PARKS AND TREES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.38 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 are aware of the Government's efforts to make Singapore a garden city and to provide recreational facilities for the urban population. For these purposes the Ministry of Law and National Development set up the Parks and Recreation Division in the Public Works Department. The powers which are vested in the Commissioner for parks and Recreation are at the moment found in several pieces of legislation, namely, the Trees and Plants (Preservation and Improvement of Amenities) Act, 1970, (Act 59 of 1970), the Botanic Gardens Act (Chapter 300) and Part V of the Local Government Integration Act (Chapter 210).

Since it has been found necessary to amend the existing legislation to vest in the Commissioner new powers to enable him to carry out his work, the opportunity has been taken to revise all the various legislation pertaining to parks and trees. This Bill, therefore, seeks to amend and consolidate the law which is found in the various Acts which I have referred to.

The main changes which will be made to the existing legislation are as follows:-

(a) A restriction will be imposed on the felling or cutting of any tree on any vacant land with a girth exceeding one metre (3 ft. 4 ins.) measured half a metre (1 ft. 8 ins.) from the ground. Under the existing provision of section 4 of the Trees and Plants (Preservation and Improvement of the Amenities) Act, 1970, this restriction applies to trees with a girth exceeding five feet, measured two feet from the ground. Vacant land is defined in clause 2 of the Bill to refer to land which has not been developed for residential or industrial purposes. This change has been proposed after a study was made by my Ministry's officers of the sizes of the different types of trees found in Singapore at their various stages of growth.

(b) Clause 5 of the Bill introduces a presumption that where a tree is felled on any vacant land it shall be presumed that it has been felled by the owner or occupier of the land. This provision is necessary in order not to frustrate the work of the Commissioner.

(c) In clause 7 the Commissioner is given the power to serve a notice on the occupier of any vacant land or land on which a new street is to be constructed to require the occupier to plant trees. Further, the Commissioner is empowered under clause 11 to require housing developers to make a deposit to ensure that trees are planted and open spaces made up in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.40 p.m.

Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill, the purpose of which is to promote the planting and protection of trees and flowers in order to make Singapore a garden city. Over the past few years the Government has observed one day in the year as the national "Tree Planting Day" to encourage people to plant more trees and shrubs in order to beautify our environment in the concept of a Garden City.

Sir, the people in my constituency have been supporting this campaign every year. On "Tree Planting Day" hundreds of people of different races would turn up voluntarily to take part in tree planting. Thus they have not only shown enthusiasm in their support of the annual Tree Planting Day, but they have also in their daily life been actively promoting this concept by planting trees and shrubs on empty plots around their shophouses or houses to beautify and uplift the environment.

Sir, the Parks and Recreation Division under the Ministry of National Development has contributed a lot towards achieving the objective of beautifying our environment. For instance, the stretch of land along the east coast from Tanjong Rhu to Bedok is being developed into a public seaside park. This is being developed into a first class public resort of international standard even for tourists.

But as regards tree planting at other places there are certain shortcomings. For instance, along Bras Basah Road and Robinson Road the PWD has planted trees along that side of the road which originally was a pedestrian walk. I think this is not quite right because the roads are already quite narrow and in view of the traffic congestion along these roads, the demand for road space is very urgent. So it would be proper for the PWD to widen the roads instead of planting trees along the sides, which worsens the traffic congestion. Planting trees at random without proper or advance planning is a sheer waste of public money because tree planting costs a lot of money. One tree can cost several hundred dollars if a contractor were to do it. This is a waste of public funds and is not justified. So I would urge the Minister to give careful consideration in advance before planting any more trees.

Another matter relates to a strange complaint which I have received. This is the case of a private landowner who wanted to develop his land, but there stood in the way a big tree several decades old. The developer applied for permission to cut it down. The authorities concerned said that the tree could not be cut down because it is under the protection of the law. The landowner feels that there is no reason for the authorities to deny him permission to fell the tree which stands in his own private land. I therefore hope that the Minister will look into this complaint too.

Mr L. P. Rodrigo (Serangoon Gardens): Mr Speaker, Sir, with reference to clause 5 of the Bill, I just want to make a brief observation on a matter therein and perhaps seek a clarification from the Minister. In clause 5 there is an exception made for the felling or cutting of trees, i.e, the prevention of imminent danger. I take it that "imminent danger" in the Bill contemplates imminent danger to human life. Would the Minister clarify as to whether the term "imminent danger" also contemplates imminent danger to property and animals, like pigs and pets, etc.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Lim Guan Hoo): (In Mandarin): Sir, I wonder if the Member for Sembawang would care to clarify this point. In the earlier part of his speech he supported the planting of trees, but in winding up he seemed to favour the cutting down of trees. He seemed to contradict himself. Therefore, may I ask him this: does he or does he not want to plant trees? Would he clarify this point?

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Sir, I feel that the Parliamentary Secretary is wasting his breath with a lot of trash.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo: (In Mandarin): Sir, I think the last remark of the Member for Sembawang, namely "trash", is not proper. If he thinks it is proper, can he explain?

Mr Barker: Sir, perhaps the Member for Sembawang still thinks that we are debating in Committee of Supply. He should have taken the opportunity during the last few days in Committee of Supply to grumble about trees planted in the wrong places or narrowing down roads. But he has made one relevant observation, and that is, about one big tree on a piece of vacant land which is about to be developed. The position is this. Where a housing developer applies to build on vacant land which may have beautiful trees there in existence for more than 50 or even 100 years, we send officers to the vacant land to mark out where the trees are, and the developer is still allowed to build provided he preserves some trees. We are not here to protect all the trees nor to stifle building development. We would allow developers to build provided sufficient trees are preserved.

I could not follow the Member for Serangoon Gardens who wanted clarification, unless it appears in clause 10 which states:

`Where the Commissioner is satisfied that any tree or plant, whether growing or not, is in an inflammable state or is likely to be dangerous to life or property or to cause an obstruction . . . the Commissioner may by notice in writing require the occupier of the land on which it is growing or lying to remove it within a time specified in the notice.'

We do not propose to prevent all trees being felled or cut down. `There must be a few trees which are about to fall down either because of root trouble or some other disease to the trunk. Where a tree is likely to fall anti is a danger to life and/or property, permission can be sought for it to be cut.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Sir, I would like the Minister to clarify certain points. The Minister said that if there is a tree on a piece of private land which is to be developed the authority concerned would first send somebody to see where the tree is.

For instance, if the land is 10,000 sq. ft. and the building area of 5,000 sq. ft. is to be sited in the centre of the land according to the plan, then the tree which stands in the centre has to be cut down before development can take place. There may also be a need to comply with other regulations such as the provision of car parks, pedestrian walk, an open space in the property, or other requirements, all of which necessitate the cutting down of that tree. Under these circumstances, although the tree is protected by the law, can the Minister enlighten the House whether it should be cut down.

Mr Barker: Yes, permission will be given to cut down such a tree.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am in full support of the Bill which is tabled for Second Reading. However, I would like to point out some of the practical problems which may arise.

As spelt out in clauses 11 to 14, the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation is empowered to take a deposit from the developer to ensure that he plants trees and lays out the open spaces in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the competent authority. More often than not, Sir, the developer has no intention of retaining ownership long after a project has been completed. He sells the property to various buyers, and sometimes there are differences of opinion as to what types of trees should be planted. Surely, the buyer should have a say in the type of trees to be planted in front of his house or the type of hedges to be planted around his fencing and compound. I wonder if the Minister would agree that some flexibility should be allowed in instances like this.

Mr Barker: Yes, Sir, we have looked into this matter. Clause 11, for instance, was brought in for a specific reason. Previously some developers, after obtaining subdivision of the land and planning and building approval from the competent authority, would just sell the houses and leave the roads in a very bad state. As the Member has pointed out, developers want to sell. So they sell all the lots and then disappear; leaving the roads not even properly constructed nor the road lights installed. This is the sort of situation we want to prevent. Hence, this provision that on application for building approval one of the conditions imposed is that the developer plants certain trees. We cannot allow them to sell the land after development and then disappear.

But as far as the type of trees which the developer or his purchaser may prefer, the Commissioner is really not rigid. They can choose the type of trees and we can make recommendations. All we want to ensure is that the person who gets the approval does something to plant in accordance with the plans which he has obtained. Hence the deposit.

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 E. W. Barker].

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