MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL 1984 TO 31ST MARCH 1985

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

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

2.41 pm Head T--

Dr Koh Lip Lin (Nee Soon): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, the purpose of moving this amendment is to ask the Minister whether he would review certain aspects of the practices of the Resettlement Department which deals with the clearance and resettlement of lands and people affected by public projects, such as new towns, highways and reservoir catchments. Nee Soon is one of the constituencies which is very much affected by these projects. I have received numerous petitions and complaints on matters related to resettlement. I would be grateful if the Minister would consider taking measures to improve the following matters.

First, planning of clearance and resettlement. Often there are cases where lands are urgently required by the authority and the occupants are chased out in a very short time. There are also cases where people are informed that they are to be resettled soon and yet after a number of years they are still waiting. For this group of people their future is very uncertain. They are not able to develop their farm or business because they may be asked to quit any time. Meanwhile, they can only wait and watch the prices of HDB flats and shops going up each year. There are cases where a whole village has been resettled leaving only one or two families, and these families become isolated and have to worry about security, transportation problems and so on. They appeal to the Resettlement Department for early resettlement but usually they are not successful because the one or two houses happen to fall outside the lines drawn on the maps of the Resettlement Department.

There are also cases where private lands are acquired by HDB. Instead of trying to resettle these residents and owners quickly, HDB's Land Management Unit starts to collect very high TOL rentals at commercial rates. My question is: If the lands are urgently needed, why are these people not resettled immediately? If the lands are not required urgently, why bother to acquire them so early? In general, I would like to ask the Minister to ensure that there is better coordination among the various departments, such as the Resettlement Department, the Engineering Department and the Lands Management Unit.

The second point I would like to raise is about the assistance given to people who have lost their means of livelihood because of resettlement. In his written answer to a question raised by the hon. Member for Ayer Rajah in the sitting of this House on 12th March 1984, the Minister said that there were very few people who were resettled who found difficulty in adjusting to the life-style in HDB estates. He also said that farmers who wished to go into business were given priority for HDB shops, industrial workshops, hawker stalls or kiosks. I beg to disagree with him. During my five years' service as Member for Nee Soon I have written at least several hundreds, if not, thousands of letters to HDB on behalf of people who were affected by resettlement, to request for priority allocation of hawker stalls, shops and kiosks. I have to inform the Minister, that other than a few cases where HDB Resettlement Department had deemed to qualify for priority allocation, almost all the requests were unsuccessful. Apparently, these people are not as happy as the Minister thinks they ought to be.

Sir, I would like to urge the Minister to reconsider the request of the hon. Member for Ayer Rajah to set up a research unit to find out what has happened to those who have lost their means of livelihood because of resettlement. I am not referring to the resettled squatters who live in the villages and work outside. I am referring to those who live in the village and who make their livelihood in the village. I am sure my colleagues from the rural constituencies will support my request.

The third point I would like to raise is about farm compensation. There are not many farmers left in Singapore now. Most of them are not young men and will have difficulty in finding a livelihood after resettlement. They should be adequately compensated for. In the past few years, farmers as well as my parliamentary colleagues have requested that the compensation for the farm licence be pegged to the price of a three-room flat. The request was not acceded to. I would like to take this opportunity to make the request again. 2.45 pm

The compensation of fruit trees is another topic which has caused a great deal of unhappiness. Before December 1982, fruit trees were compensated by the number of trees. After that date, a coiling was introduced to set the upper limit per hectare of land. As a result, quite a few farmers who had signed agreements for their compensation had their compensation reduced, some as much as 60%. To these farmers, this is an act of breach of promise by the Government. However, the Resenlement Department claimed that they had to do this because many farmers were planting big numbers of small tress to increase their compensation. It may be true that some farmers had planted an excess number of trees just to cheat the Government. But many of them resorted to this practice because the compensation they would get would be too little because their big trees were not fairly compensated for.

I would like to ask the Minister a few questions. Why was compensation for fruit trees based on the number of trees before 1982? Did the Resenlement Department think of the possibility of abuse then? Is the Minister aware that the present rates of compensation for fruit trees are unreasonable and do not represent the economic value of the trees?

To illustrate what I mean, let me explain how the trees are compensated. Fruit trees are classified into various categories. They are also classified into various heights. Trees below one metre in height are classified as small trees. Those from one to three metres are medium trees, and those above three metres are big trees. The rates also vary for each category and height. This looks great on paper, but it is not practical at all because the same yardstick for height is used for all fruit trees, regardless of the kind of fruit trees. This is most unreasonable. For example, a three-metre coconut tree is classified as a big tree. Anyone who has seen a coconut tree knows that a three-metre coconut tree is a young tree and not a big tree. And a full grown lime tree (suan kan su) of two-metre height is classified as a medium tree. Anyone who has cultivated a lime tree knows that a two-metre lime tree is a full grown tree. I sometimes wonder whether those who were responsible for drafting the regulations had ever seen a coconut tree or a lime tree in their life.

For a given category of trees, the compensation rate for a small tree is usually too high, and that for a big tree the compensation rate is grossly undervalued. $156 for a big durian tree is an example of an extreme undervaluation of a tree. It is, therefore, no surprise that farmers had to resort to planting small trees so that they could cover the losses due to the under-compensation of their big trees.

I would like to urge the Minister to review the rates of compensation for fruit trees as well as the farm related items, such as fish tanks, chicken sheds and so on. I hope this time those who are appointed to do the revision are people who have some common sense and know, ledge about farms and fruit trees.

Sir, I beg to move.

Encik Saidi Haji Shariff: Sir, I have an amendment under Subhead TG-02 on the same subject. Can I speak now? It is amendment (7).

The Chairman: All right.

Encik Saidi Haji Shariff: Sir, the quotation "The buck stops here" should be adopted as a motto by a few Government Departments that exercise jurisdiction over the question of resettlement and the maintenance of the area that is undergoing resettlement. The way the buck has been passed around from department to department does not endear them to residents who, after the traumatic experience of being told that they would be resettled, have to stay behind until new homes are actually allocated to them. As a living example, I refer to the residents of Kaki Bukit Constituency who are affected by resettlement. No one disputed the necessity of resettlement within the context of national interest and national development. What caused some unhappiness among residents was the low standard of upkeep of the estate while the slow process of resettling people was under way. Thus, it was not rare to find residents having to share their abode with mosquitoes, snakes and flies. Whenever it poured, unwholesome lakes surfaced. Roads waiting for expansion stood in the meantime in glaring need of repairs. Faulty street lamps dimmed to add to the darkness. When the Citizens' Consultative Committee initiated remedial action, action was often deferred because no relevant department seemed to be in direct charge, leading to a wastage of time and lower quality of life. The real culprit behind all these is that the buck has been passed.

As a remedial measure, may I propose that in future resettlement cases, whatever department is ultimately responsible for the proper maintenance of the various physical facilities and the environment itself, the Resettlement Department be given the overall responsibility to oversee the situation so that no time is wasted in soliciting the necessary response from the departments concerned. To centralize authority in this way is good as it ensures that remedial measures are forthcoming without much undue delay.

I wish to dwell a little now on another aspect of resenlement which has created some confusion and unhappiness among residents. Often they have to wait for a period of two to three years before they can be allocated their own flats as the flats are not yet available. This is so in the case of residents in Kaki Bukit Constituency who are affected by resenlement. Within such a time frame many unexpected things could have happened, arid often did happen. There were deaths, marriages and births. These subtractions and additions to the families affected their qualification for flats. Besides there was always the fear of yet another price rise. In fact, people affected by resenlement are allocated flats at a certain price while the remainder are allocated flats at different prices.

To alleviate their anxiety, may I propose that the time frame be shortened and the actual price of flats be pegged to the actual cut-off date when the affected residents receive notices to quit. Furthermore, resettlement should not be announced and notice to quit the premises should not be given unless there are sufficient flats available for allocation to those affected within the shortest time possible.

Considering the healthy state of our economy as presented by the Budget Statement, enabling the Government to grant tax rebates and enhanced tax reliefs, it is perhaps appropriate that the Ministry review the resettlement compensation rates again and increase it in view of the announcement that the price of flats will be increased again this year.

Sir, I am not flogging a dead horse. Whatever happened at Kaki Bukit perhaps could not be undone as it is in the lapse of resettlement. In response to my appeal in this House on 23rd March 1981, the Minister stated:

'The HDB will consider the retention of these features if they are consistent with the over all development plan of the area.'

I am curious to know what are these features to be retained. I am also curious to know why there are still about 100 residents or families, according to my grassroots feedback report, who have not been allocated flats even though the Minister on 23rd October 1981, stated:

'1,425 families have to be resettled to make way for the development of Kaki Bukit Estate. Resenlement of all affected families is .expected to be completed by 1983.'

The Hon. Minister could perhaps give the present state of affairs. Anyway, I believe most residents affected owe a debt of gratitude to those Resettlement Department officers who have done their best to ensure a smooth and less painful removal to their new homes. However, the experience learnt could be worthwhile if the object lessons learnt here are used to benefit other estates yet to be resettled. Our Prime Minister has said that we should make resealement less painful and be more humane.

The Chairman: Mr Jeyaretnam, you have an amendment on resettlement too. Would you like to speak now?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Do you want me to move the amendment?

The Chairman: There is no need for you to move the amendment.

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right, Mr Speaker, Sir. But I might not withdraw my motion on this.

Sir, this question that I want to speak on now, that is, resettlement, has already been touched upon by two other speakers. We have heard from the last speaker about the statement made by the Prime Minister; it is not just the Prime Minister; we have heard other Ministers too mouthing these sentiments in their Sunday walkabouts when they are confronted by residents to whom resettlement has become a searing experience and who are wrecked with torment and anxiety.

Sir, what I do want to ask the Minister is this. Does his Ministry and the Government accept in principle the responsibility to house people who are being rooted out of their homes? It is no good trying to equate yourself with the private landlord. This is a Government carrying out its programme, and in pursuance of that programme, it roots out people who have been living in their homes. Does the Government accept its responsibility to everyone who is living in houses in the area which the Government proposes to resettle to make way for new development? I should like to know that from the Minister. To me the answer is obvious.

I have spoken last year on this subject and I touched upon the case of a man in my constituency in Anson in Kampong Bahru area. He has been denied any resenlement simply because, again we come back to the same question which I raised yesterday, his wife is not a permanent resident although he is a Singapore citizen. 3.00 pm

So we go on, ding-dong. The poor man does not know what he is going to do. He works for the Ministry of the Environment. What I would like to know from the Minister is: what are you going to do about him? Are you going to put him out on the road, or are you going to house him when the time comes?

I wish to ask the same question about one or two other families in Miri Road. There we have a family of a father, mother and a little boy. They have been told that they are not eligible for resettlement because apparently they moved in after the cut-off date. But, as I mentioned pre- viously, the cut-off date was never announced by any notice put up in these areas. I know and it is no good telling me that it was in the Gazette somewhere. It was never brought to their attention when they moved in, and they have been living there. What are you going to do about them? Are you going to put them out on the street? I would like an answer to that. There is not just one family, there is one other family in Miri Road. They told me they cannot move, and I am afraid I have told them, "You don't move. You are entitled to be resettled by the Government if the Government is acquiring the land for its development purposes." So they are waiting to know what the answer will be.

May I move on to another area which is not within my constituency, and that is, the Craig Road people? Mr Speaker, Sir, there has been some publicity about this and there was only recently an article in the Far Eastern Economic Review drawing attention to a man who is still squatting on the pavement. But what I find incredulous about this is that the Resettlement Department should hide behind the fact that the private owner of the property had obtained a court order to evict them. The private owner may not have a moral responsibility for the persons living in the premises. But I should hope that this Government and the Ministry of National Development have a moral responsibility.

What I find shocking is this, that the Ministry of National Development has paid the owner enhanced compensation so as to relieve itself of its obligation to the tenants. And then it says, "Well, we've paid the owner enhanced compensation. So we can't now give the tenants any premises." That seems to me to be scandalous. It is an evasion of the Ministry's responsibility to those persons. How did the Ministry come to pay the owner enhanced compensation without first making sure from him that the tenants who were living there would be adequately housed and that he would, in fact, give vacant possession, not just a court order, but that he would make provision for the tenants and would give vacant possession? As a result of the Ministry paying the owner enhanced compensation and saying it is not the Ministry's baby, it is his baby, you have families living on the pavement. Honestly, as I said, I find this a shocking and scandalous behaviour on the part of a Government to its citizens and to its people to whom it owes some obligation. Are they not entitled to be housed?

Sir, I would like the Minister to consider this and let us know in this House today, first of all, whether his Ministry will accept squarely the responsibility upon it and not hide behind rules and say, "These are the rules. That man has got a court order. We've paid him enhanced compensation. So the rules say we can't do anything about the tenants."

May I remind the Minister and the Government that rules are not sacrosanct but people are? Rules are made for people, not people for rules. And if rules work injustice, work inequity and are harsh, then rules have to be changed. They do not remain inviolate and immutable. Rules are made by us for our welfare and so they have to be changed if they are found to be working injustice, hardship, suffering on our people.

I should like to know whether the Minister would answer these three questions.

The Chairman: Dr Augustine Tan and Mr Selvadurai are not here.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Geylang Serai): Mr Speaker, Sir, my amendment is amendment (4). One of the issues which I would like to speak on is Resettlement. Can I speak now?

The Chairman: Purely on resettlement?

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: One of the issues is on resettlement. So I would like to speak again when amendment (4) comes up.

The Chairman: Then you had better speak later on. Mr Teh.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Teh Cheang Wan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to answer the Member for Anson first. The Member for Anson has asked the question whether Government accepts the responsibility to house the people affected by resettlement. My answer is that Government accepts the responsibility to house the people affected by resettlement, but only for those people who are qualified to be resettled.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Under your rules. Here we go again!

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: This is very simple. In an area under resettlement, the people will get priority for alternative accommodation like houses, shops and other premises. If we do not have a rule, a cut-off date, to say that from this day onwards anybody who comes in is not qualified for resettlement, then obviously there would be an enormous number of gate-crashers. We have more than 90,000 people on our waiting list to buy HDB flats. A few days ago, I gave the Member the figure of more than 16,000 people waiting to rent HDB flats. If we do not have these rules and if everybody knows that this area is under clearance, large numbers will move to this area and get priority.

Without a cut-off date, the whole resettlement system will collapse. Development schemes will also be delayed. So the answer is quite obvious, we must have the rule of a cut-off date and also other rules.

The other rules are very simple. If a person is not a Singapore citizen, he may be a work permit holder. If he also gate-crashes and goes into that resettlement area, of course, the resettlement people will know that he is around. The Member for Anson is requesting that the Government should take responsibility to house these people.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Work permit holders?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Yes, he can stay in that area.

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of clarification.

The Chairman: Are you giving way, Mr Teh?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am not talking about work permit holders.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, I do not like to be interrupted.

The Chairman: Please sit down, Mr Jeyaretnam. Mr Teh is not giving way.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: He said that the Government should accept the responsibility to resettle everybody in that resettlement area. Sir, by "everybody", he means any person with two hands and two legs in that area. So that must include work permit holders, non-citizens and perhaps even illegal immigrants.

So we must have a set of rules and only those citizens who are qualified to be resettled will be offered alternative accommodation for resettlement.

As regards the Craig Road case of people sleeping on the five-foot-way, I just want to inform the House of the position. When the Government acquires land, compensation will be based on two different situations. One is vacant possession. This means that the owner of the property is able to deliver his property without encumbrance, which means there are no tenants, and the owner will be entitled to a higher compensation. The other one is encumbered land, which means there are tenants. Usually encumbered lands are rent-controlled properties with tenants. But at times the owner of a rent-controlled property manages to get the tenants out and therefore he is able to deliver the property with vacant possession to the Government and claim for a higher compensation.

In this particular case in Craig Road, the owner was able to go to the court to evict his tenants on some legal grounds. The owner was able to obtain a court order to show that the occupants of the property are not legal tenants. Therefore, the owner, in fact, was able under the law to deliver the property with vacant possession to the HDB, although the tenants claimed that they had been tricked by the owner's lawyers or representative into signing a certain agreement to vacate the property. But Government is not involved with that. That is a matter between the property owner and the tenants. Since the court has given the order that there is no legal tenant on the property, the owner is entitled to compensation for his property with vacant possession. And since the owner is getting an enhanced compensa- tion, there is no obligation on the part of the Resettlement Department to offer any alternative accommodation to anybody because the property is unencumbered. 3.15 pm

The Member for Nee Soon raised several points. Normally, clearance cases are offered resettlement facilities within a period of six to 12 months after the occupants of the land have been served with notices to quit. However, sometimes they may have to wait for a longer period because the particular type of alternative accommodation requested by the resettlement cases are not available. For example, we have a lot of 3-room flats available but the reseftlement cases want only 4-room and 5-room flats. But 4-room and 5-room flats are under construction and are not yet available. Therefore, they have to wait. At other times the alternative accommodation is available but not in an area that they want. The flats are some distance away. They will say, "No, I will wait for a longer time because I want that particular locality." For this reason, the clearance has to be delayed for a longer period. But if the people affected by clearance really want to get accommodation quickly and are not so choosy and accept the alternative accommodation offered by the HDB, then the resettlement process can be speeded up.

On the question of acquisition of land where the Government develops a whole area for a new town, for example, Yishun. To develop the whole Yishun New Town, Government has to acquire a very large chunk of the land comprehensively for the whole new town and has to avoid piece-meal acquisition. This is essential because this will simplify the administration of planning procedures and also avoid creating uncenainties on the part of the landowners. If we acquire it piece by piece, then the landowner in that area may get a bit worried. He might wonder whether his land will be acquired or not. So we acquire the whole ares in a single exercise. Then everybody knows that the whole area is acquired, and those pieces of land not acquired are not likely to be acquired. Because the Government acquires a huge area of the land, it is not possible for the Government to clear the whole area at once. Again, the clearance has to go by phases according to the priority of development. If a certain locality is needed for urgent development, then the clearance in that locality will be given priority. But for areas where development will take place later, then we delay the clearance.

As regards TOL, those tenants who stay on the land awaiting resettlement pay the same TOL fee. Just for argument's sake, if a tenant had paid the former landowner a rent of $100 per month, he will continue to pay HDB $100 per month. There is no change of rate for the TOL fee. As for the property owner, if his property has been acquired by the Government, the HDB at present charges him a TOL fee of 10% of the acquisition cost. This fee is only payable when the Board takes possession of the propeqy and when the full quantum of compensation has been duly paid to the land-owner. But since the ho n. Member for Nee Soon has appealed on their behalf that the 10% TOL fee is rather high, I have decided to ask HDB to reduce the fee to 6%, effective from 1st April 1984.

On the question of priority for the allocation of alternative commercial accommodation, this in fact is a very difficult problem. I appreciate this because this actually amounts to an adjustment of a life-style. Unfortunately, because of the shonage of land in Singapore, farming cannot continue to be a way of life for the farmers because the areas under farming are required for various developments. So our farming area will continue to be reduced and farmers will continue to be affected by resettlement and they will have to change their life-style and their profession.

On the question of farmers asking for hawker stalls, yesterday there was already a long discussion on that. So there is no point for me to repeat it here.

As for shops, I understand that in the Nee Soon Constituency the farmers and also the shopkeepers insist on having shops within Nee Soon itself. Unfortunately, the first lot of 30 shops was only completed at the end of last year. Therefore, those farmers who want shops there could not get the shops because there are too few shops available for allocation.

The hon. Member for Nee Soon has suggested that we set up a unit to help farmers to adapt to the change of livelihood. In fact, the same suggestion has also been made by another hon. Member. On this question of HDB sening up a unit to guide the farmers, let us be very candid about this. Singaporeans in general, and businessmen and farmers in particular, are very adaptable and very enterprising. Those who are affected by resettlement generally adjust themselves very well and can find alternative means of livelihood. We have experienced this for the last 25 years. More than 100,000 resettlement cases have been dealt with by the HDB. Somehow these resettled people have adapted themselves quite well. I personally do not believe that civil servants are able to give the farmers better and more practical advice on what they should do than the farmers themselves. So to set up the unit would be just a waste of effort and money. However, if there is any genuine case of hardship, that is, a farmer who cannot find employment, the hon. Member can write to me and I will direct HDB to look into his case. Those who are willing to work, even if they are in their 40s or early 50s and in good physical condition, if they cannot find a job,I suggest that the hon. Member write to me and I will direct HDB to find them a job, if necessary, There are plenty of jobs available in Singapore.

Next is the question of pegging the farm licence to the price of the 3-room flats. In fact, the current cash grant for a farming licence is $19,500. At present, the selling price of an HDB 3-room standard flat is $13,600 and that of a 3-room improved flat is $22,000. So $19,500 is very close to that figure. But I would like to say that they are two different things. The current cash grant of $19,500 paid to the farmers is meant to help them to tide over the initial period of adjustment. This has nothing to do with the selling price of the flats. There is no reason for the cash grant to be pegged to the selling price of the 3-room flats.

On the rate of resettlement compensation, this has always been reviewed from time to time. The last revision was in March 1982, when most of the compensation rates for the farm houses, the farm structures, the rental rebates and the cash grant had been increased by 50%. These rates will be further reviewed when there is a need for it. At present I do not think there is a need to review the rates because they have just been reviewed only a short time ago. As we know, in the last two years the inflation rate in Singapore is insignificant. So there is really no valid ground for a review. But in future if there is a ground for review, I will review it.

The issue of compensation for fruit trees has been discussed at some length in this House. Prior to 1979, there was a ceiling imposed on the compensation of fruit trees. Since 1979 we have removed the ceiling under the new resettlement policy and the compensation has been paid according to the actual number of trees counted on site.

As I have said, our farmers in Singapore are very enterprising. As soon as the ceiling was removed, an enormous number of fruit trees were planted. I was told by the resettlement officers that at times they could not even get into the land because the trees were planted so close to one another. It was impossible to walk through. That is the reason why I say there is no point in having a Civil Servants' Committee because the Committee is just no match for the enterprise of the farmers. At that time it was not possible for the civil servants to foresee that the farmers would cash in on this compensation for the planting of fruit trees. So in 1982 the Government found it necessary to re-impose the ceiling because a large number of the squafters had abused the removal of this ceiling by planting an excessive number of trees on their land.

Let me just give Members an example. The normal planting standard allowed for durian trees is about 83 sq metres per tree to enable the durians to bear fruit. This is the advice of PPD experts. After we removed the ceiling, some squaners were planting them at less than five sq metres per tree. This will give you some idea of the abuse. It is not possible for durian trees to bear fruit if they are planted so close together. Therefore, the re-imposition of the ceiling was essential.

I disagree with the hon. Member for Nee Soon that because our compensation rate is so low the farmers had to reson to this additional planting. I will just give some statistics on the amount of the compensation we paid to the farmers last year. Percentage Compensations Paid of farmers Below $50,000 25.2 $50,000 - $75,000 32.3 $75,000 - $100,000 24.4 $100,000 - $150,000 14.0 $150,000 - $200,000 2.7 Above $200,000 1.4 The claim that the farmers are getting very little compensation and therefore they have no choice but to plant a lot of trees is not true. But I must admit that farmers are very enterprising because whenever there is any possibility of getting additional compensation, they will try to get more. That is why we were forced to re-introduce the ceiling. 3.30 pm

I am quite satisfied with the ceiling of $30,000 per hectare. It is very generous. If anybody thinks this is unreasonable, he can just take a short trip to Johore to find out the prices of orchards there. You can ask them, "In your opinion, how much is one hectare of orchard wonh, and what is the value of the land and the value of the trees?" Our compensation of $30,000 per hectare is for the trees alone, not for the land. For the land, we have to compensate the landowner again. The farmers do not own the land. That $30,000 is paid as compensation for the trees. So if they come back and tell me that in Johore the fruit trees alone without the land, are worth more than $30,000 per hectare, then I will be happy to review the policy. I will tell the HDB, "Our policy is wrong. We will review it again."

What I would like to stress is that the Government's reseftlement policy has been enforced since 1960 and it is continually being reviewed and revised. The policy at present is fair and reasonable and has generally worked very well. However there may be exceptional cases which require special consideration. I would be happy to consider these special cases. If hon. Members also feel very strongly about these cases, they can write to me or to my Senior Parliamentary Secretary, and I will ask the HDB to look into them.

On the point raised by the Member for Kaki Bukit about resettlement in his area, my answer is very similar to that given to the Member for Nee Soon. Generally the scale of clearance is large and we have to take it in phases. Therefore, some of the resettlement cases can be handled early while others are handied later. It is not possible for us to handle all of them at once because the resettlement workload is enormous. Everyone of us in this House knows that Government has a very big housing programme. The Ministry of Education has a very big school development programme, i.e. the junior college programme. The Public Works Department has a very big road construction programme. The Jurong Town Corporation has a large industrial development programme. Then the Ministry of the Environment has its drainage and irrigation programme. I can go on and on with these programmes involving more than a thousand resealement cases every month which the Reseftlement Department has to handle. It is not possible for the Resettlement Depanment to handle clearance beyond a certain number because they just do not have enough manpower to tackle this problem.

The suggestion made by the Member for Kaki Bukit is good - that the Resettlement Department should handle everything. But this is not practical because the Resettlement Department simply does not have enough manpower to handle resefflement cases and also, as suggested by the Member, to demolish the structures to prevent the breeding of mosquitoes, to maintain the cleanliness of these resettled areas and to prevent people from going into the resenied sites. It is just beyond their means. The Resettlement Department just does not have so many people to handle the job. I would like to repeat again that if there are any exceptional cases, special cases, and Members of this House feel very strongly that my Ministry has to pay special attention, I would be very happy to receive those cases.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, I am sorry but it seems to me that the Minister has been rather flippant on the matters that I raised with him. But at the end he said that if there were individual cases of hardship and any Member wrote to him, he would give it serious consideration. I take it that invitation extends to me as well, Minister. But I like to clarify what I said with you, Minister. I am not being flippant overthese things.

The man I spoke about is not on a work permit. He is a Singapore citizen. I thought I made that clear and I am sorry because the Minister was talking about work permit holders and illegal people coming in. I am not talking about them. So let us get rid of the idea that I am talking about illegal tenants and work permit holders.

Then there are the families in Kampong Bahru. Again, Minister, they are not illegal tenants. They are not people on work permits. The only snag about them, as I said, is that the Ministry officials say that they came in after the cut-off date. They were there when the officials went round checking. The cut-off date is the date of the publication of the declaration in the Gazette. So they may not have been there at the cut-off date. But they came in good faith, bona fide. If the Ministry is satisfied that they came in deliberately knowing that the place has been acquired, then I can see some reason for excluding them. But if they came in bona fide, completely ignorant of everything, I think it is very harsh, Minister. So I will write to you about these persons and I hope you would give them consideration.

As regards the Craig Road people they are not in my constituency, they belong to the Prime Minister's constituency - again, may I explain that they were not illegal tenants. I know there is a court order and we do not know the circumstances under which the coun made the order but I understand it was a consent order. The Legal Aid Department was apparently acting for these people. I do not know how they came to consent to this order. But my point is simply this, that it was wrong on the part of the Ministry not to have made sure with the landowner that these persons who have been living there for years as legal tenants would be properly housed. It is no good just lefting the landowners collect enhanced compensation and leave the problem of the tenants in the Ministry's lap. You should not allow landowners to do this to you. You should not pay them enhanced compensation unless you are sure that they will, in fact, de facto give you vacant possession, not de jure. De jure means to give you a court order, because then you still have the problem of the poor tenants living there. I would ask you seriously to consider their plight and not just consider them as illegal work permit holders or whatnot, but persons who have a genuine grievance and who are entitled to the utmost sympathy and consideration from your Ministry.

With that, Sir, I will withdraw my a mendment under Subhead TG-02.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: The Member for Anson said at the beginning that the Government should accept the responsibility to rehouse all the people in the resettled area. He put forward that proposition. I explained to him why his proposal cannot be accepted by Government. If his proposal is accepted, then Government would have to rehouse the work permit holders, the illegal immigrants and everybody else because he has not made any qualifications. He mentioned that anybody who has been found at the site of the resettlement, Government should accept the responsibility. Am I correct in saying that?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Yes.So I just want to clarify that to accept his proposal would result in this situation and obviously it is not practical.

The second point is on the cut-off date. It is not possible for the Government to allow anybody to gate-crash into the site even though some persons may be unaware of this cut-off date. I agree with him that not everybody is aware of the Gazette notification date. People may not read it. But the fact is that this rule has to be imposed, otherwise the resettlement policy cannot be enforced. .

The third point is about vacant possession of the property. It is very simple. If a landowner can arrive at an agreement with the tenants to pay the tenants a certain sum of money for them to vacate the rent-controlled property, and if the tenants just accept the money so that the owner can get enhanced compensation, then after that the tenants could come back and say, as the hon. Member has suggested, "Look here. I am sorry. I have been cheated by the owners. In fact, I have no intention of vacating. I did not realize what I signed on that document, and so the Government should give me alternative accommodation." If the claim is acceptable, we would open up a loophole. First, Government would have to pay for vacant possession. And after having paid the vacant possession value to the landowner, Government would have to rehouse the tenants who are not supposed to be there.

Therefore, in these Craig Road cases, though we sympathise with the tenants who are in these very difficult circumstances, the law has to prevail. The rule has to be upheld. As long as it is legally proved that the landowner has delivered vacant possession of the property to the Government, Government has to pay the landowner the vacant possession value. And after having paid the vacant possession value for the property, the Government cannot assume responsibility for rehousing the former tenants.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, may I just make one observation as regards the reply given by the Minister. What I said about the Craig Road case is this. Before you pay the owners the enhanced compensation you should send your officers to find out from the tenants what the position is, because I think you owe them that obligation. You should ask them, "Is this true that you are all moving out now and you are moving out in fact?" Then after you are satisfied, you pay the owner the enhanced compensation. Then you are doing your duty to them, and I say you have a duty to them. That is all I am trying to tell you.

Dr Koh Lip Lin: I thank the Minister for his detailed answer to my queries. I also thank him for his decision to reduce the TOL fee and his offer of assistance to those who have problems. I just want to add that I agree with him that the majority of the people who are reseftled have no problem. But there are quite a large number of people who have problems in adjusting to a new life after resettlement. If he is still not convinced, I can invite him to come to Nee Soon for a walkabout. I can assure him that there will be a very popular reception, perhaps as popular as some of the pop song stars mentioned by the Member for Henderson or the Member for Ang Mo Kio the other day. I am sure there will be many people who will come to see the Minister to air their grievances.

With that invitation, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment,

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 3.45 pm

Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, a large proportion of our population live in HDB estates. This is, in fact, a living testimony to the success of our housing policy and much of the credit must go to the HDB. To-date the HDB has done an excellent job in ensuring that our housing estates are physically habitable. However, Sir, I feel that it is timely and proper that the HDB, in padicular its area offices, take on a slightly wider role. I think the time has come for the HDB area offices not only to look at estate management per se, but also focus its attention on the Management of the Community as a whole. Perhaps the Minister might want to enlighten this House the measures which are being taken or contemplated to prepare HDB to cope with new socio-economic and other environmental problems of our residents.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the HDB adopts a total approach to public housing. The HDB new towns and estates are comprehensively planned and are provided with a full range of facilities to meet the residents' needs for housing, shopping, entertainment, schools, sports, recreation and employment.

About 20% of the land in each new town is set aside for light industry in order to create job opportunities for the residents. The HDB also assumes full responsibility for estate management, including the maintenance of the building and grounds, repairs, re-decoration, cleansing and upkeep.

On the social aspect, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Chong Boon, the HDB residents are serviced by grassroots organizations, such as CCCs, MCs and RCs. They work closely and effectively with HDB area offices to resolve problems and to look after the residents' interests. In addition, the HDB has established a Social Awareness Unit which helps to identify families with problems and refer them to the relevant social agencies for assistance.

Sometimes there are problems relating to HDB which are rather complicated, but HDB is always flexible. I just want to quote a case which, I think, has been brought to the attention of HDB by the hon. Member himself. The owner of a flat, for very good reasons, wants to exchange his flat. The HDB has, in fact, given the lessee several alternatives. The HDB has advised him that under the HDB rules, he can exchange his flat With another lessee. In other words, it is a mutual exchange of flats. The HDB allows this. Then he can also register for a new flat and sell his existing flat to a buyer of his own choice in the open market, as he has already been living in the flat for more than five years. This is also allowed under the HDB rules. He can apply for a new flat, and when he is allocated a new flat, he can sell his old flat.

Another possibility is this. He sells his flat and purchases another flat in the open market, because anybody who has lived for more than five years in an HDB flat can sell his flat. So he can sell his flat and buy another one. In that way he can achieve his objective of changing to another flat. But unfortunately, all these three alternatives were rejected by him. Eventually, the HDB referred the case to the Allocation Com- mittee and the Committee suggested that he can sell his existing flat to the HDB, and then HDB will offer him a rental flat, namely, a two-room rental flat. He can then register for a new flat and when the new flat is available, he can then move into the new flat. I hope that with this wide range of choices he will be able to solve his problems.

But I would like to add that on the management of the physical aspects of the estates, the HDB has almost 25 years of experience, since 1960, in the management and planning of housing estates. HDB is competent. But if we come to the social area, then the HDB is not that competent. If a husband and wife quarrel and the HDB official interferes, what can happen is, as a Chinese saying goes, "If you are not careful, you may be hammered by both."

Mr Chandra Das: Sir, I thank the Minister, particularly for the various alternatives he has given my constituent. On that note, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Alexandra): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, the Public Works Department, in particular, the Roads Division, is in my opinion doing a marvellous job, providing us with a fantastic road system. However, I cannot help get away with the feeling that at times they are a bit insensitive to local community matters.

I would like to relate to you a series of events which occurred in my constituency which would show to be a classic case of bureaucratic feet-dragging. In my constituency there is a road called Commonwealth Drive. This is a small road that leads into a major road, Queensway. Commonwealth Drive is the only outlet for motor vehicles going into Queensway to the city area. Way back in 1980, my community leaders requested the PWD that in view of the heavy traffic jam at this junction, it should turn this into a signalized junction. This was because the heavy traffic coming along Queensway all the time did not allow vehicles from the small road, Commonwealth Drive, to turn into Queensway. We also pointed out to the PWD that the advantage of a signalized junction would enable pedestrians to find it easier to cross the road at this junction, because at that time the pedestrians were frequently complaining that with so much traffic congestion, it was difficult to cross the road.

We also told them that with a signalized junction, SBS Bus Service No. 61, which used to turn left into Queensway, made a U-turn round the old Queens Circus, then headed back into the direction of Alexandra Hospital, would find this advantageous because the bus service would then be able to turn directly from Commonwealth Drive and turn right into Queensway. That was in April 1980 and about four months later, in August, the PWD wrote back to say:

'Sorry for the delay in replying. Please be informed that traffic lights are not recommended as vehicles have no difficulty in coming out from Commonwealth Drive to Queensway.'

Sir, I would not bother the House with all the details that followed after that. There were a lot of discussions. We also did surveys on our part to prove to the PWD that, in fact, traffic congestion did occur at the junction, particularly during the peak hours. For quite some time the PWD continued to insist that the traffic volume coming out from Commonwealth Drive was still very light and did not warrant the signalization of the junction. Then sometime in late 1981, they came to us and said:

'Queensway is now being widened into a three-lane dual carriage way. After conducting studies we think that it might be good to construct a pedestrian overhead bridge at the said location instead of a signalized pedestrian crossing.'

That was in 1981 and the matter dragged on. We insisted that there should still be traffic lights. Finally, the overhead bridge was put up sometime last year. It was quite a pretty overhead bridge, the hew type with tiles and creepers dangling down the side. It must have been quite expensive.

But what really surprised me was a letter which we finally received from the PWD in early November last year. Now they tell us that because the SBS is studying the re-routing of Service 61, the SBS has recommended that the PWD provide an opening on Queensway to allow the buses from Commonwealth Drive to turn right to Oueensway, which means to say, Sir, that we are going to get our signalized junction after all. That is after four years of fighting with them. But what I am most irked is that they did not want to respond way back in 1980 when we first pointed out the whole problem to them. What happened is that a lot of public funds have already been wasted to build this nice overhead bridge which is not really going to serve much purpose in the end.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with the hon. Member for Alexandra that the request for a signalized junction at Queensway and Commonwealth Drive in Alexandra Constituency has been dragging on for many years. But there are very good reasons for this long delay.

A few years ago when the Member for Alexandra first requested for the installation of a traffic signal at the junction of Queensway and Commonwealth Drive, the PWD was not able to accede to the request because of the concern that an additional traffic signal would further worsen the already congested traffic conditions along Queensway. At that time Queensway was still a two-lane dual carriageway, and it was extremely congested. Since then Queensway has been widened and the traffic condition in the area has improved. Micro-processor traffic signal controllers are also available now for traffic signalling to minimize the disruption to the traffic flow. Thus, instead of just widening the stretch of Commonwealth Drive between Tanglin Halt and Queensway, as requested by the hon. Member, the PWD will now take the opportunity to improve the junction by installing new traffic signals. 4.00 pm

The change of plan necessitated some redesigning and this has delayed the widening of Commonwealth Drive. The project will now commence next month. In fact, the funds have been obtained. I understand this has been conveyed to the Honorary Secretary of the Alexandra CCC.

I hope that this problem has now been resolved to the satisfaction of the hon. Member.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Sir, I am satisfied and I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Liew Kok Pun (Boon Tock): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, the completion of a record number of HDB flats last year has made it possible for a large number of people to be given their flats earlier. And by the end of 1985, the present shortage of flats will have been alleviated.

Sir, I am sure that Members of this House will join me in congratulating the Housing and Development Board for having speeded up the public housing programme to cope with the demand. The Hon. Minister for National Development and his staff deserve a bouquet from the people.

Sir, as new housing estates are developed, there is a general movement of young people from the old estates like Toa Payoh to the new estates like Hougang, leaving behind a fairly high concentration of old people in old estates. This is a rather disturbing trend. Arising from this, we have got to look into several problems, including the following:

(a) the break-up of the nuclear or extended family system leaving behind the aged parents;

(b) the undesirable situation of having spare rooms and emptiness in nuclear homes, when all the married children have shifted out;

(c) the surplus of school places in old housing estates;

(d) the pressure for more flats to be built for the young couples.

Sir, the Housing and Development Board has introduced a number of policy measures to slow down the break-up of the nuclear and extended family structure. These include the introduction of joint balloting and priority allocation of HDB flats under the multi-tier scheme. These schemes are on the whole effective. I would like to suggest that the priority allocation scheme be extended to rental flats and to purchase flats in old housing estates.

Let me elaborate on this proposal. An extended family with more than one family unit of parents and married children can still be preserved if the married children can be accommodated in the same block of flats or in the vicinity under the proposed priority allocation scheme. This can, of course, apply to both purchase and rental flats. In this way, married children can stay close to their parents who can then spend their time looking after the grandchildren rather than wallowing in misery and emptiness in the winter of their life. At the same time, more married women can rejoin the workforce. It will thus kill several birds with one stone.

Sir, the public housing programme, its policy and architectural design have influenced greatly the sociological pattern of the people. They have shaped their lifestyles. It is an irreversible process. Fortunately, we have always got an enlightened and responsive public housing policy. We must keep it this way.

Sir, in connection with the problem that I have raised, I would like to pose the following questions to the Hon. Minister:

First, with limited land and the splitting of the nuclear family, will we be able to continue to cope with the demand of flats in future?

Second, what is the projected number of flats required up to the end of this century?

Third, will the one-room flats in old estates like Toa Payoh be demolished or improved to meet with the demand for larger flats?

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: Mr Speaker, Sir, in speaking on this amendment, I would like to raise two issues. The first deals with complaints of low water pressure made by residents of top floor HDB flats. In March last year the Minister informed the House that the HDB was aware of this problem of low water pressure on the top floors of HDB flats and that the Board was implementing an improvement programme to install separate down-feed pipes to increase the flow of water to the top floors of high-rise blocks. The improvement was carried out in the HDB blocks in my constituency but did not prove to be effective. The residents are still facing this problem of low water pressure. In addition, some have now complained that they are getting supplies of rust-coloured water. I would like therefore to urge the Minister to ask the HDB to examine this problem carefully and to work out an effective solution to remedy this defect quickly. Further, I hope that the measures to be implemented by the Board to remedy the defect will not place a financial burden on the residents.

The second issue concerns the resettlement of workshops, factories and other small business enterprises affected by public development. I would like to ask the Minister to advise the HDB Resettlement Department officers to be more flexible in the way they process the eligibility of affected workshops, factories and other small business enterprises for resettlement benefits. Let me state at the outset that I realize that the Department has a difficult task here and must be alert and carefully scrutinize all cases of workshops and factories, affected by clearance. Some may want to grab the opportunity to get alternative factory and workshop premises on a resettlement basis even though they are clearly not eligible. However, the Board's Resettlement Department has, on some occasions when processing such cases, been rigid in applying its rules. For instance, when the Board asks the owners or proprietors of the affected workshops or factories to provide evidence to show that they were in business on the site before the cut-off date, the Board stipulated only evidence of their dealings with Government agencies and was not prepared to consider other evidence showing their dealings with suppliers or customers.

In borderline cases, I think the Resettlement Department should exercise its discretion and be more sympathetic to affected cases. I hope that the Minister will consider this and advise the Resettlement Department to examine the borderline cases carefully and endeavour to do its best to assist those affected and help alleviate the hardships they face.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Sir, I intend to speak on three specific matters. My constituency is pan of an old housing estate. Some of the flats were built about two decades ago and inevitably there are many problems facing the flats and the flat dwellers.

The first problem I refer to is the request of residents to provide aluminium flashings above the kitchen casement windows so as to prevent rain from seeping into the kitchen. Sir, this request has been put to the HDB quite a number of times and in November 1982, the HDB responded saying that they had agreed to provide the aluminium flashings above the kitchen casement windows of the flats in Queenstown Neighbourhood 4. Provision of these flashings to the flats will be carried out when the flats are due for repairs and redecoration.

Following this letter in early 1983, the HDB Area Office informed us that the flashings would definitely be installed and they gave in their letter a programme which showed that different blocks would be fined with these flashings from 1983 through 1984 until 1985. Sir, 1983 has come and gone and the first flashing has yet to be put up. I would like to inquire from the Minister what is the reason for this delay and if something could be done to expedite this matter as we have already informed residents that this programme would be carried out.

Sir, the second point I would like to raise concerns the rubbish bin centre outside the Mei Ling Street Market. Residents have for years been complaining about the nuisance of smell coming from this particular bin centre. I know that we cannot do much about smell coming from rubbish bin centre. But I think this particular centre needs special study. It has been constructed such that the floor of the bin centre is not at the same level as the road level. As a result of this, the trucks from the Ministry of the Environment are unable to drive into the bin centre and collect the rubbish. Therefore, rubbish has to be carried out and loaded on to the trucks. As a result of this, rubbish drops and when they wash the bin centre the dirty water flows out of the bin centre and alongside the drains. This occurs everyday. For years it has been going on like this. Residents have been complaining. And really the only thing to do is to do something to the floor of the bin centre.

This matter has been brought up and nothing has been done. Even when the Hon. Minister of Defence and Second Minister for Health visited my constituency last April, this matter was brought up. In fact, the HDB did reply to him saying that it was looking into the possibility of carrying out improvement work to the bin compound so as to reduce the smell nuisance. Again, Sir, that was one year ago and every time we approach the HDB, they tell us, "Our architects and structural engineers are so busy. They are involved in housing programmes. Really, could you just wait a while?" And each time they assured us that they would look into the problem as soon as possible. Sir, this matter has been going on for years, and I think it is high time the Minister gave me a definite answer when he is going to rectify the bin compound.

Sir, the last issue I wish to raise concerns the steel casement windows which are fined to all the windows in old estates like mine. Many of these windows have corroded over the years. A lot of residents want to replace these but with aluminium type windows, not sliding windows but casement windows made of aluminium anodized to look like steel. In the past, the HDB always told us, "You've got to change into the original kind of windows because externally all windows have got to look the same." But nowadays it is possible to replace them with the aluminium type of window which still looks like the original design. It would not look different from the rest of the steel casement windows.

The HDB has so far not agreed to this proposal. I wonder why this is so because aluminium windows are more practical. They do not corrode as fast as the steel casement windows. And again I must ask for a decision quickly because many of the windows are corroded so badly that I think some of them are liable to drop off and land on somebody's head one of these days. So before some disaster occurs, I hope the Minister could accept what I consider a rather sensible solution. 4.15 pm

Mr Rohan bin Kamis (Telok Blangah): Sir, firstly, may I take this opportunity to ask the Minister to convey my appreciation and the appreciation of my constituents in Depot Road affected by the landslide on the 3rd March 1984 for the prompt action that the HDB area officer and his staff had taken to do their job. May I place on record also that I am very comforted by the fact that residents in Depot Road were very supportive and understanding during the mini crisis.

Sir, the HDB has done a lot of improvements to my constituency. However, I would like to bring up three localised cases. The latest improvement done by the HDB is clearing the rusty water and alleviating the problem of low water pressure in the top two floors of every block in my constituency by changing the water pipes. The rusty water problem has been resolved but I am not too sure whether my rusty pipes have been sent to Geylang Serai for my colleague, the Member for Geylang Serai, to solve the rusty water problem. Whilst the rusty water problem has been resolved and the low water pressure generally alleviated, there are still small pockets where the flow of water is still unsatisfactory. Sometimes in a block a few units are not getting good water pressure. Could the Minister please explain why this is so, especially when the residents try to use pressure-driven water heaters?

The second matter is this. Sir, there must be very good reasons why the TV aerial in several blocks in HDB flats could not receive the broadcast from SBC Channel 12. Would the Minister explain why the installation of additional boosters, if that is what is required for the HDB flats, appears to be delayed? This is most unlike the usual HDB far-sightedness and prompt action which Singaporeans have taken somewhat for granted.

The third matter is car parks. Car parks in my constituency is no more a major problem. I am glad to say that it has been greatly relieved by the building of extra car parks and the implementation of curbside parking. However, several of my constituents recently enquired as to why they were not allowed to purchase season parking tickets for the usual one year period. All the car park labels are due to expire towards the end of this year. Again, there must be good reasons why this is done. However, the residents are concerned that there may suddenly be a log-jam with everybody queueing to renew the season parking tickets at the end of the year. I am sure this potential problem must have been thought of by the Minister and could the Minister please clarify the situation.

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee (Toa Payoh): Sir, I would like to raise a few points for the Minister's consideration. First, I would like to touch on the subject of improvements made to older estates like Toa Payoh. When Toa Payoh was built in the 1960s, it was then the pride of not only the HDB but the residents as well. VIP visitors were regularly taken to view the estate. Today, some of the buildings and facilities are getting old and inadequate. I read with envy the glowing reports in the HDB 1982 Annual Report on the many new approaches adopted by the Board in the planning and design of new estates. Fresh emphasis on the visual and spatial quality of urban design, distinctive character and identity. What about Toa Payoh old town? Surely, some of these new concepts could be injected into older estates. True, Sir, some improvements were made, like replacing old water pipes, and a little landscaping; but it is not enough to cater to the needs and expectation of residents. Some of the older blocks of flats and hawker centres need to be extensively renovated.

Take, for instance, Apartment Block 53, which was the first HDB VIP block in a housing estate. I believe the Hon. Minister had on several occasions taken VIP visitors to this block to view the estate in the early years. This block was originally in my constituency. However, in 1972 it was transferred to Boon Teck Constituency. Several years later it was reverted to my constituency. At that time it was a landmark in Toa Payoh. Today it resembles a forlorn old lady. In this particular block about two-thirds of the exterior casement windows were converted to attractive aluminium sliding windows, presumably by the lessees and obviously without the permission of the HDB, leaving one-third with the original design. Lessees in the remaining one-third of the flats appealed several times to the HDB, both presently and during the time they were in Boon Teck Constituency, to allow them to convert their windows to the aluminium type, but they were refused as these installations were not authorized by the Board. The dilemma is whether to dismantle two-thirds of the windows at great expense and inconvenience to everybody or to allow the other one-third to be installed to blend with the surroundings. Sir, I was not aware of this predicament as at that time this apartment block was not in my constituency. Since this block is now in my constituency, I feel it is my duty to help resolve the problem.

Similarly, the hawker centre at Block 75 Toa Payoh which was constructed in the 1960s to cater to the needs of residents in the neighbourhood. Over the years, due to changes and living patterns more people are eating out, particularly at hawker centres. Moreover, the culinary skills of some of the hawkers in this centre have also attracted patrons from afar. This imposes a tremendous strain on the existing facilities. The areas set aside for patrons became inadequate. Floors inside and outside the stalls were pined with cracks and crevices due to intensive use. Drainage is becoming a serious problem, causing floods at times, as the original design was inadequate. The Ministry of the Environment alleged that these problems were caused by the stall holders. I disagree. In any hawker centre, there is bound to be a handful of incorrigibles against whom firm enforcement action has to be taken. The majority of the hawkers in this centre are very cooperative in maintaining the cleanliness of the centre. I visited this centre together with an officer from the HDB. It was found that a major renovation exercise is needed at this centre, and I hope the Hon. Minister will take note of this.

The next point I wish to raise is the cause of fire occurring in HDB flats. According to an HDB report recently there was an average of seven fires a day in HDB flats since January this year. Of course, we should advise occupiers in HDB flats to be more cautious, but when a fire does occur the HDB should not slap on a bill for reinstatement cost on an occupier without first obtaining a fire report from the Singapore Fire Service. Sir, the point I wish to make is that not all fires are caused through the negligence of the occupiers. Therefore it is not fair to make them pay for the reinstatement cost for damages caused outside the flat.

A lessee of a flat at Block 159, Toa Payoh, was made to pay for the cost of repairs and replacements to damaged electrical sub-mains, hollow block wall and paint-work at the front of the premises caused by a fire on 27th September 1983, amounting to $512.57. This amount does not include the cost of damages caused to the lessee's own flat. I made some investigations and found that the fire was presumably caused by a faulty PUB electrical meter installed along the common corridor outside the flat. The fire spread into the lessee's flat and caused considerable damage. The cost of reinstatement was borne by the lessee. The electrical system in this flat was fitted with an ELCB. Therefore, there is very little likelihood that a short-circuit originated from the flat. Although I took up this matter with the Area Office, the lessee paid the bill, as he was then in the process of selling his flat to a prospective buyer and he did not want to incur the displeasure of the Board which may cause him delay in the sale transaction. In this case, has the HDB established who is liable to pay for the damage caused by the fire? The lessee or the PUB? The HDB should exercise more consideration in a situation like this. They should ascertain liability before making the lessee pay for damages.

Sir, the last point I wish to make is on a recent statement made by the Hon. Minister on the importation of foreign workers for the construction industry and the incentives that go with this scheme. May I ask him where will these workers be housed? In dilapidated clapboard structures, as we see in many construction sites, or properly constructed container-type quarters, or HDB flats? If these workers are housed in HDB flats, will this lead to a very much longer waiting period for applicants on the HDB rented properties waiting list?

Encik Abbas Abu Amin: Sir, I wish first to thank the HDB for bringing relief to the residents of Ayer Rajah Housing Estate in Dover Road over a long standing problem. The construction of the new parking lots will go a long way to solve the much needed convenience.

Next, Sir, I wish to ask the Minister if there are any long term plans to expand the Ayer Rajah Housing Estate. At present the smallness in size and area appears to be detrimental to the residents. Some facilities which are normally available in larger housing estates are not found in Dover Road. When appeals were made to the relevant authorities for such amenities as POSB and additional bus services, the same standard replies were received. The main issue was that due to the smallness of the population the provision of such facilities was not viable. In many instances the residents were merely advised to use the facilities in neighbouring estates of Clementi New Town or Ghim Moh. Though they are not far, Sir, making use of the amenities there entails unnecessary bus journeys and away from their flats.

By the same token, Sir, the business in the small market at Block 33 is far from satisfactory. Both the stallholders and residents are neglecting it for obvious reasons. The residents prefer to do their marketing in bigger markets elsewhere for want of better variety and quality. This undoubtedly has affected the business in the rather small Ayer Rajah Estate Market.

Finally, Sir, I wonder if the Ministry of National Development has any plans to enhance the aesthetic environment of the small housing estate in Ayer Rajah.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, before I bring up the matters that I wish to raise, may I join the others - otherwise I would be thought to be very churlish - in expressing my appreciation and appreciation on behalf of the residents of Singapore for speeding up the construction of the HDB flats. Of course, Sir, it had nothing to do with the event that took place on the 31st October 1981. I am not suggesting that it had anything to do with it, but the construction of the flats has speeded up considerably after that and we must be grateful to the HDB for it.

But there are other matters, as I said, on which I wish to talk about and if I may go through them as swiftly as I can. One is about the question of rental accommodation. I did ask some information about this and I had statistics from the Minister. Statistics are all right. They serve a purpose, but they must not be allowed to conceal hardships that do occur. I have had people who come asking me to get them a rental flat from the HDB and I have been told again and again that they would have to wait two years, or three years. These are genuine cases and I will tell you one case, Mr Minister, where the applicants have been told they are not eligible for a rental flat. And I find this somewhat surprising.

This is a case of a married couple. They are both over 18 years and that is why they were able to marry. That is under our law - you must be over 18 years. But when they applied for an HDB flat to live together - they only wanted to rent a one-room flat - they were told, "You are not eligible because you are under 21 years." It seems to me to make nonsense really. You allow them to marry, and then you say they cannot live together because they are still under 21 years. This is the sort of thing which is making the HDB policy the object of ridicule from our citizens. They do not understand why the HDB adopts this sort of ruling and attitude. I can go on, but I would ask the Minister, "You look at all your rules and see whether they are perhaps outdated or completely irrelevant to the needs of the society today."

There is another case. This is a person who has been asked to move because of resettlement. He and his brother were living there in the premises which has been acquired and they have been told to move out. He wants to buy a new flat but he has been told, "You and your brother cannot buy a flat." Why not? I thought the HDB ruling was that as long as there were two persons they could purchase a flat. Is that not so, Mr Minister? To be fair, this man has been offered a rental flat because he is being resettled. But he says he does not want a rental flat. He wants to purchase a flat. Why cannot they be given a purchase flat? I have, in fact, written to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary because I spoke to him over the phone and I hope perhaps he might have referred this matter to you, Mr Minister.

Then I do not know why you have stopped building any more flats for rental. That is what I understood from you. I think there is a need for people who cannot afford to purchase flats. I certainly can see the need for it by the number of people who come and talk about this, and you yourself have spoken about the waiting list for rental flats. I wonder whether you can perhaps consider this again.

If I may move on to other mundane matters. One of the things that I notice in my constituency is the continual breaking down of lifts. I am sure this must be a problem with a lot of other estates as well. I do not know what arrangements you have got about the servicing of these lifts. Is it purely the concern of the HDB, or do you have contracts with the lift companies to service them? If you have, then the companies must be told to service them immediately. It is intolerable, where you have high-rise blocks rising up to 20 storeys, 18 storeys or 16 storeys, to have one lift out of use for two weeks or three weeks at a time. I have been told that in some of the blocks in my constituency the lifts have been out of use. I think you should do something about this.

Finally, may I mention the proposed erection of the dustbin collection area in front of Block 136. I said "proposed" because it was proposed and work was indeed started when the residents wrote a letter to the Area Office. Even the Residents Committee wrote but nothing was forthcoming, and they came to see me. Then I took it up with the Area Office and also with the main office. As a result of that, work was stopped and the proposed use of the area in front of Block 136 as a dustbin compound was scrapped and I was told that the HDB was going to extend the existing dustbin compound area. They are grateful to you for that. But what I want to know is, how much was spent on this? And why were the views of the residents in Block 136 not taken or consulted before the HDB decided to put up a dustbin compound right in front of their block? These are the sort of things on which people feel pretty strongly, and I would ask that the Board should, as far as possible, take into account the views and wishes of the residents before any work is carried out if the work might affect them. In this case, as you probably know, there was a little boy who lost his life because the contractor did not sufficiently safeguard the pit which he had left open and it was flooded and it brought tragedy to one of the residents. The mother was very very upset over the whole thing.

The Chairman: Mr Jeyaretnam, your time is up. Mr Yeo.

Mr Yeo Toon Chia (Ang Mo Kio): I am not speaking, Sir.

Dr Augustine Tan: Sir,.first, may I add my congratulations to the HDB for its tremendous success in its housing programme and also for its very efficient management of housing estates. I think it is no mean task indeed to manage so many units so successfully without creating slums in the process.

I have a little puzzle for the Minister to solve. In his Budget Statement, the Minister for Finance mentioned that the HDB expects to complete another 48,000 units of flats this coming year, 1984. When I read the Memorandum on the Budget for the Financial Year 1984-85, on page 32 it is stated there that HDB expects to complete some 64,800 units in financial year 1984. I hope, of course, that the second figure is the correct figure but then somebody gave misinformation to the Finance Minister.

Secondly, I would like to ask the Minister what plans the HDB has for redevelopment of St. Michael's Estate which forms part of Whampoa Constituency. Recently the HDB demolished some units of emergency one-room flats which needed to be demolished, and I understand that some new blocks of flats will be built there. But some other residents have become concerned that their units might also be slated for redevelopment, in particular, those who live in the terrace houses of St. Michael's Estate. Perhaps the Minister has some information at this stage to inform this House.

Thirdly, Sir, there are many people who are waiting to rent three-room flats and they have been told that they have to wait a few years - I think six or seven years. The reason for this, I understand, is that HDB has been building new three-room flats only for sale and that even the old three-room flats have been increasingly put up for sale because of the tremendous demand, especially by sitting tenants who reckon that they can get a good bargain by buying the older flats that they are staying in. All these are, of course, to their good. However, there are people who are caught in a particular dilemma because they need bigger space for their families but they do not have the 20% downpayment in their CPF or they may have no CPF at all and so they are not able to purchase HDB flats. Would it be possible for the Housing Board to give special consideration to these people by allowing them a smaller percentage, maybe 5% or 10% downpayment instead of 20%? I believe this will enable many such people to get on to the list for purchase flats.

Encik Saidi Haji Shariff (Kaki Bukit): Sir, in response to my question for Oral Answer on 22nd December, 1981, the Hon. Minister replied that to improve the water pressure in the top floor units of apartment blocks, the HDB would install additional distribution mains and additional down-feed stainless steel pipes to the topmost two floors in Neighbourhoods 5, 6 and 7 of Bedok North beginning in March 1982. The HDB has indeed carried out the work as planned but the water pressure has not really improved. Many of these flats, particularly in Neighbourhoods 6 and 7, are quite new and the indoor water pipes could not therefore become encrusted with sediments if the HDB had installed good quality or the right type of water pipes.

It has been announced by the Public Utilities Board that the water supply to the eastern part of Singapore will be from the Seletar River through the Bedok Reservoir and that it has a higher corrosive content. Thus, in no time all residents in Kaki Bukit constituency will be affected and the water pressure will be worsened. Would the Minister give details of the plan, if any, on how the HDB intend to help the residents in overcoming the above situation? Perhaps the HDB should undertake to change the indoor pipes of all the flats.

In answering the Members' queries and complaints, the Minister on 23rd March 1981, stated that the HDB's cleaning work force consists of 50% HDB's own employees and 50% contract workers. It has been found that flats under the care and maintenance of HDB employees are generally cleaner than those assigned to contract workers. It appears that HDB workers do a better cleaning job than contract workers. Is it not possible for HDB to have 100% of the cleaners under its own employment and direct supervision? Perhaps the HDB has resorted to the use of contract workers because it is cheaper. What has happened to the HDB's plan to mechanize or robotize the whole system of maintaining the cleanliness of flats in view of the shortage of labour?

On our part, particularly the Residents Committees and the Citizens' Consultative Committee as well as the Block Committees, we will continue to persuade the residents to refrain from littering or throwing rubbish all over the housing estate. In fact, campaigns have been conducted to encourage residents to use plastic bags for the disposal of their rubbish. The response has been encouraging but it would have been more encouraging if the HDB itself set the example by ensuring that its own rubbish bins under the rubbish chutes and rubbish carts are lined with plastic liners. The plastic liners or bags could be tied up, thereby preventing the smell of rubbish from polluting the fresh environmental air of the estate and also the dirty fluid leaking from the rubbish bin and the can. Hence, I would like to urge the HDB to accept my suggestion even though it would incur some cost to the HDB.

Recently, the ceiling of a market/food centre at Block 630 Bedok Reservoir Road suddenly fell and injured at least two residents. The market has been functioning for about a year only, I raise this incident to illustrate the lack of effective maintenance of these public places apart from the poor workmanship on the part of contractors who built the market. Another market/food centre at Block 511 Bedok North Avenue 2 is also in a poor state of affairs in view of its old age. The market has poor ventilation and need proper lighting as well as fans. The Area Office is now considering the installation of fans in the market after a request has been made by the Citizens' Consultative Committee. The point that I would like to stress here is that there is a need for HDB to plan carefully the construction of new markets and engage reliable contractors, particularly in public places and which are frequented by our residents daily. It is also necessary for the HDB to upgrade the facilities of older markets for the benefit of our residents. 4.45 pm

Finally, Sir, as a resident of Telok Blangah estate, I wish to lend support to the Member for Telok Blangah with regard to the need for HDB to change the TV aerial to improve the reception of Channel 12 in his estate. I hope he would also consider providing the same facilities of improving the TV aerial for the residents of Bedok North HDB estate.

The Chairman: Mr Lai Tha Chai is not here. Mr Teh Cheang Wan.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, on the point raised by the Member for Boon Teck, the HDB has at present four specific schemes to encourage married children to stay with their parents and, therefore, keep the families together. These schemes are well known. The first is the joint balloting scheme, under which parents.and married children on the waiting list can ballot for adjoining flats or flats in the same estate. The second scheme is the mutual exchange scheme. Flat owners are permitted to swop their flats when they have stayed in their particular flats for a minimum period of one year. For swopping their flats, the owners need not have to pay anything to the HDB other than a small legal fee. The tenants of rental flats are also given priority to transfer to other rental flats if this transfer is to enable them to live near to their parents.

Another scheme which is well known is the multi-tier family priority housing scheme, where married applicants who include their parents and grand parents in their application to purchase HDB flats are granted three years' priority retrospective from the date of registration. This will enable them to jump the queue to get their flats considerably earlier.

In addition to these four schemes, the people can purchase resale flats in the locality of their own choice when these flats are offered for sale. This scheme serves two purposes. First, those who have been living in flats for a period of five years and would like to move on to larger flats can sell their flats at a much higher value. For example, there is a family living in a 3-room flat in Toa Payoh and they want to move to Ang Mo Kio. If there are parents who happen to live next door to this Toa Payoh flat offered for sale, then the parents can ask their children to buy the flat and move to stay with them in Toa Payoh. This arrangement is beneficial to many families. This means that the families who are moving out from a 3-room flat in an old estate to a bigger flat in a new estate will make some money to help them to buy a bigger flat. Normally it is not possible for people to buy a flat in an old estate but because of this arrangement they are able to get another flat so that the family can live together. With all these schemes, we are able to keep a large number of families together. The HDB has no proposal to introduce other schemes.

On the question which the hon. Member has asked as to whether the HDB has a scheme for the improvement of the old estates, the HDB has plans to demolish flats in the old estates, which are obsolete. For example, there is no demand for the 1 - room emergency flats and there is a high rate of vacancy. In fact, the HDB has demolished 1 -room emergency flats and in their place we have built better flats. But as for the old housing estates in Toa Payoh, perhaps there is only a limited number of areas which the HDB can build new flats.

On an island-wide basis, the HDB has a long-term plan to build sufficient flats to meet the demand necessitated by increases of population and formation of new families. It will also enable families who are not able to live together in the old estates to move to new estates so that they can live together under the various schemes which I have spelt out.

On the question of granting priority to people who are living in old estates, by building additional new flats so that they do not have to move out of their estates, this proposal is not practical. For example, we have 36,000 units of flats in Toa Payoh. Let us assume that 10% or 20% of the families in Toa Payoh would like their children to live with them in the new flats in Toa Payoh. Then on the basis of 20%, HDB will have to build another 7,200 new units to meet this demand. But as we all know, in Toa Payoh itself there is just simply no land for the HDB to build 7,200 new flats. This proposal is a good proposal if it is practical and realistic. But it is not possible. In future it may be possible, in the sense that after the year 2000, maybe the demand for 1 -room flats is no longer there. The income of Singaporeans will have improved to such an extent that there will be a lot of vacant 1 -room flats. In that situation, we might be able to knock down the 1-room flats and then build new flats. But to do so immediately is not possible. It is not realistic. In the future maybe.

On the points raised by the Member for Geylang Serai about the cut-off date for the resettlement cases, when we earlier debated the question of resettlement, it has been explained quite clearly that without the cut-off date the resettlement policy will collapse. There will be so many gate-crashers that the policy will not work. This also applies to commercial enterprises. That means commercial enterprises which are in operation before the cut-off date will be offered alternative shops or alternative factories. But if they are found to have moved into the site after the cut-off date, then they will not be offered alternative accommodation.

But in implementing this policy, the HDB has been very flexible. That is to say, if the commercial establishments are able to show proof that they were already at the site before the cut-off date, for example, by producing their business registration certificates bearing the address of their premises in the resettlement site, and if the businessmen can produce their income tax returns showing that their enterprises have paid income tax and are operating at the address of the clearance site, the HDB will consider them as having been in that site and will offer them the benefit of alternative accommodation. If they can also show further proof, like the CPF returns for their employees, to show that they have employed people and the address given is the resettlement site, we will also take that as proof that they were at the site before the cut-off date. If they can produce their PUB bills showing they were at the resettlement site, they will also be entitled to alternative accommodation. We have also extended this flexibility to the insurance certificate: if the business address is the clearance site, we will also offer alternative accommodation. In other words, although we have implemented the policy on the cut-off date, we are extremely flexible. Whenever the affected cases can show proof that they were at the resettlement site, we will give them sympathetic consideration.

On the question of low water pressure on the top floors of the flats raised by the Members for Telok Blangah, Geylang Serai and Kaki Bukit, the HDB is well aware of the low water pressure on the top floors. In fact, the HDB has introduced several measures to improve the water pressure, for instance, installing new stainless steel water pipes to supply water to the topmost two floors. The HDB has also introduced various other measures. But unfortu- nately, although these measures have been introduced, some of the flats on the top floors are still experiencing low water pressure. Some of them may be using pressure water heaters. This requires quite a considerable water pressure for it to work. Anybody who installs this type of appliance usually finds that the water pressure is not good enough, if he is at the top floor. For this reason, the HDB engineers have made several studies. Eventually we have come to the conclusion that the only way to increase the water pressure is to introduce a new system. The HDB will introduce very expensive measures to increase the pressure not only in the topmost floors but also for the whole of the building by installing booster pump systems. This system will operate during the peak hours to increase the water pressure when a large number of residents are using water. 5.00 pm

The HDB is now carrying out an experiment in the various housing estates to test this new booster pump system to boost the water pressure. I was told that the booster pump system installed in the various areas has worked quite satisfactorily. A scheme will be prepared by the HDB to instal this booster pump system in all the high-rise flats so that during the peak hours, ie, at a time when most of the residents are using water, the booster pump will be switched on and it will enable the water pressure to be substantially increased. This pumping system will allow the whole block to get this additional boost in the water pressure. I hope that by then the complaint of low water pressure would be a thing of the past.

The hon. Member for Toa Payoh has brought up several points. The first point is about the hawker centre in Toa Payoh. He complained that the hawker centre is quite old and require renovation. I was told by HDB that renovation of the Toa Payoh hawker centre will be carried out. In addition to the renovation of the hawker centre, some of the empty vegetable stalls for which there is no demand will be converted into cooked food stalls to meet the high demand for these stalls.

His second point is about the changing of windows in HDB estates. This matter has been repeatedly discussed in the House. Some of the residents would like to change their timber windows into aluminium windows. The HDB has always maintained the point that the external appearance of the flats should be uniform. If changes are to be carried out for the windows, it should be done for the whole block so that the external appearance would be uniform. I think the HDB will maintain this policy.

As regards the problem of the particular block of flats mentioned by the Member for Toa Payoh, I will ask the HDB to look into it and advise the residents accordingly.

The third point the Member raised is about fire occurring in HDB estates. In the event of a fire occurring in HDB estates, the HDB will liaise with the Fire Service and the Police to establish the cause of the fire. If the fire is caused by the negligence of the tenants due to misuse of the flats or because of their carelessness, then they will be responsible for the reinstatement cost of repair of the flats. But if the cause of the fire cannot be established, then the HDB will carry out the repairs and reinstatement work and the HDB will pay the cost.

The Member for Toa Payoh mentioned that in the particular case, the cause of the fire was due to the PUB and not the residents. I will ask the HDB to look into the case. If the cause of the fire was due to the PUB's fault and not the residents' fault, then the residents will not be asked to pay.

The hon. Member for Alexandra has raised three points. The first point is about aluminium flashing strips for the kitchen windows. The HDB has assured me that they will carry out the repairs very soon. The work to provide these aluminium flashing strips will be completed within this year.

His second point is about rectifying the floor level of the refuse bin centre in Mei Ling Street Market. This is a point which has been mentioned several times. The Minister of Defence was also told of this when he toured the constituency. The HDB says that the work will be carried out and it will be completed within this year.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: When?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: I will ask them to hurry up.

His third point is about changing the steel windows into aluminium windows which I mentioned earlier. If the aluminium windows look like steel windows, then I think the HDB will permit the changing of the windows. The main objection is the external appearance. If the windows have a uniform appearance and if we allow the people to change the windows according to their whims and fancies, then we may end up with 30 or 40 different types of windows. Then it will make the external appearance of the block of flats very unsightly. If the aluminium windows look like steel windows, I think the HDB will allow them to replace the windows.

The hon. Member for Telok Blangah raised the point about season car parking tickets. In line with the present Government policy of curbing the ownership of private cars, the parking charges are now under review. I expect the review to be finalized by the middle of the year. Once this is finalized, I think the HDB will continue the sale of the car parking tickets up to a one year period. There is this fear that at the end of the year, during the month of December, 100,000 car owners will be rushing to the Area Office to get car parking tickets causing a tremendous congestion. I can assure the House that this fear perhaps is not likely to occur. As I have said, this matter will be finalized in the middle of the year and sale of the tickets will be resumed.

The hon. Member for Pasir Panjang has raised the point whether the HDB will extend the Dover Road Estate. The answer is positive. The HDB will extend the Dover Road Estate. But the present position is that the land is occupied by other Authorities. Once the land is made available to the HDB, it will extend the Estate.

The hon. Member for Whampoa raised two points. The first point is that he is puzzled by two figures, One figure is that the HDB has said that in 1984 it will complete 48,000 units of flats while the Budget Statement states that the HDB will build 64,800 units of flats. Both the figures are correct. The figure of 48,000 units is the figure for the calendar year, ie from 1st January to 31st December 1984. This would be 48,000 units. 64,800 units is the figure for the financial year, ie from 1st April 1984 to 31st March 1985. During this period the figure would be 64,800 units.

This is a bit peculiar. The HDB has launched a big building programme. It happens that a large volume of flats will be completed from April this year. From next month onwards, you will find that every month 5,000-6,000 units of flats will be completed up to March 1985. From March 1985, the completion figures will taper down. From 1st April 1984 to 31st March 1985, there will be a huge bulk. So both the figures are correct.

An hon. Member: Sell it cheaper!

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: On the question of St. Michael's Estate, I have some good news for the hon. Member. The HDB has demolished five blocks of old emergency flats. The land is available now and the HDB proposes to build 225 units of 4- and 5-room flats. This will enable the estate to achieve a better balance. Because in the old estates, it is mainly l-, 2- and 3-room flats. Now we are introducing 4- and 5-room flats.

The second piece of good news is that the hawker centre at Jalan Tenteram which has a high vacancy rate will eventually be demolished. The HDB will redevelop the neighbourhood centre in St. Michael's Estate at Jalan Bahagia incorporating a new cooked food centre. The hawkers in Jalan Tenteram will be resettled into this new cooked food centre. 5.15 pm

Thirdly, after the construction of the Central Expressway by the side of St. Michael's Estate, HDB will build a new road system in St. Michael's Estate for better access into the Estate and also to enable buses to run within the Estate.

The hon. Member also mentioned another two points. One is whether the HDB will demolish the terrace houses there. HDB has no proposal to demolish the terrace houses.

As regards the rental flats, I would like to clarify this position on the rental flats, which was also raised by the hon. Member for Anson. HDB is stopping the building of flats for rental, for the simple reason that there is a constant upward movement of the tenants living in 1 -, 2- and 3-room HDB flats. As these tenants move upwards to bigger flats, the vacated flats are sufficient to meet the demand of the applicants. So in the last few years the HDB has not built flats for rental because there is no need for that. Lately, however, because of the improvement in incomes, the income of the people who are applying to rent 3-room flats is relatively high. They are earning more than $600 a month. Usually, those who apply to rent the 3-room flats are earning between $600 and $800 a month. With this income they are in a position to purchase a 3-room flat.

However, quite often they do not have enough money for the down payment. What is required of them is personal discipline. Quite often, these are people in the self-employed group, like hawkers, taxi drivers and small time businessmen. They have 20% down payment of $6,000 to $10,000 for the flats but they are using it for other purposes. If they could just stop smoking, stop drinking, or stop gambling, they will be able to save enough money to pay for the down payment, with their usual income of $600 to $800 a month. What I would like to advise them is to exercise some self-discipline. As for the lower income group, the Government is, in fact, looking after them very well.

The cornerstone of the Government's public housing policy is home ownership. Our goal is to get every Singaporean to own their own home. At present we have already achieved 70% of this target. In other words, 70% of the residents in HDB estates are home owners. This is mainly due to the Government's policy of keeping selling prices of public housing within the reach of the people, with the exception of a very small minority of the very low income group. I do not wish to repeat the statistics again because a few days ago I have given the hon. Member for Anson the statistics. The point is quite clear: the majority of Singaporeans can afford to buy flats, even among those who prefer to rent them. A few weeks ago I have shown that among those tenants who rent HDB flats, almost 10,000 of them own motor cars. A person who can afford a motor car certainly is in a position to buy an HDB flat. But they prefer to own a motor car and live in an HDB rental flat rather than buy a flat. But the Government's policy is to encourage them to own their own homes because it is good for their families to own the flat.

I wish to assure the House, particularly the Member for Anson, that the lowest income group has always been very well looked after by the Government. As a demonstration, let us just take the rental charges of the 1-room improved flats. These are for Singaporeans in the lowest income group. When we built these 1-room improved flats in Toa Payoh and in Queenstown in the late 1960s, that is, about 20 years ago, the monthly rental for such a flat was $30. This comprised $23.50 for basic rental and $6.50 for the service and conservancy charges. In other words, total rental was $30 at that time, that is, 15 to 20 years ago. Today the monthly rental for the same flat is $40, of which $26 is for rental. In other words, over so many years we have increased the rental by $2.50 only. The balance of $14 is for conservancy charges. Even though the conservancy charges have been increased from $6.50 to $14, it is still not sufficient to pay for the increase in labour cost because in the last few years the income of Singaporeans has increased considerably and the wages for cleansing workers have increased three to four times. So the rental increase for this lower income group is $10 over a span of 15 to 20 years.

During the same period, the national income has increased by three to four times on the average. In 1969 the rental of $30 is about 20% of the average monthly income of 1 -room flat tenants. Today the average monthly income of the 1 -room flat applicants on the waiting list is $473. So the rental of $40 is only 81/2% of the average monthly income. So, as you can see, the figure speaks for itself. Both in absolute terms and as a percentage of earnings, this rental of only 81/2% of their monthly income must be among the lowest to be found in the big cities of the world. In addition to this, the waiting period today for the 1 -room rental flat is the shortest, that is, only two years. If applicants are waiting for other types of flats they have to wait longer.

Therefore, Sir, I do not need to say any more to show that the Government, in fact, is looking after the housing of the lowest income group very well. As for the people who Want to rent 2- and 3-room flats, my advice is still, "please buy, don't rent." For their long term benefit it is better to buy and not to rent a flat.

The hon. Member for Kaki Bukit raised the matter about contract workers and workers directly employed by the HDB. The Member said that the HDB workers on direct employment do a better job than the contract workers. I agree generally with the Member's observation that the HDB labourers are doing a better job because they are on the job for many years and they are experienced workers. For the contract workers, quite often some of them are not experienced. So they will not be able to do the work as well. But the supervising officers of the HDB always keep a careful watch on them. I must say that the HDB is trying very hard to recruit cleansing workers but we are not able to recruit sufficient cleansing workers. So we have to make-do with the contract labourers. All the supervising officers of the HDB are well aware of this problem and they have been keeping very strict supervision on the contract labourers. If their performance is not up to a satisfactory standard, action will be taken against them, such as deducting money from their contract, and sometimes even more severe action is taken. Their contracts can be terminated and the contractors can be debarred from tendering for work again.

On the proposal to use plastic covers for refuse, I will ask the HDB to look into it. But I have my doubts that this is a workable suggestion because we might end up with the plastic covers being torn and the plastic cover disappearing. I think it may not be a practical suggestion. And if we have to employ one worker to look after one plastic sheet, I think that plastic sheet is going to be very expensive.

The Member for Anson raised several points. One is on the rental flats. He said that one of his constituents who was below 21 years old wanted to register to rent an HDB flat but was not permitted to do so. As we all know, for the HDB flats, there is a tenancy agreement signed between HDB and the tenants. I am not a lawyer. The Member for Anson is a lawyer. I was told by the legal officer that under the law in Singapore anybody below the age of 21 years cannot legally sign the tenancy agreement. He is a lawyer but I am not. Maybe I am wrong, I do not know. But if he is wrong, I will be very surprised.

He said that there were two brothers affected by clearance and HDB would not allow them to buy flats. Under the HDB's rules, one family is allowed to buy one flat. I will just give you an example. 5.30 pm

A family unit comprises a husband and wife and two children. Under the HDB's rules, this family of four persons can buy one HDB flat. But this family will not be permitted to buy two flats. By breaking it up, father and mother, two persons, buy one HDB flat; and then two children, that is, two brothers buy another unit of HDB flat, they will not be allowed to do so. There is a possibility that the brothers mentioned by the Member may be in this category. But if there is evidence that the two persons constitute a family, ie, they do not have a father and mother and they do not have any other relatives, in other words, the whole family consists only of the two brothers, then in this case if one of them is above 21 years old.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Both are above 21 years.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: If they are above 21 years, under the rule they can buy a flat. As I mentioned earlier the hon. Member can write to me and I will look into the case. And if they are not entitled to buy an HDB flat I will let the Member know why they are not entitled to do so.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: On the question of the breaking down of lifts which the Member has pointed out, the lifts are serviced at fortnightly intervals. From the records of the breakdown of lifts, it has been shown that there is a constant improvement on the maintenance of lifts. In other words, there is a continuous reduction in the number of breakdowns. But it may well be that in a particular block of flats, for some reason a particular lift has more breakdowns than usual. In that case the HDB will send engineers to investigate the cause of the breakdowns and will take appropriate action. If necessary, the HDB will even change the lift.

In each block of HDB flats there are a minimum of two lifts. If one lift breaks down the residents should immediately let HDB know so that repairs can be carried out. But quite often the residents have this bad habit. Nobody bothers to inform HDB until both lifts break down and there is no lift to use. Then there will be plenty of complaints. I think this inconvenience can be easily avoided because it is most unlikely that two lifts or even three lifts in the same block will break down together at the same time. When one lift breaks down and if HDB is informed, this inconvenience could have been avoided with the cooperation of the residents.

On the question of construction of the dustbin compound in front of Block 136, I want to make a general observation. In all the housing estates nobody likes the dustbin compound to be constructed in front of his block. Nobody wants it. But, unfortunately, in our housing estates we must have a dustbin compound. The collection of rubbish from the estate has to be done at one point, ie, at the dustbin compound where the Ministry of the Environment lorries can come and pick up all the rubbish. The dustbin compound is essential, There is no way we can do without the dustbin compound. So the dustbin compound must be near some blocks, whether it is Block 136 or Block 145 or Block 100, it has to be located somewhere. The architects and planners of HDB plan it in such a way that the dustbin compound is sited in a locality where it causes the least offensive smell or the least undesirable effect. But the compound must be somewhere. It is unavoidable.

Sir, I think I have covered most of the points and I would like at this stage, perhaps a convenient point, to make a statement on the future selling price of HDB flats. HDB is in the midst of its most ambitious and biggest five-year building programme. In 1983, the Board has completed 40,000 dwelling units, the highest in its history. This record, however, will be surpassed by the number of units expected to be completed this year, ie, 48,000 units.

In 1985, HDB is likely to complete another 40,000 to 45,000 units of flats. With this pace of construction, the majority of applicants currently on the waiting list will get their flats by the end of 1985. Concurrent with the increase in the number of flats, the population residing in public housing is also growing. As at the end of February 1984, 77% of the total population of Singapore live in public housing. By the end of 1984, this will increase to around 80%. Today, 70% of public housing is sold to residents. The proportion of sale flats will increase to 74% by end 1984. The Government's goal is to have every Singaporean own his home. I believe this goal can be achieved if our economy continues to perform well, keeping the Government in a position to continue shouldering heavy subsidies for public housing.

Sir, I am pleased to inform the House that in line with the Government policy to promote home ownership, the increase in selling prices of HDB flats from 1st July, 1984, will only be 21/2%. This quantum of increase will apply to all types of HDB flats from 1 -room to executive apartments. It is the lowest rate of increase in HDB selling prices since 1979, and it is sufficient only to absorb increases in the labour cost. Public housing, therefore, continues to be heavily subsidized. The bulk of 3- and 4-room HDB flats is presently built in the outer suburban zone, ie, in Jurong New Town, Hougang, and Tampines area.

According to the 1982-83 HDB Annual Report - a copy of which is circulated to Members of the House - the construction cost of a 3-room new generation flat in this zone is $38,000 and that of a 4-room new generation flat in the same zone is $51,930. With 21/2% increase, the selling price of a 3-room new generation flat will be about $33,400. The construction cost is $38,000. Our selling price is only $33,400. For the 4-room flat, the construction cost is $51,930. The selling price is $51,000. Both are well below the construction cost.

Apart from subsidizing the construction cost, the Government has to pay for the land, the resettlement costs, the financing and overhead costs for the professional supervisory expenses. This public housing subsidy is clearly very substantial and very heavy. The Government will continue to subsidize public housing as it is the policy to ensure that the selling prices of HDB flats are kept within the reach of most Singaporeans. It is also the Government policy to ensure that the benefits of the economic prosperity are shared by Singaporeans. For this reason, among the biggest allocation in the financial year 1984 budget is the sum of $4,000 million for public housing programme. In the face of this, how can anyone claim that this year's budget is the rich man's budget? Because for the simple reason the rich man does not qualify for public housing.

Encik Saidi Haji Shariff: Sir, I stand to be corrected. I do not understand the statement of the Minister just now when he said that when the HDB introduces the use of plastic bags, the HDB may have to engage an employee to look after these plastic bags. Is he implying that our Singaporean residents cannot be trusted and that they will steal the plastic bags from the HDB?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: No, covers.

Encik Saidi Haji Shariff: Yes, plastic covers, I mean. Or plastic liners. Many shophouses and factories and big firms are using these plastic covers for covering the rubbish and so on. I do not see why the HDB cannot use these plastic bags or plastic liners.

Secondly, you have not answered one of my questions. What has happened to the plan of the HDB to start mechanizing cleaning operations in view of the shortage of labour?

Mr Rohan bin Kamis: Sir the Minister has not answered my question about the apparent delay in upgrading the TV aerial.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, just two matters. It is about this person under 21 years. I may tell the House that even though he may not be qualified in law perhaps-- I do not know--but the Minister is quite right--that under the law you cannot enter into a contract if you are under 21 years because it cannot be enforced against you.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Oh, I see! So it is not worth the paper it is written on, is it? [Laughter].

Mr Jeyaretnam: Before you burst out in merriment, can you listen it out? A little knowledge is dangerous.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: It is true.

Mr Jeyaretnam: As a general statement, yes. First of all, it was never put to these persons that it was a legal problem because you can surmount it quite simply by getting their parents or someone else to enter into the agreement on their behalf. There you are, you shake your head and say, "We cannot do that." It can be got over if it is a legal problem. But you are saying that it is an HDB ruling and that they are not eligible and they cannot get over that problem. So it does not remain a legal problem any more. It becomes an inflexible HDB ruling. That is what I am saying. Because if it is a legal problem, you can get over it, Minister, quite simply. It can be got over. Are you prepared to get over it, or are you just going to hide behind it? That is my point all the time.

Secondly, about the two brothers, as I mentioned, they are not in my constituency and neither are they married persons. These two have been living in this attap house, I think, in the area which has been acquired. They of course have parents. They have a mother who is living elsewhere but she is living with her other son and his family. The two of them have not been living with the mother. The two of them have been living for years, as I understand it, in this place which has been acquired. So I do not want to mislead you but the mother is not living there. But of course they have a parent. Why are these two brothers who have been living together not eligible to purchase a flat? 5.45 pm

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, I am sorry that I did not answer the point about the TV antennae. I missed that one out.

The HDB first learned about the SBC's intention to transmit a third channel from press reports in March last year. After confirmation received from the SBC, the HDB proceeded to design equipment to receive Channel 12 and to prepare tenders for the installation of the additional equipment. But before the HDB could call the tender, the HDB again saw reports in the press about the proposal to introduce subscription TV by the SBC. The Telecoms has also proposed to transmit Teleview. So the HDB thought that with all these new things, we had better not install the equipment just for Channel 12. We had better install something that could cover everything. But after some correspondence and further clarification, the HDB discovered that the subscription TV will not be introduced soon and the Teleview will also not be introduced soon. The HDB then reverted to its decision to call the tender to install the equipment for Channel 12 only. But the HDB has more than 4,000 blocks of flats. We must understand that in Singapore no businessman in his right mind will have 4,000 sets of spare parts required for Channel 12 and waiting for HDB to call the tender. After the HDB has called the tender, all the spare parts will have to be ordered from overseas. At times we may have to wait for the manufacturers to make the parts and wait for them to be sent to Singapore before they can be installed.

In fact, the contract has been awarded and installation has been going on. I was informed by the HDB that they are hoping that if weather permits, by the end of next month, most nf the 4.000 blocks of HDB flats will be able to receive Channel 12. So there is some delay, but this is no fault of the HDB. On the Member for Anson's question, in HDB there is a tenancy agreement signed by the HDB and the tenants. So no other people can sign on behalf of the tenants. The suggestion by the hon. Member that the father or someone else can sign on behalf of a tenant is not practical.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: It is not practical because the HDB flat is rented out to the occupant and there is a tenancy agreement between the HDB and the tenant. That is a legal document. Now, I think it has been clarified by the hon. Member that if a person is below 21 years old, the legal document which he signs is not worth the paper it is written on.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I did not say that.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: The Member did not say that. On the question of the two brothers, I would suggest that if they are not his constituents, then he should tell them to approach their own Member of Parliament who can write to the HDB and it can then look into it. If they approached you which--

Mr Jeyaretnam: Which is all wrong.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Not all wrong. The HDB will not take any action. The reason is that we do not want someone whose request had been turned down to make another similar request. For example, he goes to see his Member of Parliament who writes to the HDB. The HDB gives an answer saying no, because under the HDB regulations it is not allowed. He then goes to see the remaining 74 Members of Parliament. The HDB does not like to receive another 74 letters and send 74 similar replies. If every letter has to be repeated 74 times, then the administration of the HDB will slow down and the allocation of flats will slow down. Everybody will appreciate that HDB is very conscious of efficient administration and the HDB is very conscious that all Singaporeans should get their flats quickly. The HDB staff are working overtime on Sundays to allocate the flats. And then we have a Member here suggesting that every letter should be repeated 75 times. I think we have a different concept of productivity, we have a different concept of efficiency and we have a different concept of how best the people can be served. We believe that Singaporeans deserve a good administration and get their flats quickly and not be bogged down by the unnecessary writing of useless and wasteful letters.

Mr Liew Kok Pun: Sir, it is well past tea time and I am sure Members of the House would like to have tea. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave. withdrawn.

The Chairman: As the Member has said, it is time for a break now.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair Of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Speaker: Order I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 6.20 pm

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.52 pm until 6.20 pm Sitting resumed at 6.20 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee Of Supply resomed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, before I move my amendment, may I raise for your ruling something on a point of order? I would like to know this. Several Members have sent in notices of amendment under a particular subhead. Should the Member whose name is mentioned first be allowed to withdraw it without the consent of all the other Members who have sent in notices of amendment? After all, every Member has sent in a separate notice of amendment. Mr Speaker, Sir, of course, we stand subject to your ruling, but I should have thought that the consent of all the other Members should be sought before the first Member withdraws his amendment.

The Chairman: Mr Jeyaretnam, if I have any indication that any particular Member does not want the amendment to be withdrawn, I shall allow it.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TE-01 of the Development Estimates.

Sir, this concerns the Housing and Development Board, Development Estimates. But before I come to talk about this, may I just very briefly go back to what we were discussing earlier which was what I wanted to say when the amendment was withdrawn. Mr Minister, you had then an ex Professor of Law sitting quite close to you and you could have asked him about this. As I have said, it was just a legal problem. But may I also say this to you, whilst as a general statement you cannot enforce them, but if they are infants and the contract is for their benefit, you can enforce it. You are giving them accommodation in an HDB flat. So if they do not pay the rent and if it is for their benefit, the court will enforce against them if they do not comply with the rules. As I have said, it is a problem which could be got over. What I do not appreciate is your intransigent attitude. That we will not entertain.

The Chairman: Mr Jeyaretnam, when you say "your", do you mean me the Speaker? Under Standing Order 44(1) you are supposed to address the Chair.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am sorry.

The Chairman: You are referring to me all the time.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am sorry. I do not understand the Minister's intransigent attitude on this. Secondly, may I ask, through you, whether the Minister is now withdrawing his request made earlier about these two brothers? He said, "Well, if you write to me ...". Now, I understand from the Minister, Sir, that because these two men had been to their MP and they had come to me, they are not going to get any consideration. Is that really what the Minister is now wanting to say? That again would show a vicious attitude.

Now, on my amendment, I am afraid that I am back on the question of the accounts of the HDB. No doubt the Minister may say that the Member is harping on it. But before I come to talk on it, may I say that I am very pleased to hear that the prices of the HDB flats will only go up by 22%. Sir, is it true that this is going to be an election year? But I would tell the Minister and the Government that they should not get too jubilant over this 22% increase because we still do not know, the public still do not know what is the cost to the HDB in the construction of these flats. May I carry on, Sir? We have the Auditor making the point which he has made now for, I do not know, how many years. I raised this in 1982. And he makes the point again:

'The Board is unable to follow the desirable method of deducting the cost of flats and land sold from the long-term assets in the balance sheet because the existing accounting system does not provide for the costing of flats and land.'

So it is not me who is saying it. It is the Government Auditor. He says that your "accounting system does not provide for the costing of flats and land." I understood, Sir, from the Minister way back in 1982 that the HDB was taking steps to revise its accounting system and they were calling in expert accountants to advise. It is now 1984. May we know from the Minister what progress has been made to switch the accounting to the desirable method that the Government Auditor is talking about, so that the public will know truly what the cost is to the HDB in the construction of the flats? It is perhaps after that that the Minister can be jubilant about the subsidies because, until the full facts are known to the public, it would be misleading to talk about subsidies and that the public housing is being subsidized to a great extent. I say this quite seriously. One can talk and hide a number of things.

The other thing that I want to ask the Minister is, again, hiding the profits of the HDB. I raised this matter last year and I find it is repeated again this year. Obviously the HDB is not going to take any notice however much anything is said in this House. I am referring to the profits from its MND investment. You find, Sir, that at page 19 of the Financial Report 82/83, of the HDB, as at 31st December 1982, the unappropriated profit of the company, MND Holdings (Pte) Ltd, and its sub- sidiaries, was $145,303,294. At the end of 1981, it was something like $101,853,765. You will see that it has gone up considerably to $145,003,294 as at 31st December 1982.

The HDB's share in this profit at 49.9% because the holding is 49.9%, works out to $72,501,647. So the HDB has this unappropriated profits from its investment in MND. And as the Government Auditor again points out, and which I did point out last year, this profit has not been brought into the accounts of the HDB. I pointed out, Mr Speaker, Sir, last year that this was an offence under the Companies Act. I said that there was the prosecution of someone two or three years ago for the same sort of thing and he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment.

Why is the HDB allowed to go on flouting the law? I know the Minister would probably say that it is because the HDB is a statutory board. But why should the statutory board be allowed to conceal its profits from its accounts?

The other matter is the investment in MND Holdings. Again, as the Government Auditor --

The Chairman: Your time is up, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson is once again playing the same old tune, i.e. harping on the HDB accounting system. The change of the HDB's accounting system is progressing smoothly. A steering committee is overseeing the progress. The committee comprises the Auditor-General, the Accountant-General, the Chief Executive Officer of the HDB and representatives from the Ministries of National Development and Finance. In April 1983, the steering committee appointed Price Waterhouse from among five reputable accounting firms to design a fully integrated and computerized accounting system. As the HDB is operating on an enormous budget and its activities are becoming increasingly complex and voluminous, the change in accounting system is complex and time-consuming and require careful planning and implementation. The new accounting system is expected to be fully operational from April 1985 and the financial year 1985-86 accounts are expected to be reported under the new system. The HDB is in the midst of changing its accounting system and the Auditor-General is a member of the committee and he is satisfied with the arrangements.

The Member for Anson is talking about the Companies Act and the HDB is flouting the law. I would like again to say that he is a lawyer and I am not a lawyer. I am advised that HDB being a statutory board is not governed by the Companies Act. However, even assuming that HDB prepares its accounts according to the Companies Act, it would not be necessary for HDs to consolidate its profits from MND Holdings in its accounts. This is because HDB does not hold more than half of the issued share capital of MND Holdings. It holds only 49.9%. And under the Companies Act, HDB does not have to consolidate the accounts. Unless I am wrong, I am afraid that the statement made by the Member for Anson is incorrect under the Companies Act.

I would like perhaps to add my own observation since the hon. Member has made so many observations on the HDB's accounting system. I would like to add that from reports in the press, I have the impression that the Member for Anson is not exactly an expert on accounting. If he knows anything at all about accounts and financial statements, his Party would not be in the state it is today, i.e. it is on the verge of bankruptcy and on its knees begging for funds.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, for the Minister's information, I said last year, and there is no need to repeat, we all know that the HDB is not subject to the Companies Act. It is a statutory board. So we do not need repetition of it. But I am saying, as I said last year, that the HDB is a statutory board and it is fully accountable to this House and to the public to show its accounts in as genuine a position as possible, and not to hide anything. And I am saying that the accounts in not showing this unappropriated profit of $72 million which is now due to the HDB, the HDB is misleading the public on its accounts. It is as simple as that. We know the HDB is not liable under the Companies Act. And so the HDB takes advantage of it and goes on not showing this in its accounts.

Another question that arises is this. Why have these unappropriated profits been left with MND? Should the HDB not bring it into its own accounts as if it had been invested by the HDB? Even if it is just put on fixed deposit, it will be bringing in income for the HDB. This is criminal waste of HDB monies leaving them without being put to earn anything else.

What is the purpose? The last time when the Minister spoke about this, I asked him why was it left with MND, he gave a statement about Members seeing a lot of lorries going around with "R of D" on them. "Members can see that they are doing a lot of work," suggesting that these monies were used to enhance the construction of industrial development of Singapore. But these monies have not been appropriated. They are lying unappropriated with MND Holdings. So may we have a relevant answer to this question: why has it not been brought into the HDB's accounts?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: As expected, the Member for Anson is not aware of the purpose why MND Holdings has been set up. When I explained it in the House last year, I think either he has forgotten or he just simply refused to listen. I have explained the purpose of having MND Holdings. MND is a company specially set up to manufacture building materials, run a quarry and to modernize the construction industry. The Member has seen some big lorries. This is an indication because previously the transportation of building materials was done by very small lorries which required a lot of drivers. MND is taking the lead by purchasing a fleet of big lorries thereby reducing the need for a large number of lorries and this has achieved three purposes on just that point alone. One, you require fewer lorry drivers to drive the lorries to carry the same amount of materials. Two, you require fewer lorries to carry the same amount of materials because if you are considering using a three-ton lorry or a 15-ton lorry, obviously you can see that the 15-ton lorry is carrying five times more building materials than a three-ton lorry. So the transportation cost will be lower. The third purpose is that it will reduce traffic congestion because we do not want too many lorries on the road. And I can go on and on relating what MND is doing. MND is trying to modernize, to industrialize the building industry, and therefore the money invested in MND is for the benefit of the building industry. I hope this time the Member for Anson will listen and will not repeat the broken old record again.

On the other questions which the Member raised at the beginning, I would like to give him the answers. He was talking about 18-year olds getting married and therefore HDB should give them flats. I would suggest that the HDB should not allocate flats to teenagers getting married. We as a Government would like to discourage teenage marriages for a very simple reason. If we encourage teenagers to marry, then they will rent 1-room flats, and before they are 25 or even 30 years old, they will have a large number of children. This is totally against Government policy. We would like to see the people marry later. When they marry later, they will be able to save money before they get married, so that when they get married at a later age, say, at 25 or 26, they will be in a position to purchase HDB flats and they will also be able to practise family planning.

So we will not change the policy of allocating flats to teenagers because pan of the Government's policy is not to encourage teenage marriage. Maybe the Member for Anson has a different opinion. But this is Government's policy.

On his second point about the two brothers,I would suggest that the Member for Anson advise these two brothers to see their MP and I am quite sure the MP will write to the HDB which will look into their case. All the Members of Parliament on this side of the House, ie the 74 PAP Members of Parliament, will definitely write on behalf of their constituents.

6.45 pm

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, I am sorry, but here we go round the mulberry bush. As regards that couple, I thought that was a legal problem. Now I have explained to him, it cannot be a legal problem. And he has an ex-Professor of Law sitting quite close to him and would advise him on it. We now get his astonishing statement that, "Oh, it is not Government's policy to encourage." Sir, may I tell the Minister that if it is not Government's policy then they should amend the Women's Charter and raise the age before which any one can get married. So let us not just go round and round the mulberry bush, trying to think up reasons.

The other thing is about the investment in MND Holdings. Does the Minister not know - I know I did not mention it, but the Government Auditor pointed it out - the investment itself is illegal? You violated the Housing and Development Board Act in investing HDB's monies with MND Holdings. So what are we talking about? If that is not a violation, why don't you bring the monies back as soon as possible?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: I think the more we talk with the Member for Anson, the more he is getting confused.

Mr Jeyaretnam: No, I am not.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: I have stated very clearly that the two persons have not been allocated the HDB flat because they cannot sign the tenancy agreement. You are saying that to overcome the tenancy agreement, they can get the mother or father to sign. Am I right?

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I answer the Minister? You can either do that or even enter into an agreement with them. It is for their benefit.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: May I explain. In any HDB tenancy agreement, the tenancy agreement is signed between the occupant of the flat and HDB. Therefore, there is no question of a third party who is not living in the flat coming in to sign the tenancy agreement.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I have told you that you can sign with them.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: I say no. HDB will not sign with them. Don't you understand it? It is just that simple. HDB will not sign with them. And you are asking me the reason why. I say the HDB is not encouraging teenage marriage. If the teenagers want to get married, they should stay with their parents. We are not encouraging teenage marriage. So HDB is not going to relax the rule to allow any other way of signing the tenancy agreement other than those above 21 years old. That is the Government's policy. So don't get confused.

As regards the investments in the MND Holdings, I might as well explain the MND Holdings' investments so that the people will not be confused. The purpose of the MND Holdings' investment is to promote the building industry. Previously the Primary Production Department was a department in my Ministry. So there is a primary industry there; it has nothing to do with the building industry. The Auditor-General's observation is on that. He said that HDB is investing into the primary industry which is not connected with the building industry. Now that the PPD is taken out of the Ministry, maybe we will review the case and there is a possibility that since PPD is taken out of MND, then HDB is totally correct in investing in MND because this is entirely for building industry now. So do not get confused. It is nothing illegal. It is because of that particular technicality at that point of time that the observation has been made. However, HDB and Government have decided that HDB will sell their shares in MND to the Government and this is in the process of negotiatory.

The Chairman: Mr Jeyaretnam, are you withdrawing your amendment?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I suppose so, Sir. We cannot get anywhere.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Yeo Toon Chia: Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, in moving this amendment, I would like to request the Building Control Division to ensure that, in approving build- ing plans for private housing, developers should provide specifications showing the standard quality and durability of the electrical wirings and the water pipes to be laid in the buildings, and these should meet the requirement approved by BCD. BCD should also request the MefE engineers for the developer to submit plans showing the details of the position of the laying of these services for their approval and a copy of this approved plan should be kept with the BCD and the architect in charge, besides the MefE engineers. The officers in the BCD should also see that all these services are to be laid according to approved building. The approved building plan's number together with the details of these services should be shown in the brochure when the said housing project is put up for sale to the public.

Sir, this is necessary to protect as well as benefit future house owners. There are unscrupulous contractors using substandard materials or unlined pipes for the laying of these essential services, resulting in house owners having to face much difficulty if their water pipes leak or their electrical wirings fault because contractors either use sub-standard materials or used materials to lay the services not according to the approved plan. If the house owner does not have a copy of the plan showing the running of the services in his house, then leaks and faults cannot be easily detected because these water pipes and electrical wirings are concealed and the electricians or plumbers who are called in to repair will have a difficult time locating, through trial and error, the faulty part. It will surely cause much damage to the house after diggings and knockings are made to the house to locate the fault unless the original contractors who laid these services when the house was built can be contacted.

Sir, I hope the Minister will realize the problems house owners will face if such layout plans showing all these services are not available when a repair is required. For the benefit of house owners, will the Minister look into the matter and take measures to ensure that house owners will not be cheated by the unscrupulous contractors using sub-standard materials which will cause unnecessary damage to the premises.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, the PUB requires that only qualified electricians and plumbers licensed by PUB are allowed to carry out any wiring and plumbing work. The licensed electricians and plumbers are responsible to ensure that the work carried out complies with the relevant code of practice. The PUB will check the electricity and plumbing installations for compliance with the relevant code of practice before turning on the electricity or water supply. PUB will take action against any worker who violates the relevant code of practice. The house owner's interest is therefore best protected if he employs a bona fide licensed contractor to carry out such work. As PUB does not require plans on the layout of the water and electrical services in the domestic premises, there is no need for water pipes and electrical wirings to be shown on the building plan. However, I would advise that the house owner should keep a set of this plan for his own reference. There is always difficulty in the re-wiring or re-plumbing when a record is not kept.

Mr Yeo Toon Chia: Sir, I know that the wiring contractors should be registered with the PUB and they should be qualified to do so. But the problem is that the house owner, without the approved building plan, will have difficulty in locating the wiring if he does not have the plan. This is the problem that the owner of the private house is faced. He has to do a lot of digging and knocking to locate the leakage. By doing all these diggings and knockings, there will be a lot of damage to the house.

Mr Teh Cheang Won: Perhaps the hon. Member should write to the PUB and inform them of this problem. In fact, this is really outside the jurisdiction of my Ministry.

Mr Yeo Toon Chia: Sir, any developer, if he is going to build a house has to go to the architect who, in turn, has to submit more than six sets of plans to the BCD. Then it is up to the BCD ta distribute to the various authorities, such as the PUB and the Road Branch of the PWD to get them approved. So the best department to coordinate and to protect the house owner should lie with the BCD. They can coordinate with all these departments. They should insist that the suitable type and sort of requirement for the services should be stated in the approved plan so that the developer will be responsible for correcting the fault.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, as I have stated earlier, the authority in charge of the water supply and electricity supply is the PUB. When the licensed plumbers and the electricians submit the plans to PUB, I think it is for the house owner to keep a set of these plans for his own reference because quite often the house owner does not keep a set of these plans and the licensed plumber later on might pass away or disappear or does not do plumbing any more. Then the house owner may run into this problem. Nobody knows where is the piping or where is the wire. Therefore, to give a good piece of advice, I think the house owner should keep a set of the plan for his own protection and for his own reference. 7.00 pm

Mr Yeo Toon Chia: Sir, I do agree with the Minister's advice that house owners should keep a set of the plan. But the whole trouble is that when the house owner is going to purchase a house, there is no building plan number shown on the brochure which is available from the developer. I know that the name of M&E engineers cannot be shown in the brochure because that may be against the provisions of the Professional Engineers Act. If the building plan number can be shown in the brochure, the moment I buy the house I know the building plan number and from there I can get a copy with the assistance from BCD. From the building plan number, I know who is the M&E engineer or the architect concerned. Then I can get a copy of the plan showing the details of services for future reference. For instance, I buy a house now and 10 years later, the pipes leak, It is very hard for me to look for the plan. That is why I think the building plan number should be shown on the brochure when the housing project is put up for sale so that I will be able to get the plan.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, the Member's suggestion of puning the number of the plan is within my jurisdiction. I will ask the Building Control Division to look into it.

Mr Yeo Toon Chia: Sir, in view of the assurance given and its benefits for houseowners, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Mr Tang, you have three amendments. Why do you not start with Amendment No. (8)?

Mr Tang See Chim (Chua Chu Kang): I am not moving, Sir.

The sum of $403,536,070 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $4,738,942,000 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head K -

The following amendment stood on the Order Paper Supplement -

Dr Augustine H.H. Tan: (1) That the sum to be allocated for Head K be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead KA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (1), Dr Tan is not here. Amendment No. (2), Dr Lau.

Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens): Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, the Minister of Defence held a dialogue session with NTUC members on the subject of total defence recently. One of his aims was to dispel misconceptions about the SAF's ability to defend Singapore. I am glad that the Minister has decided to bring out the question of our defence into the open. Defence is an issue which is too serious a matter for the Ministry to keep under cover. Defence concerns everybody, both during peace time and war. During peace time, the military personnel seem to be very active in their training and preparation while the rest of the population go about their business. But in war time, both military and civilians are equally affected. In fact, in most cases, civilians suffer the greater casualty during war. It is essential, therefore, that all Singaporeans know what defence is all about and to be prepared to play their proper role.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

7.05 pm

Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens): The idea of total defence is something which every Singaporean should understand and support. Total defence gives everyone a role in the defence of the country. The military personnel have their role but the civilians have a greater role by providing economic, social and civil defence. Most important, Singaporeans should have the state of mind to defend the country. Psychological defence is the key to the defence of the country because it is the attitude of mind which reflects the total commitment of the people to defend the country. There can be no compromise as far as total defence is concerned. Either Singaporeans are ready to defend the country or they are not. There can be no in-betweens, no uncertainties. Uncertainty was the state of mind of many South Vietnamese during the Second Indochina war and it was this uncertainty on their part, their unwillingness to defend their country, which led to the communist takeover of South Vietnam. Many of these South Vietnamese are today refugees in various camps around the world. If Singaporeans do not want to suffer the fate of the South Vietnamese, then they must be prepared to give their full commitment to total defence.

Sir, the Minister of Defence has stated, and I quote, "We are well-manned, well-equipped and well-trained." There is no question that the SAF should have the most up-to-date and sophisticated hardware. I strongly support the decision to purchase the E-2C Hawkeye; an early warning system which will be a very effective deterrent. I would support further purchases of necessary equipment which will strengthen the SAF as a credible force.

On this matter of defence hardware, I would like to know from the Minister whether he is satisfied that the Republic of Singapore Navy is as well-manned and well-equipped as the Army and Air Force. The Navy constitutes a very important element of our defence, particularly the defence of our sea lanes and territorial waters. I hope the Minister would comment on this.

Up to now, the Minister has defined total defence as comprising five components: military, economic, social, civil and psychological. But he has forgotten one other aspect of total defence, that is, volunteer defence. By this, I mean the means and ability to mobilize volunteers who would like to fight in the defence of the country during a period of crisis and to be with our men in the battlefront. I am not talking about volunteers who can assist in civil defence or other aspects of non-military defence.

At present, I understand that the Minister has decided to close down the only volunteer defence unit in the country, namely, the 101st Battalion of the Peoples' Defence Force. It is very unfortunate that PDF-101 has come to this undeserving end.

The PDF-101 has a long history which stretches back to 1845, nearly 140 years ago. According to one source, it began as the Singapore Volunteer Rifle Corps, formed in 1845. Subsequently, there was the Singapore Volunteer Corps and this unit served the country well during the Japanese Occupation. After independence in 1965, the 101st Battalion of the PDF was established and many Members of Parliament joined the Force. It was from the PDF volunteers that many of the officers in the regular units today were trained. Sir, you may be interested to know that there are 14 Members in this Parliament who have served in the PDF-101, including the Minister for the Environment, the Acting Minister for Social Affairs, the Senior Minister of State (Prime Minister's Office) and the Minister of State (Culture).

The PDF volunteer force has therefore an illustrious history and it is a pity that it has to be shut down. But the question I would like to raise with the Minister is that once the 101st Battalion of the PDF is disbanded, whether in his view there will be a situation in the future which may warrant a re-introduction of the volunteer force. Once the 101st Battalion is eliminated, the SAF, in my view, will not only lose an important link with its past but also there will be a vacuum which will be very difficult to replace in the future.

Mr Lim Boon Heng: Sir, I have an amendment under No. (4) on the Hawkeye E-2C. If I may, I would like to speak now and not move the amendment later on.

The Chairman: Is it along a similar vein?

Mr Lim Boon Heng: Yes, it is on the Hawkeye E-2C.

The Chairman: All right.

Mr Lim Boon Hong: Sir, I think the question of the purchase of the Hawkeye E-2C has something to do with the question of surprise attacks and I would like to refresh the memory of Members to the fateful morning of 8th December 1941 when bombs fell on Singapore. Then the vast majority of Singaporeans were sleeping. We were caught totally unprepared by this surprise attack. I am sure many of the older generation of Singaporeans still remember vividly that fateful day and will recall that sense of helplessness, frustration and anger that they had been caught literally sleeping and unable to defend themselves.

The use of the element of surprise by an aggressor dictates the degree of success that it can achieve in an attack. For example, Pearl Harbour was taken by surprise, and it was this element of surprise that allowed the Japanese to inflict so much damage to the United States naval base. Likewise, the element of surprise has been used successfully in several wars that have occurred since the last World War. The more vivid of these are the wars that have been waged in the Middle East.

We are living in a turbulent world. There is no one to defend us except ourselves. There are always naval ships and submarines in the waters in the region. Recently, a large aircraft carrier was added to the Soviet Far East fleet. And not too far away from us, there is Vietnam who has always demonstrated a tendency to covet the territory of other nations. If we are to maintain our independence and territorial integrity, we must have the means to defend ourselves.

I am concerned with the adequacy of our defence surveillance systems, our existing systems, to provide us with adequate warning against a surprise attack by any would-be aggressor. In this respect, would the Minister explain how the proposed purchase of the four Hawkeye E-2C aircraft can ensure that we will not be caught by a surprise attack. How will these aircraft provide our Armed Forces and reservists with a fighting chance to repel an aggressor?

The Minister of Defence and Second Minister for Health (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Sir, first, let me thank the Member for Serangoon Gardens for his total support of our total defence. May I say that our Defence objective, which is national security and national survival, is not to build up an SAF for the sake of strength. In other words, we are not going to buy equipment just for the sake of being strong. The objective is to build up an SAF that has got the strength to, first of all, deter any potential threats and should that, for some reason or other fail, to have the strength to repel the threat. So we do not just want to buy hardware for the sake of accumulating hardware.

The Member has raised two questions which I have to answer. One is whether the Ministry is satisfied with the strength of our Navy. The answer is yes. Of course, this is not a static situation. Whilst we are satisfied with the competence of our Navy, we are always looking into the possibility of increasing the strength of the Navy if we discover weaknesses in the whole chain of defences. We have six missile gunboats at the moment. They are about 10 years old. Obviously we need to do a little upgrading of the engines, the systems on board the missile gunboats and to put in new weapon systems, if necessary. I hope the Member will appreciate that I cannot go into details on a matter which concerns our security - how we intend to go about it. If in the future, there is need for us to purchase more and better missile gunboats, we will do so. 7.15 pm

The Member for Serangoon Gardens lamented about the imminent demise of PDF-101 and the volunteer movement. I share with him this sense of sadness that the volunteer movement has got to come to a close. But there really is no choice because once we have introduced national service, two things happen. First, the volunteers see a lesser need to volunteer because people are being conscripted to serve in the Armed Forces. Secondly, there will be less and less volunteers because there will be less and less people available to volunteer. At the peak of the volunteer movement, the volunteer force had over 1,000 volunteers. That was in the mid-1950's. Today, it has only 68 men left, 23 officers and 45 other ranks. These are the old diehards, mostly over 40 years old.

The imminent closing of PDF-101 marks the end of a chapter in our military history. During the early years of our nationhood, the PDF-101 symbolizing the spirit of service and loyalty, helped greatly to induce the people and prepare the ground for national service which was introduced in 1967. In this important role, the volunteers were greatly assisted by the presence of the prominent leaders of those days, among them, as mentioned by the Member, Members of Parliament, Parliamentary Secretaries, Ministers of State and Ministers. Of course, there were other community leaders who volunteered for PDF-101.

It was an instance of leadership by example. Without this spontaneous support, I doubt whether National Service would have been accepted by the people the way it was, without too much fuss. To me, this is the greatest contribution of the volunteer unit. I want to place on record in this House the sincere thanks of this Government to all those who have volunteered and served.

The PDF-101 will march into history with pride and dignity. It will be ceremoniously closed down in a disbandment parade to be conducted at the Beach Road camp on 31st March 1984. However, those who are interested to keep the volunteer spirit alive, and this is in answer to the question by the Member for Serangoon Gardens, will be given an option for redeployment into normal reserve units provided they are medically fit. In other words, you can volunteer. We will examine you medically. If you are fit to serve, you must then be fitted into a normal reserve unit, not a special volunteer unit.

The Member for Kebun Baru showed an important appreciation in the strategy of war, and that is, the surprise element. Surprise is very important in determining the outcome of any conflict, He has rightly asked whether Singapore has an adequate surveillance system to ensure that we are never caught in an awkward situation. He has recounted the tragedy which occurred in the last war when planes could come in undetected and caused untold devastation. Obviously, the fact that we are buying the E-2C or the Hawkeye shows that we are not satisfied with our present surveillance system.

Again, without going into sensitive details, let me explain simply, why. The E-2C or the Hawkeye system is a vast complicated early warning system. But I can perhaps simplify it in this manner. It is like a sophisticated pair of eyes up in the sky which allows you to see further afield than eyes on land. There are three reasons why we have considered the acquisition of this pair of eyes in the sky. First, radar waves do not travel in a curve. It travels in a straight line. Secondly, there are no high peaks in Singapore. The highest peak is Bukit Timah Hill though some of our buildings are higher than that. But nevertheless, they are not high enough to overcome the third problem, which is the curvature ,of the earth. If you have a land-based radar, you would have inadequate warning time should a hostile aircraft come in low. It will not be detected until it is quite close to Singapore. But if you have this pair of eyes up in the sky, 20,000 or 30,000 feet up, you can see much farther afield. It increases the warning time several-fold.

Sir, the very fact that we are buying this airborne early warning system is an indication that we are not satisfied with our surveillance system at the moment.

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Sir, I am thankful for the reply of the Minister, particularly his view that the Navy is well equipped and well-manned to meet whatever threatens the security of the nation. If there is any change in the strategic situation, it is the increase in the Soviet naval forces, as the Member for Kebun Baru has mentioned. It will be necessary, together with others, to protect our sea lanes in the near future.

With regard to the PDF volunteers, the Minister has mentioned that those who wish to serve further can go for a medical examination and hopefully enrol in the reservist unit. I think he knows that there are many who are well beyond 50 who are still in the PDF at the moment. I am wondering whether the Ministry has thought of any appreciation for them, particularly the other ranks, many of whom have served for about 20 years in the PDF.

Another question which I would like to raise with the Minister is whether he would give support to any move to form some kind of PDF Volunteer Association.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Sir, appreciation will be shown to those who have served in the PDF-101. The exact form of appreciation will be left to the Chief of the General Staff. Of course, if the members of PDF-101 wish to form a volunteer association, we would be pleased to render this association the necessary moral support in the first place, and perhaps other forms of support later if they are required.

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Sir, I am very thankful to the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rohan bin Kamis: Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, I am heartened to see the quick progress of our Armed Forces and I am confident that Singaporeans feel much safer with the development too. This is our country. We have to defend it. Contrary to popular belief I feel that it is defensible. I hope the Minister will further keep up the good work of educating the general public on the concept of total defence because every Singaporean should and must be involved in the defence of our beloved nation. I feel that the message propagated by the advertising campaign last year, "A generation's effort can be wiped out in days" was most appropriate. I hope this year something similar has been planned to drive the message home.

Could the Minister please elaborate on the concept of total defence? I believe that every Singaporean would be proud to answer the call to defend the nation when the crunch comes.

Dr Koh Lip Lin: Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister of Defence a few questions concerning the Singapore Armed Forces. The first question is on the improvement of the quality of the officers in SAF. We have often been told that the quality of our Armed Forces depends not only on the sophisticated modern hardware but also on the quality of the soldiers and officers. I would like to ask the Minister what is being done by the SAF to improve the quality of its officers so that they can cope with the demands of the modern, technically sophisticated and professionally competent defence force.

The second question I would like to ask is about drug abuse in the SAF. In the Parliament Sitting of 17th March 1982, the Minister of State, in answer to a question raised by the hon. Member for Punggol gave a report on the measures taken to control drug abuse in the SAF. Since then the subject of drug abuse has not been featured. Does this silence mean that there is no more problem now or perhaps the problem has become more serious so that the Ministry has deliberately chosen to remain silent on the subject? Would the Minister once again elaborate on the measures taken to prevent drug abuse and to help rehabilitate the drug addicts in the SAF. 7.30 pm

Another matter I would like to raise is the medical procedures relating to sick leave for national servicemen. The SAF has a peculiar and seemingly unreasonable system of requiring sick servicemen who have been seen by private doctors or Government doctors to present themselves to their Unit medical officers for examination or to submit their medical certificates to them for endorsement within 24 hours. Some SAF units are as far as Pulau Tekong. This system has therefore not only inconvenienced the sick servicemen but also their families who in some instances had to go to the unit to submit the medical certificates on behalf of the servicemen who were too sick to go themselves. This unreasonable system seems to contradict the SAF personnel management philosophy which emphasizes care for the well-being of its people and their families. Would the Minister comment on whether the system could be changed?

Mr Lim Boon Heng: Sir, in rising to speak this time, I wish to seek clarification from the Minister on two points. The first point relates to search and rescue services. As we are a major communications centre with considerable numbers of aircraft and ships passing by each day, there will from time to time be incidents of aircraft or ships in distress in the region. Furthermore, we are in a region where there is a lot of oil exploration and production activities in the offshore waters and there are also occasions when accidents occur owing to severe weather and those so engaged in the activities find themselves in danger or in distress.

Quite naturally when such unfortunate incidents occur, we would be called upon to assist and we will respond positively on humanitarian grounds. In such cases, the task falls on our Armed Forces which possess considerable skills. Such skills were demonstrated over a year ago in the Sentosa Cable Car Accident and we are all proud of the heroism and skills of our Armed Forces.

I wish to ask the Minister specifically how often has the RSAF been called upon to provide search and rescue services in the region and how has the RSAF benefitted from providing such a service.

The second point I wish to bring up relates to reserve training. Over time, there has been general acceptance of national service and most Singaporeans appreciate that our young men receive proper training in arms and how to defend their country in the two to two and a half years of full-time national service. However, there is a minority who feel that their duty to the State is discharged upon completion of full-time national service. This minority tends to regard reserve training as a statutory inconvenience. They feel that they have been adequately trained during their full-time national service period and reserve training is a waste of time. Some employers regard such disruptions as hindrances to their business operations. And when reservists are sent overseas for training, some of their wives or girlfriends believe that they are getting a holiday paid for by the Army, and such occasions expose the reservists to the temptations of women in the training areas.

Indeed, Members of Parliament from time to time receive requests from reservists and employers for deferment or exemption from reserve training. I have myself received requests from reservists to be exempted from overseas training in particular.

Now, the reserve training cycle has been increased from 10 to 13 years. So considering the fact that reserve training has been viewed by some reservists and employers as an added imposition and inconvenience to them, and viewed by girlfriends and wives as threats to fidelity, would this increase not aggravate the situation? Could the Minister explain the underlying reasons for this decision to extend the reserve training cycle from 10 to 13 years? I feel that this explanation is necessary because we must strengthen and reinforce the will of our people to defend the country.

Encik Abbas Abu Amin: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to share the sentiments expressed by the Member for Serangoon Gardens on the 101 PDF Battalion which I had the privilege to serve during the Confrontation period. In fact, its history went back earlier than 1945, as early as 1934. A record of this is available. Just for the record, the members or volunteers participated during the Malayan Emergency period in 1948. During the racial riots in 1963 when the first mobilization was called, more than 90% of the members reported within 24 hours and also of course during the Confrontation period from 1963 to 1964.

Sir, the set up of our Armed Forces is indeed unique in this part of the world, in the sense that the bulk of them are composed of reservists. Although the reservists form the backbone of our defence, the fact that these reservists are kept in shape by the permanent staff or regulars must not be overlooked. These regulars play a prominent pan in the retraining of the reservists periodically and equip them with the latest of military knowledge, strategy and tactics besides their normal quota of work in training the full-time national servicemen.

I wish therefore, Sir, to call to attention the need for constantly upgrading and developing the skills of this, though small, but important breed of men and women, the regulars or permanent staff. This would enable them to meet with ever-changing developments in defence technology and warfare strategy. In view of this, what are the Defence Ministry's plans and training facilities to constantly review and upgrade the skills of the corps of regulars?

These regulars, Sir, further need to enhance their knowledge and techniques of human relationship as men of better calibre and with diverse background and varied experience are presenting themselves all the year for training. The relationship between commanders and officers as well as between officers and soldiers have to keep in line with changing trends and prevailing situations.

Over the years, Sir, management science has taken an about turn and the fundamentals of personal and tangible relationships are in vogue. There is much talk about informal management and teamwork to enhance productivity even in the Armed Forces. In this respect, Sir, what steps are being taken to educate the men in this modern management philosophy? By the same token, Sir, I would like to be enlightened about the sort of welfare schemes or incentives available for the regulars subsequent to our appreciation of their devotion to duty which is often performed at odd hours and over lengthy periods.

Finally, Sir, I would like to seek your indulgence to speak on a subject that concerns the education of the young in the SAF. I was associated with the institution during its heydays and cherished bright hopes for its continued usefulness and progress. That, Sir, is the SAF Boys' School.

The School itself, founded in 1975, was the brainchild of the First Deputy Prime Minister and the then Defence Minister. He had noble intentions for its establishment. It was meant for early school leavers to have the opportunity for continuous education which will eventually equip them with the necessary skills for their fruitful employment in the SAF.

Since its inception, Sir, the SAF Boys' School has produced some 1,800 cadres who today form a significant portion of our corps of regular non-commissioned officers or NCOs. I have also been given to understand that they have been performing quite well in their present units.

Of late, Sir, I have learnt with regret that the Boys' School scheme is being phased out. I would like to know the reasons behind this move and what is going to be the outcome of the existing ultra-modern complex, planned and built specially for the SAF Boys' School at Khatib Camp in Sembawang.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I say what I wish to say on this vote, may I first of all clear any misconception that may rest with the Members here and the Government as to our stand in the defence of Singapore? We are of course committed totally to the defence of Singapore. There is no running away from it and we have never said anything about abandoning the defence of Singapore. So we stand with all the Singaporeans in advocating the defence of our country. But, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are now spending something in the region of $2,113,240,000 or so on our defence for this year and it is an increase of about $274 million over 1983. As a percentage of the recurrent expenditure, it comes to - I have worked it out - nearly 27.92%. This is a high percentage, Sir.

We are concerned with this escalating cost of the Defence budget. Particularly, we are concerned with the intended purchase of the E-2C planes. I have heard the Minister say this afternoon about the need for having eyes in the sky. I raised this purchase of the planes at the sitting of this House on the 30th August 1983 and the Minister of State, then replying, said, "The E-2C planes will enable the RSAF to monitor the movements of ships and aircraft." And he said it was because, "We are an international junction. Vital shipping pas- ses through the Straits of Malacca. They will also give us more time to respond to military threats should they arise."

From that answer, I understood the main purpose was to guard shipping through the Straits of Malacca. Then I said that we were not the only ones who were interested in shipping through the Straits of Malacca. There were the other countries that border the Straits of Malacca and whether we were going to do the role of policeman for all of them. And he said that Singapore was not assuming the role of policeman for the region.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is important before we go on increasing our hardware and I am glad to hear the Minister's assurance that the increase in hardware is not done for the sake of just increasing the hardware but to serve the defence of Singapore. It seems to me it is important that we should know where the threat is coming from and who our enemies are. Without knowing that, we cannot really prepare our defence. The NATO countries and the West make no bones about where the threat is coming from. They say the threat is from Russia and so the whole of their defence is directed towards meeting this threat from Russia. Where do we think our threat is coming from?

An hon. Member: Vietnam. 7.45 pm

Mr Jeyaretnam: Vietnam? I thank you. Somebody says it is Vietnam. All right. I remember in the 1980 elections, I stand corrected, I think it was then the candidate for Anson at an election speech who said that if even only one opposition Member was elected into Parliament, the Vietnamese would be marching down the length of Malaysia. Now it is 2 years and I have not seen any Vietnamese soldiers knocking at Singapore's door. So let us not get carried away. Let us be realistic about the whole thing.

The Minister of Defence is reported to have said on the 25th February this year, in introducing his Party's candidates, that barring unforeseen circumstances we should cross the remaining seven years of this decade without major mishaps. The region is expected to remain peaceful. These are his words, "The region is expected to remain peaceful." There is sufficient momentum in our social and economic growth to thrust us forward in the next few years. So you have the Minister saying, "We expect the region to remain peaceful for the rest of the decade." Again, elsewhere he talks in the same vein and he compares our defence preparations to New Zealand. But if you look at what New Zealand is spending, it is very low compared with what we are spending on our defence.

Sir, we know about the capabilities of the E-2C. It can detect aircraft at a distance of about 300 miles and the radar can detect much further. But, as I said, the question is, who are we guarding against? As I understand, these planes have not been bought by several countries. The only countries who have bought these planes are Israel and Japan. But is the Minister suggesting that our situation here is comparable to the position of Israel in the Middle East? Again, Japan has problems. They have got a border with Russia. There is the northern border which has to be kept constantly under surveillance. What borders are we going to keep under surveillance? I think it is important that we should, first of all, determine the value and the use to which these planes will be put in the context of Singapore's defence and not incur an expenditure of $1 billion. We do not know what the maintenance will be. We do not know whether when they are delivered in 1987 there will be other planes overtaking the E-2C. So it is a lot of money. But I would ask the Minister to try and tell us who our enemy is, because that is important. It cannot be a secret. The people of Singapore must be told. Before I run out of my time there is another thing, Sir.

The Chairman: Time is running out.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I perhaps raise it later on after the Minister has spoken?

The Chairman: Encik Saidi.

Encik Saidi Haji Shariff (Kaki Bukit) (in Malay): Sir, the Ministry of Defence was established 17 years ago. In its infant age, I am confident that it has the capability to fulfill its task of defending our nation. And with the total defence programme that is now being advocated, every citizen, and in fact all citizens can involve themselves directly or indirectly in all the five branches of defence according to their respective ability. The involvement of every stratum of society is essential in the defence of our country from any attack, be it from within and without. In view of the smallness of our island and its population, it is fundamental that we maintain our cohesiveness as a Singaporean society and a strong sense of loyalty ever ready to lay our lives and property in defence of our nation's sovereignty. In truth, we must be prepared to take part in every battle in any kind of war that threatens the safety of our nation. At all times we should uphold the mono that we will not surrender until the last man in our defence line is killed.

I am sure that every member of our multi-racial society possesses the qualities that I mentioned earlier when it comes to the crunch. This has been evidenced and demonstrated when we are enjoying peace and tranquillity in our country, the enthusiasm shown by our youths to come forward and participate in the defence of the nation. In fact, many of our parents are desirous that their sons be inducted into the National Service. This is noticeable to me because the youths or their parents manifest frustration when they or their sons are not called up or selected to serve in the National Service. They are concerned for not being called up although they themselves feel that they are healthy and fit. What are the criteria that qualifies a person to be called up to serve in the National Service? I hope the Hon. Minister can elucidate on this matter so that I can relay such information to those who have not been selected to serve in the National Service.

The involvement of every citizen in the efforts to prepare ourselves for the defence of the nation through National Service should be a life-long commitment. Has the Ministry of Defence plans for every National Serviceman to serve on a life-long basis after he has completed 2 1/2 years' stint, followed by 12 years as a reservist? With this, I congratulate every one of our leaders and also every member of the Defence Ministry staff for their unstinting efforts and dedication to oversee the safety and defence of the nation and people.

The defence of the country not only requires manpower resources but also modern and sophisticated military hardware. As such, I hope that the Defence Ministry will strive to ensure that the weaponry that we use are the most effective in keeping with scientific and technological advances. I am sure we possess the wherewithal to purchase the most up-to-date weapons although they may cost millions of dollars, And I am sure every member of the society is prepared to make material or monetary contributions to support the Government to acquire modern military paraphernalia which are really needed in this age of science and technology. I give my wholehearted support to the Defence Ministry to purchase such equipment like the E-2C or the Hawkeye so as to enable us to constantly confront any would-be aggressor or from wherever our enemy may come to destroy our nation and people. There is no necessity for us to determine who our enemies are, as suggested by the Member for Anson just now. What is most important to deter war is for us to always be prepared to go into battle, small though our country may be. Let the other countries wake up to the fact that small we may be but take heed because people who eat the small red pepper feel a burning sensation. I hope the Ministry of Defence will take note of the points that I have raised.

The Chairman: There are only three minutes to go before the Moment of Interruption. Do I have the consent of Members that we will continue tomorrow?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April 1984 to 31st March 1985, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.