TOA PAYOH RESETTLEMENT SCHEME

Mr Wong Soon Fong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Government announced its plan in April this year to start the Toa Payoh development project, 25,000 residents there have been worried. They are dissatisfied with and have strong feelings against the Government. What they are dissatisfied with is not the scheme for the development of Toa Payoh itself, but the Government's rate of compensation in regard to the question of resettlement for the care of the residents. The Government has not taken into consideration the losses incurred by the 25,000 residents there. It has never taken their interest into consideration. It has only passed decrees to carry out its plans without such consideration. This rude attitude and action of the Government is contrary to the promises made by it to the people at the time of the general elections. The present rate of compensation is based on the Lim Yew Hock Government rate which was stipulated in 1956. In the P.A.P. Government promises at the general elections to the people in respect of rural development -

Mr Speaker: I think the Interpreter will probably find it a bit difficult to follow the hon. Member if he is speaking too fast. He should be slower.

Mr Wong Soon Fong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, today naked facts have shown that the P.A.P. have been acting contrary to their election promises. According to page 2 of the P.A.P.'s pamphlet, Book I, it says in regard to the P.A.P.'s rural policy:

`The position of all agricultural lands at present in the occupation of squatter farmers which have been zoned in the Master Plan as sites for satellite towns or potential industrial estates will be reviewed and the fullest consideration will be given to the representation of the members of the farming community before any decisions are made as to the future use to which such lands shall be put.'

Mr Speaker, the most important part which merits our attention in this passage is that the fullest consideration would be given to representations of members of the farming community. The request of the Toa Payoh residents to the Government is that the Government should fully consider their representations. But what has the P.A.P. Government done? It should consider carefully the views and representations of the Toa Payoh residents. But has the P.A.P. Government done so? Their representations are very simple and clear. They are not like the P.A.P. promises made at the time of the general elections, which were some kind of trickery and were of a very confused nature.

First, the request of the Toa Payoh residents is that when they are asked to remove, the Government should give them adequate, reasonable and just compensation for the loss of their agricultural produce and all the structures built on the land. At the moment, the Government's rate of compensation is based on the Lim Yew Hock Government's rate of compensation which was fixed in 1956. The rate of this old scheme of compensation was very low. Thus the rural residents would have to incur great losses if they were to be paid according to this old rate. Secondly, the request of the residents of Toa Payoh is that after they have resettled, the Government should look after their welfare. It should not let them be homeless or unemployed so that they would suffer the misery of unemployment. But according to the present Government measures, the Government has not given any safeguard to the residents who are affected in respect of their future livelihood. At the present moment, most of them are carrying on farming. In future, when they are removed to new resettlement areas, they will be faced with the problem of a shortage of land and they may not have adequate land to carry on with their own trade, that is to say, farming and other things. Hawkers perhaps will also be unemployed. There is always such a danger and uncertainty before them. About 1,000 residents who have been engaging in the bean-curd business and rattan industry will also be faced with the problem of unemployment. Therefore, the Toa Payoh residents are rather worried about their future. They have all sorts of misgivings and uncertainty. I would like to ask the P.A.P. leaders whether they have given full consideration to the representations and views of the Toa Payoh residents affected by the development scheme. The answer from them is obviously no. In order to present their representations and views to the Government, the residents of Toa Payoh convened mass rallies. They launched signature campaigns in the area. The Country People's Association also spent over one month interviewing the residents in the area and seeking their views. In the end the Association drafted two memoranda which were presented to the Government. These memoranda systematically presented the views of the residents and their request to the Government. But the Government's attitude towards these representations was very bad. The Government entirely ignored the representatives from the people. The representatives of the people wanted to see the Minister, but the Minister and the officers responsible refused to see them. They used all kinds of pretexts and elusive tactics not to see them. Can this attitude on the part of the Government be satisfactory to the Toa Payoh residents? Can this kind of Government be pleasant to the people? Can the people have any confidence in such a Government? The Government's barbarity and its wrong attitude towards the Toa Payoh problem have incurred the ill-feelings and misgivings of the Toa Payoh residents. The P.A.P. Government has involved itself in a way which is just like hitting itself with a stone. The P.A.P. Government has not tried to review its past mistakes and rectify them. On the contrary, it is levelling accusations against me and the Country People's Association for creating troubles against the Government. All this is absurd.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Toa Payoh satellite town plan was proposed last year. At that time I was still with the P.A.P. Government. Ever since the plan was proposed, it has caused worry and misgivings to the Toa Payoh residents. This is because the Government did not at the same time announce a reasonable and adequate rate of compensation and they did not announce its plan for resettlement of the residents in Toa Payoh. After several contacts, with them, I came to understand their misgivings and worry. On many occasions I told the leaders o, the P.A.P. about the views and the requests of the people affected. As early as 3rd May, 1961, I presented a memorandum to the Minister for National Development, and also to the leaders, to remind them of the worries and the views of the people. I suggested that the three parties, that is, myself, certain representatives from the people and the Country People's Association, should form a consultative committee to look into the Toa Payoh resettlement problem. At the same time, the Toa Payoh P.A.P. Branch representatives also convened a joint Branch and Headquarters meeting to discuss various matters affecting the Toa Payoh residents which were detrimental to their interest and to the interest of the people living there. At that time, that is, in May last year, about 20 Branch secretaries and assistant secretaries had presented their representations to the leaders of the P.A.P. on the question of the Toa Payoh development scheme and resettlement problems. The representations said that in implementing the Toa Payoh satellite town plan, the Government had held no prior consultation with the residents there and had no understanding of the living conditions of the residents there. In fact, it had not paid much attention to the problems of resolving the livelihood of the people affected by the scheme. Though the plan itself is good, nevertheless the Government has never taken into consideration the interests of the people affected. The People's livelihood depends on business and trades. These are closely linked with the place they live in and the people affected will incur certain losses in respect of their property and belongings. This should also be taken into consideration.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the request and views of the people affected can be likened to a stone which has sunk in the sea. They did not evoke any response from the P.A.P. Government. The Government has entirely ignored the misery and the difficulties of the people affected. On this point we, the people who have suggested various views and requests to the P.A.P. Government, had in the end to part ways with the P.A.P. leadership politically. At present the P.A.P. leadership have incurred the great displeasure and dissatisfaction of the Toa Payoh residents. Now the P.A.P. leaders are trying to seek some other side issues in order to divert attention. They now construe the Toa Payoh problem as a kind of political question and put the blame on the Barisan Sosialis. They are accusing us of purposely trying to create confusion and trouble and also create ill-feelings against the Government. These tactics on the part of the P.A.P. disclose the Party's barbarity, rudeness and unreasonableness in dealing with this question. This kind of levelling accusations and throwing blame will not help solve the various matters arising from the Toa Payoh development plan at all. If the P.A.P. Government had sincerely respected the views and representations of the people and the Rural People's Association in thinking out a good plan to deal with the Toa Payoh problems, i.e., to look after the interests of the people affected and to have a certain kind of safeguard for their livelihood, then this question could have been resolved amicably. It is now trying to pay for its phoney merger and Malaysia Plan with the money it has, but it is not willing to settle the Toa Payoh problem. It has spent about $130,000 on Malaysia Week and the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee. It has spent about $40,000 to $50,000 in distributing Mr Lee Kuan Yew's pamphlets for his personal propaganda. These are issued in small pamphlets numbering a few thousands. But as to the request made by the 25,000 Toa Payoh residents, the P.A.P. Government is not even interested in their livelihood and after-care. On the contrary, the P.A.P. Government is issuing statements in the newspapers and trying to show that it is helping the Toa Payoh residents to move into a kind of paradise, whereas we, on the other hand, are trying to prevent them from resettling in a paradise. It has been said that we have lost the support of the people of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, the people are the supreme authority and the final judge on the question of what is right and what is wrong, what is true and what is false. I would like to draw the attention of the P.A.P. leadership to this fact. I would like seriously to challenge the P.A.P. leadership. If any of them wants to resign now, I would like to contest him in a future by-election in order to let the people pass their final judgment on us.

8.19 p.m.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Tan Kia Gan): Sir, I would like to quote from a Government Press release dated 10th March, 1962. It started off briefly:

`It has now become clear that the Barisan Sosialis having failed to work up public opinion against the Government among the workers, students, People's Association employees and members of the Work Brigade, are now, in conjunction with their sympathisers, the Country People's Association, turning their attention to farmers and other rural people. Towards this end, they are now trying to work up anti-Government feeling over the Ton Payoh Development Scheme.'

Sir, everyone of us knows that they are turning their attention to the farmers and the rural people. One week ago, the Member for Toa Payoh and his Party held a mass meeting in Toa Payoh. We heard from the Member for Toa Payoh just now that there are about 25,000 settlers in Toa Payoh, and out of this 25,000 settlers, only 150 of them turned up at this meeting. The other 400 or 500 who made up the crowd were brought in. It just shows that the people who voted for the Member for Toa Payoh voted for the P.A.P. They did not vote for the Barisan Sosialis.

Sir, when the Member for Toa Payoh was still in the Government, he vigorously advised the people of Toa Payoh to accept the Government's terms of compensation as fair and reasonable, and he urged them to move out to resettlement areas set aside for them by the Government. Now that he is in the Barisan Sosialis, he sings a different tune.

The Member for Toa Payoh and his friends in the Country People's Association have been told of the many amendments this Government has made to the compensation terms. They pretend, however, that they do not know. To refresh their memories, I will mention some of these items. For concrete water ponds in the agricultural areas, which were previously not eligible for compensation they are now compensated for by the Government according to their cubic capacity. This was introduced on 8th October, 1959. Again on 11th July, 1960, the Government enlarged the list of items for which compensation would be paid by including such other items as Buah Namnam, Daun Pandan and orchids, all of which are crops grown fairly widely by the country people. On 15th January, 1962, a further amendment was made to provide for compensation to be paid to owners of prawn ponds due for clearance based on the cubic yardage of the earth fillings to bunds and the number of sluice gates and Bakau payas. These new rates of compensation for prawn ponds proved so satisfactory to all parties concerned that the clearance of settlers at Tanjong Kling and Joe David Road for the development project was affected smoothly and without disruption.

In addition to expanding the list of items for which compensation will be paid, Government has also removed from the schemes of compensation the limitation as to the maximum amount of payment a settler with less than one acre of land may obtain from Government by way of compensation. This amendment, which was introduced on 28th April, 1960, enables a farmer with a holding of less than one acre to be eligible for the possible maximum compensation of $1,500 for his crops, fruit trees and flowers. In November 1960, the Government revised Resettlement Scheme C to provide for a settler who cannot be classified as a farmer to get compensation also. Under the unrevised scheme, such a settler was not entitled to any compensation for improvements effected to the land he occupied. Now, not only this settler, but also his bona fide sub-tenants will be eligible for compensation for improvements. In addition, each of them will be given a free basic house and a small plot of land on which he can continue to carry on his present occupation. Government has already announced its intention to apply this revised Scheme C together with a special scheme of house exchange to meet the special conditions in Toa Payoh. A $5,000 terrace house with its own yard along Kim Keat Road will be given free to the owner-occupier of an existing hut in Toa Payoh, who, is willing to give up his whole hut in exchange for a Government-built terrace house. He will pay a ground rent of $5 per month and will be free to carry on his previous occupation of beancurd-making, poultry-rearing, etc. This exchange will, in fact, mean that the settler concerned will be getting a $5,000 terrace house with all the amenities laid on in exchange for an old and often unsanitary hut worth less than $2,000.

The allegation by the Member for Toa Payoh and his friends that the people of Toa Payoh did not know where they were going to be resettled is without foundation. The settlers had been told individually by resettlement inspectors where they were going to be resettled. They were also told that they would be free to carry on the same occupation in their new homes. The further charge that the settlers were not or would not be given full compensation is nonsense. Government compensation terms have been given wide publicity in the last few days. Yet the Member for Toa Payoh, the Country People's Association and the Rural Residents' Association keep on repeating that the terms of compensation are insufficient and are pressing their fantastic demands. For instance, they want the Government to pay compensation at the rate of $30 per vegetable bed to farmers. Sir, one acre of land can easily accommodate 300 such beds and the compensation would amount to $9,000. Again, for earth orchid nurseries, the Association wants a compensation rate of $100 per plot and, on the basis of 300 plots to an acre, the total compensation for one acre of orchid nurseries works out to $30,000. They know full well that no government can afford to pay such fantastic compensation terms. But then, Sir. their objective is not to reach any amicable settlement of the issue, but only to create chaos and confusion among country people to suit their own political ends, i.e., to involve country folks in the Barisan Sosialis' futile fight against merger.

Sir, the Government's schemes of resettlement are aimed at assisting the people affected by clearance to settle down quickly and continue earning their livelihood in their new homes. The Toa Payoh Development Scheme will provide not only accommodation for thousands of people who have no proper homes, hut also employment, both direct and indirect, for many thousands of its inhabitants. 250,000 to 300,000 people will be housed in the 50,000 housing units and 100 shops that will rise up in this area. There will be four markets, 20 primary and secondary schools, community centres and theatres, and other amenities will also be built to cater for these people. But more important than anything else, the Toa Payoh scheme will provide employment for 8,000 people engaged in construction work and the supply of building materials over a period of about 5 years. The earth that will be cut off from the hilly parts of the Toa Payoh area will be used to reclaim about 400 acres of land in the Kallang Basin. The land so reclaimed will be used for resettlement for establishment of industrial estates that will provide employment for some 30,000 to 40,000 people of Singapore.

Sir, because of the tremendous benefits that the Toa Payoh scheme will bring to the people of Singapore, the Government will not allow its intentions and its objectives to be deterred by the agitations of the Barisan Sosialis and their political stooges in the Country People's Association, whose sole interest is to see the failure of the Government's Four-Year Development Plan so that the pro-Communists can thrive on the resultant widespread chaos and unemployment that will arise from the failure of this development scheme -

An hon. Member: Will you resign?

Mr Tan Kia Gan: Sir, there is no cause for me to resign because I have not changed camps and I have not changed colours. But the people who are saying that now have changed camps. They were elected on the P.A.P. ticket, the P.A.P. platform; now they have changed camps. They have yet to receive a mandate from the people for this change, and if they have any guts, they should prove their worth by resigning and then see whether they will be voted again and returned to this Assembly -

The Question having been proposed at Eight o'clock p.m., and the time appointed for the termination of the sitting (half -past Eight p.m.) having arrived, Mr Speaker adjourned the Assembly without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eight o'clock p.m.