeat that the Government has done whatever it can to relieve the fire victims, arid its work deserves the compliments of all Members of this House. 3.16 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, as a representative of Delta constituency which suffered from the fire, I must fully support the Government's motion in regard to the fire victims. Since the Bukit Ho Swee fire disaster, the Government has immediately launched effective relief measures and after-care welfare so that the 10,000 fire victims could be resettled and looked after. Another relief measure of Government is to let the fire victims rebuild their homes so that those people who have long suffered in the past, particularly the Bukit Ho Swee fire victims, can live under better and more favourable conditions in future. This clearly shows that the Government which comes from the people is doing its best for the people - to improve the living conditions of the people. Since the fire broke out, the Prime Minister, Ministers and all Assemblymen and Assemblywomen have been working very hard. When the fire broke out, the Prime Minister and many Ministers and Assemblymen rushed to the scene to help the people salvage their belongings and to assist the firemen to evacuate the old and young from the site. They have also been consoling the victims day and night and seeing that all helpers and workers do their work properly in accommodating the victims in the various centres. As this disaster is the most serious one in the history of Singapore, the fire relief work must be fully supported by all the people of Singapore and support for Government's measures must be given to enable the Government to achieve better results in rebuilding the homes of the victims in a short space of time. At this crucial time, everyone is expressing his good intentions. The people of Singapore have responded to Government's appeal and, have donated generously. This has helped to make the relief measures a success. To those who have lost their jobs as a result of the fire, we have appealed to all shops and merchants throughout Singapore to contribute generously to the relief of the unemployed people who have suffered from the fire. I hope they will come forward to give employment to these victims so that they could rebuild their homes and live a good life again. Regarding the few points raised by the Member for Hong Lim, I wish to answer them now. The Member said that there were too many people housed in the centres, so that they were faced with many difficulties, such as sleeping accommodation and so on. I was at the relief centre day and night and looked after all their problems. We have built many camps to relieve the congestion in the crowded centres. In these camps there are beds for the use of the fire victims. The reason for the congestion at the Seng Poh School Centre is that about 1,000 victims were first accommodated there as a temporary measure. As to the complaint of shortage of food, I think there is no justification. After the fire the Government prepared a large amount of food to feed the hungry victims. There was enough food for distribution, but because of the great rush for it, the work of distribution was hampered. However, this has been rectified. As to the suggestion for more police to patrol the site and to assist the fire victims, I would say that Government has already adopted this measure in the past few days. The fire victims who could not manage to save their belongings during the fire were allowed to go back to the devastated site after the fire to salvage their belongings. These are the measures that the Government has taken after the disaster. 3.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, might I say how deeply moved we on the Opposition side are by the recent fire and all the calamity and disaster that it has brought to these 15,000 odd people? In this matter, Sir, we are entirely at one with the Government and other Members in this House who have just spoken. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope you will not think this is a matter which is out of keeping with the debate. I sympathise with the Member for Delta - I understand it is her particular constituency which has been affected - that at a moment like this, when she should be rejoicing, having secured her lifelong dream, this disaster should have befallen her. However, Mr Speaker, Sir, none of us can arrange our happiness in the order in which it occurs. To get back to the motion before the House. Sir, on occasions like this, it is the duty of every citizen not only to go to the aid of Government, but also to go to the aid of the victims. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a national calamity. Nothing like this has occurred in the history of Singapore. We sincerely hope that nothing approaching it will ever occur again in Singapore. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, while sympathising with the victims and doing our best to prevent occurrences like this in future, I think one would not be doing one's duty if one did not look closely into the circumstances which led to the fire, and also inquire into the situation whether this disaster of the magnitude to which it has now risen could have been minimised or prevented to a large extent. The question that first occurs to my mind, Mr Speaker, is this. When the fire occurred, the first persons and possibly the only persons who could have helped in putting it out was the Fire Brigade. The Fire Brigade cannot function unless it has an adequate source of water supply. The question whether there was adequate pressure in the hydrants to which the Fire Brigade went for their supply was cursorily mentioned in our leading national paper, the Straits Times - or so it calls itself - and the matter has been left to lie there. I would have thought, Mr Speaker, Sir, that if the fire could have been prevented by an adequate water supply being available in that area, then that is a matter which this national newspaper of ours might usefully have taken up. But since it did not, I propose to do so because I feel it my duty to do so. Not only did I learn this from the Straits Times, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I have heard it said commonly, and the people are talking about this in Singapore, and therefore, I think it is the duty of the Government to reassure the people that what is now being commonly bandied about in Singapore is not correct. It is being said, Mr Speaker, Sir, that if the Fire Brigade had been able to go to the fire hydrants and get into their hoses a stream of water at the right pressure, a lot of this disaster might have been prevented. The question naturally arises - why was the pressure in these fire hydrants allowed to run down, particularly in the Bukit Ho Swee area where such a fire is likely to occur? Some of us know this area. We know that the houses are literally one on top of the other, Mr Speaker, and it is very difficult to pass from one house to the other unless you squeeze your way through. That is the condition of the estate where this fire occurred. I have also heard it said that it is not possible for the Fire Brigade to approach proper spots from which they could use their hoses effectively. Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask the Government to tell the House what was the condition of the pressure of the water supply in that area on that disastrous afternoon. We have also read in the Press that constant appeals were put out for the firemen to come back. One rather gets the impression that possibly the Fire Brigade was not at adequate strength on the afternoon of the disaster. If that impression is correct, Mr Speaker, Sir, then I think it is very regrettable, and the Government must take full blame for it. If that is not so, then the Government must assure this House that, so far as the Fire Brigade was concerned, it was adequately manned to meet the situation caused by the fire. Sir, I have on a number of occasions raised the question of our water supply in this House. I have indicated to the Government that the water supply in Singapore is in a precarious state. I have suggested to them that they should very quickly increase not only the sources of water supply but also the quantum of water supply either from our island or from Johore or from both. To all these queries, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have had no adequate answer. Whether the Government now have plans to increase the water supply or not, this House is not aware of. All we know is that plans are afoot. But one does not know exactly what is the position of the water supply. But one could see for oneself if one went round Singapore looking at the reservoirs. They are pretty dry and low. They are dangerously low. Now if all this is correct, then I think the Government must bear a great deal of the blame for that most unhappy occurrence on that afternoon. Mr Speaker, Sir, the second point which I wish to touch upon is this. I was not at the scene, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I understand from responsible people who happened to be there that the handling of the situation that afternoon was near pathetic, because nobody knew what was happening. Nobody knew what to do about the whole position. People were running about from here to there like frightened chickens without really being able to render any effective assistance, although everybody wanted to help. There was no doubt about that. They all wanted to help. But the point is this. If you put inexperienced people on the fire site, they are more a hindrance than a help. On an occasion such as this, we do not want sympathy, Mr Speaker, Sir, to bring the fire effectively under control. We want people on the site who know the job; who know how to bring the fire under control, or put it out. The Government had one such arm which they might have used on this occasion had they not thought it fit to disband it. I refer, Mr Speaker, Sir, to the Civil Defence Corps. Whatever we may say about the Civil Defence Corps, we cannot deny that their training was intended for occasions such as this. If that Corps and not the Work Brigade had been there, I think the story might well have been different. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not criticising the Work Brigade, and the help they thought they were giving. But they were people inexperienced in such a situation. They could dig drains effectively. They could do rough work. But were they trained to do work of this nature? Putting 1,700 members of the Work Brigade on the site, I would submit, with respect to the Government, was more a hindrance than a help in such a situation. Fifty Civil Defence Corps members would have rendered greater and more effective help in this matter. Mr Speaker, we know that this fire which started in Kampong Tiong Bahru jumped one road, that is to say, it jumped Tiong Bahru Road and having jumped Tiong Bahru Road, it jumped Havelock Road and did damage on the other side of Havelock Road. So this fire had all the time in the world to jump these two roads and, it seems, nothing could be done. I therefore ask the Government to tell this House whether it was not possible for the Singapore Fire Brigade to have taken effective preventive measures at least to see that it did not jump on the second occasion. One might say that they were not prepared for the first jump. What excuse was there in not taking effective preventive measures to prevent the fire from jumping a second time on to Havelock Road and doing damage there? Did the Government not have sufficient fire-engines at their disposal? Or did they not have enough water throughout that area? What was the reason? If there was enough water, Mr Speaker, Sir, and if there were enough fire-engines, then I am suggesting to the Government that there was absolute mishandling of the situation in allowing the fire to jump the second time when it had already jumped on the first occasion. These are some of the matters, Mr Speaker, Sir, that have crossed my mind. I mention this in no spirit of vindictiveness. But I do think that it is important for all of us - the Government, the Opposition and the public - to address our minds to fire hazards which are present all over Singapore. Bukit Ho Swee is not the only one. There are yet others in Singapore. And in those areas, the same disaster might occur. If by this great catastrophe we have learnt our lesson, and if we can take effective measures so that the future does not see an occasion such as this, then at least we can say we have learnt our lesson. Mr Speaker, in my own personal view, I feel that the situation is so important that the Government might consider whether they should not appoint a Commission of Inquiry to go into the causes of this fire and find out how it spread, why it spread, and what effective measures the Government should take in future on such matters as this in order that such disasters might not occur again. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, might I say this? I am not denying the good service and the good work that the firefighting services did, that the Police did and that the Military forces did. We are all thankful to these three services for having done their best. Sometimes, Sir, it is unfortunate that the best is not good enough. It is not the best that is good enough. It is the correct things that should have been done. I am wondering, Sir, whether the correct things were done there on that disastrous afternoon. 3.42 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, on this occasion there was a fire disaster at Bukit Ho Swee. This fire disaster was unprecedented in the history of Singapore. The losses of the victims can be said to be very great. When the fire first occurred, everybody was very busy. Everybody ran away very quickly. Many could not even have the time to fetch their own clothes, and they ran out naked. At that time, many mothers were looking for their children, and the grand-parents were looking for their parents. The belongings could not be brought out. It could be said that the property of the whole family was lost in the fire. The losses of those in Tiong Bahru were not so great as the losses of those at Bukit Ho Swee. But on behalf of the Tiong Bahru fire victims, I wish to say that the Government and the people must help the fire victims to enable them to have some capital in order that they might be able to continue their normal life again, as they have done in the past. This is my greatest hope. Just now the Minister for National Development has said that the Government is going to let the victims stay on the Development Board's houses without rent for three months. On behalf of the Tiong Bahru fire victims, I express my view that Government should also help those unemployed to the best of its ability to regain their employment. Just now the Member for Farrer Park said that the Government, in respect of fire relief, had not done well. Perhaps the hon. Member for Farrer Park did not go there. That is why he was not aware of the actual situation there, because when the fire occurred, the wind was blowing very strongly. Although the fire at first started in Kampong Tiong Bahru, it immediately went across the main road and over to Bukit Ho Swee. Because the wind was terribly strong and because the hon. Member for Farrer Park did not go there to see for himself, that is why he is just blindly making accusations that the Government had not done well in controlling the fire. When the fire occurred, our Fire Brigade and the Police were very busy carrying out their work and everybody concerned was doing his best to help put out the fire. 3.48 pm.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the people of Singapore have always responded generously whenever a disaster of this kind affects their fellow-citizens, and we too here support the Government in all the measures taken to relieve, rehabilitate and rehouse the victims of Bukit Ho Swee fire. However, as the Minister for National Development has said, we should also take to ourselves some of the lessons that we can learn from this disaster. Some of the members of the public are asking questions like these. Must we wait for a fire to raze an attap-house area before we think of rehousing these unfortunate people? Can we not plan a scheme so that all the potential areas which are likely to be affected by future fires could be dealt with systematically one at a time, and so that those citizens who are housed in attap-house areas can be properly rehoused before any calamity arises? Otherwise, they say, Sir, it looks as if once in two years a fire breaks out and then when thousands are badly affected, we think of rehousing them. If there are 10 such fire-trap areas, will the Government think of a comprehensive scheme, in addition to the regular scheme they have, to prevent these almost annual disasters? Sir, it may mean bigger expenditure, but I think the people feel it is better to prevent a calamity than to wait until it occurs. Sir, the next question they ask is this. If these attap-house people want to improve their living conditions and make their houses less susceptible to fire, would the Government raise the assessment the moment their houses appear to be much better constructed? I think the Government will agree that they want to do everything they can to help the people to improve themselves without discouraging them, and when an assurance could be given that there will be no increase of assessment if they improve themselves by replacing atap roofs with zinc roofs, and plank walls with brick walls, then that might help more of the people to improve themselves and their lot. The third question which they ask is this. Although the deterrent factor in private housing development has been somewhat removed, still developers are hesitant about developing housing estates because the deposit required of them, in their eyes, is still considerable and they have to pass on their deposit to the purchasers of the houses. If the Government could revert to the old system, they say that would make things easier for these private developers. In view of the increased load which the Housing Board will have to bear if it tackles the problem of rehousing people in attap-house areas which are faced with fire risk, we need to encourage these private developers in every way to provide housing for those who can economically buy their own houses. Sir, these are a few suggestions which we pass on to the Government arising from questions which members of the public have passed on to us. 3.53 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all of us today are very sad at our national calamity. What should first strike our minds is how to rehouse and rehabilitate and start all these people again afresh on their own feet. But instead of trying to give good suggestions to Government as to how we can help these poor people, as was very kindly done by the Member for Hong Lim, we have instead, from the S.P.A. benches, people who wanted to make political capital out of the misfortunes that at the present moment face a big lot of people. Everyone of us knows that the Government has done its level best. Yet we have one arm-chair critic who if I were to translate the meaning of this expression into English, would run like this: A robber taking opportunity of the fire to rob. He is trying to make capital out of the misfortunes of others. Whilst everyone of our Ministers went down to the fire site to try to help (and they stayed there until a very late hour) the Member for Farrer Park never knew what it was all about because, he has himself admitted, he was never there. He said he had to depend on the newspapers. Admittedly the fire could not be contained by the water. But did he know that it was because of a strong wind that had helped the fire to spread from one place to another? In spite of all the firemen who were available to go to the site to help, and in spite of sending all the fire-engines there, still with that strong breeze we could not and really did not contain the fire. The fire-engines had to go from Tiong Bahru Road back into Havelock Road - a big detour. And now our Assemblyman from Farrer Park complains that all this was because of the water. Another point which he raised, and which was not factual, was that the Work Brigade went along to help. The Work Brigade unfortunately did not go to help in the beginning; it only went later. So the Member for Farrer Park had all his facts wrong when he said that members from the Work Brigade went along to help. If you had more people from the Civil Defence Corps, that would have made no difference whatsoever to the fire on that particular day. We hope suggestions from the Opposition could be constructive instead. 3.57 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I feel all the Members of this House have shown their sympathy and sorrow in the catastrophe which occurred at Bukit Ho Swee. In our feelings of sorrow there are people who have exploited the opportunity to criticize the Government and offer suggestions with a view to ensuring that a fire like this will not occur again. We have emphasised time and again that the Government has done everything in its power to surmount all the difficulties. However, in this Bukit Ho Swee fire, which is the worst in the history of Singapore, there is no doubt that the difficulties confronted were innumerable. We believe that the Government, if it has in its possession an Aladdin Lamp, can use it right now. But, Mr Speaker, in the words of a Malay adage, the Government bears the responsibility and is feeling the burden. But Members of the Opposition are taking this opportunity to castigate the Government by suggesting that bungalows should be taken over and used to accommodate the fire victims. Mr Speaker, I personally have visited and interviewed the fire victims, but their main complaint is not that they require the bungalows situated in Changi but that they hope to be able to get accommodation near the fire site. This cannot be denied. Let us forget about the bungalows which they cannot occupy because of the distance involved. But what the fire victims really need is accommodation in the neighbourhood of the fire-

On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir.

If the Member will give way. Inche Yaacob indicated dissent.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, in addition to the flats which have been set aside by the Housing and Development Board, there is the question of food. The Work Brigade did the cooking with the help of the fire victims themselves, and also washed the rice and vegetables. It is impossible, therefore, that the vegetables and rice were not washed properly. However, we should not forget that on the day the Bukit Ho Swee fire occurred, it was Hari Raya, the day when Government workers were on holiday. But they responded magnificently to the urgent call and fulfilled their duties. Mr Speaker, we should be proud of this. It is a sacrifice on the part of those concerned. Mr Speaker, the Member for Tanglin mentioned plans to prevent a fire. He suggested getting rid of those attap huts which are considered fire hazards. Mr Speaker, doing away with attap huts in Singapore is not an easy matter because they have been in existence for tens of years. We should not also forget the low standard of living of those people who live in attap huts. If the plan is carried out, i.e. to do away with the attap huts and immediately force the attap dwellers to live in the city area, then it would create a very difficult problem. Let us take the houses built by the Housing and Development Board in the Princess Elizabeth Estate and at Jalan Teck Whye. At certain times there were no applications for flats in these areas. This is because-

On a point of explanation, Sir?

No, Sir. (In Malay): This is because the attap dwellers could live in attap huts at a maximum rental of $15. For this reason, and because of their low standard of living, they do not wish to leave their huts and stay in flats for which they have to pay a minimum rental of $20. And it was during those times that some house-owners built attap huts for those people with a low standard of living. Mr Speaker, in any case, as I have said earlier, the Government is constantly paying attention to these problems. If the Government were in possession of an Aladdin Lamp, it would use it to surmount these difficulties. 4.05 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it has been said by the Opposition Members that we share with the Government in showing our sympathy to the victims of the Bukit Ho Swee fire. It would appear, Sir, that the speech of the Member for Farrer Park has been misunderstood by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs. What the Member for Farrer Park said was just to draw to the attention of Government whether or not the matters that have been mentioned as facts are true. If they are not true, then it is good that the Government should take this opportunity to deny them. The Member for Farrer Park did not make any attempt to make political capital out of the miseries of the victims. The Parliamentary Secretary criticised the Member for Farrer Park for not being at the scene of the fire. I was not at the scene of the fire when it took place. Of course, hon. Members will remember that during the previous Government there were two fires. Immediately those fires started, there was the P.A.P. with banners, the Workers Party with banners, distributing free ice-water and free bread. All those things obstructed the relief measures of the then Government. We thought that it should not be so. Therefore we did not do anything to make political capital out of the Bukit Ho Swee fire to show to the public and to the fire victims that our hearts went out to them. It was not necessary. We said that it was the responsibility and the duty of the Government to do what it could to provide relief for the victims. The Prime Minister, in a statement only a day or two after the fire, was very wise when he said that that was a matter on which all organisations or political parties must be united to provide relief. He quite rightly took the line that this was a matter of national importance and everyone must come forward to do his part to ameliorate the sufferings of the victims. I would like to say. Sir, that the Government has done all that it possibly can to provide relief. But it cannot be gainsaid that improvements could have been made. And if improvements were suggested by Members of the Opposition, it should not be taken to mean that the Opposition is making political capital out of this fire disaster. There is just one point which I would like to bring out and which the Minister for National Development in his speech has not touched upon. That is the question of allowing the residents, or the fire victims, to go back to live in the same area when new houses are built by the Housing and Development Board on the land that is to be acquired by Government for this building project. These people should be given an opportunity to go back and live in the area where they have been residents for many many years, or where a good number of them have been born there. Sir, you have suggested that that paragraph of the motion relating to the Bill which is to be introduced by the Prime Minister should be left out, and I will therefore not touch on that particular angle. But I would like to end by saying again - let us all work together in this national calamity. Let us also see to it that such future calamities do not take place. 4.10 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to add to what has been said by my colleague, the Minister for National Development, and to express my profound sympathy for the victims of the disastrous fire at Bukit Ho Swee. Sir, I was at the scene in Beo Lane and Havelock Road minutes after the fire was reported. Together with the civic-minded public and the police, we managed to persuade the victims to evacuate from the area. It was indeed a sorry sight to see panic-stricken victims making strenuous efforts to save whatever properties they could, but all to no avail. The victims just managed to escape with their lives, empty-handed. The Government, therefore, will take and are taking steps to render every possible assistance to rehouse and rehabilitate the fire victims as quickly as possible. This disastrous fire, which is the biggest in the history of Singapore since the war, started at an attap-hut in Tiong Bahru near the King's Cinema. It spread with such rapidity over such a wide area and was of such a magnitude that it needed all the available resources of the police, the Fire Brigade and the Military to fight and contain the conflagration. At the height of the fire, there were 16 fire-engines from the Singapore Fire Brigade, one fire-engine from the Royal Air Force, four fire-engines from the Army Fire Service, one fire-engine from the Singapore Harbour Board Fire Service, and two lorries from the Auxiliary Fire Service. All these were manned by 20 officers and 181 N.C.O.s and men from the Singapore Fire Brigade, four officers and 113 men from the other fire services, and four officers and 34 N.C.O.s from the Auxiliary Fire Service. These were placed at strategic positions in the fire-affected area to fight and contain the fire. The fire-fighting unit did not spare themselves. They made a tremendous effort to contain the fire and prevent it from spreading. It was unfortunate, however, that their effort at the time was handicapped by a strong wind which caused the fire to increase and spread rapidly. They were also hampered in their operations by the presence of large crowds trying to help them in fighting the fire. While these people's intentions were well meant and their enthusiasm appreciated, nevertheless, the work of the fire-fighting unit was, in the circumstances, rather impeded and retarded. The question of the low water pressure has been raised just now. Information from the Chief Fire Officer was that at the beginning of the fire, it was reported that the water pressure was low. At 3.30 p.m., however, contact was made with the Water Engineer, and as a result of closing all the mains in other areas, the water pressure was increased. However, as several hydrants were connected to the same main, this factor was also responsible for lowering the water pressure. The Chief Fire Officer also stated that the main problem of fighting the fire in the Bukit Ho Swee area was not so much the low water pressure as the fact that there were no actual access roads to the houses. Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst the fire-fighting units were carrying on with their great task, the police, who were also on the scene a few minutes after the fire broke out, began to throw more and more reinforcements into the area as the fire grew in intensity and size, in order to control the huge crowds who were converging into the area, to assist in controlling the traffic which had swelled to huge proportions, to evacuate the fire victims, and to prevent looting from taking place in the area. By about 6.00 p.m., the police, assisted by Army units, had already succeeded in controlling the crowds and laying down road blocks, diverting traffic and throwing a cordon round the entire fire area. This cordon, which was completed by about 8.00 p.m. on the night of the fire, is still being maintained. On the day of the fire, 141 officers and 1,205 men were on duty in the fire area. All available men from the C.I.D. were also sent to the scene to facilitate interpretation work, assist in crowd control, and check on looting. Additional police were sent to the Kim Seng Road School and other relief centres to aid the reception teams. A mobile police station has been set up at the Kim Seng Road School centre since 26th May, 1961, to receive reports of loss of identity cards, etc. From 26th May onwards police search parties have been organised to assist fire victims to salvage their valuables from the fire site. Since 27th May, the number of police personnel engaged on the fire site has been gradually reduced, and the number of officers and men still deployed in the area is about 400. The work of the police has been greatly assisted by the Singapore Military Forces who were first out in the area on the night of the fire, and who are there until today. They have helped the police to establish a cordon round the devastated area, assisting and maintaining road blocks, and preventing looting in the area. The whole of the First Battalion of the Singapore Infantry Regiment and the majority of the regular soldiers of the other units of the S.M.F. have taken part in this day-and-night task under their Commanding Officer. A total of 35 officers and 600 other ranks have been on duty on the site up to now. 25 S.M.F. military vehicles were used in this operation. The actual cause of the fire is not yet known. But the police are strenously continuing with their efforts to ascertain the cause. The question of arson cannot be ruled out, and the police are also investigating that line. I would like to take this opportunity of expressing my heartfelt thanks and sincere appreciation to the fire-fighting units, the Singapore Police Force, the Singapore Military Forces, the Army units and all volunteer workers for the great part they have played and the devotion to duty they have shown in this disaster. Without their great efforts, this disaster would have been worse and the tragedy could have been greater. As I have mentioned earlier, Mr Speaker, Sir, the police have set up a mobile station to record the loss of identity cards and other matters. If the fire had not coincided with the removal of the Registry of Births and Deaths to a new block in the Ministry building, and the re-arrangement of the Citizenship Registry with the expanded space now available, a mobile registration team from these two Registries would have been sent to the Kim Seng School by now. Nevertheless, steps have been taken and it is expected that within the next day or two there will be a team from these two Registries at the relief centres to record loss of citizenship certificates and birth and death certificates. 4.22 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in full support of the motion under the name of my colleague, the Minister for National Development, in his expression of deepest sympathy for the 16,000 victims of the catastrophic fire at Bukit Ho Swee which occurred a week ago. This is another instance of the sad legacy of the past which we have painfully to bear and, therefore, it is vitally necessary for us as the Government to ensure that the massive programme of low-cost housing under our Four-Year Development Plan must come to early fruition so that congested attap houses will gradually become things of the past. I wish also to be associated with the motion in which the House is asked to express its gratitude to all those who have helped to combat the fire, maintain order and give succour to the victims in one way or another. In this respect, I wish particularly to place on record my deepest appreciation of and gratitude to all my Ministry officials, Inspectorate, principals, teachers, messengers, school servants, watchmen, tuckshop vendors and students of the following ten schools for their public-spiritedness in giving help and assistance as and when the need arose, and for the many hours of toil without rest until late at night in order to help and lighten the sufferings of our people. Unfortunately the Kai Kok School in Beo Lane, off Havelock Road, a Government-aided Chinese primary school, was burnt down during the conflagration. Four Government primary schools were used as relief centres for one night only, namely, Delta East, Havelock, Tiong Bahru-all English primary schools - and Seng Poh Chinese Primary School. Another five Government schools-four primary and one secondary - are still being used as centres for the fire victims, namely, Kim Seng East English School, Kim Seng West, which is an integrated Chinese/English Primary School, River Valley (Chinese), River Valley (English), and the River Valley Secondary School (Chinese). Pending the evacuation of the refugees from the above five schools, it has been necessary to suspend the schooling of more than 7,000 pupils for the time being - 5,800 primary pupils, including the 800 pupils of Kai Kok School, and 1,200 secondary school pupils. Ministry officials, together with principals and teachers of the affected schools, are now actively studying the problem of how best to restart classes urgently for 2,000 pupils who are attending Primary VI, Secondary IV, Senior Middle II and III who have to take either the Primary School Leaving Examination or the Secondary IV or the Senior Middle III Examinations at the end of this year. It is hoped to make an early announcement to this effect as soon as practical measures can be put into effect. Finally, to ameliorate the hardship of the fire victims, my Ministry has decided that all school pupils whose homes have been affected by the Bukit Ho Swee fire will have all their school and miscellaneous fees remitted for seven months, with effect from 1st June to 31st December this year. In addition, they will be given a free supply of exercise books until the end of this year and a free loan of all textbooks, so that their education will not be affected by the unfortunate catastrophic fire. Principals of all schools are being instructed to make the necessary investigations and to proceed with the above relief measures. 4.28 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion moved by the Minister for National Development because this is a national matter, as has been stressed by the Member for Farrer Park. On behalf of U.M.N.O., Singapore, although we are not a very rich organisation, we have nevertheless given a donation of $1,000, and one of our members is in the organisation which has been set up to attend to the relief of the victims of the fire. As a Member of this Assembly, I do not rely solely on what has been said in the Straits Times, because the question before the House is a national one. We too share the feelings of the Government. With the implementation of all the plans before us, we hope that the sufferings of the victims of the fire could be ameliorated. I too appeal to the public to give generously to this cause, which is very praiseworthy. 4.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I rise to support the motion moved by my colleague, the Minister for National Development, and also to record my deepest sympathy to all the fire victims in the Bukit Ho Swee fire. Mr Speaker, I would like to touch on the work of my Ministry which has been raised by the Member for Hong Lim in the course of his speech just now. I would like to give a complete picture of the work done by the officials of my Ministry as far as possible to keep control, from the health point of view. The protection of public health and the provision of essential health and medical care facilities to the fire victims are basic essentials in such an emergency. Officials of the Ministry were at the fire site early, and after receiving a report of the number of persons involved, the following measures were taken and instituted immediately. The General Hospital Emergency Casualty Service and Hospital Ambulance operated on the fire site and rendered attention to all victims. An emergency Casualty Section and an Outpatients Clinic were established at Kim Seng Road School within four hours, and by the time the fire victims arrived they were ready to deal with them. Over 350 persons were seen to during the first night. Over 2,500 have been seen to at this clinic and at the second clinic in River Valley School. Both these clinics provide a 24-hour medical cover for all the victims. A milk room for infants and children was established at the same time, and a 24-hour milk supply with sterile feeding bottles and other essential infant and maternity requisites are now in operation on a 24-hour basis at two places - Kim Seng School and River Valley School. The Maternity and Child Welfare Service provided a home visiting, baby bathing and maternity and child health service to all the children and mothers. Urgent additional sanitary accommodation, bathing facilities and standpipes were arranged. Proper facilities for refuse removal and for cooking were ensured. Daily cleaning and sweeping of the grounds have been laid on. Special health measures, such as spraying of disinfectant and insecticide, syringe fogging and other mosquito and fly control measures, have been put in hand. The Member for Hong Lim also raised the question of the very limited number of medical officers and staff available at the refugee camp in Kim Seng Road as well as River Valley School. I would like to mention here, Mr Speaker, that medical and health officers, public health inspectors, nursing personnel, midwives, medical auxiliaries, including St. John's, the Red Cross and the Hospital Reserves, health labourers and other health staff have been fully engaged in this work. Over 120 persons are engaged in the provision of services at the centres. At the fire site itself, the work of carrying carcases, clearing obstructions and taking steps to prevent health nuisances by spreading and cleansing operations have been carried out vigorously. Teams of health workers are engaged in the work here. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I am informed that the health conditions are firmly under control because of the effective measures taken. I have also been advised, however, that the situation there is such that in schools intended for 3,000 pupils, over 8,000 persons are living in what may be described as standing room. The danger from such overcrowing resulting in an outbreak of epidemics, of gastro-intestinal or respiratory disease is very real. My officials are doing their very best to contain the situation, but feel that unless the population is reduced and the overcrowding lessened, a serious health danger will exist, very definitely after a lapse of not more than 12 days. This is the advice given to me, Mr Speaker, from the expert point of view. However, I have had a discussion with my colleague, the Minister for National Development. He has already mentioned earlier in his speech that he is trying his best to rehouse these fire victims. Finally, I would also like to thank the officials of the Health Ministry who have taken part in the recent fire at Bukit Ho Swee and their prompt action about half an hour after the fire broke out at that particular place. 4.37 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion which was introduced in this House by my friend and colleague, the Minister for National Development. Sir, immediately on receipt of the news of the Bukit Ho Swee fire, the Director of Social Welfare contacted key members of his staff and instructed them to proceed to the scene of the fire. The Delta-Ganges Community Centre was opened as a temporary relief centre for the reception of the fire victims. In the meantime, more members of the Social Welfare Department were contacted. They arrived later at the scene. The staff of the People's Association was mobilised at the same time. At about 4 p.m., five schools and a school theatre in the Kim Seng Road and River Valley Road area were requisitioned for use as an emergency relief centre in view of the size of the fire. At about 4.30 p.m., the Kim Seng Road and the River Valley Road Schools emergency relief centre was established, and manned by officers of the Department of Social Welfare and members of the People's Association. While at the same time, the Army was contacted to supply lorries to transport the fire victims from the Delta-Ganges Community Centre and other reception points in the Havelock Road and Delta-Ganges area to this emergency relief centre. In the meantime, Sir, the Department of Social Welfare and Prisons Department jointly had food and drinks prepared for the fire victims. The health services, the British Red Cross and St. John Ambulance moved into this emergency relief centre at about 6 p.m. the same evening. At the request of the Director of Social Welfare, the Army supplied on loan to this emergency relief centre 8,000 blankets and 6,000 mattresses. Two temporary relief centres were opened for the night at the Seng Poh Road School and Tiong Bahru School for the accommodation of fire victims from the Tiong Bahru area. About 1,000 fire victims were accommodated in these two temporary centres on the night of the 25th of May. In the Kim Seng Road and River Valley Road Schools emergency relief centre, about 2,300 victims were accommodated on the same night. Next morning, the fire victims from the Seng Poh Road and Tiong Bahru Schools were moved to the Kim Seng and River Valley Schools emergency relief centre. A steady flow of fire victims moved into this emergency relief centre from Friday, the 26th of May. By Monday, the 29th of May, it was ascertained that there were 8,200 persons in residence at this emergency relief centre. As at midday today, I am informed, Mr Speaker, Sir, that that number has increased to 8,500. The Delta-Ganges Community Centre in Havelock Road was kept open for the registration and relief of fire victims who chose to live out with friends and relatives. The Work Brigade, Sir, was brought in to help on Friday, the 26th of May. I was rather surprised that the Member for Farrer Park mentioned that the Work Brigade was brought in to fight the fire. That is not part of their duties at all, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Army supplied food on the first day, as the Social Welfare Department had not by then been able to establish a central kitchen for the feeding of all the fire victims at this emergency relief centre. Arrangements were also completed for the Singapore Harbour Board to establish a supplementary food service for the central kitchen. The Board kindly undertook to supply cooked rice as and when required. On Friday, the 26th of May, the Gas Department undertook the installation of gas burners for the central kitchen. Mobile latrines, temporary bathrooms and standpipes to increase the water supply were laid down the same day. A milk feeding unit was set up as from the evening of Thursday, the 26th of May, and it has provided an efficient and reliable infant welfare service at the emergency relief centre. Sir, because of the cramp conditions in the three Kim Seng Road schools, fire victims who were accommodated in the corridors of these schools, or in covered ways linking these schools, for lack of suitable accommodation elsewhere in these buildings, were moved to 20 military tents which were put up opposite these buildings on Monday, the 29th of May. These tents have been provided with double-tier wooden bunks from the Work Brigade. And in these tents some 600 fire victims are now living to relieve the congestion in the Kim Seng Road schools. The Work Brigade and the Blue Cross Society took over the servicing and operation of the central kitchen as from Monday, the 29th of May. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Hong Lim earlier on drew the attention of the House to complaints which he had received from the fire victims, alleging that there were inadequacies with regard to the feeding arrangements and the accommodation in the relief centre. He said that his attention had been drawn to the fact that the food distribution points were inadequate and that there were central points serving as many as 3,000 persons. He also mentioned, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it took one to two hours for the fire victims to queue up for food. Mr Speaker, Sir, the fire victims are accommodated in six buildings in the Kim Seng Road and River Valley Road areas. As I have mentioned earlier on, Mr Speaker, Sir, there are 8,500 fire victims in residence in these six buildings. That works out to 1,500 for each of the schools and an additional 1,000 for the theatre which serves these five schools. So that, Mr Speaker, Sir, there are today six distribution points serving these six buildings. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Hong Lim also said that the fire victims have to queue up for as much as one to two hours for their food, and that they do not get vegetables and rice at the end of the queue. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are three meal periods for all those who are now accommodated in this relief centre. The first meal period is in the mornings, when coffee, bread and biscuits are supplied; and those in this relief centre are allowed to take as much coffee and biscuits as they want. In fact, yesterday when I visited the relief centre, I was told by the superintendent in charge that that morning 1,000 gallons of coffee had been supplied to the residents of the relief centre. Mr Speaker, Sir, the second meal period is between 12 noon and 2 p.m. It is true, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the inmates of this relief centre were not very satisfied with the mutton that was supplied by the Military on the first day. But since then, Mr Speaker, Sir, ample supplies of rice cooked with chicken, duck and pork have been supplied to the inmates of this relief centre. The mid-day meal hours are between 12 noon and 2 p.m., and the evening meal is supplied between 5.00 and 7.00 p.m. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Hong Lim also said that the rice and vegetables were not properly cooked. It was complained that a snake had been found in the vegetables and that the rice was of poor quality and generally unsuitable. Mr Speaker, Sir, the cooks employed to cook the meals are qualified cooks from the Blue Cross Society, and they are used to mass cooking. There is plenty of water and plenty of manpower to clean the rice, vegetables and the meat which are served. Mr Speaker, Sir, some of the rice cooked is donated rice. We cannot refuse this rice, because of its quality, without causing considerable offence. Much of the rice is also cooked by the Singapore Harbour Board from its own kitchens.

That is for the Muslims.

No, not only for the Muslims but also for the rest of the inmates of the relief centre. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Hong Lim also said that as accommodation was short, we should increase the number of tents and marquees. It has been decided that Government should take very prompt measures to ensure that the residents of this camp are moved out as soon as possible, and there would be no point. Mr Speaker, Sir, for us to increase the number of tents and marquees now. The Member for Hong Lim also suggested that it would be useful for Government to look into the question of setting up teams to tour the town and residential areas to collect furniture and cooking utensils for the victims of this fire. Mr Speaker. Sir, that is a responsibility which the Government cannot accept. However, I shall pass this on to the voluntary bodies to see if they are interested in this sort of work. Mr Speaker, Sir, the St. John's Ambulance, the Red Cross and the Government nursing service are now functioning under the control of medical officers of the Ministry of Health. All the buildings in this emergency relief centre were fumigated yesterday. The health authorities are anxious, because of the cramped conditions and the large number of fire victims in residence at the centre, that arrangements should be made for the early removal of an appreciable number of those now in residence to the new Housing Board estates to relieve the congestion and to minimise the risk of an outbreak of an epidemic amongst the inmates. With the assistance of the Military, transport can be laid on at a moment's notice to remove large numbers of the residents and their families to new housing estates as soon as they have decided on the localities to which they wish to move. Registration of the fire victims at the emergency relief centre commenced on Friday, the 26th of May. Registration of all fire victims both in the emergency relief centre and the Delta-Ganges Centre was completed on Tuesday, the 30th of May. A total of 2,833 families consisting of 15,694 persons have been registered. I shall now proceed to describe the relief which has been planned for these fire victims. Rent subsidies will be paid to all registered fire victims who are accommodated in Housing Board estates on the basis of $7 per person per month, subject to a maximum of $35 per family of up to five persons per month for a period of three months. If a family exceeds five persons, no subsidy will be paid for any person in excess of that number. But where a family consists of less than five persons, the rent subsidy will be paid at the maximum rate of $35 per month. Where the rental of the Housing Board flats to which the family moves exceeds $35 per month, the excess rent will not be subsidised and will have to be borne by the tenant. This rent subsidy has been worked out on the basis of the lowest rental payable for present Housing Board accommodation, that is, $35 per flat per month divided by a family unit of five persons. The registration for relief disclosed that a total number of 15,694 people registered for relief. There were 2,833 families and this was held roughly to be a family unit of five persons. It is considered, Sir, that the rent subsidy worked out on this basis will be of great help in enabling a family to get on its feet again if the subsidy is paid for a period of three months. Those registered fire victims who are not accommodated in Housing Board estates will receive cash grants in lieu of rent subsidies on the same basis of $35 per month per family, irrespective of the number of persons in the family, and for the same period of three months. To ease the lot of fire victims who find it difficult to pay a rental of more than $35 per month, they will be allowed to share accommodation with other registered fire victims in the new accommodation offered by the Board, or with their friends and relatives in the Board's older estates. By relaxing the prohibition against sharing the Board's accommodation, the pool of the Board's available accommodation will be considerably increased, and this will assist the fire victims to get the accommodation they require sooner. On the basis of these subsidies, Sir, a sum of $100,000 a month will be required, and for a period of three months the estimated subsidy required will be in the region of $300,000. Besides rent subsidies and cash grants in lieu of rent subsidies, the registered fire victims will also be given rehabilitation grants to assist them to buy food, clothing and furniture for their new homes. Every registered fire victim has already been paid $10, and this has involved an expenditure of $156,940. In the next few days it is proposed to pay all the registered fire victims another instalment of $20 to each adult and young person over the age of 16, and $10 to each child under the age of 16 years. Out of a total number of 15,694 registered fire victims, 7,816 are adults or young persons over the age of 16, and 7,878 are children under the age of 16. The payments of this second instalment by way of rehabilitation grants will involve a total expenditure of $235,100. The rent subsidy, amounting to a total of $105 per family, and a cash grant, in lieu of rent subsidy, is estimated to cost $300,000. The first instalment of rehabilitation grant at the rate of $10 per person, which has already been paid, has amounted to $156,940. The second instalment of rehabilitation grant will cost $235,100, as I have mentioned before. The total of the rent subsidy and cash payments in lieu of rent subsidy and the first two instalments of rehabilitation grant is estimated to involve an expenditure of $692,040. Sir, on the initiative of the Government, the Bukit Ho Swee Fire National Relief Fund Committee was set up last Saturday and the Bukit Ho Swee Fire National Relief Fund was established. Its main object is to raise funds for the relief and rehabilitation of the fire victims on a national basis. In view of the size of the fire and the number of victims involved, this work could not be left to the Council of Social Services, which is the organisation in which all voluntary bodies concerned with social and welfare work are represented. To enable the House to have a clear appreciation of the damage caused by this fire and the amount of funds which will be required for the rehabilitation of the Bukit Ho Swee Fire victims, I shall now proceed to give a few details of two fires which took place in Singapore in recent years and the amount of Government, City Council and public donations which were received in respect of those two fires. These figures do not include the value of contributions in kind that were received in respect of each of these fires. First, the Kampong Koo Chye fire which broke out in Lorong 3 on 5th April, 1958. The number of persons who were rendered homeless In that fire were 2,050, and the number of families who were rendered homeless were 379. The City Council gave a donation of $100,000. The Government gave a donation which included a rent subsidy of $114,137.50, and a sum of $356,000 was obtained by public donations. The total sum received from all sources in that fire was approximately $570,000. Second, the Kampong Tiong Bahru fire which broke out on 13th February, 1959. The number of persons rendered homeless in that fire was 5,220. The number of families rendered homeless in that fire was 1,016. The City Council gave a donation of $100,000. There were public donations received of $756,200, and the total contributions from all sources for that fire approximated $856,200. In this second fire, Sir, Government gave an interest-free loan of $4,800,000 to the S.I.T. for the building of a new housing estate on the fire site. From the details that I have just given of the two previous fires, Members of the House will certainly see that the number of persons and families rendered homeless in the Bukit Ho Swee fire is three times more than the number of those rendered homeless in the Kampong Tiong Bahru fire in 1959, and as much as seven time more than those rendered homeless by the Kampong Koo Chye fire in 1958. This information, Sir, will serve to show that, by comparison, the Bukit Ho Swee fire is the biggest fire that has occurred in recent years, and that the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of this fire will call for an effort in the raising of funds by public contribution which will surpass anything which has been undertaken before. This will also call for energetic action on the part of the Bukit Ho Swee Fire National Relief Committee to raise a large sum of money for this very worthy cause, and also for a generous response from the public. Government announced on Saturday, the 27th of May, that it has voted a sum of $250,000 from the Contingencies Fund for the relief and rehabilitation of the Bukit Ho Swee fire victims. Up to the time I am speaking this afternoon, a total of $520,000 has been received by way of donations from the Government and from foreign governments, as well as by way of contributions from the public. The amount and scale of relief, Sir, which we will be able to afford to pay to the victims of the Bukit Ho Swee fire will there fore have to depend to a large extent on the amount of contributions which the Relief Fund Committee will receive from the general public. I take this opportunity now of appealing again to the public to contribute generously to this Fund. In addition to the cash donations, which have been received, contributions in kind in a steady flow have been received at the emergency relief centre from the public. The clothing has been removed to the People's Association Headquarters where it is being made up into bundles for equitable distribution to registered fire victims. The canned food received will also be distributed equitably to the registered fire victims. In the case of the fire victims who have lost their occupations because of the fire, they will, after receiving assistance which I have mentioned before, be put on public assistance until such time as they are able to get other employment. Meanwhile the Fire Insurance Association of Malaya has been approached for an estimate of the number and value of policies and the amount of claims which fire insurance companies will be required to meet as a result of the fire. This will give us an indication of the extent to which the losses of the fire victims have been mitigated by monies which they will receive from the fire insurance policies. I should like, Sir, to conclude what I have said by thanking all the individuals and members of charitable bodies and welfare organisations who have given their services unstintingly to mitigate the hardships experienced by the victims of the fire ever since the evening of 25th May. 5.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the first national disaster on such a scale for many a long year. On behalf of the Government, I would like to say how gratified we were at the response from all the people - response in sympathy, material help, and personal service. I hope it will be sustained long enough for material and substantial donations to be made to the Bukit Ho Swee Fire National Relief Fund. But I would like, in particular, to mention that in future the public can help by curbing their natural instincts of curiosity. I do not think the thousands who flocked to the area to see the fire, whilst it was in progress, understood that by blocking up all the roads leading to the area they were, in fact, doing a disservice to the people who were about to he victims of the fire. It meant slower movement of the fire brigades and slower movement of the police to help in crowd control. It might well be that had there not been the same traffic congestion, some parts of the damage might have been prevented. However, the general consensus of opinion was that the wind was so strong on that day that, given the best of goodwill, the best of fire services, and the strongest of water pressure, the damage to the attap-huts was inevitable. But I would make this appeal to the people of Singapore - that in another such catastrophe, if ever we are unfortunate enough to have another one, it is the duty of the people to help, if by nothing else, by keeping out of the way of those whose business it is to fight fires. I would also like to add a word of admonition against those who, out of zealousness, wanted to help in directing the fire hoses. We welcome the great spirit of mutual help and co-operation in a common disaster. People voluntarily helped to move fire hoses and helped the firemen. But I think it is important that the people should understand that the person who knows where best to put the water is the fireman, because he has been trained for that job. And to help the firemen to direct the water somewhere other than where the firemen wanted to direct it is, in fact, very dangerous business and may well do a disservice to the people whom they wanted to help. However, this is a matter which I am told has happened again and again in the past. We hope that with more and constant explanation we might get not only zealous help but also effective help. By all means, help the firemen move the hose, but let us leave them to decide where to put it. However, everything said and done. I think we can be proud of the magnificent way in which all the people responded, both during the emergency and immediately after that in the relief area to assist fellow citizens who had unexpectedly suffered grievous loss. 5.05 p.m.

Mr Tan Kia Gan, in reply?

Sir, it is indeed most gratifying to hear the Opposition Benches complimenting the Government on their assistance and all that it could do during the last few days to help the fire victims of Bukit Ho Swee. However, there were "buts" and "suggestions". Some of these "buts" and "suggestions" have been answered by my colleagues. I would now like to take some of the time of this House to point out where these "buts" and "suggestions" are wrong. First of all, I would like to touch on what the Member for Hong Lim has mentioned in regard to re-housing, whether the victims can afford the rents, and other matters that were brought up by him. He has suggested that we should put up temporary structures or allow vacant Government quarters to be occupied by the victims. I believe that was intended for some purpose, and I would like to tell this House that the Government has already done all that it can to rehouse the victims. We have mentioned that all the vacant flats which have not been allotted to the Housing Board applicants will be made available for the fire victims. Regulations controlling the sharing of these flats, or the sharing of flats which are occupied by tenants in the present housing estates, will be relaxed so that as many as possible of these fire victims will be rehoused and resettled, and other assistance will be given to them to put them on their feet again. But the Member for Hong Lim has suggested that other measures should be done. Other Members of the Opposition have already mentioned that the Government is doing all it can. Then on the question of no free rental period, the Member for Hong Lim has doubts in his mind whether these victims could afford these rents. I would like to mention the rental policy of the Housing Board. It all derives from the fact that in the past the S.I.T. had no policy of fixing rents for these estates. As a result of that, in respect of more than 22,000 units in the Housing Board estates under the previous management of the S.I.T., they had altogether about 100 categories of rents, ranging from $9.65 to $105 per unit. You can find that in some estates the same type of flats carry different rents. For instance, in Queenstown, three-room units were rented, some at $42 per unit, some at $55, and others at $89. It St. Michael's Estate, the same thing happened; and in the Tiong Bahru Estate the rents were still more varied. Three-room flats were rented out at $38.50; $40.70; $48.80; $57.20; $60.70; $66.00; $69.30; $75.00; $79.20 and $89.

10. Looking at these rents, Sir, it is really difficult to determine how the rates were fixed. The Housing and Development Board, however, has decided that rents should reflect the size of the units, the amenities provided, as well as the cost of construction, maintenance and management. Rents which include all these elements are defined as economic rents. I would like to mention here, Sir, that the Housing Board is not a profit-making organisation. Its job is to build houses of good material and good construction at the lowest cost possible. It is the intention of the Board to build one-room units to be let out at $20 a month; two-room units to be let out at $40 a month; and three-room units to be let out at $60 a month. But I must point out here, Sir, that the units which are available for the fire victims today are units which were planned and partially built by the former S.I.T., and completed in the time of the Housing Board. Obviously the rents of these houses will not be in the category that I have mentioned, that is, a one-room unit for $20; a two-room unit for $40, and a three-room unit for $60. The Member for Hong Lim asked whether units were available for the fire victims the rentals of which would be within their reach. He mentioned that construction costs were low. I must point out, Sir, that the construction costs of these units which are available now have not been low. So the rents will not be low. But the Government has already taken into consideration what subsidy could be worked out to relieve these fire victims. As I have mentioned before, a subsidy in the form of $7 per person up to a maximum of $35 per family would be given to families who want Board accommodation or who prefer accommodation of their own. In this way, Sir, we have worked out how these victims could be relieved as far as rental is concerned. The Member for Hong Lim has also mentioned that the rent subsidy proposed is below that given to the previous fire victims. Sir, I have already said, and I repeat, that the Government will see to it that the fire victims are given all necessary assistance in the matter of rehousing. The Government, however, considers that, in fairness to the taxpayers who are actually footing the bill, it could not go to the extent of giving rent-free accommodation, as was done by the previous Government; nor does the Government consider that it will be right to let out public housing units to the fire victims at long-term highly subsidised rentals. Both these measures will no doubt appeal considerably to the fire victims as very generous concessions, but the Government does not feel that it ought to buy the favour of a certain section of the population by expending public funds in this ill-considered manner. There is, furthermore, a further objection to such measures in that they lead to an unequal treatment of the fire victims themselves. Those victims who declined the offer of public housing units and preferred to find their own accommodation-and there are many victims of both the Kampong Koo Chye and Tiong Bahru fires who belong to this category-found to their disappointment that they got much less in the way of benefits than those who accepted accommodation in public housing units. Sir, the Government's plan to rehabilitate the fire victims is based on principles of equity and good public finance. Those victims who wish to be rehoused in the Board's flats will be given special priority over the normal applicants on the Board's register. But they will be required to pay the normal rentals charged for the accommodation offered. To help them, I have already mentioned the rental subsidy for a period of three months. The decision to charge normal rentals cannot be said to be unfair, since victims of small fires in other minor calamities who were given accommodation in public housing units were charged these rentals. The circumstances in these casual cases of disaster are exactly the same and, therefore, the same treatment should be applied all round. Sir, one very strange thing has cropped up from the strange mind of the Member for Hong Lim. We have heard time and again that he is concerned with the welfare of the poor people - and all fire victims in Bukit Ho Swee are poor people. But among these poor people there is a group of people who own shops. The Member for Hong Lim has specially brought up the point that the Government should consider building shops and rent them out at low rentals to these people. We know that shopkeepers are not poor people. But the Member for Hong Lim has made a special appeal for them. I would like to make it known to this House that the Government will treat all fire victims as fire victims. No special consideration will be given to the shopkeepers, but shops will be built in this area and shopkeepers from this area who are fire victims will be given a priority on such shops. The Member for Farrer Park mentioned the Work Brigade and also the Civil Defence Corps. I would like to point out to the Member that it is known to all people that the crowds who went to watch this fire had hampered the work of the Fire Brigade, the police and the Army. Obviously, this Government does not intend to send any corps of men there to hamper the progress of the work of the Fire Brigade and the people who were controlling the crowds in this area. For the information of this Member, I would like to mention that the Work Brigade was not sent to the fire site during the fire. It was sent to this place only after the fire had died down, to do all it could to assist the fire victims in cooking and distributing food. At a later stage, a camp for the Work Brigade members will be set up. In fact, this evening some members of the Work Brigade will be stationed on the site to help clear this area so that work on building to rehouse the fire victims in this area will be expeditiously carried out. The Member for Cairnhill mentioned that I had overlooked the fact that when rebuilding was completed, fire victims should be allowed to go back to this area. As early as on the night of the fire, the Housing Board Chairman and I moved in to survey the place. On the next day we planned how this area could be rebuilt mainly to rehouse the victims as quickly as possible. Plans to build about 10,000 units in this area have already been put up. Following this motion, there will be a Bill to acquire this piece of land. In fact, the Housing Board has already mapped out the plans to rebuild this area where people could live without fear of fire, with all the other facilities provided in the form of schools, community centres, markets, shops and other amenities. Sir, my colleagues the other Ministers have already mentioned how much they have done for the fire victims and how they propose to relieve the hardships of the fire victims in the months to come. There is no necessity for me to repeat what they have said. But this I would like to say, and that is, the P.A.P. Government has always believed in taking a realistic view of things. We acknowledge, as any responsible government must acknowledge, that the fire victims who have been overtaken by this dire calamity must be given every assistance. We have done all we can, and we will do our best in the months to come for these fire victims.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this House expresses its profound sympathy for the victims of the fire at Bukit Ho Swee and calls upon the people to donate generously to the Bukit Ho Swee Fire Relief Fund; That to prevent a recurrence of such disastrous fires the site of the fire be acquired by the Government for the Housing and Development Board for rebuilding, and to this end that no one be allowed to rebuild on this site structures of a temporary or permanent nature; That the Housing and Development Board regulations relating to the prohibition of sub-letting or sharing of accommodation be relaxed in the case of these fire victims in order that rapid re-housing will be possible; That this House thanks the fire fighting services, the Police and Military Forces for their work in combating the fire and maintaining order on that occasion and thanks the workers in the Government Social Services and the voluntary organisations who have helped in the relief of the fire victims.

5.29 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to amend the Land Acquisition Ordinance (Chapter 248 of the Revised Edition)." Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Now, Sir.

Please proceed.

I lay upon the Table, Mr Speaker, Sir, a Certificate of Urgency signed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in respect of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

The Certificate is in order, and hon. Members have received copies of the Bill. Is there any hon. Member who wishes to have an extra copy? If not, I call upon the Prime Minister to move the Second Reading.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as Members will have noticed from the motion moved by my colleague, the Minister for National Development, it is the intention of the Government to seek the consent of the House to acquire the fire site and to acquire it under conditions which will not give a windfall to the landowners. Sir, under the present law, if we acquire that land today, we will have to pay the market value of the land as at the date of publication of the Gazette Notification, which means the land which is vacant, without tenants and squatters. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is an unfortunate fact that land with squatters and tenants on it is worth considerably less than land without tenants and squatters. I have been advised by the Government Valuer that in areas such as this, encumbered land with tenants and squatters is worth approximately one-third the value of land without tenants and squatters. I think Members will agree that it is heinous in the extreme to allow any profit to be made out of this fire. In fact, if any profit is allowed to be made, then it will only be an inducement, a temptation to arson by those who possess land with squatters on it. Most of the land to be acquired, or nearly all of the land to be acquired, belongs to private owners - 53 owners in all; a few large ones going up to 12 acres per single owner; but mostly small ones varying between half an acre and two acres. Fortunately for us, there is clear evidence that this particular site was encumbered by squatters and tenants. In fact, in 1954 both the City Valuer and the Government Valuer had made a survey and valuation of the land. The City Assessor had put it at 43 cents per square foot with the tenants and squatters then present; and the Government Valuer had put it at 41 cents per square foot. I am further advised by the valuers that the price of land between 1954 and now has not varied to any extent, but that it is most likely that the number of squatters and tenants has increased. If there is any tendency on the valuers' part to alter this valuation, it would be towards diminishing it in view of the larger number of tenants and squatters who would have been present on the night of the fire. Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to thank the officers responsible, both in the State Advocate-General's Chambers and in the Land Office, for putting up this Bill at short notice. I would hesitate to say that if they were given more time, they could not find more rough edges to polish. But, nevertheless, it is a workmanlike piece of draftmanship in the circumstances. I can assure the House that the expectation is that this will be the only instance we anticipate using this proviso. The reason is that a completely new Land Acquisition Bill will be introduced in the next Session, in which a provision similar to this, but with such other refinements as this operation would indicate necessary, would be put in. Can I briefly then explain the way in which this clause is to work? Under section 26 there are five factors which determine the value of compensation to he awarded. For the convenience of Members, I have appended a copy of section 26. Factor (a) is the market value of the land at the time of acquisition; and factor (e), the fifth factor, is that of expenses incurred by having to change residence or place of business. Sir, the fire has already taken place; residence has already been changed; the squatters and tenants have already been removed; and it falls upon the Government and the public at large to expend a considerable amount of money and effort to rehouse and rehabilitate the fire victims. I think the least this House can expect of landowners is that they should not benefit from this fire. We are not asking them to incur a loss. We are not expropriating the land. But we say quite clearly that it would be unconscionable to allow any private landowner to benefit as a result of this fire. Therefore, the clause in this Bill to be moved will remove the necessity to consider factors (a) and (e). Instead of factor (a), the market value will not be the market value at the date of acquisition where there are no tenants and squatters, but at the date just before the devastation, that means, with the tenants and squatters. That was the real value if the Government had acquired it and had to pay compensation to every single squatter and every tenant who moved out of the land. Factor (e), as I have said, does not apply, because in any case the squatters and tenants have been moved out. But I must admit to one difficulty to which the land officers, particularly the Collector of Land Revenue, will face. Everybody knows roughly how many squatters there were. In fact, on registration with the Social Welfare Department of the Ministry of Labour and Law, we know that they are somewhere in the region of 3,000 families. The difficulty will be between the claims of competing owners. We know that with 3,000 families on that plot of land, it can be proved by expert evidence that the value of the land will be one-third its unencumbered land. But it will be difficult for us to prove or disprove that a particular squatter was on a red acre or a blue acre, because the house is already burned, the receipts have gone, the tenants and squatters have moved out, and probably cannot again be found to go back and give evidence. I am not saying that any landowner will do it, but I think it might well be possible for a landowner, who is enterprising enough to make sure that he expresses further sympathy with the fire victim, to ask him to disappear forever so that he will never give evidence to say that he was a squatter there. It is quite possible that the owner of a red acre can say, "I never had squatters on my land. All the squatters were on my neighbour's land - a blue acre." And so interminable arguments can go on. We are not saying that there are, in fact, no plots of land without squatters. There may well be, but we are putting the onus upon the owner. The burden of proof is on the owner. If he proves that, in fact, his plot was an oil mill and there were no squatters and no tenants, that he was the only chap there, he owns the land and he can give vacant possession if he wanted to sell the land, then the Minister has the power when he has satisfied himself and the Collector of Land Revenue has satisfied himself, to up the one-third limit. The one-third limit is the overall value of the land with that number of squatters on it. If any owner of any piece of land can prove - not we prove that he had the squatters but he proves that he did not have the squatters - to the satisfaction of the Collector of Land Revenue and his investigators, then we are quite prepared to exceed and remove the limitations of one-third. Sir, finally I would like to say that the other three factors, (b), (c) and (d) which the Court has to take into consideration in making an award will remain - injurious affection of land by separation; increase in value of the other land of the person interested likely to accrue from the use to which the land acquired will be put; and damage sustained by the person at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land by reason of acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, whether movable or immovable. These are the factors that will still, apply, but the two factors that do not apply are (a) and (e). And for the reasons that I have stated, I hope the House will give this Bill swift passage. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Question proposed. 5.44 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. the Prime Minister has made my task very much easier than I thought it would be, because he said that this amendment is only of a temporary nature and intended only to affect the present ad hoc situation, and that the Government has in mind a complete overhaul of the Land Acquisition Bill, in which, of course, this amendment will come into play. Therefore, when I do suggest to the Prime Minister that the terms of the Bill have exceeded the avowed purpose of the Bill set out in the Explanatory Statement, perhaps these are matters which the Prime Minister will consider when the whole of this Ordinance is reconsidered. Mr Speaker, Sir, the first point I wish to make on a matter of principle is this. The impetus for the amendment is not to allow the landlord to benefit from the fortuitous dispersal of his tenants and squatters by an Act of God, with which, of course, we completely agree; more so when such land is subject to the control of the Rent Ordinance. But where I find the Bill has gone beyond affecting landlords who have benefited by the fire, so to speak, is this clause, Mr Speaker, which says - if I may read that clause (clause 2): "Provided that in the case of an acquisition for a public purpose of any land devastated or affected directly or indirectly by fire, explosion, thunderbolt, earthquake, storm, tempest, flood or any Act of God,".' Up till now it is perfectly all right, Mr Speaker, Sir. This, I think, is the objectionable portion of the Bill: ` "., or of any land immediately adjoining such devastated or affected land as shall be required for such public purpose,".' Now, as I understand the Bill, an area has been devastated. This particular area is subject to rent control. As a result of the devastation, the landlord is put in a better position. Therefore, it is only right and proper that he should not benefit by this devastation. Therefore, the restraining proviso of this amendment is completely in accord with the Government's intention, and we support it. But what I do not understand, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this. There is a piece of land adjoining this which is a vacant piece of land not affected by squatters; but because the Government feels that it will be better and more economic from the town planning point of view to develop the whole area rather these two acres of devastated land, why must the landlord of the other six acres, shall I say, be put in the same position as the landlord whose sites have been devastated by fire? I find that completely inequitable. But I appreciate and understand the equity and the justness of the first case. But I certainly do not appreciate the justness of bringing in adjoining landowners who are free of squatters. You are putting them in the same category and only allowing them one-third of the land value. The second point, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this. The last proviso to the Bill reads: `And provided further that the market value of such land shall not exceed one third of the value of such land had it been vacant land not subject to any such encumbrances, tenancies or occupation by squatters unless the Minister shall in his discretion by notification in the Gazette specify otherwise.' I would have felt much happier if the Bill had confined itself to saying: `that he shall be paid the market value of such land on the encumbered site.' So that it would not be an arbitrary way of fixing the value. The Hon. the Prime Minister has said that, by an arithmetical process arrived at between him and the Commissioner of Lands, he has come to the conclusion that that is one-third. Perhaps that is correct, Mr Speaker, Sir. But that is based on the fact that the valuation of the Commissioner of Lands is accepted as the gospel truth. There are many people in Singapore who are not willing to accept the valuation of the Commissioner of Lands as the gospel truth on such matters. That is the second point. They would have felt happier if that matter had been left to the Court, if the landlord were so desirous of going to Court. Now the other matter which I am going to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister is this. This Bill has been given life by this national calamity which has occurred at this site. Thousands of families have been deprived of housing. But the Bill as set out here, Mr Speaker, Sir: `Provided that in the case of an acquisition for a public purpose of any land devastated..'. "any land devastated" might be just half an acre. Now the public conscience is so stirred on this occasion that this Bill becomes necessary. But there are several fires in Singapore which go unnoticed, to which the attention of the Assembly is not brought to bear, and no special sittings are called simply because they are not of a national character. They just become particular local calamities and not national calamities. The scope of this Bill takes the acquisitive powers of the Government beyond the national calamity into a situation which is merely a private calamity. So that the Government can enter into this acquisition business on a private calamity and apply the provisions. I am not saying they are going to do it, Mr Speaker, Sir. But the provisions of the Bill are such that they could do it if they want to do it. I do not think the Government want to do it, and I hope they will also look into this matter when the whole of the Ordinance is reconsidered. 5.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I too am glad that the Prime Minister is going to introduce another Bill because, in my case, I feel that this Bill, since it applies only to land already devastated by fire, etc., means that those people who stay in densely-packed attap-house areas which are continually subject to grave fire risks will not be able to benefit by any protection the Government can give today. It means that over their heads will always hang the sword of Damocles, that at any time they too will be subjected to this sort of a calamity. They will lose their homes, their property, and some of them will lose their lives. I would suggest, Sir, that the Government take steps so that these people may be prevented from undergoing such a calamity, because the public are anxious that annually-

Order. I do not know how those remarks are relevant to the Bill. We are now dealing with an amendment to the Land Acquisition Ordinance which provides for acquisition with a special method of compensation. I do not know how methods of preventing calamities have anything to do with this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is relevant in the sense that if the Prime Minister wants to amend clause 2, Sir, it can be done. It is left to the Government side. If the Government side does not want to amend it here, I suggest these provisions be included in a future Bill. If it is so amended that it applies not only to land devastated at this time, but also to land likely to be devastated, then that can be provided for in an amending clause 2. [Pause.]

Will the Member please continue until I rule him out of order?

So long as I have made the point, Sir, I leave it to the Prime Minister to consider that for his next Bill.

Made what point?

In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has not understood, Sir, I repeat. The point is this. The public are asking, "Must people wait for another fire before the Government takes just remedial action? That is-

Order. I would like to ask the Member for Tanglin whether that has anything to do with land acquisition. We are dealing with the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill. Has that anything to do with land acquisition?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very sorry if I have not made it clear enough. But the danger of another fire can be prevented if Government has further powers to acquire areas where these attap houses are built together in such close proximity that if any spark catches one roof it means the beginning of another conflagration. That is for the Government to decide. The next point, Sir, is this. I have been charged with suggesting that I am recommending the resettling of attap-house area people affected by fire and so on, on to houses with higher rents. We all can see that if the Government is going to pay one-third of, we might say, the regular value of land, then it is in a position to subsidise people who are staying in such houses, and therefore the rents must be lower than usual. That is the purpose of acquiring the land at a lower rate than the market value. I made no such suggestion, and I take this opportunity to explain that I never made the suggestion that there should be higher rents for these fire victims. Instead I suggested that they should be given lower rents.

The Prime Minister, in reply?

Sir, I must be forgiven for not being able to follow the Member for Tanglin the first time. But when he was speaking the second time, it dawned upon me that perhaps what the Member meant was, let us change the Bill in such a way that if any fire takes place, we expropriate the whole land. So all landlords will be so worried about it that they will install fire-fighting apparatus in every squatter's hut in case he loses his land by fire. Perhaps I will ask my officers to give consideration to that point. An hon. Member: Before the fire.

Order.

May I dispose of the points made by the Member for Farrer Park? First, the question of the adjoining land. That is absolutely important, both for the reasons the Member has stated. For a comprehensive scheme you will have to include little bits of land either with buildings or without buildings which may adjoin a fire site. Also because we want to avoid any difficulty which would arise if any tenant or any landlord disputes whether or not his house or his site is involved in the fire site. But the case has already arisen in the Bukit Ho Swee fire. A block of shophouses was burnt. All the tenants fled for safety on the advice of the police and the Fire Brigade. The fire was checked right up to the end house. The end house was only partially burnt, or perhaps a spark just burned a speck on the window. Does this clause come into operation? Was this house devastated either directly or indirectly by a fire, an explosion, a thunderbolt, or an earthquake? Is it suggested that we acquire nine houses under this and the tenth one is left out because it is arguable whether it was, in fact, devastated by the fire or whether it was partially burnt out and so on? Therefore, the clause is not only necessary from the Town Planner's point of view, but it is also necessary from the point of view of the land acquisition officer. He has to have power which cannot be challenged. When he exercises his power clearly on the facts and says, "This is part of the fire site, or adjoining it", then it is up to the Court to decide whether or not the land which was not directly affected by the fire is immediately so adjoining as to be indirectly affected. Therefore, it makes the question of interpretation and quibbling less likely to arise. As to the other question of the market value of the land being fixed at one-third, I think I had in my opening explained the reasons for this exercise. Everybody knows - not just the Land Office Valuer or the City Assessor - you can bring any number of auctioneers and licensed valuers to give evidence to show that if you want to get rid of squatters, or if you sell land which has squatters and tenants on it, it is worth about one-third the market value. But the difficulty will arise when, after the fire has taken place, you are to apportion between the competing interests. Were all seven tenants on Lot A and there were no tenants on Lot B? Or were there three tenants on Lot A and four tenants on Lot B? We could spend years of litigation on this. Everybody knows that there were 3,000 families living there. Therefore, from the point of view of expeditious land acquiring in a fair manner, we have adopted this omnibus clause of putting the limit at one-third. As I have stated, I have given an understanding on my moving the Second Reading just now that if a man can prove to the Collector of Land Revenue that, in fact, he had no tenants and no squatters, that he was in actual physical possession himself, that he ran a little factory, then the Land Collector will obviously advise the Minister that his is an appropriate case in which action could be taken under the last proviso where the Minister can, in his discretion, by notification in the Gazette, specify otherwise. It is as simple as that. In other words, what it means is this. If any client turns up to see any lawyer, the lawyer will tell him, "Look, it is not worth your while buying off your squatters and telling them to disappear, because the onus is on you to prove it." But he can prove and convince his lawyer. He says, "Obviously I was in occupation there with all members of my family. I was running a bicycle shop there or a sauce factory. I own a piece of land, and if I had wanted to sell it, I would have moved out." Obviously, the lawyer would advise him that it is worth while paying a modest fee to seek the clemency of the Collector of Land Revenue in order to get the Minister to gazette. But, as I have said, this is a matter of practical tactics. Do we involve ourselves in endless inquiries as to which squatter was on which land? Or do we try to spread equitably the load over everyone? Which, in fact, is probably the real and true position, that there was no plot of land there which was not encumbered by tenants or squatters, and leave it to the odd individual who happened to be in actual physical possession of his own land to seek discretion under the proviso? As to the other remarks on the comprehensiveness of the provision, when the final Bill is drafted, I think we will have the experience of the workings of this particular proviso. Perhaps on that occasion, we can speak with more expert knowledge of what landowners do, and what squatters do after a fire, and what evidence is left. But I think one definite effect this Bill will have is that it will give no inducement whatsoever to any landlord to attempt arson. It is not worth the candle. As I have said, I will take the advice of the Member for Tanglin and ask my officers to consider whether or not we should go one step further and just say, in view of the general necessity to prevent fires and so on, we will acquire the land for nothing, so that every landlord will install a spirit-pump, foam and all the fire-fighting apparatus right there on the spot to see that his squatters are safe and sound from fire.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[The Prime Minister]. Bill considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read a Third time and passed. The business having concluded, Mr Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes past six o'clock p.m.