PLANNING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.31 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 the Bill and I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, this Bill which is a companion to the previous Bill, the Housing and Development Board Bill, had its genesis in the White Paper on Local Government Policy (No. Cmd. 30 of 1956) which was published following upon the McNeice Report on Local Government. In its statement of policy in paragraph 3 (2), pages 2 and 3 of the Paper, Government indicated that it did not accept wholly the McNeice Committee's recommendations that the administration of the planned use of land, involving control of development and the preparation of detailed plans should be the responsibility of the local authorities. It further stated as follows if I may read, Sir:

"The Government considers that for the time being a Town Planning Department should be set up under the Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing to advise all local authorities and do the detailed planning. Local authorities should have full authority to make decisions on plans submitted which would be taken after receiving the advice (but not necessarily be in conformity with it) of the Town Planning Department. An appeal can be made direct to the Minister from individuals dissatisfied with the decisions of the local authorities. It is also considered that in due course of time, when practicable, the Town Planning Department should hand over its records to the local authorities, who would then be directly responsible for local planning, due regard being paid to the provisions of the Master Plan.

It is also agreed that the Minister should have powers of arbitration and direction in planning matters and that the administration of the Master Plan should be administered by Government. It is also considered that the Minister should be granted powers to permit him to take independent advice in planning matters at the five-yearly reviews of the Master Plan and at such other times as he considers necessary but without any obligation on his part to do so."

Sir, the Bill now before this House merely attempts to give flesh to the skeletal structure proposed in the White Paper on Local Government. The Planning organisation may, however, still not be readily apparent from the provisions of the Planning Bill. Clause 3 of the Bill provides merely that such person or persons as the Governor in-Council thinks fit may be appointed the Competent Authority or the Competent Authorities for the operation of the Ordinance either generally or in relation to any particular section of the Ordinance. I should therefore explain that the administration of the Planning Bill will lie with several bodies -

The first of these bodies will be a Government Planning Department under the Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing which' will comprise three divisions made up of the present Singapore Improvement Trust divisions.

These are:-

(a) the Master Plan Division which will be responsible for the preparation and revision of the Master Plan under its Planning Adviser;

(b) the Replanning Division which will be responsible for interpretation and detailed planning of the Master Plan, and give advice to local authorities;

(c) the Development Control Division which will be responsible for controlling development under plans submitted by private persons and will advise local authorities.

The second of the bodies responsible for the administration of the Bill are the local authorities, who will be made Competent Authorities for the purposes of sections 8, 9 to 14 of the Planning Bill in their respective local authority areas, except for new towns or areas of comprehensive redevelopment which will be administered by the Housing and Development Board. The local authority when appointed will have its authority limited to the following extent and manner. In the preliminary phase, the local authority will act in accordance with the advice of the Planning Department (Replanning or Development Control Division). This limitation is made to enable the local authority to gain experience and become familiar with the procedure and principles of the control of development. It is expected, Sir, that in the case of the City Council, the preliminary phase will only last a few months. In the second phase, the local authority will act in consultation with, but not necessarily in accordance with the advice of, the Planning Department. In the third phase, the local authority will be solely responsible for control of development. This third phase will be reached when the records and such staff as may be agreed, can be separated and transferred to each local authority.

I have already indicated, Sir, that the Housing and Development Board will be the Competent Authority for the purposes of sections 9 to 14 in respect of new towns and areas of comprehensive redevelopment.

Finally, there will be my own Ministry, the Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing, assisted by a separate inspectorate, if necessary, to deal with appeals to the Minister against planning decisions and to give independent advice if required to the Minister on planning matters at the five-yearly reviews of the Master Plan or at such other times as the Minister may consider it necessary. It has, I know, been a source of some dissatisfaction that the Trust has, under the present legislation, rather extensive powers and that their decisions are not subject to appeal. This has been necessary in the past before the publication of the Master Plan, but it is now possible to provide dissatisfied owners with the right of appeal against what they may consider unreasonable decisions.

I shall now touch upon one matter which has, no doubt, exercised the minds of many owners, namely, the question of compensation for lands which suffer depreciation in value as a result of the restrictions or provisions of the Master Plan. This is a question of considerable difficulty which has not been solved satisfactorily in any other legislation. In the original United Kingdom planning legislation, liability for payments because of depreciation in values were accepted but they were only accepted because it was intended to recoup such payments by charges for betterment of lands for which permission to develop was given under the planning legislation. It has now been found impracticable, Sir, to recover betterment charges which have therefore had to be dropped. After very careful consideration, the Government has decided that as there was equally no practicable way of collecting charges for betterment in Singapore, it cannot accept the principle of compensation. To owners who may be disappointed by such a decision, I would point out that none of the provisions of the Master Plan can really be said to be of a permanent nature, since it would be subject to revision at the five-yearly reviews and it would also be open to any future Government to alter or even scrap the Master Plan - not that I think this latter decision is likely, as the Master Plan has been the result of considerable survey and study. I would say also that the principle must be accepted that Government is not normally bound to compensate parties who suffer incidental loss as a result of State action designed for the benefit of the population as a whole. A provision has, however, been made in clause 15, to require, in certain limited cases, the Government to purchase land. This is intended to provide that where, for example, a developer has been required to provide an open space or school in a development estate and has otherwise completed his development, the remaining public purpose areas should be acquired, where the land is required within five years and is not capable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state.

I do not think I need say any more about the Bill as the provisions will be clear from the full Explanatory Statement which has been furnished with the Bill. I should add, however, that I have given notice of certain amendments which are to be made in Select Committee to which this Bill will be committed.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.40 p.m.

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar): Sir, as this Bill is going to Select Committee, I do not propose to say anything in detail. There are only two salient features which I would like to point out to this Assembly, particularly to Members who may be chosen to sit on the Select Committee.

One big feature in respect of the Singapore Improvement Trust was the complaint - bitter in many cases - of delays in the passing of plans some of which took as long as two years. The Hon, the Minister mentioned that possibly the delay was partly due to the Master Plan. I hope that is true but in order to meet the requirements of this town and to help people who wish to develop Singapore and not be frustrated by long delays of one or two years, it is imperative that plans should be passed - especially subdivision plans - for development within three months. One very disturbing feature is clause 14 (1) of this Bill which says that if permission to develop any land or subdivision of any land is refused, and if he is aggrieved by the decision of the Competent Authority may appeal to the Minister. Sir, no decision is given as to whether the appeal will go to Government officials only or to a Board consisting of architects and persons who are versed in the planning of the town. This is a very vital assurance which I hope the Minister will give us.

There is also very considerable change in the period under which a plan has to be passed. Clause 9 (11) on page 8 of the Bill says:

"If within three months from the date of receipt by the Competent Authority of an application for permission to develop or subdivide any land the Competent Authority has neither granted nor refused such permission the application shall be deemed to have been refused and the applicant may appeal to the Minister in accordance with the provisions or section 14 of this Ordinance."

Sir, I am afraid that a new provision like this is a total departure from the previous section in the Singapore Improvement Ordinance and instead of helping plans to be passed rapidly, this may tend to get some of these plans forgotten altogether. Under the previous section, if a plan has not been approved within three months and if the Competent Authority has not seen fit to make demands on the person submitting the plan for further detail, the plan is deemed to have been approved. I think that is a much more satisfactory provision whereby if a plan is not re- jected, due to the carelessness of the Planning Department, then it should be deemed to have been approved instead of it being deemed to be disapproved altogether. It would also mean throwing the burden on the person submitting the plan to appeal to the Minister, and no time is given in this Bill as to within what period an appeal may be heard. It may be that by the time the plan is discovered or remembered again six months have passed and then the appeal may take another six months. In this way, two years would have then elapsed before anything was done. Sir, I think that this new provision is not going to help us at all.

The other point I would like to bring before this Assembly is the question of survey fees as stated in clause 9 (3) (b) on page 6 of the Bill which says that if an application is made by a planner "to the Collector and has deposited a sum sufficient to cover the fees for the survey of all lots comprised in the permitted subdivision", then the plans for subdivision shall be considered. Sir, I have been on this question of the survey fees for quite a long time. I am concerned particularly where efforts are being made to sell land to small holders and people who are to be resettled. I have one particular case in mind. One company wanted to resettle squatters and offered each of them an area near the place where they were to be shifted from - an area of about 10,000 square feet for just about $500 or $600. The squatters thought it was a very generous gesture and were only too glad to accept it but when the plan went to subdivision he was told that the fee for subdivision would be $112 which to my mind, Sir, is out of all proportion to what is intended to benefit the poor man. After all, if the surveyor does the actual work, we cannot complain but in the majority of cases - virtually in every case - the surveyor does not do the original survey. The survey has to be done by a private surveyor who has got to go out into the field and peg Out the proper boundaries and then in the fullness of time - it may be six months or it may be a year and I heard sometimes it may take three years because of the backlog of work - the surveyor comes round to check the survey and he wants $112 which is about twice as much as the amount charged by the private surveyor who did the actual job. We have been appealing to Government on this point and we have had no result for the past three years; we have got nowhere. I would ask Government to seriously consider this position.

3.50 p.m.

Mr Wong Foo Nam (Pasir Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, as one who has been familiar with the Singapore Improvement Ordinance for the last 20 years, I think I do know a lot of, shall we say, the mistakes of this Ordinance. The unfortunate part of it is that all these mistakes are being repeated in this new Bill. In fact, in many cases, it is worse than before. Overall powers are asked by the Government in this Bill in respect of the development of all land and such powers are not even found in the Singapore Improvement Ordinance or in the English Town Planning Act. I studied both of these carefully before I came to this house. Take for instance, this Bill wants to control even the wall, fence, platform, staging, gate, post, pillar, paling, frame, hoarding, and so on. Does the Government intend that the public should ask permission for these minor works? All this control has already been vested in the local authorities either in the District Councils or in the City Council. I think it is really a waste of time on the part of the public to ask for such approval.

We are constantly being reminded in this House by the Hon, the Financial Secretary that funds are very limited and that it is possible that we may have to reduce expenditure in the years to come. Housing is a very big problem and, as the Minister has said, no country can provide enough houses. In order to encourage housing and other building activities so as to provide more employment to the local people, every encouragement should be given to the developers of factories, offices, houses, and so on. When we asked the S.I.T. before why it took such a long time to pass a plan, the reply was, "Oh, we have to go through all sorts of enqui- ries. We are short of officers, and what not." We have spent millions of dollars on the Master Plan. The Master Plan has already been approved by the Government. The Master Plan, we can safely say, is the bible of the Planning authorities. Every piece of land in Singapore is marked on it. Land for residential purposes, density per acre roads, road widening and traffic circles are all marked there. The structure of this new Bill is different in that there is a clause which says that if permission is neither granted nor refused within three months, as the Member for Paya Lebar said, the application is automatically deemed to have been disapproved. In the former Bill, it was automatically deemed to have been approved. We have, Sir, considered this Bill carefully and yet we think for the purposes of the Master Plan that there is, in fact, no necessity for this provision of three months. I think one month is more than sufficient because anyone who can read the Master Plan will see straightaway that land reserved for a residential area, for a main shopping area or for a local shopping area, is all marked there. So where is the difficulty? Why does the Government want such a long time? As I say, if you want people to develop land here, you must give them every encouragement to do so instead of saying, "You must ask permission first for everything."

Another question is this. We have heard a lot of complaints and dissatisfaction about the working of the S.I.T. One main reason is that they never give us the reasons for disapproving a plan. Discussions have been going on between the architects and the Government on this matter and we have been told more or less that provision for this will be made in the new Bill. I see no such provision at all in this new Bill. The only safeguard is that if you have a plan disapproved, you can always appeal to the Minister. When you appeal to the Minister, then the SIT, must furnish the reasons for the disapproval. Does the Government think it is right not to furnish the reasons for the disapproval of a plan? The Government must satisfy those people who come and invest money here and see that they are given a fair deal. They should not just say, "Oh, your plan is disapproved." That kind of dictatorial attitude, I think, should not be adopted at all.

On the subject of the Competent Authority, clause 3 of the Bill reads:

"The Governor in Council may by notification in the Gazette appoint such person or persons as he thinks fit to be the Competent Authority or Authorities responsible for the operation of this Ordinance...".

The Government may appoint a person or persons to be the Competent Authority or Authorities. Accusations are made by the public as well as in this House about certain persons employed by the Singapore Improvement Trust and working in this very Department. Although no proof has been established, I am sure that Government is aware of the true position and is undertaking extensive enquiries into allegations of corruption by certain officers. I understand that all these officers of the Planning Section have been taken on and, of course, we must rely on the Minister to appoint the proper men and not to appoint persons who are suspected of corruption.

Sir, in the Singapore Improvement Ordinance, the Government have no power to cancel approval whereas in this new Bill, the Government has. I do not say that I am against such cancellation as I think Government should in certain cases have power to cancel the approval if the circumstances of such approval have changed since it was granted, but the time factor of two years is rather short. It states here that if notice of commencement of building operations has not been given or if a building has not been completed within two years, the Minister has the power to cancel such approval. We know very well. Sir, on this question of development of land that it is not like buying anything or something like that. It takes a lot of time. Suppose you get a plan approved; then possibly you have to resettle the squatters, and you know how difficult that is. Apart from this difficulty experienced by the private owners, even the Singapore Improvement Trust with all the resources at its disposal to give these people alternative accommodation are unable to clear them. Take, for instance, Queenstown; there are still many of these squatters there. I think that to cancel the approval in such a way is a bit too harsh.

Now, according to the Bill, if work has started on a building and it is not completed within two years, the Minister has the power to cancel the approval given. Two years is a very short period for big developments. Of course, it may be argued that the Minister will definitely consider all the relevant conditions before making a decision but we know very well that the Minister is a very busy mail and he has to take the advice of the Planning authorities so that I think more safeguards should be given to these developers. After all, these people are really the developers of land and they bring prosperity to Singapore. They are not a gang of hooligans whom we want to suppress.

Sir, as I have explained earlier about the erection of gates, posts, etc., we have to seek permission from the Government to do so and it will be seen from here that even if we are to have a manhole in the ground or lay electrical equipment on the land, we have to seek permission to do so. These powers, as I say, are vested in the local authorities. So why should there be such a repetition?

Sir, it is stated in the Bill that an appeal can be made to the Minister if a plan is not approved. I understand that it is the intention of the Government to appoint an Appeals Board to hear such appeals. There is nothing said about the composition of this Board. We have the members of the Appeals Board very clearly stated in our Education Bill and also in the Singapore Improvement Ordinance. Why should the Government not state the composition of the Appeals Board in this Bill so that the people can be assured that they will receive a proper hearing, unlike the treatment they receive from the Singapore Improvement Trust? The officers there have discussed your case long before you go in and when you do go in they just ask a few questions. They do not tell you anything but they say that they will discuss it afterwards. That kind of procedure is most unsatisfactory. We know that some of the officers in the Planning Department are highly corrupted. When I say that they are "highly corrupted", I am not saying it without foundation. The Police have made extensive enquiries and although no one has come forward to give evidence on the matter, I am sure the Police must come to the conclusion that there are grounds for suspicion although such allegations of corruption have not been proved. The members of the Board are comprised of people who have admitted to me that they do not know much about the working of the Board. I have interviewed a few of them, including the representative of the P.A.P. They told me that they were entirely ignorant of what was stated down there, which I think is no fault of theirs. They are laymen after all. In fact, the so-called Planning Committee is entirely dependent on the opinion of one or two officers concerned. They may tell you, "Oh, this desk is too high and so on and so on," but there is no one to argue over the matter. They will not tell you exactly what they are objecting to. Before you go in, they may tell the Committee members all sorts of lies. They have reason to tell lies. So what is the use of appeal? What is the use of the Planning Committee? It is a farce. The people are told, "Oh, yes, you are given a chance to appeal before the Planning Committee." But what chance have you? The verdict has already been decided before you go in. So I think the Government should put down the names of the members of this Appeals Board.

In clause 17 of the Bill they want to provide rules to control the development of land. Yes, I think they should. The control of density of buildings on land - they should have too. But clause 17 (2) (c):

"the regulation of the height, design, appearance and siting of buildings;".

Design, Sir, is a most controversial subject. If you have ten prominent architects, it is quite possible they may differ entirely as to the type of design which should be put up. For instance, the United Nations building in New York. The job was given to a number of architects after long consideration and after submission of a lot of designs from architects all over the world. Yet the amount of criticism received from other architects who were not doing the job is shocking. It is the same with the R.I.B.A. Headquarters building in London. I remember seeing designs for it in the competition. Architects from all over the Commonwealth were invited to submit designs for the building. The designs ranged from ultramodern to full classical. If you look at the names of the architects who had submitted designs, you can never doubt that they are men who have knowledge of building and who have put up maybe hundreds and thousands of buildings all over the world. Yet they differed to a great extent over the design of the R.I.B.A. Headquarters.

So, do the Government really think they have enough men to decide the design of this place? On whom are they relying? If they say on a few of the architects in the so-called Housing Authority or Planning Authority, I think it is a great disgrace. It is really an insult to the architectural profession of Singapore. A number of years ago, the Government decided to sell the land in Shenton Way along Robinson Road. They called for bids for auction. I remember very distinctly that one of the conditions is that you must follow the designs entirely as shown in the drawings. You cannot build higher or lower, and building throughout the whole of Shenton Way in Robinson Road must be in one horizontal line. That was submitted to very severe criticism from the architectural profession of Singapore. Yet the Government, through their advisers, imposed such conditions. They imposed such conditions because they knew very well that no one dared to say no to them. But today I believe that sort of thing should never be allowed to be repeated. I think one of the reasons why most of the land in Shenton Way is still vacant is because of the unreasonable conditions imposed by the Government.

Dato Abdul Hamid: Which Government?

Mr Wong Foo Nam: The previous Government, of course, Sir. It is a fact. I am very glad that the Minister has said at the beginning that he will send this Bill to a Select Committee, and I hope that all the points which I have raised will be considered there and amendments made to the Bill if necessary.

4.09 p.m.

Dato Abdul Hamid rose -

Mr Speaker: In reply?

Dato Abdul Hamid: In reply, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, since this Bill is going to Select Committee, I do not think I will take up much of the time of the Assembly; but it would appear to me that the criticisms raised by the Members for Paya Lebar and Pasir Panjang revolve on one theme, and that is the passing of plans. There is some slight change in the present Bill before us. It would be better, I think, to have the wording in clause 9 (11) as it is, that is to say, if within three months of the date of receipt by the Competent Authority the plans are not passed, then the application is deemed to have been refused. This would be better than having it the other way round, because it would mean that the plans have been approved by default.

There is one other point raised by the Member for Pasir Panjang, and that is on corruption. Sir, this is going over old ground again, but I should like to draw the attention of Members of this Assembly to the type of co-operation I am getting from Members who are expected to give their fullest co-operation to Government. You will remember. Sir, at the last sitting of the Assembly that the Member for Queenstown raised a similar point on corruption in connection with a certain house in Dorset Road. I wrote him a long letter the day after the Assembly sitting, and this is his reply:

Dear Minister,

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 17th July, 1958, in respect of the speech I made in the Legislative Assembly meeting regarding the allocation of properties by the S.I.T. I fully appreciate your responsibilities and interest in having the matter investigated but it is regretted that it is not possible to have the complainant come forward to give evidence. Under the circumstances, I am prepared to drop the matter but assure you that if at any time I am able to convince the complainant to come forward, I will write to you once again."

Sir, this is the type of co-operation I am getting. It has always been like this - accusations against the S.I.T. and its officers - but when we ask for proofs and evidence, nobody would dare to come forward and nobody would want to come forward; so much so there are times when I feel that these accusations are deliberately made for purely personal reasons.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and such Members as may be nominated by the Committee of Selection.-[Dato Abdul Hamid.]