The "National" Advertising Tower in North Bridge Road

Mr David Marshall: Mr Mammen, Sir, may I raise a matter that I trust is non-political, but which should interest citizens of Singapore who take pride in this lovely island of ours where one of the most charming man-made prospects is the Padang area bounded by the sea, Queen Elizabeth's Walk, the Singapore Recreation Club, the Cathedral and this House?

Mr Mammen, Sir, although those buildings grew up haphazardly, there is nevertheless a dignity about them and a real charm in the composite whole of that open area and its environs, or, should I say there was, Sir, because now, as I travel daily across Merdeka Highway, the prospect I used to enjoy of our beautiful harbour is to some extent spoilt by the concrete seaward railing, and the prospect I used to enjoy of that area we call the Padang is more than somewhat spoilt now by the monstrous advertising billboard in North Bridge Road with the Rising Sun of Japan dominating the entire scene from the sea and the air. This monstrous "National" monument - insolent name - stares proudly out as a `chop' of ownership of the whole island, this fair island of ours.

The view from the back is no less disfiguring, with its bare steel ribs, and in case Members are not travelling along that vicinity, Mr Mammen. Sir, may I table some photographs of this area and I will place some also in the Library.

Copies of photographs handed in.

You can see the enormity of the ugliness which has been perpetrated upon our city by responsible Government servants who, according to the Minister for National Development, are from the Planning Department and the Chief Building Surveyor's Department.

This monstrous sign sited in an industrial area may well not be objectionable, but to site it where it is, Sir, leering over our major public buildings and our main open space is an insult to the city of Singapore and its people. It is fantastic, it is unbelievable, that there should be responsible civil servants who, as the Minister for National Development has informed us, come from two separate Government Departments, who should have given permission for the erection and display of this commercial monument that at night transforms the lovely Cathedral and its grounds literally into a red light area, amid in the day and night it destroys the harmony of the very centre of public buildings of Singapore.

Sir, I wish to say here that I have received information whose reliability I am not prepared to vouch for, but it is important that it should be known even though it may just be a rumour - that it is alleged that the civil servants from these two departments refused to give permission for this insult to our City, and that it was pressure from the Minister for Finance that compelled them to concede and to grant the necessary licences. Whether that information be true or not, I consider that the granting of licences for so patently monstrous and disfiguring a commercial monument, destructive of the harmony of our main public centre, requires a public inquiry, and those responsible should be considered incapable of discharging their responsibilities.

Mr Mammen, Sir, I do not know if you remember, but I raised this matter at Question Time on the 11th of June. There was one interjection by the Member for Cairnhill, right at the very end, which quite startled me at the time and over which I have pondered since. It Consisted of one word, Sir, at the very end of the Minister for National Development's reply. That one word was "A-no-ne". A-no-ne, Sir, is a Japanese word known to all those who have suffered during the Occupation and even those who have played footsy with them and profited in being in their employ.

It has since occurred to me, Mr Mammen, that whereas I was and am viewing this monstrous commercial advertising monument as a leprous blot on the fair face of Singapore, others in Singapore are viewing it as an act of national arrogance. At this juncture, I think I should make it clear that I was, at the material time, responsible for permitting and encouraging re-entry into Singapore of Japanese merchants and Japanese banking after the re-occupation, because I was convinced, as I am today, that Japan, being one of the foremost democratic nations in Asia, it is important that we should extend to her all our goowill and any assistance that in our way we can give. I think it important to say this, Sir, in case there is any suggestion that there is bias on my part, because I wish it to be recognised that conduct of the kind epitomised in this monstrous monument creates strong resentment, not merely directly towards those immediately responsible but spilling into wider and more dangerous areas. This "National" monument, insulting in its size and situation and insolent in its name, epitomises Japanese commercial arrogance. The Government's interest in permitting this insult to the City of Singapore requires explanation, for no man in his senses, barring a blind man, could tolerate the creation of this disfiguring monstrosity in the very centre of our public institutions. If such a sign were erected in front of the Imperial Palace in Tokyo, there would be a riot. The people of Singapore are docile, fortunately. But I think, Sir, that it is, and it should be recognised, necessary that this Government with its very short life - if it is capable of any decent act, and if it is not guilty of ministerial interference in executive conduct and the alleged compulsion brought to bear upon civil servants to give licences - should appoint a Commission of Inquiry to ascertain how and why this monstrosity comes to disfigure this island of ours, and they should furthermore give notice to the organisation immediately responsible for this commercial insult to our city that the licences for the display will be terminated when they rust out at the end of this year.

I also take the liberty, Mr Mammen, Sir, to suggest to the Japanese mercantile community that it would be wiser in the long run in their own interests to see that a monument of ths character and this arrogance should not continue to insult and antagonise our citizens. Their friendship with the Minister for Finance today will, as it transpires, be found to be a very fleeting asset.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I cannot but express my agreement with the sentiments of the Member for Anson. This "National" monument is national, not in the sense of belonging to us, the people of Singapore, but belonging to the "National" radios, and commercial firms of Japan. This ugly monstrosity could never have past me during the time I was in the City Council or during the time I was in charge of the Ministry of National Development.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: I remember that during my time there was another advertisement which was only one-tenth the size of this monument. It was situated in People's Park. The City Council decided that after the expiry of the lease given by the former City Council, we should not extend it any longer. As far as I can remember, under existing policies such a monument - I think "monument" is too good a word - such a structure can never get pass the Building Surveyor's Department or the City Planning Department. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not actually know how this disgrace to our landscape -

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: - this disfigurement to our city silhouette can get through the Government.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there might be many reasons. One of the possible reasons, as the Member for Anson has said, may be that the Minister for Finance over-ruled the decision of civil servants. That reason is possible because I always have doubt, for instance, as to why the Government dare not press on with the claim against the Japanese Government for compensation. Was it because the P.A.P. Ministers were scared of the Japanese not coming to Singapore for further investment? Or was it because some of the P.A.P. Ministers had during the Japanese occupation worked for the Japanese? That we would not know. Anyway, I agree with the Member for Anson that we must probe into this disgrace to our city, how it came to pass, and that the Government should give us full details of how this monument was actually approved.

Mr Tee Kim Leng (Pasir Panjang): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, the "National" advertising tower is a great insult to the people of Singapore. We do not know why the Government approved the erection of this advertising tower. Does the erection of this tower mean that the Government approve of the Japanese massacre of our people in the Second World War? Civic organisations here have demanded compensation for the victims of the massacre, but the Government have not taken the issue seriously, but instead are adopting delaying tactics and so have annoyed the people of Singapore.

The other point is that this advertising tower has a red background. Thousands of people in Singapore were massacred by the Japanese troops, and this debt cannot be cleared. And this tower by using red as the background symbolises the blood of the people of Singapore, and indirectly it insults the people of Singapore. Therefore, we suggest that the Government should order the company to pull down the tower and press the Japanese to compensate for the massacre.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Tan Kia Gan): Sir, during his speech the Member for Anson mentioned certain information that he had received - that according to his understanding of his information, the Chief Planner and the Chief Building Surveyor had, in fact, refused the erection of this tower but were pressured by the Finance Minister to agree to it. Sir, according to what I understand, this is very far from true. As I answered the Member for Anson sometime ago on this question of the "National" sign along North Bridge Road, I informed the Member that the approval of this sky-sign was given by the Planning Authority as well as the Chief Surveyor's Department. I would like to further inform him that before planning permission was granted to the proposed structure, this proposal was also referred to the Development Control Committee, whose members include the Chief Planner, the Director of Public Works, the Chief Building Surveyor, and a representative each of the Singapore Institute of Architects and the Malayan Society of Engineers. This Committee considered, amongst other factors, the aspects of this proposal, and was able to advise approval, subject to certain improvements being made to the design of the structure, which were duly complied with. Whether this particular structure is aesthetically objectionable is a matter of opinion. I might add that in any big cities such as ours, advertising sky-signs are an accepted feature of the city sky-line. In fact, at this moment, there are 121 sky-signs erected in Singapore, and it is odd that the Member for Anson, the Member for Hong Lim and even the Member for Pasir Panjang should object to only one of the -

Mr David Marshall: But not of that size, nor of that height.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Tan Kia Gan: Sir, as regards size, I would like to inform the Member for Anson that there is also a Pan-American Airlines sky-sign which is very much higher than this sky-sign, but he has got no objection to it. This is not a sky-sign erected by a local -

Mr David Marshall: On a point of clarification. [Interruption] P.A.P. courtesy to the last!

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Tan Kia Gan resumed his seat.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Mammen, Sir, the Pan-American Airlines sign is higher, but it is infinitesimally smaller, if the Minister knows what that means. It is an extremely small one - at the top of the Cathay building, not this monstrous structure going up from the ground floor to 160 odd feet high.

Mr Tan Kia Gan rose - [Interruption]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Tan Kia Gan: I gave him the courtesy but he will not give me this courtesy. Although this "National" sky-sign is over a hundred feet high, the lighted area is not that long. Sir, I was very curious why the Member for Anson was so obsessed with this sky-sign.

An hon. Member: He stays close by.

Mr Tan Kia Gan: I was told yesterday after this matter was raised by the Member for Anson that he lives nearby, and for curiosity's -

Mr David Marshall: That is not true.

Mr Tan Kia Gan: - sake, I looked up the telephone directory. I found under the name of Mr David Marshall, there were two addresses. One I think is No. 17, or something to that effect, Meyer Mansions. For your information, Meyer Mansions is just a stone's throw from this sky-sign and I am told, rightly or wrongly, that this sky-sign must have disturbed him during his sleep.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, I think, Sir, because this is misleading.

Mr Deputy Speaker: May I ask the Member whether it is a point of order or a point of clarification first?

Mr David Marshall: I think it is a point of order. You can decide, Sir. The question is this. That he is misleading the House in respect of an issue of fact. Would you permit me to clarify it?

Mr Deputy Speaker: It is a point of clarification, I think. If the Minister will give way?

Mr Tan Kia Gan rose -

Mr David Marshall: You want to take over the forum.

Mr Tan Kia Gan: I have extended to him the courtesy of elucidation. Sir, as I have said, in the telephone directory, in the name of David Marshall, the Member for Anson, there are two addresses: one, Tanah Merah Besar or something like that, and the other, Meyer Mansions. So I was very curious; in fact I went round to this building, and saw that when the lights come on on this sky-sign they really reflect into the Meyer Mansions. Sir, if it is because of the convenience of the Member for Anson, I will definitely not do a thing about this sky-sign.

Mr David Marshall: And I would not ask you!

Mr Tan Kia Gan: But, coming from the Member for Anson who lives, when it is convenient for him to do so, in town, at the Meyer Mansions -

Mr David Marshall: That is not true. I go over there -

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Tan Kia Gan: But how is it in the new telephone directory, his address is still there?

Mr David Marshall: I have an address in the Bank of China.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Tan Kia Gan: But this is the residence - of Mr David Marshall, 17 Meyer Mansions, and then Tanah Merah Besar.

The Member for Hong Lim just now said he agreed with the Member for Anson and he was also pursuing the line that this is not the work of the civil servants but the work or the Finance Minister. Sir, Ministers have very important duties to do. They do not spend their time deciding whether such sky-signs should be placed here or there. This is the work of civil servants. As I have mentioned just now, there is a Development Control Committee that goes into these cases. There are such things as prohibited areas where sky-signs will not be allowed, and the Committee in considering the applications for putting up this sky-sign went into all these things.

Mr David Marshall: Where is their report?

Mr Tan Kia Gan: Sir, the Member for Anson does not allow me to continue. He keeps on interjecting. As I have said just now, this Development Planning Committee decided to approve the plan before it was passed down to The Planning Department, and after the Planning Department went through it, it was passed down to the Chief Building Surveyor's Department, which is under my Ministry.

Sir, this application has gone through the normal procedure of going through the Development Control Committee, the Planning Department and the Chief Building Surveyor's Department. At no time has this -

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 Deputy Speaker adjourned the Assembly without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

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