HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

12.02 p.m.

The Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's consent to proceed with this Bill and move, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Sir, in the White Paper on the Report of the Committee on Local Government (No. Cmd. 30 of 1956), Government indicated its agreement that the Singapore Improvement Trust should cease to exist and that the responsibility for public housing and the comprehensive development and redevelopment for a variety of purposes of areas of land designated by Government should be laid on a Singapore Development Board appointed by Government.

The lines on which the operations of the Board should be financed and thereby controlled by Government was indicated in a further White Paper, that on Housing Subsidy Policy, No. Cmd. 6 of 1957. I propose in this speech merely to refer to the intention behind the provisions of this Bill without reference to particular clauses.

The Board is designed to be a small one of five members who would not be representatives of other bodies or authorities, and who would be paid. Membership of the Legislative Assembly is made a disqualification as is service with the Government or a local authority within one year before the date of appointment. The purpose of these measures is to secure an independent Board which could he responsible only to Government and would carry out public policy as laid down by Government. For this purpose also, the Board is required to submit for approval all its proposals and also to fix rents for housing accommodation only with the approval of the Minister.

The Minister is further empowered to give the Board directions of a general nature not inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill.

Other usual methods of control are also prescribed in the Bill, including the requirement for the Board to submit an annual budget for approval by the Minister, to seek the Governor in Council's approval for loans and the terms for repayment of such loans, and to submit accounts for audit by an Auditor nominated by the Minister.

Subject to these controls, it is intended that the Board should be free to run its own affairs and to carry out its projects in the manner it thinks best. The Board will be allowed to pursue its own operational policy and all questions regarding such policy should be dealt with through its own public relations organisation. The allocation of housing should not be a political issue. The Board will have control of its own financial affairs, subject to the overall financial approval and the grant of an annual Government housing subsidy, and it would be run on business like lines, balancing its own income and expenditure within the framework of an agreed subsidy policy.

It is intended that the Board should be made the competent planning authority in new town areas or in areas of comprehensive development so that it would not be subject to planning control by the local authority, but it would be required to observe the provisions of the Master Plan. Local authority by-laws are also made inapplicable to the Board. It will be necessary, however, for the Board, as at present, to retain proper liaison, consultation and agreement with other bodies in order to enable them to gear their activities accordingly.

The present system will be continued whereby Government acquires compulsorily under the Land Acquisition Ordinance any land required for its projects, which it has power to but cannot buy by private treaty. The Board is also given power, with the approval of the Minister, to sell, lease, surrender, mortgage, exchange or otherwise deal with its land.

The Board will appoint a paid Chief Executive Officer in charge of various departments (administrative, architectural, engineering, housing valuation and finance). The running of the Board could be left, by delegation of authority from the Board, to the Chief Executive Officer and other executive officials wherever possible.

The rent policy of the Board will be dictated by that laid down in the Government White Paper on Housing Subsidies. The Authority would calculate economic rent taking into account, among other matters, the cost of land, preparation of site, legal fees, administrative charges and fees, rates and taxes, loan charges, repairs and maintenance. Government would decide, as a matter of policy, what portion of income could be appropriated for rent in the various income groups and the level of rents which should be charged for various types of accommodation in respect of each block of houses or scheme, having regard to the type of person likely to occupy them. Government would then pay annually, by vote in the Estimates, the difference between the economic rents and the rents derivable from the implementation of Government policy, thus enabling the Board to balance its housing account annually and retaining in the hands of the Assembly power to control rents and vary the rate of subsidisation of housing.

In view of the control of rents exercised by Government under the above policy, it is considered unnecessary that the 2,000 pre-war properties should be subject any further to the protection of the Control of Rent Ordinance. With regard to any suggestion of discrimination between the Trust and other private landlords, it should be noted that the Trust has standards of supervision and maintenance which private landlords do not attempt to provide.

The financial procedure of the Board is determined also by the statement of policy set out in the White Paper on Housing Subsidies.

The Government would supply funds at current rates of interest and periods of repayment in each case, i.e. 60 years for permanent buildings, less, perhaps 20 years, for others. As at present, funds would be advanced in instalments as required on the basis of programmes approved by the Assembly. The arrangements would be purely commercial and in accordance with accepted practice in such matters.

It would be necessary, in order that information on the financial position of the Trust may be easily ascertainable, for the Trust to keep capital expenditure accounts and a housing income and expenditure account which should be in balance each year, with the annual housing subsidy providing the balancing factor.

I have stated the intentions of Government at some length because it is necessary to explain why the Bill has been drawn up in its present form. It is possible that hon. Members may not all agree that these are quite the best provisions for the organisation of the Housing and Development Board, and in matters of detail, the Government will be prepared to listen to any suggestions hon. Members may wish to bring forward. Indeed, I have myself already received certain suggestions for amendment which I have accepted and included in a notice of amendment. It is Government's intention that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee for examination.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: I think this is an appropriate time to suspend?

Hon. Members indicated assent.

Mr Speaker: The Assembly is suspended. I will take the Chair again at half-past two p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.11 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

2.31 p.m.

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill to constitute a Housing and Development Board, and the following Bill to provide for the planning and improvement of Singapore, put an end to a very anomalous position whereby a public body - the Singapore Improvement Trust - created for the purpose of building new streets, providing backlanes and sewers and tearing down slums has taken unto itself the burden of building houses for the public of Singapore, as a result of which it has found itself to be the biggest house-owner in the whole island.

It was of course not by design but by necessity that such a situation has developed; our population has doubled itself in less than 20 years and houses have been so short that when the S.I.T. stepped out of the purpose for which it was created and started building blocks of flats at Tiong Bahru, nobody objected, and the situation has been allowed to slide until the present moment when it is being put on a regular basis.

These two Bills will separate the duties of the S.I.T. by creating a Housing and Development Board, and a planning department. The duties of the Board are set out in clause 12 of the Bill, which clause reads:

"Subject as hereinafter provided, it shall be the function and duty of the Board -

(a) to prepare and execute proposals, plans and projects for -

(i) the erection, conversion, improvement and extension of housing or other accommodation;

(ii) the clearance and redevelopment of slum areas;

(iii) the development or redevelopment of areas designated by the Minister;

(iv) the development of rural or agricultural areas approved by the Minister for the resettlement of persons displaced by operations of the Board;

(b) to manage all lands, houses and buildings or other property vested in or belonging to the Board;

(c) to carry out all investigations and surveys necessary for the performance of the functions and duties of the Board;

(d) to do all such other matters and things as are necessary for the exercise or performance of all or any of the functions and duties of the Board."

I trust that by the separation of these duties the Board will be able to concentrate on producing not only more houses, but more houses for the same amount of money which has been spent in the past, and that the programme will not break down as it had done during the past two years.

While we see improvement in the urban areas from the large number of flats that have been erected, there is much room for development of the urban districts, which has hardly begun. There is provision in the Master Plan for satellite towns at Serangoon, Woodlands and Bulim, but these satellite towns will take a long, long time to build and put into operation, and it will cost such a tremendous amount of money which we cannot see how Government is going to find in the foreseeable future.

There are now heavy commitments due to the education and social services. I would recommend to the Board, instead of trying to build houses in these areas, to acquire the land where these towns are situated, cut up the land into small lots after providing roads, services and sewers, and sell them to the public, so that this land can either be developed by private investors or the houses can be built by the purchasers of the land according to their needs. It is an impossible task for Government to try to put up three satellite towns - or even one or two satellite towns - as well as develop the houses planned in the City area.

I think a much more urgent and vital duty the Board can now perform is to try to control and encourage the development of areas which are now already heavily settled, like villages in various parts of Singapore. These areas can now be developed at a minimum expense and can be done so rapidly that the population can benefit by such development. Actually, in some areas the position has entirely got out of hand. In some of these villages, so many houses have been erected without submission of plans, or so many houses have been extended, one towards the other, that there is now no room at all for any further planning or development. The houses touch one another. There is no possibility of building roads without tearing apart some of these houses; and there is also a danger of fire because there are no fire-lanes. There is no sanitation whatever; there are no drains and all the sewage and water runs downhill.

But there are other villages, quite a big number of them, where there is still land, sufficient space in between the houses for development to be undertaken by the Housing Trust - by the acquisition of these hundreds of acres of land straightaway and having a proper layout made so that the roads and services can be provided - the plots can be sold to the owners of houses who are already on that land. I have gone through quite a number of villages. I have spoken to the people and they say they are very anxious to be able to possess the land on which they live, and I know very well that they can pay, not enormous sums because it will not be necessary. Landlords, many landlords, are only too anxious to get rid of this land at very reasonable prices because they know that at the present moment, in this present era, they can never obtain vacant possession. Here, then, is a chance to meet the desperate housing shortage in a very short time, and I would sincerely urge the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing to consider this point of view

The Board will find it increasingly difficult to get the funds which the S.I.T. has obtained throughout the past years to build multi-storeyed flats, but I think this problem can partially be solved by a new approach. This morning, the Hon, the Minister said that he is considering the removal of protection under the Control of Rent Ordinance for prewar built flats, flats built by the S.I.T., such as the 2,500 flats in the Tiong Bahru area. I know this is going to create quite a furore and that I am stepping on a hornets' nest, but I think there is justification for this point of view. As we know, much of the Tiong Bahru area is now not populated by the people for whom the S.I.T. was created and for whom these houses were intended. Through good fortune and hard work, many of the people who lived there pre-war are now either businessmen or in well-established positions. Again, during the Occupation, many of the original tenants sold out and these flats are now occupied by merchants and, shall I say, fairly well-to-do people. And this anyone can see by taking a drive through the crowded streets at night when he can see plush cars, very valuable cars, jammed all along the footway. Sir, I would make a suggestion - instead of trying to in-crease the rent of these flats, would it not be better to sell these 2,500 flats to some of the tenants who can afford to buy them? For instance, if we were to value a flat at $12,000, and that is a modest figure today because private estates are now offering flats built in the town for $24,000 each and it will only cost less than one-quarter of the proposed flats for the doctors at Kandang Kerbau - when you compare with these figures, it is very reasonable to charge $12,000 - $12,000 times 2,500 flats means $30,000,000. There you have your problem of financing this housing solved for the next year. If Government is prepared to accept payment by instalments over four to five years, I am sure half of these flats would be sold in no time because they are well worth the value. And there you have a means of proceeding with housing, you will find the means to fight the housing shortage, by disposal of these flats.

One of the reasons the Hon. the Minister says why he had to take away these flats from the Control of Rent Ordinance is because Government has to pay quite a considerable sum for their administration and maintenance. Actually at the present day, no owner of a pre-war built house ever maintains the house as it costs him three times pre-war to repair it; you will never get him to do it. Under the circumstances, I think my suggestion is a very reasonable one. I am suggesting that the housing authority, instead of being a landlord alone, which it is today, should also assume the responsibility of selling flats and undertaking the subdivision of land for sale in rural areas to the people who live in the villages.

Sir, with these few remarks which I hope will be helpful to the Housing and Development Board in carrying out its arduous duties for the improvement of Singapore, I heartily support this Bill.

2.45 p.m.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng (Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, the explanatory statement of this Bill begins by saying:

"The White Paper on the Report of the Committee on Local Government (No. Cmd. 30 of 1956) declared Government's policy that the Singapore Improvement Trust should cease to exist and that the responsibility for public housing and the comprehensive development and redevelopment, for a variety of purposes, should be laid on a Singapore Development Board appointed by the Government."

Sir, I think we can remember that when the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing tabled the White Paper, he met with the unanimous support of this House. It is high time not only for the Government to recognise that the S.I.T. should cease to operate, but also to bear in mind to learn a bitter lesson from the S.I.T. As the Member for Paya Lebar just mentioned, the S.I.T. flats in Tiong Bahru or somewhere else only benefit the middle class or upper class, who are not only car owners but also - and this is a well-known fact - find it the best place to keep their second wives. Sir, that is the S.I.T. policy and therefore it is high time for the Government really to learn a bitter lesson from it. They must admit that the S.I.T. has been negligent in the past of one responsibility as stated - Public housing and comprehensive development and redevelopment.

Sir, as I expect this Bill will be supported unanimously by this House, I wish to make suggestions to the Government to consider about land clearance which, as we have learnt, has become a really hard thing to overcome. The Government want to carry out the policy but find it very hard to remove the so-called squatters, who are actually attap-house dwellers. So why do the Government not think out a policy to select a big piece of land in their hands, say in Kranji, Lim Chu Kang, Chua Chu Kang or Ayer Gumeroh, where there is still plenty of land possessed by Government, places which I think Government will take a long time to think of developing? Why not make one such place as a settlement for attap-house dwellers, where they can find a place to build their own homes as they wish? Instead of this, they just issue notices to quit with what we believe to be adequate sums for compensation. And where do they go to? Where can they go to find another piece of land? The Government already find it hard to let attap-house dwellers settle on Government land. How about private landowners? They are also aware of the hardship to get rid of them for their further development.

So I sincerely wish the Government will seriously consider this point. It is wise to have Government land reserved for farmers and workers who intend to build their own attap huts. You can issue a Temporary Occupation Licence or anything else you like to let them have a roof of their own.

Sir, the Labour Coalition Government is a so-called Socialistic Government; please prove it to the people.

2.50 p.m.

Mr William Tan (Tiong Bahru): Mr Speaker, Sir, I personally welcome the introduction of this Bill and my opinion is that it is high time that the new Board should take over the functions of the Singapore Improvement Trust and make drastic changes in the running of this new set-up. Look at the record of the S.I.T. for the last few years. What have they done? What I know is that in the year 1955, the number of people on their list waiting for Trust accommodation was well below 6,000. Today, the list has increased to 14,500 people waiting for Trust accommodation.

It is no use to talk. What the people need is employment and a house where they can live. It is not a question of just sending in an application to the S.I.T. because back will come the reply that they are unable to comply with the request. They have adopted this as a common practice. On all letters they will put, 'There is no possibility in the foreseeable future of offering assistance', and the applicant has to wait so many years, maybe the next few years. That is the very common sentence used by the S.I.T. today.

The Minister said this morning, Sir, that the waiting list is due to the increase in population. Do you not think, Sir, that it is his duty to look or to probe into the workings of the S.I.T. instead of sitting inside his air-conditioned office?

Sir, another factor is that today you know very well the S.I.T. has spent the taxpayers' money, millions of them, but what have they erected? Multi-storeyed buildings. Visitors from overseas who come to Singapore look at our multi-storeyed buildings. Behind it is the spending of so many millions. If you were to give me so many millions, I could produce far better buildings. And besides that, look at the Upper Pickering Street multi-storeyed flats they are so proud of. Besides them they erected a row of garages to house the tuan besars, the "big shots", the bigwigs of the S.I.T. To prevent what? - so that their cars will not go rusty, or the rain will not fall, or the sun will not shine, on their cars. That is nonsense. I put my car outside, in the open. And the garage itself is an eyesore. I invite the hon. Members of this House to go to the Upper Pickering Street flats. Look at the garages. They are an eyesore. It is a disgrace to the S.I.T., and to the Government as well.

And another instance, Sir; only last month they removed four pillars in the garages behind the nine-storeyed flats along Upper Pickering Street, just to suit the convenience of the officers working in the S.I.T. because there is one-way traffic and they had to go through Hokkien Street along South Bridge Road and Upper Cross Street back to their homes in Tanglin, where they have big houses and palatial homes. Just to suit their convenience, they removed the pillars. Someone protested. They put the pillars back but eventually they removed them. Three times the pillars were removed and replaced. That cost the taxpayers money. I would remind the Minister to investigate how much money they have spent on removing the pillars and paving the ground behind the nine-storeyed building. It is a shame all right!

And the walls along the rows of nine-storeyed buildings, the Nos. 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 of Upper Pickering Street. The other day I saw the walls crumbling down and they were not made with cement but sand; and the S.I.T., I was told, spent thousands of dollars to patch up the walls. What happened to the walls? Why could not proper supervision be made of the erection of this building? Instead of cement for the walls, now we have sand and they crumble down!

Mr Speaker: Order. I think I must remind the hon. Member that he is addressing the Chair; the Chair is being intimidated!

Mr William Tan: The one thing I can say about the S.I.T, is the "super duper" methods they use by issuing notices to quit to the tenants of the S.I.T. flats in Singapore today. If they were to owe rent for one week, two weeks, they will receive quit notices, and on top of that they will be made to pay the bill within the 14-day period and also pay a sum of over $10 for stamp duty; a shop has to pay over $30. As you say, these people who live in S.I.T. houses are all moderately off or they are poor families. To make them pay $10 or $30 is really a hardship to these people. Some of these families are really living from hand to mouth and I do not agree -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): Point of explanation, Sir. We were just informed a moment ago by the Liberal-Socialist Member for Paya Lebar that the people who reside in S.I.T. houses, particularly in the Tiong Bahru area, have big cars and are wealthy persons. Now we are told by the Member for Tiong Bahru that they are living from hand to month. Sir, we must get these facts straight; two conflicting views coming from the same Party is a bit odd.

Mr William Tan: The People's Action Party want to play to the Gallery. They talk about big cars and small cars. My colleague just said there are rows of cars. If you go to any street in Singapore today, you will find rows of cars, whether big cars or small cars. I will defy him; I am willing to spend time, even though it is wasting time, to bring him along to any street of Tiong Bahru, and I can show to him any family where it is said that they own million-dollar cars. He should be ashamed of himself -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, may I say -

Mr Speaker: The Member may only speak if the Member speaking will give way.

Mr William Tan: I am not going to give way. He can have his say later.

As I said, they are very fond of issuing notices to quit and make the poor people pay more money on stamp duty. The thing is that the S.I.T. make periodic investigations, that is, regular inspections, into all households. These have been spied on. It is worse than the Kempetai; it is worse than the Gestapo, worse than the secret police. Why should they go and spy on the houses? Six o'clock in the morning, seven o'clock, eight o'clock and nine o'clock; they even go to the extent of going to the house at eleven o'clock in the night to check whether the families are staying there or not! They have a system of checking but to knock at the tenants' flats, to knock at the doors at eleven o'clock in the night - I am asking hon. Members of this House, is that not a shame? They are not thieves. If they have any evidence that these people are not the tenants, they can issue them a notice or ask them to clear off. But instead, they are spying on them every moment.

And I am coming back to the S.I.T. You know, I think all the hon. Members of this House are aware that the Upper Pickering Street flats have got the nickname of "suicide flats". When these flats were built, the S.I.T. or whoever run the office, refused to put up wire-netting, so much so that over a dozen people jumped to their death. All these dead have dependants. They have their suffering. And after over a dozen deaths, the S.I.T. decided to put up wire-netting. But before that, look at the centre block of the S.I.T. flats for the officers. Displayed on top of the buildings is all wire-netting. Why? Because the tuan besars are staying there, they have wire-netting. That means they consider Asian lives very cheap. The tuan besars living in the flats on top of these offices are more worthy. Is it because their lives are more valuable than our lives? So much so that after so many deaths did the S.I.T. at last decide to put wire-netting, and there is no more suicide.

Sir, this is a very important Bill, and about the five members to be appointed on the Board I would urge the Minister to appoint persons with experience, not those who have a sort of tendency to say 'yes' to every move the Government takes. Besides that, the appointment is for three years. We want people with experience to run or to control the functions of the new Board, not to fill it up with 'yes-men'.

And I am also glad the number of members of the new Board will be reduced to five, because that will simplify matters to carry out the job more smoothly; as we know, we have a saying, 'Too many cooks spoil the soup.' On the Trust, we have so many people running the Department, so much so that they do not know where to go and what to do, and with no experience whatsoever the whole Department actually was run by the expatriate officers.

With your permission, Sir, I will relate an incident that happened in one of the S.I.T. offices on 23rd August. I brought a school teacher from the Kong Wah School, Guillemard Road, to see one of the officers about the progress of her application made in 1956. This case was actually handled by the Hon. Assistant Minister, Mr M. P. D. Nair. When I went into the office to interview -

Mr Speaker: Order. I just want to indicate that a Member of this Assembly should not be referred to by name.

Mr William Tan: I went with the school teacher and after the formal introduction I told the officer in charge that this was a case handled by the Assistant Minister, Mr M. P. D. Nair

Mr Speaker: Order. A Member must not be addressed by his name.

Mr William Tan: Sorry, Sir, the Member for Seletar. And the officer of the S.I.T. told me straight to my face that he could not care less who is the Minister, Assistant Minister or Assemblyman.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Quite right!

Mr William Tan: Sir, this was the attitude of an official, of a public official, particularly in front of a third witness! I went on to ask him why he had such an opinion, and he told me that recently, an Assemblyman in this House made a libelous attack on the S.I.T. and since then, he told me, he had no faith in or respect for any Assemblyman. I asked him, 'Well, if it is an Assemblyman who attacked the S.I.T., it is for the Minister who is in charge to reply to the charges', and he replied that if the Minister did not know the ins and outs of the affairs of the S.I.T., how could he, the Minister, reply to the charges? I told him that if he did not like everyone of us, the best thing for him was to resign and quit his job, to which he told me that he would do so and, as a matter of fact, he was considering it.

Sir, we are elected Members of the Assembly. If a public official or officer can speak like this in front of an elected representative, what will happen to those people who have no official backing who go to make enquiries about the progress of their applications? They will be ignored or will be driven out with meagre excuses or no excuse whatsoever! This is the present situation, Sir, in the S.I.T.

Sir, I do not like to go on and on about the misdeeds of the S.I.T. but I have to urge the Minister when he comes to the appointment of the five members to the Board: he will carefully make his selection of experienced people who know all the ins and outs, as the officer said, of the affairs of the S.I.T. So I earnestly urge him to be very, very careful in selecting these five members. I strongly support this Bill, Sir.

3.05 p.m.

Mr Goh Tong Liang (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I must honestly say I have no love for the Singapore Improvement Trust but I think etiquette demands that if a person is dying, we should not chide him, scold him, rail at him or reprehend him but help to expedite his funeral!

3.06 p.m.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I like the idea of this Bill, the idea of improving Singapore, the idea of making it into a more beautiful place, the idea of giving more houses to the people. Certainly, Sir, when we talk about slum clearing, we are talking about the attap houses, and we are talking about so many people living in small cubicles. But I am certain, Sir, that nobody likes to live in attap houses and nobody likes to live in little cubicles. But why are there so many attap houses and why are there so many people living in little cubicles? There is only one reason, and that reason is they have not got the land on which to build their own houses. I am certain, Sir, that if we find a dilapidated attap house, it is not because the man cannot afford to repair it, or likes it to be in that shape. In his mind, he always thinks, 'No matter how I repair it, or how beautiful I make it, sooner or later a quit notice will come; sooner or later I will be asked by the Government to give up my house and land.' Where is the incentive for that man to add improvements to his house?

I have the experience, Sir, of knowing a little plot of land built up with many huts by squatters. These squatters came together; they put their money together; and they bought that piece of land. Immediately afterwards, they improved their houses, and I would say, Sir, that those attap houses were not at all bad dwelling places after they were repaired properly.

Attap houses built properly, with proper sanitation put in are definitely much better than the flats we have in town. At least they are cooler and they can be very attractive.

My colleague, the hon. Member for Paya Lebar, has put this idea to Government and asked the Government to buy land, show a lead and give these attap house dwellers a chance to buy their own land. If that scheme is pushed forward, I am certain that it will solve our housing problem to a very great extent. I am also certain that if Government can give those who live in slum areas now plots of land on which to build their own little houses, they will certainly put in all they have to make the place they live in, decent, clean and bright.

Today in Singapore, I feel that it is time that everybody should have a stake in the land they live. It would be a big step forward if everybody owns a little piece of land. I am certain the housing problem will be eased to a very great extent.

Why not let us make the people help themselves instead of preventing the people from helping themselves and waiting for Government to build S.I.T. flats? After all, you can never build enough. After all, you can never catch up with the requirements. Let the people have a hand!

3.10 p.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, a Bill which is primarily designed to define the structure and functions of the new Housing and Development Board has given us the opportunity to hear a debate on the shortcomings of the officers of the Singapore Improvement Trust, on general theories of property-owning democracies, and on how to make everybody else have a stake in the land, and generally, to befuddle ourselves with the problems that this Housing and Development Board will have to face. It is no use denigrating the S.I.T. and its officials if the Housing and Development Board and the five persons who are going to constitute it are going to be lifted out from the S.I.T. and put into the Housing and Development Board. Members will still be constantly bedeviled by the Member for Tiong Bahru regaling us with his unfortunate encounters with Trust officers and Housing and Development Board officers, and the disrespectful manner in which they deal with Assemblymen generally and with Ministers in particular.

Certain problems stand out, and the only thing that this Bill does is to sharpen the instrument which has to be used in dealing with the problems. The problem is how, with the resources available, and the national income of the State of Singapore - the State to come - we are to build enough houses on the land available, to house as many as possible of the rapidly growing population. That problem will not be solved by this theory of selling flats to those who live in them and taking the money and building other flats.

It is primarily a problem of raising the national income of the Colony, or the State of Singapore as it will be; of seeing that the national income is used in the interests of all the people and not just of a wealthy few, and, what is most important, of getting an efficient housing authority that will be able, with the limited resources that will be available to it, to produce maximum results.

The S.I.T. is to be buried when this Bill comes into operation. I think it will always be remembered for as long as the skyscrapers stand in Forfar House and the other multi-storeyed flats in Singapore. I do not believe they are all going to crumble down as rapidly as was feared by the Member for Tiong Bahru. But the S.I.T. will also be remembered for a policy which was not suited to the needs of this island. I had the advantage of starting my professional career here, sitting in the shadow of the legal adviser to the S.I.T. and I used to meet these eminent gentlemen, very powerful people, who from time to time foregathered in the conference room of their legal adviser and discussed the problems of the City. They never believed they were going to solve them, but their predominant intention was to make sure that what they built did not subsequently degenerate into slums. Well that is a worthy objective, but because they did not understand the pressure that would be put on the Government when housing is short, and when a Government is susceptible to pressure because it is elected, they have left in fact a legacy of no-confidence in the housing authority which they represented. This Bill does not solve any of these problems and the advice given by the Member for Paya Lebar to the Housing and Development Board which is to be created will not solve the problem.

Lastly, we have to ask ourselves whether or not this island can, with a population growing at the rate of 4 per cent per annum, and an annual increase in the available working population of about 27,000 of the children who are growing up to reach 17, 18, 19 and enter the labour market, be able to keep pace with our economic development to maintain them at that standard of living which can provide a decent semi permanent or permanent structure of a house to live in. And if that is not possible of solution, then all the clever schemes and devices suggested will not solve it.

The problems have got to be faced at its root bottom. The population problem has got to be tackled. Either we check it or we emigrate to the wilds of the Federation to help open up the forests there, either legally or illegally. Secondly, such as do remain here must be accommodated into the economy by jobs. And then, lastly, we can talk about dividing the land and letting everybody own a little piece in order that he will find it worth while to build on it. Today I would like just to remind the Member for Serangoon that people do not build houses, not because they do not own the land, but because they have not got the wherewithal to buy the building materials and the skilled labour necessary to put up the houses. If they had, they would build them whether it was their land or rented land.

The problem goes down back finally to the survival of this island in a changed political situation, not only Malaya vis-a-vis Singapore, but in the whole of South-East Asia, and this Bill only provides us with the instrument. It is a more efficient instrument but I must not let it go by just like that. It has taken two years to come about. Why it has taken two years I do not know, and I would be sorry to hear that the Minister also does not know what is going on. I hope that in his reply he will tell us why it has taken two years in the making, and perhaps assure us that the time spent in contemplating over the provisions of this Bill is time that was spent wisely and effectively, in order that we will have a housing authority with all the adequate powers to deal with the problems of (1) slum clearance; (2) squatter resettlement; and (3) problems of finance and building.

3.19 p.m.

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was told this morning that this Bill would be referred to a Select Committee and I had thought that it would be best to speak on the Bill after receiving the report of the Select Committee rather than to refer to the Bill now. But after hearing the points put forward by the Member for Tiong Bahru, I am most particularly interested in clause 33 of the Bill, which clause reads in part:

"(1) Upon the coming into operation of this Ordinance, every officer of the Singapore Improvement Trust, not being an officer exclusively engaged in the planning functions of the Singapore Improvement Trust, shall be deemed to be transferred to the service of the Board at the same rate of pay and, as near as may be, on the same conditions of service, as those on which he was employed by the Singapore Improvement Trust."

We have heard from the Member for Tiong Bahru of the attitude and the manner of the officers, how they run the S.I.T., and if all those officers now on the Trust shall be deemed to be transferred to the Board, I wonder what difference it would make to the Board. If the administration of the present Trust is run by a set of officers whose attitude and administration of the Trust is not acceptable to this Assembly, I cannot understand that the transfer of the same officers to this Board can be accepted by this Assembly.

The present administration of the Trust, as everyone knows, is top-secret. The points system, everyone knows, is top-secret. As the Member for Tiong Bahru rightly pointed out, the number on the waiting list has increased to 14,000 but how many of these 14,000 do know when they can expect to have allocation? The reply always given is that there is no possible assistance in the very near future. What difference would it make, I would like to know; and I would like also the Minister to tell us the actual difference it could make to this Board if the complete setup of the S.I.T. officers is to be transferred. I would suggest that when the Board comes into operation, all officers should be subject to review and should be placed before the Public Service Commission before they are accepted as officers of the Board.

3.21 p.m.

Dato Abdul Hamid: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad to note that Members of the Opposition generally support the Bill just now before the House, but unfortunately I am somewhat in disagreement with them with regard to their criticisms of its officers and the workings of the Singapore Improvement Trust, not because I agree with what is happening now in the offices of the S.I.T. but because I, as Minister for Housing at the present moment, have in fact no proper or no direct control over the workings or over the Trustees of the S.I.T. and naturally I do not have the direct control over the habits, or shall we say the inconsistencies if at all, that are now prevalent in the S.I.T.

However, Sir, I should like to answer some of the points raised by Members of the Opposition. First, I would take the Member for Paya Lebar. He has suggested that the Government should buy up land in satellite towns, cut it up and probably sell it to private investors, who would develop the land, build houses and sell them to the public. Well, Sir, I disagree entirely with this because I honestly and sincerely feel that it is the duty of Government in the long run to provide the necessary housing, particularly in what are called new towns or satellite towns, as this is within the scheme which the present Government has envisaged in the Master Plan.

Furthermore, Sir, there is now no restriction at all being placed by Government on private development in Singapore. As a matter of fact, it has encouraged private developers to build as many houses as possible, but unfortunately it has been the tendency in the past for private developers to build houses costing probably $15,000 or $20,000 or even more, which cater not for the type of people which Government would like to help, but purely for those who can afford either from their own pockets, or who can afford to borrow from building societies, to meet their needs.

Now, coming to the question of selling flats in Tiong Bahru; well, that is a wonderful idea. I think we will probably try to do something about it but, on the other hand, Sir, the Member for Paya Lebar suggests that the sale of these houses would probably rake in a total of $13,000,000 and this would help to finance the Housing and Development Board for the next few years. Well, I think he is a bit out because this year alone, Sir, we are spending more than $23,000,000 on our housing programme. So $13,000,000 at this rate of expenditure would probably mean a six months' building programme for the Board. However, I shall look into it.

Coming to the Member for Changi, he seems to think, Sir, that Government has plenty of land in Singapore. Well, this is all nonsense because if he were to read this year's Estimates, he will discover that the Government of Singapore is spending millions of dollars in the purchase of land not only for Government schemes, but also for S.I.T. buildings, and for the resettlement of farmers all over the island. This latter scheme is going on in full swing and we believe millions more would be spent on this programme.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Point of clarification, Sir,I wish the Minister to know that I named places like Kranji or Ayer Gemuroh. Do those places belong to Government or not? I think certain people staying in Kranji have received notices from S.I.T. to quit after they had put up a certain amount of money to build attap houses and had stayed there for over two years. Now the S.I.T. say, 'No, you must quit.' Therefore I want the Minister to consider particular places like Ayer Gemuroh and Kranji.

Dato Abdul Hamid: Well, I was talking generally but if the Member for Changi has any particular pet scheme I will be only too willing to give him time to see me in my office.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Thank you.

Dato Abdul Hamid: One of the points which I will not accept - I think the Member for Changi said it - is that it is the policy of the S.I.T. to house second and third wives of millionaires. This is again another of the nonsensical statements that have cropped up from time to time. It is not the policy of the S.I.T. to do so; it is the policy of the S.I.T. to build as many low-cost houses as possible for the people of Singapore, and not to house second, third or fourth wives.

Coming to the Member for Queenstown, Sir, he has made many damaging remarks against employees of the S.I.T. One question he did ask was, 'What is the record of the Singapore Improvement Trust? What has it done?' Well, I will tell him this, Sir; the S.I.T. by the end of this year will -

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Point of correction, Sir.

Mr Speaker: The Minister has not given way.

Dato Abdul Hamid: I made a mistake, I should not have said the Member for Queenstown, Sir, but the Member for Tiong Bahru. Well, he has asked the question and I will tell him this, that by the end of the year, the S.I.T. will have completed 20,000 houses - 20,000 housing units - and in these 20,000 houses there will be living no less than 10 per cent of the population of Singapore. And I can tell you this, Sir, that very few countries in the world can boast of such a record, where 10 per cent of its population live in Government subsidised houses.