RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 3/65, a copy of which is in the Assembly

Library for the information of Members.

Land, Mr Speaker, Sir, is a very scarce resource in Singapore. Over the last few years, the Government has embarked on a number of swamp reclamation projects, such as Kallang Basin, Sungei Poyan and Sungei Pandan. The East Coast Road Reclamation is another major project to make available more land for future development. The reclamation will extend over a distance of approximately 6 miles from Bedok to Tanjong Rhu and will vary in width from about 900 feet to 2,000 feet, depending on soil conditions. The project will take about four years and will cost approximately $53 million. The utilisation of the reclaimed land has as yet not been decided. There is, however, no doubt that this reclamation will relieve the acute land shortage, making available sites for much needed community facilities. In addition, it is also proposed to construct a coastal road from the City to Katong, Bedok and Changi.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

7.01 p.m.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I am rising to express my views on the motion tabled by the Minister for Law. On the 25th of last month, the Minister for Law spoke to the Press about the reclamation programme in the east coast. He said that we must plan for the future in regard to land in view of the increasing population. He also was reported to have said that the reclamation on the east coast was to build a scenic area for Singapore. It is not difficult for the people to see that the reclamation programme of the Government is not intended to resolve the difficulties of the people in their livelihood, but is intended for an unrealistic purpose, because by 1990 there will be 4 million people in Singapore and yet we still allow a lot of land to be occupied by the British bases. In Siglap and Changi the people are faced with problems arising out of land reclamation and they are rather uneasy, because by 1990 the population will reach 4 million and they are more concerned, in fact, with the question of resettlement. People who live on this land and depend on farming are not worried about whether there is any scenic spot on the island of Singapore. But they are more concerned with the realistic aspects of life. But the Minister for Law, in trying to pass this motion, will create some realistic problems for persons affected by the land reclamation programme. Now, they are occupying land and paying quit rent of two to three dollars. But when they are faced with the problem of resettlement, they are worried whether they will be able to pay the rent in Selegie House at the rate of $66.50 per month, or whether they will be asked to stay in Aljunied Road Housing Board flats at the rate of $55 per month, instead of two to three dollars per month on a bigger piece of land. These are the problems that the people are more concerned with. There are many small shopkeepers who are concerned with the possibility of being evicted out of shops at a lower rental, into shops at $500 to $600 rental per month. The Government is now asking some German architects and engineers to reclaim the land. This will cost a lot of money. We understand that the Government is spending some $53 million on the land reclamation programme. On an average, every acre will cost about $52,000 to develop. The Government only pays $2,000 per acre as compensation to those who will be evicted from the land. If the Government can allot only half of the sum used on reclamation to these people who are evicted from their own land, that will be much better than making them bankrupt otherwise. The people evicted have been concerned by the Government's unreasonable compensation. Why should the Government spend $53 million of the taxpayer's money on contractors and merchants from Germany and other places? Why should the Government not use this sum of money on the people themselves?

The Minister for National Development has also said that the people should be taken care of and that the compensation terms should be adequate to meet their losses. We are concerned about the fate and condition and troubles of the evicted people who have been staying on the east coast. The Government has divided the rural areas into two classes. One is agricultural area and the other is non-agricultural area ---

Mr Speaker: Up till now the Member has been in order. He was making the point that the Government could more usefully spend its money on other projects. But I think now he is getting out of order.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the reclamation programme conducted in the east coast area affects the people living there and the Government should look after their difficulties. The people staying in these areas are faced with bankruptcy. The price of eggs has gone down on the one hand, and the price of feedstuffs has gone up on the other hand. The people who are asked to move out from their land incur great losses. They have spent several thousand dollars or even tens of thousands of dollars to build up their present business, and yet the Government is paying compensation of a lesser amount to people and merchants who are evicted from their land. The present accommodation allotted by the Government is hired out at very high rentals. All the measures taken are not reasonable. Shop houses in Geylang Serai have been demolished and the compensation has been very inadequate. When they built up their shophouses in Geylang Serai area, they had to pay thousands of dollars of tea money ---

Mr Speaker: Order. This is not a debate on the adequacy or inadequacy of Government compensation. It is a debate on the reclamation of land at Bedok.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the reclamation programme in the Bedok area will affect the residents and small estate men in the hundreds of acres in that area. The people living there have accumulated their wealth through several generations and have built up their livelihood there and they live out of the land. They have planted fruit trees and vegetable crops to maintain their living. The land they bought in the past in this area fetches a different price from that of before. A piece of land that can fetch tens of thousands of dollars per acre can fetch only $2,000 to $3,000 of compensation from the Government. Under these circumstances, the living conditions of the rural people in that area have been adversely affected. Small merchants and hawkers are faced with bankruptcy. That is why the residents, in the face of forced eviction by the Government, are not willing to remove even when faced with fire on their site ---

Mr Speaker: Order. I understand the motion to be on reclamation of land, not eviction of squatters.

Mr Barker: The reclamation of the sea-shore.

Mr Speaker: Unless I misunderstood the Minister, reclamation of the seashore does not carry with it eviction of squatters. Am I right in that, Mr Minister!

Mr Lim Kim San: That is right. Only prawns are to be found there.

Mr Speaker: Well, if that is so, Mr Poh Ber Liak, please let us get back to reclamation.

An hon. Member: Do not read.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, on the question of the sea coast along the Bedok area, the eviction of the residents there is the first part of the reclamation work. Unless the residents can be chased out, the reclamation programme cannot be carried out. So this affects people, including those staying on hillocks and in that area. If the people staying there are affected, then the Government should look into their conditions. So I suggest as follows to the Minister concerned:

1. Government, in implementing its reclamation programme, should compensate adequately the residents in the Bedok area and people who stay in the Changi area and who are engaged in agricultural work. The Government should not use any excuse or pretext to refuse adequate compensation to the residents, especially the farmers there. It should not use the pretext that the houses built by the farmers there have not been officially approved by the Government. In fact, many of the houses there were built long ago, and therefore the Government should not group them into different classes. All the people there should he regarded as farmers engaged in agricultural work ---

Mr Speaker: Order. I cannot allow this to go on very much longer. I have been very tolerant to the Member, because I thought that during the earlier stages of the debate, he was making the point that Government could utilise its money much better by helping the squatters. He has made his point and must get on with the topic of reclamation. And reclamation does not mean eviction of squatters.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, allow me to say that the eviction of residents is connected with reclamation work - before the programme can be carried out. So we see large-scale eviction taking place when the Government implements its programme of land reclamation. I hope in carrying out the work of land reclamation, the Government will try to lessen any adverse effects on the residents concerned.

For example, if your things are destroyed by the Government, surely you expect the Government to pay you compensation. Many people in Bedok are worried; particularly those living in the small hills are affected by the reclamation programme. They expect the Government to provide them with alternative pieces of land in the neighbourhood, so that they can carry on with their farming activities. They also expect a higher compensation rate from the Government.

Mr Speaker, the Minister for Law has also said just now that land is very scarce in Singapore. That is why, after the Government has chased the squatters out from where they are without adequate resettlement or rehousing or without adequate compensation terms, the squatters are at a loss where to go, in view of the scarcity of land in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, it is the responsibility of the Government to give a special rent subsidy to those shopkeepers affected by the reclamation programme when they are asked to do business elsewhere or in Housing Board shops.

Mr Speaker, in the Tampines area, a family was asked to vacate its place, and it was given only $500 by way of compensation. This family was actually running a shop in that area and for this shop they only received $500 compensation. This family was then asked to do business in a Housing Board shop at a rent of $500 per month. How can we say that the Government is really looking after the interests of the poor people? I would suggest that, in cases where people have been affected by the Government reclamation programme, they should be given higher compensation and alternative accommodation or shops at a low rental. I suggest that in the case of shopkeepers affected, the Government should build ---

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed Al-Haj): On a point of information.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): No, Sir.

The Government is very interested in land reclamation and says that it is paying adequate compensation to the shopkeepers and squatters affected by the programme, but the fact is that not a single cent has been given to these people by way of compensation. In fact, some tenants ---

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed Al-Haj: (In Malay): On a point of order.

Mr Speaker, his speech is not relevant. Of the many shopkeepers affected, how many live near the sea, and how many live near the shore that is to be reclaimed? Could the Member give this information? There are very many houses in Pulau Brani ---

Mr Speaker: I think the Member for Bukit Panjang has indicated to the House that certain hills in the vicinity of Bedok are going to be razed. As a result of razing those hills, it could well be that certain people are going to be de-housed. If that is the point that the Member is making, then he is completely relevant and is in order. Mr Poh Ber Liak.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary concerned will go to the Bedok area and see for himself that there are houses and squatters and shops on the hillock in the Bedok area affected by the land reclamation. If you want me to prove this, then the best thing is for the Minister concerned or the Parliamentary Secretary to go to the Bedok area and see for himself that there are provision shops on the small hills from which earth is removed to reclaim the shore. Of course, you do not expect to see any houses or shops on the sea-shore. This statement only shows the ignorance of the Parliamentary Secretary, and this is most annoying. It shows that he is a person with no common sense.

Mr Speaker: Order. Will the Member please get on with the debate and not go into personal controversies with other Members? Mr Poh Ber Liak, please carry on, and do not repeat yourself.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I was just trying to rebut the Parliamentary Secretary when he requested me to prove my point. At any rate, allow me to come back to the question of land reclamation

Mr Speaker, at present, the Government is not doing very much by way of compensation to the shopkeepers and the squatters affected by the land reclamation, particularly ---

Mr Speaker: The Member has made that point several times. He has made it quite often, and I think the House is quite aware of it. He does not make his point more effective by repeating it 20 or 30 times. If the Member has any other points to raise before the House, please do so, but not this one.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the points that I have raised are not repetitious ---

Mr Speaker: The view of the Chair is that it is repetitious.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): I bow to your ruling, Mr Speaker, to show my respect for the Chair.

Mr Speaker, when the small hills are levelled, the Government should give thought to the question of eviction and resettlement, particularly its attitude to the small estate-holders on the small hillock in question. What is the compensation given to these people? At present, the rate of $3,000 for each family is not adequate, when compared with the actual cost of the land. Some pieces of land cost $10,000 to $20,000 per acre instead of $3,000 per acre. So the Government would do well to give adequate compensation to the small-holders in this area, particularly in view of the fact that you require some $50,000 to $60,000 to reclaim one acre of land in that area.

Mr Speaker, has the Government intended to alleviate the difficulties of the persons affected? The views expressed by me should receive the Minister's attention and are a real test of the Government's sincerity in trying to improve the livelihood of the people. On the one hand, these people do not receive adequate compensation and, on the other hand, they are forced to stay in another place at a high rental which they cannot afford. The Government is treating the people as fools if it does so. If the Government cannot give adequate compensation, then the livelihood of the people affected will be gravely threatened. There are more and more cases of forced eviction happening in Singapore, and these people affected would like the Government to reconsider the effects of land reclamation on their livelihood. The people affected by the land reclamation programme should keep their eyes open.

7.27 p.m.

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, the Member for Tampines, who does not live too far away from Bedok, obviously is not fully aware of the facts and circumstances relating to land reclamation in Bedok.

I do not know how he came to the conclusion that land values in Bedok are quite high and therefore he has become a protector of the capitalists and land-owning class, and requested the Government to compensate them for the real value of their land. For his information, I will say that most of the land there is what we call "open space area" and is valued at about 10 cents per square foot.

Now, he has some suggestions to make with regard to our plan of reclaiming 1,000 acres from the sea, and he says that we should make use of lorries and more use of local labour in order to reclaim this land. Before we went into the reclamation of these 1,000 acres - it is quite a large project, I believe it is about the largest in South-East Asia - we undertook --- Ni put siang sin.

Mr Speaker: Order, order. Will the Minister please sit down? If the Minister speaks in English, he must confine himself to English. He cannot be bilingual. If he wants to speak in Mandarin, then he must speak in Mandarin throughout.

Mr Lim Kim San: As I was saying, Mr Speaker, we put a lot of thought into it and we did a trial reclamation of 40 acres. During this reclamation, we found that by using the traditional methods of getting lorries and using shovels to convey the earth to the sea for reclamation, a lot of hardship was caused to people living in the surrounding area. Therefore, we came up with the present plan of using a mechanical conveyor belt, so that there would be minimum disruption to the lives of the people living in and around Bedok.

Now, the other point which the Opposition is always harping on is that compensation rates are inadequate. Mr Speaker, Sir, during the last five years we have made a review of the compensation rates, and for their information, I am glad to inform this House that the people of Singapore have accepted that Singapore should be redeveloped, that there should be newer and better buildings, and they have accepted our compensation plan and they are willing to move out on the compensation rates we give. In fact, I have received many letters with regard to urban renewal as well as resettlement elsewhere. These writers wrote to me and said, "We agree wholeheartedly with your attempts and with your plans for the redevelopment of Singapore. Will you just see that in moving us you give us as little inconvenience as possible?" We have done that. During the last five years we have been moving about four to five thousand people, and in place of that we have been able to rehouse about three to four hundred thousand people. So, as far as we are concerned, they will keep on harping that compensation rates are not fair.

I have stated in this House before that legally these squatters are not entitled to compensation, but as a Government that looks after the welfare of the people of this country, we thought it fair that these people, when being moved out to make way for new redevelopment, should not suffer unduly, and we are doing our very best to see that in moving them out we will cause as little disruption to their livelihood and their way of living as possible.

Madam Chan Choy Siong (Delta): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I do not propose to take up too much time of the House to reply to the Members opposite, but I would like to remind them of the fact that they must accept a major principle. This principle is that the wealth of the nation should be used on the development aspect of the country. I would like to ask them to face the realistic problem at present, which is that in Singapore the population is fast increasing. This increased rate of population is fantastic. Every year we have some 60,000 new babies coming into this part of the world. So the problem arising out of the increased population should be tackled well ahead by the Government.

As a responsible Government we should solve this problem in advance and think of the future, quite apart from the present day. In other words, you must dig the well before you are thirsty, otherwise it may be too late. This is a practical and realistic proverb. Instead of thinking along those lines as I have suggested, the Barisan Members have failed to give constructive suggestions to help the Government in implementing its projects. Instead they go on harping on the old tune that the Government is not properly looking after the interest of the people. One cannot deny that the problems of the future should be tackled well in advance. Why should we be stingy in our energies in trying to push through this programme? This is a basic principle. Of course, Mr Speaker, no one can deny that if a house is to be built beautifully and properly, the old house on the same piece of land will be affected. Everyone can understand, even a child of three years.

That being so, if you want the nation and the country to develop strongly and healthily, then a small minority of the population may suffer some losses. This is inevitable, particularly in view of the fact that the redevelopment programme is a comprehensive one. But there is one consolation in the fact that the Government is paying compensation to the people affected, and the compensation adequate for the purposes intended.

Mr Speaker, the Members opposite have said that the development programme of the Government is intended to build a scenic spot in the island for the wealthier capitalists in Singapore. I would like to tell them that if they are not engaged in day-dreams then they should know that Singapore is very beautiful and wealthy, and well advanced in housing projects in the whole of Malaysia. This fact is well known to the world.

In the past the people thought that Tanjong Rhu belonged to the rich. Now we have already put up a lot of fiats in this area for the poor people. They can go there and see. Whether you are a wage-earner or a labourer or a small businessman, you can go and live in Tanjong Rhu, which was formerly reserved for the very rich in the past. This is a fact which cannot be denied and nobody can bluff about this. If they do not know the way to Tanjong Rhu, the housing Board will provide free transport for them to go there. They can go and see for themselves.

Mr Speaker, the Member for Tampines has also said just now that the houses built by the Government are let out at very high rentals, and this is why very few are occupied by the poor people. This is ridiculous because we cannot build enough houses to meet the needs of the people. There are more people coming to the Housing Board to get fiats, but we cannot build enough to meet the increasing demands.

The Barisan Sosialis should be more realistic when they talk of the needs of the people, instead of talking something intangible and unrealistic.

Mr Speaker, as the old saying goes, we can reclaim the sea into land. The world is changing all the time. Some of the Members opposite are graduates of universities. If they keep their eyes open to the facts of life, they will then realise that the scarcity of land in Singapore will give rise to great problems in future. If steps are not taken to reclaim land now, then in future they may be worried about where to stay. If you want the country to progress and to advance, then you must follow the principle of constant development for the future as well as for the present day.

Mr Speaker: Mr Barker in reply.

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, the hon. Member from Tampines referred to the eviction of squatters as a result of reclamation. I think he did not make himself clear. There are no squatters directly affected by this reclamation. But what I think he meant was that squatters would be indirectly affected by the reclamation, in the sense that fill for the reclamation will be obtained from about 345 acres of land which have been gazetted for compulsory acquisition. This land is south of Upper Changi Road, between the 7¼ m.s. to the 8 m.s. Upper Changi Road and the 7¼ m.s. East Coast Road. He is worried about the question of resettlement of the squatters living in that area. I can assure hon. Members that we have always dealt very nicely wth our squatters. We do not go in and throw them out. We have surveys, enquiries, and the usual procedure will be followed in this case. In fact, Collector's enquiries under the Land Acquisition Ordinance have been completed and possession of this land which has not been taken possession of will be done so shortly. The acquisition itself is estimated to cost the Government about $3½ million. No cadastral survey of the area has been undertaken, but the detailed census of families, improvements and ex-gratia payments applicable in each case, which is a prerequisite to resettlement, will be undertaken once possession of the land has been taken. However, preliminary investigations show that there are 200 buildings, not in the sea, but in the area of Changi - 200 buildings consisting of dwellings and shop-houses on this land, and the majority are Chinese.

I assure the hon. Member that resettlement will be undertaken by the Housing and Development Board in accordance with the normal policy and will be paid according to the progress of the cutting of fill as and when required. No specific lay-out plans have been drawn up for the area providing the fill, but once the hills have been cut, the area will be levelled and will be made available for various projects, including schools, housing, etc.

Before I close my speech, Mr Speaker, Sir, I will just touch shortly on the resettlement policy which is worrying the Member for Tampines. Briefly, genuine farmers who are affected by any development project will be compensated in accordance with various rates, not only for the structures, but the trees and the plants on their land. In addition, they are given a rehabilitation grant of $1,000 per acre for land occupied by them. For owner-occupiers of huts, full compensation will be paid, and in addition they will be eligible for Housing Board accommodation, plus a transport grant of $100 and a disturbance allowance of $250. Even sub-tenants will be given Housing Board accommodation and a transport grant of $50.

I have with me, Mr Speaker, two schedules showing the rates payable. There are two types of rates, one called "compensation rates" and the other "replacement". Replacement rates are paid to persons occupying authorised structures and compensation rates are paid to those occupying unauthorised structures.

In view of the shortage of time, Mr Speaker, I cannot read all this, but as a comparison, the first item, the house with a kitchen, concrete floor and drain, compensation rate $1 per sq. ft., replacement rate $2.50 per sq, ft. If the hon. Member for Tampines is interested, I will give him copies of these two rates setting out even the rates for a durian tree which may be removed, $30 a plant, a rambutan tree $20 a plant. We have, in fact, the whole lot here.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Ordinance (Chapter 246) approves the reclamation by Government of that portion of the foreshore and sea-bed containing an area of approximately 1,000 acres from the junction of Bedok Road and East Coast Road to Tanjong Rhu as delineated on the plan, marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 3/65", which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore.