PLANNING BILL (Select Committee's Report)

10.36 a.m.

The Minister for Local Govermnent, Lands and Housing (Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat): Sir, I rise to move,

That the Report of the Select Committee on the Planning Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 21 of 1958, be adopted.

Sir, this is a Bill of some difficulty, and it is for this reason that the Bill was committed to a Select Committee at the sitting of this Assembly held on 10th September, 1958. The Select Committee has had the benefit of representations from, among others, public bodies and institutions, such as the Singapore Harbour Board, the City Council, the Institute of Architects in Malaya, the Singapore Ratepayers Association, and the Society of Malayan Architects. The representatives of some of these bodies also appeared before the Select Committee to supplement their representations by oral evidence. These representations, Sir, were given very careful consideration by the Committee, even where some of them have had to be subsequently rejected. Many of the amendments which have been made in the text of the Bill in Select Committee have been the direct result of these representations. I do not intend to go through all of them, Sir, but would mention particularly the amendment now incorporated in clause 9 (11) as it appears in the Select Committee's Report, which makes it necessary for the Competent Authority to make known its decision within three months and the reason for such decisions if the applications were refused or granted subject to conditions.

Clause 13 of the Bill in the Select Committee's Report also incorporates certain safeguards against arbitrary exercise of powers to enforce planning control by enabling, in sub-clauses 2 and 3 thereof, any person aggrieved by any direction of the Competent Authority to appeal to the Minister.

The other amendments, Sir, while they have improved the working of the planning organisation are of a minor character.

Sir, I beg to move.

Inche Mohamed Sidik Bin Haji Abdul Hamid: Sir, I second it.

Question proposed.

10.42 a.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, my remarks on the Housing Bill apply with equal force to this Report which we are now asked to adopt. The Government must recognise that it has a duty not only to do what is right to themselves, but also to do what is right to the country. Knowing full well that the policy of the next government, particularly in regard to the implementation of housing policy, may well be different from the present Government's, they should follow what the Financial Secretary did when he presented the Budget, and leave the position open. If the Financial Secretary, who has now retired, had adopted the attitude which the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, perhaps without proper consideration, has chosen to strike in this Assembly, then he would have gone on with those development schemes and incurred for the country a waste of public expenditure when the schemes are reversed.

Sir, we are prepared to face any criticism. And let me tell the Member for Paya Lebar this. It is because there is drive and energy at the top in the City Council that the people are satisfied that the City Council has never functioned so efficiently and politely on behalf of the public and for the public. Let me also tell him this. If the S.P.A. leaves the Civil Service in a state of coma and the bureaucracy in a state of paralysis, then he will get the situation where the City Council Pavilion in the Singapore Constitution Exposition is ready on time and the Government Pavilion is not. Everybody knows, and 20,000 people who went to the opening on Saturday also know, despite the conspiracy of silence in the Press, that the opening of the exhibition was delayed because the Government Pavilion was not ready, and not because the roads were not suitable for pedestrian traffic. If you want results, then you must have drive and dynamism. If Ministers just sit back and only bestir themselves on the eve of an election, having slept for the last four years, then I say that those who awaken from their sleep at such a late hour will find that the bus has already left.

Sir, these two Bills - one we have already passed and one we are about to pass - are the instruments through which, not the present Minister, but the next Minister for Housing will have to push through his housing policy, and the question of policy is closely related to the question of personnel. Whilst we agreed in the main with the Housing Bill, I think the Minister did mc an injustice when he thinks that my Party agreed wholeheartedly with every single detail in that Bill. For instance, I had already indicated to him earlier that it is my opinion, and the opinion of my Party, that the head of the Housing Authority should be the Minister and not a Chairman appointed by the Minister. If it is to propel itself with the drive with which the Minister thinks it ought to be propelled, then the Minister should be present himself to see that his policies are pursued with vigour, and not do it by proxy.

There are many amendments of that nature that we have in mind. All that will necessitate amending legislation. What is worse, we do not want the personnel to be fixed beforehand. If he had done this at, the beginning of the career of his Government, with three years ahead of him to carry out and implement his policy, then we would have no grounds for complaint. It is no use to talk about "We will do what is right and what we think is right in this respect." He knows full well that he has got only eight weeks before dissolution and that what is right for the Government to do now is not to queer up the position for the country by making it necessary for the next government to reverse gears.

10.45 a.m.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Mr Speaker, Sir, very seldom have I been able to agree with the hon. Member for Changi, but I find myself in entire agreement with him today, particularly when he accused a certain Party of using the City Council as a propaganda machine for its political purposes. Sir, that has been amply confirmed by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar, when he said just now that the City Council's stand in the Singapore Constitution Exposition is ready whereas the Government one is not, and that it is because of the drive and energy of his Party which is ruling the City Council. Sir, to many people like myself, I think it is a dreadful thing to say. It is not proper to use a local government, like the City Council, which is part of the Government, for its propaganda, to denounce the Government for what it has done.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: For what it has not done!

Mr Lim Koon Teck: What he said is completely wrong. I have been to the Constitution Exposition ground many times during the week, and I can say that the Government departments and all the pavilions were ready and willing to start on that night at the same time as the City Council, and their drive is no less than that of the P.A.P.'s.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: On a point of information, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: No, Sir, I used to, but not now. That shows their defiance of the rules of the game and of the law. When the Committee decided that the public should not be allowed to go in, because that would disturb the work that is going on in the exhibition, they purposely put on the lights to defy the law and to get the people to rush in.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: What law?

Mr Lim Koon Teck: After all, they came in as a member-

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: On a point of information, Sir. Surely if the-

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: No, Sir. Surely they enter the exhibition as part of the team under the aegis of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, who started the whole exhibition? Therefore, they should abide by the rules. If the Chinese Chamber of Commerce say that the exhibition has to be postponed, then the City Council should follow the rules; but instead of that, they saw in it a glorious opportunity to put on a blaze of lights, and say: "Here we are - ready, and everybody else is not!"

That is, to my mind, definitely not fair, and that is why I want to see a fair game being played in Singapore and in this House. The exhibition is not ready because of the inclement weather we have had during the last two weeks.

Mr Speaker: I think I have allowed this aspect of the debate to go far enough. I think it is completely irrelevant to the Report and, therefore, I must stop any further debate on the exhibition. Let us come back to the Planning Bill.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Thank you, Sir, for your ruling. I must say that many of us, particularly those who have appeared before the Select Committee, are not at all happy about the Bill as it is presented today. Many points have been brought up, and most of them have been turned down. The only satisfaction we had was the amendment to clause 9 (11), as mentioned by the Hon. Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing. Under that clause, anyone who now submits plans will get an answer - yes or no - within three months; and if any condition is imposed upon the plan that is submitted, or if the plan is refused, the planners must give the reasons for the refusal. That is a step forward, Sir. At least those who want to develop or take part in the development of Singapore will know that they will get a definite answer within three months instead of, as they had before, being referred back to and fro by the Planning Department, and sometimes it took over a year to get the plans through. But changing of the law and giving a definite time for plans to be passed are not enough. We have now the authority of the planners decentralised by the creation of the District Councils. I do hope that the District Councils will use all the powers and energy to push through as many plans and as soon as possible when they are sent to them for approval.

Sir, I think the duties of the District Councils, especially the Planning Department, are very onerous today. It has a backlog of plans to approve, and I do hope they will use the powers they now have to try and help the small man living in the area, so that he can repair his house or build extensions without encountering a great deal of difficulties, as has happened in the past. It is because of the difficulty of getting plans through that has encouraged or forced some people to commit breaches of the law and carry out repairs on their own.

Sir, I hope that by changing this law we will be able to allow people who submit plans to build quickly, so that we can curb the number of illegal houses that are being erected every day in Singapore.

10.53 a.m.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, I just wonder how many hon. Members will agree with me when I say that when a person is thirsting for power he can easily be lured and become a fanatic.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have already indicated that I wish to keep this debate on a proper plane from now on, and I rule that the word "fanatic" with reference to a Member of this Assembly is, unparliamentary, and that word must be withdrawn.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, I beg to withdraw, but I substitute for it the words "a selfish, opportunist politician".

Mr Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member is not careful with his language, then, of course, I have power to stop him from talking at this sitting. I ask him to restrain himself, and try and be relevant to this Bill. He must now withdraw that expression.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, I apologise to you, and I beg to withdraw the expression. But I must express my bitter feelings at the course the debate on this Bill is taking, because I have discovered that certain hon. Members are actually not interested at all in the debate, but are merely here to seek some other aims. Maybe you wish to rule me out again, Sir? As I have already said in my speech on the previous Bill, I still wish to repeat the same remarks on this Bill.

The Minister has still failed to answer my query as to how he is going to assure the S.I.T. staff (now the Planning staff) that they will not be involved in party politics, particularly in the coming year. I wish to ask the Minister again whether he has any solution to such a minor technical point about the present staff of the S.I.T. who should feel secure in their jobs and be confirmed in their appointments by the P.S.C. It is important to preserve the integrity of the service and that can only happen if appointments are made by the Public Service Commission.

Sir, if you will recollect, the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar challenged me to mention a particular case of party politics in the present City Council. May I crave your indulgence to name the appointment of Mr Jek as the Mayor's Secretary, who was appointed by-

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: The P.S.C.

Mr Speaker: Order. I cannot see how that is relevant to the Planning Bill.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: I strongly oppose any appointment to the staff of the Housing Authority - where the P.S.C. has been by-passed. I maintain that in such an important body every appointment made must be referred to the P.S.C. and be confirmed by it.

I wish to take this opportunity also to comment on the policy of the planning of Singapore. The Master Plan is, in the eyes of many people, still a myth, especially among the masses. The peasants and the ordinary man-in-the-street do not know the purpose of the Master Plan. They think it is only a plan to beautify the City and to build skyscrapers, or even for the benefit of the wealthy class of the population. This question has been constantly put to me by the people in my constituency, the majority of whom are fishermen and farmers scattered around the rural area. because they feel that even up to now the Master Plan has not provided them with houses. They want Government to provide some means to raise their living standard. They want to know whether the Government has anything in the Master Plan to provide them with houses, which they badly need, or a place where they can settle down.

The Minister has mentioned before his plan to build a Malay settlement. I remember I told him that he should enlarge his plan for attap dwellers which he has outlined in his plan to include not only the Malays but also any person who is unable to rent a house provided by the Government or, as present, the S.I.T., and who has no chance to buy a house of his own. The farmers will be happy and contented if only the Government will give them a piece of land and allow them to build an attap house on it. Sir, I wish the Minister will give an answer to these two points.

11.00 a.m.

Mr Wong Foo Nam (Pasir Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is with mixed feelings that I speak on the Bill. On the one hand, I am very glad that at the end of four years we have seen an attempt to abolish that notorious organisation called the Singapore Improvement Trust. On the other hand, Sir, much as I would like to have imagined before my election, I could never have imagined that a Bill of this type could be made on this side of the House of which I am a Member.

I have spoken many times in the Select Committee on the policy of the Trust and the people are tired of what it has been doing all these years.

My one and only hope is that this new Bill will be able to stop all this dictatorship and corruption, and whatever else that goes with it. But I see nothing in this Bill that gives me encouragement on all the points I have raised. According to this Bill, you can do nothing except with the approval of the Minister or his appointees. There is nothing to say that you can get the plans passed or get a scheme approved except with the approval of the Minister or his officers.

Take, for instance the question of design. Nowhere in the world has an architect been able to put in writing or in whatever form what is called good design. Yet the Government wishes to seek powers to control design. If the authorities concerned cannot find any reasons good enough, they can just turn it down and say, "No. Bad design."

The word "design" can mean planning and anything that the officer can think of. I have no objection if the control of design is vested in the Local Authority. although I do not agree that they should have such powers. That is not so bad. But I think it is too much to ask for control of design at the initial stage of planning. I do not believe you can find such powers anywhere in the world.

At present, if you want to submit a scheme to the planning authority of the Improvement Trust for approval, you just send in a site plan, indicating the number of storeys you intend to build, and for what purpose the building will serve, and then leave it to the authority to say yes or no. But if design is one of the points of approval and if the officer concerned insists on it, then the architect will have to submit a sketch plan. A sketch plan is a very expensive item. Take, for instance, the Polytechnic. It costs about $8 million. According to the scales for a sketch plan, an architect is entitled to charge 2½ per cent. If we know that the scheme is sure to go through, then that amount is worth spending because ultimately, before you make a working drawing, you will have to submit a sketch plan to the owner for approval. But to commit yourself to an expenditure of $200,000 without any assurance whatsoever, I think that is most improper.

Then on the question of appeal, Sir. As it is, you have to appeal to the Minister. I have fought very hard in the Select Committee to make the point that before the Minister makes his decision, this appeal should go before the Committee appointed by the Minister.

When I say that, I do not mean that I have to ask the Minister to follow whatever decision is made by the Committee. I just ask that the Minister, before he makes a decision, should at least hear the opinion of the Committee which he appoints. I think that is not too much to ask. I have never any doubt as to the ability and integrity of the Minister. But we know, Sir, that the Minister is a non-technical man. He has to depend on the advice of his officers.

As there are no regulations to say what is right and what is wrong, so it is a matter of opinion in a lot of cases. The Master Plan has already been submitted and approved by the Government. Yet I find in many cases that even if a plan conforms entirely to the Master Plan, it is disapproved. So how can you expect the public to support the Government when they do not know what is right or wrong? As it is, Sir, the approval or disapproval of a plan, to a great extent, depends on the whims and fancies of the officer concerned. We know, Sir, even in the Improvement Trust today, that if a certain officer is in charge, you might get a disapproval, and when another officer is in charge, you might get an approval. The Bill has done nothing to alter or improve it.

Planning, Sir, is not a matter, as many imagine, which only concerns the architect, the contractors and the estate people. It concerns everybody. If the Government makes it expensive for land to be developed, the cost ultimately will be charged to the people of Singapore.

As I say, Sir, on the question of controlling design and having to submit a sketch plan, I am sure the architect would welcome clause 10. At least today, Sir, if we were asked to submit an application, we just type the application, enclose the site plan and submit it to the Improvement Trust. But if the Government insists on having a design first, as what the Bill provides, then you have to submit a sketch plan with the application. In this respect, Sir, you can be sure the architect will not render a service free of charge. It goes back to - who else? Is it fair, Sir, that the public should be burdened with this unnecessary expenditure? If the Government cannot tell the public what is right, how can they condemn what is wrong? That is why I objected very strongly to that clause in the Select Committee, and I object very strongly to it now.

In the administration of laws, Sir, there are two sides to it. One is the law itself; the other is the officer who administers it. I know very well that I will not have the support of this House even if I decide to vote against the Bill. But I sincerely hope the officer who will administer this law will make it as easy as possible for the public to be granted the approval which they seek, if they comply with the regulations.

11.12 a.m.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I like the remarks of the last speaker, especially at the end of it. I think that in all ventures that we undertake, everything must be based on practicability. I have seen the S.I.T. planning section working for the last few years, and I have one or two observations to make.

Firstly I know there is a Planning Department in the Singapore Improvement Trust. I believe that the work of this Department is to plan. I further believe, Sir, that we have many architects going to the Planning Department, but the work of the architect must just be to put up plans for houses. They should have nothing to do with the planning of an area. They should only plan as to how the houses should be built, and see that they conform to all the requirements of safety and so on. What I have actually found, Sir, is of a very curious nature. It seems to me that those who want to put up buildings have to go to the architects to have their plans drawn up. But the architects have also to put up a site plan and an overall plan for the whole area. That I think intrudes upon the work of the planners. We have experts in planning. The experts are now asking the architects, who should not be doing that job, to do the job for them.

Perhaps, Sir, a great deal of the heartburn felt by so many people could be removed if we could ask the planning section of the S.I.T. - now the Planning Authority - to put up tentative plans for the whole area, including plans of where the roads should be situated, where bungalow lots should be situated, and other little details. Then when builders go to the architects, they have the area already planned out. The architects just draw to plan, and everything will be set in motion very quickly.

Perhaps the answer may be that we have not enough planners, and if we do not have enough planners, then further details should be given to assist those who are going to do the work of planners, and not just say - this is a green belt, that is something else.

The second thing I find, Sir, is that not all people know about the Master Plan. They only know very roughly what they can do. They may not even know what they cannot do. A man who wants to develop a piece of land may not even know that it is in the green belt and that nothing can be done about it. I would suggest to the Minister that further publicity be given to the overall planning of Singapore. I know that we have already one such publicity campaign whereby everybody is invited to go to the Victoria Memorial Hall and look at the whole area of Singapore. But I think that should be carried further. Every district should have a plan of it put up so that everybody in that district will know what he can do and what he cannot do and the intention of the Government with regard to the future development of Singapore. That will dovetail all the work of the Government and the people.

I find also, Sir, that although this type of planning usually applies to the rich people, yet many of the people who can only afford to build attap houses come within the scope of that authority. I have known, in many advanced countries and also many not-so-advanced countries, that they have many types of plans put up for sale to the people. I have recently gone to the Rural Board to ask for cheap plans for the people. I find that these plans are out of stock.

I would suggest to the Minister that plans for houses should be freely made available to the people, and if the people know where to build and how to build, it will solve a lot of problems. We know that there are plenty of unauthorised houses coming up, and that may be due to the inconveniences caused to the people, or to their ignorance of the plans of Government. I suggest that the Minister look into this in more detail in order better to help the people.

11.20 a.m.

Mr Goh Tong Liang (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, there are many sites on main roads in the rural areas where shop-houses could be built and yet they are not allowed to be built, just because these sites happen to be in the green belt or belts. It is well known that the housing shortage is very acute here, and if shop-houses could be built, at least the housing problem could be solved to some extent if, say, two persons were to live on the premises of a shop-house. There would be many thousands who would go to the shop-houses and overcrowding in their own houses would be eased.

I hope whenever any developer or planner applies for permission to build shop-houses on the main roads in the rural areas, the Competent Authority will not put up obstacles such as general layouts.

Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat rose-

Mr Speaker: Dato Abdul Hamid, in reply?

Dato Abdul Hamid: Mr Speaker, Sir, most of the points raised by Members on both sides of the House have already been debated in the Select Committee and I do not think I will be called upon at this stage to reply to them. However, I would like to reply to the Member for Changi and the Member for Tanjong Pagar.

The Member for Changi is still harping on the question of the Public Service Commission, but I would like to point out to him, Sir, that we are at this moment debating the Planning Bill. If he has read the speeches which I have made both in the Assembly and in the Select Committee, he should know by now that the Planning Department of the present Singapore Improvement Trust will be a Government department in my Ministry - the Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing. Because it will be a Government Department, the Public Service Commission will naturally have jurisdiction over all the appointments and dismissals of the officers of that department.

Secondly, Sir, about settlements. Again, the Member for Changi has asked me why I have been opening settlements for Malays in Singapore and why I have not done so for other nationalities. I would like to point out-

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Minister will give way.

Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat resumed his seat.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I deny that I had asked why. I was only expressing the hope that while the Minister was planning to set up Malay settlements, he should at the same time set up a wider sphere of attap dwellers' settlements. I never questioned the merits or demerits of Malay settlements. What I want the Minister to do is to say whether he is in a position to enlarge the scope for an attap dwellers settlement.

Dato Abdul Hamid: The hon. Member said he hoped I would open up attap dweller settlements for other nationalities. But I would like to point out to him that every year Government is spending millions of dollars in buying up land and in resettling farmers in various parts of the island. Most of these farmers are from the Chinese community. I do not think I can, at this stage, agree with the proposal put forward by the Member for Changi that I should open up more settlements for the people of the rural areas.

Now, Sir, I come to the Member for Tanjong Pagar. My reply to him will be the same as the one I gave him when the Housing and Development Bill was, debated earlier this morning. Again, Sir, he brought up the point where he insisted that this Government should not implement the policy embodied in the Planning Bill, because he said the present Government could only last a month or so. Again, he did say we on this side of the House have been sleeping for the last four years. I do not know who has been sleeping.

He demands that we should not implement the policy of the Government in the Planning Bill. If only the Member for Tanjong Pagar would read the Report of the Select Committee, he would certainly find that his Party was represented in the Select Committee. I believe it was the Member for Sembawang. Also, at no time during the deliberations of the Select Committee did his Party Member put forward suggestions regarding the implementation of this Bill.

We on this side of the House have a responsibility to the people, even though our responsibility may last only another month, six weeks or two months. We will carry out whatever policy is accepted by this Assembly and which we think will be good to the people of Singapore.

Finally, Sir, let me warn my good friend, the Member for Tanjong Pagar. We on this side of the House, and particularly my Party, will not be intimidated by the People's Action Party. We will do everything possible for the people of Singapore because we know we are doing the right thing.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Report of the Select Committee on the Planning Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 21 of 1958, be adopted.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker: Third Reading, what day?

Dato Abdul Hamid: Now, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

In this connection, may I draw your attention, Sir, to clauses 1 and 5, where the figure "1958" was mentioned. I think it should be "1959". With your permission, Sir, I hope it will be changed to "1959".

Mr Speaker: The alterations will be made.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.