RE-HOUSING PRIORITY FOR RESETTLEMENT CASES (Single persons who got married before clearance)

Mr Ng Kah Ting asked the Minister for National Development (a) if he will give re-housing priority to single persons who are affected by resettlement and who subsequently got married before being cleared; and (b) if he will state the criteria of re-housing priority to purchase Housing and Development Board flats.

Mr Lee Yock Suan (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, prior to 22nd March 1979, all squatters who were single as at the date of Gazette Notification of Acquisition were not eligible for priority to purchase HDB flats. The date of Gazette Notification was taken as the cut-off date for resettlement eligibility. Such persons would only be allocated one-room rental flats jointly with at least another single person. On 22nd March, 1979, the Government relaxed this rule to give re-housing priority to single persons who contract marriage after the cut-off date but before the last day of the resettlement census survey. However, those who got married after the census survey will not be granted resettlement priority. They will only be allocated 1 -room rental flats.

Not all squatters found on the site affected by resettlement automatically qualify for re-housing priority. A squatter affected by resettlement action must satisfy the following criteria to qualify for priority:

(i) He must prove his residence on the site before the cut-off date by way of the address in his identity card or through some acceptable document issued by Government Departments.

(ii) He must be a Singapore citizen not below the age of 21.

(iii) He must have an approved family nucleus living on the site before the cut-off date.

(iv) At least one other member of his family must be a Singapore citizen or permanent resident.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Hon. Minister of State about the criteria for eligibility for housing of squatters on sites that are being cleared. One of them, he said, was that they had to be there before the cut-off date. Does the Ministry, after the land has been acquired, put up a notice announcing the cut-off date so as to give due warning to anyone who comes on the site that he would not be eligible for rehousing if he chooses to come and live in that area? If a person in ignorance moves into that area, why should he be penalized?

Secondly, the Minister of State states that only Singapore citizens would be rehoused. Mr Speaker, Sir, I know of people who have lived here for 20-30 years and who have been denied -

Dr Augustine Tan: A point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. Is the hon. Member asking a question or making a statement?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am going to ask a question, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Carry on.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you. Would the Hon. Minister of State say why those permanent residents, who have lived in this country and who for some reason or other are denied citizenship quite unfairly, should be deprived of their resettlement benefit?

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Mr Speaker, Sir, there is only one minute left. Do you want me to answer his question now, or shall I send him a written answer?

Mr Speaker: Do you have the time to answer the question?

Mr Lee Yock Suan: On the first part of the question, I have to check with my officers on this particular point whether ,a notice is actually displayed. But it is a well - known fact that once our officers move in, all the residents in that area are aware unless the person is someone who is trying to gatecrash, maybe somebody from Anson trying to get in at the last minute. These are the people we have to cut out. Only genuine cases are considered. We have, in fact, relaxed the rules already, as explained before. But there is a long waiting list of 100,000 people waiting for flats. Why should these people who come in at the last minute be given consideration? The Member says that they are ignorant. But who is to tell whether he is telling the truth, because everybody in that area knows that the census has been taken. There has been a Gazette Notification and so on. So if these people move in, is the Member saying that we should bend the rules to accommodate them?

As for the second part of his question, I think this has been dealt with at length in previous debates and there is really no need for me to go into this point again. The Member for Anson seems always to be championing the rights of people who break our rules. I do not see why we should make any changes just to accommodate these people.

Mr Speaker: Order. It is now 3.30 p.m., end of Question Time. (See section 'Oral Answers to Questions Not Reached (Cols. 435 - 440))