MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1977 TO 31ST MARCH, 1978
(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, several Members have raised various questions touching on the Hawkers Department under the Ministry of the Environment. They have made certain criticisms, In view of the time factor, I will just give some brief answers. First of all, let me touch upon what the Member for Kim Seng and others have mentioned in this House over the past few days. On the definition of hardship cases, briefly speaking, the term includes cases where the head of the family is unemployed, or physically incapacitated, and the family earning a total family income of not more than $250, and those who are recipients of public assistance. This also includes certain resettlement cases where the people are affected by the Government's development plans but could not get compensation as farmers. All these are hardship cases. They come under the definition of hardship cases. The Member for Kim Seng has mentioned another point. In fact, he has mentioned several points. I would just like to touch upon his point on the age limit. Generally speaking, we say that the minimum age is 40 years and above. Concerning the young widows or people who have particular difficulties financially, then of course we will give special consideration. There are no hard and fast rules and strict application regarding the rules of 40 years of age, and so on. As regards the total income of $250 month, it is also not rigidly adhered to, We do give some allowance where the family concerned is big and is getting more than this amount slightly but who have a special need to spend more. We will consider the merits of each case and make a special decision or give them some allowance if they deserve. The principles serve mainly as guidelines. On the allocation of tuckshop stalls in the schools, there is an allocation committee under the Ministry of Education; so this is not directly under the control of the Hawkers Department. I refer particularly to stalls in the school tuckshops or canteens. Since many Members are not quite familiar with the point regarding the 5% of stalls allotted to certain people, I would like to clarify. Regarding the 5% stalls allotted to certain hardship cases, this only applies to newly built markets or food centres on first balloting of stalls. If there are subsequent vacancies in these new markets or food centres or in respect of old markets, then such cases are not within the 5% scope. They do not come under the scope of 5% allocation of stalls any more. Maybe some people will ask why in recent years the Government has been so strict in issuing licences to hawkers. The main reason is that for the long-term policy of the Government we want all the open air hawkers to move into sheltered hawker centres in order to achieve our anti-pollution policy. It is also meant to raise our standard of public hygiene. 7.30 p.m. I think Members are aware that the cost of constructing new markets/food centres has increased with the average cost per stall ranging from $10,000 to $15,000. So under these circumstances, we have to consider this matter carefully. Some Members have also asked whether we should increase the 5% stalls to a higher percentage. After my explanation I believe they can understand that at the moment it is not necessary or not possible to raise the 5% allocation in new markets to a higher percentage. We will not give it any prior consideration for the time being. Another matter touched upon by the Member for Bukit Panjang relates to the work of our department. He mentioned the attitude of certain hawker inspectors when carrying out their duty and asked whether they are given a period of training. Here I would like to explain in detail so that they can understand better. When new staff are recruited, everyone of them would be sent for a period of at least half a year in the basic principles of dealing with the public so as to get them familiar with public relations. Not only new recruits are trained, but also old and senior staff are sent for refresher course in the hope that this will raise their efficiency. On the other hand, a fact we should recognise is that all those officers concerned with the work of enforcement, are carrying out difficult tasks. They have to face occupational hazards. When carrying out their duty they are usually faced with difficult situations. It is quite risky in certain circumstances and the public do not understand them well. While they are faced with various difficulties, they do not receive any psychological encouragement at all. Therefore, there have been frequent resignations from these people. So sometimes it is difficult for us to arrange such staff for our work. Generally speaking. I can say that we have already achieved our purpose or objective in tackling the hawker problem. Of course, there cannot be perfection all round. Certain problems still remain to be solved. It is only natural. I also said that in dealing with unlicensed hawkers, there could be unpleasant scenes and sometimes even fighting would take place. But the loser will not only be the unlicensed hawkers but also our staff. Some of our staff have suffered injury in such incidents. Some even had to undergo medical treatment for quite some time. What has come to our notice is that some foreigners were involved in the incidents. So in this respect, we have to enforce our law and protect our citizens' benefits. The Member for Anson has asked whether markets will be built in Anson constituency or whether food centres will also be built there. Verbally, though not officially, the Member for Punggol has also mentioned about similar questions as to whether markets or food centres will be built in his constituency. My reply here is, taking Anson constituency for example, it is in an urban area and there are already some markets there. As to whether there is a need to build a new market there, it has to depend on future development plans. Although the Member for Punggol has not made any official request, for his information I would say that in Punggol constituency perhaps it is easier to get the necessary land, As to whether the site will be suitable, again it will have to depend on further discussion and study. If the Member concerned thinks that it is necessary and there is a proper site to build a market or food centre in his constituency. I hope he will raise the matter with us and we will give it serious consideration. The Member for Anson has raised two points. First. he hopes that we will control the hawker prices or fix the prices of food sold by them in order to be fair to the customers. I doubt whether it would be fair to the hawkers to do so, because they get their supplies from the merchants. So the prices are not within their control. To ask the hawkers to sell at certain prices is not practical. Prices fluctuate according to the market situation. I think it may suffice if they label their prices themselves if they want to. As regards subletting of hawker licences, we are paying attention to this matter. If there are such irregular practices, then we will take steps to cancel the hawkers' licences of the persons concerned. We will not allow such things to happen. As regards pasar malam, last week I said in this House, when we receive complaints against the pasar malam stallholders we cannot do otherwise but take action against them. Nevertheless, for their livelihood, we will try to allocate stalls in some markets or food centres for them. Lastly, several points were raised by the Member for Geylang Serai. As regards the new market at Haig Road how many stalls are there and how many will be allotted to Muslim stallholders and how many to non-Muslim stallholders, my answer is that in this new market there are altogether 218 stalls, of which 146 are stalls for the sale of meat, vegetables and daily consumer goods. The other 72 are meant for the sale of cooked food. As regards how many stalls are to be allocated to Muslim stallholders and to non-Muslim stallholders, it will have to depend on the number of stallholders that will be moved into this market. The other point is the separation of stalls selling beef and mutton from those selling pork with an appreciable distance between them. Of course, it has always been the Government's policy to separate them well from each other. So we will again properly apply the same policy. The final point the Member raised is that when a new market is to be opened, whether the MP for that constituency will be invited to officiate at the opening ceremony. This again falls within our usual policy. Whenever a new market is to be opened, we will invite the MP concerned in that area to discuss among other things matters relating to the opening of the market. I believe that the market officials and the people involved with that market have already themselves seen the MP concerned about related matters. Lastly, as regards the Member for Telok Blangah's point about closer liaison between the Ministry of the Environment and the statutory boards, like the JTC. PSA, the HDB in order to have some kind of common policy in dealing with hawkers, I will say that these four establishments had already in July 1975 set up a Hawkers Coordinating and Licensing Committee to harmonise mutual policies in order to unify the respective policies so that in future there will be a common policy to deal with hawkers' problems and we have now more or less achieved this objective. But in view of different backgrounds, there would be certain differences in the actual implementation of the policy. So it is not easy to change the situation in a short time. However, we are trying our best to overcome these problems. Finally - I have used this word so many times already - the Member also asked whether the Hawkers Department can issue a joint or co-operative hawker's licence for several people or a group of people to operate a stall jointly. In principle, it may be good for a society, but administratively it will be difficult, because there is the possible problem of subletting. Normally we issue licences to individuals and not to groups of persons. So for the time being we cannot accept this suggestion. I think I have replied to all the questions raised. 7.45 p.m.