Hansard, 1968-12-19

PERMISSION TO MEMBER TO BE ABSENT Under the provisions of clause 2 (d) of Article 30 of the Constitution, of Singapore, I have granted permission to the following Member to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament for the period stated:- Mr Tay Boon Too (Paya Lebar) - from 23rd to 30th December, 1968. (P. COOMARASWAMY) Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY - (Announcement by Mr Speaker) In accordance with the provisions of paragraph (4) of Standing Order 86 and paragraph (6) of Standing Order 85, I have for the Development Estimates of Singapore for the financial year 1st January, 1969, to 31st March, 1970, fixed the times on the allotted day, namely, the 20th December, 1968, at which consideration of the heads of expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper shall, if not previously disposed of, be concluded. These times have been notified to hon. Members on a blue notice paper and will appear in the Official Report*(Appendix, Cols.693-4). Appendix to Mr Speaker's announcement(Cols. 607-8)(Cols 0693-0694)

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS - SINGAPORE SWEEP asked the Minister for Finance (a) what is the total amount paid to the Government from the proceeds of the Singapore Sweep since its inception; (b) from this sum, what are the amounts distributed respectively to each sports, welfare or other project or body; and (c) what advantage will be gained by Singapore Pools (Private) Limited taking over the conduct of the Singapore Sweep.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS - SINGAPORE SWEEP Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is as follows: (a) In 15 draws, the proceeds received by Government amount to $5,896,184. (b) A sum of $250,000 has been earmarked for the construction of a Social Service Centre at Penang Lane. No other amounts have been distributed. (c) With the establishnient of its network of agencies and distributors, the Singapore Pools (Private) Limited can take over the Singapore Sweep and run h at a lower cost. At present, the managerial fee paid to the Singapore Turf Club ranges from $50,000 to $60,000 per Sweep, in addition, the Turf Club retains commission, on the average, of more than $17,000 per Sweep Draw, it is proposed to raise the first prize to $400,000 when the Singapore Pools (Private) Limited takes over the conduct of the Singapore Sweep.

HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT - BOARD FLATS - (Number of applicants on waiting list) asked the Minister for Law and National Development if he will ascertain from the Housing and Development Board what is the total number of applicants on the waiting list, as at the latest convenient date, for the renting of (i) one- room flats; (ii) two-room flats; and (iii) three-room flats.

HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT - BOARD FLATS - (Number of applicants on waiting list) Mr Speaker, Sir, the total number of applicant on the waiting list as at 30th November, 1968, for the renting of Housing Board flats is as follows: One-room flats 7,064 applicants Two-room flats 4,837 applicants Three-room flats 3,022 applicants ------ Total 14,923 applicants ======

HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT - BOARD FLATS - (Number of applicants on waiting list) Sir, in view of the large number of applicants waiting for one-room flats, what plans has the Housing Board to rectify this position in the future'?

HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT - BOARD FLATS - (Number of applicants on waiting list) Mr Speaker, Sir, it has been our policy to cater for the really poor, and about 50 per cent of the flats that are let out are, in fact, reserved for applicants requiring one-room flats.

HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT - BOARD FLATS - (Number of applicants registered under "Home Ownership Scheme") asked the Minister for Law and National Development if he will ascertain from the Housing and Development Board how many applicants for the purchase of the Board's flats have been registered under the "Home Ownership Scheme" up to the latest convenient date.

HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT - BOARD FLATS - (Number of applicants registered under "Home Ownership Scheme") Sir, the total number of applicants registered for the purchase of flats under the "Home Ownership Scheme" as at 30th November, 1968, is 15,675.

HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT - BOARD FLATS - (Purchase prices of previously rented out flats and newly completed flats) asked the Minister for Law and National Development if he will ascertain from the Housing and Development Board whether there is any difference between the purchase price of a flat that has been previously rented out and that of a similar newly completed flat.

HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT - BOARD FLATS - (Purchase prices of previously rented out flats and newly completed flats) Sir, there is no difference in the selling price between a newly completed flat and an existing flat of a similar type built by the Housing Board. In the sale of existing flats, necessary repairs, redecorations and repainting are carried out before the flats are offered for sale.

HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT - BOARD FLATS - (Purchase prices of previously rented out flats and newly completed flats) Sir, an old flat is an old flat, irrespective of the repairs that are carried out to it. Can the Minister say whether there will be a change in the prices of Housing Board flats in the future?

HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT - BOARD FLATS - (Purchase prices of previously rented out flats and newly completed flats) For the moment, there will be no change. An old flat is an old flat, but the prices of land and buildings have gone up in Singapore with the passing of time. Anyone in occupation of an old flat is not forced to buy it. If he thinks the price is not reasonable, he can always apply to buy a new flat.

DENTAL SERVICES FOR - GOVERNMENT-AIDED SCHOOLS asked the Minister for Health if he will consider extending dental services to Government-aided schools.

DENTAL SERVICES FOR - GOVERNMENT-AIDED SCHOOLS Mr Speaker, Sir, at the present moment, no school dental clinics have been established in Government-aided schools, like those already established in 43 Government primary schools. However, students from Government-aided schools who require emergency dental treatment are catered for at the following dental clinics: (i) Pegu Road School Dental Centre; (ii) Institute of Health School Dental Clinic; (iii) Dental Clinic, Bukit Panjang Outpatient Dispensary; (iv) Dental Clinic, Outram Road General Hospital; (v) Balestier Mixed School Dental Clinic; (vi) Bartley Primary School Dental Clinic; and (vii) Tanjong Katong Girls' School Dental Clinic. In addition, a few smaller Government-aided schools outside city limits are being visited by mobile dental clinics on a regular basis. Up to date, only one Government-aided primary school has applied for a dental clinic to be established in its premises. This school has provided suitable clinic accommodation and the Ministry has agreed to provide dental staff and equipment to run this clinic. It is the policy of the Ministry to extend dental services as far as is possible to Government- aided schools which can provide suitable clinic accommodation, so long as dental staff and equipment are available to operate new clinics.

JURONG TOWN - (Second Market) asked the Minister for Health when the second market in Jurong Town will be opened.

JURONG TOWN - (Second Market) Mr Speaker, Sir, Market II has been constructed by the Housing and Development Board for the Economic Development Board. Action is in progress to obtain formal approval from the Development Plan-fling Committee and the release of funds from the Development Planning Sub-Committee to enable my Ministry formally to operate Market II. No itinerant or static hawkers are allowed in Taman Jurong. As there appears to be a need to provide marketing facilities to the residents of the blocks of flats near Market II, an early opening of Market II is proposed and is expected to be done early in 1969.

ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE - FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST - JANUARY, 1969, TO 31ST - MARCH, 1970 Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [5th Allotted Day].

ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE - FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST - JANUARY, 1969, TO 31ST - MARCH, 1970 2.40 p.m. Head 1201 - The following amendment stood in the names of Mr Teong Eng Siong and Madam Chan Choy Siong -

ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE - FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST - JANUARY, 1969, TO 31ST - MARCH, 1970 Mr Teong is not moving. Madam Chan is not here. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Ho Kah Leong -

ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE - FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST - JANUARY, 1969, TO 31ST - MARCH, 1970 Mr Ho Kah Leong is not moving amendment (2) . The sum of $555,460 for Head 1201 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 1204 -

ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE - FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST - JANUARY, 1969, TO 31ST - MARCH, 1970 Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 1204 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1001*. * The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Ho Kah Leong. Sir, I only wish to seek information on the total area of land now held by the British Armed Forces, and whether plans are being made well in advance before the reversion takes place rather than to wait till the end of 1971.

ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE - FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST - JANUARY, 1969, TO 31ST - MARCH, 1970 (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to draw the Minister's attention to three matters. Firstly, in order to create employment for our people, we have already embarked upon our industrialisation programme. As a result of this, we have selected Jurong as the site for an industrial estate which is in my constituency. In the process, some rural folk have to be resettled and problems usually arise in relation to resettlement. Sir, generally speaking, the rural people do not quarrel with our industrial development programme. They are quite prepared to make some sacrifices and move to the resettlement areas provided, of course, that they are given adequate and reasonable compensation. The resettlement problems, however, are usually complicated by some Government officials who mishandle the situation. I wish to quote one instance. In my constituency, there is one island known as Pulau Ayer Chawan which, as Members are aware, has been chosen as the investment site of Esso (Singapore) Limited who will establish a $200 million refinery there. The people living there will have to be resettled on other islands. But for one reason or other, the Commissioner of Lands has allowed one family to move to an island known as Pulau Ayer Merbau. As a result, the other families on Pulau Ayer Chawan have also asked to be resettled on the same island, but their applications have been rejected because the island has been earmarked for further industrial development 2.45 p.m. So they are dissatisfied; they think it is not fair. There are now seven families still staying in Pulau Ayer Chawan. Is this not a case where our industrial development is being hampered because of mishandling by Land Office officials'? I wonder whether there is any inter-departmental liaison, in my opinion, the Commissioner of Lands should at least get in touch with the Director of the Economic Development Board to ensure that the island which I have mentioned will not be used for industrial development before he allows any family to be resettled there. Secondly, some Government officials do not collect revenue on due date and allow arrears to accumulate. This gives rise to inconvenience to the public and probably a loss of revenue to Government. I have noticed with growing concern that there are more and more cases of arrears in revenue collection. This happens not only in the Property Tax Department but also in the Land Office. As far as I know, there are about 50 sand-quarry operators in Singapore and, under the regulations, they are required -to pay a royalty to the Land Office. I do not know whether it is due to the oversight of the Commissioner of Lands or for some other reasons that this royalty has not been collected for the past few years. But somebody recently discovered this and the sand-quarry operators were asked to pay the arrears in royalty amounting to about $500,000 for five years. It is not reasonable to expect them to pay this amount in one lump sum. In fact, many of them were unable to pay such a huge sum of money and some of them have even stopped operation. I do not know whether it is still possible to recover the arrears from those who have ceased operation. I wish to ask the Minister why such arrears have been allowed to accumulate. Is it due to the negligence of the officials concerned? Thirdly, in my constituency, many areas have been earmarked for industrial development, and construction of public works is going on, such as repair of soads, construction of bridges and so on. There are usually some difficulties in the approval of these works. One of these relates to the undue delays by the Land Office in the clearance of applications for certain projects. Sir, I wish to amplify on this point. It will be a waste of public money for people to develop areas which are earmarked for development. Some people from development areas have recently been resettled in my constituency, and it is unreasonable for the authorities to resettle them once more in another area in such a short time, because the areas in which they live now will be developed. So there is actually no reason for the delay mentioned above. In fact, applications for clearance of construction projects will be answered only after a period of six months or one year. I had on the same occasion here last year complained of the inefficiency of the Land Office and I am mentioning it again in order to catch the attention of the Minister.

ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE - FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST - JANUARY, 1969, TO 31ST - MARCH, 1970 (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to draw the Minister's attention to some of the complaints made against the Land Office. In my constituency, there was an instance which gave rise to-unnecessary inconvenience to the people due to the inefficiency of the Land Office. At the 15th milestone of my constituency there is a village which has about 100 families. One of them applied for permission to renovate his-shop, but his application was rejected because that area has been earmarked for agricultural development. I have already mentioned that my constituency is in the rural area. I fail to understand why the Land Office has classified this area as a development area. I think the officers must be blind to realities. As a result, unnecessary trouble has been created and the officers concerned should be held responsible. In fact, in the surrounding areas, permission has been granted for the rural folk to build their huts and houses. Will the Minister give appropriate-instructions to his officers to look further into the matler so that the rural folk will be given the necessary facilities?

ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE - FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST - JANUARY, 1969, TO 31ST - MARCH, 1970 Mr Speaker, Sir, let me-first deal with the queries raised by the Member for Mountbatten. The United Kingdom Services occupy about 14,603 acres of land in Singapore. A total of 1,177 acres of defence land have so far been transferred to the Singapore Government. The rest of the land occupied by the Services will be returned to the Singapore Government at the end of 1971. The Member for Jurong complained of the discrimination in resettling, families who were living in Pulau Ayer Chawan. I would like to assure him that there was no discrimination in resettling these families. One isolated case was a resident of Pulau Ayer Chawan who was allocated a site in Pulau Ayer Merbau. The decision was taken on or before the whole of Pulau Ayer Chawan was considered to be cleared for industrial development. The other families total nine in number. When it was decided that Pulau Ayer Chawan was to be leased to Esso (Singapore) Limited, the Land Office offered a piece of land to the remaining nine families in Pulau Merlimau which has already been laid out as a resettlement area by the Economic Development Board. Of these nine families, four of them have accepted this offer and the other five families have erected houses on the foreshore of the island. With regard to royalties paid by the sand-quarry operators, the question of arrears is a long-standing problem with the Land Office. It appears that this has not been successfully resolved. In fact, the Ministry is investigating the circumstances under which these arrears have been allowed to accumulate. The collection of royalties in respect of the current year has been very- satisfactory and it is hoped that some reasonable arrangements can he worked out to collect the arrears of royalty due to the state without causing undue hardship to the operators. The Land Office, in consultation with the Ministry of Finance, will be prepared to consider any reasonable arrangement to settle the outstanding arrears in a manner which will not cause any undue hardship to the operators or landowners. The Member for Jurong raised the question of repair of roads and so on. This is not the responsibility of the Land Office, if the Member is complaining of the delay in approving applications for erection of huts or repair of houses, then certain formalities have to he complied with, and in most cases these applications have been approved by the Land Office within a period of four to six weeks. These applications have also to go through the Chief Build ing~ Surveyor's Office and this will take a further six to eight weeks. The Member for Sembawang complains of the refusal of permission to renovate a shop at the 15th milestone Sembawang. First of all, if the shop is on private land, the Land Office does not come into the picture at all. If the shop is on Temporary Occupation Licence, that is, the shop premises are on state land which is leased to the occupant on a Temporary Occupation Licence, then there should be an application to the Land Office. 3.00 p.m. There has been no refusal of any application for renovation or renewal or reconstruction of any shophouses in his area on the ground that the land is zoned for agricultural purposes. But the area he is talking about is actually zoned for agricultural purposes and the applications should be refused. But there has been no application and it has not been refused.

ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE - FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST - JANUARY, 1969, TO 31ST - MARCH, 1970 (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, 1 am not satisfied with the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary because he has not answered to the point. The first point is this. Why did the Commissioner of Lands fail to consult or liaise with the Economic Development Board before he allotted resettlement land to the people? He allotted various areas to people at his whim and fancy, an-d later on when he discovered to his surprise that the areas were ear marked for development, he had to refuse subsequent applications for these areas. So the people feel there is injustice and indiscrimination. As a result of his mishandling the situation, our development programme has been delayed. Secondly, why should the collection of royalties or revenue fall into arrears? Is it due to the negligence or oversight of the officers? The name of every operator of sand quarries is listed in the Land Office and he is required to pay royalties annually. So the collection of royalties should not have been left in arrears for five years. Can the Parliamentary Secretary be certain that he will be able to collect the arrears in full'? If not, there will be a loss in our revenue. My third point relates to road repairs and road construction. It has nothing to do with repairs to houses. The Parliamentary Secretary has not answered my point. My complaint is this. Applications for road repairs and for the construction of bridges have to be cleared with the Land Office, because the areas are earmarked for development, before they are referred to the Urban and Rural Services Committee for consideration. It happens that the Land Office takes a lot of time to reply. The roads are in a state of disrepair and they become worse because of the undue delay. As a result, more repairs have to be carried out and this means more expenditure by the Government.

ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE - FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST - JANUARY, 1969, TO 31ST - MARCH, 1970 In the resettlement of one family from Pulau Ayer Chawan to Pulau Merbau and other families to Pulau Merlimau, there has been no negligence on the part of the Commissioner of Lands and there has been proper liaison between the Land Office and the Economic Development Board. I will give the full details of this case, and I hope the Member will be satisfied. In July 1967, an application was received by the Land- Office from one islander who had been residing in Pulau Ayer Chawan for seven years. The application was in the nature of regularising his unauthorised occupation of a hut on the island. The Licence Com mittee approved the application on 3rd August, 1967, and a proper house site was allocated to him on Pulau Aver Chawan. All this happened before this island was considered for an oil refinery site. While this was going on, investigations had commenced to establish the suitability of Pulau Ayer Chawan as an oil refinery site. As there was the possibility at that time that the island would be taken over for industrial development, the Commissioner of Lands decided to freeze the position on the island regarding the issue of a new Temporary Occupation Licence to this particular person who had already been allocated a site. Therefore, this applicant was reallocated a site in Pulau Ayer Merbau. By March 1968, the suitability of the island - that is Pulau Ayer Chawan - as an oil refinery site was established. Therefore, it was necessary to consider the resettlement of all the nine families living in Pulau Ayer Chawan. It was decided to resettle them in Pulau Merlimau which had already been laid out as a resettlement area by the Economic Development Board when it had to clear the land in Jurong. As I have said earlier, the nine families were accordingly offered houses already built by the Economic Development Board on the island. Four of these fami lies have already accepted and the other five families have elected to have house sites only on the foreshores of the island. On the question of the sand quarries, here again, I have to take up the time of the House to relate the history of the arrears of royalties. The Member wants me to give an assurance that the Government will not lose any money and that it will collect all the arrears. Of course, the Government or the Land Office will do all it can to collect the arrears. At the same time, as the Member has complained that there will be hard-ship to the operators of the sand quarries, we are prepared to come to some kind of arrangement to collect these arrears. Let me go into the details of the sand quarries. The Sand Quarries Ordinance, 1961, came into operation on the 5th of December, 1962. This Ordinance requires all operators to be licensed by the Public Works Department. There had been indiscriminate removal of sand with harmful effects on adjoining dwellers, such as the drying up of wells, mosquito breeding, blockage and siltage of drains, etc. The Ordinance was designed to ensure adequate control over sandquarry operations. Briefly, it appears that following the licensing of sandquarry operators under the Sand Quarries Ordinance, 1961, the Land Office called on these operators to furnish returns on the quantum of sand removal. In 1964, all licensed operators were asked by the Land Office to declare their gross produce figures to enable an assessment to be made on the royalty to be charged. The response was unsatisfactory. Many sand-quarry operators did not supply this information and some forms were returned undelivered. Meanwhile, field inspections were made and consultations were conducted with the Public Works Department on the method and procedure of assessing the produce of the various quarries and the quantum to be charged for royalty. Unfortunately, this was not followed up. An hon. Member: Why?

ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE - FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST - JANUARY, 1969, TO 31ST - MARCH, 1970 That is why an investigation is going on now. In 1966, some operators were again asked to declare their gross produce and others were required to make royalty payments. Further representations were made that the produce figures quoted by the Land Office were excessive. Many of the operators claimed that the figures they themselves had quoted to the Public Works Department at the time of applications for licences had been deliberately over-estimated in order to ensure that they got licences. The sand- quarry operators have themselves to blame for this, They seemed to be very unreasonable. It would appear that between 1964 and 1967, there was an ineffective follow-up on the part of the Land Office. We admit this in the matter of collecting royalties and, coupled with the negative response from the opera tors, this has led to an accumulation of the arrears. Action has been taken by the Land Office to ensure that the 1968 royalties are paid promptly. The res ponse has been fairly satisfactory. The Member has said that there are about 50 sand quarries. There are only 46 sand-quarry operators. Forty-two of the 46 operators licensed by the Public Works Department have paid a total of $106,709 as royalties for this year. Royalties amounting to $13,947 for this year are due from four operators. The Member for Jurong spoke on repairs of roads. The Land Office has nothing to do with this subject.

ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE - FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST - JANUARY, 1969, TO 31ST - MARCH, 1970 (In Mandarin): r Speaker, Sir, I am not satisfied with the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary. Perhaps he has not investigated those applications for the reconstruction of houses which were refused permission. I hope he will give me a satisfactory answer that he will look into the matter again.

ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE - FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST - JANUARY, 1969, TO 31ST - MARCH, 1970 (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary has spoken quite a lot, but he has not replied to a particular point of mine. I do not wish to waste time arguing with him. I wish to ask him a few questions. The first question relates to the allocation of land by the Commissioner of Lands to those affected by resettlement to Pulau Ayer Merbau. Does the Commissioner of Lands know that this island will be used for industrial purposes when he allocates land to the affected family in Pulau Ayer Chawan? 3.15 p.m. The second point is that he said that the Land Office has nothing to do with the repairing of roads. I think he has been sleeping. I have said just now that part of the land in my constituency has been earmarked for industrial purposes. Before any repairing of roads can be undertaken, clearance must he obtained from the Commissioner of Lands.

ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE - FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST - JANUARY, 1969, TO 31ST - MARCH, 1970 Mr Ramaswamy, can you be even briefer in your reply?

ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE - FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST - JANUARY, 1969, TO 31ST - MARCH, 1970 The Member for Sembawang asked me whether I knew of any refusal of applications for the reconstruction of houses. Yes, there have been investigations. There have been only three applications from house owners on state land for the reconstruction or repair of their houses. Two of them have been approved. One application has not been approved because the applicant has not complied with certain requirements. If the Member for Sembawang was speaking about some other application, I will tell him that the applicant did not have the landowner's permission and the Chief Building Surveyor's Department might have refused to approve it. As far as state land is concerned, there has been no refusal. The Member for Jurong asked me whether I knew that Pulau Ayer Merbau was going to be affected by some industrial programme. Yes, there is a proposal but Pulau Ayer Merbau's suitability has not been established yet. Investigations are still going on. With regard to getting clearance by the Land Office for the repairing of roads which the Member for Jurong is complaining of, it may well be that the Commissioner of Lands has got to consult other departments, like the Resettlement Department and the Public Works Department, before the applicants can get the clearance. That may be the cause of the delay.

ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE - FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST - JANUARY, 1969, TO 31ST - MARCH, 1970 I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $1,096,530 for Head 1204 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 1207 -