MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1979 TO 31ST MARCH, 1980

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [3rd Allotted Day].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

3.10 p.m.

Head N -

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng (Mountbatten): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of Object Group 1210 of Subhead Code NA-01 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, fortunately for us, there are only a very small number of people in the civil service whom I feel do not apply enough commonsense in the implementation of regulations and/or Government policies. Though this number is small, Sir, I believe it can lead to frustration of the people. It can also lead to frustration of work. In my opinion, there are two reasons why this could happen. Firstly, I feel that Government officers are not giving enough recognition to junior officers for their work. Secondly, I feel that junior officers themselves may be frustrated when they go about their work because they may be made scapegoats to problems that may arise in the implementation of regulations or any decisions. This idea of passing the buck should cease, otherwise we will find that this small group of people may reflect a bad name to our civil service.

To quote an example, Sir, I would just like to recall a meeting I had a few days ago to discuss plans for a new community centre to be built in my constituency, I was told that the Housing and Development Board and the Ministry of the Environment could not agree on whether there should be a toilet on ground floors only because, according to the Ministry of the Environment, every floor has to have a toilet as long as there are people working on that floor. I had no choice, Sir, but to end up with a plan allowing for toilets galore! I think this is bad because all of us know that toilets are giving enough headache as far as maintenance is concerned. If centralising the toilets means reducing the workforce to the minimum, thereby reducing maintenance costs, then we should do so.

The irony of it all is that the toilet is given 86% of the space allotted to the library. I feel that library space is in great demand these days rather than toilets. The problem is that we Singaporeans are rather spoilt. We want everything to be brought to our door-step. We want the market to be brought to our doorstep. We want the shops and everything else to be brought to our door-step, and now we want the toilets at our door-step.

Sir, I submit that consideration be given to allowing flexibility in the implementation of certain regulations. In this particular case, may I ask the Ministry of the Environment whether or not flexibility of this sort can be given so that we can use space more productively and not have them waiting around for people to use them. 3.15 p.m.

The Minister for the Environment (Mr Lim Kim San): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether it has ever occurred to the hon. Member for Mountbatten that, sometimes a toilet is in greater demand than facilities for a library. We have always impressed upon the civil servants that there should be flexibility in enforcing rules and regulations. As long as there is sufficient space for a toilet on the ground floor, the civil servants will find no difficulty in granting permission. Of course, there must be sufficient space for toilet facilities, and they must be easily accessible.

On that score, the HDB will agree with the Ministry of the Environment. There is unlikely to be disagreement there.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: Sir, in view of the Hon. Minister's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Dr Lau Teik Soon -

(2) That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code NA-01 of the Main Estimates.

The Chairman: Dr Lau, Amendment No. (2).

Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens): I am not speaking at this stage, Sir.

Dr Ong Leong Boon (Kim Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code NB-01 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, we are extremely fortunate in the sense that our country has been recognised locally and internationally as a place where tremendous emphasis is placed on cleaning the environment and ensuring that we are a pollution-free nation. I think this is very evident on the roads, in homes and on the beaches. The Government has ensured this through persuasion and also at times through measures to ensure that people do make the environment clean, green and gracious.

However, I choose this opportunity to bring to the attention of the Hon. Minister the question of littering on the roads and public places. Ever since we started the anti-littering campaign, the environment has been definitely cleaner than before. However, it is my observation over the last year or so that more and more people seem to have forgotten that they must know where to put their rubbish and not just throw them on to the roads and public places without any regard. It has become a pretty common sight to see drivers or passengers in cars throwing out cigarette butts and boxes. Sometimes I even see cans being thrown out of cars. I wonder if this is because a lot of people, both local or work permit holders, have forgotten the anti-littering campaign and the laws we have enforced so strongly before, or is it because many people have just blatantly disregarded the law? I would ask the Minister if he would consider greater enforcement of the anti-littering laws.

The second point relates to my observation of the Housing Board estates. I am not sure if this matter comes under the Ministry of the Environment. I notice an increase of dirt in and around the blocks of HDB flats. I had an occasion to go around and I even asked the Estate Officers about this. According to them, the problem lies with the sub-contract workers. It is difficult to get - these workers because of the salary and also partly because it is really very difficult to ensure that these same people do carry out the cleaning up of the estates dutifully. If that be the case, I wonder if the Minister for the Environment has any comments to make on this matter.

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, I can assure the Member for Kim Seng that we have been carrying out stricter and stricter enforcement of the law against littering. The figure shows that in 1978, 8,734 litter-bugs were prosecuted compared to 5,727 in 1977. The problem here is not so much enforcement as to inculcate good social habits and social values in the people. In this respect, I think a lot can be done later on when the Residents' Committees have been formed. It is through education rather than enforcement that good social habits can be cultivated.

With regard to his second question, he is right, it is not within my province. So would he address his question to my colleague, the Minister for National Development?

Dr Ong Leong Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not exactly endorse the view that it is not a question of enforcement. If we in Singapore want to ensure that the environment is clean and green and impose a $500 fine for littering, the chances are that most people will behave. I agree, however, that education is important but this is a much slower process.

Mr Lim Kim San: Sir, the Member for Kim Seng could have misheard me. I did not say that it was not a question of enforcement. I said it was not a question solely of enforcement. There must be both enforcement and education - the carrot, the whip and some teaching.

Dr Ong Leong Boon: Sir, I am very delighted with the Minister's clarification, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of Object Group 1210 of Subhead Code NB-05 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, I will go straight to the point. I have in my constituency a rather large and, if one may say, an ultra modern hawker centre with a very large emporium at the top. It is located along the Old Kallang Airport Road. This hawker centre and emporium has been attracting thousands of tourists per month, and I believe it has been the envy of many MPs around my constituency who have also tried to steal some tourists away from my area.

But the problem is with the couple of staircases that lead upstairs. I believe that in the construction of these staircases no attention was paid to the sanitary specifications because the staircases were not walled up along the sides so that when the cleaner sweeps the staircase with ardent enthusiasm the dust would fall over the side and merrily find its way onto the food being served. Can I, therefore, ask the Ministry of the Environment and the HDB to pay more attention to the sanitary specifications in their construction programme in the future? Can I also ask the Ministry of the Environment whether it can convince the HDB to do something about this problem with this hawker centre?

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Mr Speaker, Sir, during my meet-the-people sessions I get many requests to appeal, on the constituents' behalf, to the Ministry for transfer of their hawker stalls from their former places of work to the new hawker markets in Ang Mo Kio. According to the present policy, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to apply for a transfer of a stall from one place to another. But I suggest that each case should be considered according to its merit.

The hawkers residing in Ang Mo Kio have their stalls elsewhere and they face great difficulties in travelling to and fro. Many of them are elderly people and this aggravates their problem. Since they have been allocated flats in Ang Mo Kio, it would be reasonable to allow them to transfer their stalls to the new market centres at Ang Mo Kio. It is unreasonable to say that because they have moved to Ang Mo Kio, they have to face up to the predicament or to give up their stalls; nor is it reasonable to expect them to remain in their former homes. They too, like other people, want to improve their living conditions.

I hope, therefore, that the Hon. Minister would consider allowing the hawkers re- sident in Ang Mo Kio to move from other places to the new market centres in Neighbourhood 4, Ang Mo Kio. If this concession is given, it would of course, apply to similar cases in other new housing estates as well.

Another matter which I would like to bring to the Hon. Minister's attention concerns the safety of the Hawker Liaison Inspectors. According to an AUPE report, there were 21 cases of assault on the inspectors in 1975, and since then numerous other cases have been reported. The inspectors have to deal with 28,000 licensed hawkers and about 7,000 street hawkers. During the course of performing their duties, they face all kinds of threats, and sometimes even suffer personal injuries.

Sir, let me cite three examples. There was the incident when a hawker, who was served with a summons, became aggressive, used abusive language and threatened the inspector with a chopper. Then there was another hawker who, when warned for not complying with certain hawking regulations, took out a hook and knife and threatened to kill the inspector. These two hawkers, of course, were subsequently arrested by the police; one was placed under one year's supervision while the other was sentenced to two months' gaol. Fortunately, in both cases, the inspectors were not harmed. But in the third case, however, the inspector was not so lucky. He was viciously attacked by a fishmonger with a parang and suffered multiple wounds. Although he was compensated with $7,500, his scars are permanent and he continues to suffer severe spells of dizziness.

Mr Speaker, Sir, these are just a few examples of the dangers which the Hawker Liaison Inspectors have to face. Yet the Ministry has no provision to act on the inspectors' behalf. I would like to suggest that legislation be provided immediately to require the Ministry to act on behalf of their inspectors and other employees who suffer assault in the course of their duty.

3.30 p.m.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment (Mr Chor Yeok Eng): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, first I would like to answer the question raised by the Member for Mountbatten concerning the defects in the construction of the two-storey market. We have noted his comments and will consider his suggestion to wall up the staircase so that in the course of sweeping the staircase, dust will not fall down to the stalls below. I would like to thank him for his suggestion on anti-pollution. In the future construction of markets and food centres we will take his suggestion into consideration. We will also instruct the architects to take note of this suggestion so that such defects will not recur.

Further, I would like to point out that the market that was referred to by the Member for Mountbatten belongs to the Housing and Development Board. He has suggested that we should liaise with the Housing and Development Board in the matter of sanitation in future construction programmes. We will do this so that some remedial action could be evolved.

Two questions were raised by the Member for Serangoon Gardens. First, he would like to know whether the Government will consider reserving some hawker stalls in newly built markets and food centres in HDB estates for licensees who will be moving in to stay in those estates so that they can operate the hawker stalls within the same estate. At the moment we are unable to consider this request for the reason that we are unable to anticipate the number of such licensees. Further, we still have more than 6,700 street hawkers waiting to be resited in indoor hawker stalls.

I believe Members will recall that the main purpose of the Government to build more markets and cooked food centres is to provide a service to the residents and at the same time reducing pollution of our water resources. From past experience, requests from new resident hawkers for stalls within the estates are not that numerous. Such requests will be given priority consideration when vacant stalls are available. For the time being, we do not intend to fix the rule on this.

As regards the safety of our hawker inspectors in field work, I would like to thank the hon. Member for his concern for our staff. Our current practice is that those who earn less than $750 per month are covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act for any damages or injury suffered in the execution of their duties. Arrangements are also made to ensure that when they go on field duty, they do so in groups of threes and not alone, so that they can help one another in case of need. Moreover, they are provided with cars equipped with a wireless so that when necessary they could contact the Police or the Ministry's headquarters for assistance. And when they are performing duties which involve disputes, such as issuing a summons, they will be accompanied by the Police. This is our normal arrangement.

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Sir, I am thankful to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his favourable reply with regard to the question of transfer of stalls for hawkers resident in Ang Mo Kio. He may wish to take note of two points in considering these cases. Firstly, there are a number of hawkers who are sited in hawker centres but who are not resident in the housing estate, in this case Ang Mo Kio. Some of them, in fact, expressed the desire to be transferred elsewhere. Secondly, although priority cannot be given in the first instance to hawkers who are moving into the housing estates because it is very difficult to anticipate the number, it may be useful to coordinate with the Housing and Development Board and reserve a percentage of the hawker stalls for such cases. When these cases come up, then these hawkers should be given the reserved places.

Mr Chor Yeok Eng: ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, on the further two points by the Member for Serangoon Gardens. First, about some stallholders residing in the same zone but not in the same housing estate, I would like to say that actually we do not base our consideration on any particular housing estate he is living in. In the case of a stallholder-applicant who wants a transfer to a hawker centre or market nearer to his place of residence, we will give him priority consideration.

Second, on the reservation of a certain percentage of stalls for these licensees, I have said in my earlier answer that we are unable to anticipate the number of such licensees who will be moving into an estate. In normal circumstances, if there are vacancies, we will give priority to such stallholders to enable them to reside in the vicinity of their stalls. This is one of the groups of hawkers which can be considered for allocation. In future, we will look into this matter and give it consideration.

Mr Hwang Soo Jin: ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has said that he and the Hawkers Department will give favourable consideration to stallholders who are moving into new estates. According to my personal experience, this is not so. For instance, when a stallholder who has moved into Ang Mo Kio estate requested that he be given a stall in the estate near where he is staying, he received a letter within a week telling him that his request was not approved. So, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether he is changing this policy today.

Mr Chor Yeok Eng: ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in fact this policy has been in force for many years and has been made known to all, but because the Estate Officers in the various Housing Board areas are subject to transfer where necessary, the newcomers may not be familiar with the arrangements that have been made. Normally when we build a new market or hawker centre, we will give first priority to licensees who are hawking in the vicinity and who are affected by clearance. After that, if there are some more vacant stalls, then stallholders who are residing nearby will be given consideration when they apply for the stalls.

Mr Ho See Beng: ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have also one question which I would like to raise with the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. During my meet-the-people session, I often come across unemployed people asking for help in applying for hawker licences. In most cases when applications were made I was given a negative reply. On the other hand, when I visited a market, I discovered that there were about a dozen hawker stalls which were vacant, in fact, since I became the MP for that constituency. On the one hand, these stalls are left vacant and not fetching revenue and, on the other hand, applications for these stalls were not granted to our citizens who are unemployed. If they are not provided with some means of livelihood would this not amount to encouraging unemployed people to apply for financial aid from the Social Welfare Department, incurring loss and wastage all round? Would not the Ministry consider granting licences to these unemployed people? Although it is often said that the stalls are reserved for those street hawkers who would be resited, we discover that these hawker stalls have been left vacant for two years, without any sign of allocation. This is really contradictory. Therefore, I would like the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to enlighten us on this question.

Mr Hwang Soo Jin: ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary just now pointed out that the matter might be due to the fact that Estate Officers of the Housing and Development Board are subjected to transfer and the newcomers might not be familiar with the arrangements made. This would appear to be a matter of passing the buck from one department to another, and each one not knowing what the other is doing. I would suggest that the Hawkers' Department should have closer contact with the Housing and Development Board so that they resolve the matter mutually. So, what the Member for Khe Bong mentioned just now appears to be just one example of a lack of liaison between the Hawkers' Department and the HDB staff. I believe the question does not arise in any one particular HDB estate but is quite common to all the HDB estates. 3.45 p.m.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: Sir, I rise to support the Member for Khe Bong. I would just like to add that in future the Hawkers' Department ought to apply what I would recommend "empathy" so that they would be more reasonable in granting hawker licences.

Mr Chor Yeok Eng: ( In Mandarin): Sir, questions were raised by three Members of the House, but I can sum it up in two points.

First, the question of application for hawker licences. The Member for Khe Bong has pointed out that in his meet-the-people session a large number of people asked him for assistance in obtaining hawker licences, On this point, I can say this. I myself have this meet-the-people session once a week, and my experience is that only those whose request is not met will keep on coming back. Once their problems are solved they will not come back any more. So, there is a repetition of this kind of request. Although it may appear that all those who have come for assistance were not given help, this is not so.

The Member has also pointed out that people would go to the Social Welfare Department for financial assistance if they could not obtain a hawker licence. I would like to point out that those who are on financial aid from the Social Welfare Department would also come to apply for a hawker licence. But some of them are being used by unscrupulous people who keep behind the scene. Take, for example, a stall in a privately owned coffee shop. It is rented out at the rate of $600 to $1,000 per month and the stallholder has to pay a certain sum for PUB charges, where the contract is on a year to year basis. People who are not eligible for Government stalls because they are under 40 years old, therefore, have to rent private stalls and have to pay such high rentals. So they encourage recipients of Social Welfare assistance and other poor cases to go through the Social Welfare Department to apply for the Government stalls and to rent out to them so that they could pay a lower monthly rental, ranging about $200, $300 or $400 per month as the licensee has to pay to Government a fee of less than $100 a month because Government hawker stalls are subsidised. If Members should inquire further into this, they will find out that this is often the case. We have to consider carefully in dealing with cases like this.

The other point is a matter of coordination or liaison between our department and the HDB. At the moment we have a Hawkers Coordinating and Licensing Committee which used to meet once a month, but recently there have not been frequent meetings. After this session, I shall call for a meeting of this committee to decide on any necessary measures. I hope in future we will be able to have better liaison among the various departments so that our work on such matters can be carried out more smoothly.

Mr Ho See Beng: ( In Mandarin): Sir, what I have asked is something different from what he has answered. The answer given is entirely different. He was not answering my question. I asked why is it that while there are so many vacant stalls in the market begging for occupants, on the other hand he turns down these applicants who are jobless and who only wish to fill such vacant stalls. This also constitutes a revenue loss to the Government. The Parliamentary Secretary has not answered my point. Whether or not they are successful in their applications is another matter. At the moment there are so many vacant hawker stalls there, but on the other hand he is not giving such stalls to those needy applicants. What a great pity!

Mr Chor Yeok Eng: ( In Mandarin): Sir, the market and the hawker stalls mentioned by the Member for Khe Bong do not belong to the Ministry of the Environment, but the HDB. In other words, they are not under our care. They are not directly under our jurisdiction. So, there is no such question of our approving or not approving the allocation of stalls. That is why I could not give a direct answer. But in any case I have said that I will call a meeting of the Hawkers Coordinating and licensing Committee to resolve this matter. So. unless I know more about the actual case which comes under the HDB, I cannot tell him what we can or cannot do.

According to practice, after stalls in a new market or hawker centre are allotted to licensed hawkers in the vicinity, application is open to members of the public during the first half of every month. But sometimes stalls have to be reserved by the Resettlement Department or by the HDB for people affected by Government clearance schemes, and this is the reason for some stalls being left vacant. So, before I know more about the vacant stall, such as whether it is in a market under our charge, I cannot make a direct detailed answer on such a matter.

Mr Hwang Soo Jin: ( In Mandarin): Sir, I would like the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to clarify further. He mentioned the case of social welfare recipients being used by unscrupulous people to get the stalls and sublet the stalls Out to them so that they could enjoy lower rentals. I do not know whether this is really true of all applicants but is there any record of any investigation by the department concerned into the number of such cases? Will he kindly clarify this further, otherwise he will be generalizing the situation out of a few isolated cases.

Dr Ong Leong Boon: Sir, from the replies that we have received from the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment, it is quite clear to us here that in the work of meeting their constituents Members of Parliament have always been confronted with this problem of where to refer an applicant to. Very often when we refer the applicant to the HDB, the reply comes back, "No". and we may have, at the applicant's request, to again refer the matter to the Ministry of the Environment. In fact, sometimes an application to the Ministry of National Development may have to be referred to the Ministry of the Environment. I think there is a lot of unnecessary duplication in this. For the applicants themselves, this gives rise to a lot of running about and confusion, and there is a lot of unnecessary paper work and bureaucracies involved in this same exercise. Why is it not possible to centralise all applications for hawker licences through one channel? I think that would make life much easier. From the experience of the Ministry of the Environment, in the words of the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, there has been cause for concern that there seems to be two different arms doing the same thing. And the example raised by the Member for Khe Bong is absolutely true. I can quote my own example, but I will just be giving one more instance for the same reason.

Mr Chor Yeok Eng: ( In Mandarin): Sir, first of all, I would like to touch on what the Member for Jalan Kayu has said, as to whether there have truly been such cases of "transfer". In actual fact, it should be "subletting". After the hawker has got his mall he cannot officially transfer or assign it to another. So he sublets it. There have been a few cases of subletting, not re-assigning or transferring. This is no fancy-talk but real.

On the other hand the Member for Kim Seng said that we should not pass the buck round to the different Government departments. This is not a fault with the Government department or administration, but it is really the applicant who has brought about this. Let me quote just one example, There was an application for a hawker stall under the HDB. The applicant wanted to apply to the Ministry of the Environment instead of the HDB. He was told that the hawker stall was under the HDB, and because we wanted to help him, we asked him to fill up the forms nevertheless and we helped him to transfer his application to the department concerned. There are similar cases. Some people living in HDB estates wanted to apply for hawker stalls in a market but it happened that the market concerned belongs to our department. That means the Area office concerned would have to transfer such applications to us. That is why applications are being transferred to and fro. There are other cases where stallholders under our department went a transfer to other stalls belonging to the HDB. So they will have to come to our department to apply for the necessary recommendation to the HDB area office concerned for the transfer. That is one reason why there is this duplication of procedure every now and then. 4.00 p.m.

As regards whether such matters could be channelled into one centre, this matter was raised some two years ago. After careful consideration and also some experimenting, we found that there was more duplication of work and the delay was even longer. So we stopped short at that. For instance, at the moment there are altogether 8 or 9 HDB Area Offices. There will be one more such office to be added. To channelize the procedure, all applications received by the 10 offices will have to be sent to the Headquarters, and it might even, take a longer time for these applications to be processed through the centre and sent back. That is why we think it is better for the individual office concerned to deal directly with separate cases of applications for vacancies in the market under its jurisdiction. This would save time and a lot of trouble.

Mr Ho See Beng: ( In Mandarin): Sir, I feel that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has not replied to my question. At the moment, in the market in my Constituency there are about a dozen stalls lying vacant, I want to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether the applicants should apply to the HDB or to the Hawkers' Department for these hawker stalls? Would he kindly enlighten us?

Mr Lim Kim San: Sir, may I clarify? The Member for Khe Bong would probably know that it takes two to three years to build a market, and when we do build a market it will have a few hundred stalls. All these stalls will not be filled at once because they are meant for clearance cases. Clearance takes place all the time and clearance cases have a priority over other new applicants. I do not know the details of this particular case but probably these stalls are left vacant for clearance cases. Then also, we may want to widen a road; or there may be other PWD projects to be undertaken, and so the hawkers there have to be resettled. So these stalls are reserved for them. This is the anomaly of the situation, a visible one which he sees apparently - empty stalls but applicants are not given licences. This probably explains the position.

Mr Ho See Beng: Sir, I sympathise with the Minister for the Environment because he cannot understand my Mandarin. I have clearly stated that the empty stalls are in the market at Block 93, Lorong 4, Toa Payoh. I have also stated just now in Mandarin that these stalls have been left unoccupied since I became the Member for Khe Bong. I do not see how I can make myself clearer.

Mr Lim Kim San: Sir, I think he does not understand my English! I have already explained that it takes about two to three years to build a market. Once we build a market there will be a few hundred stalls, and these stalls are reserved for clearance cases, There is clearance going on all the time, Roads have to be opened and extended, water pipes have to be laid, and it may be that we have to clear the hawkers there. So these vacant stalls are reserved for them. That is why we cannot entertain new applicants. I hope this is quite clear.

Mr Ho See Beng: Two years to clear?

Mr Lim Kim San: Yes. The empty stalls are all reserved for them. It is either for that reason or we may have been trying to move certain clearance cases into the market but they refuse to move in. Whatever it is, there are certain stalls left for priority clearance cases, otherwise he will not be able to find a fast way from his home to Parliament House.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: Sir, on the understanding that we will probably get a circular from the Hon. Minister for the Environment explaining the problem, I beg leave to withdraw.

Mr Lim Kim San: Sir, may I clarify? The Member for Mountbatten is hoping for a circular. I do not understand what circular he is talking about.

Mr Seah Mui Kok (Bukit Ho Swee): A circular to give stalls!

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: Sir, on a point of clarification. It is a circular to explain to us why these stalls are left vacant for two years or more. I know the Minister has explained it, but I think a written circular would help us a lot in explaining to our supporters.

The Chairman: Do you mean you do not understand the Minister's English?

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: I understand his English, Sir. But if we could just get a written explanation we can at least show it to our supporters, Sir. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn. The following amendments stood on the Order Paper Supplement -

Dr Ong Leong Boon:

Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi: (5) That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code N B-05 of the Main Estimates.

Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi: (6) That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code NO-02 of the Main Estimates.

The Chairman: Dr Ong and Encik Mansor Sukaimi have withdrawn Amendment (5). Amendment (6), Encik Mansor is not here. Amendment (7), Mr Ng Kah Ting.

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of Project 8114 of Subhead Code ND-02 of the Development Estimates.

Sir, first of all, may I say that I welcome the provision of $640,000 for FY 79 for Drainage Improvement for Punggol Pig Farm Phase Ill. Hon. Members know that the Punggol Pig Farm has already begun and pig production has already gone quite a long way but there is still a need to further develop the pig farms under Phase III.

Whilst I welcome this provision, I would also like to draw the attention of the Hon. Minister for the Environment to the inadequate drainage system provided under Phases I and Ii. I have had on several occasions made visits, together with the engineers from the Drainage Division of the Ministry concerned, to see for ourselves the present drainage system and we found that it is grossly inadequate. In this respect, I am just wondering whether the Minister concerned would look into the question of providing adequate drainage system under Phase II before he tackles the drainage problem under Phase III.

Mr Lim Kim San: Sir, there is no doubt at all that plans are being made to provide adequate drainage to the whole area. It may not be possible to synchronise them so that upon completion of Phase I of the resettlement of pig farms in Jurong, we could complete the drainage under Phase I of Punggol. But they are all interlinked. Altogether there are seven drains to be completed and, as I said, we cannot complete seven drains all at once. We may have to complete one at a time. But I can assure the Member for Punggol that plans are laid for sufficient drainage of the whole area. It may take time, but ultimately, there will be sufficient drainage.

In fact, we are looking into the possibility of providing some sort of sewerage treatment for pig waste. It is something which is new but we are looking into the possibility and will try to relieve him of the nuisance which arises from living too near pig farms.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, I thank the Hon. Minister for his kind remarks. But he probably missed out my point that the drainage system provided under Phases I and II is grossly inadequate.

This leads me to the point which he has just made and, that is, we are now faced with this problem of smell nuisance. He pointed out that there is the possibility of providing sewerage treatment for pig waste. I have occasion to develop this argument with some of the officials of the Ministry of National Development in which the Primary Production Department is involved. I am given to understand that such a plant would involve tremendous costs.

Sir, I would like to come back to this question of drainage. Under Phases I and II, the drain is very small, mostly of composite channels, and not what is known as the bigger L-shape or U-shape type of drain which resembles the monsoon drain. After the last flood on 2nd December, 1978, I went to the site on the following day and saw that many of these drains were damaged. Following several site meetings that we had, I must confess that up till today I have not been able to see any improvement in the drainage. As the Hon. Minister mentioned earlier, "it begins with the first step towards the ultimate", then may I say that, of course, the second step must be taken before he goes on to the third step, that is, Phase 111. So I would like to seek enlightenment from the Minister on these remarks.

Mr Lim Kim San: Sir, there is a total length of 12,000 metres of drainage to be completed. It is not the first step or the second step. It is the third step we are going into. We have gone into the first step. A total of $7.3 million will be spent. Last year, one of the drainage schemes, the Sungei Tongkang Pechah scheme, was completed at a cost of $1 million. Here the seven drainage schemes total 12,000 metres in length. On the average, it is about 1,800 metres each. So we construct 1,800 metres of drain at a time; we cannot construct all the 12,000 metres at once. We have completed one drain and we have almost completed the second drain, and we are going into the construction of the third drain. All I ask of the Member is to be more patient and we will complete the 12,000 metres in due course.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, whilst I have a lot of patience, I think the people at large do not have sufficient patience in this matter.

With regard to the drainage work at Sungei Tongkang Pechah, may I say that it is nearing completion but it serves the drainage system at Seletar Hills which joins up with Sungei Punggol. This will not alleviate the problem that is present in the farms at the Lorong Buang Kok and Lorong Cheng Lim areas. I am well aware that it is not the first or second step, but it is the third step. All I am saying is that there must be comprehensive planning so that all these problems can be alleviated, if not, solved.

Mr Lim Kim San: Sir, if there has been no comprehensive planning, I would not be able to stand up here and tell the hon. Member that there are seven drainage schemes with a total length of 12,000 metres and that they will cost more than $7 million. Sir, there is definitely an overall plan to provide the hon. Member relief from the smell nuisance.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, I do not wish to impose on the Hon. Minister, but I believe we are speaking at cross-purposes. I personally would not like to be the one to complain about the problem of smell, but it is a problem which the constituents of another constituency have also complained about. What I would like to see are steps being taken to solve this problem. 4.15 p.m.

All I am saying is, and I repeat, that the drainage system ought to be looked into further. I know and I realise there is a plan to construct seven drains which the Hon. Minister has indicated to this House; that the length of the seven drains is some 12,000 metres long; but that is one matter. The question is that the present drainage system is already inadequate. That is the first lesson to be learnt. So when his Ministry goes on to Phase 111, adequate care and consideration should be given to the planning of the drainage system if we are to resolve the problem of smell. I think the Minister has got the point. I hope he takes heed of it and, if he does, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $97,235,050 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $197,305,000 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head O -

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head O be reduced by $10 in respect of Object Group 1210 of Subhead Code OB-02 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, this concerns "State Lands Management" which has to maintain and manage State lands as well as reverted properties, including acquired properties pending development, among other things. What I wish to ask of the Hon. Minister for Law and Science and Technology is whether he is aware that the staff in the State Lands Section, in their over-eagerness to maintain and manage these State lands, do not seem to take into account the hardship faced by the farmers. In this respect, I am directing my remarks at those State lands known as farm lands. I have received complaints from some pig farmers that when they put up a pig sty to keep their pigs they get a notice from the State Lands Section asking them to demolish it. In one instance I sent a complaint to the relevant department and the reply was that they were acting as a result of a notice from the Primary Production Department.

I would like to believe that the two departments are working not only hand in hand but hand in glove with each other, so that these farmers can understand that the piece of land is allocated to them under TOL for pig rearing. So the farmer must therefore make full use of the land by rearing the stated minimum number of pigs and to put up the necessary structures. Of course, if a farmer puts up his structure without submitting the proper plans assistance must be given to him. But sometimes it is not possible for him to wait for the approval because we all know that he has got a target date to rear the minimum number of pigs laid down by the Primary Production Department. In this respect, I hope the Hon. Minister for Law and Science and Technology would assure me that his department will not be so drastic in taking action against the farmers.

The Minister for Law and Science and Technology (Mr E.W. Barker): Mr Speaker, Sir, the State Lands Section does not work exactly hand in glove with the Primary Production Department. But I can assure the hon. Member that there is plenty of coordination between these two departments.

Records in the Land Office and the Primary Production Department indicate that most of the enforcement cases complained about by the hon. Member are in respect of unauthorised poultry sheds, additional kitchens, and change of use of farm structures for other business activities. The Primary Production Department has only four enforcement cases involving pig sties. The first case involved the conversion of a pig sty into poultry rearing. Two other cases were in respect of encroachments of land reserved for a proposed expressway and buffer zones where pig sties are not allowed to be constructed because of pollution problems in Punggol. The fourth case concerned pig sties on land reserved for the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore.

The Member for Punggol may rest assured that action is taken only against unauthorised structures or change of user without permission. In fact, we have a licensing Committee which reviews all such cases, and I am tempted to put the Member for Punggol on that committee. There is an agreed procedure between the two departments. For instance, if someone applies for permission to build a structure, say a pig farm, the Primary Production Department will first process the application for the erection of the farm structure and, if approved, issue a temporary permit for it. In the case of non-farm structures, that is to say, a dwelling house, a watch tower or a feedmill, the application, after it has been processed, will be submitted to the Building Control Division of the Ministry of National Development for approval and issue of a temporary building permit.

Now, farmers are required to notify the Primary Production Department when they have completed construction of such structures. Thereafter, the State Lands Section of the Land Office will on the advice of the Primary Production Department, inspect the structures to ensure that they are erected in accordance with the approved plans. Should there be deviations in the structures, then the structures will not be permitted to be retained and the State Lands Section, after notice, will have to proceed with demolition action.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, I thank the hon. Minister for the kind reply and the assurance given.

The Chairman: Before the Member withdraws, Mr Selvadurai has an amendment on the same subhead.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: In that case, Sir, I will withdraw my amendment after the Member for Kuo Chuan has spoken.

Mr P. Selvadurai (Kuo Chuan): Mr Speaker, Sir, this matter merely concerns a piece of open land next to the Philips factory in Lorong 1, Toa Payoh. I believe, Sir, that this lot was originally reserved for a school, in fact, the Convent of the Holy Infant Jesus. I have been informed (I may be wrong though) that the Convent has now turned it down. It is not interested in that piece of land at all. If that is so, and if there is no definite plan for another school on that plot of land, I would be grateful if the Hon. Minister would consider releasing that land for a community centre.

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, the State land next to the Philips factory at Lorong 1, Toa Payoh is, in fact, Lot 4061 pt, Mukim VII, with an approximate area of 38,653 square metres. This is the land referred to by the hon. Member.

Approval has been given for the relocation of the Convent of the Holy Infant Jesus at Victoria Street, which is affected by the development of the Raffles International Centre project. An agreement was signed in 1976 between the Convent School authorities and the Permanent Secretary to the Minister for Education for the grant of a lease for the site. I understand that construction work on the site will start soon and that the Convent is expected to move from Victoria Street in a few years' time.

In view of the Government's commitment, the site cannot be released for use as a multi-purpose community centre, as proposed by the Member for Kuo Chuan. However, should I be wrong and should the Convent not be interested in moving, I would be happy to allocate that piece of land for a community centre.

I think this case has arisen because the construction of the Raffles International Centre has been postponed for some years because there was over-development in Singapore. But now there are firm plans to proceed with the construction, and once the 70-storey building goes up, I am sure the Convent will be happy to move.

Mr P. Selvadurai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon. Minister for the hint given and, if the Convent does release the land, we would like to have it.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have nothing to add to that, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi:

(3) That the sum to be allocated for Head O be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code OB-04 of the Main Estimates.

The Chairman: Encik Mansor is not here. Mr Ng, Amendment (4).

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

That the sum to be allocated for Head O be reduced by $10 in respect of Project 8401 of Subhead Code OB-04 of the Development Estimates.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in moving this amendment, I wish to seek clarification and elaboration from the hon. Minister concerned regarding the provision for FY 79 as against FY 78. For FY 79 there is a provision of $25 million for Land Acquisition for General Development, whereas for FY 78 the sum provided was $54 million. Apparently there appears to be some slowing down, or is it because less private land is required for public development? 4.30 p.m.

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, the sum under this Subhead in the Development Estimates makes provision for the cost of land acquisitions for general purposes. The cost of acquisitions of land required for specific purposes by various Ministries or departments are incorporated in the respective Ministries' development votes for these specific projects. Experience over the last few years has shown that the actual expenditure incurred under this Subhead has been less than that provided for. For budgetary reasons, it has therefore been decided to reduce the provision to a more realistic one to cater just for the immediate needs, leaving out longer term requirements. This provision has, therefore, been reduced to $25 million this year as compared to last year's $54 million. In the event of the provision being insufficient, an application for supplementary provision will be made, at which time the hon. Member can rise again and ask his questions.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, in view of the reply of the Hon. Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $9,875,100 for Head O ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $25,000,000 for Head O ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head P -

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Object Group 2210 of Subhead Code PB-01 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, I notice on page 198 of the Budget that the provision for equipment for the year 1979 makes up about 14% of the total expenditure of $3,163,470, whereas last year the provision was only 1.2% of the total expenditure. Of the $442,020 provided for equipment for FY 79, $300,000 is to be sanctioned by the Treasury. Can I ask the Hon. Minister, Sir, where there is a mistake in this or, if not, what is the large amount for?

Mr Barker: Sir, may I seek your permission, and if there are no objections from the House, I would like my Political Secretary to answer.

The Chairman: Yes. Mr Lim.

Mr Lim Chee Onn (Bukit Merah): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission I would like to reply on behalf of the Minister for Science and Technology.

The provision under the Subhead Code indicated by the Member for Mountbatten will be used mainly for the purchase of laboratory equipment, instruments and tools. This will amount to over 90% of the provision indicated. A small portion will be used for the purchase of furniture and replacement of old office equipment.

The substantial increase in the provision for FY 79 is due primarily to the provision of $300,000 for the purchase of testing equipment required for the analysis of difficult chemicals and compounds containing narcotic drugs such as morphine or heroin. The Department of Scientific Services has considered that this particular testing equipment will be most suitable for use in the analysis of drugs and, hence, has recommended its purchase.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: Sir, as the Political Secretary to the Minister for Science and Technology has quite capably explained the expenditure, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $26,875,070 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $8,385,190 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.