SINGAPORE IMPROVEMENT TRUST IN RELATION TO HOUSING POLICY

5.20 p.m.

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, I refer to my question tabled at this sitting for a written answer this morning and I have since received the answer from the Minister. My question reads:

"To ask the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing to state the number of properties allocated by the Singapore Improvement Trust during the period 1st January to 30th June, 1958, excluding those allocated to fire victims and persons served with demolition orders and shop houses, showing the names and the number of points awarded in respect of each of the successful applicants together with the house numbers (addresses) of the premises allocated to each of the applicants." And this is the answer I received this morning:

"I am informed by the Trust that 1,144 dwelling units and 66 business premises were allocated during the period 1st January, 1958, to 30th June, 1958. Of these, 543 units were allocated to applicants from the housing register, while the balance of 671 units were allocations to rehousing eases (including fire victims), families from clearance areas, transferees, etc.

With regard to the request for names and points awarded, I would refer the Member for Queenstown to my written answer to his previous question on the same subject on the 17th July, 1957; also to my oral answer to his question on public inspection of the applications register. I have nothing to add to these answers."

Sir, the answer refers to a similar question of mine dated 17th July, 1957 and this is the answer I got from the Minister at that time:

"I am informed by the Singapore Improvement Trust that the Trust has let no new premises during the period January/June, 1957, and that any lettings during this period have been to fill casual vacancies or in connection with transfers only.

The Trust considers it highly undesirable to divulge information as to the names of applicants who have been successful in obtaining accommodation in vacated premises or the names of tenants who have been transferred to other premises."

Sir, the reply now means that it is the same as what I got last year - "highly undesirable". Why should it be "highly undesirable"? Why should the public not know about the allocation of houses by the S.I.T. and the points awarded to applicants? The question is this, Sir: the S.I.T. works in secret. If the Minister is to say that it is highly undesirable for applicants' names to be divulged to the public, I may agree but after allocation when everybody knows that Mr So and so has got a house, then why should it be undesirable to divulge the name of that successful applicant? I cannot see why? Why should it be made a secret? In market or in some other allocations, I am quite sure that immediately after an allocation is made, the names of the successful applicants are made public but in this case where the S.I.T. is `concerned, everything is kept very secret. Personally I am of the opinion that there must be some fishy business about this question of allocation. The Member for Pasir Panjang (Mr Wong Foo Nam) at one time accused the S.I.T. of corruption. I think in this instance there is some sort of corruption or preference is given to friends in the matter of allocation. If not, why then should this question be treated as top secret? The answer is that there must be some sort of underhand work being carried on by some officers of the S.I.T.: I would not say that everyone of them is involved in this but some officers - be they junior or senior officers. I do not see any harm in making known the names of the successful applicants and the number of points that they are awarded. There is quite a lot of dissatisfaction amongst the applicants on this question of the points system of allocation and also the fact that some of them with stronger cases have not been given accommodation whereas others with weaker cases or cases of a similar nature have been successful. These are the complaints. But according to the Annual Report of the S.I.T., there is no complaint by the public about the points system. I refer to page 19 of the Annual Report for 1957 of the S.I.T.:

"The volume of correspondence in connection with housing applications has reached a total of approximately 100 letters per day. When analysed the majority of these letters complain of the shortage of premises available for allocation, not the points system by which the premises are allocated."

Now, Sir, if the question of allocation is made public, I am sure that the S.I.T. will not receive 100 letters per day. The second part of that statement says that there are no complaints about the points system. It is just utter nonsense. How can the public complain about the points system when they are not told about the actual points awarded? How can they know about the points system and how can they complain about it when they do not know about it? It is not a question of shortage of premises as the S.I.T. has been building thousands of houses but it is a question of houses not being allotted. The S.I.T. awards a number of points to an applicant. As soon as he applies for a house, he is given a receipt and on that receipt is quoted the supposed number of points awarded to him but is that figure which is awarded on the receipt itself correct? The correct points awarded to applicants are kept secret and not known to the applicants or to anybody. That figure on the receipt is just a vague figure. I will read what the Annual Report says about this points system. I refer to page 20 of the Report:

'The applicant is informed of the points awarded at the time of registration and of the general factors which are taken into account in the assessment of points. The fixed or "confirmed value" points are assessed after the investigation of the case and are not disclosed.'

Sir, after the investigation of a case, the confirmed or fixed points are not disclosed to the applicant. Now, in a statement, the S.I.T. says that there is no complaint about the points system. If the actual or confirmed or fixed points awarded to an applicant are not disclosed to him, how can he know how many points he has been awarded? The figure on the receipt serves no useful purpose in any way either to the applicant or to anybody. Why then have the figure on the receipt? In the old days, there was no figure of points awarded shown on the receipts. Lately, the S.I.T. has adopted a new policy by stating the number of points awarded on the receipts but that that figure is not the "confirmed" or fixed value points. Everything is kept top secret in the files of the S.I.T. and only known to members of the Estate Committee of the S.I.T. Even a trustee of the S.I.T. does not know the number of points awarded. Why should it be worked on such lines, that it is only the members of the Estate Committee of the S.I.T. who are told of the actual number of points awarded to applicants?

Sir, if the allocation of houses by the S.I.T. is strictly based on the points system, then let the public know the points awarded and they should not be kept in suspense as to when they can expect to get houses. If the correct points are made known to the applicant, he knows his chances and he will not go round bothering Assemblymen and City Councillors. I have experienced many cases of people who come to me to ask me, "When can I get a house?" A receipt may show eight points but when I write to the S.I.T. they tell me that the eight points are not the actual or confirmed points awarded to the applicant: "We have within our files the confirmed or fixed points. That figure means nothing at all." So why show that figure on the receipt? By keeping this points system a secret, you cannot blame the public for harbouring a suspicion of corruption? How can you blame them? There are many cases in which I have experienced that an applicant with a lower point is given priority over an applicant with a higher point. There are many cases of such a nature, but the point that I am referring to is the face value of the receipt and not the confirmed points. So that causes dissatisfaction among the applicants. One applicant will say that another applicant has lesser points than he has; then why should he be allotted accommodation in preference to his application? This kind of thing will certainly cause suspicion and lead people to think that there is monkey business in the S.I.T.

I will draw the attention of the Minister to how applications for accommodation are dealt with by the S.I.T. An applicant approached me about one and a half years ago. He had about 7 to 8 points on the face value of his receipt. I wrote to the S.I.T. about his case. The reply which I got from them was that the applicant must wait until the completion of the Kallang fiats. He waited until early this year. Subsequently I wrote again to the S.I.T. telling them that the Kallang flats were nearing completion. They wrote back saying that there was no allocation yet. The applicant then came and told me that there was a house in Dorset Road which was vacant and he asked me to write again to the S.I.T. and draw their attention to this vacant house. So I wrote to them and mentioned that the applicant would prefer house to him, in view of the fact that he had 8 points? The S.I.T. replied saying that his application could not be considered for Dorset Road or Owen Road and that it could only be con sidered for the Kallang flats. When the applicant came to see me again, I told him that I could not help him any further. So he approached another source which I think the Minister knows very well.

Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat: I do not.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: As I was saying, he approached another source and, as a result, to the surprise of the Minister, he is now staying in that very same house in Dorset Road about which I wrote to the S.I.T.! And yet they said this person's application could only be considered for the Kallang fiats! But when he approached that other source, he got his house in Dorset Road! How did he manage it? I hope the Minister will tell me that.

Sir, the Government claims that it is a democratic Government and that it is going to have a Housing Authority very soon. How soon we do not know. We have been told by the Minister again and again that very soon a Housing Authority will replace the S.I.T. I was told that it would come in May. This is now July - two months- a nd there is still no sign of the tabling of a Bill to the effect that a Housing Authority will replace the S.I.T. I hope that the Minister in his reply will also inform us when this Housing Authority will come into being to replace this top-secret and iron curtain S.I.T.

If the S.I.T. work strictly to the points system, I am quite sure that they will be relieved of all complaints, irrespective of the shortage of accommodation. Members of the Assembly and City Councillors will similarly be relieved of these complaints, which come into their hands every day, about allocation of Trust accommodation. In fact, I would have tabled a motion deploring the policy of the S.I.T. on this issue, but because of the assurance given by the Minister that the Housing Authority will come into being soon to replace the S.I.T., I have only tabled a motion for the Adjournment. I do hope that when this Housing Authority is created there will not be any such policy as that no one should know how accommodation is allocated and how points are awarded. All these things should be made public.

My second point is about the complaints from the residents of Trust houses on Jalan Teck Whye Estate. I refer to the reply given to me by the Minister this morning on this point. I am very glad that of the four complaints enumerated he is going to look into complaints Nos. 2, 3 and 4, but not No. 1 which concerns excessive heat. If the Minister can look into three out of four complaints, why cannot he look into all four? You have said you can only look into three.

Mr Speaker: I do not think the Speaker has.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: I am so sorry, Sir; I was referring to the Minister and not to you. From the reply given by the Minister, Sir, it is evident that he agrees that the houses on Jalan Teck Whye Estate are really hot and that the heat is intolerable, because if he did not agree, he would not have said that, by putting asbestos ceilings on these houses, the temperature would be lowered by only two degrees. So he has committed himself by agreeing that they are hot. Therefore, the blame should fall on the S.I.T., or the planners in the S.I.T. That the houses are hot is not because of the cost or the rents of the houses, but it is because of the planning.

These complaints from S.I.T. residents about excessive heat are not the first of their kind. I was a resident of one post-war house myself and I too complained of excessive heat. Within my constituency, that is Queenstown, the residents of Redhill Estate also complain of excessive heat in their houses. Now, after receiving all these complaints of excessive heat, cannot the S.I.T. im prove on the conditions of living? It is not a question of the extra cost of raising the roof. The Minister said this morning that raising the roof would cost much more than putting on an asbestos ceiling. If at the time of construction of the houses the S.I.T. had taken into consideration complaints of excessive heat from other quarters, they could easily have improved on the construction of the houses and raised the roof for purposes of better ventilation and reduction of heat. Why did not the S.I.T. do this at the time of construction? The result is that, by providing cheap houses, the S.I.T. are forcing their tenants to suffer from the heat. I think it is the policy of the S.I.T. that if you want to live in comfort, thea you must go and five in a big bungalow; but if you want them to provide cheap houses, then you must live under conditions which they provide, that is, with a ceiling as low as eight feet. I went into one of these houses the other day, and at the back of the building, the height of the roof is only about 7 feet 6 inches. I ask the Minister if he can bear to live in a house with a roof only 7 feet 6 inches high, with a ceiling made of zinc or asbestos. The Minister is pointing to himself. I am sure he will come out with a statement that although he is a Minister he is staying in a little out-house from a bungalow. Mr Speaker, Sir, if a man can have a little out-house with a bungalow, I am quite sure that that out-house will be just as comfortable as the bungalow itself. It is not the same type of house as that built by the S.I.T., and if the owner of that bungalow cannot build a decent out-house, I doubt he would ever build that out-house. The Minister will say that he is residing in a little out-house, so he has experience of the discomforts of living in a little out-house. I challenge the Minister and any officers of the S.I.T. to come and stay in one of the houses built by the S.I.T., not for a day, but just from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.; and if they can bear the heat, then I say that the residents should be prepared to do so also. If they feel that they cannot, then it is their responsibility to look into this question of excessive heat.

Sir, these complaints came to the notice of the Acting Minister and the Assistant Minister on 17th May this year. They both took the trouble to arrange for a meeting with the residents of these houses and toured the area with officers of the S.I.T. They left their office work - for which they are paid - and went to that estate to see how the residents suffered. Until today no information has been given to the residents. What action have they taken? It is only when I tabled a question that I got a reply and knew what the Minister intends to do. It is because of that big protest meeting that has prompted the Minister to take action. Had it not been for that big protest meeting, and had it not been for my question, I doubt whether the residents would have been told what action the Minister intends to take or has taken. Sir, is it right to keep them in suspense? At the protest meeting the residents went so far as to move a motion to boycott the District Council elections. It was only through my persuasion that the motion to boycott the elections was dropped. So I hope that whenever the Minister or anybody on the Government side receives any complaints, he should tell the complainants of what action he has taken or intends to take.

5.42 p.m.

Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat: When I read the matter which was to be raised as a motion for the Adjournment, I thought the Member for Queenstown was going to talk on the Government's housing policy in relation to the Singapore Improvement Trust. Unfortunately, Sir, in his long diatribe I could not find anywhere in his speech where he has related in any way at all the question of Govern ment's housing policy to the S.I.T. He spent much of his time in criticising the S.I.T. in relation to the administration of the Trust itself.

I should like to make the position clear to the Member for Oueenstown. The Trust, Sir, is a statutory body and its authority and functions and the extent to which it is subject to the control of Government are prescribed in the Ordinance creating that body.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: That is no reply.

Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat: This is one of the reasons why Government intends to create a Housing Authority vested with full powers to carry out Government's housing policy, and since the Member for Oueenstown has asked me about this Housing Authority, I can say definitely now, Sir, that Bills on the Housing Authority and the Planning Department of the S.I.T. will be ready for First Reading at the next sitting of this As sembly. However, it must be emphasised that while I have certain responsibilities and powers, the day-to-day administration of the Trust, and eventually the Housing Authority, must remain the responsibility of the members of the Board. The purpose of creating statutory bodies is to provide special services and to entrust or delegate to them certain functions and duties within the broad lines of policy laid down by Government which they are expected to carry out in a manner they consider best and which, with their attention to detail and administrative routine, they can more efficiently carry out. It is therefore, Sir, not conducive to good administration for Government or the Minister himself to interfere with the execution by the Board of their ordinary functions and their day-to-day administration.

With regard to the Bukit Panjang Estate, I replied this morning to the Member for Queenstown that at least three of the complaints put forward by the residents of Bukit Panjang Estate are being attended to. I can tell the hon. Member this, Sir - it was not as a result of the protest meeting, but it was as a direct result of the visits made by the Acting Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing and the Assistant Minister, together with the Chairman of the Singapore Improvement Trust. In other words, the protest meeting which took place at Bukit Panjang about a fortnight ago had nothing at all to do with the repairs and alterations which are now being carried out by the S.I.T.

There was of course the question of heat. Here again, Sir, I do not know whether the Member for Queenstown is aware about it, but there are in Singapore today probably over 200 houses built by the P.W.D. for labourers and also for the other ranks of the police force, and there are some also at the Guillemard Road side of the Kallang Airport, which have no ceilings: neither the P.W.D. nor the S.I.T. have received any complaints from the residents of these houses.

Coming to the question of allocation. I would like to refer the Member for Queenstown to a report of he Housing Management Sub-Committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee published by H.M. Stationery Office. London, page 8, paragraph 23. Now that reads:

"We recommend that whatever method of selection is used, local authorities should generally make known the principles on which tenants are selected and the general practice of which account is taken on individual applications. The primary importance of this, in present circumstances especially, is self-evident. The precise weight given to the particuar factors should not necessarily be disclosed. Moreover, we doubt whether it is wise to make any general practice o informing applicants exactly what their position on the waiting list is at the particular date, as it is to be expected that the circumstances of applicants, and therefore their position in relation to one another on the list, will be constantly changing."

Sir, this is the present policy of the Trust and it is based broadly on these conclusions. The applicant is informed of the points awarded at the time of the registration and of the general practice which takes into account the assessment of points. The fixed or confirmed value of points is assessed after investigation of the case and is not disclosed. The allocation list of applicants and their points are circulated for the approval of the Estates Committee and are confidential to members of the Board. This provides some safeguard against injustice to other tenants not selected.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: On a point of information, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Minister will give way.

Inche Abdul Hamid resumed his seat.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: If the assessment of the confirmed points is not to be disclosed, what is the purpose of giving the number of points on the receipt of the application?

Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat: I think the points given on the receipt of the application is before investigation and not after investigation. The actual confirmed points are given after investigation and, in some cases, it may not be recorded on the receipt.

Then, Sir, there was one point about corruption. Of course, this is a never-ending accusation which comes up whenever the question of the Trust crops up, but I must thank the Member for Queenstown for having brought to my notice this question of allocation of the house in Dorset Road. I hope, Sir, that the hon. Member would co-operate with me in giving all the necessary information and all the correspondence with the S.I.T. so that I could look further into the case and in all probability hand it over to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: On a point of information, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Minister will give way. He has only one and a half minutes left.

Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat: Finally, Sir, I must point out that, in reply to an earlier question of the Member for Queenstown, I did assure him that if he had any suggestions for the improvement of the allocation system, both I and the S.I.T. would give them consideration. I have yet to receive any suggestions from the hon. Member.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved.

That this Assembly do now adjourn.

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven minutes to Six o'clock p.m. to 13th August, 1958.