RESETTLEMENT PROBLEMS IN CHUA CHU KANG

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Tang See Chim (Chua Chu Kang): I would like to speak this evening, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on resettlement problems in Chua Chu Kang. The development and progress of Singapore have impinged upon Chua Chu Kang. In the early 60s, farmers and squatters were resettled from Jurong into Chua Chu Kang to make way for the development of the industrial estate in Jurong. Now, because of other developments in Chua Chu Kang itself, eg, for housing and for commercial farms, the resettlement is reversed. People are being resettled out of Chua Chu Kang back into Jurong but this time into Housing Board flats.

Resettlement, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, presents a traumatic experience for those who are affected. It uproots their way of life and for the farmers in Chua Chu Kang it also takes away their means of livelihood. In the circumstances, the least the Government can do is to ensure that resettlement is achieved with as little difficulty as possible for those who are affected. As I see it, there are the following four problems facing those who are resettled. These are:

(1) The amount of compensation;

(2) Delay in the payment of the compensation;

(3) Delay in the allocation of flats and connected to that inadequate notice to move out; and

(4) Resettlement where the area is really not immediately required for redevelopment.

On the first point of the amount of compensation, certain practices of the Resettlement Department attract a great deal of complaint. One of these is the ceiling of $39,000 put on compensation for fruit trees. This can work tremendous injustice to the farmers. Take, for example, a fruit tree farmer. A good durian tree can in one season fetch the farmer as much as $1,000 and there are two seasons in a year. So a durian tree can fetch a farmer $2,000 in a year. And assuming that a fruit tree farmer has got 20 durian trees, in one year his takings could be as high as $40,000 and yet the ceiling for compensation on fruit trees is $39,000. Therefore, what the farmer takes in a year is more than what he gets for all his life's farming in cultivating those fruit trees.

It is understandable that in some cases, for example, where all trees are really small trees, that the ceiling should be put on them. This is to prevent farmers from planting trees just for the sake of claiming compensation. But so far as mature trees are concerned, Sir, there is really no justification for this ceiling. And I would appeal to the Minister to lift this ceiling for mature trees.

At the moment, there are also different rates for authorized structures. Some plans of farm structures are approved by the Primary Production Department. But before 1972, the approving authority was the Rural Board or some other Government authority. And yet in the payment of compensation, a different rate is paid depending upon whether the structure is approved by the PPD or by a Government authority other than the PPD. This is really not fair. It is not fair that for approved structures that some should get less while others get more.

Also, trees and other structures on land acquired by the Government are not compensated. The reason for this is that the acquiring authorities say that the landowner had been compensated on vacant possession basis. But this argument, Sir, I submit, does not hold water. If the Government department has paid the landowner for improvements which do not belong to the landowner himself, then they have paid by mistake. They should really have enquired whether those improvements on the land belong to the landowner. And if those improvements do not belong to the landowner, the landowner should not be paid. In quite a few cases, squatters planted trees on land that has been acquired and when it now comes to claiming for compensation, the Government tells them, "Well, I have paid the landowner for your trees." But this is not fair because the trees do not belong to the landowner. The trees belong to the squatter and the squatter should be paid. If the Government had paid the landowner by mistake, I think the Government must pay again. It is the Government's mistake. Why should the squatter be made to suffer because of the Government's mistake?

There is a very interesting case that I have here, Sir, and this is in respect of delay in resettlement. Land in my constituency was gazetted for resettlement in 1967 and yet no action was taken to move the persons affected out until 1985, some 18 years later. That in itself is bad enough. But when it comes to resettlement benefits, the squatters were compensated according to a survey done in 1967 and not on what was on the site in 1985. Furthermore, only those who were eligible in 1967 were given housing benefits. There was this young boy on the land. When the land was gazetted for resettlement, he was only 11 years old. He has since grown up and is married. He is, however, denied housing benefits on the ground that at the cut-off date, ie, in 1967, he was not married. I do not know how the Resettlement Department expects a boy of 11 to be married. He is denied housing benefits on that ground. His subsequent marriage, in spite of the fact that the marriage certificate was produced, did not cut any ice with the Resettlement Department. This is one of those absurd cases where the Resettlement Department adheres rigidly to the rules. I am happy, however, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that since the filing of this adjournment motion, the Resettlement Department has seen the light and I am told that the matter will be amicably settled. To that, I think I must thank the Minister and also must thank all the Resettlement officers concerned.

Recently, I have received many complaints from farmers that no compensation was given for farm structures on the land. Pigsties and chicken runs have been left out in the assessment notice allegedly on the ground that the structures are unauthorized. These sort of complaints never happened before but they seem to be quite prevalent now. I would ask the Minister to look into this complaint. I suggest that the Resettlement officers should record all structures and other improvements on the land whether they are authorized or not. However, making a note against those that are not authorized so that there would be a record and when matters are taken further, the record can be looked into.

The second ground of complaint is the delay in payment of compensation. There are many complaints of delay in the payment of compensation. And compensation money is often not paid when offers of flats are received by the person resettled. Farmers are self-employed. They have got no CPF. Many live from hand to mouth. They depend on the compensation money to pay for their flats. They dare not accept any offer of flats before receipt of the compensation money. But they are told by the HDB that if they do not accept after three offers, they would lose their right to the allocation of a flat and would therefore have to find their own accommodation. This seems to be a lack of coordination among departments in the Housing and Development Board. Both the Resettlement Department and the Sales Section are departments of the HDB. The Resettlement Department pays the compensation. The Sales Section offers the flat. Yet, invariably, offers of flats seem to come first before the payment of compensation money. I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is a case where the left hand does not seem to know what the right hand is doing. I would suggest that the Minister look into the matter. I do not really see any problem in this. After all, in these days of the computer age, we could simply "input" into the computer the data and the proper coordination is achieved. And where there is compensation money due to a farmer, surely this compensation money could be offset against the price of the flat.

This leads on to the next point, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the allocation of flats in good time. Very often, a farmer would receive a notice to quit the land only days after taking the key to a Housing Board flat. I have got an actual case here, Sir. This is a case in which the squatter received his key on the 5th of June 1986. And on the 19th of July 1986, he received a notice to quit his land by the 31st of July, ie, hardly two weeks' notice was given for the squatter to move out and less than two months after he was allocated a flat. Surely sufficient time must be given to the people so that they could have time to renovate the flat and to make the flat habitable to move into.

Now I come to the question that has been raised many times in this Chamber and this is the allocation of flats to single persons, persons who in the opinion of the HDB do not form a family nucleus. These are the single farmers. Two brothers may be farming on the land or a husband who has left the house leaving the wife with the children on the land. According to the present criterion, these people do not form a family nucleus. They are not allowed to buy a Housing Board flat. But why can we not relax the rules? These are special circumstances. They have been farming and staying happily on the land. It is through no fault of their own that you come to the place and say, "Look, I want this land. You get out." And yet you do not allow them alternative accommodation. You do not allow them to buy a flat to move into. Surely these people are entitled to be looked after and an exception should be made to the single person criterion that they cannot be allowed to buy flats. I would submit that these cases are really different from single person sub-tenants in tenements in the City area and therefore they should be allowed to buy flats so long as they have been farming on the land and meet all other resettlement requirements.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I must appeal to the Minister not to initiate resettlement before the land is really required for development. There are too many of these cases around. In the Murai area in Chua Chu Kang, for example, land was resettled more than three years ago which are still lying undeveloped. Lallangs grow on them and mosquitoes breed and all sorts of animals and insects and reptiles abound. I think it is this sort of inconsiderate action that turned the people against the Government. It may be convenient for the bureaucrats to get the site ready well in advance of requirement. But for the bureaucrats' convenience a farmer could lose his livelihood.

Farmers and people in Chua Chu Kang have made their sacrifices. I think it is because of their cooperation that we could develop the Jurong Industrial Estate so efficiently and so smoothly. I think in that development they have made significant contributions.

This is not meant to be a list of complaints against the HDB and HDB officers, most of whom I think really do a good job in very difficult circumstances. But there are a few black sheep and others who are the ones who really give the Housing Board, especially the Resettlement Department, a bad name. This afternoon's motion, Sir, is really a plea on behalf of the farmers and people in Chua Chu Kang who are affected by resettlement, a plea for better understanding and more consideration, which they richly deserve. 5.49 pm

The Minister for National Development (Mr Teh Cheang Wan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will briefly answer the points by the Member for Chua Chu Kang.

On the matter of compensation to farmers, generally the compensation to farmers by the Government at present is quite generous. I just want to mention simply that in the 1960s the Singapore Government had very little money to spend. In the first five-year housing programme, that is, from 1960-1965, Government had allocated $195 million for construction of public housing, for acquisition of the land, for compensation, and for all other things. At that time we considered this as a very generous allocation because at that time the financial resources of the Singapore Government was very limited. Today, as all Members understand, in the last Budget Government's allocation for compensation to resettlement alone is more than $200 million a year. So you can see the amount of increase by the Government to spend on resettlement cases. So compensation for resettlement, I would say, is very generous.

On farming cases this year, the record shows that an average farmer is getting a compensation of $120,000. If we look at the early 1960s, usually compensation to farmers was only a few thousand dollars. So Members can see that the amount of compensation to farmers has increased enormously. The compensation for the fruit trees at $39,000 per hectare as a cut-off point is quite generous. But the Member for Chua Chu Kang quite cleverly talked about durian trees. For durian trees, perhaps one hectare of a durian estate is worth more than $39,000, if they are mature and fruit-bearing trees. I will ask my Resettlement Committee to look into this matter and see whether a special rate can be paid for mature durian plantations under clearance. But for other fruit trees, I think $39,000 per hectare is very generous. If we look at it, in Malaysia, a hectare of palm oil or a rubber estate is only a few thousand dollars. Moreover, the owner has to own the land. However, in this case, the squatters do not own the land and Government compensate them. And Government compensate them for the trees at $39,000 per hectare. Therefore, I think the compensation is quite generous.

On the different rates of compensation, I think there is a misunderstanding by the Member for Chua Chu Kang. In fact, compensation for all the approved structures is paid in accordance with the approved rates. In other words, for farming cases they are paid a higher rate; and for residential cases they are paid a lower rate. However, in 1975 the Primary Production Department came out with a specially designed farming structure with anti-pollution measures built in. For this type of structure they would get a higher compensation. These structures are more costly to build. All these structures are recent structures. This type of structures was only approved in 1975. I think the farmers are confused with this because a higher rate of compensation is paid for this specially designed farming structure with anti-pollution measures built in, prepared by PPD. But as far as rates go, they are unchanged. The farmers are not paid a lower rate at all.

On the compensation of vacant possession, I think there are some disputes. Some landowners are claiming vacant possession. When Government acquire their land, they say, "I not only own the land but I am also the farmer here. I own all the structures and I own all the trees." Then the landowner is paid the vacant possession rate, that means, a higher rate. This is because Government do not have to pay for the clearance cost of the squatters. Subsequently, some people come out and say, "No, no. The landowners do not own those improvements. I am the only one who really own the improvements." Therefore, there is a dispute. I would say that in cases of dispute of this type, the Resettlement Department is prepared to look into them. If a mistake has been made, and the squatters do, in fact, own those improvements, then compensation has to be paid to them. I think the Resettlement Department will pay the compensation to them.

On the cut-off date, the Member for Chua Chu Kang has explained that in fact this matter has been resolved. However, what I would like to explain is this. Cut-off date is really the date of gazette notification. If the Government has gazetted the acquisition long ago, then the cut-off date is usually the date when the resettlement officers entered into the site to take measurements. In the example quoted, 1967 was the gazette date. We will however use 1985 as the cut-off date, that means, the date when the resettlement officers entered the site and do the measurements again. But as the Member for Chua Chu Kang has said, this problem has been resolved.

On the dispute as to whether some structural improvements are authorized or unauthorized, whether the structure is built before the cut-off date or after the cut-off date, I think in every resettlement site there is this type of dispute. From our records, it takes a bit of time to resolve disputes but always the disputes have been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties concerned. I would like to assure the Member for Chua Chu Kang that this type of dispute will be resolved. And if it is not resolved to his satisfaction, I suggest he write to my Senior Parliamentary Secretary, and he will look into the case and have it satisfactorily resolved.

On the delay in compensation, I can appreciate that because in Chua Chu Kang the number of resettlement cases involved is more than 4,000. And each case involves a lot of structures, a lot of improvements, a lot of plants, a lot of areas to be certified, to check and re-check. This takes a long time. I will not deny that there is some delay in awarding compensation. I have asked the Resettlement Department to send more people to Chua Chu Kang to help and hopefully it will speed up the compensation process.

On the allocation of flats, I admit that if there is a delay in the allocation of the flats, certainly the right to purchase alternative flats will not be lost if the delay is due to a delay in the compensation. We do not expect the farmers to move out to the new area before they are compensated. If there is a case of a delay and the HDB threatening the squatters that their right to alternative accommodation will be cancelled, I suggest the Member for Chua Chu Kang take it up with the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. If the right to alternative accommodation has been cancelled, we will restore the right.

On the allocation of flats to single persons, the Government's policy is this. We are very short of land in Singapore, so we cannot afford to allocate each individual person a separate flat. However, if the single person has no family at all, in other words, he is just by himself, he does not have brothers or sisters and is also not married, we can consider each case on its own merit. In certain situations, I think the Allocation Committee will be able to make a special concession. Again, I suggest to the Member for Chua Chu Kang to take it up with my Senior Parliamentary Secretary.

On the delay in clearance, quite often in the development of the Chua Chu Kang area, the area for military training is very extensive. Again, the HDB new town is also very extensive. And this agro-technology farm, the new farm area, is also very extensive. The farmers do not see this - that because of the very extensive area, the clearance usually takes quite some time. Quite often, from the beginning to the end, development takes several years. Therefore, those people who have been cleared earlier feel that Government have cleared them too early. But, in fact, it is not so, because the development can only take place after the whole area has been cleared, and this takes several years. Therefore, those who have to move out earlier usually feel that the Government purposely chase them out and leave the land idle. That is not the case. Government actually requires the land. But the Resettlement Department can only hand the whole piece of land over to the Redevelopment Authority when the whole extent of the land area has been cleared. 6.00 pm

The Question having been proposed at half-past Five o'clock pm and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at Six o'clock pm.