CONSTRUCTION COST OF COMMUNITY CENTRES BUILT SINCE 1-7-59 (Request for public inquiry)

Mr S. V. Lingam asked the Minister for Labour and Law (a) how many community centres have been built since 1st July, 1959, and what is the total construction cost of these centres; (b) whether the construction of all these community centres was given to one private contractor without going to public tender, and why; (c) how does the Government fix the value of the construction; (d) whether the previous architect for the building of community centres was paid architect fees by the Government or was given a cut by the contractor; and (e) whether the Government will request the Board of Architects to make, or will initiate proceedings for, a public inquiry into this matter.

The Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): Mr Speaker, Sir, as to the first part of the question the answer is that 11 community centres have been built since the 1st of July, 1959, and that the total construction cost for these 11 community centres was $306,403.13.

To the second part of the question as to whether the construction of all these community centres was given to one private contractor without going to public tender, and why, the answer is "yes". In August 1959, the P.W.D. was very short of architects and engineers. The ex-Minister for National Development. knows the circumstances under which this shortage arose. The Director of Public Works advised that private contractors should be engaged for this work. A reliable contractor and a private architect were then engaged to do this work. The Shaw Foundation and the Lee Foundation, which provided most of the funds for the building of these community centres, did not require the work to be put out to public tender because of their appreciation of the Ministry's desire not to have any delays in the implementation of the building programme. The People's Association has since taken over the control of community centres from the Ministry and a Tenders Committee of the Board of Management will take over the work of building community centres.

The third part of the question:

`how does the Government fix the value of the construction;'. Mr Speaker, Sir, the value of the construction was assessed on a certificate from the architect that the price charged for each item of work to be done was fair and reasonable, and scrutiny of the charges was made by officials of the Ministry. The price of the small community centres we have built compares favourably( with that of the small community centres constructed by the former Rural Board. The medium-size community centres we have built at a price of about $40,000 each have the floor space of the large community centres constructed by the former government at a cost of about $130,000 each.

I have some details, Mr Speaker, Sir, which would interest, the House. The medium-size centres that we built at Havelock Road and at Banda Street - the cost of the centre at Havelock Road was $42,000, which included piling. The cost of the Banda Street Community Centre was $36,900, and this included an Arcron structure provided by the Department of Social Welfare. The area of the Havelock Road Community Centre is 2,590 square feet, with five classrooms. There is a hail, downstairs and in this hail there is a movable screen in between. If this movable screen is removed, the floor space is increased to about 1,036 square feet, so that the total of the floor space available at the Havelock Road Community Centre is 3,626 square feet. The area of the Banda Street Community Centre is 2,944 square feet, with five classrooms. There is also a hail downstairs with a movable screen in between. If that movable screen is removed, then the area will be increased by 1,254 square feet, making the total area 4,198 square feet. These are what we term medium-size community centres. We will compare these medium-size community centres with the old community centre at Sims Avenue. The total area of the Sims Avenue Community Centre is 2,596 square feet. There are three classrooms and one hail. That centre was put out to tender and the price was $135,000. Now we come to the Changi Community Centre. There are two classrooms and one hall. The total area is 2,456 square feet. This centre was put out to tender, Mr Speaker, Sir, and the cost was $130,000; so that we have built larger community centres which we term medium-size community centres for about one-third of the price that the previous government paid for those community centres.

Sir, in the case of the smaller community centres - the Minto Road Community Centre cost us $8,900. That included an Arcron structure supplied by the Department of Social Welfare from the Singapore Constitution Exposition. The Beach Road Community Centre cost us $11,448. That also included an Arcron structure. The Kampong Glam Community Centre cost $14,581. That included an Arcron structure. The Yio Chu Kang Community Centre cost $14,379. This included an Arcron structure. The Maude Road Community Centre which was recently opened cost $15,613. There was no Arcron structure supplied. All the materials for that community centre were supplied by the contractor. If we compare these prices, Mr Speaker, Sir, with the prices for the small community centres built by the Rural Board, we find that the Changi Point Community Centre cost. $16,000 without sanitation. The Ama Keng Community Centre cost $12,500 without sanitation. The West Coast Road Community Centre cost $11,000 without sanitation. The Jalan Eunos Community Centre, which is the most modern of the old community centres, cost $25,000 with modern sanitation as against our prices. If you go round and have a look at these community centres, you will find that in the new small community centres, they are all provided with basketball pitches. badminton courts and so on, which cost more money, while the other community centres have not got those amenities, Sir. That is the comparison between the prices of work that has been done by a reliable contractor with the help of an architect and officials of the Ministry, and work that was previously put out to tender by the previous government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to the fourth part of the question:

`whether the previous architect for the building of community centres was paid architect fees by the Government or was given a cut by the contractor;'.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Shaw Foundation and the Lee Foundation received separate bills from the previous architect and the contractor for their work in respect of each community centre, and separate payments were made. Where payments were made from funds made available to the People's Association by the Treasury, the same procedure was followed. Out of this $306,000 about $250,000 of that money came from the Shaw Foundation and the Lee Foundation. The other $50,000 came from the Treasury - the money that was voted by the Assembly for the People's Association. In every case where payments were made - whether the payments were made by the Shaw Foundation or the Lee Foundation, or whether the payments were made by the Treasurer! Secretary and the Deputy Chairman of the People's Association - there were separate bills presented in every case by the contractor and the previous architect, and separate payments were in fact made.

To the fifth part of the question, which is:

`whether the Government wilt request the Board of Architects to make, or will initiate proceedings for, a public inquiry into this matter.'.

I must inform the House that the Treasury tender procedures are not applicable in the case of buildings put up by private organisations for the Government, or in `the case of buildings put up from funds made available to independent statutory bodies. Al-though not put out for public tender, the cost of the work has been carefully scrutinized by professional architects and Government officials experienced in planning and designing community centres. Furthermore, the allegation that the previous architect received a cut from the contractor is groundless. For these reasons, Mr Speaker, Sir, a public, inquiry by Government or by the Board of Architects is not in the least called for.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, would the Government consider abolishing the public tender system since it is so cheap to build without going to public tender?

Mr Speaker: It seems to be a different question.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think it is fair for me to answer that question, because if it is raised seriously I think it is a matter which really concerns the Ministry of Finance. If I were to relate my personal experience with reference to Government tender procedures, the whole House will be shocked.

Mr Rajah: I wonder if the Minister could tell the House whether all the sums of money made available by the Lee Foundation and the Shaw Foundation were paid into the Consolidated Fund?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, it was not. The agreement that we had was this. The works would be undertaken, the bills would be duly presented to these Foundations, and they would then undertake to pay up to the amounts that they had agreed to pay. There was no actual transfer of cash between the Foundations and the Government. So the position, as has been, I think, correctly stated, is that they were really buildings put up by these organisations on behalf of the Government.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, am I to understand that these funds which have been provided by the Lee Foundation and the Shaw Foundation would not appear in the public accounts of the State of Singapore?

Mr Byrne: That is so, Mr Speaker, Sir. I thought that that was a very strange way of doing business, but I find that businessmen are more wise in these matters than I myself. They say that if they keep the money until it is wanted, they earn interest on that money.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, how was this special contractor selected? is it because he had given satisfactory private work to the Prime Minister and other Ministers?

Mr Speaker: Order. The first part of the question is all right, but if the hon. Member carries on with inferences, he is out of order.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: I withdraw the second part of my question, Sir.

Mr Byrne: You may remember, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we had an Exposition just after we became the Government. We wanted to show to the public the work of the various Ministries of the Government. The Finance Minister was very strict about expenditure. He limited us to $2,000 each per stand. He is a very astute person in these matters. Mr Speaker, Sir. One day he asked me to call at the Victoria Memorial Hall to see how the work of the stands was progressing. I paid a visit there, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I found that whereas all the other Ministries were using screens for stands, there was a beautiful structure going up at the Victoria Memorial Hall for the Ministry of National Development. I looked around and I found that a contractor was engaged in this work. I duly reported the fact to the Minister for Finance and so I had to go and get another contractor to do our work. The contractor that I employed knew the previous architect. We have employed two architects for the work on community centres. The criticism is that the previous architect is the man who is alleged to have got a cut from the contractor. This previous architect was a colleague of my ex-colleague, the Minister for National Development, in Australia, and he disliked this man intensely.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am endeavouring to cut out personalities. Perhaps the Minister will assist the Chair by cutting out personalities.

Mr Byrne: I have lost track of the question at the moment, Mr Speaker, Sir. May I be reminded as to what the question was?

Mr Speaker: How was the contractor chosen?

Mr Byrne: He was not chosen. I myself have known him to be a reliable contractor, and I depended on the advice of my good friends. That is how he was selected to do the work.

I may add, Mr Speaker, Sir, that when this building was going up, I went round one day with the ex-Minister for National Development to Kampong Bugis and asked him to help the poor people there. We both visited the community centre at Minto Road. He looked at the work and said that it was very good indeed. He also said that we, as the Government, would be well advised to carry on as we did and get this private contractor to give us very good service.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, I do not know this architect and where he is qualified. But is the Minister aware that the reason why this architect did not continue with the job is that he was dissatisfied with the cut given to him by the contractor who was introduced to the Minister by his good friends?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is completely untrue. If it were not for the fact that libellous statements made in this House are absolutely privileged, I am sure the ex-Minister for National Development would not dare to make those statements outside a place like this forum.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, would the Government consider making an open inquiry into the whole matter?

Mr Byrne: We do not usually make inquiries into the activities of people who have done us a very good service.

Mr Speaker: Mrs Seow, question No. 11.