LOCAL GOVERNMENT (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.40 p.m.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Ong Eng Guan): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The main purpose of this Bill is to speed up the procedure for dealing with unauthorised structures. Mr Speaker, as Members of this House are aware, during the past few months, particularly during the time when the P.A.P. was not in the City Council or during the time of the Tang Peng Yeu-Vasagar regime, unauthorised houses were springing up in thousands in all parts of the Island. Most of these unauthorised houses are being built by unscrupulous building contractors, who build them at a cost of $1,000 to $1,500 each and sell them at a price of about $4,000 each. In some of these cases, permission from the landlord, whether it is private land or State land, has never been obtained and the purchaser of such unauthorised structure finds himself or herself overnight that he or she is in possession of an illegal hut, squatting on land to which he or she has no title. Eventually, the hut will have to be demolished.

The present procedure dealing with unauthorised structures requires the City Council or the local authority first to serve a notice on the owner requiring him to demolish an unauthorised building, and if he does not do so, a summons has to be taken out in the Court. Eventually, by the time a mandatory order for eviction is obtained from the Magistrate's Court, several months would have lapsed, by which time the building would have been occupied and action to demolish would result normally in great hardships to the occupiers.

These unauthorised structures do not conform to any standards of hygiene, health requirements and fire hazard requirements. They are built mostly from flimsy materials, from timber and planks which the timber mills are not able to sell in the open market, and which are sold to them on credit at a very low cost. They are very serious fire hazards. In most cases the building of these unauthorised huts is undertaken in conjunction with secret societies. It is known that during the last few months, most of the racketeers have been backed by unscrupulous politicians and secret societies.

The amendments now proposed will enable immediate action to be taken against unauthorised structures, by imposing a daily fine of $50 against offenders as well as permitting a local authority to enter the premises to demolish as well as to execute any work ordered by the Court. Further, a penalty is now laid down for anyone who sells or enters into an agreement to sell an unauthorised building. In such a case, the offender is liable to a term of imprisonment of not less than six months or more than a year, and in addition a fine not exceeding $5,000. Any person who erects an unauthorised building and sells it subsequently, is liable also to the same imprisonment and fine. In addition, the injured party, that is the purchaser, may be given a refund of the purchase money as well as compensation, if so ordered by the Court.

It has been provided in the new section 170A that in any prosecution under this section, the sanction of the Minister shall be required and there is, therefore, the safeguard that every case will be considered and only the racketeer will be charged in Court.

The opportunity is also taken to make an amendment to section 117 of the Ordinance to require a person who is aggrieved by an annual value fixed on his property to pay the assessment due before his appeal can be dealt with by the High Court. This provision existed in the Municipal Ordinance but was inadvertently omitted from the Local Government Ordinance and, because of this omission, the City Council has reported that millions of dollars are being tied up with consequential loss of interest.

Now, Mr Speaker, there are two important amendments in this Bill before the House. One is to take strong and firm action - merciless and unequivocal action - against the building racketeers who have built houses in the past and who are still building houses. These are the persons who are mainly responsible for such disasters like the Lorong 3 fire and the Kampong Tiong Bahru fire.

The second amendment is to bring the process of appeal to the High Court in assessment cases in line with appeals to the High Court on income tax cases. A person who is aggrieved in his assessment should pay, first of all, the assessment before he can lodge his appeal to the High Court, because we have found from our fifteen months' experience in the City Council that it is cheaper for every property owner to lodge an appeal to the High Court, whether he or she is aggrieved or not aggrieved. Thus the amount of money he can earn from interest rates is much more than he would have to pay to his lawyers.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.47 p.m.

Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat (Geylang Serai): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no objection to the policy of this Bill, if it is used mainly against racketeers. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, we should consider the views of the population, especially in the rural areas where about 6,000 to 7,000 houses have been erected and which could be classified, according to this Bill, as illegal. I would advise the Government to follow the practice of the City Council and the previous Government whereby owners whose houses are a year old should not be touched but should be given the opportunity to get numbers for their houses so that they could be properly assessed.

Mr Speaker, to implement this new law, the Government should look at it from the financial point of view as well, as has been explained by the Minister for Finance. From that point of view, I think the Government itself could not erect houses for the benefit of the whole population of Singapore when we see that annually no less than 40,000 children are born. This means that Government will have to build no less than 8,000 houses annually.

These are my views for the Government to consider. I repeat once again that I agree with the policy of this Bill if its main purpose is to combat those racketeers who erect houses for exploitation.

3.51 p.m.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, Sir, in clause 3 (1), on page 1, lines 15 to 17 are the words "is about to be erected or is in course of erection". Again in clause 3 (2) on page 2, lines 5 and 6 are the words "is being erected or is about to be erected". Then in the Explanatory Statement, it is stated:

"...it is desirable that the local authorities should be enabled to control effectively or demolish speedily all unauthorised buildings...".

If this word "all" applies to the category of buildings specified in the Bill, then I for one heartily support it because lawbreakers should not be condoned. Unauthorised houses which do not meet the minimum requirements of the Government are or will be in future a menace to health and safety. But if this word "all" literally means "all" and includes those houses that have been built, let us say, a couple of years ago, then I would like to say this. When the P.A.P. won the majority in the City Council, they had the reputation of being a Party that worked for the poor. I would like to refer you again to the Explanatory Statement, Sir, which goes on to explain that this Bill is intended "to prevent innocent people from being victimised". Sir, there are people already victimised. As I said, when the P.A.P. won the majority in the City Council because of their reputation of helping the poor and working for the poor, there was a very strong rumour that if the poor people tried to improve themselves by building houses for themselves, the P.A.P. City Council would not prosecute them. I am not condoning the ignorance of the illiterate, but because they were ignorant and because they were illiterate they depended on this rumour and many of them built houses for themselves at that time. I am not referring to those that have just sprung up. At that time, there were many who built their houses because they were confident and had faith that the P.A.P. was going to support the poor and would help them. What is their plight today? If the word "all" literally means "all", and those who have been victimised either by purchasing these houses from unscrupulous opportunists or, having depended on those rumours and having faith in the P.A.P., have built those houses and lived in them for a couple of years, and today find that they will he thrown out in the streets if this Bill is passed - many of them with 8 or 10 children and many of them with fathers and grand-fathers and what have you to a family of 16 to 20 - what will be their plight? They have been victimised by the opportunists. Are they now going to suffer at the hands of the Government? If the Government lives up to its promise to prevent innocent people from being victimised, I think the word "all" should not include the category I have described.

Moreover, in the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara and also in the manifesto of the P.A.P. "The Tasks Ahead", it is promised that:

"The Government is pledged to make an all-out effort to ease the housing problem,"

and that

"the Government will ensure that the welfare and interest of the rural dwellers are adequately looked after."

I have decided not to raise any objection and not to make any amendment because I am very much aware of the 8 against 43, but I do appeal to the Government, based on their pledges and their assurances to the illiterate and to the ignorant who had unknowingly placed themselves in this plight, that the word "all" should not include those who have already been victimised.

Miss Chan Choy Siong (Delta): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, referring to this Bill just now, the hon. Member opposite made certain comments which indicated her attitude towards it.

Talking about this Bill, I want to say a few words. The previous Government, in demonstrating their functions, pretended to be merciful. They thought that we are too radical. If we analyse the position very carefully, I feel that the previous Government was without plan or organisation. They left us a lot of bitterness to face and to solve. They should realise that the P.A.P. policy is to bring about a socialistic society. If we want to produce a just society for the people, we must start doing so from now. We must not make our younger generation face the conditions of living in attap houses. We do not want our Government in the future to demolish these houses. I think this Bill is correct, because you can realise at present and also previously in Singapore there have been many unscrupulous contractors. They will seize every opportunity to make a profit out of this business. What have we seen? We have seen that there is an increased number of persons who have been victimised by these racketeers. Since this is so, then we will see that there will be more drastic and stronger action against them, if we really want to improve the conditions of work and the livelihood of the people.

A simple case can be taken. At present there is no Ordinance whereby action can be taken against the racketeers in this island. They do not care about the dangers placed on a person who want to rent a house from them. They also do not care how a person will fare on a rainy day. He can stay in this house for one or two months, but what about one or two years? Can the house stand for one or two years? The dweller will thus be victimised living under such a roof. Therefore, I think this Bill is really a good Bill. It can help the Government to improve the present situation. Such is the situation created by the unscrupulous racketeers who are engaged in this manner.

There are many people who think we are crude. I have received complaints from many people because their houses were demolished. But I would rather accept their complaints today than see their generations forever living in those illegal attap huts.

4.04 p.m.

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): Mr Speaker, not only does this Bill seek to enact new provisions but it also proposes to repeal the present section 170 of the Local Government Ordinance, 1957. It is, Mr Speaker, by virtue of this section 170 that the local authority, wherever it may be situate, has power to take action against unauthorised buildings, be they about to be commenced, or in course of construction, or be they completed and in occupation. What this Bill seeks to enact is to take away completely the present provisions of section 170 and to enact in substitution therefor the proposed clause 170. It seems to me, Mr Speaker - perhaps the Hon. the Minister for National Development will explain - that under the proposed new clause unauthorised buildings have been restricted in scope to those which are about to be erected or in the course of erection. It seems to have left out of the category of unauthorised erections those buildings which have been completed and are in occupation. Whether it is the intention of Government to do this, it is not for me to say but for the Minister himself. It would appear from his Explanatory Statement that he hopes, by the repeal and by the re-enactment of the proposed clause 170, to take in all unauthorised buildings. Mr Speaker, may I with respect suggest to the Hon. the Minister that his proposed enactment does not achieve that purpose?

Mr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, there seems to be some ambiguity or a conflict of intentions as indicated by the terms of the Bill and the Explanatory Statement. I believe, Sir, that we on this side of the House are in favour of anything to prevent the exploitation of the poor by the building of unauthorised houses and selling them to the victims. If that is to be made clear, Sir, then that Explanatory Statement must be amended. Otherwise it means that the intention of this Bill is to demolish speedily all unauthorised buildings including those already in existence.

Mr Speaker: I think the hon. Member should know that the Explanatory Statement is never part of the Bill. It is just an explanatory statement and cannot form part of the Bill when it becomes an Ordinance. Perhaps the Minister for Law will confirm this.

The Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): I do so confirm it.

4.07 p.m.

Mr Teo Hock Guan (Changi): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, yesterday we saw a lot of democratic forces. Today, we see there are still some people who fight for the poor people. If we continue to search their minds, we know they do not work on behalf of the poor people or speak for the poor people. We know before that there were many unauthorised contractors. They built a lot of unauthorised houses and within a week they sold all these houses to the poor people. They could earn a lot of money, and the poor were victimised. We know the victims were the poor people. Not only this, these houses are insanitary and are dangerous because they catch fire easily. These houses are unauthorised, insanitary, and very bad for the poor people.

Today, we are going to amend this Ordinance. The intention is to protect the poor and not to protect the capitalists or the racketeers. Today the Opposition speak again for the people, but really they do not. The contractors, within a year, built many houses and paid only one assessment for all. How could they build so many houses? Because the officers of the previous Government intrigued together. Now, in order to avoid future happenings of this kind by the racketeers, we have proposed this Bill. Therefore, I agree with the Government in proposing this Bill.

4.12 p.m.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, what some Opposition Members said just now showed that at present they realised that the building of these unauthorised houses had developed into a serious situation. At the same time, we also know from their speeches that the past Government had failed completely in solving the problems of housing for the people. According to a speech of the Opposition, if they know that unauthorised houses are illegal, they should uphold our Bill. If as the Member for Mountbatten has said they are for the poor people, then when their Party was in power, why did their Government not propose this Bill against the illegal contractors? Why should they wait until we are in the government and then say they too are against the racketeers? From this, we can see that that is hypocrisy. When we were in the City Council-

Mr Speaker: There has been some difficulty about the interpretation, and it occurs to me that I am perhaps a little late. But the hon. Minister was accusing the Member for Mountbatten of being a hypocrite, or of hypocrisy. Now, if that is so, I think the Hon. Minister knows that that word has been over-ruled in this House and he ought to withdraw it.

I did not hear the Hon. Minister through the interpreter - I did not hear him withdraw the expression that the, Member for Mountbatten is a hypocrite.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: (In Mandarin): -shedding crocodile tears, and not hypocrisy.

Mr Speaker: Let us have the withdrawal of that expression first and then we can deal with "crocodile tears".

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, just now I did not use the word "hypocrite". What I used was the phrase "shedding crocodile tears".

Mr Speaker: That expression is in order.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, when we were in the City Council we faced this serious problem. We proposed to the Government that we wanted this power, that we could use this power against the illegal racketeers. But we failed. At that time the attitude of the Government was for these racketeers and not against them. They were not for the victimised people. We propose this Bill in order to deal with the racketeers and to stop their illegal building of houses and development, in order to avoid something like the Lorong 3 fire or the Kampong Bahru fire, because the illegal builders of houses use a kind of material which is liable to catch fire, for example, attap, and at the same time they build without plans of any kind and the houses are not sanitary. The purpose of our present Bill is against the illegal racketeers and not against the poor people. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I uphold this proposal.

4.21 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, this Bill is very good because, since I am with the Minister for National Development, I have experience regarding illegal houses in this island. I feel, from the explanation given by the ex-Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, that there are thousands of illegal houses erected in Singapore. I dare say that if those people were affected by this Bill, they had been the victims of the previous Government which had purposely kept quiet regarding this matter. Personally, I feel that the existence of these illegal houses was because of many reasons. First, it is because of the weakness of the previous Government in controlling their officers from corruption and activities. For example, when a person asked for a licence to erect a house, there were officers who delayed this for months and for years. This not only happened in Singapore but also in the Southern Islands when I visited the islands a few weeks ago. This delay was due to the delay in giving corruption money to the officers. If money was paid early, the permit would come out early. But those who could not afford to give money and who did not want to give money to those said officers, were forced to erect illegal houses.

The Member for Geylang Serai said earlier that there were thousands of illegal houses in Singapore. This means that the previous Government knew of the existence of illegal houses in Singapore before. But they did not take any action, because there were certain people in the previous Government who, because they had to protect their own political interest, just kept quiet though the offence was clear before their eyes.

Mr Speaker, I would like to say that if we do not take positive action in this matter, I feel that there would be many more illegal houses, which having just been erected, they would say were erected a long time ago. For example, I was told by my friends who had observed the erection of these illegal houses that they would get their materials ready at the places; they got ready the roofs and walls and everything, and when the sun set about ten of them would work to erect the houses which would be completed in a matter of a few hours, and that very night they moved in with their children. By tomorrow a new house would be seen in that area. When the officers came to examine, they would say that these houses had been erected many years ago, and that they were just doing the renovations to the houses.

If we want to create a Singapore that is peaceful, happy and just, we may be forced to introduce laws which in the beginning would seem drastic. For example, take a small child who has a boil. If the father were afraid to operate on the boil for fear of the child crying, then I feel the child would get worse. What he should do is to cut out the boil and allow the pus to come out. When the child got well, he would think how lucky he was that his father had cut out the boil, for otherwise he would have lost the hand.

4.26 p.m.

Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib (Southern Islands): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, regarding this Bill concerning unauthorised houses in Singapore, a number of Opposition Members have stated clearly that they are not opposing this Bill in its entirety. It seems to me that a number of people who have spoken from the Government side are still bringing up the old story of what had happened in the past. I said yesterday that we are now facing the period in front of us. We should face this with full realisation, a full sense of responsibility of building this Singapore and to bring about a Government in Singapore that is strong and just. We should accept views that are meant to be constructive.

Concerning houses that have already been erected, this is a problem which is affected by the Bill when it is enacted. For instance, we know that most of the houses which have been erected are most of them huts or terrace houses with a number of rooms which have no numbers and are rented out to various families. We know the mistake. But this is a matter that has happened and it is a matter that we must face, and if we take the action to demolish these houses, it will be the responsibility of the Government to place these people in areas which are safe. So we hope that the Government, if they must take action, the action will be just, and without favour to any Party. Wherever the houses are found to be erected the law should apply. To those who are renting these houses, they must be given an assurance that they would get proper treatment from the Government.

4.30 p.m.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, it seems there have been a lot of misunderstanding or possibly distortions in the purpose of this Bill. The main purpose of this Bill is to declare open war on the building racketeers. It has nothing to do with the houses which have been built by farmers or other persons who are in need of homes due to the short-sighted and wrong policy of previous Governments in not building enough S.I.T. houses for their accommodation.

Section 170 (1), as amended, says, clearly that "Where the Minister is satisfied that a building is about to be erected or is in course of erection". That is the main purpose of the Bill. Mr Speaker, because of the ineptitude of past administrations and because perhaps of the recent events so-called politicians have contacts with these building racketeers. Past Governments had never taken a stand against these building racketeers, although the erstwhile colleague of the Member for Tanglin, Mr Lim Koon Teck, had always repeated in this Assembly that the Government should take strong action against unauthorised structures. Because of the ineptitude of past Governments, we have in the past year a big fire in Kampong Tiong Bahru; a big fire in Lorong 3, Geylang; and in the past two months another big fire in Kampong Tiong Bahru. Three weeks ago, another big fire nearly broke out near the Kallang Gasworks. On Sunday last, many persons came to see me from Kampong Amber which the Member for Mountbatten represents. They were very afraid because in the past few weeks six cases of fire have broken out. I am sure the Member for Mountbatten realises the position of the Government if Kampong Amber is burnt out.

The purpose of this Bill is not to take action against the existing structures which have been built in Kampong Amber. It is to take action against new unauthorised structures. The Local Government Ordinance in itself will be sufficient to deal with those structures which have existed. They will go with the normal process of the old laws. As I have said just now, the purpose of this amendment of section 170 is to declare open war on the building racketeers and we are very confident that from now onwards, when this Bill becomes law, no more such racketeers will ever exist in Singapore. They will have to close down their business and perhaps, because of that, many persons will have their incomes decreased. The penalties which will be enforced against these building racketeers will be very substantial and very high. On conviction they might have to pay a fine not exceeding $50 a day for every house they build.

Mr Speaker, if we have this Bill, or if the previous Government had got the courage to enact such a Bill, today there would not be 300 to 500 houses in the course of being erected - some of them have been built in Geylang. They would have to pay $15,000 to $20,000 a day for the houses they are building, and on top of that they might have to go to prison for a minimum period of six months or a maximum period of 12 months.

Mr Speaker, we believe that fines are not sufficient for the building racketeers, who are in general being backed by secret societies. We feel that the most important weapon against these building racketeers is to put them in jail and to fix a minimum period during which they will have free food and rice and accommodation supplied by Government.

Mr Speaker, if previous administrations had been more far-sighted or had worked harder or had reduced inefficiency and corruption, thus making more money for the purpose of building more S.I.T. houses, we would not have been saddled today with this problem of dealing with unauthorised structures on the one hand, and trying to build more houses on the other.

The P.A.P. Government understands that to stamp out these building racketeers is not enough, so long as a market exists for these unauthorised structures; and so long as there are innocent victims, these racketeers could still flourish. We believe that, on the more positive side, we could increase the building of S.I.T. houses which in the past 10 years has been at a very shamefully low figure. The fundamental and lasting remedy against unauthorised structures is to build more S.I.T. low-cost houses. The previous Governments and the previous S.I.T. had never tried to build low-cost housing and in great quantities because if they did so, the possibility of corruption would have been reduced. We are determined to remedy the situation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Ong Eng Guan].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 -

The Chairman: Hon. Members will notice in page 4, line 15, the deletion of three words.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

[Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr G. Kandasamy) in the Chair]