PLANNING APPROVAL FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (Obligation for Clearance)

Mr Sia Kah Hui asked the Minister for National Development whether he is aware that planning approval for the construction of two semi-detached bungalows was given to a developer after he was asked to pay and paid $86,569.45 to Government for expenses to resite a temple on state land; what was the rationale for this; and how was the sum arrived at.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, in housing developments, developers are sometimes required under the Planning Act to surrender land without encum- brances to the Government for public amenities such as roads, open spaces and schools. Developers are thus responsible for the clearance of any squatters on such land. However, it is not uncommon for developers to face clearance difficulties which hold up the surrender of the land, and thus delay the development of public amenities. The Government therefore introduced a new policy in 1980 allowing developers the option of surrendering encumbered land to the Government provided they pay five times the direct clearance cost as well as other indirect costs.

In the case brought up by the hon. Member for Paya Lebar, the site proposed for housing development had originally been approved for a temple and two detached houses. Subsequently, the developer submitted a fresh proposal in 1978 for six terrace houses. However, it was established that a Chinese temple had been moved into a piece of land which he had surrendered to the State for a school. The Government therefore imposed a condition that the temple must be cleared before his proposal could be considered. The developer subsequently exercised his option to request the Government to clear the temple at his expense. The Government then undertook the clearance of the temple and charged the developer accordingly. Consequently, the developer's application, amended to two pairs of semi-detached houses, was approved in 1983 as he had already discharged his obligation to clear the temple from the land he had surrendered to the Government.

The cost of $86,569.45 charged to the developer is the sum of the following items:

(a) five times the direct clearance cost amounting to $34,564.70;

(b) an administrative charge of $1,382.59;

(c) an agency fee amounting to $622.16; and

(d) an indirect cost of $50,000 for the relocation of the temple.

Mr Sia Kah Hui: Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Minister know that after I have written to the developer who had in writing assured the temple people that he would build them a new temple at the developer's expense, his reply to me was that Government had taken over his obligation. And he sent me a copy of a letter from the Permanent Secretary on behalf of the Ministry of National Development, which says:

'it has been decided to give Government assistance in the clearance of the Chinese temple on condition that you pay to the Government the sum of $86,569.45 to discharge your obligation to clear this temple.'

Therefore, the developer says that the Government had freed him from his obligation to build a new temple.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, any private agreement that may have been made between the developer and the temple has nothing to do with the Government. The Government is not a party to such agreement. The Government cannot absolve any party of any obligation under any private agreement. It does not have the power to do so. If there is a dispute arising from the private agreement, it is up to the party involved to seek legal redress on the matter.

As far as the Government is concerned, it is the responsibility of the developer to bear the clearance cost for the land surrendered to the Government. This should not be confused with any private agreement that may exist between the developer and the temple.

The hon. Member for Paya Lebar has previously brought this matter up and my Senior Parliamentary Secretary has given him a detailed reply. I have given permission to the hon. Member to forward a copy of this reply to the developer and the temple to clarify Government's position on this matter.

Mr Sia Kah Hui: Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister aware of his Parliamentary Secretary's reply? Perhaps he could explain what is the meaning of this sentence:

'A sum of $86,569.45 was paid to the Government as resettlement cost plus administration charges and agency fees to discharge the developer's obligation to clear the temple.'

This temple was originally at Tai Keng Gardens and the developer had applied to the Government to develop the estate, and he wrote this letter. Perhaps the press might like to have a copy. I could give them a copy of this letter from one of our famous developers of international character, that he promised to build a new temple and he removed the altar of the temple to another part of his land that is not affected by the development of Tai Keng Gardens. And he promised in writing that he would build them a brand new and better temple. So now he takes the Government's letter as freeing him from this obligation.

I think the matter could be cleared up if the Minister were to write another letter to the developer to say that the Government is not freeing him from his obligation but that he should fulfil his obligation to the temple people.

Mr Speaker: Mr Teh, this is one of the longest supplementary questions I have ever heard!

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, my earlier explanation should be quite clear. The developer has surrendered a piece of land to the Government for the construction of a school. There is a temple on this piece of land surrendered to the Government. So the payment of more than $86,000 for the clearance of the temple is to clear the temple on the State land which the developer surrendered to the Government. And this should not be mixed up with any private agreement that may have been entered into between the developer and the temple. That is a separate issue altogether.

Mr Sia Kah Hui: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister what difficulty is there that he does not want to clear this up? It is not with me. I understand, but the developer does not. He sends the letter from the Government to the temple saying, "Here you are, you see, I paid this money and there is a receipt. I am free from my obligation. Government is taking over." I am asking whether the Minister would write another letter to the developer to tell him that Government has not freed him from his obligation.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought that I have already done so. I have, in fact, given permission to the hon. Member for Paya Lebar to forward a copy of my Senior Parliamentary Secretary's letter to the developer and a copy to the temple. The letter is quite clear. But if the Member wants me to send a copy of the letter to the developer and the temple, I will do so.

Mr Sia Kah Hui: Not a copy of the letter which your Parliamentary Secretary has sent because, as I have read earlier on, this letter is not clear. Because it says, "to discharge your (the developer's) obligation to clear the temple." The developer says, "Here you are. This clearly says so. It clears me from my obligation, Therefore, I am not obliged to build a temple for you even though I have written it before." So I just wanted the Minister to write clearly to the developer that we have not cleared him from his obligation. Because the Parliamentary Secretary's letter says so, and that is the interpretation of the developer. So it is no use my sending this letter to the developer. There is no point because he will say, "There you are. I am cleared of my obligation."

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think my Senior Parliamentary Secretary's letter is quite clear. But if the hon. Member is of the view that it is not clear, I can send another letter to clarify.

Mr Sia Kah Hui: Sir, I am not the one who is not clear and I am not the one who is involved in this. It just happened that the developer takes your letter to mean that you are freeing him from his obligation. I would like the Minister to have it clearly stated that the Government is not freeing him from his obligation and that he cannot hide under the skirt of the Government.