RESETTLEMENT OF FARMERS OCCUPYING STATE LANDS

Mr Ho See Beng: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore Livestock Farmers' Association wrote to me on 25th November, 1966, requesting me to bring before this House the grievances of their members in respect of the resettlement of livestock farmers who were occupying State land required for development purposes. The request of the Association has been made too late for me to raise the matter during Question Time, and that is the reason for my present adjournment speech.

The Association has also attached to its letter to me a copy of the letter dated 2nd November, 1966, which it has previously sent to the Director of the Primary Production Department and to the Minister for Law and National Development. Whatever may be the reason for the Association to request my service to place its grievances before this House only shortly after it has made representation to the Department and Ministry responsible for the resettlement of the farmers, I am in no position to comment. But the three points raised by the Association in its letter relate to an important and interesting aspect of any public administration, that is, the particular application or execution of a general policy of the Government by the department or statutory body charged with the administration of such policy. For this reason alone, if not for any other, I consider it most appropriate that these grievances should be aired before this House.

The first point raised by the Association in the letter mentioned earlier is that many of its farmers have been adversely affected by the Government's industrial and housing projects. But before any Member of the House jumps to any hasty conclusion, let me add that the Association is not grumbling about the farmers literally standing in the way of progress. It appears that these farmers did not own the land on which they have been working. Such land was invariably State land which they have been allowed to farm under Temporary Occupation Licences. Under the terms of these Temporary Occupation Licences, or T.O.L.s, as they are popularly known, for which nominal fees are payable, the farmers have to vacate possession of the land on demand by the Government. Because of the rapid pace of Government's industrial and housing development, those farmers who have been unfortunate enough to occupy State land in certain areas which are marked out for development purposes, have to vacate possession of their respective pieces of land on which they may have worked for several years and start all over again on fresh plots of land. In this respect, I must congratulate the Government on its human gesture in providing an alternative site to the farmers so requested to vacate possession.

The snag is that on the previous sites most of these farmers have been occupying areas of several acres. But on resettlement they are only allocated areas of not more than two acres. Some farmers may even be allocated pocket-sized plots of land. It may seem strange to the Members of this House that, instead of being grateful for being allocated any land at all, the farmers are now carping about the plots of land allocated to them. But it must be appreciated by this House that these farmers are mostly breeders of poultry and pigs, particularly of the foreign or cross-bred variety. Such poultry and pigs are less hardy than the pure local strain. Therefore, for the successful rearing of the foreign or cross-bred variety of poultry, a certain minimum standard of hygienic practices and precautions must be adopted. The size of the plots of land allocated to farmers on resettlement is a matter of paramount importance to the farmers, because, generally speaking, the bigger the size the easier it is to observe the standards of hygiene in respect of the poultry and pigs. The result is that, because of the rigidly enforced maximum of two acres of land to be allotted to each resettled farmer, who might have previously occupied five or six acres, the farmers on resettlement have no choice but to cram their flocks of fowls and herds of pigs into the limited space allocated to them. It does not require much imagination to realise that cramming these animals or livestock into a much more confined space than advisable would have an adverse effect on the health of the animals. This in turn would affect the volume of production of eggs and meat for the market, whether domestic or foreign.

This effect of a rigid application of the policy restricting each resettled farmer to a maximum of two acres, I think, should give rise to grave and serious concern not only to the Government but also to all persons who have the interest of Singapore at heart. We at present are engaged in an all-out effort to increase the level of productivity. The local rearing of poultry and pigs should play a significant and important role in this effort to increase productivity and output. Instead of taking a flexible attitude to consider the farmers' plight, our Government policy is so rigid where it does not warrant rigidity. For example, in the Ministry of Finance, they are so very liberal in issuing bar licences - but here they are so rigid. The bigger the volume of our local production of poultry and pigs and associated products, the lesser the dependence of Singapore on other countries for such commodities. One obvious effect of such minimisation in our import of poultry and pigs would mean a saving in our foreign exchange reserves, a saving which is not to be sneezed at in the present context of Singapore's political and economic circumstances.

What the Association has requested me to bring to the attention of the Members of this House is whether the Government can reconsider this policy of allocating a maximum of only two acres per farmer on the resettlement of such farmers. I am given to understand that this policy of the Government is well founded on the fact that land is a scarcity item in Singapore and that there is a limit to the amount of State land which the Government can set aside for farming purposes. On the surface, the present Government policy appears to be reasonable and logical in the circumstances. I wish to assure you Members of this House that I have no doubt in that respect. But I am inclined to wonder whether this present policy which has been rigidly applied or enforced by the department or statutory body concerned with the allocation of land to resettled farmers can be rendered more flexible in its application. This would become more evident in the course of the next point which I intend to bring to your attention.

The second point of the Association's grievances is that, because some farmers on resettlement find that the land allocated to them is insufficient for their needs, they are forced to obtain an extra plot of land from other farmers who do not require all the whole pieces of land allocated to them. The complaint of the Association is that those farmers who managed to obtain additional plots of land in this manner have found to their astonishment that, after the transfer of land has been arranged and completed, they have to pay T.O.L. or Temporary Occupation Licence fees for such additional plots of land many times higher than the usual T.O.L. fees charged for those plots of land originally allocated to them. In normal circumstances, the T.O.L. fee per acre of agricultural State land is either $15 or $30 per year, depending on the situation of the land. But when the farmers acquire additional plots of land from other farmers, the T.O.L. fee for land so acquired ranges between $72 and $160 per acre in the case of land where the normal T.O.L. fee is $15 per acre per year and can be as high as $204 per acre for land which is normally $30 per acre. While the amount of increase may not appear very great to us, it represents a huge sum to the farmers. The difference of $100 in the T.O.L. fees payable by the farmers per acre may mean a difference between loss and profit to the farmers who already have other heavy expenses to shoulder.

As I have already mentioned to you, I am aware of this Government policy of restricting the allocation of land to resettled farmers up to a maximum of two acres per farmer because of the sheer physical scarcity of land in Singapore. I also understand that it is also a necessary corollary of such policy for the Government to adopt deterrent measures against farmers occupying plots of land bigger than two acres by charging exorbitant premiums or high T.O.L. fees to farmers who want to acquire additional plots of land. But the fact remains that farmers who find the plots of land allocated to them insufficient for their needs are able to acquire additional land from other farmers who are allocated plots of land in excess of their actual requirements.

I stand to be corrected, Sir, if I say that the present policy of allocating land to resettled farmers is on the basis of the mere fact of occupation of State land required for development purposes. The departments or authorities concerned with the resettlement of such farmers do not seem to have considered the possibility that a policy framed on such a basis may not be equitable and, worse still, may lead to a highly undesirable situation as that where resettled farmers are allocated plots of land when they had no intention at all of carrying on their former farming occupation or on so extensive a scale as previously.

In this way, in the face of the much often repeated affirmation that it is the policy not to allocate more than two acres of land to resettle farmers because of the physical scarcity of land in Singapore for agricultural purposes or otherwise, a farmer could still be allocated land on resettlement when he has no wish to carry on farming. It is because of this administrative inflexibility in the application of a sensible and logical policy of the Government that a ridiculous situation has developed whereby farmers, who are genuinely interested in farming and who found that the plots of land allocated to them on resettlement are insufficient for their needs, must acquire additional plots of land from other persons who have been allocated plots of land in excess of their requirements or who have no longer any intention of carrying on farming after resettlement.

By making it prohibitive for the genuine and hard-working farmers to acquire additional plots of land, the departments or authorities responsible for the administration of such Government policy are, in fact, obstructing Government policy. If land is as scarce in Singapore as it is maintained by the relevant department or statutory body, how is it possible that persons who are no longer interested in farming are allocated plots of valuable agricultural land on their resettlement? To me the remedy seems to lie in devising a proper system for the allocation of land to persons who are interested in carrying on farming, and not in the rigid and inflexible adherence to a policy of not allocating more than two acres of land to any resettled farmers, irrespective of the bona fides of their intention or requirement after resettlement.

The last point which the Association has requested me to raise is a general grievance of all livestock farmers whether resettled or otherwise. But the grievance has been rendered acute in relation to the resettlement of farmers because of the rigid application of the policy of restricting resettled farmers to a maximum of two acres each.

It appears that previously farmers were required to pay only $3 to $5 as planning fees for each unit of pig sty and chicken shed built according to plans submitted to and approved by the relevant Government department. Now it seems that this rate of fee for each unit has been increased to $12. The members of the Association are understandably upset by this increase in fee. Because of the limitation of land space or the irregularity of the contour and layout of the allocated land, or land acquired otherwise as a result of resettlement and rigid application of policy and for hygienic reasons, the farmers have to build many more units of pig sties and chicken sheds than necessary if they have not been so rigidly restricted in land area on resettlement.

As I understand it, this fee is required for administrative purposes and not as a source of revenue for the Government. The imposition of such planning fee is to ensure that proper planning permission is obtained by farmers before they construct any pig sty or chicken shed. It is difficult to understand why there is a necessity to increase this planning fee. The increase represents an increase of more than 100 per cent on the old rate which, as I say, may not be much to you and me but it means a lot to the farmers.

As farmers are playing a vital role in Singapore's struggle for survival, I think it is only reasonable to expect that the Government policy is framed or applied in such a way that livestock farmers are encouraged and induced to increase their productivity and output and not in such a way as to demoralise them or force them out of production completely. In the end, it is we the people of Singapore who have to pay the price for a policy rigidly or unimaginatively applied by the department or statutory authority responsible for the administration of such policy.

5.37 p.m.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, ours is a country which practises democratic socialism. Therefore, the Government is very concerned with the welfare of the farmers. It has set up the Primary Production Department in order to help the farmers carry out their farming activities.

Just now the Member for Bras Basah has aired the grievances of those farmers who have been resettled, that they have been given only two acres of land on resettlement. This will cause some difficulties to them. I realise that our Government is faced with the problem of land scarcity. However, I am of the opinion that although the available land for farming is very limited, I still think we should give better protection and consideration to those farmers who have been affected by our development programmes, as they constitute a very great proportion of our population and have contributed a lot to the economic welfare of our State. They have contributed about $100 million worth of goods to our economy. They have produced enough vegetables, eggs and other farming products for export to other countries, thus earning a lot of foreign exchange for our country. Therefore, I believe that the Minister concerned will agree with me when I say that if the Government allots a bigger piece of land to the affected farmers so as to facilitate their farming activities in order to increase their productivity, the farmers will bring greater prosperity to our country.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as to how to solve the problem of land scarcity, I am of the opinion that the departments concerned should have an overall and better plan in allocating land and developing land in the surrounding islands for farming purposes, as enunciated by our Prime Minister. The land in these surrounding islands can be used for rearing fishes, ducks and for the cultivation of vegetables. I appreciate that we will have to invest a lot of money to develop these islands, but in the long-term interest this is worth doing.

Another point is the exorbitant T.O.L. fees the farmers have to pay for their land and the planning fees. In order to alleviate their burden, the department concerned should give consideration to their request.

A further point is about those who are not bona fide farmers. These people have some land near their houses and they carry out poultry and other farming activities as a side-line in order to supplement their income. They are also affected by the resettlement schemes, but the Government should give only accommodation but not any land to them. Therefore, I would like the Minister concerned to carry out his policy in a more flexible way. These not bona fide farmers should be given a small piece of land in order that they can continue to earn their customary income from their side-line activities so as not to suffer any hardship when they are resettled elsewhere.

5.44 p.m.

Mr Tang See Chim: Mr Speaker, Sir, the question of resettlement not only affects our farming population but also affects our economy as a whole. Government appears, however, not to have given sufficient thought to its farming policy. It appears to be preoccupied with industrialisation. Whilst industrialisation rightly demands our urgent attention, our farming policy should not be neglected. Unfortunately, neglected it appears to be. It is, I should say, the Cinderella in our Government policy. In acquiring the Jurong site for industrial development, for example, farmers from that area were resettled in the Choa Chu Kang Constituency.

The Minister of Defence (Dr Goh Keng Swee): They will vote for you!

Mr Tang See Chim: They were each allocated a plot of land of not more than two acres irrespective of how much land they had been cultivating before, and also without considering their particular type of cultivation.

To make way for the resettlement of farmers from Jurong, land in the Choa Chu Kang area was acquired and farmers who were farming on a large scale before suddenly found that they had to squeeze their operations into a much smaller plot of land. As the Member for Bras Basah has just said, most of these lands were held on T.O.L.s. All the Government did was to revoke the T.O.L.s, take back the land and re-allot to these resettled farmers a plot of not more than two acres. Let me give the House an example to illustrate my point. In my constituency, there was an old established poultry farming family rearing chickens on a very large scale on ten acres of land. The annual turnover was in the region of $1 million, and they employed a score or so of farmhands. Because of the Government's resettlement policy, the land was acquired by the Government - in this case the T.O.L. was revoked - and this family was re-allotted a two-acre plot of land. How can the Government expect this particular farming operation that was carried out on a ten-acre plot of land before to be squeezed now into a two-acre plot?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Flatted farming.

Mr Tang See Chim: Flatted farming, is it?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: It is being done in England.

Mr Tang See Chim: Yes, that could be so, but, unfortunately, in this particular case, the result was that some farmhands had to be dismissed, adding to the unemployment problem, and the operation had to be scaled down, leading to a decline in the national output.

I am not saying that every farmer must be given as much land as he can farm, but there must be a certain degree of flexibility in the administration of the present Government policy of resettlement. As we all know, farming at the present stage of development in Singapore is labour intensive. It is one of the ways which could be explored to create job opportunities. I submit, Mr Speaker, Sir, that properly developed farming can give tremendous opportunities for employment.

The present policy of the Government, however, of allotting a plot of two acres to farmers, irrespective of their special circumstances, is against the development of the farming industry as a whole. It would create a lot of subsistence farmers, but it would not help in the development of farming in the context of the national economy as a whole.

Singapore, unfortunately, has not many acres of farm land and we must make the best use of the land available to us for farming. Unfortunately, the present Government's farming policy appears to be piecemeal, and I urge the Minister concerned to spare a few more moments of thought on this particular subject. It will do our farmers and our economy as a whole a great deal of good if he can think of a more coherent, and consistent policy.

5.51 p.m.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, several Members of this House have spoken about the farming population and their problems. As a Member from a rural constituency, I think it is also my duty to air my views on the same problems.

Although I was recently elected, I have, within a period of slightly more than one month, visited my constituency now and then in order to understand the problems affecting the livelihood of the farmers and villagers. During these visits, I have discovered that the topics dealt with by the Members are actually realistic problems facing the farming population. The Member for Choa Chu Kang has already mentioned that our Government is paying too much attention to industrialisation and neglecting the problems affecting the livelihood of farmers in Singapore. As a result of such neglect, the farmers in the rural areas are finding it difficult to earn a livelihood without the necessary care and attention.

The Member for Sembawang has also pointed out that the farmers in Singapore play an important role in the economy of our nation, because they produce about $100 million worth of farm produce per year. In view of these facts, I would urge the Minister concerned to pay more attention and care to the livelihood of the farmers.

On the subject of allocation of arable land to farmers affected by resettlement, I fully appreciate that our land area is very limited - it is about 225 square miles. But we can think of some other places to provide our farmers with more arable land. According to the present resettlement policy with regard to the allocation of farm land, a maximum of two acres is allowed to each farming household. Members one after another have already pointed out that the maximum of two acres is, in fact, not sufficient for the necessary farming activities. Although in relation to the total area of our island this allocation is quite reasonable, consideration must be given to deserving cases of bona fide farmers so that no land is given to undeserving cases, thereby giving rise to the situation, as mentioned by the Member for Bras Basah, where people who are not totally dependent on farming for their livelihood have been allotted land, whereas those dependent on farming for their livelihood have been allotted land which is insufficient for them, so that they have to get some land from those who do not need so much land. In this situation, the people who get land from others have to pay higher T.O.L. fees and this, of course, adds to the burden of the farmers. In my own constituency, there is a similar example. I have a farmer who has been resettled at Choa Chu Kang and his T.O.L. fees have been increased from $7 to $408 per year. This is an increase of many times the original amount, which is, of course, a great burden on the farmer concerned. I hope the Minister will give serious consideration to the problem.

It goes without saying that we must develop and we cannot remain in a backward state. This is a proposition which everybody must accept. I think the farmers affected by resettlement appreciate it. They agree with the Government's development policy. If they get reasonable compensation or allocation of land and if Government officers in implementing the policy are reasonable and fair, then they will not have much to complain about. But sometimes, in implementing the policy of the Government, some Government officials are too rigid and inflexible. As a result, they are unable to handle a situation without some imagination and flexibility. Some farmers in the process of removing have to attend to their farming activities at the same time, and they do not have the time to change their addresses at the police station because they are busily engaged. As a result of resettlement, it is sometimes discovered that the addresses in the identity cards of some farmers are different from those at which they are living. Because of this, they are not allotted land in the resettlement area. In some other cases, the houses of the farmers are without house numbers. They use the addresses of some provision shops in a market place and, because of this, they do not get farm land. In some other circumstances, the names of farmers appearing in identity cards do not completely tally with their names appearing in some other Government documents. In cases where the transfer of the T.O.L. has not been effected from the grandfather or the father to the farmer himself, then this person again will not be considered for allocation of farm land in the resettlement area.

All these people are, in fact, dependent upon farming activities for their livelihood and they are not given the necessary land. In certain circumstances, some of these farmers have to live in Housing Board flats and they have to change their way of life completely because they have no land to carry out their agricultural activities, and they are cut off completely from a side income. So they find it difficult to make ends meet from their small income and they are faced with certain problems of earning their livelihood.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is one other aspect regarding compensation. In my constituency there are some villagers who have planted rubber trees on their land. The Resettlement Department assured them originally that they would get compensation for their rubber trees. This, in fact, was the position in 1963, so that owners or farmers who had planted rubber trees got compensation. This gave people the impression that, in future, compensation would be given in other cases. So they allowed the Government to cut down the rubber trees. But later on they were notified by the Government, to their astonishment, that Government would not compensate them for cutting down their rubber trees. They were taken by surprise. It was like a bolt from the blue. They had engaged contractors to cut down the rubber trees in the hope of getting some compensation, and now they have no compensation. So they lose the trees and they have to pay the contractors. These are genuine difficulties which deserve the sympathetic consideration of Government.

The Member for Bras Basah has just now mentioned, among other things, the planning fees relating to pig sties and chicken runs. I myself have received complaints on this matter from my villagers, because their income is already low enough. If they have to pay licence fees from $3 or $5 to $12 a year, that will be a burden to them, particularly as the chicken feed has increased in price and their farm produce, such as eggs and chickens, has gone down in price. So they have decreasing prices for their farm produce, higher licence fees, and more expensive chicken feed. They deserve the sympathy of the Government, and I hope that the Government or the Minister in charge will give them due consideration.

6.04 p.m.

The Minister of Defence (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not intended to enter into the debate on the subject until my interest was aroused by certain statements made by the Member for Bras Basah and the Member for Choa Chu Kang, among others.

I think the ordinary citizens of Singapore do not realise that livestock farming is a considerable economic pursuit on this island, and that, far from importing poultry, eggs and pork, this City State of ours is a very substantial exporter of food - pigs, eggs and poultry - to surrounding countries. We have reached this rather unusual and surprising position because of certain advantages which we enjoy in livestock farming. Firstly, in the post-war years it was possible to control diseases and pests, particularly among poultry, by injections, especially anti-ranikhet injections. This enables large flocks of birds to be raised with small risk of substantial losses when the whole flock dies during an epidemic, which used to happen regularly before the war. In addition to this, Singapore has excellent communications and could, therefore, buy feeding stuffs like maize, fishmeal, and cod liver oil from the cheapest markets in the world. Cheap supplies combined with excellent banking and credit facilities have enabled our farmers to get feeding stuffs on very favourable terms to enable them to raise large flocks of poultry either for the table or as laying birds, as well as to raise large numbers of pigs.

From the economic point of view, there is one rather ridiculous feature about the livestock industry in Singapore. This is the absurdly low prices at which farmers are able to rent or lease their land. A farmer can get, say, 5 or 10 acres of Crown land from Government on T.O.L. (Temporary Occupation Licence) for a fairly nominal payment of something like $5 or $2 a year sometimes. Of course, this is not the economic rent. It does not reflect the real value of land which the Government could get, say, from renting the land for other purposes.

It is the cheapness of land which has somewhat distorted the picture and has not impressed upon farmers that land is very scarce. Supposing they have to pay something like $200 a month for an acre of land, which may be the market price for land, then I think they will be more careful about the use of land and will be able to raise very large flocks of birds or large numbers of pigs in small areas.

So here we are. We are faced with a situation where land is limited by nature and, at the same time, there is a substantial demand for the use of land for raising poultry and pigs because it is a paying occupation. The Member for Bras Basah says that the solution would be to give more than two acres per farmer and asks Government not to limit the grant of resettlement land to two acres. It is all very well to say, "Let us be generous." But at whose expense? After all, the acreage on the island is limited and if you give more than two acres, then only a certain number of people will be able to get it and large numbers will have to be turned away without any land. So the idea of giving people larger grants of land may be all right in individual cases, but I think as a policy it is self-defeating.

Now, I want to put forward for the consideration of the Minister one solution which was experimented with in the United Kingdom. I am not a farmer by profession or a gentleman farmer; so I do not know at all whether it will work here, but maybe his staff can work out the economics and the technical side of this idea. Some years ago in the United Kingdom an extraordinary development took place in agriculture, and that is the development of what are called "concrete farms". Some farmers of pigs - I think they were mainly concerned with pigs -decided that you could raise pigs in flats! After all, the rearing of a pig or for that matter a chicken, is really a process whereby you put into its mouth corn or what have you, and then you convert vegetable carbohydrates into animal protein. And that is what chickens and pigs are meant for! And you can do this in a building. In fact, even in Singapore, when they rear poultry by modern methods, they do not let the poultry run about the farm; they put them in cages, and pigs are kept in pig sties. [Interruption] No, no. No health hazards, because then you can arrange for automatic sprinklers and so on. You can put detergents, or whatever they are, at the right time and in the right place.

Mr Tang See Chim: You can then do farming in Housing Board flats!

Dr Goh Keng Swee: No. I am not saying it could be done in flats. It could be done in specially built structures. And since pigs and poultry are lighter than human beings, you can build a light and presumably less costly structure.

Mr Tang See Chim: Government must then give a special loan to the farmers.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Yes, I am coming to that. When a group of enterprising farmers tried this in Britain, there was, of course, a tremendous uproar among the respectable farmers who reared pigs on land. They said, "This is unfair competition." Presumably then it must be more economical and more competitive to raise pigs in this unnatural way in concrete buildings than to raise them in the natural way, i.e, on farm land. I think the Minister might get his officials to have a look at this idea. And if it is possible to build very cheap structures, much cheaper than, say, structures needed for housing human beings, then this may be one way of encouraging the growth of the animal husbandry industry. It may mean, of course, Government forking out money. But, as against that, if it is possible to save on land, then the saving in the cost of acquiring or buying land, the price of which will go up from year to year, can go into a fund which could be used for lending money to farmers to enable them to build this kind of structure.

6.12 p.m.

Mr P. Govindaswamy (Anson): (In Tamil): If we note the debate that we have just heard, Mr Speaker, Sir -

Mr Speaker: Just before you proceed, Mr Govindaswamy, could I ask Members who are now turning on their speakers to turn them off when Mr Govindaswamy finishes his speech?

Mr Govindaswamy: (In Tamil): When I speak on this motion, I would like to refer to some of the notes which I have made. Government has a bounden duty to work for the welfare of the rural folk. Only if the rural people have a fair livelihood will city dwellers have an equally good livelihood. We put up so many buildings in the city area. We construct and widen our roads. Nevertheless, we must remember from where we derive the foodstuffs for the city dwellers. Ours is a very small country. We do not produce enough food for our own consumption, but have to import it from abroad. We have to use our land not only for the benefit of the rural dwellers, not only for better farming conditions, not only for poultry and dairy farming and pig rearing, but we have also to make the best use of it. If such improvement projects are undertaken, then the produce will be of great benefit to all the people of this country. We will be able to produce enough to export.

The Minister of Defence has brought forward some facts. He says that poultry production has increased a great deal and that pig rearing has also increased, so we are able to export farm produce. From the Digest of Statistics of 1960, he will note how the cost of living has been rising. Since this is the case, and since only two acres of land are being allotted to the farmers by Government, what can they do with two acres? Can they farm on it? Can they build anything to live on? If we cannot provide such facilities for the farmers, then in what manner are we practising democratic socialism? It is only when we raise the living standard of the lower income groups that we can have a secure future for our succeeding generations.

The Minister of Defence has also suggested that farming could be carried out in flatted buildings. Let us consider the tremendous amount of capital needed for such buildings. If the same capital could be provided for the farmers, it is easy to imagine the tremendous expansion in production which could be achieved. While we are carrying out many improvement projects in the city, we should keep in mind the needs of the rural dwellers as well. This Government has a duty to look after the welfare of the poorer sections of our community. It is these poorer sections who live in the villages. Therefore, if the Government is not showing sufficient interest in their problem, I feel it will be an inadvisable course. The rural folks are in a position to help us. Their productivity means a great deal for the city dwellers. In this connection, if the Government is indifferent, the people in the rural areas may one day be compelled to leave their place and come to the city to look for jobs.

As the Minister for Labour has said, 69,500 people are now unemployed and this figure may easily rise up. To prevent such a situation the Government has to devise ways and means to tackle the problem right now. It should, as far as possible, assist the farmers to their satisfaction. This is my submission to the Government. May I repeat again that we should not be indifferent in this matter?

6.20 p.m.

Mr Lee Teck Him (Tiong Bahru): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, today I am sitting in the Opposition's place and so I shall stand up and say what is right and what is wrong without any favour, fear or ill-will.

Mr Speaker, the Member for Bras Basah has made an adjournment speech on the resettlement of farmers. Formerly I was an official in the Resettlement Section of the Government and I know more than he does. Resettlement is within the jurisdiction of the Minister for National Development. There are merits and demerits in the work done by the Primary Production Department. What are the merits? The merits are that the Government is looking after the housing needs of the people. The Housing and Development Board has undertaken a massive housing programme. But in other respects there are defects. What are the defects and demerits of the Ministry concerned? Although I am in the Opposition seat, I will say what is right and what is wrong.

In the case of resettlement of farmers, there was no compensation paid in the beginning. In some cases no alternative accommodation was allotted. In some cases farmers received $500 or $1,000 as compensation for resettlement, but they had no alternative accommodation. This is a defect. Later on the situation was improved. The farmers got alternative accommodation plus compensation. Still later on they got two acres for farming. This is, of course, right. But now they say they do not have enough farming land. If you do not give them the land, how could you expect them to live? This is the defect or the demerit, as I have already said. Again the Chairman, Mr Tan Kia Gan, what type ofperson was he when he was in the Ministry of National Development? He sold the flats in the Tiong Bahru area without proper valuation by the Valuation Officer. This again was a defect. How can you -

Mr Speaker: I think the Member is bordering on the irrelevant. I must ask him to come back to the debate on the adjournment. Could he please confine his remarks to the resettlement of farmers occupying State land?

Mr Lee Teck Him: (In Mandarin): Yes, I will come back, Mr Speaker. The most important thing is the administrative work. The officer in charge of administration should not do things as he pleases. The failure in certain respects is not the fault of the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary. It is the fault of the administrative head, because he took a dictatorial course of action. He was stubborn in some cases. He took action without consulting the Minister in charge. He went his own way. Sometimes, of course, the Minister was to be blamed because he did not seem to know many things. Yes, it is true. Regarding the sale of the Tiong Bahru flats, no valuation was made. The Minister did not know. Did he know? No.

Mr Barker rose -

Mr Lee Teck Him resumed his seat.

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member is being completely irrelevant. We are discussing resettlement and not the Tiong Bahru flats.

Mr Speaker: Mr Lee, could you please confine your remarks to resettlement?

Mr Lee Teck Him: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I just mention this in passing, because we are now going into the merits and demerits of the Ministry. It is not just a flatter of the livelihood of the farmers but other matters, such as maladministration, which must be taken into account.

Mr Speaker, you want me to come back to the proper issue, so I shall come back now. I feel that the means of livelihood of the farmers is of paramount importance and special attention must be paid to it. As in the past, the Government has acquired a lot of land for reallocation to farmers. This should be done here.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I wish to join in the debate because I have certain suggestions to make. The first is that the Government should reconsider its policy towards the farmers. Secondly, the Minister or the department concerned, that is, the Resettlement Section, must set up a committee comprising, in particular, Members of Parliament for the rural areas and constituencies and officers of the department concerned. This committee will be in charge of resettlement as a whole. Thirdly, a policy must be formulated to assist the farmers on a comprehensive basis so that they will not suffer great hardships and will be given an opportunity to carry on their farming activities.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, the resettlement of farmers does not affect my constituency, but since it is in the rural area, I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words. Firstly, I fully support the views expressed by the mover of the motion and several of my colleagues on the resettlement of farmers occupying State land. Sir, the Government has been stressing a great deal on the need to increase productivity, but productivity in this context means increasing industrial produce only. However, in my view, the Government has not made a realistic approach towards encouraging our farmers to increase the output of agricultural produce. From what I gather in regard to the resettlement of farmers, the Government has, in fact, allotted them farm land which is much smaller than the farm land on which they had previously farmed. For example, when a farming area is to be taken over by the Government for public development, the resettlement of farmers will inevitably take place, but instead of allocating them farm land of a similar size, the Government, through the department concerned or the statutory board, has allocated to them small plots of land, thereby reducing their scope to increase their farming activities.

I am sure this House will agree with me on this point. When an area is required for public development, and resettlement of farmers takes place, the farmers will have to be moved out to new areas. They will have to start all over again before they can carry on with their normal activities and to reap their harvest. Therefore, with the reduction in the size of their farming lands, they will inevitably reduce their farming activities, thereby resulting in a reduced amount of agricultural produce. Sir, I am sure it is not the Government's intention to inhibit the progress of farming activities in our Republic. Therefore, instead of decreasing the size of resettled land to be allocated, which is not more than two acres, I appeal to the Minister concerned to take a more realistic policy on the resettlement of the farmers. I am sure this House will bear with me if I stress that the farmers in the Republic play an important role in our country's struggle for survival. They toil all day to produce as much agricultural produce as possible to help feed many of our people. They produce large quantities of eggs, poultry, pigs and a good variety of vegetables. By so doing, they contribute in no small measure towards providing these essential commodities for a good part of our population.

Lastly, Sir, realising the importance of the role played by the farmers, I would like to appeal again to the Minister for Law and National Development to look closely into this question of resettling farmers occupying State land with a view to increasing the size of land to be allocated, instead of reducing such plots to not more than two acres, so that the farmers will continue to help feed a good many of us not only in this House but in our Republic.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, several Members of this House have spoken about the resettlement of farmers. I sincerely hope that the department concerned, including the Minister in charge, and the officials will in due course treat this problem with some humility and in proper perspective. I would like to suggest that a committee be set up to review our farming policy and its terms of reference must include the administration of the Resettlement Department. And if the review reveals that there are certain defects in the department concerned, then the department requires "resettlement" itself!

I have two other points to add. In the Resettlement Section, problems have arisen in various fields. For quite some time in the past, the rules of the Resettlement Section were such that those people who were ignorant of the rules were always told that everything was done according to law. But, in fact, a lot of things were not done according to law. They were done according to the rules. They were not actually laws which had been passed and debated in Parliament.

Another point I wish to bring to the attention of Members concerns the "masterpiece" of the Resettlement Section. Some farmers are quite prepared to make way for the development of their farm land by the Government and to resettle in another place. But if a villager affected is a sole occupier, then he is not entitled to alternative accommodation in a Housing Board flat. Even if he has a child - a daughter or a son who applies jointly with him for a Housing Board flat, his application will be turned down on the ground that his child -- daughter or son - is not affected by the resettlement scheme, having been living in another place. This is ridiculous. This is a blunder - a legal blunder if we may call it - because the sole occupier affected is allowed to apply jointly with another sole occupier affected by the same scheme for a Housing Board flat. If a bachelor and a spinster are similarly affected, how can they be expected to make a joint application for a Housing Board flat? This is a defect which must be removed. This is a common sense matter. When a sole occupier is affected, he being lonely is in misery already. And if he is to be discriminated in favour of those with families, those who enjoy the bliss of family life, then he should receive special consideration to compensate him. This is a policy which the Government should consider. The present rule is against the common sense concept of humanitarianism. Although sole occupiers are not many in number, I hope we are able to handle their problems with some ease so that they will be housed in a proper place. This is a matter worthy of our consideration.

Another matter is that in the Resettlement Section some work is done with no bearing on resettlement at all. This is the matter of eviction. There is no resettlement. There is eviction without resettlement. If you want to resettle, that means after eviction you must rehouse the evicted people somewhere else. But in many cases the so-called resettlement is mere eviction. The people are driven out and that is the end of it. That is what they call resettlement, which I would rather call eviction. The officers concerned must not forget that the department is set up for resettlement and not for eviction alone. So they must know their duties.

I must say we regret that in certain places some temples are in existence. Because they are affected by the resettlement scheme, they have to be removed. But the administrative policy does not give resettlement to the people living in these temples. They are just evicted and are given no alternative land, either to build another temple, or accommodation to live in and to carry out their religious activities. As a result, these people have no place for religious congregations. This is against the freedom of religion advocated in our Republic. It is inconsistent with the concept of freedom of religion. So certain arrangements must be made in regard to temples and other places of worship affected by the resettlement scheme. This is a very sensitive matter and must be given some careful thought. In the case of a mosque or church affected by a resettlement scheme, alternative accommodation or land is given for the reconstruction of the mosque or the church. But in the case of temples of another religion, no provision is made in some cases. This will give rise to discontent and misunderstanding amongst the members of the public.

So I would like the Minister in charge and the officers concerned to pay special attention to this aspect of the problem, because we have received many complaints from the farmers and villagers about the officers of the Resettlement Section. Perhaps not all of them are bad in their attitude in dealing with the public, but some of them are lacking in the spirit of public service. When they carry out their duties, there is no sincerity on their faces. Instead, they look fierce when they implement the policies of the Government. When you go to the Resettlement Section, it looks as though you are going to hell with all the devilish-looking officers around. Sir, some farmers who need to go to the Resettlement Section invariably go to their Members of Parliament for a letter of recommendation, as though it is an effective talisman against these devilish-looking officers! Some farmers and villagers complain that the letters given to them have been torn to pieces by the officers concerned. So I hope the Minister concerned will look into the matter and take stringent action against these officers, because in our newly-independent Republic, if we want the people to support us in national reconstruction, we must not allow a small group of public servants to create a sense of hatred among the public against Government. This is my sincere hope.

6.45 p.m.

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard practically all the Members of this House speak with one voice, except the Minister of Defence, and they make general allegations against the Resettlement Department of the Housing and Development Board. I, of course, have no answers to the general allegations. I remember, in particular, the Member for Bukit Merah shouting about the devils in the Resettlement Department. I would suggest that he give me the names of these devils and what the allegations are, because anyone who is resettled is dissatisfied. You give him a thousand dollars; he wants two thousand dollars. You give him one acre; he wants five acres.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the hon. Members themselves have admitted, land is a scarce commodity in Singapore. In fact, land is very scarce. We have only 225 square miles of land in Singapore. We are trying to reclaim more land. We have a reclamation scheme in Kallang. We are reclaiming land in Kranji, along the East Coast Road and in the Port Authority. But all the reclamation we do in Singapore cannot double the size of the island, and a great part of the land in Singapore is swampy land. A large part, too, forms part of the land adjacent to our reservoirs and we cannot allow farmers in. This is the catchment area and it is a wide area. If yon allow them in with their pigs and chickens, the water will be polluted.

Mr Tang See Chim: You are driving a motor road in.

Mr Barker: To drive in a motor road is a different thing. You have a road along MacRitchie Reservoir.

To put it in short, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have not got sufficient land. Everybody in Singapore expects the Government to give all the time; they themselves never give. In Singapore, we have large acres of land occupied by, say, one person. A few years ago, investigations revealed that, a woman in Singapore had a Temporary Occupation Licence from the Government and she was occupying 300 acres of State land. She was supposed to be in occupation, but all she was doing was making money out of that. All 300 acres were sublet to others who were paying her fees or rent. Of course, these 300 acres were taken away. Her Temporary Occupation Licence was revoked and licences were given to the actual occupants. This is our policy. We give land to people who want land and who occupy it.

An hon. Member: What about the Singapore Island Club where they play golf?

Mr Barker: But this is just one example. If you have any noises to make about the Golf Club, do not address them to me. I am not a golfer.

To come back to our subject. If we have in Singapore land as much as the Malaysians have in Johore or the Australians in Australia or the New Zealanders in New Zealand, I would he happy to comply with their wishes. Instead of giving them two acres, I would give them two square miles. But we have not got the land. That is why our buildings go up and up. We are not building sideways; we are going up. As the Minister of Defence has pointed out, it would not be realistic to give farmers more than two acres of land. I realise that production will not be as great as if a farmer had three acres or twenty acres. That is logical. But as the Member for Choa Chu Kang puts it, it is a question of priority - land for industry, land for farms. Do we sacrifice everything for the farmers?

Another wrong impression Members have is that all farmers are poor. They say, "Why do you not help the rural folk? You are doing nothing for the rural folk. They are all poor." But the Member for Choa Chu Kang has quoted one case in his constituency where someone was occupying ten acres of Government land and the turnover was $1 million a year. This person said that we took away this land and gave him two acres. I say, what is wrong with that? The land never belonged to him; the land belonged to us. It was not to cut down his production. If he had so much money, he could have bought 10, 20 or 30 acres. But as I have put it just now, they all want to take; they never give. What has the Government to give? The Government has land. So everybody gets T.O.L.s. Once the T.O.L. is given - whether it is for 10, 15 or 20 acres -they behave as if the land is theirs. Now this is where they are wrong. The land is State land and it is let out very cheaply -$15 per annum for one acre, which is well below the economic rent. It is practically a gift - a gift on a year's licence. But the land is not the farmers'. The land is State land. Subject to certain conditions, that licence is given and one of the conditions is no transfer, no subletting without the consent of the Commissioner of Lands, which makes me come to the second point raised by the Livestock Association in their letter to the Member for Bras Basah.

We give Mr X two acres of land. He claims to be a genuine farmer. We go into his bona fides and we are satisfied that he is a farmer. We give him two acres of land. What does he do? He transfers his two acres, either through non-interest in farming or because his farming did not succeed, to a successful farmer. So the Land Office hears about this and says to him, "You have no business to transfer without telling us. One of the conditions is that you should not transfer." So they impose a premium which is in the region of $150 per acre. They also increase the rent. The previous licence - or rent if you like to call it was a subsidised fee. We were not making any money out of it. But when a transfer like that takes place, we charge an economic rent or a licence fee. The reason is this -- - that the land is our land. Because of the transfer, the transferor gets a few thousand dollars. Do not think that out of the goodness of his heart he transferred his licence fee. He got a big fat fee for that transfer. Normally in order to avoid stamp duty, they declare the transfer fee at $4,000 in order not to avoid but to reduce the amount of stamp fee attracted. So this is Government land let out on a T.O.L. and someone practically sells it. They sell our land. We should be making the profit, but they are making the profit. If we do not either revoke the T.O.L. or impose these new transfer fees and increases in annual fees, they will be buying and selling State land like nobody's business. This is the mistake. The land is ours; it is not theirs. We let it out on certain conditions provided they keep to the conditions. They will always have the land, but the trouble is that they do not keep to the conditions. That is the second point raised by the Member for Bras Basah.

The third point raised by the Livestock Association. We come now to the building permits which have been raised to $12 per annum. There is a history behind this, and, shortly, it is this. A new set of building regulations came into effect from the 1st of August, 1966, the aim being to replace two sets of former building by-laws which consisted of City Council by-laws applicable to the city area and those of the Rural Board bylaws which were applicable to areas outside the city. In doing so, this simplified administrative procedure overcame discrepancies experienced in the past because of the two sets of building by-laws. The fee for a temporary permit for any temporary building in the city area was $12 per annum. This fee was not increased but was made applicable to the whole of Singapore island, and it affected the Rural Board so that a temporary permit fee of $3 to $5 per annum in the past was increased to $12. The Minister for Finance had a hand in this. His scale of fees in the rural areas had not been revised since 1953 and he felt that it was fair and reasonable that a fee of $12 per annum charged for a temporary permit in the city area should be made applicable in the rural area.

But to come back again to the subject of "We are doing nothing for the farmers;" "you must have a new policy in farming;" "the Minister does not know what is happening in his Resettlement Department, people are grumbling." Let me tell you this. In 1965, we introduced legislation to register all farmers. This incidentally was done by way of the Animals and Birds (Amendment) Ordinance. The object of this legislation was to register the farmers. The idea of registering them was to find out how many farmers we had and what type of farmers we had. The intention was to try to see the size of the problem and, if possible, to make sure that the, services provided by the Primary Production Department should benefit those people who needed these expansion services most. The Primary Production Department was of the view that registration was essential. For some reason or other, this registration of farmers met with considerable opposition from the farming population, perhaps more through ignorance but perhaps they had their valid reasons. To cover administrative costs, we intended to charge them $5 registration fee per farmer. They did not like it. Another reason is probably this. They do not pay income tax. The moment they register, the Minister for Finance chases them. So we give away money when we do not know who the farmers are. But that $5 is incidental. We are not charging them annually. It was just this once. They did not like the idea. They did not like us to know more about them than what they told us. If they have their problems, we are prepared to help them. But how can you help any body of people unless you know who these people are, how many there are, and what their problems are? One method is registration.

Mr Tang See Chim: Why not take a census?

Mr Barker: And in registration you can distinguish between the genuine farmer and the bogus farmer.

One of the Members has pointed out that we give land to one farmer and the next month he transfers it; so we are at fault. He says, "Sometimes you do not give land to a genuine farmer," and so we are at fault. When you give, it is wrong. When you do not give, it is wrong. When you query him about his identity card, it is wrong. The address is in Changi, but he is supposed to be farming in Choa Chu Kang. So we look at his identity card and ask, "What is this?" Oh, he does not like it; he is a genuine farmer. Or his name is different, and we query. And when we query, he does not like it. But the idea of querying is merely to find ample evidence or proof that they are genuine farmers. There must be bogus farmers; there are crooks. I am not saying that the whole lot are crooks, but we must catch the crooks.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: This could be due to a change of address.

Mr Barker: It could be; very rightly so. But we query not to down them. We query to down the crooks. But there must be grouses on this point.

Perhaps I could now refer to the Member for Sembawang who is not here. I think he has made a very valuable suggestion that we start farming on the outer islands. We have about 40 islands round Singapore, and I can assure him that an intensive survey has been made by a committee who has done a lot of field work on the islands, and it has made certain recommendations. Land is scarce and we need more land and we propose to use these islands. I cannot give details at the moment as the report is still quite secret, but I can assure him that we are going to make use of these islands.

Mr Tang See Chim: For farming or for pleasure?

Mr Barker: For all purposes. But it is difficult to get the farmers to leave the main island for the small islands. That is the point, they will not move.

The Member for Bukit Merah has made one point which, I think, I must reply to, and that is this. He says that when a church or a mosque is demolished, there is always another piece of land for another church or another mosque. When it is a temple, he says, we demolish the temple and never supply the land. Let me reassure him that we have a multi-religious policy and we do not discriminate between churches, mosques, and temples. It is not easy to find alternative land in Housing Board estates where a temple wants to be, and each particular problem or temple must be dealt with on the facts of the case. I think the Member will realise that religion is a very sensitive problem, and people are very touchy. I would be the last person in the world to break into a temple and pull the walls down. All these matters have to be handled with the utmost tact, and we do our best not to be forced into a position to demolish. In fact, we never demolish. We behave, I should say, with a lot of sincerity and we finally after a long time get them to move, but not after they have extracted from us many a concession!

Another Member has referred to the question of rubber trees. He says that the Government promised to pay compensation for cutting down rubber trees, and then this poor farmer engaged a contractor to cut down the rubber trees. And when the rubber trees were cut down, no compensation was paid. We have, in fact, paid compensation for rubber trees in some cases and we have refused to pay in others. I do not know what particular case he has in mind, but where a Temporary Occupation Licence has a condition that you are to farm on the land and not to plant rubber trees, you are supposed to farm on the land. If you plant rubber trees, and we find that out later, then we cut down the trees, because you have already broken the conditions of the Temporary Occupation Licence. You are lucky we did not revoke the licence. Do not expect the Government to pay you for planting rubber trees, which is in direct breach of one of the express terms of the Temporary Occupation Licence. But if we give you a T.O.L. to plant rubber trees, we will pay you when we cut down the rubber trees, but not otherwise. The Member for Changi should know that some of the Temporary Occupation Licences were granted long before the P.A.P. came to power, even before the last war.

Before I close, Mr Speaker, I should tell Members of the House about the present resettlement policy of the Government, and it is this. Farmers - Category A. Genuine farmers are provided with alternative land in developed resettlement areas plus cash compensation for their houses, improvements and cultivation. If they elect to find their own accommodation, they are paid a rehabilitation grant of $1,000 per acre of cultivated land. Transport allowance ranging from $50 for a sub-tenant to $100 for a hut owner is paid, irrespective of whether they are resettled in a resettlement area or elect to find their own accommodation.

Category B - non-farmers. Non-farmers are given suitable alternative accommodation in Housing Board flats, if they want such flats, plus payment of disturbance and transport allowance ranging from $300 for a sub-tenant to $350 for a hut owner or occupier. The hut owner will be reimbursed for the house occupied by his immediate family and for other improvements in accordance with the schedule of approved rates. These benefits are also extended to families who elect to find their own accommodation.

Shopkeepers - Category C - affected by clearance are given priority in the allocation of alternative shops in various Housing and Development Board estates at concessional rentals without having to go through the normal tender system.

Perhaps before I close, it would not be out of order for me to give you -

Mr Tang See Chim: A bouquet!

Mr Barker: Not a bouquet, but to give you the figures of the amount of money paid by the Government from 1961 to 1966. In 1961 we paid about $275,000 as compensation; 1962 $924,000; 1963 $1,698,000; 1964 $3,365,000; 1965 $5,451,000; and for the first 10 months of this year, we have already paid more than $4 million in compensation. So we have spent quite a bit of money in respect of resettlement. We have not forced any person out of his house without proper care or reasonable compensation. It is accepted that to get a family to move out from a place where the members have lived for many years is not a simple operation. The Government has, therefore, made it a policy not to upset such families unless it is absolutely necessary, as in the case of land being required for a public purpose, for road widening, for reclamation, for a school, for a clinic, or for public housing. Even then it must be explained, for the benefit of those who pretend to be so indignant, that an infinite amount of patience, tolerance and sympathy has always been exercised to make resettlement as painless as possible. We would be happier if it would not be necessary to upset or uproot any family, but, hon. Gentlemen, the alternative is to have no development, no roads, no new schools, no clinics, and no housing. Surely this is not what you critics want.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That Parliament do now adjourn.

Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen minutes past Seven o'clock p.m. to Wednesday, 14th December, 1966.