Hansard, 1977-03-22

Order. The hon. Member wishing to take the Oath of Allegiance wilt please come forward. Mr Ng Yeow Chong (Mountbatten) took and subscribed an Affirmation of Allegiance.

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [6th Allotted Day]

Head O -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head O be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead AAA 1004*. (* The same amendment also stood in the names of Messrs Cheong Yuen Chee, P. Govindaswamy, Ivan Baptist and Ch'ng Jit Koon). It is common knowledge, Sir, that the Housing and Development Board is the largest statutory body in the Republic. It has an annual budget approximating $1,000 million. It is also common knowledge that the HDB is ruler of more than half the population. As its building statistics go up, which is, of course, commendable, it becomes more and more powerful, "ruling" more and more people with each passing day. It is expected that by 1980, some 75% of the population will be living in high-rise flats, for it is an inexorable truth that high-rise living will be a way of life for most of us, whether we like it or not. Apart from the effective leadership, our political stability and economic progress, the HDB's successful housing programme has in many ways reflected the Republic's multifarious achievements. However, I must point out that as a consequence of all this success - a consequence that is rather disconcerting there appears to be a deterioration of administrative efficiency and effectiveness in the HDB. This is especially true in planning the provision of recreational facilities in housing estates in New Towns. I say this with all seriousness. It is a growing sore point which should be checked. A fully developed New Town can engender and stimulate the growth of a crop of urban problems. In years to come, these problems can assume insurmountable proportions unless there is the administrative skill, efficiency and effectiveness to stem the tide. It may be true that the Estate Area Office and the HDB Headquarters are monitoring the situation. But from what I have personally experienced over the past three months at Bedok New Town, there is a whole host of shortcomings. I do not mean to say that I am not getting the full cooperation of the officials concerned. Far from it. My relationship with the Estate Area Officer and his officials is, at the best of terms. They are even present at my monthly meet-the-people sessions or forums where they have to answer some of the queries made by the residents on matters pertaining to HDB policies. My complaints are more in the area of decision-making and prompt action in attending to problems or requests made either by the residents or through me. All important matters, Sir, have to be referred to the Headquarters in Maxwell Road. Strange as it may seem, but nevertheless true, matters and problems pertaining to Bedok New Town have to be referred to the Area Office in Marine Parade. Why, Sir? Because there is no Area Office in Bedok New Town. This is not so bad. In another New Town that I know, the residents have to travel quite a long distance to pay their rentals, etc. However, I am glad to hear that the plan to construct the new Area Office in Bedok New Town has been finalised and construction will start very soon and it is expected to be completed by early next year. My point is: why is the planning and construction of the Area Office not done simultaneously with the moving in of residents to avoid unnecessary inconvenience and grumblings from them? Secondly, Sir, for almost two years now, the children and the youths in Neighbourhood I of Bedok New Town have no playground or recreational facilities. They are thus forced to play in car parks, in the estate's by-roads, void decks, open spaces between blocks, and at the concrete concourse at the market and hawker food centre which causes annoyance to the residents. Yet there are five hectares of open space which is earmarked for a miniature park and recreational facilities. It is being planted with trees and one section has been fenced in with barbed wires. The barbed wires have been removed recently after the residents had made complaints through me and direct to the officers concerned. What is the rationale behind all this? I know why the HDB did this. They do not want the children and the youngsters to play in it. Could you imagine a population of 16,000 more than half of whom are young people, without a single place for them to play? I have made some suggestions to the Area Office as to how the problem of lack of playing facilities could be temporarily solved. I suggested to the officials concerned to remove some of the trees to somewhere else so that the children could play there temporarily until the open space was developed. But they had no authority to act as such matters could only be decided by the top officials at Maxwell Road. However, I am happy to inform the House that the Minister of State has recently announced in his reply to an Oral Question that the development of recreational facilities for Neighbourhood I would be carried out soon and that it is expected to be completed by early next year. Sir, the Housing and Development Board is naturally primarily concerned with achieving targets to cut down the waiting period for applicants. This is accepted. But in the anxiety to meet targets of building flats, a lot of things tend to be overlooked in some areas. In the case of Neighbourhood I where the population is now concentrated, the general complaints that I receive from residents are the conspicuous absence or lack of playing grounds and recreational facilities, whereas the residents of Marine Parade who moved in at the same time as the Bedok New Town residents are enjoying all Sorts of facilities and amenities which are provided not only by the Housing and Development Board but also by the Singapore Sports Council and the Parks and Recreation Department of the Ministry of National Development. Sir, to avoid such situations which could easily lead to misinterpretations and grouses by disgruntled residents, would the Minister for National Development and Communications consider proposing to the HDB to delegate more powers to the Area Estate Officers who, in fact, come directly under the Estates Department, which is within the Estates and Land Division of the HDB, so that they can make decisions that are urgent and obvious without the time-consuming necessity of having to refer everything to Headquarters at Maxwell Road. If this is done, Sir, it will cut down a lot of the customary red-tape, bureaucractic muddle and much of the official arrogance that is sometimes experienced. It will lead to greater efficiency in the management of the housing estates. Sir, new towns like Bedok New Town, which may not be very large in terms of size, are nevertheless densely populated when the flats are fully occupied, and therefore concern the lives and livelihood of people from all walks of life. A fully developed New Town could house as many as a quarter of a million or more people in the Republic, and that is no mean figure, considering the Republic's total population of just over two million. Finally, Sir, I would like to make this special request to the Minister in regard to planning and development of recreational facilities in Neighbourhood II of Bedok New Town. It might be an administrative oversight or bad planning on the part of HDB that in the case of residents of Neighbourhood I who had to wait almost two years before they could get their playgrounds and recreational facilities -

Haji Sha'ari, your 10 minutes are up.

Can I have another one or two minutes, Sir.

I am sorry, no.

Sir, we have to import our livestock, particularly cattle, from neighbouring countries. We have been obtaining our beef requirements mainly from Australia and New Zealand at very high cost to the consumers. The recent agreement signed with Thailand to proceed with the joint project on cattle raising for export to Singapore is indeed a welcome move. May I ask the Minister whether this project includes the provision of veterinary services and abattoir facilities to our partners in Southern Thailand? Furthermore, whether there are any plans to start a similar project with other ASEAN countries, for instance, Indonesia? Finally, whether such a project will help to reduce the cost of such beef in Singapore? 2.45 p.m.

Sir, members of the public are so confused as to which department is actually doing the day-to-day work relating to planning. The Development Control Division broke off from the Planning Department in 1974 and came under the wing of the Building Control Division of the PWD. Members of the public who need advice in planning matters have close contact with the Development Control Division rather than the Planning Department which only deals with the long term Master Plan. Since the Development Control Division is an important department in Singapore, dealing with the construction of buildings in the private sector, change of use, etc. its status should be upgraded as a Department on its own directly under the Ministry. Not enough publicity has been given to the public as to which department deals with Government projects or those from the statutory boards and which department deals with applications from the private sector. I have had many queries from the public on the confused state of affairs. Even some professional people do not seem to know that part of the Planning Department's work is done by the Development Control Division, where many Town Planners are employed. Since the Development Control Division is a very important department, it should be part and parcel of the Planning Department. It is senseless and illogical to split the two. They should be merged in the interest of expediency, efficiency, prestige and, last but not least, there will be less confusion among members of the public. Sometime in 1966 the Development Control Division was taken out of the Planning Department and put under the Chief Building Surveyor's Department. That caused utter confusion. In 1970, it was returned to the Planning Department. In 1974, the Development Control Division was taken out again and this time it was put under the Public Works Department. Why is there all this confusion? Would not the staff be also puzzled? It is about time things were put right once and for all. The Development Control Division's officers and planners are doing a good job by providing the day-to-day service to the public on planning problems and advice. This is the feedback which I got from members of the public who often approached me on planning matters. Sir, sometime ago the former Chief Planner resigned from the service and migrated to another country to take up a post there. Why is the post of Chief Planner still vacant? Are there no suitably qualified local town planners with experience to fill the post? What is being done to upgrade the long service staff in this department who have reached the maximum of their salary scale? If something is not done to boost their morale and provide incentives, the experienced and dedicated ones may resign and go away to other countries, like the former Chief Planner. Sir, touching on urbanisation, I wonder what is the policy of the Building Control Division in granting permits for different lots of land. I have received a number of complaints that many adjacent lots of land have been granted permits with different conditions. For instance, the first lot of land is given a permit to put up an eight-storey building, whereas the adjacent lot is not even permitted to put up a six-storey building. There seems to be some sort of discrimination here. May I know what is the guideline? Finally, I have also received complaints from some people that the Building Control Division does not permit some homes to hold group prayers, and they give a lot of trouble to the occupants. Why cannot they allow the people to carry on their prayers? After all, they are not causing any problem to anyone. Could the Minister clarify this point?

Sir, on the 21st March, 1975, in this House under your able guidance, I brought up the matter in regard to the deletion of certain clauses from the Sand and Granite Quarries Regulations, 1971, when the Ministry of National Development took over the enforcement of these Regulations from the Ministry of Labour and replaced the 1971 Regulations with the 1974 Regulations. I wanted to know why this was done as it clearly disadvantaged the workers' health due to the lessening of the dust control measures and the reduction of medical checks. Free silica, a dust pollutant, emitted from granite quarries, when inhaled, can cause a pulmonary disease, silicosis, which is a dreadful disease indeed; it is incurable, rendering the ones inflicted a painful and useless life resembling the living dead. In reply to my queries on the deletion, the Hon. Minister for Law and National Development said [Hansard, Vol. 34, 21st March, 1975. col. 785]: `The Member for Potong Pasir referred to the deletion of two important clauses in the Sand and Granite Quarries Regulations of 1974. There seems to be substance in what he says. I was not aware of the deletion of these two clauses. Perhaps there is good reason, but there does not appear to be. But I will look into these regulations and reinsert these two clauses if that should be done.' Again, on 24th November, 1976, the Member for Toa Payoh queried the deletion of certain clauses from the 1971 Regulations when the 1974 Regulations replaced them. The Minister for National Development and Communications in reply stated [Hansard, Vol. 35, 24th November, 1976, cols. 1071 and 1072]: 'Sir, these Regulations were deleted because in drafting the 1974 Regulations, the Attorney-General had advised that it would be undesirable to duplicate provisions which already existed in some other legislation. The deleted Regulations are covered by the Factories Act. 1973.' However, Sir, the only regulations contained in the Factories Act deleted were Regulations 20, 21, 22 and 23 which I accept, and these were not the regulations that came under query by the Member for Toa Payoh. Regulations 11, 12, 13. 16, 17, 18 and 19 are the ones that must be included in the 1974 Regulations. These are the ones pertaining to dust control and health measures that, without which, could cause health problems not only for the workers but also the people living around the quarries, many of them squatters with no knowledge of the dangers. Due to the absence of these clauses dust levels from the HDB quarry in Mandai, for instance, continue to remain high. It is about time the Ministry took action to restore the Regulations to an effective state. I am sure the assistance of the Ministry of Labour's Industrial Health Department can be sought, for are they not Government experts on industrial health?

(In Mandarin): Sir, what I would like to say mainly concerns the Housing and Developing Board. I reserve this for amendment (6)*. (See Col. 1476.)

Sir, I am glad that when the Member for Bedok mentioned that the Housing Board will be ruling quite a large proportion of the population of Singapore, he mentioned "ruling" within inverted commas. Let me assure him that the Housing and Development Board does not seek to rule the people of Singapore but seek to house the people of Singapore. I am a bit puzzled by his remarks. He said that there was no delegation of authority to the officers to make small decisions and yet he found them helpful, co-operative and prompt in taking action. If there had been no delegation of authority, the staff would be unable to take prompt action. Let me assure him that we know that the Housing Board is expanding and will soon be managing a very large proportion of dwellings in Singapore. In keeping with modern management methods, only important policy matters are decided in the HDB headquarters and, wherever possible, administrative and routine procedures are delegated to the local officials. To come to the planning of new towns. It would be ideal if we can at the same time provide all the facilities of a town as well as housing. Marine Parade has been quoted as an example where the residents are able to enjoy living in very good quality flats and at the same time have all the facilities available. It is the same with Bedok. Wherever possible, Sir, we would like to provide all the facilities at the same time but perhaps there may be some technical reasons for being unable to do so. Our first priority, of course, is to provide the housing, and here I think the Member is quite satisfied that an assurance has been given to him that the recreational facilities he seeks for Neighbourhood I will be completed very soon and work is going on in Neighbourhood II. In planning for a new town, there are certain basic principles. The town shall be self-contained. As far as possible, it should have a town centre, sports facilities, playing fields, parking areas. When the plan is being drawn up the Housing Board would normally consult with other Government agencies, such as the PWD, the Sports Council and even the bus company so that all the necessary amenities could be provided. Also from time to time we get feedbacks from residents, and MPs too, about shortages of certain requirements or a lack of facilities in some of the towns. Where the suggestions are useful they are adopted. Therefore, suggestions from MPs are always welcome when we are planning a new town. I think that should be sufficient answer or clarification for the Member for Bedok. The Prime Minister recently visited Thailand and concluded an agreement with the Thai Government. In that agreement, there is provision for a cattle project in a joint venture between the Marketing Organisation for Farmers of Thailand (MOF) and Singapore's Primary Industries Enterprises (PIE). This joint venture will enable our veterinary surgeons to participate in the management of cattle rearing in Thailand for export and it will also enable our veterinary surgeons to examine the cattle before export to Singapore to ensure that they do not suffer from any disease. So this project will give us an additional supply of cattle. Whether it will really help to lower the price of beef or not will depend upon a lot of factors. 3.00 p.m. But one would expect that with more avenues of supply, prices are likely to fall. But here, as I have said, it depends upon a lot of other things, for instance, transport cost and feed cost. But our purpose here is, of course, to try to find a new source of supply to Singapore. If we have more supplies available, prices would naturally fall. In addition, the MOF and the PIE have also formed a joint company, the Sing Thai Grains (Private) Limited, to promote the marketing of Thai agricultural produce in Singapore. Of course, where suitable joint ventures with other countries in this region are proposed, they will be welcome. We will join with other ASEAN countries in promoting joint ventures. The Member for Anson has a very good insight into what is going on in the Planning Department in the Ministry of National Development. But to put matters straight, let me first say that the Planning Department is concerned with long-term and medium-term planning. It is concerned with the Master Plan. In other words, the Planning Department is concerned with the use of land in Singapore, subdividing them into zones for certain specific uses. The Development Control Division is the enforcing department. In other words, it sees to it that where a building construction is being undertaken, it should conform to the Master Plan or to the plan drawn up by the Planning Department. These are the different roles. The Planning Department will deal with applications for construction from statutory bodies and Government departments, whereas the Development Control Division will deal with applications for construction from the private sector and from the citizens. I am a little surprised that the Member should mention that there is confusion among members of the public as to the roles these two departments are playing. This arrangement was set up in 1972, that is, four years ago, and I do not expect members of the public, especially the architects who are professionals in their own right to be confused over this division of labour. He has said that the BCD is performing a very important role because it enforces planning control, In a small island like Singapore it is imperative that there should be careful use and allocation of land, otherwise we will have residential areas side by side with factories and the whole place will be polluted. The BCD is playing an important role and, as such, he has suggested that it should be upgraded to a department. At the same time, he has suggested that it should be a part of the Planning Department. I think there is a bit of confusion. But no matter what it is, I think what he is trying to stress is the importance of planning control in Singapore. I fully agree with that because it should be the only authority to see how construction should be undertaken. He is a bit worried about opportunities for promotion in the department itself. Like most Government departments, there are ample opportunities for good officers to be promoted. We have a very unbiased and a very wise body consisting of private members who sit on a promotion board for civil servants, namely, the Public Service Commission. As hon. Members know, there is a new Government policy whereby good officers are promoted in spite of the fact that there are no posts. They are promoted on their own merit without having to wait for the creation of a post. Therefore, there are very good opportunities for promotion for very good officers in the Planning Department as well as in other Government departments. To come to the specific case of the Chief Planner. The Chief Planner was dismissed from service in 1973. As a result of that, a division took place between the Planning Division and the Development Control Division. At one time there were quite a lot of irregularities and laxity in enforcing development control. That was one of the reasons why probably the Chief Planner was dismissed. Then the Deputy Planner left us for greener fields abroad. At the moment we have an acting Chief Planner, and when he will be promoted will depend upon a promotion exercise by the Public Service Commission. He has mentioned about inconsistency in allowing development between adjacent parcels of land. Normally it is unlikely that there will be much difference between development allowed on adjacent pieces of land. But, of course, there must be some difference. The adjacent pieces of land may be of different shape or they may be of irregular shapes. They may be smaller or bigger. But on the whole it depends on the zoning. If they are in an industrial zone and the pieces of land are side by side, planning for industrial use is allowed and the plot ratio would almost be the same. I am unable to tell him why or where the difference is in the example he quoted, unless he gives me more specific details. If he really wants to know why it is so, perhaps he can get the information by sending in a Question for Oral Answer. Finally, he wants to know why the Building Control Division gives notice to a congregation of people who say prayers in the morning in a residential area. As I have said, in a small island like Singapore where there is hardly any elbow room, we have to be very careful about the usage of land. I do not know whether the Member would like to have a Chinese wayang playing every morning next to his house. He shook his head. He does not like it. Similarly, when a congregation of people meet every morning in a residential area, they are bound to create some sort of nuisance. Therefore, probably complaints have been received from neighbours, and that is the reason why notice has been given to them to stop meeting in the morning for prayers in a residential area. We are very careful about illegal use.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification. The house owner is praying inside his house. What is the objection of the Building Control Division? The people are praying inside the house. What is the objection of the Building Control Division and why must they stop it? There is also discrimination because nobody disturbs the other houses where praying is also being conducted. There are so many other places where there is praying. They are not disturbed. This is the only place where they come and disturb. What is the reason for that? That is discrimination, is it not? There must be equal treatment. An hon. Member: Victimisation.

Victimisation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not single any person or any group of persons to victimise them. I do not know the case. For all I know, it may be in a very quiet residential area. If the house owner concerned has got permission for use as a prayer house, the Building Control Division will not disturb him. However, I am speaking "in the dark". He has not given me the address. Unless he gives me the details of the house concerned, I am unable at this moment to tell him whether or not permission has been given for its use as a prayer house or whether it is in a zone for places of worship. But if he wants further clarification, then let him send in a Question for Oral Answer. I hope Members will appreciate that it is not possible for me or even for my colleague, the Senior Minister of State, or for any Minister, to be able to give in detail specific replies to specific questions. We are only able to tell Members generally the kind of policy that we pursue. But when Members bring up specific instances, it is beyond us to give a detailed reply there and then. Perhaps some of the queries which have been raised during this debate by hon. Members from time to time could best be answered through written Questions for Oral Answer. This is one of them. However, if the Member will give me further details, I might be able to satisfy him as to why notice was given. The Member for Potong Pasir has again raised the question of the missing clauses. We have taken up his suggestion and we are in consultation with the experts in the Labour Ministry. We hope to solve the problem soon by including the necessary clauses in the new regulations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before withdrawing my amendment, I would just like to complete my sentence just now when you cut me off, so that the sentence would not be left hanging - "I hope a similar situation will not happen to residents in Neighbourhood II and other Neighbourhoods in the New Town." Since the Minister has given a satisfactory reply and an assurance that this thing will not happen, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead BAA 1101*. (* The same amendment also stood in the names of Messrs Ng Kah Ting and Teo Chong Tee). Mr Speaker, Sir, for the last few years I have spoken about the favourite hobby of certain departments, that is the digging of roads. Even today we still find many roads being dug, filled up, re-dug, filled up, and re-dug, so much so that some roads seem to be in perpetual disrepair. Is the co-ordinating body really working to make sure that all necessary excavations and repairs are done at the same time? It also appears that when the roads are levelled up, the workmanship and materials seem to be poor. Very often we find that the gravel come loose particularly after a heavy rain. Therefore, the material and workmanship should be properly checked by the authorities. Whether or not they check them, God knows. We see that many traffic circuses at road junctions, like the ones at Tanglin, MacRitchie, etc, are being converted into traffic light controlled intersections. Why were these circuses constructed in the first place? Do these conversions help in any way to alleviate traffic jams? 3.15 p.m. Sir, take MacRitchie circus as an example. The removal of the circus has not solved the traffic jams; worse still, it has become a dangerous accident-prone area. Lately, many people were seriously injured or killed at that place because of accidents. When there was a circus, there were no accidents. Since removal of the circus, many accidents occurred resulting in death. Something must be done to make sure that there is proper planning before any modification is made. Sir, at Keppel Road which is in my constituency, there is a railway line which runs across the road near the Cold Storage Building. This is an accident-prone area as many serious accidents have occurred there. If one takes a look at the fence along the railway ground which is beside the road, he will see that it has been damaged because of traffic accidents. Another area which seriously needs to be looked into is the bend along Kampong Bahru and Kampong Lama Road. This bend is so narrow that vehicles going up to the Singapore General Hospital are literally running on the five-foot way meant for pedestrians. This five-foot way is generally used by school children living in the area. Many serious accidents have occurred in that area, the most recent one involved an MID vehicle which rammed into the shop-houses. I think hon. Members may remember this accident. I wonder whether any measures are being taken to modify these areas so that accidents can be minimised. If this is not done, I would request the authorities to look into this immediately. Sir, it appears that most of our pedestrian overhead bridges are not properly utilised. It is a waste of money. Pedestrians find it inconvenient to use these bridges. A typical example is the one near Clifford Pier. Who is using this bridge? Nobody is using it.

I use it!

On the other hand, underground passes seem to be better utilised. This is evident by the number of people using the underpass near the Esplanade and also the underpass at the Merdeka Bridge leading to the National Stadium. I suggest we should consider having more underpasses than overhead bridges. It is a waste of money. Nobody uses the overhead bridges.

I use them.

Sir, touching on the question of overhead bridges, I wonder whether a simple bridge can be erected across the railway grounds from Spottiswoode Park to Keppel Road, because at the moment there are many illegal gaps along the fences of the railway grounds and people make use of the railway grounds as a short-cut. I personally think the construction of this bridge would certainly be welcome by residents who are mainly Port and hospital workers living around Spottiswoode Park, Asia Garden. hospital quarters, Everton Park, etc. It is not in my constituency. It is in the Prime Minister's constituency. Sir, certain sections of the railway track have become popular short-cuts for many office and factory workers. This has been going on for a very long time. However, it is dangerous to use the railway track as a shortcut. Sometime ago, a young factory girl was on her way home from Delta Road to Kampong Bahru after a late shift duty. She was taking a short-cut across the railway track when her foot was caught between the railway line. She could not get her foot out in time before the night train from Kuala Lumpur ran over her and killed her. To prevent accidents, why not construct a pedestrian path running parallel to the railway tracks? To say that it is illegal to go through the holes cut through the railway fence is tantamount to taking a negative attitude. Sir, now that I have mentioned this, I hope the authorities would take steps to ban the use of these paths which have been in existence for so many years. The solution would be to construct pedestrian paths beside the railway lines. Sir, it is a wise move on the part of the PWD to build concrete footbridges across drains and canals to facilitate pedestrian movement. Unfortunately, very few of these crossings have railings During inclement weather these footbridges become slippery and when there are floods, there is a great danger that pedestrians might fall into the flooded drains and canals. In fact, last year there was a case of a young girl who was washed away after falling from the slippery path into the flooded drain. Sir, I hope the authorities would take steps to construct railings along all footbridges across drains and canals.

Mr Ng Kah Ting is not here. Mr Teo Chong Tee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two points to make in respect of this subhead. Firstly, I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Anson in regard to road digging in Singapore. The Government's efforts to reduce traffic congestion will not go very far if the PWD keeps digging up roads from time to time. Although there is improvement, there is still room for further improvement, as it is still causing much inconvenience to motorists. No sooner has a road been properly resurfaced before it is broken up again by the PWD, the TAS or even the PUB. This shows that there is no proper coordination among these departments concerned. The cost of this lack of coordination can be measured by the amount of precious time lost due to traffic congestion resulting from constant road-digging. Secondly, I was given to understand that most PWD area contractors are reluctant to give quotations for small jobs and, if they do, the quotations are usually high. They usually pass the jobs to sub-contractors. In order to prevent abuses by licensed contractors, the PWD should not allow these licensed contractors to monopolise all Government minor works. Should the Government not look into the licensing of small-time contractors and make tendering for minor works more competitive? This will save a lot of public funds and get improved services.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member for Changi said that licensed contractors submitted high quotations for small jobs and suggested that perhaps minor work projects should be awarded to smaller firms. The fact of the matter is that minor work projects are being awarded to small firms under the present contracting system. To give the Member some figures, the Roads Branch, for example, has been awarding an average of 570 contracts per year for the past three years to small firms for minor works and this is valued up to $7,500 each. In answer to the query of both the Members for Anson and Changi on the constant digging and re-digging of roads and the need to maintain proper roads, the reason for this constant digging is obviously due to the stepping up of works in the public sector in recent years. Obviously, with this increase in the public sector development there is corresponding increase in the need to lay utility services, and a considerable proportion of these utilities are on public roads. One of the rules of the Coordinating Committee responsible for coordinating all these utility services is to ensure that traffic flow is maintained and that adequate safety precautions are also taken. However, if more than one utility department proposes to lay services in any one single road, the Committee will obviously have to ensure that only one service be laid at a time. Otherwise the whole road would have to be closed to traffic. These successive laying of services is, therefore, unavoidable. It would not be possible, for example, for the PUB and the TAS to do the services together. So depending on the nature of the project, whether it is the laying of cables or water mains, they have to take turns. I can only assure both hon. Members that the Coordinating Committee is trying its level best to coordinate its activities and periodically we have come out with statements to explain and apologise for the inconvenience caused to the public. As to the quality of maintenance of these roads, perhaps I can merely say that this is also being properly supervised as best as we can under the conditions of digging and the need to re-dig periodically. Normally, when a road is open to the public, only the first base or what you call the asphalt base is laid. During this period when the first base or the asphalt base is laid, the road is open to the public and surface irregularities are sometimes noted and have to be rectified because it need to be settled. Laying of this asphalt base requires something like six to 12 months before it could be properly settled. During this period when the road is open to traffic we need to periodically re-lay the surface. When it is properly settled according to specifications, it is reasonable to expect that the quality of that surface would last from six to 10 years. Whether or not it lasts six to 10 years depends on the intensity of use of the road. That means it depends on whether it is used by heavy commercial vehicles or light vehicles, and it also depends on the extent and frequency of usage. To assure both hon. Members, I can say that the Public Works Department has set what is called high standards for the quality of materials to be used and the workmanship in road construction, and tests are periodically being carried out to ensure that the contractors comply with these specifications. In fact, as a deterrent, contractors who do not come up with the right specifications or show poor workmanship will be debarred from tendering future contracts. This is being carried out. I come now to the seven other questions posed by the Member for Anson. He has questioned the need to have a traffic circus and then the need subsequently to demolish the circus because of traffic considerations. He also queried on the accident-prone situation after the conversion of the MacRitchie Circus. Perhaps I can summarise and say that traffic circuses were built in the early days when the volume of traffic was extremely low. But traffic conditions change over a period of time, as we see now and the conversion of MacRitchie Circus to ensure proper traffic flow is absolutely necessary. The latest example is the removal of the beautiful fountain at Tanglin Circus. It had to be sacrificed so that traffic flow in the two directions of Tanglin Road and Grange Road could be more effective. 3.30 p.m. The Member has questioned that by converting the MacRitchie Circus back into traffic lights, the traffic situation has not improved. I think the answer is obvious. Because of this conversion more traffic flows in the direction of Thomson Road/Braddell Way, perhaps to avoid the ALS restriction in the morning. We have done surveys which show that the traffic flow has increased at this converted traffic lights in MacRitchie area. The reason for the higher accident-prone state may be due to speeding by motorists along Lornie Road or to speeding near the junction of the traffic lights. In order to minimise this, the PWD has put up signs along approach roads to Lornie Road warning motorists to slow down. We are also looking into the possibility of reversing the traffic flow at the entrance and exit of MacRitchie Reservoir. because the entrance to MacRitchie Reservoir goes directly out to the traffic light junction. This is being examined. The next question posed by the Member for Anson was whether steps could be taken to modify Keppel Road. This is again due to the accident-prone area. At the moment, no plans have, been made to reduce this situation because of the railway-level crossing at Keppel Road, but the Ministry will look into it. Another area which he has mentioned is near the bend at Kampong Bahru Road and Kampong Lama Road. There is also no proposal to widen the road because both sides of the road are heavily encumbered. However, we will try and improve the bend at this particular junction, and perhaps we will also incorporate some warning signs, if necessary. The Member questioned the usefulness of overhead bridges and quoted Clifford Pier as an example. I beg to differ from him. I think the air-conditioned overhead bridge at Clifford Pier is heavily utilised. The reason for better use of the underpass at the National Stadium is mainly due to soccer nights. Except for those nights, I think it is totally unused. He has suggested the need to build an underpass. The obvious reason is that, all things being equal, the cost of an underpass is much more expensive than an overhead bridge. Cost is an important factor in influencing the decision. The Member then brought up the question of having a bridge erected across Spottiswoode Park to Keppel Road. He also suggested that to prevent accidents along railway tracks simple pedestrian paths be constructed to run parallel with railway tracks. The answer is very straightforward. These properties belong to the Malaysian Railway Authority, and it will be difficult to expect them to agree to have these pedestrian bridges constructed across railway tracks. The same answer applies to his earlier question - usage is minimal, and moreover we are actually dealing with a foreign authority in this case. The Member also suggested that there should be proper railings along all foot bridges across drains and canals. The answer is that the PWD does provide railings along all bridges across large drains and canals, and the railings are omitted only along those footway slabs that are narrow. However, the Ministry will continue to look into the need for safeguards against dangerous conditions at all drains and railings will be provided if the conditions warrant it.

Sir, the matter of the underpass that I have not told the House is my own opinion. It is up to the House to agree or not to agree. Anyway, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head O be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead BDA 1101*. (* The same amendment also stood in the names of Messrs Ahmad Haleem, Lee Yiok Seng and Ng Kah Ting) There are some officers in the Building Control Division who adopt repressive measures and a biased attitude in carrying out their duties. This has occurred in Geylang Serai constituency. Let me illustrate to this House a case in point, hoping that it will merit the attention of the Minister concerned. A constituent of mine started a small electrical shop for the repair of refrigerators. He duly registered his business in 1970 and possessed a business licence. He took up residence at his place of business in 1960 and his business was flourishing. Previously he had never received any complaints either from the landlord or from officers of the Building Control Division. However, after mid-1976 officers from the Building Control Division called at his shop and handed him some forms for his completion. There was a space in the form requiring the signature of the landlord. But the landlord refused to pen his signature. Just because the landlord refused to put his signature, the small shop in question was considered illegal as it had not obtained the prior approval of the landlord to corroborate it. But all these years the shop had never been considered unauthorised or illegal. Was action initiated as a result of an instigation received by officers of the Building Control Division? As far as I know, there was a misunderstanding between the landlord and the shop proprietor. If the officers of the Building Control Division had taken action because they were pressurised by one party, and if the incident I have narrated is true, there is indeed cause for shame on the part of the Government. This line of action should not have been initiated by civil servants in the first place. Government officials are expected to render assistance as best as they can to the poor people', who are often exploited and oppressed by haughty and arrogant landlords. This is not an uncommon feature in our country.

Sir, the Member for Geylang Serai has mentioned an unauthorised electrical shop, but there are also many other unauthorised businesses, like motor garages, as far as the Building Control Division is concerned. These businesses have been run for more than five years and they do meet the needs of the residents in the area. But now the Building Control Division officials come along and say, "Your business is unauthorised. You have to move out." Usually these officials are very sympathetic and allow them an extension of time and also tell them to find alternative sites. But for most businesses, especially the motor garages which carry out their business in an open ground near the homes of the owners, it is very difficult for them to find an alternative site because they cannot get a site authorised to carry out the business of a motor workshop as all motor workshops are now under control and they have to be resited at specific places and these have to be tendered for. At the same time they cannot get the place because the tender is high. Sir, these businesses, like the motor garages do meet the needs of the residents there, but because they cannot pay the cost, they cannot carry on with the business. May I suggest that perhaps the Building Control Division, in conjunction with other departments, look into this matter to see whether they could allow the business, if it has been in existence for more than five years, on compassionate grounds, to be relocated at another site temporarily, if not permanently, until such time that it can get a proper place to carry out their business, because the owners are usually unable to get a site of their own.

(In Mandarin): Sir, in the rural areas many of the dwelling houses are made of wood, zinc, or attap. These are called temporary structures because the materials used which are mainly of wood, zinc or attap, will corrode after a period of time and will need repairs. But before any repair work can be done, the occupant has to get permission from the Building Control Division, and any offence of unauthorised repair work, will render the structure liable to be demolished. Therefore, an application for permission is very important, and must be made according to the law. However, the procedure laid down by this Division is very cumbersome and the requirements are very stringent. The applicant must fill in a very complicated application form and he must get the authorised signature of the landlord. He must also have a sketch map showing the locality, a drawing plan of the structure indicating the nature of the repairs and other things besides. All these conditions are very difficult to comply with and are highly inconvenient to these residents. Sometimes for personal reasons the landlord would not consent to give his signature, and therefore the application cannot be sent to the authority for approval. In the meantime, the dwelling houses have fallen into disrepair; like it or not, they must be repaired. It is very urgent and necessary for them to repair these houses. Therefore, without the permission of the Building Control Division, many of them are forced willy-nilly to carry out the repairs themselves, thus breaching the relevant laws. And the Government also does not hesitate to demolish these structures, and consequently these unfortunate people suffer even more. I believe that these unpleasant things have occurred mainly because of the stringent procedures laid down by the Building Control Division. If these procedures can be simplified so as to enable the people to make an application more easily, I believe such unpleasant things would not have occurred. Therefore, I would like the Minister to consider whether he could simplify the procedures for processing such applications, or alternatively to agree that where the repair of these temporary structures does not exceed 50% of the structure, then no application need be required. 3.45 p.m.

Sir, the hon. Member for Bukit Panjang has succinctly criticised the Building Control Division about its strict procedure for application for repairs to buildings. In the past, on numerous occasions, Members have appealed to the Minister concerned for easier means to enable such applicants to obtain the required permit to carry out minor repairs to their existing buildings. In the debate on the Budget last year I made out a case for a more simplified form of procedure so as to speed up the processing of applications, which would enable the applicants to carry out repairs earlier. I have to mention that to-date nothing much has been done to simplify applications for repairs. Therefore, I have to reiterate my point with a recent example. On the eve of the Lunar New Year a zinc roofed hut in Florence Road in my constituency was damaged by a falling coconut tree. I got a call from one of the occupants and advised her to make the necessary report not only to the police station but also to the authorities concerned. I believe that all this was done; but up to last Sunday when I visited the family, I was told that approval for repairs has still not been given. The impression I got was that it would take about one or two weeks more. Sir, just imagine a coconut tree falling on to a building and resting on it; and fortunately the occupants escaped injury; and yet they have to live in that house in this state for more than a month now. I would expect the Department concerned to be not only sympathetic in this particular case but also to help expedite the occupant's application for repairs so that work could be carried out soonest possible. May I ask: Why must she wait for so long? We have made pleas in this House to consider this point. Not everybody knows where the Ministry of National Development is. Say, from Punggol they have to come down all the way to Maxwell Road. They must know which floor the relevant department is, and there are 21 floors in that building. Which department to go to, who to see, where to inquire, and how to get the application done? The Member for Bukit Panjang has made out one case, and with four Members listed down to speak on this topic, I believe the Senior Minister of State for National Development should look into the matter of drawing up a more simplified form whereby applications for minor repairs to existing buildings can be approved much sooner. In this respect, I must inform this House that sometimes it may well be that the building inspectors have been too enthusiastic in carrying out their duties and for minor infringements against the building bye-laws or failure to comply with certain regulations, for example, an application for the construction of a lean-to shed just to hang out clothes has been turned down despite requests to reconsider the retention of such structures. The reply simply reads as follows: `This matter has been duly considered and that it does not comply with the building requirements. Thus. it is regretted that the request cannot be acceded to.' This kind of reply is very general. We must understand the plight of these people. In the rural areas, as Members have pointed out, such buildings are of a temporary nature. They hold temporary permits of $12 each. So why do we not consider this factor and allow retention of such structures as well? At the same time, the Building Control Division's officials concerned should not be over-enthusiastic but be more flexible in enforcing the building requirements.

Sir, I rise in support of the two hon. Members who have spoken before me. There is no exaggeration of the fact that to try to get approval for even very minor repairs to these so-called temporary structures in the rural areas can be a very frustrating experience. In fact, in many cases two departments are involved because most of the land in the rural areas are State land. In order to get approval from the Building Control Division one has first to obtain the approval of the Land Office. So he goes to the Land Office. The delay here will be several weeks, if not several months. Then the matter is in turn referred to the Building Control Division who again delays for several weeks, if not several months. In fact, I can quote one particular case. I am not making up the story. My constituent, having waited for months, got rather impatient. He came to see me and brought to my attention the fact that the delay has gone on for far too long. So I gave him a letter addressed to the Department concerned. When he presented my letter there, he was told by the officer, "Well, you saw your MP. I am going to make matters worse for you." Sure enough, he has had to wait longer than someone who has applied much later. An hon. Member: Write to the press.

I do not know about writing to the press. Sir, the time has definitely come for us to look at it positively. Year after year, Members of rural constituencies have been bringing to this House the same old problem about the delay on the part of the Building Control Division and the rather inflexible attitude of its officers who go round to see whether there is a breach of Building rules. I did mention the other day in this House that someone who was using his kitchen to do a bit of business of frying kropok just as a sideline was not allowed to do so on the ground that the house is a dwelling house and is not allowed to be used for industrial purpose. I cannot imagine by any stretch of the imagination that frying kropok can be considered as using the place for industrial purpose. I think it is high time that we looked at the problem positively. Sir, I must thank you for allowing me the time to speak because I have not filed an amendment on this subhead.

Sir, I share the sentiments expressed by the various rural MPs. I can say here that I do not condone total inflexible attitudes on the part of the Building Control Division. In fact, I would take exception if the hon. Member's letter was used as a ground to further delay any action. I can assure the House that I would take strong action if that is so. If there are incidents of that nature or indications of unfair tactics being used by civil servants, in particular the Ministry of National Development, to frustrate the good efforts of MPs, I would appreciate if Members could send their complaints direct to me, and I assure them that I will personally and directly deal with the responsible officers. [Applause.] Let me perhaps come straight to the query by the hon. Member for Geylang Serai. He has pleaded for sympathetic consideration from the Building Control Division on the case of an unauthorised usage. First of all, he should understand that registration of a business does not mean that a permit to operate is being given. You can register a company or whatever you like, but the place of operation still requires an official permit. He insinuated that the Building Control Division is being used by one party to press the other party for action to be taken. Let me categorically state here that the Government cannot and does not encourage the unlawful use of land or premises or the unauthorised erection or occupation of buildings, whether they are on State land or on private land. It is the present policy, and my Minister has earlier explained the need for proper building controls to ensure proper usage of land in the respective zones. If it is necessary to ensure proper control of building development in the whole island of Singapore, then I think it is necessary that applications for planning permission must be properly processed, and one of the requirements is that the owner of that property must give his consent. It is appreciated that in the case of this particular complainant, the requirements of that particular property may not coincide with the interest of the owner, depending on the case, or vice versa. This is actually an issue between the owner and the tenant, and I think the BCD is in no position to intervene. I would suggest to the hon. Member that perhaps he can offer his good services to the two parties concerned by trying to persuade the owner to agree to a modification in the application for change of use, and the Ministry will definitely consider the application according to its own merits. If, on the other hand, the hon. Member would rather prefer the Ministry to explain the situation, we would be very happy to do so. The hon. Member for Telok Blangah has voiced the need to allow motor garages to operate in areas where they are needed by the residents. I presume he means areas in residential zones. He also asked that if they have been in existence for five years and above, proper official priority of resettlement should be given. The answer is obviously no. Here again, a motor garage or workshop that serves a particular need in a particular residential zone must comply with the necessary Building requirements. And he himself has said that there is need for control. There are proper workshops in HDB estates and perhaps even at some alternative areas in JTC where such business activities can be carried out. 4.00 p.m. I am sure he does not mean the business of servicing and lubrication of cars, because this is being carried out in petrol stations all over Singapore, even in the Central area. We have already got a problem of resettling authorised premises in the Central area - that is, the clearance of all types of related motor business, not only of motor garages. We cannot cope with the problem of resettlement. Yet he has suggested that we load ourselves with illegal and unauthorised usage of land. It is difficult to expect the Government to consider at this juncture. To come to the plea of the rural MPs, in particular the Members for Bukit Panjang, Punggol and Jalan Kayu. I am in sympathy with them. But I beg to disagree when the Member for Punggol said that we are not doing anything. I cannot remember exactly, but maybe partly because of him or some other MPs; after the Budget session in March 1976, the Ministry went ahead to modify the application procedure - correct me if I am wrong. In fact, I would be happy to take up this matter again if whatever I say is contradictory to what he thinks it is. I stand corrected. According to the BCD's information given to me, minor repairs and alterations which do not involve reconstruction or the addition of floor areas do not require planning permission or building permit. In fact; a person can apply for a "No objection" letter. A "No objection" letter means just a letter to proceed with the work. It is a letter, not a permit, from the BCD to carry out any minor repairs and alterations. In this respect, the landowner's consent is also not required. On the other hand, if the repairs and alterations are extensive and involve rebuilding and additional floor areas, then planning permission, building permit and the landowner's consent will be required. That is the procedure from the information given to me. Coming to the question of simplifying procedure. The procedure in applying for extension and minor repairs, as I have said, has already been simplified since the middle of 1976. As an example, in the past, an applicant has to submit two separate applications for the same extension and minor repairs: one to the Development Control Division for planning approval and the other to the Building Control Division for a building permit. But now one application is sufficient. I have also information on the simplification of procedures, if hon. Members are interested. In the past, generally speaking, something like 11 copies of five different types of forms were required to be submitted. But now, the applicant only needs to fill one form, and only four copies are necessary. The reason for the need to have sketch plans is that it is difficult for the Building Control Division itself to know exactly which particular plot in the rural area that is referred to. It could be a stituation where the site concerned is Government land and therefore comes under the Ministry of Law. So it is necessary for the applicant to tell us exactly where the location is when applying for repairs or minor extensions. The BCD, being in the Ministry of National Development. therefore, requests an indication of where the site is. But if, on the other hand, where there is a need to coordinate, perhaps I can suggest to the BCD to look into it. Now, the Member for Bukit Panjang has suggested that if the repair area is less than 50% of the structure, then no permit should be required. I have already indicated that, from what BCD has told me, minor repairs and alterations do not require planning permission or building permit. But I can pursue the matter further if he could tell me roughly what he has in mind so that I can refer his suggestion to the Building Control Division. The point made by the Member for Punggol was about the unnecessary delays in granting approvals. He gave an example of an application to repair a zinc roof which was made during the Chinese New Year season and that up till now no permit has been given. I cannot give any excuse on the part of the BCD. But if it is a straight-forward and simple application for repairs and if the damage is not extensive, I think it should not take a month or so. But, s'.s he has said, if it requires another two weeks for approval, I would be happy to look into it if he wants to pursue the matter further. As to the comments that the officers are unnecessarily over-enthusiastic and critical, here again, I think one must appreciate that it depends on the degree of enthusiasm. I share the sentiments made by the three rural MPs who have spoken, that if it is for minor repairs, such as changing one plank in a wall, and they are making a big fuss about it, then by all means complain. They can complain to the highest authority if they choose to do so. But, on the other hand, I cannot believe that all members of the staff in the Building Control Division are of that nature. There could be one or two members of the staff who are unnecessarily uncooperative. Here again, if the Member feels that there is unnecessary impediment on the part of the officer, let us know and perhaps we can give him some good advice. I would therefore sum up by saying that as far as the simplification of procedures for minor repairs is concerned, it is being done. If it could be further simplified, we would be happy to look into it. If hon. Members have good suggestions on how to further simplify the procedure, we will welcome their suggestions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Senior Minister of State has gone to great length to explain that there have been some modifications to simplify the applications for repairs. Whilst the application format might have been simplified, it does not necessarily mean that delays do not occur. I mentioned this case in particular to establish the point about the delay in approving such applications. All I am saying is that the Ministry or the Division concerned should look into the question of expediting such applications, that is to say, they should expeditiously approve these applications.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree that the BCD, in particular should expedite the application. If it is a situation as in the case that we are talking about, that is, a minor repair, then I agree that there should not be an unnecessary delay. But if the repairs are of an extensive nature, then I think the minimum requirements of a planning permission and building permit must be complied with. And, as I have said, that depends on how many parties are involved. However, if the delay is on the part of other Government departments or Ministries, then it is incorrect for me to suggest that the delay is due to this party or that party. But as far as the BCD is concerned, if it pleases the hon. Member, we can, of course, send them a reminder to suggest that the applications should be expeditiously processed but with the proviso that there is always a minimum period required. I can tell the BCD to see how best they can further improve on what I think is a reasonable period of processing. I have indicated to Members just now a period of one month. But here again it is not too worthwhile to debate on what is the minimum period. We can say that in the few cases of unnecessary delay, I agree that action should be taken to look into them,

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is one further clarification. With your indulgence, Sir, we have to debate a little more to get the correct picture. Just now the Senior Minister of State has stated that if repairs do not amount to more than 50% of the building and if it is a straightforward application, the Building Control Division would have no objection. So the onus or the responsibility falls on either the applicant or the landowner. But my question is this. If the applicant can get approval to carry out the necessary repairs in the normal way, then all these requirements are within the Building by-laws. The problem is when the repairs have to be carried out urgently, then what has the Building Control Division got to say?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in case of urgency, in particular where an MP comes out in support of a particular application as was suggested in the case of the damaged zinc roof, I personally see no difficulty really. For example, if the damage is directly to the roof of a bedroom and it needs immediate repair within a few days, I see no difficulty in convincing, perhaps not the clerk at the counter, but the head of the Division, that it is necessary that immediate approval for repairs be given. If approval or permit is necessary, and if the owner's signature is required, and so on, these requirements could be processed at a later date. I have already given an assurance that even if that situation cannot achieve approval for immediate urgent repairs, I would be very happy to intervene, if necessary.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head O be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead DAA 1101*. (* The same amendment also stood in the names of Messrs Ahmad Haleern , Lee Yiok Seng and Ng Kah Ting.) Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore has become an island too dependent on other countries for imports of food and many other products. In certain aspects we should try to be self-sufficient and, if possible, be an exporter. Many pig farmers have been resettled or put out of business for various reasons, the commonest being environmental pollution. We have some islands which are ideal for poultry and pig-rearing. Why is there no effort made to develop these islands? Sometime ago I suggested growing vegetables on the roof tops of HDB flats, I was laughed at and, in fact, one newspaper even ran a cartoon about it. I feel the time has come to rejuvenate some thinking in this field. We are already getting a reduced supply of fish and vegetables. The other sources for these supplies are unreliable. 4.15 p.m. Hydroponics has been developed in Singapore to such an extent that it is feasible to grow vegetables on the roof tops of high-rise buildings. This is not a new idea. In India, it has been carried out very successfully. They grow vegetables, like brinjals, tomatoes and even some kind of padi on rooftops. Sir, what is being done to control the illegal slaughtering of pigs? It is common to find some pork sellers mixing the meat in the markets in Singapore. There is also cheating going on in the sale of mutton. Frozen mutton is mixed with fresh mutton in the markets and sold at higher prices.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I regret to say that in the last few years, the image of the Primary Production Department in the eyes of the farmers and fishermen has changed fundamentally. Although the PPD has been giving technical aid in respect of agriculture to the farmers, they do not seem to give any assistance to solve the major and immediate problems of bona fide farmers and fishermen. The result is that there are complaints and dissatisfaction all round. I would like to ask whether the PPD has taken any steps to render help when the price of agricultural produce was low. And has the PPD helped the farmers to export their excess produce abroad? What has the PPD done in respect of the promotion of deep-sea fishing? Sir, as regards farmers affected by resettlement, the PPD's dealings with these people give cause to doubt the sincerity of the PPD in promoting agriculture. The frivolous manner that the PPD has adopted in judging whether or not a person is a bona fide farmer or not a farmer has been the root cause of a lot of dissatisfaction and complaint. Bona fide farmers have been adjudged non-farmers and vice versa. Usually in the rural areas many families still retain their good Eastern traditions by having several generations living together under one roof, and it is common to see the father and the son tilling the same plot of land, even though the son has his own family. When the PPD comes round to assess and to recommend subsequently the allocation of land, they usually recommend a piece of land, even though a very small one, only to the father, leaving the son out. Is this the way to encourage agriculture or to discourage it? Sir, rural people have also been troubled by the development of catchment areas and reservoirs. Of course, the idea is that we should be self-sufficient in the supply of water, and nobody can argue with it. But the Government, particularly the Primary Production Department, should try its best to help reduce the inconvenience and the loss to the people affected to the minimum by giving them whatever assistance they need to resume production as soon as possible. Bigger pig farmers have been resettled in Punggol pig farms. They have to start from scratch in very difficult situations. Small pig farmers have also been asked to stop their pig farming operations, or else they will have to move out. Can I ask whether the PPD has assisted these pig farmers to change to chicken rearing? Sir, there was a time when the PPD gave extensive publicity to the development of Sembawang as a pig farming area, and they even invited farm operators to come forward. But now we do not hear anything more about it. I would like to ask the Minister whether he can inform this House as to how much public funds has been spent on the development of Sembawang as a pig farming area? Why has the plan failed? What is the use of the land now? Sir, the PPD is now planning to develop Punggol as a new pig farming area. This must succeed, and should not be allowed to fail. Otherwise we shall fall short of the supply of pork. The first problem I hear is that there is an absence of metalled roads and the drainage system is also very poor. There is also an insufficient supply of electricity and water. These matters must be given first priority by the PPD. Sir, from the Report of the Auditor-General for 1975-76 we learn that the PPD is not efficient in handling accounting matters. There have been short receipts and wrong accounting procedures. A junior officer was put in charge of large amounts of money from the sale of agricultural produce. Not only this, the PPD is also a very stubborn department. The Auditor-General had in his Reports for 1973-74 and 1974-75 pointed out the shortcomings of the PPD and had recommended certain improvement to its accounting system. Yet from the 1975-76 Auditor-General's Report, it appears that the Department is still having the same problems, and has disregarded the advice of the Auditor-General. Is this intransigent attitude good for our country? Mr Speaker, Sir, finally I would like to raise the problem of the Jurong Abattoir. Recently I received a lot of complaints chiefly on the management of the Abattoir. They have spent large sums of money furnishing the office into one of grandiose splendour. They have also spent a lot of money to engage beautiful female staff. But they do not want to spend any money to improve the machinery or to improve the working conditions of the workers, so much so that now and then, the machines are out of order, or there is constant shortage of butchers causing a delay in the slaughtering of pigs, sometimes to as late as 6 am, or 7 am, so that the meat could not reach the market in time, causing a lot of unnecessary losses. I do not know whether the Minister concerned has supervised the work of the Jurong Abattoir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am grateful to the Member for Jurong for his concern about the development of pig farms in Punggol and Jalan Kayu. Of course, I too would like to see the pig farming industry become a success so that Singapore would be self-sufficient in pork. Sir, it is very encouraging to hear him say this. The hon. Member also criticised the Primary Production Department officials for their haste in moving and relocating the pig farmers into the designated farming areas, thereby creating a lot of difficulties for the farmers. As I have said before, all these pig farmers who have been relocated were merely given pieces of land to develop. In the debate on the President's Address, I referred to these farmers as pioneers opening up the western frontiers. Sir, this remark is due to the fact that when such lands were allocated, there were not sufficient facilities and services. This is true. Roads are not properly made up. Drains are not properly lined and not of the right size. Even the Primary Production Department officials, instead of rendering every possible assistance to the pig farmers in Punggol to set up their farms on a proper scale, often intrude into the farming activities of the farmers by way of telling them how and where to site certain farm structures or the general layout of the farms, and also at the same time telling these farmers that they should not rear less than, say, 600 pigs on one acre of land. If they are given one acre of land, and their families too have to live on that piece of land, how much space is left for the farm structures, unless it is a flatted farm? In this respect, Sir, I would like to ask the Hon. Minister or his Senior Minister of State to look into the question of offering every possible assistance as well as encouragement to these pig farmers with regard to the viability of pig farming industry in the long term. Sir, I would like to come back to one small point again concerning repairs to farm structures. Several poultry farmers have been allowed to stay on this land. They have made applications for repairs to the sheds for the layers, but these applications again take time to be processed. Sometimes it takes more than a month because these structures are of wood, wiremesh, zinc, etc. The poultry farmers have to replace these layer sheds every one or two years. I think the Senior Minister of State is very well versed about the breeding of layers, the productive period of layers, and the time for them to be slaughtered or replaced. In the meantime, it is somewhat difficult to get new layers. In this respect, Sir, I would like the Hon. Senior Minister of State to assure this House that every possible assistance will be given to the farmers, be they pig farmers or poultry farmers, that when they apply for repairs to their farm structures or erection of certain farm structures, their applications will be expeditiously approved. 4.30 p.m. On the question of fluctuation of prices of farm products, it is sad to note that the Primary Production Department's efforts have been by way of words and not deeds. When the price of pigs and eggs fell, there was no proper dialogue or correspondence between the farmers and the department concerned. In this respect, I would like to see a closer relationship between the officials of the Primary Production Department and the pig and poultry farmers not only in the matter of farm structures but also the pricing of their farm products.

(In Mandarin): Sir, the response to the Primary Production Department's announcement that farmers should get licences to carry out agricultural activities, has been good. But I have received complaints from orchid growers. Orchid growing has not been given any encouragement by the PPD. As a result orchid growers are rather hesitant in the further development of their agriculture for the following reasons: firstly, after paying for a farmer's licence fee, the Primary Production Department does not give the farmers or orchid growers any substantial assistance. For example, the Department does not provide the orchid growers with Chinese publications on orchid cultivation, growing of new hybrids, etc, because most of the publications are in English. We must realise that most of these flower growers are Chinese educated. This should be taken into account. In the PPD publications there are too few articles on orchid growing while there is too little encouragement given to the farmers and orchid growers on developing the orchid industry. Secondly, the views on compensation for the resettled farmers held by the PPD and the Resettlement office are different and contradictory. According to officials of the Primary Production Department, compensation is given for wooden supports for potted plants and sun shades for the orchids. But the resettlement officers say that such items do not qualify for compensation because they are only supports for the pots which are removable. There are two conflicting views from the two different departments on the same subject. Thus there is misunderstanding among the people resettled, resulting in dissatisfaction with the Government. Thirdly, when measuring the land area of the flowering plants, the resettlement assessment officers do not take into account the paths along the rows of flower beds. As a result one acre of orchid plants can only come to half an acre for compensation. This criterion is too harsh and unreasonable. The compensation payable is inadequate, even for removal expenses. From all these complaints, we can come to the following conclusions. Firstly, we should develop the orchid industry because it is a well known foreign exchange earner. The volume of export of orchids in recent years has been growing, and it is earning for us every year quite a sizeable sum of foreign exchange. It is a definite contribution to our economy. It is my hope that the Primary Production Department will give greater encouragement to the orchid growing industry. Secondly, where flower growers have to be resettled the rate of compensation should be increased because removal of flowering plants involve great losses by way of damage. Moreover, on resettlement these flower growers have to start all over again, thus facing financial difficulties and uncertain livelihood. Thirdly, if resettled flower growers are to be given land elsewhere, it is my hope that the Department concerned will give a big piece of land to house or to resettle all or most of the growers together, as in the case of the resettlement of pig farmers in Punggol. In this way it could be developed into a tourist resort to attract foreign visitors. Fourthly, where alternative land is not given or not available, the Department concerned should help the flower growers to get hawker licences so that they may have a new means of livelihood to replace the livelihood of orchid growing which they have lost. For these resettled flower growers, we should relax certain conditions, e.g, restriction to persons over 40 years of age, to bring it in line with the thinking of the Senior Minister of State.

Sir, I rise in support of the Members for Punggol and Jurong. I share the sentiments which they have expressed on the work of the Primary Production Department. But in all fairness I would say that technically the Primary Production Department has over the years done a lot of good work in research and introducing a special breed of pigs and poultry to Singapore. To that extent, I think they have succeeded. As I see it, it is not so much a question of whether the Primary Production Department has done this or that or has not done this or that. It is more a question of whether we, the Singapore Government. think we ought to have a comprehensive policy on Agriculture, bearing in mind the very limited size of Singapore; whether we believe Agriculture has a future in Singapore. Personally I am inclined to be optimistic about it. I think it has a future. We only have to look back to the last 10 or 15 years. Time and again we have heard in this House that agriculture is a thing of the past, and that it is going to die. We might just as well let it die. But it has not died. Not only has it not died, but it is doing even better. If anybody cares to make a survey, he will be surprised to find out that the number of people engaged in agriculture today is probably much smaller in number, and yet we are self-sufficient in pork, chicken and eggs, in spite of a bigger population. What does this mean? It means that the productivity rate of our farmers has gone up, despite the lack of encouragement. Very rightly so, as the Members for Punggol and Jurong have pointed out, when the Department resettles these farmers not only do they not help them sufficiently but are in fact giving them a standard lower than what they have been used to. Take, for instance, those farmers in Jurong and Chua Chu Kang. They all have metalled roads and street lightings, water and electricity supplies. But if we go and look at the so-called farmways in Jalan Kayu and Punggol, which have been cleared and waiting for the farmers in Kranji to move in, we will see the difference. They are just mud tracks.

So was Jurong at the beginning.

At the beginning, fair enough. Because in those days they did not have metalled roads. They did not have water and electricity. But now that we have given them metalled roads, electricity and water, are we suggesting that we deprive them of that standard of living? I would have thought that the policy of this Government is to make sure that we go on giving qualitative improvement in the standard of living of our people and not down-grading it. I am, therefore, rather surprised the other day to find that one of the farmers, who had taken a piece of land in this so-called farmway and who had applied to have a few Of these electric poles removed from the centre of the land, was asked to pay a removal fee of more than $2,000. This fee of $2,000 is now being referred to the URSC. I do not know whether URSC is going to pay for it. Who is going to pay for it? I do not know. There is a lot of buck-passing going on. I am not exaggerating, Sir. This is a very serious problem. We resettle an entire community from one corner of Singapore to another. They sacrifice. They have to put in a lot of hard work. They do not mind. The very least we can do is not to make life too difficult for them. The least we can do is to make sure that they are given the same standard of living, if not a better standard.

Sir, I would like to deal with the resettlement problem last because the Ministry is under heavy fire. I would rather deal with the Member for Anson first by saying that what is good for India is not necessarily good for Singapore. He has brought up a number of points. The first point was about a cartoon on the growing of vegetables on the rooftops of HDB flats. The Primary Production Department has studied his good suggestion previously on the growing of brinjals on rooftops of HDB flats and the proposition has been found to be uneconomical. HDB flats are not designed to carry loads. So if the Member's suggestion is to be carried out, perhaps the structure of these buildings has to be modified and this means higher costs. Moreover, to accommodate farming activities on top of a residential block of flats somehow is incompatible. He also queried why no efforts have been made to develop agriculture or poultry industry in the outlying islands of Singapore. The PPD has considered the usage of the outlying islands for rearing of both pigs and poultry, but to introduce the basic infrastructure for pig and poultry rearing large sums of money will be required. Here again, economic factors dissuade us from developing the outlying islands into pig farming areas. The Member also questioned whether Singapore could not only be self-sufficient in food but also be an exporter of food. I can merely reiterate what we have mentioned here before. We are self-sufficient in pigs, poultry and eggs. As for exports, he has heard the complaints from some of the rural Members of Parliament - that there are now and then excess supplies of eggs and meat. But as a policy matter, self-sufficiency in the particular areas of pigs, poultry and eggs will be maintained. 4.45 p.m. As to his observation on illegal slaughtering of pigs, the Primary Production Department has an enforcement unit. In fact, it has intensified its raids on illegal slaughtering of pigs. Just to convince him, 342 checks on market stalls were carried out, and 81 raids were conducted on suspected areas of illegal slaughtering. As a result of this, 6 1/2 tons of illegal pork were seized, 40 prosecutions were carried out, and a total sum of $21,000 in fine was imposed. As to his observation on cheating on the sale of mutton, frozen mutton is sold in the market at about $1.90 per pound against fresh mutton which is sold at about $2.40 per pound. The hon. Member did complain of the high price of mutton two years ago. At that time fresh mutton was sold at $2.70 per pound. If the butcher is cheating the housewife by charging fresh mutton price for frozen mutton, perhaps he can report the matter to CASE for their investigation. I will now take the comments made by the hon. Member for Sembawang. I somehow feel that he has a fantastic interest in orchid growing. In fact, he has appealed very strongly to ensure that the orchid industry does not go down. I have during the debate on the Presidential Address answered some queries made by some rural MPs, in particular, the Member for Nee Soon. I did say that the Primary Production Department was looking into alternative sites to help resettle some of the orchid growers. I could also perhaps state here that if he is referring to orchid growers who are at the moment cultivating orchids within forest reserves, then that is not legal and, in fact, no licence has ever been given. As to his comments that the Primary Production Department has done insufficiently as far as the publication is concerned, that there is inadequate compensation and that there are too strict regulations involving assessment, perhaps he does not know that the assessment of the Resettlement Department is referred to the Primary Production Department for approval. In other words, PPD being the authority where farming activities are concerned, will say which item, whether it is the pot, the flower or whatever it is, should be compensated. If PPD gives that assurance, in most cases it is a formality for the Resettlement Department to approve. I cannot see the logic of a non-technical department, such as the Resettlement Department, telling PPD or disagreeing totally with PPD on the technical assessment. I am not in a position to argue whether the pot is for the growing of orchids or for something else, but I am talking generally that the PPD does the assessment. And if the PPD gives its approval, the Resettlement Department, in all cases that I know of, automatically approves. He has also made a number of suggestions which I do not think he is serious about, for example, giving hawker licences to orchid growers who have to be resettled. The reason is very simple. During the Budget debate on the Ministry of the Environment we have indicated that sympathetic consideration would be given to real hardship cases, and so on and so forth. So if these are legal orchid growers, and they come under the resettlement guidelines, then the same consideration will be given to them as that for the resettlement of pig farmers or poultry farmers. The Member for Jurong has brought up a number of points. He has criticised the PPD for having done so little to help, in particular, the farming and fishing communities. Of course, he is still unhappy over the question of bona fide farmers, and implies that the PPD is most unfair in its assessment. Regarding resettlement by the Jurong Town Corporation, here again the PPD assists the HDB and JTC in assessing farming activities. I have previously indicated that it is not done by just an officer of the PPD. There is a panel which meets regularly to assess cases. There are criteria to comply with. Just to give Members an indication, I have here the figures which show that for the period 1971 to 1976 this panel has actually assessed 2,025 cases. If he is, in fact, complaining of the processing of these cases to decide whether or not they are bona fide farmers, then I have indicated just now that they meet regularly. They meet weekly or fortnightly depending on the urgency of the cases. I am purposely leaving the other questions on the PPD activities last, and answer some of his other queries first, for example, the Auditor-General's report on improper control of finances at the PPD under the Ministry of National Development. I can merely reiterate here that the Department has noted the observation of the Auditor-General and, in fact, improvements are being made to correct the weaknesses of the accounting system. The Ministry has informed the PPD to constantly review the accounting system. He wanted some idea on how many officers are involved in monetary matters. Actually it involves 86 officers from the public counter up to the authorising officer. The question on why we resettle farmers from Sembawang and Kranji areas to Punggol, I think an explanation has been given before, that is, the priority for the supply of water is more important than the rearing of pigs. That explanation has been given before and, in fact, to show that the Government is serious in its intention to resettle those affected in the catchment areas, the Sembawang Pig Farm which was a project of the PPD was aborted completely because of this new policy to conserve water. As a result, no money was spent at all to proceed with this pig farm project. All these suggestions that the Primary Production Department has done very little to help the farmers are to me unfair. I would say that the PPD, like all other departments, has to follow Government policy. It is not the fault of the PPD to resettle people from one area, be it in Jurong or Chua Chu Kang, to Punggol. The blame should not be entirely levelled at the PPD, which only follows Government policy. On the other hand, the complaint from the Member for Jalan Kayu that in the resettlement from particular areas to Punggol where there is at the moment inadequate or improper infrastructure, is a valid observation. But I have already indicated that, as far as the new Punggol pig farming area is concerned, it will be the pig farming area in Singapore and that infrastructure like drainage, water, electricity and so on, are being provided, but this has to be done on a phase-to-phase basis. I have the figures here and if Members are interested, Phase I has already been completed and all the infrastructural amenities are there. As I said, I can quote the necessary amount of money spent to lay the necessary infrastructure as far as electricity, roads and so on are concerned. In other words, I am saying that ultimately when the whole area is developed, the Punggol pig farming area will be as good, if not better, than the areas where they have come from, but it takes sometime for the infrastructure to be laid down. As to the query of difficulties to obtain a permit to even repair or erect poultry or pig sites, here again the difficulties involve a number of departments. For example, the application form has to go to the Land Office which is under the Ministry of Law. If it involves pollution, it goes to the Ministry of the Environment and then, of course, building comes under the Building Control Division. If the difficulty in getting a permit is due to the inability on the part of the PPD, then I think the PPD will try its best to expedite matters. But here again the difficulty is not just the PPD, It involves three big Ministries. For the Ministry of National Development, while I can say that the PPD can help to send the applications on behalf of the farmers to BCD, the farmers may still have to wait for land clearance by the Ministry of Law and clearance from the Ministry of the Environment.

But this is a non-catchment area.

I would say that if there is difficulty in terms of coordinating with the different Ministries, the PPD can have a go at it. As to another allegation that the PPD has done nothing about fluctuations of produce prices, such as eggs, poultry, and pigs. The PPD monitors the situation constantly. PPD knows when the prices of pigs and eggs go up or down, and it liaises with the Livestock Association most of the time. But, like everyone else, when the price of pigs goes up steeply, every farmer is happy. But when it goes down, then every farmer appeals to the PPD or the Government to do something. Here again, the market forces take care of this. In going into pig and poultry rearing, one of the basic requirements that any farmer or anybody who goes into the business should know that when you over-produce you get a situation of excess, and this excess comes periodically. In fact, if the farmer is of any good calibre, he will know that after several years, normally there is a cycle of three to four years, he will have a situation of this nature, an excess. Therefore, if he is a good businessman, he should keep something for a rainy day. I would say that the Government should not interfere with market forces, unless the situation really demands it, because the market forces will always balance it. So the PPD is aware of all the situations as far as price movements are concerned. In fact, it even has to monitor the prices of raw materials used in making feeds for feeding chickens and pigs. So it is unfair to say that the PPD is not coming out to help. The PPD is aware of the situation but, as it should be, it leaves it to market forces to take care of it. The Member for Punggol has brought up the question of the PPD officers being unsympathetic and not wanting to help. Here again. I would say that I beg to differ. I think the PPD officers have tried to help but certain things which are beyond their control have been levelled at them and criticised. For example, resettlement benefits. Resettlement benefits are arrived at Ministry level. In fact, the enhanced rate of compensation paid by Government to all resettlement cases, be it farmers, residential, commercial, shop-houses and so on, is decided by a committee. The Ministry of National Development has to convince the Ministry of Finance who then agrees on the rates of compensation to be paid to each farmer. 5.00 p.m. Here again, the last review of compensation rates was made in April 1975. If there is justification for a re-assessment, the Ministry of National Development could suggest it. But once the schedule of rates has been agreed, then the PPD, like any other department for example, the Resettlement Department, JTC and the HDB, has to comply with the rates. If the Member complains that there is inadequate compensation, then it is a different issue from the status of a bona fide farmer. Arguing that he is not a bona fide farmer is a different issue, and I have given the reasons. They must comply with certain requirements. If one is a bona fide farmer, it means that he is totally dependent on farming for a livelihood. I think it is difficult for us to decide on this issue as we are laymen. But there is a panel of experts which has the expertise to determine farming activities. I think it is most unfair to look at a farming family where the son is just helping out now and then and then conclude that he is totally dependent on farming for a livelihood. I think that is too simple to be true. But I stand corrected. I think some rural MPs have appealed on their behalf and until their positions have been reassessed by the panel of experts and if it is true that they are bona fide farmers, then the bona fide status could be given to them. Lastly, the question on the need for a comprehensive agricultural policy by the Ministry of National Development. This was brought up by the Member for Jalan Kayu. The Ministry of National Development believes that agriculture has a part to play. But it is obviously a limited part. It can only play its part in terms of the overall development because of other priorities. The PPD is the instrument of the Ministry of National Development to ensure that there is self-sufficiency in pork, meat, and eggs. The very fact that the Punggol farming area has been designated as an area for pig farming and that poultry farming is allowed to be carried on must indicate that agriculture has a part to play.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a few rural MPs seem to be carried away by the assertion of the Member for Jalan Kayu that the agricultural policy is contrary to the general policy for the whole of Singapore, that is, the policy of the Government to upgrade and improve the standard of living of the people of Singapore. He said that we are, in fact, by resettling the farmers, lowering their standard of living. If Members were to listen carefully to the Member for Jalan Kayu, they will find from his own words that, far from lowering the standard of living of the farmers, the standard of living of the farmers during the last ten years has, largely through the assistance of the PPD, improved because they have increased their productivity. Now, having increased their productivity, they must be better off. So do not be carried away by just one assertion. They ought to listen carefully.

Sir, the Senior Minister of State has not replied to my query on the Jurong Abattoir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Primary Production Department has no jurisdiction over the management of the Jurong Abattoir. Actually the management of the Jurong Abattoir is under a Government company called the Primary Industries Enterprise (Pte) Ltd. I was on the Board of Directors of the Primary Industries Enterprise until last year. I do not believe his allegation that the management employs beautiful girls on their staff at the expense of efficiency and at the expense of the necessary skilled workmanship. The fact of the matter is that the abattoir operates six nights a week. If I remember correctly, all the six nights are on shift work. Because of constant usage there is insufficient time for the proper maintenance of machinery. But the management knows that during certain periods, for example, during the Chinese New Year season the usage is greater than usual. Time was set purposely aside to strip all the machinery, to repair it and make sure that it is in tip-top condition for continuous use, in particular during the festive seasons. Now, the problem of inadequate labourers. The abattoir, in particular the slaughtering section, operates from 11.00 p.m. at night to 5.00 a.m. in the morning. This is to ensure the availability of fresh, warm meat for consumers in the early morning. This is a practice peculiar to Singapore. In other countries, the supply of fresh warm meat has been taken over by frozen meat. Because of the nature of the work from 11.00 p.m. to 5.00 a.m. the difficulty of getting labourers to do the work of slaughtering is great. I have been told that, on the other hand, the company is trying its best to improve the staffing situation. There is a plan to renovate the whole building as well as the machinery to ensure that efficiency could be maintained at all times.

Sir, I beg to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

At this stage, I propose to take the Suspension. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Order. I suspend the Sitting now and will take the Chair again at 5.40 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.07 p.m. until 5.40 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.40 p.m.

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Head O (cont.) -

I would like to indicate to hon. Members that progress has been very slow on this particular head of expenditure.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head O be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead DDA 1101*. (* The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Ngeow Pack Hua). Mr Speaker, Sir, I am certain that the kampong folks in the rural areas are not against the implementation of rural development projects of the Government if such projects benefit them. The development projects carried out by the Government in Geylang Serai are progressing smoothly because every Singapore citizen so affected has been rehoused in HDB flats, and similarly displaced shopkeepers are offered HDB shops. There are a number of mosques and suraus which are also affected by these development projects; like the ones at Jalan Alsagoff, Jalan Mydin, Lorong Engku Aman and a Madrasah (that is, a religious school) at Jalan Pasir. A source of regret to me is that to-date the Government has not as yet offered alternative sites so that these religious structures could be rebuilt. And possibly many more mosques and suraus will be affected by these development projects in due course of time. I hope that the relevant Ministry will consider allocating a sufficiently large piece of land for the erection of a composite mosque building in Geylang Serai area to incorporate the mosques and suraus as well as the Madrasah affected by the development projects. The proposed mosque will benefit the entire Muslim community, particularly those living in Geyland Serai and residents in the surrounding areas.

I am not speaking, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member for Geylang Serai has suggested that there is a need to reserve sites to replace suraus and mosques affected by development projects. In the process of urban renewal, as people move out from old areas to be developed, temples, mosques or churches will have to give way to new development. The Government's policy, however, is to reserve adequate sites for religious buildings in the new towns into which people are moving. In the limited land space of Singapore it is, of course, not possible to replace all religious buildings on a one-to-one basis. But, depending on the size of the congregation in each of these housing estates, adequate space will be reserved for religious buildings. In line with this policy one new mosque will be built in each HDB new town where the Muslim population is 20,000 or more, The relevant religious authorities have been advised of this new policy. 5.45 p.m. Currently, new mosques are under construction in Queenstown, Toa Payoh and Jurong. In addition, three new mosques are being planned in Chai Chee, Woodlands and Ang Mo Kio over the next two or three years. When these mosques are completed, the Muslim community will be able to conduct their religious activities in well-designed buildings and in better environmental conditions. The new mosques will be bigger and will serve not only the Muslim residents in the new towns but also Muslims in the surrounding areas. Hence the Muslim residents in Geylang Serai Constituency will be adequately served by the mosque planned for Kampong Chai Chee.

(In Malay): Sir, I am satisfied with the reply given by the Senior Minister of State. I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (a) of subhead AAA 3020. (The same amendment also stood in the names of Messrs Chin Ham Tong. Ho See Beng, Cheong Yuen Chee, J F Conceicao, Ahmad Haleem, Ch'ng Jit Koon and Teo Chong Tee). Sir, last year, I , spoke about the outstanding achievements of the Housing and Development Board. At the same time, I proposed that the HDB should set up a special duties unit to deal with special problems raised by MPs from time to time. But it was turned down by the Senior Minister of State. Sir, I do not want to repeat what I had said. But I would like to emphasise one point here, and that is, the administrative efficiency of the HDB seems to have slackened, perhaps due to the rapid expansion and the increasing numbers of flats which have been built. My Constituency of Henderson is a HDB estate. On the one hand, we can see the oldest type of one-room flats and, on the other, we can see the latest newly designed four-room flats. The area of my Constituency is very small but there are three HDB Area Offices to handle the Board's day-to-day affairs in the estate. I have received a lot of complaints from time to time. One complaint I want to cite here is the hawker problem. Sir, we can see and many MPs who have HDB flats in their Constituencies know that the HDB officials have to issue summonses to the unruly hawkers so that the rules and regulations can be maintained and strengthened. I am quite convinced that their actions are legal and they deserve our support.

Mr Lai, this subhead is on "Contributions to the Housing and Development Board".

Yes. I am talking about the HDB hawker centres.

You are talking about summonses and not contributions to the HDB.

Yes. I am talking about the administrative efficiency of the HDB. Sir, let me explain. From time to time, we can see officials from two departments issuing summonses to hawkers - one from the HDB Maxwell Road office and the other from the HDB Area Office. I quote two examples. These two examples occurred very recently. In the first case, one early morning at about 8 o'clock, HDB officials from the Maxwell Road office came down to issue about 20 summonses to hawkers. The second incident occurred only last week. Officials from the Area Office issued summons on one hawker. The summons was undated. I have got a photostat copy here. The summons required the hawker within three days to do this and to do that. Mr Speaker, Sir, we can see here that the HDB officials from two departments are issuing summons to hawkers from time to time. There must be something wrong. Hon. Members and Ministers might be interested to know that in my Constituency, there are not only hawker centres under the HDB but also hawker centres under the jurisdiction of the Hawkers Department of the Ministry of the Environment and the Jurong Town Corporation. But I find that the HDB hawker centre has given me the most trouble. I am not Justice Pao and neither do I want to see the Minister's axe fall on the officials mentioned just now. I do hope that while the Minister is dealing with these officials with leniency, the working efficiency of the HDB must be improved. Otherwise the life of more than half of the country's population will be affected. Sir, among other things, the problems of the aged and the young living in the HDB flats and the problem of families with only one breadwinner striving hard to support their dependants, are always worthy of our concern and attention. Wherever possible, I hope that the Minister would spare no efforts in attempting to improve the living conditions of our people.

May I indicate again that this particular subhead is on "Contributions to the Housing and Development Board".

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad to learn from a recent announcement that the Housing Board intends to improve the one-room flats. This is good news to the people of Singapore, particularly the one-room flat dwellers. This is a correct decision because it promotes the hygiene and health of the people. So we express our full support for the HDB's decision on this matter. But since the Housing Board intends to improve the living environment of flat dwellers, their attention should not be confined to the one-room flats. They should also pay attention to the problems of the existing old housing estates, because such problems do affect the health and the hygiene of the people living in old housing estates. For example, there have been numerous lift breakdowns in the old housing estates. This is a serious problem, because usually in every block of flats in the old housing estates there is only one lift available. If the lift breaks down, then the residents have to climb all the way up to their flats. This causes great inconvenience, particularly to children and old people who find it difficult to climb up the steps. Worse still, whenever a lift breaks down, very often people are known to be trapped inside. Not to mention other instances, during my door-to-door visits, I had the experience of being trapped in a lift. Because of these breakdowns, very often I have to climb all the way up to visit my constituents in the flats. This goes to show how serious this problem of lift breakdown is. As a result, during my meet-the-people sessions and during my house-to-house visits, I receive various complaints from the public, many of which are complaints of lift breakdowns. I have on their behalf taken up this matter of lift breakdowns with the Area Office concerned, but the reaction from the various officers has been very disappointing. They seem to hold the view that old lifts must break down just as it is only natural for old people to fall sick. So these officers do not take a very positive or enthusiastic interest in the repair of old lifts. I think this attitude is very questionable. Recently the Housing Board has increased the conservancy charges for maintenance and other services. The Housing Board only knows how to make the flat dwellers pay more by way of such charges but does not seem to take a serious interest in the repairs and the maintenance of lifts and other facilities in old housing estates. This is a very exasperating situation to the residents. I hope the Housing Board will take a serious view of the matter and positively look into the problem of lifts of old flats going out of order. As I said earlier, we support the Housing Board in trying to improve the one-room flats because it will go a step further to enhance the health and hygiene of the people. This reminds me of the problems of health and hygiene in the old housing estates. If we visit such old housing estates, we will notice that the state of hygiene and cleanliness is not all that satisfactory. There is a vast difference between the state of health and hygiene in the old and the new housing estates. The Housing Board may conveniently put the blame entirely on the residents of old housing estates saying these people do not take much trouble in looking after their own hygiene. In fact, it is the Housing Board itself that should bear the greatest responsibility for it. The HDB officials think that since these housing estates are old, so they must be dirtier and so it is not necessary to take so much trouble to clean up the place. Of course this is a wrong attitude. There should not be different standards of care for different estates. The HDB should hold the view that because the estates are old, they need more attention in respect of cleaning services. This is the only, correct attitude to take in order to improve the hygiene and cleanliness of old housing estates. So I hope the authorities concerned will look into the matter. Mr Speaker, Sir, apart from these two matters, the Housing Board is not providing enough recreational facilities for old housing estates. In the case of new housing estates, the HDB has planned for a complete range of facilities like supermarkets, swimming pools, children's playgrounds, etc. But in the case of old housing estates, the HDB holds a different attitude altogether. What I am trying to say is not to ask the Housing Board to provide the. same facilities to old housing estates as in the case of new housing estates, as we all know that this is impossible. But the HDB must nonetheless pay attention to the recreational needs of people in the old housing estates, particularly when there is a higher population density in the old housing estates and therefore the need for recreational facilities for old people and children is greater.

6.00 p.m. Their needs are quite urgent. But unfortunately we do not see any adequate provision of such facilities for old people and children in the old housing estates. This also reflects the nonchalant attitude of the HDB towards old housing estates. So it is my hope that the Housing and Development Board authority will change its attitude towards the old housing estates by building and providing more recreational facilities for the old people and children in the old housing estates. As the saying goes, when it is snowing a gift of coal will be more appreciated by the needy than a gift of flowers to the affluent.

I am not speaking, Sir.

Sir, the way in which the HDB compulsorily acquire flats on serious breaches of the Housing and Development Board (Amendment) Act has, in practice, caused hardship and anguish to the people concerned. A few cases would illustrate these difficulties. An unmarried woman, a Singapore citizen, qualifies for a HDB flat and is given one. She lives in it with her parents and sisters, all of whom are permanent residents but with Malaysian citizenship. In due time the owner of the flat married and moved into the matrimonial home of her husband. Because the husband owned the house, the woman was asked by the HDB to surrender her flat. She is now unable to perform her filial duty to her parents who must now vacate the flat. The second instance is of a father who qualifies for a HDB flat but purchased it in the name of his eldest son. The father provided the entire purchase price of the flat. In due time the eldest son married and seek to transfer the flat back to the father, so that he, the son, could apply for his own flat. The HDB could not do it under current policy. There are other cases where owners have gone on to acquire other commercial properties and to improve themselves. Such owners are also required to surrender the flat. Sir, I believe the HDB has arbitrarily fixed the value of such commercial properties without giving any thought to the hardship caused to the owners. There are many other instances to show how inflexible applications of policies have resulted in dispossessed families. The Urban Renewal Authority and other authorities are encouraging the development of private shopping and commercial complexes. Such complexes are usually sold by the developers. A buyer need not necessarily pay cash for the purchase of these shopping and commercial complexes. They can obtain loans through mortgages for such purchases or enter into partnerships. The argument may be that if an owner of a HDB flat can afford to purchase a commercial property, he should be able to purchase a private flat or a house. Soon such an argument became far-fetched. There appears to be some contradiction in granting exemption to certain cases. For example, if a person owns a shophouse where he carries on his business and where it is not possible for him to live in it, he may be granted exemption. There should be no distinction in granting exemption if a commercial property without living quarters is used by the owner for the conduct of his own business. The second point I wish to raise, Sir, is the need for the Housing and Development Board to help to improve the livelihood of tenants of one-room flats. In Toa Payoh, for instance, there are several blocks of one-room flats whose occupants have been living there for more than 10 years. Many of them are earning a subsistence wage. Due to various reasons they are unable to afford to purchase a larger flat under the home ownership scheme. Many of these residents have applied for hawker stalls to supplement the family income. Such applications are rejected by the Housing Board on the grounds that one or other members of the family are already employed. I would like to quote an excerpt of a speech by the Hon. Minister for Labour at the opening of the Sixth International Metal Workers Federation, Asian Youth and Women Symposium: `We also want mothers to continue to work, partly to solve the problem of labour shortage and partly to supplement the family income` By helping to supplement the family income it will help to improve the standard of living of families living in one-room flats. Any additional income can provide better food as well as better health to the lower income group. For the better educated, for those with some vocational experience, it may be easy for them to obtain other forms of employment. But there are housewives who, for compelling reasons, are unable to work away from their homes, leaving their young children unattended at home. As there are so many vacant hawker stalls in Toa Payoh itself which are not taken up, there should be some flexibility in allotting these stalls to the people that I have just mentioned. The third point I wish to raise is on application for transfer of hawker stalls. The Hawkers Coordinating and Licensing Committee has decided that applications for transfer cannot be considered. Obviously, this Committee does not understand the plight of hawkers at all. For example, a hawker living in a one-room flat in Toa Payoh has purchased a three-room flat in Ang Mo Kio or any other estate farther away. He has to travel a long distance to his stall in Toa Payoh, notwithstanding the fact that he has to bring along the paraphernalia of his trade. Another example is poor business. Most hawkers are dependent on their trade as a sole means of earning a livelihood. Of course, to the Housing Board the easiest solution is to give up the stall. But one must consider: what about the livelihood of the family? May I suggest that some consideration be given to applicants for transfers in cases of hardship. They need to be assisted in times of difficulty. Finally, may I draw the attention of the House to some difficulties faced by purchasers and owners of Housing and Development Board flats. The first difficulty is on the resale of flats. When an owner wishes to purchase a larger flat, he has to resell his existing flat at cost to a buyer selected by the Housing and Development Board. The present system is for the Housing Board to send out letters of offer to applicants on the waiting list. This can go on indefinitely, if no suitable buyer is found. I have come across two cases where one owner has to wait five months and another slightly more than one year before their old flats are sold to the buyers selected by the Housing Board. In such cases the vendor has to pay instalments for two flats while waiting for a buyer. May I suggest that a more expeditious system be introduced to reduce the waiting period, such as keeping a separate register for applicants who wish to opt for the purchase of resold flats or repossessed flats. The last point I would like to raise is on sworn declarations. At present all applicants for Housing and Development Board flats have to obtain a sworn declaration from the Supreme Court or a firm of Advocates and Solicitors. This has caused some inconvenience to the applicants. I understand that the Housing Board is looking into the possibility of arranging for some of their officers to administer such declaration at the time when an application for the purchase of a flat is made. May I know when this system will be introduced?

Sir, on a point of clarification. Will the Member for Toa Payoh clarify whether he meant a transfer of a hawker's licence to another hawker, or a transfer of the hawker from one stall to another stall?

Sir, from stall to stall.

Sir, first of all, I would like to express my agreement with the expression of sympathy, almost sorrow, expressed in this House for those people living in the older estates, especially in the one-room flats. I merely rise to seek some information. I would like to ask for information regarding the programme, the Housing Board has in mind, for the improvement of one-room flats, especially those flats described as "emergency" flats. What has been the rationale for making a selection of those particular areas where it has been publicised that the HDB intends to begin improvement work? What are the criteria that have been used to make selection for priority to be given to certain types of emergency flats in certain areas? Can the House also be informed whether there is any programme to work out the timing when attention will be given to other areas with one-room flats, after those with first priority have been attended to?

Sir, I agree with what has already been said by the previous hon. Members about the Housing and Development Board but with over 80,000 applicants on the waiting list I still feel that they have, in fact, done a good job. Apart from the points that have been brought up, there are still many other minor matters which are not being looked into properly. Let me cite a few examples. On one of my visits to a block of flats in Telok Blangah, I came across iron rods sticking out from staircases. In fact, there were five iron rods sticking out in that building alone. I feel that such things should not happen at all, though it is of a minor nature. But during an inspection before acceptance, all these minor faults should have already been taken care of. There is no need for the local Member of Parliament to go round and make a report to the Area Office for necessary action to be taken. All these are minor matters that should not arise and should have been seen to and done with before the residents move in. Some of my constituents came to see me and asked about playgrounds, etc. I usually tell them to be patient. I tell them that it is all in the plan and it is coming up. I always say, "Move in first. Once the estate is ready, the playground will be there for you." One observant constituent said, "Look, you just go and take a ride to Telok Blangah Town centre. There are three point-blocks there. Nobody has moved in yet but there is a playground ready for use. Why is the playground provided in an estate where there are no residents? Yet in our estate where there are residents, no playground is given?" It is very difficult for me to explain when they point out such matters to me. The Housing and Development Board should look into such matters. They should provide facilities for existing residents and not for residents who have not moved in yet. 6.15 p.m. But apart from what I have said, I think the HDB is doing a good job. I would say that if they could look into these small minor matters, it will not spoil the generally good work that they are doing.

(In Mandarin): Sir, in order to enable our citizens to own their houses, the Housing and Development Board has built flats and sold them at cheap prices to Singapore citizens. Moreover, to encourage it, eligible citizens are allowed under the home ownership scheme of the Board to make use of their CPF contributions to purchase them. According to the Senior Minister of State for National Development in a reply to my Question for Oral Answer in this House the other day, he said that: 'As at 31st December, 1976, a total of 110,591 units of flats have been sold under the "Home Ownership" scheme. Of this, 7,685 units were purchased outright, while 63,148 units [or 57%] were purchased through the owners' CPF contribution either outright or on an instalment basis.' There are still about 60,000 applicants on the waiting list. According to the situation at the moment, an applicant will have to wait for three years or more before he can be allotted a flat. Sir, under the current policy of the Board an applicant who wishes to purchase a flat must pay 20% of the price as a down payment. To fulfill such a condition is a problem to people like taxi drivers, casual workers, lorry drivers and most hawkers, because they do not have enough savings and they also do not pay CPF contributions. So it is quite difficult to make the 20% down payment. This deters them from applying for the purchase of flats. In order to carry out the home-ownership scheme thoroughly. I suggest the HDB should consider reducing the down payment from 20% to 10% in order that these people who do not pay CPF contributions can also enjoy the benefits of the scheme. Or alternatively, the HDB could consider to allow them to pay 10% first when they apply for flats and on allocation, they should pay up the remaining 10%. Sir, I understand that civil servants who want to buy HDB flats do not have to make a down payment, and those who are affected by Government's development plan or renewal scheme are given the same treatment. Even those who are renting the HDB flats which are later offered for sale do not have to make a down payment when they want to purchase the flats which they are residing. Since the authority can afford to look after the interests of these people by giving them such consessionary treatment, why cannot the Board also make things easier for those who do not pay CPF contributions to purchase flats? Sir, I would also like to criticise the HDB for its tender system of allocating shop premises. This matter has been raised in this House a number of times, and every time it was hushed up by the Minister who said that there was no better way. According to the present system, the shop premises to be rented out are put on tender and they are rented out to those who make the highest bid, without regard to whether the rentals tendered are so exorbitant that the tenderers may not be able to maintain their businesses thus incurring arrears or even closing down their businesses eventually. Sir, in my constituency, there has been such a case as stated. My constitutency is a housing estate. There are no factories, big offices or tourist resorts. A coffeeshop was leased out by tender at a monthly rental of $5,300 to a woman. So this shopkeeper had to sublet as many parts of the shop premises as possible in order to relieve her heavy financial burden. The result is that there were so many hawker stalls in the shop premises that there was not enough space for tables and chairs. So these were placed along the corridors, both the front and rear. The shop was opened from early morning right up to 2.00 or 3.00 a.m. The residents in the neighbourhood were disturbed by noise from the shop. So they lodged complaints to the authorities and the HDB had to forbid the shopkeeper to use the corridors and to limit the hours of business to 12.00 midnight, thus severely affecting the business of this shop. Consequently, the shopkeeper has owed more than $30,000 in rental to the HDB. I learn that the HDB is now taking legal action to repossess the shop, as she is not able to pay arrears amounting to more than $30,000. The HDB had accepted the highest bid from her, and so allotted the shop to her. As a result, she now owes the HDB more than $30,000 in rentals. I am not speaking in defence of this shopkeeper because she had not estimated properly before she made such a tender. As a result, she now has incurred great losses in the business. I say she has nobody else to blame but herself. I have raised this matter here because I want to make this as an illustration to show my contention that there are shortcomings in the HDB's tender system for shop premises. I hope the authorities concerned will take steps to review this tender system as early as possible.

Sir, every year the Government is spending large sums of money on national development. The Housing and Development Board is undertaking most of the housing development. Today, when one takes a ride around Singapore, one can see HDB flats mushrooming all over Singapore. The HDB not only builds low-cost flats for the people but also hawker centres, markets and shops for hawkers and shopkeepers. Most of the development projects are well-planned and this has brought satisfaction to the people. However, this cannot be said for the project at Changi Village which falls within my constituency. More than a year ago the RDB completed the Changi Village Market and Food Centre which has a total of 166 stalls, some of which are still vacant today. The HDB also built 92 units of three-room flats and 46 shops besides the Changi Village Market and Food Centre. I understand that further development projects by the HDB in this area were shelved. Up till today, the market is poorly patronised as the expected growth in population in Changi Village does not come about as a consequence. Demand for their goods is very lacking. Business at the food centre is only slightly better than the market, as it is usually frequented by picnickers and the SBS workers. Although the rent for the hawker stalls is low when compared with the rent for stalls in other markets and food centres, these hawkers still find it difficult to keep their heads above the water. The shopkeepers are also in a dilemma. Although they are granted concessional rental rising from $277, they are also finding it, difficult to meet as their present business is solely dependent on the residents who occupy only a handful of the three-room flats in the vicinity. In fact, the demand for their services from these residents is very poor. Needless to say, Sir, all these are the results of poor planning and bad foresight for my constituency by the Housing and Development Board. This has brought about unnecessary losses not only to most of the hawkers in the Changi Village Market and Food Centre but also to the shopkeepers as well since their business started sometime in early 1976. Undoubtedly, this has caused discontent among these people whose business has been adversely affected. The shopkeepers have jointly appealed to me to persuade the HDB to allow them to maintain the present monthly rental and defer the annual rent increase of 10% until such time when either the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board decides to organise tours for tourists through the travel agents to visit Changi Village or when the Changi International Airport becomes operational in mid-1980, whichever comes about first. By which time, it is hoped that the demand for their services will greatly improve. As for the hawkers who have requested for a change of stalls to other markets and food centres, I hope that the HDB's Area Office will kindly consider their request in view of poor business in the Changi Village Market and Food Centre. Furthermore, Sir, I would like to ask the Hon. Minister what immediate steps will be taken to improve the situation that I have just highlighted, should the appeal and requests by these affected people be unacceptable.

Sir, may I have your permission to raise a point?

Yes.

Thank you, Sir, for your permission. (In Mandarin) I rise to support the Member for Tiong Bahru in his suggestion that the present tender system of allocating shop premises should be reviewed. I remember last year at this time I also raised this matter here. In my constituency, the HDB estate is very small and there are only about 200 units of flats. Yet there are about a few scores of shophouses. The tendered rentals paid by coffeeshops ranged from $2,000 to $3,000 p.m. not $5,000, but after two to three months they closed shop. Many of the other shops also have to close down one after the other because they could not pay the high rentals. Ta'boleh tahan - they could not bear it any more. I would like to know whether in deciding to build any shop premises the HDB has made a detailed survey of the surrounding areas to see how big the population is and how many shop premises are already there. 6.30 p.m. Take, for example, Jalan Kayu. On both sides of the street there are about at least 200 shophouses. In the past, these 200 shops catered for the needs of the British forces in the Seletar base. Therefore, the place developed into a township. But during 1968 and 1969, with the withdrawal of the British forces, their business was badly affected. Some of them moved to other places and some others changed their lines. After two or three years, they have adapted to the new situation and their business is picking up. But the Housing and Development Board started to build a shopping centre with more shop premises at Seletar Hills around Jalan Kayu. As a result, the businesses of the shops both at the shopping centre and along the two sides of Jalan Kayu are again badly affected. This is most incomprehensible! I believe you will agree with me when I say that the Housing Board is motivated by the urge to make money when they carry out its projects of building shop premises. There is no consideration for the livelihood of the shopkeepers and others. Where there are so many shop premises, yet the HDB would build more shop premises, "It is up to you whether you want to bid for $5,000 or $6,000 a month for rental. Whether or not you go bankrupt that is your business." This is not right. I understand that in Ang Mo Kio the tendered rental has gone up to as high as $6,000 a month for one shop premises. Therefore, this question merits consideration because this will eventually affect the living standard of all of us, the people. The businessmen are not fools and they will pass on the increased burden to the consumers. The price for a plate of kway teow will be increased from $1 to $2, and when business is good it can be sold at $4. You see? Consequently, all these extra costs will be passed on to the consumers. The fleece comes from the sheep. We are like sheep; our wool is fleeced by other people. How much fleecing can we tolerate by other people? Sir, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak.

Sir,I believe the policy of the HDB is to require owners of flats to pay out of their own pockets for repairs of major defects like cracks, for instance, that occur in their flats a year after the handing over of the flats by the HDB to the owner occupier. Sir,I fail to see why the onus of repairs should be on the owner-occupier if the defects are due to poor construction or arise from poor building materials used. This policy has to be changed and the HDB owner-occupiers should not be made to pay the price of poor workmanship or substandard building materials. In fact, the HDB can get rid of this problem or can at least minimise it by establishing greater vigilance over their building contractors.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me start with the last speaker, the Member for Potong Pasir. Whether or not the major defect is due to structure or poor workmanship, and if it occurs within a certain guarantee period it will be the responsibility of the HDB to rectify; but if it exceeds that period then I think it is the owner-occupier's responsibility. This is applicable to both private and public sectors. As to the need for greater vigilance on the part of the HDB, I think we have gone through that many times. An hon. Member: It is still poor.

If it is still poor, HDB is trying its best to make sure that it is not so poor. I have stated previously what the HDB has done. To save time, I am prepared to send to the hon. Member a statement to show what the HDB has done because this matter has been debated over the last few years. The next query was from the Member for Changi regarding the hardship of the shopkeepers and market stall-holders at Changi Village. In the first place, Changi Village was never intended to be developed as a public housing project. What the HDB has done was merely to resettle the temporary shophouses at Changi Village when business was good during the boom when the British military forces were around. What the HDB did was merely to provide them with better housing, hoping that business would be still better. I am sure the HDB itself did not know that the British forces were pulling out so soon. In fact, during the period of resettlement some of the shopkeepers which the Member referred to were offered alternative accommodation at Chai Chee New Town but they turned it down. They had made a wrong choice. So I think it is unfair to complain. To put the blame on the HDB for bad planning because their business today is bad is unreasonable. I can only sympathise with the Member and hope that the Tourist Promotion Board would encourage tour groups to go to Changi Village so that the businessmen there will have less to complain about. To be fair to the HDB, the Ministry is monitoring the situation, and I have given a satisfactory reply to the hon. Member during the debate on the Presidential Address when he brought up the question of the Changi Village shophouses, the vacancies, rentals and so on. My good friend, the Member for Jalan Kayu, supports strongly the Member for Tiong Bahru, as far as the tender system is concerned. First of all, let me say that when the HDB plans a housing estate it does know approximately the number of shophouses in relation to the number of residential units that it wants to build. Of course, consideration is given to resettlement cases. In other words, if there is a heavy resettlement programme in the vicinity of Jalan Kayu or perhaps in Yio Chu Kang, the HDB will try its best to provide a reasonable amount of facilities for resettlement cases.

Sir, there were only two resettlement cases. Only two shops were resettled.

Sir, let me explain. During the planning stage when the HDB is considering facilities for resettlement cases, the HDB is in no position to know whether those facilities will be taken up by the resettlement cases. In fact, this is one of the problems of resettlement. That is why resettlement cannot proceed as fast as it should. Once the shophouses are ready, the HDB offers them to the resettlement cases as a first priority. It is only after the resettlement cases have turned down the offer, as in the case of Changi Village, that the HDB offers them to the public. Once it is open to the public, it is on the open tender system. I would say that the HDB does give some thought to the proportion between shophouse requirements and the number of housing units built. Here again, it is just accidental that the Jalan Kayu shops at Seletar Air Base or in the Housing Board estates do not have too good a business. This is unfortunate. I think that during the planning stage the HDB did not foresee the British withdrawal. It is also a fact that it could not foresee what a particular shopping complex will turn out to be in, say, two, three or five years from now. Now, the tender system. The HDB is undertaking public housing which is highly subsidised by the Government. It is true that the HDB derives certain revenue from the tender system, which is used, in turn, to help reduce the subsidy that the HDB gets from the Government. Whilst I am sympathetic with the Member that this tender system is not ideal and perhaps even incomplete, from the record of the HDB's rental of shops, the majority of the shops are doing reasonably well. I cannot give the exact figure, but I know it because I also happen to be the Chairman of the Shop Committee. To counter the complaint that the rental is as high as $4,000 and $5,000 or even $5,300 p.m., we have an actual case of $7,300 rental in an estate which is not a tourist attraction. But somehow because of its locality it is doing reasonably well and it has survived the last two years or so. But it is true that in certain areas the rental tendered could be on the high side. I think the rental should be left to market forces. In other words, if a particular businessman or a particular shopowner chooses to tender at a certain price, then it is difficult for the HDB to say, "Well, you have tendered it too high." Each businessman must decide what he thinks is a reasonable rental and he must also know what are the chances of his survival. From my experience, I would say that whenever we received tenders for coffee shops, for example, what is surprising about a tender of $5,500 is that there are a number of other tenders at around $5,000. So if there is only one tender of $5,500 against other tenders at about $3,000, then I do concede there is something wrong with that tender as far as that particular locality is concerned. But if all five tenders for a particular shop are at the rate of approximately between $5,000 and $5,500, then as far as the Shop Committee of the HDB is concerned, it is a reasonable tender. It reflects the rental rate for that particular area. But to satisfy Members here, if this tender system can be improved, as has been suggested by other MPs, the HDB will look into it. But in the meantime I think we should carry on with this system. To be fair to the HDB, there are cases - I do not know whether or not it is in Jalan Kayu, but definitely in other areas - where payment of 50% of the rental makes life extremely difficult for a particular resettlement case, a concession which the HDB or the Shop Committee has allowed, instead of a 10% increment every year over the next five years. So the Shop Committee has allowed the rental in that particular resettlement case to remain at 50%. I would say that if there is any particular case which requires urgent attention and the tenant is really finding it difficult to maintain his livelihood, the Shop Committee has the discretion to recommend, for resettled cases a stagnating rent, at a particular rate for a particular period of time. 6.45 p.m. To continue with the request of the Member for Tiong Bahru, he has suggested that the 20% down payment should be reduced to 10% or adjusted to 10% on application and 10% on allocation. I regret to say that, as in the purchase of houses in both the public and private sectors, one has to make the down payment on application. While I am sympathetic with the cases of those who are not contributors to the CPF such as taxi drivers and hawkers who may not be able to make the down payment. I regret to say that in the case of public housing where Government subsidy is already high, sometimes the 20% down payment does not even pay towards the land cost which is apportioned over a period of time. Sir, it is also true that the HDB derives a certain amount of interest because, as the Member has correctly pointed out, it takes maybe two or three years before an applicant gets a balloted flat. So the HDB does derive interest from the time of application up to the balloting date. In fact, the interest derived merely helps to reduce the subsidy the HDB gets from Government. I regret to say that the HDB or the Ministry is not agreeable to a reduction of the 20% down payment nor would it agree to payment at the balloting date instead of at the time of application. The Member for Telok Blangah, as he himself has pointed out, has brought up very minor points. I think those minor points could be easily settled by the HDB Area Office. I would like to thank him for his comment that the HDB is doing a good job. Next comes the Member for Katong. As usual, he has put very difficult questions for the HDB to reply. He wants to know the criteria used for the selection of a programme to improve the one-room emergency flats. I regret to tell him that honestly the priority is, first stage is merely to improve the lighting in the emergency flats. I have indicated to the Member for Tiong Bahru during Question time last week that the first stage is to provide better lighting along the corridors and then to improve on other facilities, such as staircases, or simply turn on, the lights during the day. The next stage would, therefore, be the conversion of these units into larger units. But, here again, it depends on whether the residents living in a particular block of one-room emergency flats can afford the better one-room improved flats, which means a higher rental. Can they afford to move to a larger flat? If they cannot, then it would take some time before any renovation can be carried out on any particular block of flats.

No programme?

My answer to the Member for Katong is that there is a general programme depending on situation and circumstances. In fact, the Member may have noted that during Question time last week, I said that it would take a number of years before all the emergency flats could be renovated and converted. For the Member for Katong's constituency, I do not know how high or how low the priority is. But it would take a number of years.

That is just what I wanted to know.

Sir, let me next answer the hon. Member for Henderson who has suggested that there is a need for a special unit in the HDB. If I remember correctly, last year when I answered this question, I said that there was no necessity to have a special unit because the Ministry of Home Affairs at that time was looking into the setting up of Block committees. I was told that the Ministry of Home Affairs has proceeded with the formation of Block committees consisting of uniformed groups such as the VCs and the police who have been given priority for HDB flats. So actually there is no need for the HDB to look into this. The Member also complained about the inefficiency of the administration, and quoted the example of both the HDB headquarters and the Area Office issuing summonses on hawkers. Well, I do concede here that if this is so, then it shows a lack of co-operation on the part of the Area Office and HQ. In fact, if he can give me particulars of the incident, I am prepared to investigate. Arising from this, I could inform the Area Offices and the Estates Management in HQ to ensure that such things are not repeated again. Finally, the Member for Aljunied has brought up a number of points. He complained about the regular breakdown of lifts. He also said that inadequate attention was given to the maintenance and cleanliness of the old housing estates. He complained that there is a lack of adequate facilities for old people and children in the old estates. And he compared the old estates with the new housing estates and said that there are better facilities in the new housing estates and are better maintained. Let me say that there is no distinction in the standard of maintenance between the old and new estates because the residents are paying more or less the same conservancy fees. Last year, I tried to argue out with statistics to show that there was no let-up in the cleanliness of the old estates and, in fact, gave results of a survey which showed that the cleanliness of the old estates had improved. This is borne out by a survey conducted and reported by the Straits Times in January 1977. I think the improvement of the cleanliness of the old estates must be due to the growing civic awareness of the residents `themselves and, I think to claim credit, to the better awareness of maintenance by the HDB authorities. The Member is also aware that there is a 24-hour essential maintenance unit which has been set up to attend to urgent matters. The same is true for the breakdown of lifts. I am in sympathy with him over the incident when he was caught in a lift breakdown during one of his tours. But I think that is not peculiar to his estate. I myself was caught in a lift breakdown when I was touring the new HDB area in my constituency. This is not to give any excuse but, being an old estate, there must be lifts in the many blocks that the Member has in his constituency which need to be repaired or even replaced by new lifts. And it could be just a coincidence that when the Member got into one of these old lifts, it broke down.

Not deliberate!

I am implying that it was not deliberately done. Here again, the lift maintenance unit is supposed to do regular servicing and I would say that if there is any serious, abnormal and frequent breakdowns, then I would be happy to look into it myself. As regards facilities, it is true that the older estates are not provided with the same facilities, such as children's playgrounds, when compared to the new estates. I think the Member is agreeable that there is a limitation in what the HDB can do because the old estates have already been built and it would be difficult to introduce certain facilities even if the HDB wants to. For example, if there is no space for a children's playground, it is just impossible to build. What the HDB can do is to try and keep the appearance of the old estate as best as it can by giving it a whitewash every now and then and maintaining its cleanliness by more efficient supervision over the contractors doing the servicing. There is, of course, a plan. These old estates have been built since the 1960s and I think it is a matter of time - I do not know when, five years from now maybe - when there must be some fundamental change. The old blocks may have to be knocked down and replaced with newer blocks or even knocked down merely to provide certain facilities. That I think will take time. Finally, the Member for Toa Payoh has brought up a number of points. First of all, let me handle the most difficult ones. He asked me whether I am aware that the HDB is looking into the possibility of getting somebody to handle the sworn declarations. I do not know. But I think if the HDB has told him so, then it must be so because they do not take the words of the MP in vain. Anyway, it is quite easy to make a sworn declaration. It could be made in most offices of Commissioner of Oaths, and I personally do not see the difficulty in getting a sworn statement made. Anyway, I would convey his suggestion to the HDB and if the HDB has told him so, I tend to agree that it will be done. The Member has suggested a better system for the resale of flats, and has complained that in some cases the owner of a particular resale flat has to wait something like five or six months. I share his sentiments. But then the difficulty that the HDB is facing is this. Those who sell their flats within five years will get the same price that they have purchased. But those who have owned the flats for more than five years can sell at whatever price they can fetch provided somebody is prepared to buy over. Here again, the HDB is faced with the problem of first-come-first-served and is faced with the problem of fairness. Let me give an example. Let us say in Toa Payoh there is a heavy demand for flats and there is a long queue of people wanting to purchase HDB flats. Mr X wants to sell. Let us say there are 1,000 people waiting to buy a three-room flat or a five-room flat in ba Payoh. An owner of such a flat wants to sell to Applicant No. 1,000 on the queue because that person happens to be his friend or his relative or just happens to be someone interested to purchase because he has the money and can pay a lump sum.

Sir, may I clarify? I am not referring to those owners who have completed the five-year qualification and can sell their flats to any buyer of their choice. I am referring to those who are buying larger flats where they must resell their flat to the Board at cost, otherwise they will not be eligible to purchase a larger flat.

Sir, if the Member is strictly talking on that point, I concede and I think that it should be improved. I personally feel that if the Member is referring strictly to those cases with the five-year qualification, I personally feel that the case should be looked into.

Good show!

The Member also suggested that the HDB should be more sympathetic towards those living in one-room flats by giving them stalls in HDB hawker centres. I think the question of hawker stalls has been debated quite heatedly during the Head on the Ministry of the Environment. Members are aware that the issuing of hawker licences is under the Licensing and Coordinating Committee, under the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment, and that the HDB provides the stalls. I suppose if the Member feels strongly, the HDB can make recommendations to the Coordinating Committee. 7.00 p.m. But last week, I have already answered the Member for Thomson on this point. There are a number of stalls available in his constituency, but then the Coordinating Committee has over 11,000 street hawkers to resettle. Therefore, I regret to say that this has to go through the Coordinating Committee, but if the Member feels strongly about these hardship cases this could be referred to me for attention. I have here figures to show that in financial hardship cases the Licensing Committee has allocated through the Board something like 100 families, and more than half of these 100 cases are from one-room flat tenants. As to the request for transfer of hawker stalls from one particular place to another, the same answer is applicable to the Member for Changi. When business is not too well, they blame the HDB, but when it is good, they say "Well. I did the right choice." But if there is really a strong case such as the family is now living in Thomson but because he had been given a stall in Toa Payoh in the past and now wants a transfer back to Thomson, I think that is a reasonable case for consideration. I see no reason why the Licensing Coordinating Committee should not give sympathetic consideration. I would say that each case should be treated on its own merit. In this particular case which the Member has mentioned (I happen to be the Chairman of the Allocation Committee), I would be prepared to look into it. A more important question brought forward by the Member for ba Payoh is his illustration of two cases of unreasonableness and unsympathetic consideration by the HDB - throwing out deserved cases of ownership. I must say that the HDB operates on the line of policy. Not only has the Member for Toa Payoh, but at the Presidential debates the Member for Kuo Chuan had also brought up four cases. In fact, the four examples he gave look reasonable on paper. I have managed to get a satisfactory explanation from the HDB as to why they could not concede. In one of the two cases, the one with permanent residence, appears reasonable to me, and I think that can be considered. But in the second case where the son wants to transfer the name to the father so that he himself can buy another HDB flat, I would say that his application has been thoroughly thought out by the HDB. The reason given by the HDB is to prevent this man from taking advantage of having another HDB unit because he is on the list of original householders. So if he wants to buy another HDB unit, he goes through the normal routine of registration with his spouse or whoever he wants, and he goes through the pace. He should not be given priority. HDB has thought of all these possibilities. Where discretion and sympathy could be exercised, it has been done. I can tell the Member that there are many instances where the Housing and Development Board has ruled in favour of cases that are not strictly according to policy. As to his statement that the HDB is unreasonable in the purchase of a shophouse by placing a limit on the ownership of commercial property and that the limit set is arbitrary as no thought has been given, let me assure him that the Allocation Committee, in which I am also the Chairman, has gone through this question thoroughly. The limit that we set is that an applicant should not own a commercial property with a market value of $250,000 or more. That means if he can afford to own property worth one-quarter million dollars, it is hard to convince us that he needs to rent subsidised housing or that he needs to purchase subsidised housing of, say, $15,000 or $20,000. If he can afford to buy a $250,000 commercial property, it is more appropriate for him to purchase HUDC housing, which is about $60,000. As far as this particular ceiling is concerned, plenty of thought has been put into it, and it is a reasonable ceiling. How can one borrow $250,000 if one has no collateral to support the loan? I can merely say that HDB has put in plenty of thought into it and the ceiling of a quarter million dollars is a very reasonable limit.

Sir, in regard to my contribution to the debate on this subject, I would like to know whether the Senior Minister of State would consider lengthening the period of the responsibility of the HDB in regard to major defects arising because of poor workmanship or substandard materials?

Sir, as I have indicated, there is a standard period. According to my architects, it is six months. In some cases, depending on the nature of the particular complaint, it is one year. I do concede that if it is a structural defect, which means a basic defect right from the word "go", then on moving in the defect is found to be due to structurally unsound construction, it is fair that the HDB will have to look at it and perhaps re-do the whole thing at no extra cost. So a lot depends on the type of complaint that one is making.

Sir, when I say ``minor'' just now, I do not mean unimportant. Had HDB been found to have major faults, I think some of us would not be sitting in this House today. Like a marriage, it is the minor faults in a relationship that in the long run breaks up a marriage. It is the same thing here. It is the minor matters that will bring up big problems in future.

Sir, I have already explained that because it is so minor it could be easily handled by the Area Office. There is no need for me to intervene at this juncture. If the unhappiness in a marriage could be resolved at a very low level why go to the Bishop when it could be very easily handled by the priest!

Sir, in the last few days I have been very impressed by the Senior Minister of State for his very direct replies. In the same breath of saying "no", he added, "but if there are problems I will definitely look into them." I felt this a very good strategy. Perhaps I am one of the few Members of Parliament who have that rare privilege of being spared the mundane problems found in HDB flats as I do not have any Housing Board flats in my constituency. Nonetheless, I would like to raise a problem which concerns the social aspect of HDB life. I would like to know from the Senior Minister of State whether the HDB has a conscious policy of undertaking a continuous indepth study on the sociological problems in HDB estates, and whether the results from such studies have been used as guidelines in the day-to-day administration and management of the HDB estates to ensure that, in the long run, there will be a more meaningful community life in housing estates. I consider this important because just a few years ago a friend from overseas made a rather indiscreet remark to me, saying that "there are many pigeon coops in Singapore." He was referring to our housing estates. To some extent -

Sir, on a point of order. I am just enquiring whether it is in order for the Member to bring up a fresh subject not connected with the present debate.

But this is on the Housing and Development Board. Encik Mansor.

I think it is important because all the time we have been talking about the physical aspects of housing estates. It is agreed that we need to have better and cleaner rooms, better maintenance and better hawker centres. It is true. This is necessary. But at the same time it is also important for HDB to have a conscious policy of finding out whether there are any sociological principles which can be incorporated as part and parcel of the HDB administration. For example, the Marine Parade community hall represents a very important facility which will allow for a dynamic and integrated community life. There is also a new development in Bedok Housing Estate where the HDB has allowed the construction of' partitions at the void decks, which is not seen in other estates. I raised this question with friends in Ang Mo Kio, and they told me that HDB will never approve the construction of such partitions in the void decks. An hon. Member: Why not?

I am saying that some friends in Ang Mo Kio say this.

Sir,I would like to clarify this point. In fact, my kindergartens are utilising the void decks provided by the Housing and Development Board. We have two blocks of buildings with such partitions.

Sir, perhaps the information given by the friend of mine is wrong as the Member for Ang Mo Kio has clarified this. An hon. Member: Why listen to your friend?

Sir, may I be allowed to speak.

Yes, carry on.

I am trying to stress the point that besides the physical amenities, the HDB should also consider developing a principle which has sociological importance and this should be part and parcel of the HDB administration.

Sir, may I be permitted to say a few words on what the Member for Kampong Kembangan has just now pointed out?

Yes, Mr Ng.

He said that an overseas friend of his has indiscreetly described our Housing Board flats as pigeon coops. Whatever description that has been ascribed to our Housing Board flats. I think our people living in the Housing Board flats are happy and contented. So whatever foreigners might say or describe our Housing Board flats, I would not be disturbed. On the question of partitioning of void decks, unfortunately he says he has no Housing Board flats in his constituency -

That point has already been clarified, Mr Ng.

My point is that he must not listen to his friends. He must have it verified either from his MP colleagues or the proper authority, that is the Housing and Development Board. 7.15 p.m.

Sir, I must thank my senior colleague, the Member for Punggol. He has given me tremendous help by giving good advice. But may I just clarify? I deliberately described my friend's remarks as indiscreet when he said that our housing estates look like "pigeon coops."

Why bother!

No. I am just saying that my overseas friend has wrongly described our housing estates as pigeon coops. I am proud of the housing estates in Singapore. I just want to clarify that point, Sir.

Sir, perhaps I can answer the Member for Kampong Kembangan. The answer is yes. The HDB has a research unit. The HDB has done many sociological surveys and, in fact, the results are being implemented on a day-to-day basis, and the very fact that he sees the difference between old estates and the new ones such as Marine Parade, and that he himself has noticed the flexibility of the HDB in improving on the newer estates, must indicate to him that the HDB is fully aware of the problem. To satisfy him, we actually have a consultant professor from Hawaii who is helping us to do this survey now and then.

Sir, I have touched on only one point, i.e, the hawkers problem, while many other Members have touched on various problems. But from the reply given by the Senior Minister of State, we know that the HDB faces many problems and we also know that the Chief Executive Officer of the HDB is now the Chairman of JTC. One deputy Chief Executive Officer has just been appointed to run the show. My question is actually to ask the Senior Minister of State to give an assurance to the House that the HDB would find ways to strengthen its organisation. So far as I can see, many problems need deeper discussion. If views can be obtained from grass-roots level, for instance. representatives of CCC or the hawkers' association or other organisations, maybe the HDB will have to make radical changes to cope with the important needs in future. We used to hear the Senior Minister of State replying, "Well, we will look into it." Then what happens next year? This same problem will be brought up again and he will give the same reply, "Well, we will look into it." I do not think that is a good reply as such. I hope the Senior Minister of State will give us a positive answer on this.

Sir, each passing year must find different problems. In fact, I have not failed in that when I did say last year that I would look into a problem, I think those MPs who had brought up problems to me then can testify that these problems have been looked into. But one must bear in mind that the HDB is a big organisation, and like any big organisation, it has problems. I for one do not say that the HDB has no problems at all. As far as the Ministry is concerned, the HDB is a big statutory board under the Ministry of National Development. It suffices for me to say that the Ministry is paying a lot of attention in trying to strengthen the administration of the HDB. In fact, by personal example, since I have taken the trouble to chair both the Allocation Committee and the Shops Committee as far as tender is concerned, must clearly reflect a sincere attempt by the Ministry to try and do something to improve and strengthen its administration.

I wish you success.

I can only assure the House that whatever efforts that we have put in will come up to your high expectation but. I think like any big organisation, problems are bound to arise. I can only say that when they do arise, we will try our best to solve them.

Sir, I beg to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head O be reduced by $10 in respect of item (b) of subhead AAA 3020. Sir, since the Preservation of Monuments Board was set up in 1971, it has done commendable work in relation to the objects of the Board in view of the constraints, especially financial constraints, which it faced. The Board has gazetted and placed under its protection more than a dozen buildings including places of worship, the Telok Ayer Market and the Thong Chai Medical Institution building. The Board has viewed the possibilities of placing under its protection other monuments including government and civic buildings, buildings of public resort and residential buildings. All these will serve to remind us of our cultural roots and of how our forebears lived and worked and worshipped and contributed towards what Singapore is today. However, there are a number of points that I would like to raise about the work of the Board. First, the objects of the Board as stated in the relevant legislation seem to focus the Board's interest on buildings and this has come to be reflected by the prominent position of architects on the Board. It is good that there should be architects and planners because in the process of renewal of the city such people are important in helping the preservation of the old amidst the re-building of the new. But I think the Board needs at least one person with a very strong historical orientation: a historian, because how we have come together is history. Then, because of the orientation of the Board to monuments, i.e, buildings, and perhaps because of the absence of a person on the Board strongly committed to history, the Board has yet to turn its attention to important locations and events, places and happenings not related to buildings, places and happenings that should be commemorated for their historical value. One illustration that comes to mind is that this year is the centenary of the planting of the first rubber tree in Singapore. The site is known. I think it is very close to the University of Singapore. And I think it is worthwhile memorialising the location as rubber has had so much historical and economic connotations for Singapore, recalling to mind people who have been brought from India to work in the plantations in the region and the assiduous industry of the Chinese workers, including women workers and entrepreneurs who have contributed to the development of our economy. Another point is that because of financial limitations the Board has not brought itself adequately to the general notice of the people. In other words, it has not been able to give enough attention to the third of the four objectives set out by its legislation, namely, to stimulate public interest and support. Institutions like the Science Centre, the National Library and the National Museum have an adequate capacity for public relations with schools and other institutions. It is not enough merely to have a list of buildings and monuments and to spend money to preserve these places. Thought has to be given to bringing such places constantly to the mind of the people especially our young people in a way that can repeatedly suggest to them how they are identified with one another and with Singapore.

Sir, the hon. Member for Katong has brought up two valid points. He suggested that something should be done to preserve the site in view of the centenary of rubber planting. I am glad to report that the Ministry has given in principle approval to the interested party and that a site will be set aside to preserve its historical value. As to his observation that there is a need for a historian on the Preservation of Monuments Board, I think his suggestion could be looked into. At the next round of appointments, this could be taken into consideration. Finally, as to his observation that insufficient efforts have been made to publicise and stimulate interest on the need to preserve buildings or locations of historical interest, I can merely say that the Board is aware of this need to stimulate public interest and, in fact, members of the Board have given talks to the public and participated in Radio and TV programmes. They have also given talks to selected bodies, such as the Tourist Promotion Board, the Housing and Development Board as well as the Urban Redevelopment Authority. But if this does not come up to the expectation of the Member, would he please bear in mind that the Board is an extremely small one and that it has only a secretary and one or two clerical staff. Most of the members on the Board are volunteers. So one should not expect too much from members of the Board. But I would convey his observation and comments to the Board accordingly.

Sir, I am very gratified that the Senior Minister of State will convey my sentiments to the Board. I think the matter is of great importance that more and more people are brought to the realisation, as I have said, of their past. And it is not just a question of a small number of people working on the Board. If it is necessary, greater support has to be given to the Board so that when the Minister of State conveys my sentiments to the Board I hope he conveys a lot more money also to the Board.

Sir, as far as money is concerned. he is aware that that comes under the Ministry of Finance. To satisfy him that I am sincere in conveying his sentiments to the Monuments Board, I am actually having lunch with the Chairman of the Preservation of Monuments Board as well as the Chairman of the Tourist Promotion Board to discuss what can be done to improve or to stimulate this interest on the need to preserve some historical sites or buildings.

I take the point, Sir. And I also take the point of his reference to the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board. This is the whole point. It is not to the tourists that we want to give an impression of what Singapore is. It is our people that we want to give the impression to, of what Singapore is and how they are related to Singapore. If the Minister does not wish to reply, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, Sir.

Dr Tan, do you wish to reply?

No. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 7.30 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head O be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead AAA 3020*. (* The same amendment also stood in the name of Dr Ong Leong Boon.) The provision of $68 million appropriated for the development and construction of more housing units as well as to provide better and more adequate amenities for our people is a very large sum of money. No doubt, the HDB has attained many fine achievements over the past ten-odd years. At present, over 50% of our population are living in HDB flats. Such achievements are indeed praiseworthy. Nevertheless, there are still shortcomings in the administration of the HDB. I would like to raise the following points and complaints with the Minister concerned. Firstly, as regards application for a change of flats, the HDB officers are carrying out a contradictory policy. Take, for example, in my constituency, a couple with two children, who are living in a one-room unit. They now want to change to a two-room unit because their children have grown up. But their application has been rejected on the ground that there are too few members in their family. However, on the other hand, our Government is encouraging small families to apply for bigger flats with more rooms. Is this not a contradictory measure? I think so, because a married couple is eligible to apply for a 5-room flat. Such instance shows that some of the civil servants do not have a clear idea about Government policy. Such an erroneous way of doing things should be put right immediately. Secondly, the increasingly higher bids for HDB shop units have resulted in soaring commodity prices. In some estates, for instance, the bid for a grocery shop unit was over $2,000, a textile retail shop unit over $3,000, and a coffee cum eating house shop unit over $7,000. If things go on like this, I am afraid that there will be another round of inflation. Be it grocery or coffee eating house shop, higher bids mean increased cost for them and they will certainly pass the Increased cost on to the consumers by raising the selling prices of their goods. The end result is an increased burden on the consumers. I would like, therefore, to suggest again to the Minister concerned that in the allocation of shop units, the HDB should fix the rentals for them and should there be more than one applicant for the same unit, allocation should be decided by ballot. This is not only a fair and sensible method but also a way to maintain rentals at reasonable levels. With reasonable rentals, the goods in these shops can be sold at lower prices and the general public will benefit immensely; so will the livelihood of our people and the economic development of the country. In this way, Singapore will be spared the anguish of another inflation. I think this suggestion is not something new. It is a system which is being practised in our country. The allocation of HDB flats and hawker stalls is all carried out by ballot to the satisfaction of all. As far as I know, shops with high rentals cannot survive for long. Many of them have closed down because they were operating at a loss, Many of them are in arrears of large sums of rentals. As a result, the HDB has to resort to legal action to recover the payments. This state of affairs shows clearly the undesirable consequences of the system of unrestricted bidding. Another problem concerns the many HDB flats in certain areas which have not been taken up after allotment and have been left vacant for a long time. There are many such vacant flats in my constituency, for instance. Marsiling (a part of the Woodlands New Town), and I believe the same is true of other housing estates. Why? We have almost 100,000 applicants on the waiting lists for HDB flats and, at the same time, the HDB has so many flats unoccupied. Is this not very strange? This also represents a loss of revenue to the Government. There is one more problem I wish to bring up about my constituency, Marsiling. I wish to know how many units of flats and shop-houses will be built in the constituency under the HDB housing programme for this year, and whether any provision has been made in future programmes for the construction of a library and community centres in the constituency, as these are two essential social amenities in such a big New Town which, when fully developed, will be even bigger than the present Toa Payoh satellite town.

Dr Ong Leong Boon is not here.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member has always complained that the HDB has not helped to alleviate the plight of the large families living in one- or two-room flats. However, in the past, overcrowding was accepted as one of the reasons for transfer to a larger flat. But I think he is aware of the new policy where the HDB will now register all applications for transfer provided the two-year period of qualification has been complied with, and this is not restricted by the number of persons in the family. His second query is on the balloting of HDB shops. I have spent a lot of time just now explaining to hon. Members the rationale behind the tendering system of HDB shops. It merely suffices me to mention to him now that the system has proved to be working satisfactorily and that there is no necessity at this stage to change this system. But to satisfy him we can monitor the situation and, if at a much later stage a better system is required, we will look into it. Finally, regarding his question of how many dwelling units and shop houses will be constructed at the Woodlands New Town, the answer is that 5,231 dwelling units and 65 shops will be constructed at the Woodlands New Town. Another 153 dwelling units and 59 shops are under construction. Ultimately Woodlands New Town will have a projected total number of 55,000 dwelling units. Sites have been kept aside for the building of a library and a community centre in Woodlands New Town.

Sir, a supplementary question. I would like to know whether the Minister concerned is aware that when a tender received is too low for a shophouse, the HDB authority has always reserved its right to call for a re-tender in order to get higher bids. Is this done intentionally to cater for the higher bidders?

Sir, I have indicated just now that it is based on the tender system. But as he knows, one of the requirements is that for each call of tenders there is a minimum rental. In other words, before anyone can tender for a particular shop the HDB tells him that there is a minimum rental of say. $500. He must be a bad businessman who expects to get a shop by tendering at $450, when the stipulated minimum is $500 rental. So where there is no demand, or when there is only one tender below the stipulated minimum of $500, then it is up to the Shop Committee to decide whether to re-tender it or to let it go. But chances are that there will be a second tender to see whether we could attract a higher tender price.

So the intention is to get a higher bidder! Sir, although the Senior Minister of State concerned has not given me a satisfactory answer on this matter, I still beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head O be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead BAA 4002.* (* The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr J. F. Conceicao.) Sir, at this late hour I shall ask only one simple question. What is the National Economic Service Training Scheme about, for which a sum of $300,000 has been provided?

Mr Conceicao is not here. 7.45 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Marine Parade wants to know what is the National Economic Service Training Scheme all about. The National Economic Service Training Scheme is designed primarily to provide apprenticeships and artisan training to school leavers between the ages of 14 and 18. The Scheme started in April 1 975 and is operated jointly by the Public Works Department and the Industrial Training Board. Under the Scheme school leavers are given two years' training in the various construction trades and are taught various skills. For instance, bar bending, carpentry, masonry and painting, are some of the construction trades which are being learnt by the trainees. Moreover, trainees are also given the opportunity to learn different skills on electrical workshop practice, mechanical workshop practice, traffic survey, land surveying, road works, horticulture and landscaping. The Scheme is divided into two categories. The first category allows the trainees to do on-the-job training with contractors who undertake Public Works Department projects at various worksites. This practical training is limited to four days a week during the first year. The trainees spend the other one and a half days in the week at Punggol Vocational Institute for theoretical training. During the second year, the trainees spend five and a half days a week with the contractors. The other category allows the trainees to spend full-time learning various skills in PWD branches. Trainees receive an allowance of $100 per month during the first year and $130 per month during the second year. Since the Scheme started in 1975, three batches of trainees have been recruited. The total intake for the three batches is 207. So far, 25 of them have terminated their training. Another batch of about 90 trainees will be selected for training in April 1977.

Sir, are the trainees bonded by the Government after the period of training?

Sir, they are not bonded by the Government. Usually after the training they will stick to their jobs either working for the contractors or working for statutory boards or Government departments.

Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(In Mandarin): Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head O be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead DEA 2040. Sir, this provision is for the 10th Council Meeting of the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Centre. This Council has held nine meetings, and this is for the 10th meeting. I would like the Minister to tell us since the Council has held so many meetings whether any concrete results have been achieved? Has our Government concluded any fishing agreements with other Southeast Asian countries? Although Singapore is an island State, our yield in fishing is not sufficient. According to statistics, our yield amounts to only about one-quarter of our total consumption. In other words, 75% of our consumption of fish have to be imported from abroad. Therefore, the Primary Production Department had indicated at one time that it would go all out to develop deep-sea fishing so as to enable our fishermen or merchants to invest or to participate in offshore fishing in order to increase our yields in fishing. However. I regret to say that, according to the Auditor-General's Report for 1975-76, the Fishery Training Centre at Changi set up jointly by the Singapore Government and the United Nations Development Programme in 1969, had closed down on the 21st June, 1976, after a lapse of a few years. Out of 99 trainees, only eight took employment on board fishing vessels. The others took up other jobs. I would like to ask the Minister whether our Government's attitude towards deep-sea fishing is to continue to develop this industry or whether it will discontinue its policy on deep-sea fishing. I would like the Minister to explain to this House the questions that I have raised.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to say a few words on this subject. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development to enlighten this House as to the purpose of this 10th Council Meeting of the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Centre and also what benefits do we derive as a result of attending this 10th Council Meeting. Secondly, Sir, I had in this House suggested that perhaps we can look towards the ASEAN region with a view to establishing bilateral or multi-lateral cooperation with regard to fishing in ASEAN waters. I would be grateful, Sir, if the Senior Minister of State could enlighten this House as to whether any approach has been made in this respect.

Sir, the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Centre (SEAFDC) is a regional organisation established in December 1967 under the auspices of the Ministerial Conference for Economic Development of Southeast Asia. The agreement establishing the Centre was signed by the Governments of Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Singapore which are member countries of SEAFDC, The Centre's objective is to promote fisheries development in Southeast Asia through mutual cooperation among the member governments and through collaboration with international organisations and other governments. To meet this objective, the Centre has established three departments, namely, the Fisheries Training Department in Thailand, the Aquaculture Department in the Philippines and the Marine Fisheries Research Department which is located at Changi in Singapore. A major research and development programme, improved harvest, technology of fish and fishery products was undertaken by the Marine Fisheries Research Department with the cooperation of the Japanese government. This programme is of immediate benefit to us as we are largely dependent on imported fish for consumption. Singapore also participates in the activities of the other two departments located in the Philippines and Thailand through exchange of research data and training. The Member for Jurong wants to know why the Fishery Training Centre at Changi was closed down. The answer is quite simple. It is because in Singapore we still do not have the deep-sea fishing industry. So the trainees after graduation could hardly find employment in the fishing vessels. Of course, we encourage deep-sea fishing. This is Government's policy. But the initiative must come from the private sector. We will give every encouragement and assistance if the private sector is prepared to go into deep-sea fishing. Sir, the Member for Punggol asked whether it is possible to have a joint venture on deep-sea fishing between the ASEAN countries. As Members are aware, we have several economic cooperation ventures with the ASEAN countries underway and perhaps the Government would explore the possibility of having deep-sea fishing ventures with the other ASEAN countries in the near future.

Sir, on a point of clarification. Just now the Parliamentary Secretary replied that very few of the graduands from the Fishery Training Centre could find employment in the deep-sea fishing industry. For the information of the House, at Kangkar in my Constituency, there is one type of fishing industry going on there. That is otter trawling which involves fishing activities around the area of Horsburgh Lighthouse. We have got about 100 such boats and I do not see that job opportunities in this respect can be found wanting.

Sir, in an oral answer. I have already given the reasons for the closure of the Fishery Training Centre. In fact, there was also a question on otter trawling submitted by the Member for Punggol. The answer is simple. The Fishery Training Centre was closed down, as explained by my Parliamentary Secretary, because there was no response from people or from the younger generation who wish to take up fishing as a career, In fact, if I remember correctly. I quoted statistics to show that out of so many graduates only four or seven (I cannot remember the exact number) finally got a fishing job. That is a very simple answer. Moreover. the officers of the Primary Production Department are finding it difficult to interest people to take up this particular course. I think it is because of economic factors that the Centre was closed.

Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order. Moment of Interruption. Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1st March, 1978 sit again tomorrow.

So be it.

Resolved, " That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Dr Tan Eng Liang.] Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes past Eight o'clock p.m.