RURAL BOARD (UNAUTHORISED BUILDINGS) BILL

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [5th April, 1963], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was saying on Friday evening that the state of affairs described by two hon. Members, from the Southern Islands and Kampong Kembangan, were in fact an indictment against our society. For a poor man to risk $700 to $1,000 of his hard-earned savings buying a house which he knows may well be pulled down - and often he is asked to go into occupation in the middle of the night - he must be in a fairly desperate position. The problem has been considerably alleviated in the urban areas, in the city areas, as a result of massive building of low-cost housing by the Housing and Development Board. But there is no obvious solution to the problem in the rural areas. This Bill seeks summary powers for the rural areas.

Sir, the Malays in particular have not taken to flat dwelling, except when they have moved together en bloc either as part of the Regiment, or as part of the Police Force, or as part of the Customs Unit. But in the city where they have so adjusted themselves, the problem can be alleviated. However, in the rural areas, they have shown a definite preference for a house with a piece of land attached to it, which means a piece of land on which chickens and ducks and birds and so on can be kept. I am sorry to say that the Housing and Development Board has not as yet developed or found a plan which will allow maximum utilisation of land for such purposes. The lands which the Malays would like to have for settlement are too near the city for us to gazette as settlement areas. They are too valuable for just the ordinary kampong house.

The lands we have available they consider are too far from the city. It is really a sociological problem the answer to which must be found in either developing a kind of house which would be economical or multi-storey houses with a piece of land nearby - which has been done in other countries; they live in flats and they all have little plots of land on which they keep their chickens or grow their vegetables - or we must reconcile ourselves to this constant repetition of illegal structures.

Sir, the Member for Kampong Kembangan on Friday evening drew my attention to three or four houses in particular in his constituency, and I have had investigations made into these houses. In the first place, Mr Speaker, Sir, before any building plan can be passed, the owner of the land must signify his consent that he allows this building to be erected or to have been erected on his land. Part of that land in Kampong Kembangan belongs to the Alsagoff Estate. One of it is known as the Perseverance Estate and the beneficiaries are at this moment in the process of litigation in the High Court and nobody can give any consent to any building. The three families that I was referred to, I am sorry to say, knowingly undertook that risk when they built. When they put wood and zinc together, they knew that the beneficiaries were squabbling at the High Court over the Estate and they run the risk of having it smacked down. I do not know what the exact position is at the moment - whether the house is still standing or has already been demolished - but I give this assurance to the Member for Kampong Kembangan, that I will look into the matter and treat it with as much consideration as I can because of the loss that they have incurred.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it gives me no pleasure in moving this Bill, but I think Members will agree that it is a necessary one. We must, however, try and find a solution to this, and I hope that Members opposite whose constituents always express their preference for the Malay-type of kampong house would help us in finding this solution. Having gone into the matter at some length on several occasions with my Parliamentary Secretary, I do not see any sizable piece of land acceptable to the Malays as sufficiently near the city to be gazetted as a Malay settlement. There are little bits and pieces in Sembawang; a little bit more in Kaki Bukit near Kampong Kembangan; then it is exhausted. Then they have to go really out into the ulu. Then there is the problem of children going to school; the problem of roads, light, water and so on. Alternatively, if they will give this Geylang Serai project, where we are putting up some 500 odd units meant primarily for the people in the area, a real try and if they will take to flat dwelling, we can arrange to give them bits of land for their chickens and fowls and other animals nearby. That I think is the only possible solution to what is a very difficult situation.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[The Prime Minister]

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

3.51 p.m.

Clauses 1 and 2 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 -

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Sir, I have an amendment to propose - that sub-clause (4) of clause 3 be deleted.

The Chairman: Please move.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 3, to leave out lines 16 to 18 inclusive.

Sir, clause 3 deals with the offence of having put up a building and then selling it to some innocent victim. Sub-clause (2) deals with an offence committed in the course of putting up a building. While the building is still in the process of being put up, the offender tries to sell it to an innocent victim.

Sir, these offences are clear-cut - putting up a building and then selling it, or having put up a building and wanting to sell it. I cannot understand why prosecutions for offences of this nature should receive the sanction of the Minister. Sir, there have been cases where before a prosecution could be instituted, it must have the sanction of the State Advocate-General. One can understand and appreciate and support that. But where the sanction has to come from the Minister, it is all wrong, because he can play politics. That has happened, Sir. There is loss of faith in the P.A.P. Ministers. "So long as you are a P.A.P. member, tidak apa, lah. I will not prosecute you. And if you are not already a member, become a P.A.P. member quickly, and we will not prosecute you." That is why we are objecting on the ground that this leads to political abuse.

The Prime Minister: I agree to its deletion.

Mr David Marshall: I merely rise to support and express my delight at the amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill. But in view of the comment of the Prime Minister, I will not take up the time of the House.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I would just like to explain that I think the reason it was there was that it was taken from an old Ordinance when the then Minister was the Member for Geylang Serai. That is all.

Tun Lim Yew Hock rose -

The Chairman: On a point of order?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: No, Sir.

The Chairman: Order. Can I just draw the attention of Members to section 170A of the Local Government Ordinance, subsection (4) which came into effect by reason of an amending Ordinance, Ordinance 44 of 1959 ---

Tun Lim Yew Hock: In July. Sir.

The Chairman: --- on the 24th of July, 1959. It is the same as sub-clause (4) which reads:

`No prosecution in respect of an offence under this section shall be instituted without the sanction of the Minister.'

Tun Lim Yew Hock: At that time, Sir, we could not object because there were 43 strong men of the P.A.P., and everytime we opened our mouths they stamped us down! But now it is 25-25.

The Chairman: I take it that the Member for Cairnhill will move an amending Bill to the Local Government Ordinance in time.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: There is already a Local Government Integration Bill and we will see that it does not appear any more.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.