LOCAL GOVERNMENT INTEGRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

5.35 p.m.

The Minister for Law and National Development (Mr E. W. Barker): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Members will recall the statement made in this House at the last sitting by the Minister for Finance, which outlined in some detail the need to revise the present sewerage fees to meet the requirement of the World Bank for an $18 million loan to help finance the foreign exchange component of the cost of our sewerage expansion projects.

Several proposals for the revision of the sewerage tariff had been considered. The basic question was whether the proposed increase should be based on the number of sanitary fittings, or the volume of sewage and trade waste discharge, or a combination of both. Eventually, it was decided to levy an additional charge of 20 cents per 1,000 gallons of metered water consumed in addition to the existing fee of $2 per sanitary fitting per month now being levied on domestic premises. In the case of non-domestic premises, the additional charge levied is 50 cents per 1,000 gallons of metered water consumed.

The imposition of a flat rate means that all registered consumers of water, including those now not served with modern sanitation, will have to pay the additional charge. It is hoped that some householders will become less reluctant to abandon the bucket-system if they have to pay a charge, small as it is, for a sanitary service which they do not enjoy. And, in order to be fair to those consumers of water now not served by modern sanitation, the Public Works Department would be duty-bound to extend its sewerage facilities to all such consumers as soon as possible.

As it now stands, subsection (1) of section 43 of the Local Government Integration Ordinance, 1963, only empowers the Director of Public Works to levy a fee on one or more sanitary fittings. To enable Government to give effect to the above decision, it is necessary to amend the Ordinance in order that the Director may also levy a fee on the amount of water used.

In the last nine years some $69 million has been spent on sewerage projects and today just over half our population is served by modern sanitation. The long-term objective of Government is to provide sewerage facilities throughout the island.

More money is needed as the provision of modern sanitation is costly; the proposed revision of tariff is expected to result in additional revenue of $4.2 million in 1970, and $4.8 million in 1972. However, as pointed out by the Minister for Finance, the majority of consumers will not be required to pay more than an additional sum of $1 per month.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

5.43 p.m.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment Bill is directly the result of the Ministerial statement made by the Minister for Finance in this House on Tuesday, 23rd December last year, in which he disclosed that the Government intends to levy a sewage fee and increase the charges for water consumed both in the domestic and commercial sectors. Just now, the Minister for Law and National Development, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, pointed out that after some consideration it was decided to impose the increase on all consumers of water, whether they enjoy sewerage facilities or not. You will remember, Sir, that many questions were asked of the Minister for Finance arising out of his Ministerial statement, and the answers he gave have thrown some light on the reasons compelling the Government to resort to taking such measures.

Having gone through the Ministerial statement, Sir, and also the answers to subsequent questions, and the Bill, it is obvious to everybody that the days of cheaper public utilities are gone. In other words, nothing is free today. For that matter, no government can afford to pay a heavy subsidy on public utilities without bringing the country to economic chaos. This has been so in several countries where political issues arise out of such matters, but I do not think we will fall into this pit. For example, Sir, medical facilities in Singapore were free some time ago. Today charges are being levied on those who seek them.

Today we see the rates of water increased. In the last few years the rates ranging from 60 cents to $1.30 per 1,000 gallons have been increased to 80 cents to $1.50, together with a 10 per cent Government tax. This increase, I believe, was carried out in 1966. And even though these extra charges or levies will be collected by the Public Utilities Board on behalf of the Government, to the consumers they definitely mean an increase on the rates they are paying now. Together with this, there is an extra levy of $2 per fitting per month. This adds up to an increase of nearly 50 per cent of the rates, as compared with the increase over the last few years.

Admittedly, Sir, this increase will impose a heavier burden on the consumers, especially those in the lower income group, i.e., the farmers and labourers. And we know that the possibility of further increases cannot be ruled out because the Minister for Finance was non-committal in his reply to my question at the sitting on the 23rd of December last. Hence I suspect that there must be more valid and cogent reasons than this, and I feel that the Government owes the people an answer. I hope it will not be failing in its duty to disclose the other reasons which prompt it to make such charges and increases. The people, I am positive, will be ready to accept these increased charges if they fully understand the intentions behind the move.

Sir, one cannot run away from the fact that water in Singapore means life or death to us. The majority of our people depend on pipe-water, and if they are deprived of it, then I think hell will break loose. We all know that the Government has taken pains to ensure that water is readily and easily available. But I am arguing this from the point of view of the extra 20 per cent charge on water.

Mr Barker: 20 cents.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: I am sorry, a 20-cent charge per 1,000 gallons. We know that water is a precious and priceless commodity. We also know that it is imported, like other raw materials, and has to be treated before it can be consumed. Let me then add that because it is precious, it is therefore worth the price we are asked to pay. I fully support this move, but I must ask the Minister for Law and National Development what steps are being taken to ensure that water will always be readily available.

Now that the World Bank has given us an $18 million loan to develop our sewerage facilities, may I ask him what concrete plans are afoot to extend sewerage facilities throughout the Republic? Also, what concrete plans are in hand to ensure that by the early or the late l970s the whole country and its people will enjoy modern sewerage facilities? Because by then no one can quibble that he has to shoulder the burden of increased water charges while others who are enjoying such facilities are not similarly charged.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are always people who take things for granted. From them little appreciation can be expected, except that they will always grumble whenever there is an imposition of increased taxes or charges. To me, these people never seem to understand, for example, that water has to be imported and stored and also treated chemically before it can be piped into their homes and made safe for drinking. The process involved, I am told, is both complicated and costly. To these people, Sir, let me say this: think of what they are getting, and ask themselves whether it is worth the price.

Sir, I have been fortunate enough to travel outside the Republic on several occasions. In the course of such tours I came across some countries in Asia and Europe where one cannot drink the pipe-water. Therefore, one has to buy mineral water or beer to quench one's thirst. What is the difference, one may then ask? The difference is that such pipe-water is often muddy and dirty and is meant for washing only. I am also told that if one drinks from the tap, one gets sick because the water has never been treated chemically. I am sure we do not want that to happen to us.

Singapore is a city state with a population of some 8,800 persons per square mile. As this number will increase each year, we cannot afford to and we do not wish to have non-treated or undrinkable water from our taps, as is found in some countries. Sir, I believe this situation is unwelcome not only on health grounds but also because we do not wish our people to quench their thirst with beer or mineral water. With respect, Sir, the situation that exists in those countries could be due to certain prevailing conditions, but we in Singapore certainly want our water crystal clear and drinkable straight from the tap.

Once again may I reiterate that the price we will be paying for water is well worth it. But the Government must take steps to explain the proposed increase in charges, whether they be due to sewerage fittings, sanitary fittings, or in respect of water consumed.

Sir, in fully supporting this amending Bill, I hope the Minister concerned will look into the problem of supplying water to the remotest village or kampong in the Republic where well water is still being used. This is most unhygienic and bad for health. During the past two years or so the Government has conducted several exercises to remove public standpipes. It has instead encouraged those people relying on standpipes to connect water to their homes. Much has been achieved in this respect, and, as a result, many remote villages and kampongs have benefited. But there is still much to be done in supplying pipe-water to the remotest places.

I know for a fact that many poultry and pig farmers are today making use of pipe-water in the course of their work and they have to pay for it at the commercial rate. However, these farms are in the rural areas and I hope the Minister for Finance will consider their case. It is a bit unfair to these people to have to pay more for the water consumed when, in fact, they do not enjoy sewerage facilities. No doubt, the answer given by the Minister for Finance at the last sitting of Parliament was that a line had to be drawn somehow. However, let us hope that the line drawn will not result in a lop-sided tax which imposes a heavier burden on these farmers. I wonder whether the Minister for Finance will give special consideration to the consumers of water in the rural areas by reducing the rate of Government tax. After all, they do not enjoy sewerage facilities. I am positive that, as citizens, the people will understand their responsibility to the State. However, a clear explanation must be given to them, otherwise they will think that in spite of their poor condition the Government is being hard on them in making a general imposition of increased water charges irrespective of whether or not the consumers enjoy sewerage facilities.

Lastly, Sir, whilst once again expressing my full support for this Bill, I hope the two Ministers concerned will carefully consider the points I have just now raised.

6.03 p.m.

Mr P. Govindaswamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, I appreciate that with a growing population resulting in an increase in the number of houses, flats and factories, the consumption of water in Singapore will increase. When the water supply is low, there is need to conserve water. For this purpose, I agree that as an inducement to conserve water it is necessary to increase the water charges. But the reason given by the Minister is that, because of the development of modern sanitation, it is necessary to recover the increased expenditure. Hence, for this purpose, the Minister has proposed an increase of 20 cents per 1,000 gallons of water for domestic use. I wish to point out that even with the further development of modern sanitation, not everyone in Singapore will be served with modern sanitation. The people in the rural districts will still not be served with it for some time. It would seem that by paying increased water charges, these people are in fact paying for modern sanitation for urban dwellers. I am afraid this does not seem fair to the rural dwellers. The Minister may argue that the people enjoying modern sanitation will be using more water because of the use of water closets and will, therefore, be paying more for their water supply. But the average amount of water used per day in the water closets in a home is negligible and so the burden of the increased water charges is still equally borne by those without modern sanitation and those with modern sanitation.

In order to satisfy both purposes - conserving water and developing modern sanitation - I propose that part of the increased expenditure be recovered by an increase in water charges and the rest of the increased expenditure be recovered by increasing charges for water closets.

Furthermore, it appears to me that the need to increase water charges has not been properly explained to the people in general. I would urge the Minister to take steps to explain clearly to the mass the reason behind the need to increase water charges.

6.10 p.m.

Mr J. F. Conceicao (Katong): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first take advantage of this opportunity to congratulate you on your election to the Speakership and to assure you of my continuing regard for your office.

The Bill which is under discussion now seeks to authorise the Government to levy fees for the removal of sewage and trade effluent and for the amount of water used on premises. But the main burden seems to be the increase in the charges for the consumption of water. Water, Sir, is the main burden of my comment. As the Member for Punggol has commented, water is an extremely precious commodity in Singapore. I can recollect that it was not so long ago when we experienced the discomfort of rationing, as a result of a rather dry spell. More recently, of course, we suffered from a surfeit of water. But, however much rain may fall, water has to be collected, stored, processed, treated and purified, and the supply must be transmitted and distributed. There must be maintenance of these activities and there must be, in addition, an administrative charge for the collection of rates. Obviously, the scale of expenditure involved must be enormous. Just for the sake of comparison, although it is not relevant, before coming into this House earlier today, I read in a recent issue of the Tunes of London that for a study of how to purify the Thames, which is becoming apparently a sort of massive sewage disposal channel, the cost is half a million pounds. But coming closer home, Sir, it was only last year that Seletar Reservoir was officially opened. This effective engineering achievement has resulted in multiplying our total reservoir capacity by four times, increasing it from 1,750 million gallons to 6,900 million gallons. I obtained the figures from the brochure which the Ministry of National Development issued in commemoration of the opening. But the Seletar project cost $27 million, and we had to find a source of foreign exchange for nearly half of this sum.

But it is not the mere cost in terms of dollars and cents that we have to consider. Let us note that the water surface of Seletar Reservoir is 800 acres. Sir, let me ask the Minister for National Development how many acres of land have we reclaimed from the sea. It is an odd but nonetheless real fact of our existence that, on the one hand, we try our best to increase our land acreage by converting sea into land, and, on the other hand, in the centre of our island we have to convert valuable real estate into masses of water. Both operations cost a great deal of money. Even if we were to think of the operation of attempting to change sea water into fresh water, we have to spend even more, if at all this were commercially feasible.

All this should indicate that water is an expensive (besides being a precious) commodity.

To look at the question from another angle: water in its original form would not be safe for drinking. There are all sorts of pollutional elements in water. The effect of contamination is to add all sorts of micro-organisms, add algae bacteria and so on, as well as colour, taste, smell, alkalinity, turbidity and poison to water. But the community, on the other hand, and rightly so, insist and should insist that water be not only safe to drink, but also agreeable in appearance, taste and smell, so that it may be properly used for domestic and other purposes. At the same time, water must contain substances that should prevent it from being corrosive to metals, and indeed that it should contribute to the dental health of our children.

This demand for water, with all the desirable qualities I referred to, has to take into account the capital, labour and skill that go into converting water in an undrinkable state to water in its eminently potable form that emerges from our taps.

Indeed, Sir, as the Member for Punggol has also pointed out, when we open the tap for water we may immediately receive it in a glass to drink at once. Let us remember that there are places where to do this would be very hazardous indeed. When I note how efficiently we are served with water, hot or cold, I remember that such efficiency may not necessarily characterise supply in other countries. I remember an instance when I was visiting a certain country and I had occasion either to turn on the tap or the electric switch. What I turned on was not quite important, but some of my colleagues here will bear me out that, as a result of my action, water began to fountain out in fair quantity from the electrical fixing on the ceiling! Other odd experiences I have had too, all of which have strengthened my healthy regard for the people in our community who are responsible for the provision of water to our people.

May I say, finally, that while we have to reserve large sums of money for installations like Seletar Reservoir and that we have to charge our people for this, the sooner we can make places like Seletar Reservoir a recreational resort for our people, the better. Bearing in mind that the public use of the precincts of reservoirs has to be accompanied by safeguards against pollution, it is obvious that the more intensive use is put to such places, the more economic it will be and the more readily will our people accept the burden of extra charge for water utilities. I would imagine that the first reaction to this increase in charge would be for one to deprecate it, but after fuller consideration, I am sure it will have the support of our people.

6.15 p.m.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of this Bill. Before I come to the substance of my speech, perhaps I may be permitted to comment on some of the points raised by previous speakers in so far as they concern economic and financial policy. I am sure that my colleague, the Minister for Law and National Development, will deal with the other aspects.

Several Back-benchers have said, and indeed have emphasised, that water is a very precious commodity. One would have thought, therefore, that they would be concerned not over the increase in the price of water, but whether we are charging sufficiently high rates for such a precious commodity to ensure that it is not being wasted.

The Member for Punggol says that farmers and residents of rural areas are not being fairly treated in this respect. They pay this additional 20 cents per 1,000 gallons of water and some of them do not have sewerage facilities. They use water to feed chickens and pigs. Of course, if they do so they must be prepared to pay the price. But that is not my point. My point is this. On a previous occasion I said that there must be some rough justice in this. If we were to go by the strict rule of charging the consumer the cost of the water he uses, then, of course, those people in farms and the rural areas would not have to pay this 20 cents extra. If we were to charge them the actual cost of bringing water to the farms, they might well have to pay $1.50 for 1,000 gallons of water and not 80 cents. So farmers and others in the countryside should be thankful that they are getting water so cheaply now. I think that also goes for what the Member for Anson said about water rates.

Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to approach this subject from a wider viewpoint. This is the entire question of our water supplies in relation to our past, present and future needs and, more particularly, to take into account our dependence on external sources for our water supplies. Until the Government took measures to increase the supply and storage capacity on the island of Singapore itself, we were dependent on our supplies and storage of water on Johore for nearly all of our water requirements. Seletar Reservoir was completed last year, but until then Singapore produced only 18 million gallons a day out of the 102 million gallons a day consumed. Therefore, more than 82 per cent of our water consumption was supplied from Johore. With the completion of the Seletar scheme, we are now able to supply 40 per cent of our requirements. This is an improvement but it is not enough.

Before the completion of Seletar Reservoir, storage capacity in Singapore was enough for only two weeks' supply. With Seletar Reservoir, we now have just over two months' supply. This is an improvement but again it is not adequate. So the Government and its agency, the Public Utilities Board, are proceeding with further schemes to increase storage capacity and to get more sources of supply of water from the island itself. The P.U.B. has worked out several schemes in this respect. They are now in the process of engaging consultants to design and supervise the construction of two water supply and storage schemes: one in the Kranji area and the other in the Ulu Pandan area. Construction will probably start next year and will be completed in 1974. By then we would increase significantly the percentage of local requirements, which can be met from supplies on the island itself.

Hon. Members will, without question, accept the proposition that we should be dependent as little as possible on outside supplies for so vital a product as water. To do otherwise would be to give dangerous hostages to fortune. If they accept this proposition, Members must also accept the inevitable consequences that flow from it. The setting up of water supply and storage facilities on the island itself is more costly than getting them from across the Straits of Johore. If this were not the case, our water engineers in past decades would have been doing what we are doing now. Already the cost of producing and distributing water to domestic households exceeds the rate of 80 cents per 1,000 gallons which they are paying. With the completion of the new schemes I have mentioned and others, the cost will increase. This follows logically. Water engineers will begin with the most economical projects first, which, in the case of the island of Singapore, is the Seletar project. Then they go on to more expensive and less economical means of collecting and storing water. This is the price we have to pay for not giving unnecessary hostages to fortune.

The present increase in water rates is to pay for sewerage services which, in the past, were subsidised by the general taxpayer. So to the question asked by the Member for Punggol to which he wants an unequivocal answer -"Will there be further increases in water rates?" - I say, yes, there will be further increases in the water rates. So those who grumble at the present increase in water rates should bear in mind the deeper and more serious issues which I have outlined.

6.24 p.m.

Mr Lee Teck Him: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Minister for Finance mentioned sewerage projects and the increase in water rates. I feel that in certain respects he is not correct, because I remember that last year he informed us that Singapore made a lot of money as a result of the revaluation of the German mark. Since we have made so much money, we should be in a position to pay for this additional expenditure and not ask the poor people in the rural areas who are not enjoying sewerage facilities to pay for this. We must draw a line somewhere so that we are fair to all. For instance, we can levy more taxes on liquor or increase the income tax rate for rich people. That will be fairer. Or perhaps we can increase the tax on cigarettes and tobacco. It is not fair to make the poor people pay more for their water consumption, as they have to meet the expenditure incurred by their children on their maintenance, food, clothing and schooling. I am voicing my opinion on behalf of these people and I request the Minister to consider this point seriously.

6.26 p.m.

Mr Ho See Beng: Mr Speaker, Sir, we are told that the Government is going to develop the sewerage system and I assume from the Minister's speech that eventually it will be on an island-wide basis. This development will cost the Government a few million dollars. The money is borrowed from the World Bank with interest, and the people will be asked to pay for the cost of this development project. Singapore will then be able to tell the world, "Look, we have not only high-rise flats but also a very modern water-borne sewerage system." This is very well and laudable. The Government and the people of Singapore are proud of this.

Sir, nobody will quarrel with the Government over this development project if we can afford it. But the point is this. This huge sum of money has to be repaid with interest. I therefore would like to ask the Government why we cannot postpone this project until we are in a position to carry it out without having to get a loan from the World Bank. Sir, unless there is great urgency for this sewerage development which the people cannot do without, I sincerely urge the Government to reconsider this matter and give priority to other projects which merit it. Assuming that this project is very important and the Government cannot do without it, why cannot the cost be met by other forms of taxes? Though the increase of 20 cents for 1,000 gallons of water is insignificant, it still affects the lower-income group who form the majority of our community. I believe, Sir, there are a thousand and one ways of raising taxes for this sewerage development, as the Member for Ulu Pandan has said, and the Government should lay its hands upon them instead of choosing to finance this sewerage project by increasing water charges. For example, the Government can easily increase taxes on entertainment, petrol, liquor, tobacco, cosmetics, night-clubs and admission rate to the Turf Club. Last but not least, the Minister for Law and National Development can negotiate with the Minister for Health to increase the abortion fee.

Another point which I would like to raise is the discrepancy involved in the rates charged for water. The rate charged for domestic consumption has always been lower than that for commercial use. Since the commercial rate is increased by 50 cents per 1,000 gallons, the domestic rate should be lower than 20 cents because the businessmen will pass the increase to the consumers. So the Government should not adopt the attitude of a person who pretends that he is healthy and chubby by slapping his own face, making it red and swollen, and showing it to the people and saying. "Look, I am healthy," when, in fact, he is not. Therefore, if we cannot afford the cost of financing this project, we should postpone it.

6.33 p.m.

Mr Lim Soo Peng: Mr Speaker, Sir, once the principle is accepted that we pay our way, and I think Singapore accepted it quite some time ago, then it is only logical that the maintenance of our sewerage system has got to be put on a rational, self-sustaining and self-developing basis. Nobody is going to come here to give us some money to clear our waste or to improve our sewage disposal system. We have just got to find the money ourselves, whether we like it or not. The Ordinance which this Bill seeks to amend already empowers a charge to be made for water closets and urinals. What is sought now is a charge on fittings that discharge waste into the sewerage system and on the water that is used to convey that waste.

As I said earlier, this is only a logical extension of the law, and the recoupment of cost of sewerage development. Everybody in Singapore who lives in a house connected to the sewerage system knows that more water is flushed into it than from only the water closet or the urinal. The water from the bathroom, the kitchen sink, etc, is emptied into the sewerage system. The amendment to the law to include a charge for sanitary fittings or other fittings which discharge waste is therefore fair and necessary. When levying such a charge, it is only logical and fair to take into account the water that goes into the sewers. Hence the amendment Bill which seeks to impose a levy on the amount of water used in houses which are connected to the sewerage system is again logical and fair.

It is perhaps the most appropriate time here to touch on a subject which is a critical problem, not only in Singapore, but also in many parts of the world. Just because we do have an excellent system of potable water, we often take other things for granted. We have but a small island, and although our birth-rate is slowing down, our population is growing. As more and more land is required for human habitation, less and less land is available for catchments and reservoirs. Therefore, the problem of getting enough potable water becomes more acute. Costs have gone up and will continue to go up. This is inevitable with population growth and economic development. If our only problem is rising, costs, we should consider ourselves fortunate.

At the moment, there are two huge pipes carrying enormous amounts of water to us every day, if one of these pipes, let alone two, were for one reason or another to be unavailable, we would be in a rather difficult position. We have, therefore, to think in terms of developing a larger capacity for domestic water resources. This will, of course, be costly, but unless we intend to go without water, we have no alternative but to spend the huge sums necessary for water works of one kind or another.

In order to do this, Sir, we should have a rational basis to apportion the charges for use of water. I support this Bill because it provides us with that rational basis.

6.36 p.m.

Mr Hwang Soo Jin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill and the proposed increase in water rates, as it is clear that the proposed increase is not being resorted to as an easy way to raise more revenue, nor is it an action aimed at rectifying a departmental financial deficit brought about by maladministration. I feel that the increase should be viewed in the wider context of the vast expansion programme being undertaken by the Water Department with a view to ensuring that the high standard of service hitherto attained can be maintained in the long run. Over the last ten years, our consumption of water has gone up by some 50 per cent. This is a good indication of the increasing affluence of our society. With greater economic growth almost guaranteed, coupled with the inevitable population growth, the increase in the consumption of water will, I feel sure, be even more dramatic in the next decade.

As a responsible government, it is our duty to see that we can, and will, in the next five or ten years, continue to be able to cope with the substantially increased demand for water. To ensure this for the future, we are now being called upon to pay a very small price in the form of a proposed increase in water rates. An average household, I understand, uses a maximum of between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons of water a month. In terms of dollars and cents, the monthly outlay of a family works out to between $8 and $10. The proposed increase will raise this to between $10 and $12 respectively. The difference is quite insignificant indeed when one bears in mind how precious water is. However, there will always be grumbling among some people at the slightest suggestion of an increase in the price they have to pay for any type of public service, but they may do well to make a few comparisons to ascertain for themselves what better things or services they can purchase with $10 or $12 spread over a period of one month. Take an average smoker. He spends ungrudgingly between $10 and $30 or even more per month on cigarettes. The Member for Paya Lebar has just told me that he spends something like $100 per month on cigarettes.

It may be argued that cigarettes give greater satisfaction than water. But can anyone honestly say that he can live without water? I can think of many more contradictions reflecting the illogical traditional attitude of some of our consumers, but I think I have made my point.

6.40 p.m.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, let me congratulate you on your election as Speaker of this House. This is an opportune moment for congratulation as, on the eve of Chinese New Year, many people will be wishing one another "Happy New Year". Let me, therefore, wish you a very happy term of office, Mr Speaker. Because the Minister in charge has introduced this amendment Bill which seeks to impose a levy on sanitary fittings and on the volume of sewage and trade waste discharge, the people's festive spirit has been dampened.

From the speeches made by the two Ministers, we can understand clearly the reasons for this increased taxation. It is mainly because the World Bank has loaned us $18 million for the expansion of our sewerage scheme, on condition that the loan should help finance only the foreign exchange component of the sewerage project, and also that the revenue earned on the project should be adequate to cover operating expenses. Also, from the long-term point of view, it is clear that our water supply will be insufficient. Therefore, in the coming years we will have to build two more reservoirs. We have built reservoirs in the past, but we will need to build two more reservoirs - one in Kranji and the other in Ulu Pandan - in future. But the explanation given for the increased water charges is not justifiable. I, of course, realise the large sums of money involved in the expansion of sewerage services. This project will enable the Government to increase its revenue. The Government will, therefore, have to invest in something that will give us security, so that our economy will he viable. Undoubtedly, for the sake of our long-term interest and for the ensurance of our future water supply, the Government has to implement various schemes to achieve this objective, including legislation against waste of pipe-water. I believe that our people will understand the justifiable policy of the Government.

However, Mr Speaker, Sir, the important question is whether the Government has considered the consequences of the increased water charges. We understand that about 70 to 80 per cent of the people belong to the lower income group, and their monthly income averages between $150 and $300. Normally even those with bigger monthly incomes than this do not find it easy to maintain a family with a few mouths to feed. For instance, just now the Member for Paya Lebar said that some people, like himself, spend $100 a month on cigarettes. You can thus see that this increased charge will make the burden on the poor people heavier. For those people who are now in receipt of public assistance, they have not only to maintain their family with this assistance, but also to meet other expenditure. This additional charge, as proposed, will therefore aggravate their problem. Small traders, hawkers, and small coffee stall-holders also belong to the low income group, and I hope the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to all these poor people and exempt them from this additional tax.

For those in the higher income group, I agree to the imposition of the increased charge on them, because they are getting fat salaries. Even an additional charge of $50 or $100 will have no effect on them, as it is within their means to pay. Mr Speaker, Sir, our Government, being democratic and socialist, needs to look after the welfare and interest of our people. In view of our ideals, namely, to tax those who are able to bear the additional burden of tariff, and to exempt those who are not able to bear it, I hope the Minister will reconsider imposing this proposed tariff, so that all the people will support the Government's policy.

6.50 p.m.

Mr Lim Cheng Lock (Kampong Kapor): Mr Speaker, Sir, like all human beings, we resist paying increased charges. But luckily we in Singapore have an abundant supply of clean water, and because of this, we lack appreciation of this precious commodity.

Sir, this Bill seeks to give the Government authority to levy increased charges on water for the financing of the sewerage system. In fact, after listening to the speeches of both the Minister for Law and National Development and the Minister for Finance, I would say that the sooner the people of Singapore realise that water is still relatively cheap, the better for them. The imposition of the additional 20 cents per 1,000 gallons for domestic consumption and 50 cents per 1,000 gallons for commercial consumption is only the beginning, because without the Minister for Finance having to tell us about it, I think it is already a well-known fact that the water charges will have to be further increased.

As I see it, we want to extend and improve our sewerage system. With its extension and improvement, more water will be needed. Since this is so, it goes without saying that we have to build more reservoirs, which means that additional capital expenditure is required. In fact, when this Bill was introduced, I thought to myself that this additional charge would be acceptable to the people, because it is no longer economic to supply water at 80 cents per 1,000 gallons for domestic consumption. As has already been indicated, it costs over 80 cents to produce 1,000 gallons.

If we think over this point soberly, it is unlikely that the increase in the water rate will cause hardship even to the lower income group. I would say there would be more hardship for the people if we were to carry on as before at an uneconomic rate, and if we do not find the finances to run an adequate and efficient water system and we let it slide back to the point where we are not sure whether our taps are going to give us adequate water for bathing and cooking. On that basis, I think it is might and proper to impose this little additional increase in charges now to ensure that we continue to enjoy an efficient water system, adequate for our people now and in the future.

6.56 p.m.

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, we have taken more time than anticipated, but it goes to show the great interest Members of this House have in matters which affect their constituents.

Several Members have expressed grave concern for the poorer section of our community. Though they have given their blessing to this proposal, they have criticised it on the ground that this is a tax on the poor, and that we should be taxing the rich. But let me correct any misapprehensions on this matter. It is the Minister for Finance who deals with financial matters, and he has given his explanation. But let me reiterate that this new tax will only mean an extra $1 per month for the poorer section of the community.

Let me remind Members again that in respect of the tax on Public Utilities Board bills, there is an exemption for the poorer section - no tax is payable if the P.U.B. bill does not exceed $10. As a result of the imposition of this extra $1 a month, certain P.U.B. bills will go up. In order to spare the consumer who previously paid $10 and will have to pay a little more now from having to pay another tax on his bill, the exemption of tax on bills has been increased from $10 to $15. Therefore, the Government is as concerned as all Members are with the poorer section of our community.

Let me also correct one other misapprehension. Some Members say that this new measure will hit people in the rural areas, as it is in the rural areas that the poorer people live. I disagree. I think there are more poor people in the urban areas, especially in the middle of Chinatown, than there are in Sembawang, Punggol and Jurong. I am not saying that the farmers live on the fat of the land, but they are better off than the people in many sections of Chinatown, for instance. And in case Members think that the Government is not looking after the poor people, who do they think are living in the Housing Board flats? One-quarter of our population are housed in flats built by the Housing and Development Board. These one-room, two-room, three-room and four-room flats are occupied by the poorer sections of the community. The richer people do not qualify to live in these flats. And let me remind Members again that all these flats are served by modern sanitation. So the imposition of this tax is not as unjust as they think it is.

Whilst dealing with the financial and economic aspects of the proposed measures, the Minister for Finance gave Members details of the proposed water projects on the island. I need not add to that except that I must remind Members again that the last time we had water rationing in Singapore was in 1963. Since then we have been all right. At that time Singapore consumed 60 million gallons of water per day. Today Singapore consumes more than 100 million gallons of water per day. This is a 40 per cent increase in a period of six years.

Let me take Members back to modern sanitation. In the year 1949 the population was one million with one-quarter of them served with modern sanitation. Twenty years have gone by. In the year 1969 the population was two million. Half the population was served by modern sanitation. I have informed the Member for Bukit Panjang, in answer to one of his questions, that it is the long-term objective of the Government to provide modern sanitation throughout the island. I do not think any Member here will disagree with me that this is a good objective. But when we can reach this objective is not certain in the sense that I cannot name the year, that is, whether it will be in early 1970 or late 1970, as the Member for Punggol wants me to say. All I can say is that, looking at our past records, perhaps in 15 years' time we might be able to serve 95 per cent of our population with modern sanitation.

The Member has asked just now what projects we have for modern sanitation. Members will know that we have two main sewage disposal plants, one at Kim Chuan Road in Paya Lebar, which is near the Airport, and the other in Ulu Pandan. We propose to build two more sewage disposal plants, one at Kaki Bukit to serve the areas in the vicinity and extending to Changi, and the other in Jurong to serve that vicinity and, in particular, the rapidly expanding industrial estate.

The Member for Bras Basah has asked, why should we have modern sanitation when we cannot afford it and have to borrow money and pay interest on it? You cannot borrow money unless you pay interest. Do we want to advance or do we not? Are we to rely on the bucket system forever?

Mr Ho See Beng: Advance.

Mr Barker: Should we not look ahead to some date not too far away when, if not all, at least most of our population will have the benefits of modern sanitation? To keep the Member for Bras Basah happy --

Mr Ho See Beng: Get the money first.

Mr Barker: I hope when the Minister for Finance is preparing his budget, he will take the Member's advice to heart as to the method of taxing and raising money.

Perhaps I should give the House some figures of the amount of water that passes through the sewers. I think it was the Member for Anson who said that very little water was used for the sewerage system. Of the total daily consumption of 100 million gallons of water, or a little more, 42 million gallons are used for domestic purposes; 21 million gallons for industrial and commercial purposes, including the ships in our harbour; 29 million gallons by the Government, Statutory Boards, the Armed Forces and public standpipes. Eight million gallons of water a day are lost in distribution. Sixty per cent of the domestic consumption or approximately 25 million gallons a day go down the sewers. This is the domestic user. Twenty per cent of the water consumed by industrial and commercial users and Government and Statutory Board users, or approximately 10 million gallons of water, go down the sewers that way. So in all, out of the 100 million gallons of water we use daily, about 35 million gallons of water go down the sewers. This is not a negligible amount.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, may I just say that the Minister for Finance made a Ministerial statement last December explaining this proposal. I have given added reasons for it today and he has come again to explain this matter to Members. If Members cannot understand it, neither can their constituents. I hope Members will go round their constituencies and explain the situation, and if some of them are still not satisfied, then it is the Members' duty to try to satisfy them with a reasonable explanation. We hope we ourselves have done our best.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.--[Mr Barker].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

7.10 p.m.

Clause 1 -

The Chairman: There is a note,

In page 1, line 4, to leave out "1969" and insert "1970".

That will be done.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.