MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1989 TO 31ST MARCH, 1990

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [2nd Allotted Day].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

12.52 pm

Head T (cont.) -

The Chairman: Head T - Ministry of National Development - Amendment No. (4), six minutes. Dr Wong.

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong (Cairnhill): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Code TC 5100 of the Development Estimates.

Firstly, on the Central Expressway. The Minister for National Development may recall that during the debate in the Committee of Supply on the Ministry of National Development on 17th March 1988, I requested the Minister to study the problem of noise pollution, particularly to residents living close to expressways. I have suggested to the Minister that the PWD should send officials to countries like Japan where it is quite common to find noise reflectors placed along expressways running through residential areas so as to reduce the noise pollution. May I ask the Minister if the PWD has so far made any study in reducing the level of noise pollution along expressways and particularly along the Central Expressway, a large portion of which passes through the Cairnhill constituency.

In connection with the Central Expressway, I have two further matters to raise. As a result of the construction of the expressway, the link road from Owen Road to Norfolk Road was closed to vehicular traffic. Consequently, the Pek Kio Community Centre which is situated at Cambridge Road and the Cambridge Road market/hawker centre which is situated at Owen Road are not readily accessible. I have asked the PWD to make the following changes to improve the vehicular traffic system:

(a) open the link road from Owen Road to Norfolk Road, making it an "egress" from Owen Road; and

(b) convert Cambridge Road and the whole of Owen Road into a two-way vehicular traffic system. As the PWD has yet to take action on my request, I would appreciate it if the Minister could look into the matter.

Secondly, I have also mentioned last year that many people will be adversely affected during the course of construction of the Central Expressway. The value of some properties, particularly condominiums, has depreciated considerably as they have lost some common facilities like parking and land for recreational use. Some residents of Cavenagh House, in particular, have approached me for assistance as they have lost not only some of the parking facilities but also the swimming pool. I hope the Minister will consider providing sufficient land for such condominiums to restore their recreational facilities after the completion of the Central Expressway.

My next topic is on traffic lights and underpass systems. Last year, the Member for Radin Mas complained about the large number of traffic lights along Orchard Road which contributed to the frequent traffic jams along the road. He suggested the construction of more pedestrian underpasses or overhead bridges to replace some of the traffic lights. The Minister has replied that he would ask the PWD to completely review the number of traffic lights along Orchard Road. Perhaps as a result of this Ministerial directive the traffic lights near the Orchard Road MRT station that controls pedestrian traffic between Lucky Plaza and Wisma Atria was removed on 13th February this year.

The Minister may realize that as far back as 1985, an underpass linking Lucky Plaza and Orchard Square has already been built at a cost of about $4.2 million by the developers of Lucky Plaza. However, the PWD has not yet opened this underpass to public usage as the balance 10% of civil work has yet to be completed by the PWD or the Orchard Square developer. The danger of pedestrians being knocked down by motorists was highlighted when a woman pedestrian was knocked down by a passing van on 4th March as she was crossing from Wisma Atria to Lucky Plaza. For the sake of public convenience and safety, I hope the Minister can look into this matter and consider restoring the traffic lights at this location until such time when the PWD can open the underpass for public usage.

The Minister of State for National Development (Mr Peter Sung): Sir, I am replying on behalf of my Minister. On noise reflectors. In early 1986 the PWD carried out a comprehensive feasibility study on the use of noise barriers to reduce noise levels along expressways and other major roads. The various types of noise barriers used by other countries, including Japan, were examined. It was found that in the Singapore context of an urban highrise environment, such barriers would have to be very high to be effective in reducing noise. These high barriers would be very obtrusive, besides being very expensive to build. Other control measures have been examined by the authorities and these will include better land use planning to separate residential areas from the roads and legislation on noise emission levels from vehicles.

On linking Owen Road to Norfolk Road and on converting Cambridge Road to two-way. Owen Road would be opened to join Norfolk Road when the CTE is completed. The construction of the Kampong Java to Chin Swee segment of the CTE is still in progress. Therefore, Norfolk Road is required for the diversion of heavy and fast moving traffic from the CTE to Keng Lee Road. At this stretch of the diversion, the road narrows from three lanes to two lanes. Furthermore, the unopened Owen Road joins it after a reverse bend on Norfolk Road. It is therefore not safe to carry out a connection now.

Regarding Dr Wong's comments on Cavenagh House. When private land is unavoidably affected by a public development project, it is acquired and compensated for in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act. I understand it is not Land Office policy to allocate other state land in replacement of private land acquired. In the case of the Central Expressway project, Cavenagh House residents are compensated for the swimming pool and the car parks they lost. The PWD also assisted by building replacement car parks on adjacent state land which the residents can use under a TOL arrangement with the Land Office. Cavenagh Court and Townhouse apartments have their front lawn affected by the project. After the completion of the project, I see no objection to such parts of the land on top of the road tunnels which are not needed for daily operation and maintenance of tunnels to be put to some compatible use. I would suggest that the residents approach the Land Office for its terms and conditions.

Now I turn to the traffic lights along Orchard Road. Following calls by several MPs to reduce the number of traffic lights along Orchard Road, the PWD did a study and subsequently decided to remove the traffic lights and markings at Lucky Plaza. The reason for the removal of the Lucky Plaza crossing has been explained in a letter to the Lucky Plaza Management Corporation. Recent press reports on the removal of the pedestrian crossing across Orchard Road at Lucky Plaza show that many members of the public would like to know why the pedestrian crossing at Lucky Plaza was removed and why it was removed before the underpass across Orchard Road at Lucky Plaza is completed. The PWD is issuing a press statement on this.

I might just highlight that the underpass across Orchard Road is meant to run beneath the existing canal and surface at Lucky Plaza at one end and at the proposed development on the private land owned by Ngee Ann Kongsi at the other. One end of the underpass has already been connected to Lucky Plaza. As the other end of the underpass is on private land, PWD will only be able to open up the underpass for public use after Ngee Ann Kongsi has completed its portion of the underpass. The PWD is discussing the matter with the developer of the site, so that the underpass can be ready by the end of 1990.

The underpass system along Orchard Road (from Scotts Road to Dhoby Ghaut) will eventually comprise five underpasses located at the following places: in front of Dhoby Ghaut MRT Station; in front of Plaza Singapura; in front of Centre Point; in front of Lucky Plaza, and in front of the Orchard Road MRT Station. The Plaza Singapura and Centre Point underpasses have been completed and opened for public use some years ago. The remaining three are expected to be operational as follows: Dhoby Ghaut by mid-1990, Orchard Road by end-1990.

The Chairman: Mr Sung, we have exceeded the time. Dr Wong, can you withdraw your amendment?

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong: Yes, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (5), three minutes.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Code TC 9853049 of the Development Estimates.

May I be allowed to take the next one together because they are both connected?

The Chairman: All right.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Some years ago, Sir, the public was informed that there would be widening of the road from Outram Road end towards the Kallang Road end with eight or 12 lanes. Many parts of the road have been widened together with the re-building of the bridge connecting New Bridge Road and Hill Street. Many of the houses along the road have been acquired by Government and demolished. Nothing has been done, other than that certain parts have been paved with green. Parts of the New Bridge Road and Hill Street have been widened, but parts have been left in the original state with no widening at all. Some of the houses acquired are still there. And with the recent introduction of conservation, many people are very uncertain what Government's intentions really are.

We would like to know, Sir, regarding this stretch of road and the houses, what Government intends to do concerning the earlier proposed widening of the road as well as the still undemolished houses. What plans does the Ministry have regarding those houses? There are many people still having their offices in Hill Street and New Bridge Road. I, myself, happen to have an office over there. All of us would like to know the following. Some are questions I have already asked in the past, but they have never been adequately answered.

(1) If the premises have been acquired by the the Government, and sitting tenant is the past owner, will the Government release the premises back to the past owner for renovation?

(2) Though the houses are all rent-controlled, will rent be increased after renovation by the Government?

(3) If the tenants are forced to vacate the premises by the Government, will they be given really adequate time, not just a few months but at least a year or two, to look for suitable alternative business premises?

We hope the Minister will be able to enlighten us.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Chairman, Sir, first of all, I think Dr Lee is misleading the House by saying that nothing has been done with all the properties that have been acquired. If anybody travels down from Outram Road right up to Coleman Bridge, he will notice that much of the road widening has already been done. The portion between Coleman Bridge and Coleman Street which has already been constructed has not been opened because we need to widen the bridge first. This would mean, that is, after the bridge is completed, that the road widening from Outram Road right up to Coleman Street would have been completed, and this will be a two-way arterial road. Traffic studies show that we do need such a major road through that part of the city. The traffic will be flowing in both directions. I think it is four lanes in each direction. And as I said, the road would have been completed from Outram Road right up to Coleman Street.

I think it is the stretch between Coleman Street and Stamford Road that is of particular interest to Dr Lee because Eu Court building is at the junction of Stamford Road and Hill Street, and Dr Lee has a clinic there. For this part, PWD is looking at two options. One option is to widen the stretch from Coleman Street to Stamford Road which will require the demolition of Eu Court. The other alternative is to opt for a passage through Armenian Street towards Queen Street, so that we have one direction going east towards Victoria Street and another going west towards New Bridge Road. As soon as a decision is made, work will start.

As far as Eu Court is concerned, most of the tenants have moved out. There is a proposal to conserve Eu Court. But we are not sure whether it is something that we should proceed with. But in any case, the redevelopment of that whole area which comprises Eu Court and Stamford House need not be done immediately. But there is a need to spruce up the place, renovate it up to a certain point so that it can be rented out temporarily until, maybe, in five or six years' time when we need to redevelop the whole area. So it is that kind of temporary work that is proceeding at the present moment. And when it is completed, we will rent out the premises in Eu Court. Those who are still tenants in Eu Court are there on TOL rentals. The whole of Eu Court has already been acquired by the Government and those who are on TOL rentals would have to move for the renovations to take place.

Whether sitting tenants who are past owners will have their properties reverted to them is a question that Dr Lee raised. The answer is no. The whole of Eu Court has been acquired. Those who are tenants there, whether they are past owners or not, are at present paying TOL rentals and TOL terms are quite clear. They are month-to-month and I think the rentals are very low. For example, I think in the case of the two premises that Dr Lee's clinic occupies, the rent is in the region of $400-odd per month. When we need to renovate these premises, the present tenants will have to move out. Whether the tenants will qualify for compensation will depend upon the particulars of the case. They will be treated the same as other resettlement tenants. And if they do qualify, they will get the normal resettlement benefits.

As to whether they will be given enough time, I think they have known for a long time now that they will have to move out. Everybody in the building has moved out, except very few who are on the ground floor, who will be given notice soon. Maybe a few months may be possible, but I do not think as long as a two-year period would be allowed because that will hold up the whole renovation work.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, can I seek a clarification from the Minister?

The Chairman: Mr Chiam, we have run out of time. Dr Lee, would you withdraw your amendment?

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Yes, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (7), 5 minutes.

Mr Teo Chong Tee: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Code TD 1500 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, I am speaking on the Parks Programme of the Parks and Recreation Department.

Singapore, although small, has many big beautiful parks all over the island. The bigger ones near the beaches are Pasir Ris Beach Park, Changi Beach, East Coast Park, just to name a few.

The Parks and Recreation Department must be commended for providing and maintaining these parks not only to meet the needs of our young and old citizens but also to enhance the environment with added greeneries to the, otherwise, dull and monotonous concrete highrise buildings nearby.

During weekends and public holidays, large number of people go for their outdoor activities - some in organized groups, others in families or individuals. The senior citizens go for their morning or evening strolls. Some are practising Tai Chi or Qi Gong. Others jog around while some hold barbeque parties or even fly kites. In fact, there is a variety of healthy activities.

All this goes on well when the weather is fine. But we know that Singapore's weather is unpredictable. It shines at one moment and rains heavily at the next. When it rains, most people are often caught scrambling around, looking for shelters in the park. Some people even squeeze themselves in telephone booths for shelter. Many others, including senior citizens and young children, are often drenched if there is not a shelter nearby where they can take refuge.

I observe that there is inadequate or lack of shelters in some of our parks. I would like to request the Parks and Recreation Department to consider providing more shelters in our parks for people. The shelters, of course, can be designed and constructed to blend with the surroundings. I hope the Hon. Minister will look into this matter.

Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC): ( In Mandarin): Sir, I fully agree with what Mr Teo said just now. I would complement by saying that if we want to build a gracious society with a gracious life, then we should within the constraints of land, find ways and means to build and improve our parks and recreational facilities to create a gracious environment, because in a society like Singapore where the pace of life is very hectic, parks and recreational facilities in natural landscape will provide soothing environment for our relaxation after a day's work. Therefore, I would like to know whether the Ministry has any plans to open up new parks around the Housing Board estates to help Singapore progress towards a more gracious society.

Another question is, apart from the parks in the Housing Board estates, whether more parks and other recreational facilities will be developed around Singapore.

I also want to know whether the Singapore River banks will be developed into a belt for relaxation and recreation with fishing, barbecue facilities, pavilions and camping sites so that our young and old can go there to relax themselves, enjoying a truly gracious life.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, except for Changi Beach Park, all regional parks have shelters. I understand that there are 68 shelters in East Coast Park and 15 in Pasir Ris Park. But I understand the problem that the Member for Changi brought up, that during the weekends when there are big crowds in these parks and when it rains, the shelters are not sufficient to cater for such big crowds. We will be building additional shelters in both Pasir Ris as well as elsewhere and these shelters will be tastefully designed to blend with the environment. But it is not possible to build sufficient shelters to cater for the peak time visitors to parks. Anybody who has been to some of these parks in the weekends knows that it is very very crowded and if it rains, many people do get wet. But it is just not possible to provide enough shelters for all. If we do, then I think these places will cease being parks.

As far as new parks are concerned, yes, HDB will continue to provide neighbourhood parks and town gardens in all HDB new towns based on the new planning norms. Presently, one neighbourhood park is provided per neighbourhood which consists of between 4,000 and 6,000 dwelling units. In addition, a town garden is also provided and this, of course, is on a larger scale.

As far as the Singapore River is concerned, it is not possible to provide along the Singapore River banks the same kind of facilities that we provide in some of the parks. In other words, we cannot have camping ground, barbecue pits and so on. But we do intend to landscape and provide pleasant walkways with trees and with enough seating arrangements so that the public can enjoy the sights along the River. There is also a plan to introduce certain recreational activities on the River itself, such as fishing, canoeing and other water related activities. With these, I think the Singapore River will become a very pleasant place for Singaporeans to go to.

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

Mr Teo Chong Tee: Mr Speaker, Sir, before I withdraw my amendment, I just want to find out from the Hon. Minister as to why the Changi Beach Park has not been provided with any shelters.

Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, I can assure the Member that shelters will be provided at Changi Beach Park. As to why they have not been provided to date, I really cannot give him the details.

Mr Teo Chong Tee: Anyway, I am quite satisfied with his answer. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Code TE 1500 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, Singapore is a small country with a high density population and very little land. One of the main factors that contributed to our successful development in the past two decades was the proper planning and use of our limited land. The Ministry of National Development and the Planning Department have indeed done a very good job. My purpose in moving this amendment is therefore not to find fault with the Ministry, but to take this opportunity to seek some information and clarifications on some of the important issues regarding land use and planning policy, in particular the future direction and trends.

According to the Planning Act, the Master Plan has to be reviewed every five years. The last review was done in 1985. The next one is due in 1990. 1989, therefore, is the year the Ministry has to make preparations for a new Master Plan. I would like to know whether there will be any major changes in the planning policy, long-term plan or the concept plan related to our land use.

Last year the Ministry made public part of the draft Master Plan as well as a number of development guide plans. These include the plans for the urban waterfront, the civic and cultural district and the historic district. I suppose these will form part of the new Master Plan. Perhaps the Minister would be able to brief the House on the policy and general direction of the overall planning and land use for the next five years.

Sir, there are a number of specific questions I would like to ask the Minister. First, on land reclamation. Land reclamation has been successful in providing us with additional land areas in some parts of Singapore. Some of these areas have already been put to good use. The question is: have we reached the limit of reclamation? How much more land can we expect to get from reclamation?

My next question is on road transportation. Our road and expressway network has been greatly expanded during the past two decades. Apparently, one of these days there will be no more land available to build roads and expressways. My question is: when will we reach this limit? And what can be done after that?

My next question is on the implementation of concept plan. Successful implementation of a plan depends on good coordination of all parties who are concerned. There are many examples in which the various parties concerned have not been able to work at the same pace or keep to the same schedule. Take, for instance, the development of Yishun New Town. The physical concept plan of the New Town is very nice. There is this town centre surrounded by eight neigh- bourhoods which are linked by the Ring Road. The town centre is supposed to be the hub of the New Town where most of the public, social and community services are to be found. Adjacent to the New Town is an industrial belt meant for marine related industries which are supposed to provide the jobs for the residents. It would be wonderful if all are completed on schedule. The actual situation today after 10 years of development is that there are 45,000 flats completed with 150,000 residents living in Yishun. And that is 5.6% of the total population of Singapore. To put it in other words, 1 in every 18 Singaporeans lives at Yishun. And there is still no town centre. The central services such as cinema, department stores, supermarkets, library, polyclinic are not there. There is only the bus interchange and the town garden. Luckily, the completion of the MRT last December came as a rescue. At least, for the time being, residents can take the MRT to Ang Mo Kio or downtown to the library, cinema or to go shopping.

As for the land reserved for development of marine industries, nothing has happened. I do not know why the development of the town centre is so much out of place with the other development of the New Town. But I suppose it was not planned to be that way. Perhaps the Minister can look into this type of problems so that there will be better coordination among the various parties in future development projects.

Dr Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang): ( In Mandarin): Sir, the farmland in Singapore would be decreased from 3,300 hectares in 1987 to 2,000 hectares in 1995. Will the trend continue after 1995? According to projections, 30% of these farmlands in 1995 will be devoted to cash crops such as the growing of orchids and aquarium fish and others. When we are constrained by limited land and dependent of import of foodstuff, should we not make use of these farmlands for the growing of food crops? With the decrease of arable land we become more dependent on foreign sources for our food. Moreover, by the end of the year, our pig farming is to be phased out. This will bring about certain problems to Singapore. How can we ensure the hygienic condition of imported meat meeting our specified standard? During an emergency when our supply is cut, how are we going to distribute and allocate the limited locally supplied foodstuffs such as eggs and meat so that there may not be panic or rush for the scarce supplies?

The reservoir catchment areas take up quite a chunk of land. I would like to know whether the Government would allow the land to be used for fish and prawn farming, without the quality of reservoir water supply being affected.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak at some length on the policy and general planning for land use in Singapore. But before I do so, may I take some of the other points raised by the two Members.

First of all, on land reclamation. We are coming close to the end of land reclamation, though there is still some more that can be done in the Changi/East Coast areas. In the immediate future, there will be some reclamation in Changi. We have not decided exactly to what extent we should do that because we still have not been able to find economic interim use for some of the land that we have already reclaimed. Although the sea contour would allow some further reclamation, we have not decided yet whether we should proceed with such reclamation immediately. There will also be some reclamation along Woodlands for the expansion of the Checkpoint, but these are fairly minor reclamations.

The Member for Nee Soon South also mentioned about the limits that we have reached on the development of roads. I think Members would be interested to know that about 10% of the land in Singapore is used for transportation. This will be roads, car parks, MRT and so on. And the total land occupied by housing, both private and public, is just over 10%. So transportation already occupies as much land as housing. And as the Member pointed out, we are coming very close to the limit and that is why we need to have very stringent policies to curb the growth of cars in Singapore and among them is, of course, the high price of cars. So one should not be surprised if cars in Singapore are among the most expensive in the world. We just cannot afford to build more roads because such roads can only be built at the expense of other facilities that we need for Singaporeans.

There are still some major roads to be completed. Part of the expressway system running through the north of the island is still in the planning stage. But when that ring is completed, one would be able to travel from Pasir Ris northwards right up to Woodlands, connect on to Kranji and down to Jurong. But that is not in the near future. That system has already been planned. The land has already been reserved and it will be built as and when we can justify the need for such roads. But apart from that, there is a definite limit as to the number of roads or the widening of roads that we can undertake within the city.

The Member for Nee Soon South also mentioned that he is rather disappointed with the lack of coordination in Yishun where the New Town Centre has been very slow in being built. I will certainly ask HDB to try and do better coordination. But there is a problem here because many of the new town facilities cannot be built and cannot be rented out or sold until there is a population. At the same time I do also realize that people cannot be expected to move in to these new areas without sufficient facilities. So what the HDB has done is basically to build in the first instance the neighbourhood centres which provide basic shopping facilities and some recreational facilities like neighbourhood parks and in some cases sport centres and so on. Even with the best coordination in the world, it is not possible for people who move into a new town to expect to enjoy all the facilities that they will require right from day one. It takes some time for a town to mature. But to the extent that we can increase or we can do better coordination we shall certainly do so and I will ask HDB to look into this matter.

Now I come to the more broad subject of the policy and general planning for land use. The Member has touched upon the Master Plan and the Concept Plan. In order to ensure that we use our land in Singa- pore optimally, we need to have a clear, rational and far-sighted planning policy. To do this we have a hierarchy of plans. At the highest level, which is the most broad plan, we have the Concept Plan, which is the long term land use plan for Singapore and the development plan looking at our land requirements for the next 20 to 30 years. This Concept Plan was first drawn up in 1970 and has served as a guide for the planning of our new towns, our industrial estates, the redevelopment of our central business district, the construction of our expressways, the MRT and the recreation parks. It was a plan for the basic physical infrastructure of our city. With the completion of many of the new towns as well as the expressways, the MRT and the city centre, most of the vision that was envisaged in the Concept Plan has now been put in place. So right now the Ministry is reviewing the plan to provide us with a fresh guide to realize our vision of Singapore in the 21st century.

The new Concept Plan will have to take a different focus from the earlier ones for three basic reasons. Firstly, the urbanization rate must slow down, both as a result of our maturing economy as well as the inescapable reality that we simply do not have enough land to sustain the same rate of building as in the past 10 or 20 years. Secondly, with public sector expenditure slowing down in areas like land reclamation, public housing, road construction and MRT, the private sector would begin to assume much greater importance in land development. Thirdly, and perhaps this is the most important point, as Singaporeans grow more affluent they will aspire towards a better quality of life. They do not just want a mere roof over their head; they want something of quality. The physical environment is a very important component of this sense of quality. We are proud of our clean, green and efficient city. But I am sure that we all would like the Singapore of the 21st Century to be one of the great cities of the world, perhaps the first developed city in the equatorial belt. There are other great cities but they are not on the equatorial belt. And this poses a problem for us because we have to chart our own way. We have to blaze our own trail. Many of the things that are done in the temperate countries cannot be done here. We have to experiment and find out for ourselves what will work here. We do not have a great developed city in the equator that we can learn from and we have to pay the cost of learning it on our own. We want a city which is throbbing with life and vitality, with well-designed buildings, plazas, promenades and parks. This is what we will tackle in the review of the Concept Plan. We have already completed our initial assessment of our land needs up to the year 2030 when our population based on national growth is expected to peak at around 3.4 million.

Our assessment is that we will have enough land to ensure that Singaporeans can enjoy a high standard of living and provide for all the needs such as housing, industry, commerce, recreation, transport and so on, provided we adopt a few important strategic principles in our use of land. I have mentioned in the past some of these principles and I think it is worthwhile to repeat them.

Firstly, we must be prepared to use capital and technology to minimize land use by encouraging, for example, the development of agrotechnology parks in place of the traditional farming. And by investing more in environmental control technology to minimize land buffer requirements for pollutive activities. In other words, we cannot adopt the kind of technology that others have found relevant and acceptable. We have to do more. If we have an incinerator we must be prepared to invest a lot in the incinerator to ensure that we keep pollution to the minimum so that the buffer zone around the incinerator can be kept to the minimum. Countries which have large tracts of land can afford to have lower standards because their buffer zone can be much bigger. We cannot afford that.

Secondly, we have to adopt an integrated approach in the planning of our facilities. For example, instead of schools, community centres and sport complexes, each one having a field, and duplicating recreational facilities, we have to plan recreational facilities in such a way that all three institutions can use them at different times. This will require, for example, schools to be constructed and planned in such a way that the school buildings can be secured from the recreational facilities so that after school hours the schools can be locked up and those who use the recreational facilities cannot have access to the school. So we have to adopt a different approach to share facilities to get the maximum out of our land.

Thirdly, we need to plan for contingencies. We need to take a prudent approach to land use. We cannot allocate land according to our present use or present projections. These projections can go wrong and often do go wrong because no one can foretell the future with precision. It means that we have to keep a certain percentage of land in reserve. Though we work on the basis of a 3.4 million population, we must plan on a contingency of an increase beyond that. So having such reserve land gives us the option to seize new opportunities should they arise.

The Chairman: Mr Dhanabalan, we are running behind time.

Mr Dhanabalan: Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I will be prepared to take some time off from some of the other cuts. If you will bear with me, I will finish in a few moments.

Finally, we must review our current plan to compensate with quality what we cannot afford in size. The focus must be on quality. We must have well-designed flats with excellent finishes, outfittings, public spaces and so on, instead of bigger and bigger flats. At the same time instead of having large parks which are less accessible, we must think in terms of pocket parks within the city which can be used by more people.

The Concept Plan review will be completed sometime next year and we will be holding a public seminar to solicit the views of interested Singaporeans before we finalize the plan.

The Concept Plan is one stage. The next stage is what we call the DGP (Development Guide Plan). These are statements of our planners' vision and objective for a particular area. These will show how land can be used and the intensity to which they can be developed. We are now working on about a dozen DGPs. We have already released to the public the DGPs for the Civic and Cultural District and also the Kallang Marina Urban Waterfront Master Plans. There are other DGPs for Orchard Road, for Central Business District and other areas in Singapore which are now in the course of being prepared. They will again be publicized. We will call for public views before finalizing the plans. The idea of these DGPs is to translate the broad objectives and policies of the Concept Plan into specific plans for specific areas.

There is an important change in the approach in the planners which I think I should emphasize to the Members. We want planners not to consider themselves as mere enforcers of development control rules. We want them to be facilitators of private development. In this process we want to get as much feedback as possible from the public when we work out our DGPs for specific areas. In the course of the next year or so, we will be making public the DGPs for specific areas and I would call upon all interested Singaporeans to participate actively in formulating DGPs which will give us a good city.

The Chairman: I would like to remind Members that in drawing up the guillotine time I have taken into consideration the need to have a reasonable break before 3.00 pm and we are now running behind schedule.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Chairman, Sir, I just realize that there was one point I did not cover and that is the question of agriculture. I will just say a few sentences. Sir, we will make better use of land for agriculture but it is not possible to be self-sufficient. We will try to be more self-sufficient and the agrotechnology parks that I mentioned is one way of making better use of agricultural land.

The Chairman: Dr Koh, you have to withdraw your amendment.

Dr Koh Lip Lin: Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply and I beg to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (9), Mr Shanmugam. Six minutes.

Mr K. Shanmugam (Sembawang GRC): Sir, I believe I was to have spoken on a matter of policy by making a $100 cut but, with your indulgence, I will speak on the same topic by moving,

That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Code TG 5100 of the Development Estimates.

Sir, I wish to say a few words on payment of Resettlement Compensation. In the few months that I have been an MP and handled resettlement cases, particularly in the Sembawang/Yishun area, it appears to me that in the payment of resettlement compensation a somewhat technical attitude is being taken in considering whether or not a particular case falls within the definition chosen. I wish to illustrate my point by one, perhaps extreme, example.

One of my constituents had a stall, a structure anyway, in what appeared to be a market area. The place was subject to resettlement. Everyone was asked to vacate and most were paid their compensation. But he was not. He has been trying since 1986 to get his compensation. His point was simple. Everybody else had received their compensation, "Why not me?" It appears that he was denied his compensation because the structure that he had was not classified as a shop by the acquiring authority. When I took up the matter, I asked him, "Give me some evidence as to what exactly you had?" So he produced lots of photographs, photographs of all the people who received the compensation, their structures compared to his structure. To me there seemed to be little or no difference. And he produced his income tax records, his Registry of Companies' register showing that he was operating a shop selling market produce like everybody else.

So I started a long series of correspondence saying, "This is a case where it appears that he was running a shop, why was he not getting paid?" The usual replies were, "Well, this is not a shop." After about two or three times of that sort of correspondence, I thought, perhaps somewhat naively, that maybe if I asked for the definition of what a shop is I could tackle the problem at the root. So I wrote a letter asking, "Can you please let me know what is the definition of a shop, and then I might be able to convince you that this is a shop and perhaps he can get his resettlement compensation?" Back came a reply from the acquiring authority, which is not the HDB in this case. (The HDB comes in later.) It is probably a classic. It is a long letter. But the crux of it is, "It is fairly confidential. We cannot tell you what the definition of a shop is but we can tell you that this is not a shop. This is a stall." To my mind, the difference between a shop and a stall is really quite fine, not to say of a person who feels that he has been denied of just compensation. But the acquiring authority, in this case JTC, was kind enough to direct me and say, "Well, it is a uniform definition. We cannot tell you what the definition is but if you wish, please take it up with the Ministry of National Development, which sets down the criteria and which appears to be some sort of a secret." So I have written to the Ministry of National Development. They have not had the time to look at it because it was only one or two weeks ago that I wrote.

But the point I am making really is that resettlement is being done for a social cause. People are being moved to make way for progress. They may have stayed there for generations and when they are moved, many of them are not able to adapt to a new circumstance. They have difficulties in adapting and we as a society must do what we can to help them, and that situation does not appear to be one where you take a technical legalistic interpretation and draw fine lines between stalls and shops and between where you have a zinc structure which is attached to the ground and where you have a zinc structure which is not attached to the ground. I would suggest, particularly as this appears to be a dwindling problem now because most of the resettlement has been done, that a somewhat generous attitude towards resettlement compensation can be taken.

Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, I am very pleasantly surprised that a lawyer is advising us not to take a legalistic approach because I thought that is how lawyers make their living!

Sir, most resettlement cases are settled fairly easily. In fact, in Chong Pang, 95% of the cases have been settled. It is only when there are specific problems, either no documentary evidence or other such cases that problems arise. I do not know why the definition of a shop should be a top secret. I shall certainly ask my officials. As the Member said, he has just written to us about a week ago on this particular case and we will look at it.

A general approach is that there is a list of criteria for compensation - criteria as to who would be eligible for compensation and a table on how compensations are worked out. Those that fall within the criteria and the table, of course, are settled very quickly. It is those who do not fall within these criteria and there is a significant minority who do not, that suffer delays because we have to do further investigations. In the course of such investigations I am not surprised that we have this rather odd case of somebody who claims to be a shop but is not able to satisfy the Ministry because he does not know what the definition of a shop is as far as the Ministry is concerned. As far as the particular case is concerned, we will look into it, as the Member has already written to us.

Mr Shanmugam: Sir, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (10), 42 minutes. Mr Ng Pock Too.

Mr Ng Pock Too: I am not moving.

Dr S. Vasoo (Tiong Bahru GRC): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Code TI 5200 of the Development Estimates.

Sir, about 40% of the 25,000 HDB flats in Tiong Bahru GRC are 1- and 2-room flats. It is unique in comparison with other GRCs and the relocation programmes over the past few years have brought a tremendous impact on the social and business life in the community. The shops are seriously affected in terms of business and many of the shopkeepers feel that they are not doing well and are running at a loss. In respect of this situation, I am suggesting to the Ministry to consider giving rental rebates for those shophouses that are currently facing serious problems as a result of the relocation programme in the area.

My second point is that the remaining residents living in the 1- and 2-room flats in the Tiong Bahru GRC are concerned whether a sufficient number of 1- and 2-room flats will be retained because many of them who are still there are unable to purchase flats. I wish to know also whether HDB will actively consider retaining some of the blocks for those residents who are old and who do not have CPF savings to purchase HDB flats.

Thirdly, Sir, the facilities in the estate itself are inadequate and to some extent inappropriate to meet the needs of the older residents in the constituency. There are insufficient ramps and the steps in the estate are steep. The other public facilities do not meet the needs of older residents. One of the pressing problems is that in blocks which are five-storeys high there are no lifts to serve aged residents. With the growing number of older residents living in these blocks, will the Ministry consider installing lifts in these blocks to give the older residents better mobility.

Finally, Sir, Tiong Bahru GRC has one of the oldest SIT flats and many of these flats have undergone heavy wear and tear. The roofs are leaking badly because the flats were built about 35 years ago. Could the Ministry actively look into how these very old pioneering public housing properties could be conserved and prevented from further deterioration.

Encik Ibrahim Othman (Bedok GRC): Sir, I wish to seek clarification from the Minister for National Development with regard to the policy on wet markets. I am made to understand that the Government is not building any new wet market in new towns and in its place we have many new premises for dry markets. However, Sir, I wish to urge the Minister to reconsider this policy, especially in cases of redevelopment of old HDB estates. One example I wish to put forward is the wet market at Bedok GRC, ie, the wet market in Kampong Chai Chee. This wet market is very popular amongst residents in Chai Chee and the surrounding areas. Many of the residents are upset when they hear that it is to be demolished because of redevelopment of the neighbourhood.

Sir, a wet market is still needed by our people. As such, I wish to urge the Minister to consider building a new wet market within the vicinity to replace the one that is to be demolished soon.

The second matter I wish to bring up concerns lifts. I wish to ask the Minister if the HDB will replace the old lifts with new ones, say, after six to eight years. Replacing or repairing lifts is very expensive. I hope the HDB will do the repair and replacement before they hand the estate over to the town councils. This will help the town councils in that they will not have to spend a lot of money to replace old lifts in the HDB estates under their control.

I hope the Minister will consider my suggestions.

Mr Leong Horn Kee (Thomson): Sir, I also wish to raise with the Minister certain points concerning HDB estates and HDB facilities. First, like Encik Ibrahim Othman, I would like to raise the point about wet markets. I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government will reconsider building new wet markets again. In large new HDB estates where there are no wet markets, this is a problem for many residents. An example is in Thomson constituency, there is a large new estate called Bishan East where there are over 100 blocks of flats, now almost fully occupied, with about 8,000 households and there is no wet market in this town. For such an estate, there is a big demand by residents for a wet market.

In principle, I would like to say that I suport the Government's move to introduce dry markets. But the actual implementation is much to be desired. There are many dry markets which function like a mini wet market. They are equally congested, equally wet and equally disorganized. Many of the stalls are just like what you see in the wet market, ie, small stalls selling meat, fish and vegetables. They are like wet markets. So what is the improvement to the standard of living in Singapore if we allow the dry market to function like a wet market? Could the Minister, first of all, try to reconsider whether we should rethink this concept of not having wet markets, and if it is possible, to build wet markets in new large HDB estates? If it is not possible, at least to implement some rules and regulations on how dry markets should be operated. They should be more efficiently organized and be opened for the whole day. As it is now, many of them are open just like the wet markets, ie, open only in the morning which is not convenient for the young working families who have to do their marketing in the evenings.

Next is the point on improvement in the HDB estates. I would like to ask the Minister to consider some ideas I have here. First, whether he would look into providing rock gardens or such improvement, to the void decks in our HDB flats. Very often, the void deck is entirely void, there is nothing in it. Could we at least, as the Minister has said, improve the quality of life of our HDB residents by providing something to beautify the place, eg,a rock garden or provide a small corner which is comfortable for the residents to get together.

The second point is whether the HDB can find certain plots of land around the HDB blocks where they can be given to residents to set up a garden. The residents can form a gardening club to plant some flowers, fruits, vegetables, whatever they feel like doing, under the Residents Committee's management.

An hon. Member: Chicken farm.

Mr Leong Horn Kee: Not chicken farm, please. The last area, Sir, is also about lifts in HDB blocks. I feel that we have reached a level where our quality of life, is such that, even in HDB flats, we should consider having lifts that can stop at every floor. At the moment, we have lifts that stop in every alternate floor. This creates a lot of problems for residents. The old will find it hard to move up and down the stairs. The disabled also find it difficult for them to move around. They are confined to their flats because they cannot move out of the house and go down the lifts. Similarly, the old people find that taking the lift is a problem. If the lift serves every floor, you can at least improve the quality of life of our residents. I would like to ask the Minister to consider this on two counts. For all new HDB flats in the future, the HDB should consider building lifts that can serve every floor. Then in the replacement of old HDB lifts, whether the HDB could restructure the lifts, such that the new lifts will now serve every floor.

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights): Sir, I would like to echo the call by my two colleagues to urge the Minister to review the policy of not building any more wet markets and also cooked food centres in new towns.

Serangoon New Town is one of such new town without a wet market and cooked food centre. Perhaps the experience of the residents in this new town is useful for the review. From the feedback I have gathered from my house-to-house visits, residents usually complain that, first of all, the dry market has very limited space, limited stalls and limited choice. Secondly, the prices in these dry markets are higher as compared to wet markets. This is because the rental charged by the stall owners is higher. Thirdly, the Muslim residents in this new town find it particularly inconvenient because there are very few Muslim stalls, both in the mini-mart or so-called dry market and coffeeshops. One of the reasons is that Muslims usually find the rental of a space in a coffeeshop too high and not affordable to them. I would urge the Minister to review the policy.

Mr Chew Heng Ching (Eunos GRC): Sir, I have three amendments. Can I take the three amendments together?

The Chairman: You should do that.

Mr Chew Heng Ching: Sir, the HDB has this programme to repair ceilings of flats affected by spalling concrete. The problem is common in older estates, for example, parts of the Eunos GRC, and I believe that this repair programme, which commenced last year, is expected to last five years. It is a goodwill gesture on the part of the HDB and indeed a laudable one. Owners of flats with this problem appreciated the efforts by HDB.

Sir, the impression gathered is that the repair work will be done only to those cases reported to the HDB before a certain cut-off date. If this is the case, then owners who have not reported their cases to HDB are not aware of this programme. And they did not report the cases because they believed that after the first year of occupation, HDB is not responsible for any defects. In order to be fair and ensure that every flat owner does not miss this opportunity, perhaps HDB should publicize this programme more. May I ask the Minister how the HDB proposes to publicize this programme and how it proposes to go about identifying flats with this problem?

The next subject relates to the recent streamlining of functions of HDB area offices and branch offices. Sir, the recent streamlining functions to prepare for the running of housing estates by town councils has caused some confusion as reported in the press. Residents are confused as to the role of area offices vis-a-vis branch offices. Even when things are back to normal, in perhaps one or two months' time, I think the recent restructuring exercise could result in greater inconvenience to residents when they pay their charges to HDB. Take the case of Eunos GRC, which is a huge constituency when compared to an average constituency. It spans from Bedok North, which encompasses Kaki Bukit Constituency, to Bedok Reservoir; and all the way north to Tampines North, as far as Pasir Ris New Town. The former HDB Bedok North area office which serves Kaki Bukit and Bedok Reservoir residents have been relocated to an area outside the GRC, in Tampines East. Residents from Kaki Bukit and Bedok Reservoir have to take at least two buses to reach that office.

Sir, we are aware that the HDB encourages residents to pay their charges through Giro and by post. But not all residents are used to Giro and not all residents have chequing accounts. Moreover, I am aware that many families use elderly members of their family to go to area offices to make their payments. So this recent relocation programme greatly inconveniences some of these families.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he has any plan to try to resolve some of these problems. Would he consider setting up more than one collection centre in each constituency, particularly in a big GRC like Eunos GRC? In other words, consider setting up collection centres in each of the three zones of Eunos GRC - one in Kaki Bukit, one in Bedok Reservoir, and one in Tampines North which could be the main Area Office. These centres could be open, say, a week in a month within restricted hours for payment of current charges.

The last topic concerns application for HDB flats. I am asking the Minister whether he would review the current income ceiling of $4,000 for eligibility to purchase an HDB flat. I believe the current ceiling was set some years ago, as far back as 1984 or 1985. Following the economic recovery in 1986, wages have indeed gone up. Singaporeans were able to enjoy about 5-8% wage increase per year in the last two to three years. Moreover, with current market conditions, a young graduate after working for one or two years could easily earn $2,000 per month. And with this trend towards graduates marrying graduates, professionals marrying professionals, I think the combined family income could easily reach $4,000 a month. To buy a private apartment or a house is beyond the reach of these people because prices of private properties have also risen very rapidly in the last one to two years. Sir, perhaps it is time that the Minister reviews the income ceiling for HDB applicants.

Encik Wan Hussin bin Haji Zoohri (Aljunied GRC): Mr Chairman, Sir, we know that Singaporeans are very proud of the HDB's achievements. From 1960 to 1988, it has built houses for 86% of our population. But in spite of these achievements and expertise over these years, and these are internationally acknowledged, we do hear reports of defects in certain housing estates. Earlier, the Senior Minister of State gave an answer to my question about the extensive defects or bad workmanship in Ubi Avenue neighbourhood.

Sir, I concede that the HDB is moving towards improving this. I am happy to know that the HDB has already a system called the Construction Quality Control System. This is a system which ensures that buildings and facilities are built with zero defects. Again, the HDB has tried this system in two housing estates, namely, Bishan and Yishun. This pilot project is successful and they are extending this to other estates. In addition to this, HDB also has what is known as the Materials Inspectorate Unit. This unit, I am told, ensures that the materials supplied meet HDB standards.

But even with these checks in place, one wonders how such defects do exist from time to time. My suspicion is that perhaps this is due to the lack of close supervision. If so, then would not the HDB consider revamping or, if not, setting up a permanent Building Supervisory Unit or Inspectorate? We have heard the previous speaker mention that perhaps this Unit could have a random inspection of units even after it has passed the time limit of one year, because sometimes, as in Ubi Avenue Estate, these defects, on a massive scale, did occur after the time limit of one year. And in this way, Sir, the defects will be detected early and residents need not be inconvenienced unnecessarily. It would be a pity, Sir, for HDB's good image to be marred by these occasional defects in these flats.

My next point is the question of HDB vacant lands. Quite often, MPs submit parliamentary questions pertaining to the future use of these vacant lands. This prompts me to ask the Minister concerned whether there is any clear-cut policy on the future use of these vacant lands. I have, Sir, in my Kampong Ubi division of Aljunied GRC few vacant lands which have not been developed for more than four years. It strikes me as something odd that the department cannot make up its mind after these years. Perhaps the Minister could give a definite answer or have a definite time limit. If any land is not to be used for a few years, perhaps he could accede to the request of the MP concerned for an alternative use of such vacant lands for the benefit of residents.

Here, I would like to make a request to the Minister that he should convert such vacant lands into playing areas or mini-football fields. I say this because very often you notice children playing football under the void decks. Sir, this is because there are no vacant lands in the vicinity for them to play. If they play in these vacant lands, they will be chased away. Children, being what they are, love playing football. I am sure the Minister who is himself a very good sportsman will appreciate this. I still remember, Sir, how enjoyable it was to kick rubber balls with other children in the open spaces in the kampungs. Unlike the children of yesteryears, there are no natural greenery or landscape for them to catch spiders and there are no natural drains or canals for them to catch fighting fish. What they have are ample void decks. Can we blame them, Sir, if they vent their youthful energies on playing football under these void decks?

So, may I urge the Minister to re-examine this policy on the future use of these vacant lands and, where feasible, to convert them into mini-playing fields for these children. Sir, I think a little money spent on these plots will certainly bring much happiness to these children.

Mr Peh Chin Hua: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to raise the issue on the selling of shophouses through tender by HDB.

The selling of shophouses through tender by HDB has made the small shopkeepers in the housing estates very worried and at a loss as to what to do. They feel that the tender amount of $250,000 to $400,000 is much too high. In the case of coffee shops and eating houses, the tender amount can be as high as $1 million. Therefore, the shopkeepers are worried that when the open tender system is extended to all the Housing Board estates, with their limited capital and small business turnover, they cannot afford to pay such high prices and eventually may have to close down their business; thus affecting their livelihood. May I ask the HDB to consider the problems faced by these shopkeepers, and I hope the Minister will clarify whether it will be implemented throughout all the estates.

I would also like to ask the Minister whether he can consider allowing private developers to build shopping centres in the estate to replace the existing open tender system by HDB.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: I would like to speak on the capital grants to HDB. The Budget Analysis and Review in one paragraph (Page 611) mentions two things. One is the allocation of a sum of $823 million in capital subsidies to cover losses incurred in 1988 on sales of flats at subsidized prices, and the other is the mention that there will be the deletion of a total of 1,294 posts.

I would like to get some clarification from the Minister as to how many flats have really been sold at a loss, and where these blocks of flats are situated. As regards the posts deleted, will these be people be be retrenched? Or is it a case of their reaching the retirement age? With so many posts lost, what sort of help does the Government give to these people? Are most of these people daily-rated workers or/are they monthly paid? And what future plans does the Government have for them?

Mr Dhanabalan: First of all, the Member for Tiong Bahru GRC, Dr Vasoo, raised the question of improvement and redevelopment in the Tiong Bahru area. He asked about the possibility of rental adjustment for shops which are in relocation areas. The shops are of two types. One is shops which are within the relocation blocks. They have to move. The other is shops which are adjacent to the relocation blocks whose businesses may suffer as a result of a large number of blocks being knocked down. What happens is that very often there are vacant shops in these adjacent blocks and they are tendered out from time to time. And such tenders will give an indication to HDB of the present market rental of the shops in the area. If the market rentals established in such a way do show that there has been a reduction because of the large exodus of people, I think we can consider some sort of adjustment. But in most cases, the rentals paid by the shops in these areas are so low that the current market rentals are much higher than what they are paying. Therefore, no adjustment will be made. There have been cases in the past where it has been established and demonstrated to the HDB that market rentals have come down as a result of the clearance of an area. In such cases, HDB has been prepared to reduce the rentals. I do not know about the details of the particular case but that is the general approach.

He also asked whether the remaining residents in the 1- and 2-room blocks can have some assurance that there will be enough 1- and 2-room blocks for them to be rehoused in the area. I am not sure whether we can assure them that they will be rehoused in that area itself. But the intention is that enough 1- and 2-room flats will be reserved for people who are relocated from the present 1- and 2-room rental blocks and who cannot afford to buy flats. There is no intention to force everybody to buy. We are aware that there are people who cannot buy for various reasons and we will give them alternative 1- and 2-room flats as close as possible to the areas where they are now living. It is not always possible to give them something very close, but we will try our best.

He said that the facilities in the estate are inadequate, especially in that they do not provide the kind of facilities required for the older and more ageing population. HDB, in fact, is now in the process of revamping some of the facilities to provide for such facilities like ramps along steps, handrails and so on. In fact, in the Tiong Bahru GRC, 16 blocks have already been provided with these new facilities. So this is an ongoing process and it will continue.

He also asked whether lifts can be provided for low-rise blocks. At present, it is not the policy. Even in private housing estates, for 3- or 4-storey blocks, there are no lifts. It is just not cost effective to provide lifts for such low-rise blocks. At the same time, I am aware that there are old and disabled people who are now not able to climb the three or four flights of stairs to get to their flats. They should seek HDB's assistance for allocation of flats either on the ground floor or on floors with lift landings and HDB will try their best to accommodate such people. In other words, they will be allowed to move from the existing flats to flats which are either on the ground floor or on lift landings.

Dr Vasoo also raised the question of old flats which are leaking and so on. There are ongoing cyclical repairs to all blocks. These cyclical repairs include roof repairs, lift repairs and so on. I think other Members raised the question of lifts being replaced. I might as well state here now that there is a definite cyclical programme of repairing lifts and replacing lift cars. In fact, in the older housing blocks, although the lift may be still in the same place, the lift itself has long ago been replaced. Parts are replaced and the whole lift cars are replaced. In fact, in the older estates, what is just left is the lift core and the rails along which the lifts run. Everything else including the motor are replaced over a cyclical programme. In the case of those estates which are going to be taken over by the town council, if the time has come for the lifts to be replaced, they will be replaced. If the lifts are to be replaced according to this programme in one or two years' time, of course, they will not be replaced. But, as was mentioned yesterday, there will be grants to town councils for them to carry out such cyclical repairs and replacements and they should use these grants for such purposes.

Now I come to the question of wet markets, Mr Speaker, Sir. It has attracted a lot of attention. Everybody wants wet markets to be built again. In fact, the point was made that the new dry markets are no different from the wet markets. If that is so, I think there should be no complaints. In fact, I was surprised. I think if Members have the time and if they want to, we can arrange for them to visit some of the new housing estates where we have what we call "dry markets". These are really shops built around a kind of square or an area which is turfed, with trees. These shops are, in fact, large lock-up stalls where the stallholder or the shopkeeper can have his refrigerator, his preparation area and so on. In some cases, they are large enough for the shopkeeper to sublet counters for others to sell. In that sense, they have become a kind of wet market. But each shopkeeper takes care of the area within his shop. Although they sell fish, meat and so on, they tend to be cleaner because the shopfloor is his. He has to maintain it and so he maintains it clean, whereas in the wet market, it is all part of the common area. Nobody bothers and it is always wet.

In fact, the dry markets do provide what the housewife needs at reasonable prices. In fact, when I visited Bukit Batok, I spoke to some of the housewives and asked them about the prices and they said, "It is quite reasonable." Of course, it will vary from place to place. But the number of shops, of course, are not the same. You may not have 20 stalls selling fish, maybe 5. To that extent, of course, the choice is less than in the present wet markets. However, we do ensure that in the tendering out of dry markets there are sufficient stalls which sell Muslim food. This is a requirement. But I must say that in a number of cases, the number of shops or stalls which have been reserved for Muslim food have not been taken up. If we reserve three, maybe one or two are taken up. And maybe, as the Member, Encik Wan Hussin, pointed out, this could be due to the high rentals. We will have to consider how we can tackle this problem.

If people want the traditional wet markets, as far as HDB is concerned, it is prepared to sell sites to anybody who wants to build a wet market and rent out the stalls in the wet market to stallholders. I have already told HDB and they will be prepared to sell sites. But it follows, of course, that anybody who bids or buys these sites to build a wet market will want to get something in return for his investment. And you would not then have stalls at $40 or $60 per stall. So stalls will have to be bigger. The stallholder or shopkeeper will have to sell a higher volume and a wider variety in order to recover the rent. That is why, in fact, in the dry markets, the number of shops is less. But the atmosphere is very local in the dry markets. It is not a supermarket kind of atmosphere. It is a village kind of atmosphere. There is a lot of to-ing and fro-ing, people meeting and talking. In fact, I would say it is an up-market wet market.

Regarding Chai Chee, the same policy will apply. In the case of Chai Chee Market, what we are concerned is to provide facilities for the residents there so that they have enough shops to buy what they want. If Chai Chee Market has to be replaced, it will be replaced either with a private wet market or with a dry market of the type that we have in Bukit Batok which will be adequate to provide for their needs. But I must stress that HDB's approach in this will be to ensure that there are adequate shopping facilities, adequate shops, to cater to the needs of the residents in the area. We are not trying to pursue some very purist approach that everybody must do their shopping in supermarkets. That is not the intention at all.

Regarding better use of void decks, rock gardens and other such facilities which people ask for, this is where I think the town councils will have a lot to do. You can do what you want in the town council. If you have the money, you can plan each town council area to be quite different. I must sound a note of caution to MPs in that it is not possible to please everybody in the type of facilities you put in the void decks. You will find completely opposite requests being made. There are people who come along and say, "Please provide seats and tables in the void deck." You provide the seats and tables. The very next week you get people coming and complaining to you that the young chaps sit down there up to 12-1.00 o'clock in the morning playing music and they cannot sleep. Please remove the seats and tables. It is not possible to please everybody. So if you get requests, please think very carefully. In fact, I have already instructed HDB not to provide any more resident corners or tables and chairs until the MP requests for it after consulting the residents in the area. We do not want to spend money providing facilities which some people ask and the very next day others come and complain that we should not have provided because it is a nuisance. So please think carefully before you react to all the requests that you get when you go on your house-to-house visits.

As regards retrofitting of blocks in order to provide lifts on every floor, the HDB is looking into this question. We are aware that we have an ageing population and we may have to provide more lift landings. But I must again caution that this will mean extra investment, more costs. Every lift landing and door means extra cost and it also means that you may have to put in additional lifts. Because if you have a 12-storey block or a 15-storey block, then two lifts may not be sufficient if they stop on every floor. You will have to wait very long before you get a lift to the floor that you want, whereas now with staggered lift openings, you can get a lift to the lift landing much faster. So all this means additional cost and people must be prepared to pay for this additional cost.

Whether this can also be provided in the old blocks by retrofitting, that is again something which we have to look into. In some cases, it can be done. In other cases, it cannot.

As regards spalling, yes we attend to those who complained first. But it is not the intention that we will leave the others out. After all the complaints have been dealt with, HDB will in fact be doing an island-wide programme where they will ask residents to give them indications as to whether there is spalling problem within their flats. This will be the next phase. So HDB residents will be informed individually and all unreported cases would be covered. I do not know where the idea of a cut-off date was obtained by the Member. If Mr Chew could let me know, I will be glad to correct that. I think as it stands now, there is no cut-off date. We hope to finish this whole programme in about five years.

On quality of construction, Encik Wan Hussin is right. During the boom, close supervision was not possible and that is why we had quite a lot of problems with quality. This affects not only HDB but also the private sector. I receive many complaints from residents or owners of private homes and condominiums that quality is very poor. It is basically due to the fact that we were using unskilled labour and supervisors were in short supply. But all these things will now be corrected because we are building less flats, as I said, maybe 10,000-15,000 per year at the most. And this gives the HDB a greater opportunity to insist on quality.

Many new quality control procedures have been introduced. Some of the more problematic parts of construction are now dealt with by having those parts produced in factories. Members who have been to some of the new flats will note that the staircases, for example, are all precast in factories with stainless steel nosings and so on. They are well made up to very high specifications and then they are installed in the blocks. As far as possible, we should try and do this. The construction industry in Singapore as a whole is rather behind in the use of prefabricated parts. I am not talking about prefabricated construction, but conventional construction using parts made in factories so that they are made to very high specifications.

There is no need to set up a new permanent supervisory unit. There are departments within the HDB that now carry out supervision. They have their checklist. They will do their jobs more rigorously. In fact, the Estates Department in the HDB will now be treated as a buyer of property from the construction department, and if the construction department does not deliver up to quality the Estates Department will not take delivery and they will not take possession to sell or rent. We are trying to have different departments in the HDB to be responsible for different functions.

Encik Wan Hussin also raised the question of vacant lands. These vacant lands are meant to meet unforeseen and new needs. It is not possible for me to give an undertaking that they will all be used within a certain definite period. We have deliberately set aside vacant lands within HDB areas. They can meet institutional needs or they can even meet new type of housing needs which we are not able to foresee at the present moment. So these lands will be left vacant. But I entirely agree with him that we should put them into good interim use. As long as interim use does not involve the construction of anything permanent we should allow. I also agree with him that they should be put to recreational use, that they should be levelled, cleaned up, so that young children can kick a ball and play around in this area. In fact, one of the things that I notice is that as you drive through the HDB estates there are a lot of green areas but nobody plays on them. The reason is very simple. They look nice and green from a distance but when you try walking on them you will find that there are full of pot holes or there are stones and pieces of steel left over from construction and so on. The HDB tries to get contractors to clean up when they finish construction, but we will have to do it a little more vigorously and ensure that areas are well cleaned. I have already instructed the departments concerned, both HDB and the Parks and Recreation Department, to ensure that these areas are cleaned, levelled, so that they are used by people. We do not want to see large tracks of nice green areas which are not used by people. But they may not be up to the standard of a playing field because that will involve very heavy investment in drainage. But they should be available at least for use during the dry weather.

Here again, I think Town Councils can do a great job in making good use of these areas and if Town Councils approach the HDB, they will of course clean up the areas and give it to the Town Councils and they may have to maintain it. The question of gardens also was raised. Here again we are quite open to the suggestion provided Residents' Committees or Town Councils are prepared to look after them. I think the fruit trees that have been planted in HDB areas, have not shown that not all of them are being well looked after. So it is easy to create gardens but you must get the residents who are prepared to take on the responsibility to look after and maintain these areas. I am aware that this is a request from some residents and some MPs and HDB will be prepared to allow some sort of gardens where people can pursue it as a hobby but they must be prepared to look after it themselves.

I come to the subject on shophouses for sale. The first phase of sale is only to cover new shops and the response so far has been good. Mr Peh mentioned that some of the tenders were high. That is the assessment of the market rate. We cannot tell the tenderers, "Please don't tender so high." We leave it to the market to determine what the rate should be. It is only in the second phase that we will sell shops which are at present occupied. In the programme, of course, we have to consider some sort of special consideration for sitting tenants. We have not worked out the details. It will come much later. In the first instance we just concentrate on selling new shops. HDB is also prepared to set aside land within HDB new towns and other areas for sale to private developers to build shopping centres, not to replace HDB shops but to complement the shops built by HDB. So this is again something that is in hand.

The last point was raised by Dr Lee Siew-Choh on grants. How many flats were sold at a loss? I cannot tell him off-hand. If he wants to put a question he can. I would also suggest that he reads the Hansard of the Budget debate last year where I went into this in some detail and provided some tables which showed the different types of flats and the losses sustained by the HDB on the different types of flats.

As to the posts that have been deleted, many of them are DRE posts. Many of them the result of the establishment of Town Councils because Town Councils now take over the maintenance of HDB areas. HDB in the first instance tries to deploy them to other jobs. It is only where we cannot employ them in any other jobs that they are asked to resign, and there are of course the usual benefits given to such people depending upon their length of service with the HDB.

As regards income ceiling, we find that the $4,000 limit covers about 90% of the population. A labour force survey showed that 90% of the families earned $4,000 or less. But if the need arises for us to reconsider this limit and increase it, certainly we will do so.

Mr Chew Heng Ching: I think there is one other query I raised which the Minister has not attended to. This is in regard to the streamlining of HDB area offices, whether the Ministry will consider setting up collection centres in big GRCs in the respective zones.

The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Dr Lee Boon Yang): Sir, during the first two days of March there were indeed some disruption to the people who had to go to the various area offices or branch offices to make their payment to HDB. There were a few reasons for it. First, there was a spillover of people who had to pay their bills from the end of February to early March. Secondly, in the process of reorganizing the area offices, HDB had to issue to the residents two new pass books, one to pay their rental or loan instalment, and the other to pay for the service and conservancy charges. This is to pave the way for the Town Councils taking over the management of the estate. Thirdly, there were many motorists who were renewing their season parking ticket at the end of February. Fourth, since it was a new arrangement people were not familiar with the various arrangements at the new offices that they have to go to and the payment procedures. But HDB is confident that the confusion or the long queues which took place in early March will not repeat itself in April. By April most people will be more familiar with the payment procedures and they will know where to go. However, as a precaution HDB will deploy more staff and open up additional counters to make sure that the congestion at their various area offices and branch offices will not repeat itself. HDB tries, wherever possible, to provide branch offices or area offices in a central location to the convenience of as many residents as possible. But in some instances in some large housing estates this is simply not possible. But HDB will be monitoring the situation carefully following this reorganization and watching whether there is any necessity to open up more branch offices to do the collection. I must say at the present moment that HDB does not have any plans to open up more branch offices or collection centres.

What I would like to do is to urge all residents, tenants and lessees, to try to make use of cashless payments wherever possible. For instance, they can use the Giro payments for their rental or their loan instalments. In the case of car owners who need to renew their season parking tickets, they are welcome to renew their tickets through the mail. HDB is already accepting such renewal through the mail. It is far more convenient for them than to go to the branch offices.

Dr Vasoo: Sir, just a brief query. The low-rise block that I am talking about is 5-storeys high and they are home ownership blocks, which means that you cannot get the residents to change those flats. I feel that with this increasing number of ageing population in this low-rise 5-storey blocks there will probably be a problem for the older residents to be mobile. So I was wondering whether one could actively study whether it is possible and within means to install at least one lift in these blocks.

Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, since these blocks have been sold, I would say that the general principle is that if they want to and they are prepared to pay for it, HDB will certainly try and see how it can be done. They were sold without lifts and now they want a lift. If they want to and they are prepared to pay for it, HDB can design and see whether it can be done. I think that is a fair approach.

An hon. Member: At a cost.

Mr Dhanabalan: Of course, they must be at a cost. Nothing is for free. I would just like to make one clarification on this question of leaks in ceilings. A lot of the problems in the past where people have complained about leaking ceilings in HDB flats has been due to the fact that in order to repair the leaking ceiling on the 9th floor you have to deal with the tenant who is living on the 10th floor. And if you can't get the two of them to cooperate, then of course the ceiling is never repaired because the leak in fact is caused by events or actions by somebody on the 10th floor. In the past HDB had allowed the two persons concerned to work out for themselves. But from now onwards HDB will use its rights under the lease to make sure that the repairs are done and, if necessary, do the repairs and charge the people concerned.

Dr Vasoo: Sir, the architects probably forget to incorporate the lifts in the blocks.

The Chairman: Dr Vasoo, we have run out of time.

Dr Vasoo: Yes. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. 11, Dr Lee. Dr Lee, I intend to take the suspension at 2.45.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: I will be very quick then.

The Chairman: Very good.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Code TJ 5120 of the Development Estimates.

Sir, I wish to speak on the void deck office for MPs. The difficulty of the budget is that I just do not know under which Code of Expenditure I should file my amendment. However, soon after the elections, Sir, we wrote to the HDB asking for a void deck office so that we could carry out certain activities in the Eunos area. There were many people in that area who had asked us to do that and we wanted to respond. After sitting for about four months on the letter, the HDB finally replied and said, "No." Then we wrote to them again, and again they replied. The first time they did not give any reason, and the second time they said, "Non-Constituency MPs do not represent any constituency and therefore they are not entitled." The last time I wrote was on the 20th February and I quoted what the Prime Minister said. The Prime Minister had said in 1984 that:

'Such Non-Constituency Members will have all the rights, privileges, and duties of elected MPs with the exception that they shall not vote in Parliament on any motion relating to a Bill to amend the Constitution, a Supply or Supplementary Supply Bill, a Money Bill, or a vote of no confidence in the Government.'

Sir, under the circumstances I thought that, as an MP, I would be entitled to a void deck office just like any other MP. Unless the Minister turns round and tells me that an NCMP is a second class MP. Would he say that?

Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, I think the Member has answered himself in the quotations. First of all, we do not provide an office because he has no constituency to look after. Secondly, the quotation that he had of the Prime Minister's undertaking here in Parliament obviously applies to what happens in Parliament. The NCMP has got all the rights, duties and privileges, obligations, except to vote on money bills and that applies to what happens in Parliament. Why does the NCMP want an office to be provided at Government's expense? Which constituency is he looking after?

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Is the Government afraid of competition? After all the area is a huge area. There is plenty of room there for everybody.

Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, if we are afraid of competition we would not have had the concept of NCMP.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: We could anticipate answers like that. So there is no point in pursuing the matter.

The Chairman: Are you withdrawing your amendment?

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Yes, Sir. Whatelse can I do?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $275,858,230 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $2,133,328,600 for Head T ordered to stand of the Development Estimates.

The Chairman: Order. I will take the suspension 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 3.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.45 pm until 3.00 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.00 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head M -

The Chairman: Head M - Ministry of the Environment - Amendment No. (1), 12 minutes. Mr Goh.

Mr Goh Chee Wee (Boon Lay): Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head M of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100.

Sir, industrialization and economic development bring along with them the ill-effects of environmental pollution. Singapore is a small island state. Apart from land, the only free thing which we are endowed with is fresh air, not even water, as you have to pay for it. With a small land area, we are susceptible to the adverse effects of environmental pollution. If our air is polluted, if our water is polluted, we will have no other choice, but to live with a polluted environment. We cannot relocate elsewhere. Fortunately, our Government has laid down a fairly strict environmental standard since the early stage of industrialization. Industries are required to comply with these standards. It is for this reason that today, in spite of the relatively high degree of industrialization, Singaporeans are still able to enjoy clean air and clean water.

But I do not believe that we are problem-free. Those people who stay around the industrial estates, like Jurong, do complain about air pollution. They complain about the gas and the smell emitted from the factories there. The Anti-Pollution Unit of the Ministry of the Environment has been monitoring the air quality in various parts of Singapore. So far, the reply to the complaints lodged by the residents has been standard, ie, the quality of the air is within limits set by the world standard.

I would like to believe what the Ministry has been saying. So far there has been no catastrophe. But I would like to have an assurance from the Minister for the Environment that so far our air pollution control measures have been adequate and that there is no danger of serious pollution which will threaten the health or the life of our people, especially those who stay near the industrial estates.

Apart from the gas and the smoke discharged from the factories, the other major source of air pollution is the smoke emitted by motor vehicles. The Government has, in June 1987, stipulated that the lead content in petrol should be lowered to not more than 0.15 grammes per litre. I would like to ask the Minister whether the ambient lead level in the air has improved since then. In certain developed countries the law now requires that only lead-free petrol is used. I would like to ask the Minister whether it is the intention of the Ministry to further tighten the law against smoke emission and to lower the lead content in petrol further, perhaps to zero level in due course.

In spite of enforcement by the Ministry and the Registry of Vehicles, I still see serious pollution caused by some heavy vehicles and while regular inspections are done on the Singapore registered vehicles, foreign vehicles are not subject to regular inspections. I would like to ask the Minister whether effective measures have been taken to check the smoky lorries and heavy vehicles, including those from Malaysia. I wonder if there is cooperation between Singapore and the Malaysian authorities in controlling the smoky vehicles.

I would now like to turn to the question of water pollution. Again with a small land area, we have to preserve and protect our limited water resources. Elsewhere in the world, indiscriminate discharge of effluent and toxic wastes pollute the water. Even in the developed countries where a high standard of hygiene is set, there were instances where the toxic wastes pollute the river and even the drinking water. In Singapore, we cannot afford to have this happening. I believe the Government has in the last 20 over years taken measures to remove the sources of pollution to water. I would like to ask the Minister if he is confident that the contamination of drinking water will never happen in Singapore.

Sir, the pollution of the sea is another subject of concern to Singapore. What I would like to bring out in particular for discussion is the recent report of the Ministry's plan to turn the area east of Pulau Semakau into a dumping site for non-incinerable refuse. This, I believe, is a decision with serious implications on our environment, on the development of southern islands for recreation and on the preservation of marine life in the area. Information gathered over the years by marine biologists shows that the area around Pulau Semakau has a very rich coral community and an associate sea grass bed. Pulau Semakau lies at the core of what might be conceived as a marine conservation area which will encompass the many islands around St. John's designated for tourist and recreational development. There is therefore a direct conflict of purposes between what the Ministry intends to do and the existing and potential development that could benefit the country. I would like to ask the Minister if the Ministry has taken all these factors into consideration before taking a decision to develop the area into a dumping site. Has the Ministry considered other options or alternatives and has the long-term impact on our environment and the development plan been carefully considered?

The Minister for the Environment (Dr Ahmad Mattar): Mr Chairman, Sir, the Member for Boon Lay and concurrently Chairman of the GPC for the Environment has raised a number of points.

Sir, on air pollution by industries, the Member wants to know whether our existing anti-pollution laws and measures taken are adequate. Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to emphasize at the outset that all industries in Singapore are required to install pollution control equipment to clean, so to speak, the gases released into the atmosphere to levels specified in our Clean Air Act. Sir, as I have indicated in my reply to a supplementary question raised by Mr Chin Harn Tong, Member of Aljunied GRC, at yesterday's sitting, the more pollutive industries are those with large fuel-burning equipment, such as the petrochemical plants, the oil refineries and the power stations. Besides complying with emission standards in the Clean Air Act, these industries, Sir, are sited at remote locations or on offshore islands so that the impact on population centres is further minimized. But notwithstanding these measures, Sir, low level emissions from industries cannot be totally avoided and these have given rise to complaints of smoke and smell nuisance in some areas, particularly in the Jurong area, as mentioned by the hon. Member, and as raised in a Question for Oral Answer by the Member for Yuhua yesterday. We have checked these complaints, Sir, and found that the concentration of pollutants from these emissions do not pose any health or safety risks to people living in these areas.

My Ministry is working closely with the factories concerned to try to further reduce the amounts of emissions. Our continuous monitoring programme, which incidentally has been going on since 1971, shows that the ambient air quality in our industrial estates as well as in other parts of Singapore is well within the standards stipulated by internationally reputable agencies like the WHO and the USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). I must say, Sir, that our existing anti-pollution laws and measures taken to control pollution have served us well. Despite rapid industrialization on a densely populated and highly urbanized island, we have managed to keep our environment clean, safe and smoke-free.

I now turn to lead content in petrol, Sir. The lead content in petrol in Singapore has been reduced from 0.84 grammes of lead per litre of petrol in 1980 to 0.15 grammes of lead per litre of petrol today. As a result, Sir, the roadside concentration of lead in the air has dropped from 2 m/Nm3 in 1980 to 0.4 mg/Nm3 today. The acceptable level of lead in the air, as recommended by USEPA, is 1.5 mg/Nm3. As As you can see, Sir, the lead level in our air is well within the recommended level.

Sir, there is no plan to introduce unleaded or lead free petrol, as the Member calls it, in Singapore. In most countries, Sir, unleaded petrol is introduced to complement efforts in vehicular exhaust emission control. Sir, besides lead, vehicular exhausts also contain nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons which can, under certain atmospheric and weather conditions, react to form photochemical smog. So countries which suffer from this form of pollution have to fit what they call "catalytic converters" to their vehicles to reduce the emission of these nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons. The presence of lead in petrol damages these converters. These countries have no choice but to go for unleaded petrol. Sir, in Singapore, we do not have photochemical smog. There is therefore no need to introduce unleaded petrol in the country.

The Member for Boon Lay also wants to know whether our drinking water is adequately protected against contamination from toxic waste and other contaminants. In other words, is our drinking water safe? Sir, my Ministry has adopted several pre-emptive measures to prevent pollution in our catchment areas and these measures include (a) not allowing factories which produce large quantities of liquid industrial effluent or which store large quantities of toxic waste to be sited in our catchment areas; (b) requiring factories allowed within water catchments to discharge their effluent into sewers; and (c) not allowing the transport of toxic chemicals in bulk quantities through water catchments.

Over and above these measures, Sir, more stringent regulations have been introduced in 1988 under our Toxic Industrial Waste Regulations to control the production, storage, treatment, disposal and the transportation of toxic industrial waste. All these are done to ensure that our drinking water is safe for us to drink.

With regard to dumping ground, Sir, let me begin by saying that the Ministry of the Environment has at present two dumping grounds - one at Lorong Halus in the Tampines area and another at Lim Chu Kang. The latter receives mostly incinerated ash from our incineration plants while the one at Lorong Halus receives all refuse that has to be dumped. Of concern to us, Sir, is the capacity of Lorong Halus dumping ground. This dumping ground is expected to be exhausted by the year 1997 and thereafter an offshore dumping ground would be needed to meet our needs beyond the turn of the century and the Planning Department has proposed that an offshore area east of Pulau Semakau, as mentioned by the hon. Member, be used as a future disposal site.

The possible impact of the proposed Pulau Semakau dumping ground on the marine environment can be controlled by proper design and operation of the dumping ground. For example, there will be no dumping to the open sea; specially constructed impermeable bunds will enclose the dumping site; and any waste water from the site will be adequately treated before discharge into the open sea. In other words, Sir, the whole dumping operation can virtually be isolated, thus reducing the impact on the surrounding marine environment. In fact, Sir, my Ministry is now in the process of selecting consultants with the relevant experience, and reducing the impact on the marine environment will certainly be a priority in our design consideration.

With regard to smoke emissions from heavy vehicles, the Member may be pleased to know that we are taking action not only on Singapore-registered vehicles but also on Malaysian-registered vehicles. And I have got the cooperation of my counterpart in Malaysia, Datuk Amar Stephen Yong, the Minister of Science, Technology and Environment.

Mr Goh Chee Wee: Mr Chairman, I would like to raise another matter which relates to environmental pollution. I am referring to the protection of the ozone layer which is of public interest recently. As we know, the ozone layer blocks out some of the harmful ultra-violet rays from the sun which can cause skin cancer, damage crops and marine life. We read from the newspapers that the ozone layer in the atmosphere are being depleted by the use of chemicals like CFC. And we also read and understand that Singapore recently signed a Protocol which relates to the reduction of the use of the CFC. I would like to ask the Minister to inform this House, as a signatory country to the Protocol, what are our country's obligations, what action do we have to take to comply with the provisions of the Protocol? And is the Minister confident that we can successfully bring down the use of CFC in Singapore to an acceptable level?

Dr Ahmad Mattar: Mr Chairman, Sir, as a party to the Montreal Protocol, we will have to observe the following restrictions in the consumption of the controlled products, namely, the chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs and halons: Firstly, we have to freeze consumption of CFCs at 1986 levels from the 12-month period commencing July 1989. Secondly, we have to reduce consumption of CFCs to 80% of the 1986 levels for the 12-month period commencing July 1993, and subsequently to 50% of the 1986 levels for the 12-month period commencing July 1998. Thirdly we have also to freeze consumption of halons at 1986 levels for the 12-month period commencing January 1992.

Sir, as all the controlled substances are imported, the Trade Development Board is presently looking at the possibility of enforcing controls at the point of entry. The electronics industry is one of the major users of the controlled substances, particularly the CFCs. Other major users are the aerosol manufacturers, polyethylene manufacturers and, of course, refrigeration plant manufacturers. To minimize the impact on our industry, Sir, relevant agencies like the EDB and SISIR are currently working with companies in the affected industries to help them explore the possibility of using alternative substances.

Mr Goh Chee Wee: I thank the Minister for the reply, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (2), 53 minutes.

Mr Goh Chee Wee: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Code MC 1500 of the Main Estimates.

I would like to raise a few points about food and hawker control. Sir, in the Addendum to the President's Address early this year, the Minister for the Environment revealed that the Ministry plans to privatize the management of hawker centres. This covers both the cooked food centre and wet market. The decision to privatize hawker centres has a direct impact on the existing stallholders. It would also affect all the Singaporeans who now take to patronizing hawker centres as a way of life.

With the privatization of hawker centres, I presume that the Government will call for tenders, and those who tender the highest price and are able to comply with the stipulated conditions will be awarded the contract to run a hawker centre. The successful contractor or operator will then let out the stalls to the individual stallholders. The immediate question to ask is: what will happen to the hundreds and thousands of existing stallholders? If the successful tenderer arbitrarily raises the rental of the stalls, does it mean that the stallholders will have to pay whatever rental demanded by the operator? Or will they have to quit and lose their means of livelihood? Will there be any safeguards to protect the existing stallholders? And what about the range of food to be sold at these centres? Does the Ministry have any say on the range of food or market produce to be sold in these centres? Or that the operator has a free-hand to decide what to sell?

Finally, and this is an important point, will privatization result in the raising of food prices at hawker centre? If a hawker centre operator pays a high tender price to the Government, it will in turn charge the stallholder a higher rental, who will in turn charge the consumer a higher price for the food. So, finally, who suffers? The consumers. So it will have a inflationary impact because a large number of Singaporeans eat out at hawker centres every day.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he has considered all the consequences of privatization? I would like to know why has the Government found it necessary to privatize the management of hawker centres? What are the advantages and disadvantages of privatization, and how would he address the danger of rising costs or inflation resulting from privatization?

I would like also to comment on the adequacy of the food control programme under this amendment. In recent months, we have read reports of the uncovering of illegal food production operations. There were also reports of food poisoning caused by the unhygienic handling of food in restaurants and eating establishments. I would like to ask the Minister if the current measures taken by the Ministry to ensure food hygiene are adequate.

The most alarming report was the uncovering of a massive illegal food factory producing fried spring rolls, ngoh hiang, under a most unhygienic and filthy condition. Let me quote what the Straits Times [25 January 1989] said about this illegal factory:

'Houseflies and mosquitoes buzzed around the ramshackle wooden house which was the factory. Just three metres from where food was being cooked was a stagnant pond, into which human waste was channelled. And water from a nearby well, close to filth in which a skinny dog was foraging, was used in preparing ngoh hiang.' In fact, the Ministry's examination of the food produced showed that the spring rolls contained faeces and the operator had churned out tonnes of spring rolls meant for trade fairs. It was not known how long has the operator been producing spring rolls there. But hundreds and thousands of people must have eaten the spring rolls contaminated with human faeces. [Interjections] Some of the trade fairs were officially opened by the MPs. And I wonder whether the food was served in the reception.

For the offence of selling contaminated food, the operator was fined a maximum of $500. So I have two questions to ask of the Minister:

(1) Is the Ministry aware of any other illegal food production operation in Singapore; and would the Ministry step up control and enforcement action to make sure that such illegal operations are weeded out?

(2) Would the Ministry consider raising the fines imposed on such offences?

I would also like to comment on imported food. Most of the fruits, vegetables and food items that we consume in Singapore are imported. Stringent control on the imported food must be imposed to make sure that they are wholesome and fit for consumption. Sometime last year there were incidents of people taken ill after taking vegetables imported from Malaysia. The vegetables were found to contain an excessive amount of pesticides. A recent study in America showed that pesticide traces in farm produce cause cancer and nerve damage in children. The results of the study were alarming that children were far more at risk than adults from the impact of pesticides. The fruits and vegetables we import are sprayed with pesticides, and certain types of pesticides and excessive amount of pesticide residue are harmful to human health. So I would like to ask the Minister whether the inspection and measures taken by the Ministry are adequate to ensure that the imported fruits and vegetables do not contain harmful amounts of pesticides and other chemicals.

Mr Chairman, I have another cut under Solid Waste Management. Shall I proceed later?

The Chairman: It is not another cut. It is the same cut but a different subject. You should speak on it now.

Mr Goh Chee Wee: It is not related to hawker stalls.

The Chairman: It is the same amendment.

Mr Goh Chee Wee: Sir, Singaporeans are churning out more and more rubbish. So as the country becomes more affluent, more rubbish are produced. And we produce paper waste, food waste, industrial waste and other forms of garbage and in increasing amounts. Some of the refuse can be incinerated; some cannot be burnt and must be discarded or dumped somewhere. The Minister has just said that presently the non-organic refuse were dumped at the Lorong Halus and Lim Chu Kang dumping grounds. The Ministry imposes a dumping fee at the dumping site. But refuse loads which are below one tonne are exempted from the dumping fee. This has encouraged the refuse collection operator to use small lorries to carry the refuse to the dumping ground. So the exercise has become very unproductive. Instead of using a bigger truck to carry the refuse, the contractor would break the refuse into smaller loads, use small vehicles or make frequent trips. This has resulted in a long queue at the dumping site each day. So something must be done to overcome the problem. And I would ask the Minister: would the Ministry review the matter and come up with a workable solution?

My other observation is that many of the waste disposal operators are still using open lorries to carry the waste. Sometimes you can see waste paper, rubbish and dust flying all over the place. I would like to ask the Minister if he would consider some schemes to encourage these operators to upgrade their operations by purchasing proper refuse collection vehicles and equipment.

The Ministry of the Environment has done much to mechanize this operation. It has used modern trucks with compaction equipment in refuse collection and has mechanized its many operations, including road-sweeping. I suggest the Government introduce some schemes to encourage and help the private sector contractor to upgrade too.

The other matter which I would also like to raise concerns privatization - the privatization of refuse collection service. Presently, the collection and disposal of domestic refuse is done by the Ministry of the Environment. Of course, we pride ourselves as being the only major city in the world which provides good and efficient refuse collection service 365 days a year. But in line with the Government's thinking of privatization, I would like to ask the Minister if the Ministry is contemplating privatizing the refuse collection service. With the formation of town councils, I believe some of the town councils would be interested to ask the private sector companies to tender for the job of refuse collection. This in a way is to provide some competition to the Ministry of the Environment. I would like to ask: what is the Ministry's reaction to this plan? Does he think that the private sector operators are able to compete and provide the same or better level of service as the Ministry and at a lower cost?

While still on the subject of refuse collection, I would like to point out an anomaly on the charges imposed on the HDB and private residential units for refuse collection. The refuse collection fee charged by the Ministry of the Environment is $5 per household unit. So a dweller of a small HDB unit therefore pays the same fee as the owner of a big bungalow. It is only common sense to see that it is much more cost effective for the Ministry to do collection of refuse at the HDB estates than at private housing estates. By just making one round at a HDB estate, the ENV truck can clear the refuse of hundreds and thousands of units. Whereas in the private housing estates, the ENV truck has to go from house to house to collect and clear the refuse bin one by one, and separately. The irony is that all the household units pay the same fee. I am curious to know whether the ENV refuse collection service is a profitable, self-financing or subsidized service. Are there any cross subsidies? If so, who is subsidizing whom? Is the rich subsidizing the poor, or the poor subsidizing the rich?

Mr Chin Harn Tong (Aljunied GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, Singaporeans are now more in the habit of eating vendor cooked food rather than home cooked meals. For many Singaporeans, eating out means hawkers' fare at food centres and other places. For this reason, it is important Singaporeans should be able to patronize food hawkers without unnecessarily having to run the risk of becoming sick or ill from doing so.

Sir, I am in favour of making it a requirement for all caterers, stallholders and their helpers, whether in cooked food centres or elsewhere, to attend courses on personal hygiene and food handling before the caterers and stallholders are issued with licences. There should also be more frequent and stringent inspections of all places where food is prepared and sold for public consumption. In this respect, the Ministry's demerit points scheme for offenders is a step in the right direction, except that it does not go far enough. The fines and the other penalties imposed for unhygienic food violations do not seem to have been sufficient deterrent up to now.

The Straits Times of 5th March 1989 carried a story of one cooked food vendor who caters for private parties in homes and elsewhere having been fined several hundred dollars after 400 of his customers suffered from food poisoning. What is most astonishing is that he was an unlicensed caterer who had been previously fined several times. The right to sell cooked food to the public carries with it the corresponding obligation to observe food hygiene. That is why caterers and other cooked food vendors are licensed and regularly inspected to ensure that the food they sell is hygienically prepared and safe to eat. But if unlicensed caterers can operate with apparent impunity, it may be reasonably concluded that the demerit points scheme does not sufficiently deter licensed food vendors from committing unhygienic food violations. Will the Minister therefore consider imposing heavier fines or even imprisonment for habitual or gross offenders, whether licensed or unlicensed?

Sir, to be positive, there should also be a merit points scheme to complement the demerit points scheme. While it is necessary to punish offenders, it is also desirable to reward those who are exemplary food vendors. Will the Minister consider introducing a scheme to highlight particular food centres or caterers on the same lines as the model community centre, the cleanest HDB block of flats, and the most courteous bus or taxi drivers? At least, the public would know which of the food centres or caterers are safer to patronize.

Dr Koh Lam Son (Telok Blangah): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government's plan to privatize hawker centres and wet markets is to upgrade these centres, many of which are outdated and need to be upgraded. Today, Singaporeans are enjoying a high standard of living and they also expect higher standards in public hygiene. The present condition of many of these hawker centres is no longer acceptable.

Sir, the GPC Chairman for the Environment has highlighted some of the problems that the existing stallholders would face in the process of privatization and I will not repeat them. Naturally, those stallholders affected will be apprehensive, particularly those who are not doing well in their business. Therefore, I would like to urge the Minister that in its implementation, the Ministry would do well to ensure that it keeps in mind the interest of the stallholders and do what it can to soften the impact and lessen the burden on the stallholders.

For those stallholders who are doing well and I believe this is the majority, I will encourage them to view this process of privatization in a positive way. Because higher standards of hygiene will benefit them and their customers. In the longer-term, it will ensure that their businesses continue to be viable. If steps are not taken to upgrade their premises, I fear that they may lose out to their counterparts in other private food centres.

I hope that the Minister will ensure that the new policy is communicated positively to the stallholders affected so that they will be able to see the benefits that they can derive in the longer term. No stallholder should lose out and it is certainly better to take a longer time than to generate undue stress and unhappiness.

Next, I would like to touch on a couple of areas that I think require the Minister's prompt attention. These are the slaughtering of poultry in wet markets and the use of hawker stalls. Many residents have complained about the unpleasant sight and smell when slaughtering of poultry is carried on a large scale in wet markets. The concern is genuine because in many of these cases, the slaughtering of poultry is done to cater to the demands for wholesale activities and not directly to meet the daily demands of the residents. The limited space in our wet markets is not suited for this purpose. I would encourage the Ministry to look into this and to take steps to ensure that the slaughtering of poultry is limited to what is necessary to meet daily consumer needs. In addition, it may be necessary to put in place regulations to ensure that such slaughtering takes place at the rear of the stalls and that the stall fronts are kept clean and dry.

Sir, my last comment concerns the use of stalls in the hawker centres. At present, the small confines of the stalls are used for many purposes. These include storage of utensils and crockery, food preparation and washing. As a result, many stalls are very crammed, unsightly and breeding grounds for vermin and cockroaches. I would like to recommend that the Ministry be more stringent in the enforcement of housekeeping rules to ensure that the stalls are well kept. This may include a limit on the number of items to be kept in the stalls. As for washing, certainly this should be carried out away from the stalls. And contractors can be engaged to do the washing and to do the general cleaning of the premises.

Sir, I have another cut under this amendment, may I be allowed to carry on?

The Chairman: Yes.

Dr Koh Lam Son: This is on the cleanliness of public toilets and roads. Against the clean and green backdrop of Singapore, two areas stick out like a sore thumb, the state of our public toilets and the prevalent practice of spitting on our roads and in public places. I am really surprised that after all these years of striving to keep our environment clean, we are still not able to eradicate the spitters and the public toilet abusers. Repeated calls have been made in this House and the Ministry has strict regulations to penalize the offenders. However, I am disappointed at the lack of progress and feel that the Ministry can do a lot more in terms of enforcement to rid Singapore of these two problems.

In my opinion, the lack of success is largely due to insufficient enforcement and points to a lack of priority and concern. For comparison purposes, we need only to look at the effectiveness of the CBD area licensing and the parking coupon schemes. These are effective because sufficient attention is paid to its enforcement. The Ministry should look towards a systematic and vigorous enforcement of these regulations so that results can be seen. I would like to ask the Minister whether his Ministry would take sterner measures and to allocate more resources for enforcement to rid Singapore of these two bad habits.

Encik Ibrahim Othman (Bedok GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I share the views and points of the previous three speakers. However, I wish to ask the Minister a few additional questions. Firstly, with regard to the cleanliness and tidiness of hawker centres, I wish to ask the Minister what plans he has to upgrade and improve the various hawker centres that are patronized by our people. I think this needs to be done so that our hawker centres are clean, neat and tidy. And when we go out and eat, it becomes a very pleasant experience.

The second point is the cleanliness of the food handlers and hawker assistants. My question is: what steps is the Ministry taking to ensure that they dress neatly, either when they prepare or serve the food? Will the Minister introduce rules to prevent these hawker assistants from wearing shorts or slippers while they serve the food?

The third point is with regard to the slaughter of poultry in wet markets. Will the Minister explain the rationale for the so-called control that the Ministry has on the practice of slaughtering poultry in our wet markets? Will the stallholders be given time to conform to the new rules and regulations on this matter?

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know that wet markets are very crowded during festive seasons because a lot of people go to the market to do marketing during this time. This is especially so during the Chinese New Year festival. As there is an increased demand for food, the hawkers increase their stock in order to cope with the rising demands. However, because of the limited space of the stalls, especially in old markets like Lim Tua Tow market, the stall space is very much smaller than that of the stalls in the new markets. Under such circumstances, these stall holders unavoidably have to extend their stalls slightly. In the past, when they did so, they would be dealt with quite leniently by the inspectors from the Ministry. Not much difficulty was caused. At the most, they were only given a lecture or some admonition. I think if they do not obstruct any traffic or free flow of pedestrians they should be allowed to extend their stalls slightly. For example, during the few days before Chinese New Year, many people came to buy things at the market. To meet this greater demand, stallholders increased their stock. Once the New Year was over, all problems would be solved by themselves and reverted to normal. However, since last year, the stallholders in Lim Tua Tow market have received special treatment from the Hawker Department. On the eve of Chinese New Year, the inspector s from the Hawker Department came out in swarms. Even though in the middle of the night of New Year's Eve, they issued summons to the stallholders. Some stallholders received summons for three consecutive days.

Just now two of my colleagues mentioned that one illegal supplier was charged in court and fined $500. Another unlicensed food supplier was fined $700. However, I know of one stallholder in the market, because he extended his stall, was charged in court and fined $800. This has resulted in the dissatisfaction of the stallholders and the anger among the public. They sympathized with this stallholder. This is not a very grave crime committed. Why should they be treated in such a harsh manner? The stallholders have a question and my constituency leaders also have the same question. Why can't the Hawker Department be more lenient during the festive season?There is a common impression among the public that the stallholders at Lim Tua Tow Market are given special treatment by the Hawker Department, because other markets are just as crowded as Lim Tua Tow Market during the festive season. Why didn't the stallholders in the other markets receive any summons? I would like to ask the Minister to explain this.

Mr Chng Hee Kok (Tiong Bahru GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think this debate has focused much on senior civil servants. I think it is very delightful to see that at least one Permanent Secretary is attending this session to follow our proceedings, Sir. I must compliment the Minister and his Permanent Secretary for taking this very seriously. Further, Sir, let me compliment those Ministry officials for their successful action in apprehending the illegal hawker in the case which was already mentioned by the Member for Boon Lay. I just want to stand up to add my outrage at what he has done. I think the sheer size in terms of the volume of the food was staggering. For most of us, on the morning when the Straits Times published the picture of the maggot-infested intestines, our appetites were literally spoilt. That is only for Singaporeans. But what about the tourists? Tourists who are not aware of our high health standards. What will they think of us? Most of them will not make an appearance in any hawker centre, Sir. Sir, the $500 penalty which was imposed on him is extremely light. A quick calculation shows that it is maybe less than one cent a spring roll and therefore it is definitely not going to be a deterrent, Sir. I think the public is outraged. It is time we passed legislation to control it, to make sure that it is a deterrent. I am sure the Minister will have the full support of the Members.

Mr Teo Chong Tee (Changi): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would also like to express my views on the question of privatization of wet markets and food centre and the question of food hygiene. If these centres are to be privatized through the tender system, then I think the rental for these stalls will be increased and thus resulting in the increased cost for the hawkers. These increased cost will naturally be passed on to the consumers. The prices for food will certainly be increased and this will incur extra burdens on the people. Some hawkers may even be forced to close down their business because of the increased rentals. The livelihood of these hawkers and their family will directly be affected. On the other hand, because of the privatization, certain hawker centres, which have all along been selling a whole range of foodstuffs, may even be monopolized by one or two types of food industry. Through tendering system, some centres may even be deminated by one race. I would like to ask the Minister to assure us that measures will be taken to ensure that after privatization, these stalls will still be selling goods to cater for various races, and the stalls will be operated by people from the various communities.

Another question that merits our attention is the question of food hygiene which at present is under the stringent control of the department. Yet different kinds of food, which are not hygienic, are still being sold. Some carry germs and have caused food poisoning among the consumers. When these hawkers centres and markets are privatized and to cut cost, some hawkers may compromise on the standard of food hygiene. In such instances, how is the Department going to ensure effective control over them?

Sir, I would like the Minister to understand that not every hawker earns a high income. In fact, many hawkers live from hand to mouth. If privatization is to be carried out, I hope it would not take place in haste. It should go step by step. It should be given lengthy study. I suggest that one or two markets or food centres should be selected for a pilot scheme to see whether such scheme is feasible or not. If there are shortcomings, then this scheme should be modified. Only then can we guarantee that the benefit of the public and the hawkers' interest will be looked after.

The Chairman: You want to speak on the next subject?

Mr Teo Chong Tee: On Solid Waste?

The Chairman: Yes. You are the last person.

Mr Teo Chong Tee: If I am allowed to speak in English.

The Chairman: All right. I do not think we have a choice, have we? But you are subject to the 10 minute-rule.

Mr Teo Chong Tee: Sir, I will make it very short. I just want to pose a few questions.

The Chairman: All right.

Mr Teo Chong Tee: With regard to the Solid Waste Management, Sir, I have often observed that there is a frequent congestion at the Lorong Halus Refuse Dumping Ground. Vehicles loaded with garbage line up along Lorong Halus and stretch into the newly constructed Tampinese Expressway. I wonder what is the cause of congestion at this place.

As regard the existing incinerators, would the hon. Minister also tell us whether they are able to cope with the incineration of the increased volume of refuse? I do not know whether at this stage they have reached the saturation point that calls for more incineration plants to be constructed.

The other point on Pulau Semakau Island for future offshore dumping, I just want to find out from the Minister whether there is a real need to go so far away to dump our rubbish. Is it a cost effective project and whether in Singapore island itself there is any more land available for the dumping of refuse?

Dr Ahmad Mattar: Mr Chairman, Sir, the hon. Members for Boon Lay, Telok Blangah and Changi have all spoken on the privatization of hawker centres. All I can say at this point of time, Sir, is that the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of National Development are currently studying how the operations and management of hawker centres can be upgraded to provide a more efficient and pleasant service to consumers and also to give a better return on public investment.

Sir, the subject of privatization will, of course, be thoroughly examined and the concerns raised by Mr Goh Chee Wee, Mr Teo Chong Tee, and Dr Koh Lam Son, will be carefuly weighed and considered. When the study is completed, Sir, and a policy decision is taken, a formal statement giving all the details will be made.

Sir, the hon. Member for Telok Blangah and Encik Ibrahim Othman, the Member for Bedok, have also spoken on the slaughtering of live poultry in wet markets. Indeed, Sir, the slaughtering of live poultry in wet markets has gone beyond the scale practised in the past. And as pointed out by the Member for Telok Blangah, many stallholders are not slaughtering for walk-in customers only but are also using the small and inadequate slaughtering yard to slaughter in mass quantities to supply to restaurants, hawker centres, etc. As a result, Sir, public health standards are compromised. The drains and market concourses are polluted with sullage water and poultry droppings. My Ministry receives a lot of complaints of noise and smell from the slaughtering and the storage of live birds in wet markets.

Sir, my Ministry and the Primary Production Department of the Ministry of National Development are currently looking into the need to phase out or scale down slaughtering of poultry in wet markets.

I shall now turn to points raised by the Member for Boon Lay. First of all, he talked of privatization of refuse collection by town council. Sir, the removal of domestic refuse is an essential service. This is because domestic refuse with its high organic content decomposes and putrefies easily in our hot climate. Failure to handle such refuse properly and efficiently can give rise to serious public health risk to the population. So over the years, Sir, the Government has built an effective and reliable service to ensure that domestic refuse is collected from every household daily. However, all industrial and trade refuse are collected by private waste collectors. Collectively, they collect about 1,700 tonnes per day or roughly 33% of the total refuse generated daily in Singapore. Private waste contractors are also allowed to collect domestic refuse from condominiums. However, as a pilot project, my Ministry has given approval in March 1987 to Ang Mo Kio East Town Council to use private waste contractors for its housing estates. Now that the Ang Mo Kio East Town Council has been formally gazetted as Cheng San Town Council, I understand that the Cheng San Town Council under the new regime led by Mayor Heng Chiang Meng is actively pursuing the matter.

The Member for Boon Lay also spoke of the practice by some private waste collectors of breaking up their refuse loads into smaller loads so that they can take advantage of the waiver of the disposal fee. Sir, we are aware of this. What happens at the moment, Sir, is that any person who brings in a refuse load of less than one tonne is not charged any disposal fee. Now, this waiver of fee is really to encourage households with bulky waste, such as unwanted furniture or unwanted electrical appliances, or even renovation contractors with small loads of construction debris to bring in their waste to the Ministry's disposal facilities for proper disposal. But, of course, with effect from the lst of next month, Sir, the total refuse brought in by a vehicle within the same day will be added up and if the total exceeds one tonne appropriate fee will be levied. As the computerized weighbridges at the two dumping grounds, the two incineration plants and the Kim Chuan Transfer Station at Lorong Chuan are all linked by telecommunication lines to the Ministry's computer, it will not be hard for us to know the total load brought in by any vehicle making several trips in a day to dump the refuse.

The Member for Boon Lay also wants to know whether our refuse collection service is self-financing or subsidized. During FY87, the Ministry collected a revenue of $69.7 million from refuse removal fees as well as from the sale of electricity and scrap iron from our incineration plants. The cost incurred by the Ministry for refuse removal and disposal by incineration during the same financial year was $55.2 million, thus giving a surplus of $14.5 million. However, I must add, Sir, that there are hidden subsidies for the Ministry's refuse removal activity and these hidden subsidies include the waiver of registration fees, insurance and road tax for the Ministry's fleet of 229 refuse collection vehicles, and also the opportunity cost of land and buildings. These hidden costs are estimated to be in the region of $4 million. So, a more accurate surplus would be about $10 million.

We expect our accounts to remain in the black for a few more years. The rising cost of refuse disposal and, in particular, the high cost of constructing and operating the third incineration plant now under construction at Senoko will thereafter cause our balance to be in the deficit. At that time we may have to revise our refuse disposal fee structure and I certainly will take into consideration some of the suggestions made by the Member for Boon Lay.

The Member for Changi wants to know whether our incineration plants are able to cope with the volume of refuse generated daily. He also wants to know whether the Government plans to build any more incineration plants. Sir, currently, the incineration plants at Ulu Pandan and Tuas can incinerate 60% of our daily refuse and these two plants are able to cope with their designed capacities. The Ministry is presently constructing a third incineration plant at Senoko, and when completed in 1992, this plant, together with the ones at Ulu Pandan and Tuas should be able to incinerate 85% of our incinerable refuse; and this represents all our incinerable refuse. The remaining 15% are non-incinerable refuse and has to be dumped. Whether we will build another incineration plant depends on our refuse output. At present, about 5,000 tonnes of refuse are produced daily and this is expected to increase to about 6,900 tonnes by the year 2010 and to 7,500 tonnes by the year 2030. The combined incineration capacity of Ulu Pandan, Tuas and Senoko is 5,600 tonnes per day. From the projections I have given, a fourth incineration plant would only be necessary after the year 2030.

The Member for Telok Blangah has commented on the rather sad state of affairs in our public toilets. The bulk of the problem of dirty toilets is attributed to bad social habits. Building managements and cleansing contractors who do not do a good job add on to this problem. Enforcement alone will not eradicate this problem. My Ministry would like to place more emphasis on an educational approach in getting the public to show more consideration and care when using public toilets.

Sir, since 1983 my Ministry has carried out three campaigns on "Clean Public Toilets", with the most recent one held in January last year. The campaigns have raised the level of awareness among the public, building managements, and cleansing contractors on the proper use and upkeep of public toilets. This has resulted in generally cleaner, better maintained and equipped toilets.

Here, Sir, I would like to thank the Straits Times and the Shin Min Daily News for their contributions to my Ministry's campaign last year. I do not know what headlines were used by Shin Min Daily News but certainly Straits Times' "Toilets of Shame" had pulled up the socks of managements of buildings where these toilets were housed. I hope the Straits Times and Shin Min Daily News, and indeed all the other papers, will play their part when my Ministry conducts another campaign in the middle of this year. However, I would like to add that over and above publicizing Toilets of Shame, they should also publicize what I would call "Toilets of Fame" because I believe that the managements who have taken great pains in keeping their public toilets clean should be given the publicity they deserve.

What I would like to emphasize, Sir, is that the task of ensuring that our public toilets are kept clean and dry does not rest with the Ministry of the Environment or with the managements of public toilets alone. Just as importantly, Sir, the public, as users, should display greater civic con- sciousness in the proper and considerate use of public toilets.

With regard to spitting, again raised by the Member for Telok Blangah, I must say, Sir, that my Public Health Inspectors and other staff of my Ministry are constantly on the look-out for such offenders. The police also provide feedback on such offenders for the Ministry to follow up with prosecution. I would also like to urge members of the public to give similar feedback to us for follow-up action. To remind members of the public who drive especially, that it is an offence to litter or spit from their vehicle, my Ministry intends to give greater publicity on the matter in the latter part of the year.

I shall now call on my Senior Parliamentary Secretary to attend to other hawker and hawker-related issues raised by Members.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment (Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng): Sir, I would like to reply to the various MPs according to the topics and issues raised. The Member for Boon Lay wants to know how the Ministry plans to further tighten control on illegal food production and the example he quoted was the ngoh hiang factory and I think the Member for Tiong Bahru GRC raised the same question. They are, of course, concerned with the very petty punishment that the factory got away with. Sir, we will continue to check retail outlets and ensure that the food sold is only obtained from licensed sources. Of course, if we catch any person engaging in any illegal food production, we will take steps, and tough steps too, to press for deterrent measures on them, including confiscation of property such as vehicles and so on. We will also take steps to close the factory down.

The MP for Tiong Bahru GRC feels that the recent penalty meted out on the illegal ngoh hiang factory was a bit too light. For the information of Members, four charges were made against the illegal ngoh hiang factory. These are (a) selling unclean food; (b) operating a food establishment without a licence; (c) preparing food under insanitary conditions; and (d) polluting a water course. The first charge which the Member mentioned was heard in court on 24th February and the operator was fined $500 which was the maximum fine for that particular offence. The second, third charges are fixed for hearing in court on 16th May 1989 and the fourth charge is coming up for mention on 20th April 1989. The second, third and fourth charges carry heavier maximum fines. Furthermore, imprisonment is also prescribed for the second and third charges. Sir, my Ministry will be pressing for deterrent sentences.

Violation of hygiene standards and fines meted out - this was mentioned in general by the Member for Boon Lay. I remember discussing this topic sometime ago in a Question for Oral Answer raised by the hon. Member, Mr Chin Harn Tong. I remember, in gist, I said that we should not look at these fines only from one aspect of punishment. Fines, the risk of losing one's licence and furthermore adverse publicity, all these taken together are actually sufficent detterents to deter people from breaching food standards. Nevertheless, my Ministry will amend the Environmental Public Health Regulations to increase the maximum fine for the first offence to $1,000. The second and subsequent offence will carry a maximum fine of $4,000 or a jail term not exceeding three months or both.

The MP for Changi expressed his concern over cutting corners on food hygiene, especially in relation to privatization. For this reason, I agree with the hon. Mr Chin Harn Tong on the importance of conducting courses for food handlers and making them more aware of the importance of food hygiene and food standards. We do have an on-going programme to educate hawkers on proper food and hygiene practices. For instance, we call hawkers up in groups and in this briefing session we do show slides and transparencies to impress upon the hawkers the importance of keeping clean personal hygiene and also to keep food clean.

As far as I can remember, as of last year, we covered 3,000 hawkers and we will carry on with our programme of creating awareness among our hawkers on the importance of food hygiene. We also do conduct periodic health checks and educational checks on food handlers. These checks are directed not only at the food handlers but also on their assistants. We have considered Mr Chin's idea of conducting courses for hawkers. Oft-times we have come out with the answer that it is really not necessary but, as he has raised it again, I will ask my officers to reconsider this point. But maybe I can suggest that we consider also getting hawkers, ie, those who have got their licences suspended after collecting 12 or more points in the Demerit Points Scheme, to undergo a course before we re-issue them a licence. I think Members will support me on that.

The Chairman: Mr Yap, we are running short of time.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: Sir, Mr Chin also suggested giving merit points as an encouragement to those who conform with our requirements in food handling and food hygiene. I think this is a good idea. We will ask the officers to consider this.

He made some remarks on outdoor catering services. We do check outdoor catering services once a month and spot checks are also carried out on them when we come across them, say, for example, at void decks. But whatever we do, in my view, we also require consumers to play their part and here we have made it for the convenience of the public by making it a requirement for such services to state their advertisement licence number in the advertisement in whichever press they place them in. If there is any doubt in the minds of the public, of course, the public can always call us up.

The hon. Encik Ibrahim Othman wanted to know how the Ministry of the Environment ensures proper food handling and personal hygiene of hawkers, including proper attire. I have mentioned this briefly earlier on. I would just add that in our inspections we do also advise hawkers on the importance of wearing clean attire to give a better presentation to the consumers.

Sir, you have said that there is not enough time. There are plenty of points which I have to reply to. But I would like to reply to one specific point raised by the Member for Braddell Heights before I go on to the others, in case you cut me down. The Member has said that we have singled out his constituency for special treatment. First, let me assure him that the hawkers in his constituency are not that attractive for special treatment. He made the point that his Lim Tua Tow Market is the smallest, or one of the smallest. I have some figures here which I have just picked up this morning. Roughly, in Lim Tua Tow Market, the size of a lock-up stall is 8.1 sq metres, compared to Beo Crescent Market, 6.7 sq metres; Chong Pang Market, 6.7 sq metres; Bukit Timah, 6.5 sq metres; North Bridge Road Market, 4.4 sq metres. Then there is another ---

The Chairman: Mr Yap, you have gone into extra time. We still have three more amendments and the Members have indicated that they want to speak. So I am afraid you have to end this amendment.

Mr Goh, would you withdraw your amendment? I am sorry we have to go on to the other amendments.

Mr Goh Chee Wee: Mr Chairman, I have a few more points to raise. But I presume there is no time.

The Chairman: I am afraid we are running out of time and we have three more amendments. The Members want to cover them.

Mr Goh Chee Wee: So you want me to withdraw the amendment?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Goh Chee Wee: Sir, I thank the Hon. Minister and the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for all the replies, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (3), Mr Chin. You have 5 minutes for this discussion.

Mr Chin Harn Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Code ME 1500 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, the flood problem in Singapore has to a large extent been resolved for which due credit must be given to the Drainage Department. However, Sir, there are still a few areas which continue to be liable to flood, particularly when a heavy downpour coincides with a high tide. Perhaps the Minister can inform the House which are the areas with serious flood problems.

Sir, floods inconvenience not only the people residing in the affected areas but also the motorists. Inconvenience to the latter can be minimized by informing them of the occurrence of floods well in time. But timely information seems to be out of the question at present because I believe, the depth of the flood water has to be manually assessed each time before the information is laboriously relayed to the SBC for broadcast to the motorists. The result is that more often than not motorists first receive flood warning over the radio when they are already in the midst of a flood or continue to receive flood warning long after the flood has subsided. Sir, it is high time that the Police, the SBC and the Environment Ministry got their teamwork properly together and introduced a more efficient, more reliable, and quicker method of monitoring and reporting on the flood situation. The motorists want current flood warnings and not historical flood reports.

Sir, also let us not forget the plight of the people residing in the flood-affected areas. They should not have to continue to worry endlessly about floods every time it rains in Singapore.

Can the Minister tell the House when the Bukit Timah Flood Alleviation Scheme Phase IIA will be completed, and how much will it cost? Sir, while the scheme patently seeks only to alleviate flooding, I trust the overall intention of the Ministry is to prevent floods on a more permanent basis. If this is so, the question is: when will this be achieved? Can the Minister give some indication as to when the Bukit Timah catchment area will be free of floods?

Encik Ibrahim Othman: Sir, I just wish to add some questions with regard to the Bukit Timah floods. I wish to ask the Minister whether work on the Bukit Timah Flood Alleviation Scheme is being carried out on schedule. And if it is, whether it can be speeded up so that we can overcome or minimize the problem of flooding in Bukit Timah.

The Chairman: Dr Lee, I notice you have another amendment on the same topic. Would you like to ask your questions now?

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Yes, Sir. I suppose I will just say a few words since much of what I wanted to say has already been said.

Sir, in the past some form of supposed flood alleviation work had been done but they never seemed to have worked very much. Recently they have a new flood alleviation scheme. Unfortunately this too does not seem to have helped very much. In fact, it appears to make the whole situation worse. There are more floods nowadays than at any time in the past. In the meanwhile, I think the Ministry could do something to help. May I suggest two things: (1) that they raise the level of low-lying areas which are prone to floods; and (2) employ more manpower to ensure that the drains are not blocked and that the drainage is free.

Dr Ahmad Mattar: Mr Chairman, Sir, Mr Chin Harn Tong, the Member for Aljunied GRC, wants to know where the flood-prone areas of Singapore are. Sir, the three major flood-prone areas in Singapore are Bukit Timah, Kranji and Tanjong Katong. Major flood alleviation schemes are in progress for all these three areas, in addition to drainage improvement projects in other smaller pockets of flood-prone areas in different parts of the island.

Next, Mr Chin Harn Tong also spoke of flood announcements. Sir, at present announcements of flood situation are based on police reports. The Police receive the feedback on flood situation from their field officers and the information is then relayed to SBC for announcement over radio.

Sir, my Drainage Department is implementing a project to install a computerized telemetric system that will enable the instantaneous monitoring of water levels in all the drains and canals in flood-prone areas and the immediate notification of the Police and SBC by automated telexes. The system, Sir, currently under development and testing, is a pilot installation covering six sites in the Bukit Timah and Kallang catchments. When completed, it will facilitate timely announcement of flood situations at the pilot sites. Sir, the Drainage Department will evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this pilot installation before considering its expansion to cover other areas.

The Member for Aljunied GRC, Mr Chin Harn Tong, wants to know the completion date of Bukit Timah Flood Alleviation Scheme Phase IIA and its cost. The completion date, Sir, is expected to be February 1990 and the project costs $240 million.

Encik Ibrahim Othman wants to know whether the project can be expedited. Sir, in fact, this has already been done to expedite the completion of the scheme. My Ministry appoints two consultants so that design work of various sections of the diversion canal can proceed simultaneously. Similarly, Sir, the main construction work is divided into five contracts so that work can be carried out along the entire canal concurrently.

Sir, the NCMP Dr Lee Siew-Choh says that in spite of work going on in Bukit Timah, flood occurrences are more frequent nowadays. This is because we get more rainfall these days. And secondly, Sir, it is not possible to reconstruct a canal in a congested area without carrying out work inside the canal itself. So low-level bunds have to be erected inside the canal to keep the worksite, where concrete is being poured, dry. Sir, these bunds are low enough not to cause flooding in moderate rainfall. But flooding will occur under heavy rainfall with or without these bunds, for the simple reason the canal itself is currently under-sized. These bunds, however, do obstruct the free flow of water so that floods, when they do occur, may take a longer time to subside. I am afraid we have to bear with this aggravation until the construction works along Bukit Timah/Dunearn Roads are completed by February next year.

Mr Chin Harn Tong: I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (5), Encik Ibrahim.

Encik Ibrahim Othman: I am not moving.

The Chairman: Dr Ho.

Dr Ho Tat Kin: The point has been covered. I am not moving.

The sum of $176,603,600 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $174,300,000 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

The Chairman: Order.

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

Dr Ahmad Mattar: Mr 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 1989/90, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mr Speaker: So be it.