FINANCING AND ADMINISTRATION OF URBAN AND RURAL SERVICES PROJECTS

Mr Tang See Chim: Mr Speaker, Sir, the aim of urban and rural services is to make Singapore a nicer place to live in, especially in the rural areas where modern amenities like piped water and electricity are lacking. The administration of these services is in the hands of the Urban and Rural Services Committee which have been effective in carrying out the projects and, to a very large degree, have made life in the rural areas more tolerable by the bringing of modern amenities to the rural folks and by the building of bridges and repairing of roads.

In the Development Budget for the year 1967, a total sum of $2,715,000 was approved by Parliament for urban and rural services. This sum, however, is very small compared to the total Development Budget of some $249 million, i.e., the sum appropriated for urban and rural services was only just over one per cent of the total Development Budget. Yet in spite of this, the sum approved was further cut down sometime in the middle of this year to some $1,900,000. No reason was given for the cut and no doubt hon. Members will wish to know why the sum was cut down after it was approved by Parliament. We all appreciate that there are competing needs for funds in the development of Singapore. But one per cent of the total Development -

Mr Speaker: Mr Tang, could you speak a little slower because the Interpreters are having a little difficulty.

Mr Tang See Chim: But one per cent of the total Development Budget for urban and rural services can, by no stretch of the imagination, be called extravagant. Indeed, in the debate last year Members appeared to lament the smallness of the sum appropriated for urban and rural services. If, in spite of this and in spite of the fact that the sum was approved by Parliament, it is further cut down, there must be cogent reasons for this and we wish to know the reasons.

Under the Development Budget, a total sum of $2,715,000 is allocated under 15 items. These items range from agricultural and kampong roads to roadside trees and shrubs; and to each of these particular items, a definite sum is allocated. I wish to know whether these allocations have been rigidly observed or whether the Urban and Rural Services Committee or the Projects Committee have the discretion of altering the allocations so as to take account of the requirements of the constituencies as a whole. As far as I can see, Mr Speaker, Sir, the urban and rural services projects have been effectively carried out by the Urban and Rural Services Committee. It is true, no doubt, that now and again there are complaints of delay. But, in my opinion, such delays are bound to happen in view of the vast programme for which the Committee is responsible. In this respect, Sir, I wish to thank the Committee for carrying out the projects so efficiently.

Recently, however, there is a change in the administrative structure of the Urban and Rural Services Committee. There is created over and above the Committee another Committee called the Projects Committee. It has never been explained why such a new Committee becomes necessary at this particular juncture, or what are its precise functions in the administration of the urban and rural services projects. All we know is that it appears to have the last say in the approving of projects. With the creation of this Projects Committee, all projects will now take a, longer time to get approved. Before the creation of the Projects Committee, the final decision rested with the Urban and Rural Services Committee. With the creation of the Projects Committee, projects approved by the Urban and Rural Services Committee will now have to be approved again by the Projects Committee before they can be implemented. Is this additional level of decision really necessary? To my mind, it is not. It only wastes the time of members of both the Committees and delays the implementation of urban and, rural services projects.

No doubt hon. Members of this House will also wish to know on what criterion the Projects Committee bases its decision in approving or in rejecting projects. Before the creation of the Projects Committee, when the Urban and Rural Services Committee had the final say, members of the U.R.S.C. (meaning the Urban and Rural Services Committee) made site visits to acquaint themselves with the conditions of the particular constituency in which projects were to be implemented. The Projects Committee does not make such visits. It is known to have cut down projects arbitrarily and to have approved and implemented projects against the recommendation of the Member of Parliament concerned.

Let me give the House two examples from my own constituency. In Yew Tee Village in the Choa Chu Kang constituency, there is no piped water and the wells get dry during the dry season. The Water Works Department, after extensive investigations, recommended a three-phased project costing in total some $140,000. The first and second phases each cost $46,000. After due consideration, the Citizens' Consultative Committee in Choa Chu Kang, with my support, recommended the implementation of phase two which could be done independently of the other two phases at a cost of $46,000. This recommendation was rejected by the Projects Committee allegedly on the ground that it was not economical. On the other hand, there was a project for street lighting of Tengah Village, also in my constituency, costing some $16,000; this project was supported neither by the Citizens' Consultative Committee of Choa Chu Kang nor by me, but it was approved by the Projects Committee and has now been implemented. This state of affairs is causing a great deal of confusion and no small amount of dismay in the minds of Members of Parliament and members of Citizens' Consultative Committees. Members of Parliament are largely concerned with deciding on the priorities of competing needs in their constituencies, guided by the advice of their Citizens' Consultative Committees. Generally, therefore, Members of Parliament should have a large say on the priorities of projects for their constituencies and their recommendations should be respected, in this connection, perhaps the Projects Committee should consider the procedure of asking the Member of Parliament concerned to appear before it when the Committee decides on the projects affecting the particular M.P.'s constituency.

I was rather surprised that the Choa Chu Kang project for bringing water to Yew Tee Village was rejected by the Projects Committee because it was not economical. Yet, at the same time, a project for street lighting not supported by me nor by the Citizens' Consultative Committee was approved. How can the Projects Committee explain its decision that the water project was not economical and yet the street lighting project was economical? And if projects are approved and rejected on economic grounds, when has this criterion come about? Can the decision for social service projects be based on economic grounds? I would like a categorical statement from the Minister concerned.

Coming down to the detailed administration of the urban and rural services projects, at present Citizens' Consultative Committees are asked to help search the records at the Land Registry to ascertain the ownership where projects affect private land. I am of the opinion that this is imposing too heavy a burden on the Citizens' Consultative Committees, a burden they are not equipped to shoulder. Members of the Citizens' Consultative Committees are local community leaders. They are sensitive to the needs of the constituencies but they do not understand the workings of the Land Registry and the making of searches of the records kept there. Furthermore, the Citizens' Consultative Committees are asked to obtain the owners' permission where any projects affecting private land are considered. This again I consider to be quite inappropriate. It would be more effective if the Urban and Rural Services Committee could obtain the private landowner's permission after ascertaining that any particular project affects private land. All urban and rural services projects are for the benefit of the community and the community should not be held to ransom by private landowners. It is more likely that permission would be given when sought for by Government departments rather than by community leaders who have no official status, at least in the eyes of the private landowners. In the event of private landowners being unreasonable in holding up projects which would benefit a large number of people, I would suggest that the Government should consider exercising powers of acquisition under the existing law as a last resort.

5.29 p.m.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Sir, first of all, let me praise the Government for their achievements in the past few years, especially in the field of rural development. This is in keeping with our policy and is inseparable from our policy of developing the rural areas. We implement rural development programmes in order to improve the livelihood of the masses of the rural people so that these people, who were neglected by the Lim Yew Hock Government and by the colonial government, can now enjoy modern standards of living. Sir, although the rural development plan, taken as a whole, has achieved much, I feel that we should go a step further and develop the rural areas and not to cut down on the expenses of or slow down the rural projects.

As regards what the Member for Choa Chu Kang has said, namely, that the amount of $2,700,000 allotted for rural development has been cut down to $1.9 million, I also feel that this is not proper and right. I would like to make two suggestions. Firstly, on the implementation of projects, I feel that the authorities responsible for the various projects are not doing their best. For instance, when certain projects are approved by the Urban and Rural Services Committee, it usually takes about a year or more for the work to get started. Secondly, I feel that it is necessary to set up a system of supervision over the projects, because in many places the work has not been properly done. For instance, in Sembawang, one or two months after Kong Loong Road was made up, there were big holes in it. This shows clearly that there had been malpractices in the building of this road.

As for the setting up of the Projects Committee on top of the Urban and Rural Services Committee, I think it may not be too important. If such a Committee can make the U.R.S.C, more effective, it is quite all right.

Mr Ho See Beng: I fully support and subscribe to the sentiments expressed by the Member for Choa Chu Kang that the rural people were not only neglected during the colonial days, but they are also neglected now. I can prove this in this House on the ground that we were not able to win the support of the rural people in the last general elections.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ho, I do not think it would be appropriate for you to make party political points in the House.

Mr Ho See Beng: Sir, I am just mentioning this in passing. We were not able to obtain their support because we had neglected them.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ho, I think it would perhaps be in order for you to say that the People's Action Party was not able to win their support. But I do not think you can use the word "we".

Mr Ho See Beng: I would say that the P.A.P. was not able to look into the welfare of the rural people. That is why the Party was not able to win their support. So if the Party can make a breakthrough in the rural constituencies by making the rural people understand our difficulties and by providing them with more and better social amenities, then I feel sure that in the coming elections, we will be able to win -

Mr Speaker: Mr Ho, I must again call you to order. You can criticise the Government. That is one of your functions as a Member. But I do not think it is open to you, for Party purposes, to criticise the management of the Party in this House. You must keep the Government and the Party leadership entirely separate, regardless of the composition of the House at the present time.

Mr Ho See Beng: Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the fact that we are only one Party represented here, there is no Opposition. So when I say "the Party", it also means "the Government" and when I say "the Government", it also means "the Party". So there is no actual distinction for me to make.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ho, there is an important distinction and you must also pay due regard to my own functions and duties in the House.

Mr Ho See Beng: Sir, comparatively speaking, the people living in the urban areas have received much more attention and amenities than those living in the rural areas. So I hope that in future the Government will be able to provide more social amenities and give more aid to the people in the rural areas who really need the help of the Government.

Mr Teong Eng Siong rose -

Mr Speaker: Mr Teong, you have already spoken.

If there are no more speakers, I will call on the Minister to reply. Mr Barker.

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may deal first with the proposition made by the Member for Bras Basah. He said that the P.A.P, lost the elections in the rural areas because the Government had not paid much attention to development there. On the contrary, the facts are that the Government have spent and are spending much more money in all the rural areas compared to the urban areas. Whether this policy is the correct policy as far as vote-catching is concerned, I do not know. Let us wait for the next elections. But the facts are these. This year, just to give you an example, Anson, an urban area - $9,280. Let us try Choa Chu Kang - obviously a rural area - $77,952, which is. I think, more than $9,000! Kampong Glam - $9,569; Kampong Kapor - $11,425. These are urban areas. They cannot do much with the money that they are allocated. [Interruption] Let us try Changi.

Mr Sim Boon Woo (Changi): It took four years to repair.

Mr Barker: Changi - $87,969.

Mr Sim Boon Woo: It should need more because of the two islands.

Mr Barker: Jalan Kayu - $69,219.

An hon. Member: What about Sembawang?

Mr Barker: Tampines - $101,165. Nee Soon - $82,414. If you want Sembawang - $75,000. So the facts are obvious. You cannot run away from these figures. Much more money is being spent in the rural areas. Whether we win the elections in the rural areas the next time depends not so much on figures but on each and every one of you and how you work in your constituencies.

Mr Ho See Beng: Money is very important.

Mr Barker: It is important, and we are giving them more money. The Member for Bras Basah does not get much.

Mr Ho See Beng: In fact, it is $8,000 - the least!

Mr Barker: The Member for Sembawang mentioned a certain road which has big holes within a month or two of making it up or repairing it. I wish he had drawn this to my attention earlier, so that investigations can proceed into whether there have been rnalpractices, in the sense that the work had not been done according to contract, or whether some big lorries which pass there night and day broke up the road soon after it was made.

I will now deal with the Member for Choa Chu Kang in whose name this motion stands. He wants a categorical statement from the Minister concerned explaining why a scheme for electricity was approved in his constituency and a suggested project for water supply was rejected. The answer is simple. Choa Chu Kang is allocated $77,952 per year. The Member for Choa Chu Kang, supported by his Citizens' Consultative Committee, wants us to spend more than half that amount on a water main which, according to investigations of the U.R.S.C., will be supplying water to 50 families: the whole project to be done in three phases - first year, $46,000; second year, $46,000. The Projects Committee had already, at the same meeting, approved a water main project for Choa. Chu Kang to the tune of $23,000. Taking $23,000 from $75,000, he is left with $52,000. If we had approved $46,000 for another water main, then work on all other projects in his constituency would have stopped. So does he want to spend all his funds on 50 families in his constituency, or does he want to divide this money proportionately and fairly in various parts of his constituency? If we had more money, we would give it to him. But finance is controlled by the Minister for Finance, and I asked him half an hour ago what I should say to the Member for Choa Chu Kang in case he raised this point again, that not enough money is being spent on urban and rural projects. The answer was a definite `No'. "The State has got no more money to give to the constituencies." In fact, under the Second Five-Year Plan, Government has made provision for $12 million for these projects. This works out at roughly $2.5 million per year. But Parliament actually approved $2.7 15 million for this year. This amount is small compared with the Development Budget. But these are necessarily small projects compared with the other projects in the Republic. It is not correct to say that this original provision of funds approved by Parliament has been cut down by the Projects Committee. The Projects Committee has no power to cut down what Parliament provides. What actually happened was a readjustment of the allocations done by the Ministry of Finance at the request of the Projects Committee.

There are certain items which come under the heading "U.R.S.C." in the Development Estimates - like private streets, minor improvements and reconstruction of roads, roadside railings and fencing, footpaths and cycle tracks, roadside drains, roadside trees and shrubs. The total amount for these items is roughly $795,000. When making the original allocation for each constituency, this Committee did not consider these items. These items are usually done by the P.W.D. If they are building a cycle track, they do not build it in Tanglin and stop within the Constituency. They have got to go on to Ulu Pandan. And if they build it in Choa Chu Kang, they will probably proceed on to the next constituency. So these items, for which money was being spent by the P.W.D., had not been taken into consideration by the Finance Committee of the Economic Planning Unit. And when this was discovered, they had to calculate again and fresh figures were given for each constituency, resulting in apparently less money for each constituency. But the facts are that the monies spent in each constituency were not reduced.

Mr Tang See Chim: For building cycle tracks!

Mr Barker: I am prepared to give way, Mr Speaker, Sir. Get up, Mr Tang.

Mr Tang See Chim: Mr Speaker, Sir, surely the point is that the Member of Parliament for any particular constituency is the best judge of what are the requirements of that constituency. It is not up to the P.W.D, to build, say, a cycle track along Choa Chu Kang and extend it to Jurong. Possibly both Choa Chu Kang and Jurong do not want cycle tracks. Choa Chu Kang, for example, wants water.

Surely the question of social services should not be based on economic grounds. A social service is not a trade or a business. Therefore, the urgency and the importance of the requirement must be taken into account. The Projects Committee should not just be allowed to say that street lighting should be installed in Tengah Village and then proceed to spend $16,000 there, when at the same time the people in Choa Chu Kang - in Yew Tee Village - do not have drinking water. The wells there dry up during the dry season and water carts have to be used to bring water to rural folks. Surely in this case the Member of Parliament concerned must have the discretion, even if it means that half of the funds allocated to him goes to this particular project.

Mr Speaker: Mr Tang, I think you have made your point.

Mr Barker: I am merely citing an example. If the Member for Choa Chu Kang will look at the Development Estimates, he will see that money is provided for various items. If he wants water and nothing else, I suggest he start next year. And the first item he asks for recommendation in Choa Chu Kang is this water main project. If he thinks that the Projects Committee turned down his application arbitrarily, I would invite him to think again. He speaks very well of the U.R.S.C. which is under my Parliamentary Secretary, and perhaps he will be a little surprised to know that the U.R.S.C. rejected his application, and that the Projects Committee just put its rubber stamp on the application that had already been rejected. We accepted the recommendation of the U.R.S.C. for which the Member for Choa Chu Kang has the highest regard.

He has again criticised the setting up of the Projects Committee and wants to know why it has been set up. The Projects Committee was set up by the Prime Minister because of many a complaint received from people like the hon. Member to the effect that Members of Parliament - his own colleagues - who are members of the U.R.S.C. only recommended projects in their own constituencies. I am not saying that that was true. But that was the impression created - that members of the U.R.S.C, only looked after their own constituencies. Because of these grouses and complaints from other Members of Parliament, the Projects Committee, headed by me as Chairman, was set up to process these applications.

Let me assure the Member that 98 per cent of the recommendations of the U.R.S.C. are accepted by members of the Projects Committee. And let me also assure him that whatever happens in the U.R.S.C. meetings is also known to members of the Projects Committee, because some persons are on both Committees. Some Members of Parliament have appeared before the U.R.S.C. The Member for Choa Chu Kang says that the Projects Committee is a waste of time. I say that it is a waste of time to hear a Member of Parliament twice. If the U.R.S.C, has given him a hearing, I do not see why the Projects Committee should give him another hearing.

Shortly, the Projects Committee makes its decisions on the recommendations of the U.R.S.C. on the availability of funds and whether the proposals are in conformity with the overall development plans and policies of the Government. What really astounds me is that a Member of Parliament can get up in this House and say that he wants to spend half the money allocated for his constituency on 50 families and damn the rest. It is for that reason that the Projects Committee was set up to look into recommendations made by members of the Citizens' Consultative Committees and Members of Parliament. All in all, the recommendations are good, but we have got to be careful. We have got to process them and to decide on them. But if you are allocated $80,000 and you want to spend more than half on a pipeline for 50 families, it will be very difficult for us to agree and to accept your recommendation.

As for the Member for Choa Chu Kang, up till September this year a sum of $81,000 was spent in his constituency. In other words, the funds have disappeared. His constituency is not being neglected. We have overspent in Choa Chu Kang within the first nine months of the year, and he wants us to spend another $46,000.

The Member has mentioned the question of land titles. There is a little history behind this and I think, Sir, I can put the facts before the House. In the past, Members of Parliament and members of the Citizens' Consultative Committees made recommendations to build roads, put up street lights, and what - have - you -- not caring on whose land the project was to be developed. This had raised complications. There had been howls of protest from landowners; and rightly too. If I own a piece of land and next morning I find a road right through it, I will write to the Prime Minister. The Member for Choa Chu Kang has passed his Bar examinations and I hope he has not forgotten the law of trespass! I am sure many a client goes to him seeking advice on what they can do and what remedies they have in the High Court -perhaps an injunction or perhaps damages for trespass. These are the actions that the Government has had to face because of the indiscretions of Members of Parliament and members of the Citizens' Consultative Committees. Some of these actions are still being considered and are still in the files of the Attorney-General. If I have a piece of land, you have got no right to put a drain right through it. And if you have a piece of land, I have got no right even to step on it. So to suggest that we ignore the rights of landowners is, under our law, an impossible proposition. I would suggest that when we rewrite our Constitution, and if the Member still believes that we should go in arbitrarily and build roads and community centres, lay pipes on somebody else's land, then let him take it up in Select Committee should the Constitution be there, and set out his arguments. But until the law has been changed, I am afraid that we cannot in any way flout it without exposing the Government to all sorts of action for trespass, interference, and damages.

Mr Tang See Chim rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order or clarification?

Mr Tang See Chim: On a point of clarification. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hate to interrupt the Minister. But I never suggested anything like flouting the law. In fact, if the Minister will recall, I did say perhaps in necessary cases the Government's power of acquisition under the existing law should be exercised.

Mr Barker: I did not suggest that it was the Member for Choa Chu Kang who has made suggestions that we should trespass on other people's land. But if you remember, I said that I had to give you a little history of how these points developed. When the Projects Committee was formed, its first decision was that any projects could not and would not even be considered until the landowner's permission was forthcoming. But this led to a howl of protest and it is for this reason that I am raising it here and making it clear once and for all that we cannot flout our own land laws. As for acquisition, we are always acquiring land. And there have been allegations that my Ministry would soon become one of the biggest landowners in this town. We are very careful when we acquire other people's land. For major road widenings, yes. But if you want to build an agricultural road, surely you do not want the Government to acquire land. But we do acquire land for road widening and making of new roads. But if every time the owner refuses to give permission for us to acquire his land and we acquire it, this would cost the Government a big packet and the land would probably not be worth acquiring. To suggest that it is better for the U.R.S.C. to write to the landowner in the first instance I would say is wrong. We have done it - to quote a case in Upper Serangoon where the Member for Upper Serangoon wanted a road metalled. We advised him to write to the landowner, which he did. The landowner said no. So the Projects Committee wrote to the landowner and the reply was to this effect:

"At the moment I am having a lot of trouble trying to get rid of squatters on my land. To build this road would only make the stay of the squatters more permanent. When I have got rid of all these squatters, I will build this road myself."

So there are always two sides to the question and it is not for the Government to acquire a piece of land to build a road on someone else's land where squatters have been sitting for years. We would rather not interfere in civil disputes between landlord and tenant. Sometimes it is the landowner who is at fault. Sometimes it is the tenant. But the solution is not to acquire the land for the making up of a road.

I have nothing further to add, Sir, except this. If any Member of Parliament is not satisfied with any decision of the Projects Committee, I suggest that he file or petition for a reconsideration of the application - perhaps asking for more pipes - and I can assure him that the Projects Committee, instead of arbitrarily rejecting the appeal, will once again give it careful consideration - and if it appears that the decision was wrong, I can assure him that the Projects Committee is big enough to withdraw its decision and approve the project.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That Parliament do now adjourn.

Adjourned accordingly at Six minutes past Six o'clock p.m. to 14th November, 1967.