RESETTLEMENT IN CHUA CHU KANG

Mr Tang See Chim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, resettlement is changing the face of Chua Chu Kang. All farmers in Chua Chu Kang are to be moved out and in their place a new breed of farmers called, I suppose, agrotechnologists, are to move in. Farms in Chua Chu Kang are to be redesignated technological parks. In the process, a great deal of unhappiness is created and a great deal of problems, and the livelihood of a large number of farmers is affected.

Singapore has limited land area. This fact is accepted. We must make the most efficient use of land. This too is not disputed. But what are the criteria for the efficient use of land? Does it necessarily mean that larger farms are more efficient than smaller ones? Even if we do accept this definition that large farms are more efficient than small farms, do we have to turn everybody out of their existing farms and then let out the farms by tender instead of getting existing farmers to combine themselves and form into larger units? Furthermore, existing farmers do not get any special consideration. If, for example, they can meet the criteria set by the Primary Production Department to manage an agrotechnological park and can equal the tender price, they still have to compete with non-farmers on a non-preferential basis. Indeed, it is perceived by the existing farmers that preference is given to outside entrepreneurs rather than the original farmers. This is causing a great deal of unhappiness amongst the farmers in Chua Chu Kang. Added to this general unhappiness are other instances of unhappiness caused by the resettlement process.

A farm is resettled. The farmer is under notice to quit. He is an orchid farmer. He has tens of thousands of pots of orchids. He is told that he can tender for an alternative site to continue his orchid farming. However, the result of the tender would not be known for another two months. In the meantime, he is asked to quit. Where is he going to move all his orchids - tens of thousands of pots of them? He cannot sell them all fast enough and even if he could, what is he going to do if he were successful in tendering for another site?

The Resettlement Department, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, comes under the portfolio of the Minister for National Development. So does the Primary Production Department. Yet there does not seem to be any coordination on the policy of these two departments. Something should be done.

The policy of not allowing a single person to buy a Housing Board flat has been raised in this House many times. There is now a new twist to this policy. A farmer in my constituency owns two farm houses. Both of the houses are acquired by the Government because the land is being resettled. He is prepared to cooperate with the Government. He is a bachelor and has been happily minding his own farm; until now, that is. He does not mind being resettled and giving up his two houses. But he has to have a roof over his head. He applied for the allocation of a flat under the Resettlement Scheme but was told that he was not entitled to one because he is a bachelor and, therefore, has got no family nucleus. He promptly produced his niece who was prepared to stay with him to form a family nucleus. He was told, however, by the Resettlement Department that that was not good enough. An uncle and a niece do not in the eyes of the Resettlement Department form a family nucleus. The poor fellow is frustrated, puzzled, angry and outraged. He just cannot understand why the Government cannot allocate him a flat. He owns two houses, both of which the Government takes away. He only wants a flat in exchange and the Government is denying him that. He sees his neighbours,some of whom do not even own a house of their own, being allocated HDB flats. Yet he cannot get one. He cannot understand why he should be discriminated against.

I am sure you understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the poor fellow's frustration and feelings. I think this is a case where the Ministry sticks too rigidly to the rules, and I submit this is a case in which the Ministry can afford to be flexible. After all, how many cases there are in Singapore where a bachelor owns two houses, both of which are acquired by the Government for development? The Government is under a moral obligation, as I see it, to allocate him a flat even if, under the existing rules, the Government is under no legal obligation to do so.

Another case of unhappiness is where two families are farming on land covered by only one TOL (Temporary Occupation Licence). It appears to be Government policy not to compensate, at farmer's rate, farm structures and other improvements where two farms are covered by only one TOL. There are many instances where two families farm one holding of land with one family having a farm licence and the other family not. Although the other family can satisfy the criteria of being a farmer set by the Primary Production Department and can prove that at the material time he was a farmer farming that particular plot of land yet he is denied compensation at farmer's rate. This is unfair to the farmer and is causing a great deal of unhappiness.

Sir, recently a large number of my constituents living in the Kranji and the Woodlands areas are affected by resettlement. Although the resettlement in this case is not done by the Government, I feel that the Government is under a moral obligation to see to the rehousing of these people. I hope the Minister will look into the matters I have raised here and do something to help my constituents. Thank you.

The Minister for National Development (Mr S. Dhanabalan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to take the points made by the Member for Chua Chua Kang one at a time.

His first point was the complaint from farmers who were resettled - that they are not given some preference over non-farmers when it comes to tendering for farmlands. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think one fact that we must recognize is that many of these farmers on TOL lands are able to subsist because they pay rentals on the land which are well below market rates. But if a number of such small farmers get together and tender for a larger farming unit and their tender is equal to a tender from somebody else who is not a farmer, then it would appear that some preference should be given to these ex-farmers. But we know that in real life it is very seldom the case that two tenders are equal. But if there are such cases and a decision has to be made as to who should be awarded the tender, then certainly the past record of the tenderer, in terms of what he was doing, should be a consideration. I shall ask the Department concerned to give this consideration.

The second point that the Member raised has to do with what he perceives as a lack of coordination between the Resettlement Department and the Primary Production Department. He quoted the example of an orchid farmer who has been asked to quit and who has tendered for another piece of land and is awaiting the tender results but the tender results will come much later after the date by which he is expected to quit his site. Sir, I must emphasise that the need for a site is determined by the particular department that wants the site. If we concede, whether it be a farmer or a shopkeeper, that his resiting or his quitting a particular site should be subject to his success in tendering for another site, then there will be no way of really clearing most of these resettlement cases. For example, I have been told of one farmer in Chua Chu Kang who was asked to quit his land by June 1985 (that is about 1(r) years ago). He has been on the site with one extension after another until the final extension has been given up to 15th January this year, and he has tendered for a site and is awaiting the result of the tender. And he says he should be allowed to stay on the site until the tender results are known. Suppose he is not successful in his tender, then what happens? He tenders for another site and he would ask that he be permitted to remain on that site until the tender results of his second tender are known.

I think the determining factor is not whether that particular farmer or shopkeeper is able to get another site but why is the first site needed. And if the need is such that the farmer has to be cleared, then he has to be cleared. In this particular case that the Member has quoted, I do not know whether the farmer was given sufficient notice and how many extensions have been given. From my experience, even in my own constituency and from other letters that I received, I know that most of these cases involve many many extensions. And when finally the authority concerned is not prepared to give any more extension, then the farmer or the shopkeeper concerned presents the whole thing as a very unfair case where he has been asked to quit, without being given sufficient notice. Very often investigations would reveal that, in fact, many extensions have been given. So I must emphasise that while there is coordination, we cannot coordinate to a point where we appear to give a farmer or any other person the impression that his quitting the site would be determined by whether he is successful for another tender because, the moment that concession is made, then it will be almost impossible to clear site.

The third point that he raised has to do with single persons wanting to buy Housing Board flats. This is a serious point and the Housing and Development Board has always held, quite rightly, to the rule that single persons will not be allocated rental or purchase flats unless they can combine with somebody else. Sir, I think we know that this problem of housing for single persons is going to become an increasing problem in Singapore in the years to come. If we concede that a single person can have a Housing Board flat, then I think we will never be able to build enough flats for Singapore to accommodate everybody who wants a flat. The present policy is to require that a single person combines with another person to rent a flat. And if he is a senior citizen, who is defined as a person over 50 years for males and over 40 years for females, then he can buy a flat with another single person who is not below the age of 21, but the flat must be in the joint names of the two persons. In other words, a senior citizen cannot merely buy in his name and have somebody else staying with him. Two persons who are siblings and whose parents have died can also get together to buy a flat in their joint names if they come under what is known as the Orphan Classification. In other words, if the parents are dead, two siblings, two brothers, or brother and sister, or two sisters, if they want to buy a flat, can buy a flat together in their joint names. In the example of the resettlement case that was quoted by the Member for Chua Chu Kang, perhaps we can consider some flexibility in applying the age criterion if the person is not over 50 years but is being cleared from his house and he is able to combine with somebody else to buy a house. We can consider such an application. I shall ask HDB to look into this. But I think we must not deviate from this requirement that a single person must combine with one other person in order to buy a flat or to rent a flat.

The last point raised by the Member has to do with farmers on temporary occupation licence land. I am informed, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that farmers holding farm licences in their own names are granted ex-gratia compensation at farmer's rate, even if there are a number of such farmers in one holding. In other words, in one TOL if there are two or three families, each one holding a farm licence, then each one will be considered for compensation. The problem arises when we have farmers without a farm licence. What kind of compensation should be given to them? Because of various representations made from MPs, a concession was made that one farmer holding one TOL without a farming licence will still be able to get this ex-gratia compensation provided he satisfies the criteria laid down by the Primary Production Department. The first criterion is that the level of farming activity exceeds the minimum level set up by the Primary Production Department. The second condition is a certification from his MP that he has been engaged in farming activities since 22nd March 1979. As I said, this is a concession to those who have no farm licence. Otherwise they would have been regarded as non-farming squatters and compensated at lower rates. I must emphasise that this ex-gratia compensation is over and above the assessed com- pensation where they assess the farm, the number of trees, plants and all kinds of other improvements to a TOL. That is assessed and compensation is paid for that. This is ex-gratia payment made for each farmer. So this is already a concession. To the person who has no farming licence, we say that for one lot one person with such farming activity without a licence will be considered for ex-gratia payment. Now we are being asked: what if there are more than one, two or three families, all farmers? I think we have to draw the line somewhere. I know it is not acceptable, it may cause difficulties; but we have to draw the line somewhere and I am afraid that, under the existing policy, only one farmer without a farm licence on a TOL will qualify for ex-gratia compensation. Thank you, Sir.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That Parliament do now adjourn.

Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen minutes to Five o'clock pm.