LAND ACQUISITION (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this is a short and straightforward Bill. It is a temporary measure, which the Government intends to replace at the earliest possible date by comprehensive permanent legislation designed to freeze the values of all immovable property. Government has already secured the services of an expert from Australia who will advise it on the introduction of such legislation.

In the meantime, it is a matter of urgency that the interim legislation now under consideration should be enacted in order to make possible the publication of the Master Plan for which there is provision in the Singapore Improvement Ordinance. This Plan has now been lying idle for two years owing to the reluctance of the previous Government to enact legislation for the stabilisation of land values.

This Government will not tolerate any further delay and intends to see to it that the Plan is published at the earliest possible opportunity. There is a growing public demand that this Plan, which will vitally affect forward planning not only by Government but also by private developers, should be brought into the open. The effect of a comprehensive Master Plan, covering the whole island, will be to sterilise some areas for green belts, to allocate some for agriculture and channel development into certain districts. This will mean that some land will depreciate in value, while other land will have its value greatly increased.

When Government comes to acquire land in development, it will find that the planning for which it is responsible has put prices up against itself. It is to avoid this that prices must be pegged to a date before values start shifting from one area to another. Compensation for land to be acquired by Government must be related to a date prior to the publication of the Master Plan. Clause 2 of the Bill is designed to peg prices to the 22nd April 1955, the date on which the Government first announced its intention to introduce such legislation.

Clauses 3 and 4 seek to give the Governor in Council power to acquire land for comprehensive development as new or satellite towns. Doubts have been expressed in the past whether such acquisitions could properly be carried out under the Land Acquisition Ordinance (Chapter 128).

There are two further matters to which I should like to refer. It has been suggested to me that legislation of this nature is likely to hit the small man hardest of all. Well, Sir, my information is, and this has been confirmed by a leading estate agent in the local Press, that the majority of landowners in Singapore are wealthy men. However, if any cases are brought to my notice in which it can be shown that a smallholder is likely to suffer hardship as a result of this legislation, I assure hon. Members that his case will be given special consideration.

The other point is this: the fear has been expressed that this Bill, if it becomes law, is likely to prove a hindrance to private development and may even bring it to a standstill. It has been said that no private developer will buy land in future for residential or industrial development because he cannot be certain that Government will not take this land away from him at the pegged price. The answer to that, Sir, is that the publication of the Master Plan should quickly dispel any uncertainty that may be felt on this account since the Plan will indicate what land will be required for public development. And, as I have said before, Sir, the main object of this Bill is to make possible the early publication of the Master Plan. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak, not merely as a Member of the Opposition whose duty is to oppose, but as a responsible Member of this House anxious to see that the development of Singapore under the Master Plan will be for the benefit of all the people and not at the expense or to the detriment of a section of the community.

The post-war development of Singapore has proceeded at a tremendous pace, and none of us question the fact that such development without a Master Plan would lead to chaotic conditions which would be impossible to solve within the next hundred years.

We accept Sir George Pepler's idea that Singapore should have satellite towns all over the island, consisting of industrial and residential areas surrounded by green belts, so that workers will not have to spend many hours each day going to and from their place of employment. We do not think, however, that Sir George Pepler has, paid sufficient attention to the financial aspect, nor has he shown that it is necessary to freeze the price of land to stabilise its value. In fact, similar legislation in England has proved otherwise.

This proposed Bill is an improvement on the last one in that it fixes land values for the purpose of the Master Plan as on the 22nd of April, 1955, and does not take advantage of any drop in the price of land after that date. Secondly, it is a temporary measure for five years only instead of for an indefinite period. The previous Bill brought in by the last Government was committed to a Select Committee which produced a very interesting report, with three members of the Committee for the Bill and three against; but this Bill has died a natural death with the election of the new Government. Undoubtedly it was this report that has produced the two improvements mentioned by me. If so much improvement has occurred after one report, is it not possible to put further thought on this matter and avoid the freezing of the price of land?

Sir, I would ask that Members of this House for the time being forget election pledges and look at this matter with an open mind. Everyone is agreed that speculation in land and fortunes made as a result of the Master Plan should be prevented at all costs. With the knowledge that this Government is prepared even to prevent the operation of the law of supply and demand, he would be a very daring man who would today indulge in operation of land values at this juncture. In any case, it would be very easy to prevent this, and all that is required is a Bill to provide that any increase in the value of land, either as a result of the Master Plan or as a result of the development by and at the expense of Government, shall not be added to the market value of the land if acquired for public purposes. With this protection, there will no longer be any necessity for secrecy to be attached to the Master Plan. By implication, the public already knows that the Master Plan has been in operation for some time, as plans for development have been turned down in the last year or two without reasons being given. I can see no reason why the Master Plan cannot be published forthwith.

That freezing of land values is impractical is clearly shown by what has happened in England during the last ten years. In 1944, the Town and Country Planning Act froze land values for the purpose of compulsory purchase as at the 31st of March, 1939. This became more and more unrealistic and was finally abandoned when the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 was passed. Under this Act, a most complicated system was established by which the State in fact acquired the development value in all land, and anyone wishing to develop his land would have to pay towards a fund the difference between its value in its existing state and the developed value of his land. For example, when farmland is approved as a satellite town, then he has to pay the sum of £300 million set aside to meet all claims of owners of land, which has to be restricted in use or development. Much trouble and litigation arose out of this law, as a result of which the Town and Country Planning Act of 1953 abolished the development charges and postponed payment out of the £300 million, and published a White Paper stating that Government proposed to bring fresh legislation to use the value of land fixed under the 1947 Act as the upper limit for compensation for planning restrictions as and when development of land is prevented or severely restricted. So far, to my knowledge, no new legislation has been passed in England. Therefore, the position in Great Britain is that there is no restriction on the value of land today. But there is a suggested restriction on the limit of compensation payable based on the potential use of the land in 1947.

Shall we not therefore profit by the mistake made in England and follow the latest legislation instead of rushing into the same position she was in in 1944? Even with all the goodwill of a Socialist Government in providing compensation for those whose land has to be necessarily restricted in usage under nation-wide planning, the scheme was not a success. How can we succeed when no thought has been given under this proposed legislation, not only to large owners, but to owners of small plots of land?

One particular case comes to my mind. Two years ago, a fire destroyed about 50 huts built on two acres of land at the junction of Aljunied and MacPherson Roads. The owner of this piece of land, who inherited it from his father, was a poor man and his house, together with all the huts on this land, was wiped out. He was getting a ground rent of $250. That has completely gone, and he is now living in a little shed built with the remnants salvaged from the fire and roofed over with flattened kerosene tins. He has tried to build huts and even to lease this land for building low-cost houses, but his application has always been turned down. Perhaps the Chief Minister at his next Meet-the-People meeting can help him?

Let us take the case of others who have invested their savings in some piece of land and have mortgaged it. So far, investment in immoveable property has been the soundest investment when the value of money depreciates. When their land is sterilised under the Master Plan, they will not only have to pay interest, but also annual assessment based on 5 per cent of the purchase price. Are such people not entitled to relief? They are now faced with having to part with land at its frozen value, though they might have paid a much higher price for it, plus loss of interest, and payment of assessment. It is not true that only rich owners are affected by this legislation. There are many thousands of smallholders who are vitally affected and whom it is your duty, sitting on the Government Bench, as well as ours to protect. I submit that as soon as land is prevented or severely restricted from development, it should be acquired by Government and compensation paid therefore.

Recently the Chief Minister announced in the newspapers - and he has been supported by the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat) today - that he has engaged an expert from Australia and that he intends to bring a total freeze Bill which will freeze the value of all immoveable property, including houses built thereon. Such statements made before full investigation as to the workability of total freeze in Singapore are bound to scare away investment, and I would commend to him the wise words of the Secretary of State for the Colonies: "Do not spoil the future of this great place by scaring away capital and investment." Now that he has got his way by the concession granted to him of 'shall' reading for 'may' in the constitution, we hope the Chief Minister will settle down to work and clear the cloud of uncertainty that has gathered as a result of the series of crises during the short life of this Assembly. If he does not produce shocks and unholy marriages, we promise we shall not produce any.

I say total freeze is unworkable because I have been reliably informed that freezing of land values in Australia

The Chief Minister (Mr D. S. Marshall) rose-

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

The Chief Minister: Cannot the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck) stick to the point, Sir?

Mr Speaker: We are now, on the Land Acquisition (Temporary Provisions) Bill. We are not on a total freeze Bill. Will the hon. Member please keep to the Bill before the House?

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Very well, Sir. I would also point out that since the liberation some 7,000 families in Singapore have put their savings into home ownership, and about 6,000 of these families have mortgaged their homes to the building societies, insurance companies or banks, and are paying instalments instead of rents so that in ten or twelve years they will be the absolute owners of their homes, free from mortgage. These people are the salt of the earth, as they have a stake in the country and will support a wise and stable government against the forces of anarchy. Are these people to be penalised by having the value of their holdings fixed at a certain price should they be unfortunate to have to sell their homes?

Facts and figures have more than once been published showing that Government will not be able to cope with the houses required for the normal increase of the population by birth, let alone that back-log required for those living in the slums. I suggest that we should not in any way discourage people who want to help in the development of housing for those who can afford it.

To sum up, this is a measure restricting the right of free trade, a cornerstone laid by Sir Stamford Raffles when he founded Singapore, on which depends the prosperity of this city, as we know it today. This is a measure recently tried and discarded in Great Britain. It savours of measures shielded by curtains, Iron, Bamboo or Paper, in that the development of the State is made at the expense of a section of the public, consisting not only of owners of large pieces of land, but small pieces of land as well. It seeks to prevent owners of property from obtaining the benefit of any development under the Master Plan but does not make any provision for owners of land whose property is sterilised. What is required is not a hasty temporary measure, but a full comprehensive scheme so that the planned development of Singapore can be carried out for the benefit of all and not at the expense of one section of the community, without creating uncertainty and fear in the minds of potential owners of homes and persons interested in building houses for people with modest incomes, or in building new factories. Unless their confidence in the future is assured, the Master Plan will remain merely as a Plan to be carried out by Government alone, without the co-operation of the people who are in a position to help in the development of Singapore.

Sir, I give notice that I intend to move, after the Second Reading, that this Bill be committed to a Select Committee with the object of producing a comprehensive scheme.

The Chief Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, this measure, which the Member for Paya Lebar damns as a hasty temporary one, has been, it is true, in the making for only two years. I can appreciate that the group, which seeks and needs 24 hours to say 'Thank you', finds considerable difficulty in considering any measure sufficiently mature which has only taken two years of thought. I can appreciate that this group, which asks us to settle down to work, should quite logically suggest that if one report improves a Bill, let us sit down and produce another report, and after that another report, and maybe another report, Sir, and so on ad infinitum, for a Bill that consists of four short clauses!

It is fascinating, Sir, to consider this speech, peppered with inconsistencies, coming from an hon. Member who, speaking on behalf of his Party, says that it is his duty, as a Member of the Opposition, to oppose - a fallacious theory out of which I hope one day he will educate himself.

Sir, it has been suggested that we should slavishly follow what England does. Now, I have the greatest admiration for many of England's institutions and traditions of which not the least is this very Assembly; but I would suggest that we have problems and we have conditions which are perhaps just a little different from England, such as, for example, a little island, an island of no more than about 90 square miles -

Mr G. A. P. Sutherland (Nominated): 200 square miles!

The Chief Minister: 200 square miles! But I think you will find that out of that there are only 90 which can be utilised.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: No!

The Chief Minister: Check your figures from your Annual Report! Sir, I say in this small island we have to support 1,200,000 people, and I trust it is acknowledged that these are, human beings entitled to reasonable homes and reasonable accommodation, both in earning their livelihood and in their family life.

The Member for Paya Lebar, speaking for the investment class, says that immoveable property has been the soundest investment that we have ever had. Sir, my late father, for whom I had the highest regard at all times, used to tell me that in Singapore there were two things which were certain to go up. One was a balloon, and the other was the price of land. I would ask you to look no further than my own home. In 1932 this plot of land, on which I rent a house, was sold for $12,500. In 1939, without finding any gold there, that plot of land with the same house was sold for $37,500 - only three times. In 1954, I had the temerity to suggest to my landlady that I was interested in purchasing the house. I was told it would cost a quarter of a million dollars! What had been done to that land? Neither gold nor silver nor anything else was found there! But what had happened, Sir, was that our population had increased, and all a landowner has to do in this country is to sit on his bottom, sit on his title deeds, and the price will go up! No man has a right to hold society and posterity up to ransom to satisfy his extraordinary lust and greed for wealth.

The increase in the price of land in this territory is something that is quite unbelievable until you examine the evidence. I would be only too happy if the investors were satisfied with a law, which gave them a five, or six per cent return; but, Sir, on the basis of what we know has occurred in this territory, landowners expect an annual return of approximately 100 per cent. It is a very modest return for these pathetic gentlemen for whom we weep today! In England, Sir, there is enough land to satisfy the needs of its population. In Singapore there is not, and what there is must be reasonably rationed; and in so far as this Government has any power, it will be reasonably rationed, and there will be no crocodile tears for those who have indulged in such fantastic exploitation of the basic needs of humanity.

Legislation in England is of a totally different character from that which we seek. It is true that we ultimately seek a complete property freeze as of the 22nd of April, 1955. Full notice of that has already been given in His Excellency's speech on that date, and I merely repeat it by way of confirmation. This present measure, however, is a modest and temporary one that says, 'We will take nothing from you that you have got today. What the price is today, that you will receive; and if you have made any improvements to your property and we should require it for a public purpose, you will receive the full price. But we will no longer accept the position that, because of the pressure of population and the consequent pressure of demand which is far greater than supply, you should be able to hold us up to ransom and demand fantastic profits year by year.'

We read, I think it was in March last, of a very prescient gentleman who bought some land near Paya Lebar for $100,000. That was in 1954, Sir, and in 1955 he made the Government pay him $400,000 for the same piece of land! That is the type of gentleman for whom the Member for Paya Lebar weeps, and asks us to join in mourning as we kill this body of speculators. Let us get this clear: The red herring of the small man is nothing but a red herring. Under the Land Acquisition Bill that is before you, there can be no question of our wanting to take the homes that have recently been built, and that are being owned by the small man. Those homes have been approved by the Singapore Improvement Trust and form part of our development schemes, and it comes ill, Sir, perhaps it was unintended, that this House should be misled into thinking that this Bill could ever cover any question of acquisition of those newly built houses. This Bill is intended to make it possible for Government in the name of the people to take such lands for roads, for public building as may be necessary, in order to fulfil the needs of the people, without having to pay through its nose, without having to pay such fantastic sums that Government, like the people of this country, will be no longer able to utilise the land for its primary purpose - the purpose of serving the people.

The Member for Paya Lebar asks us: but what about the poor man who has to pay his mortgage interest? But that poor man, Sir, if he has utilised his land for the appropriate purpose, will be earning enough income to pay for that interest. We are not depriving him of any means of earning his income. We are merely depriving him of the right to hold the people up to ransom. It is suggested that this is a restriction of the right of free trade. This is a restriction of the right to highway robbery in which the people, for whom you weep, Sir, have been indulging for the last 50 years. I can but regret that the hon. Member, who considers himself a responsible Member of this House, should find it possible to attack a Bill so eminently reasonable and so absolutely necessary for the welfare of the common man.

Mr R. Jumabhoy (Telok Ayer): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill seeks to freeze the value of lands in Singapore, and is the third attempt made by the Government of Singapore.

The first attempt was made in 1949. It was by a Bill called the Singapore Development Bill, clause 212 (1) (a) of which attempted to freeze the value of land acquired by Government from 1st December, 1949.

May I therefore, Sir, be allowed to quote the opinion of very learned and responsible persons on the principle of freezing land values? I quote, Sir, with your permission:

"This sub-section fixes the value of land for the purpose of determining compensation at its market value on the 1st December, 1949, with the addition of the value of certain permitted improvements. The object of this, we are told, is to protect "the public" against inflation of values in land dealings. The expression "the public" for this purpose means-"

The Chief Minister rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order, Mr Chief Minister?

The Chief Minister: Point of information, if I may, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Has the Member for Telok Ayer given way?

Mr R. Jumabhoy resumed his seat.

The Chief Minister: May I ask who these eminent gentlemen are, Sir, before you give him permission to quote these excerpts?

Mr Speaker: Mr R. Jumabhoy?

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will read out the names of these learned men: Mr M. W. Gulliford Mr R. M. Meyer Mr G. A. Cessford Mr S. H. Peek Mr D. S. Marshall (I believe he is the same person as the Chief Minister) Mr Ong Yan Keng Mr Chin Chye Fong Mr F. N. Glineur.

The Chief Minister: Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. May I refer you to Standing Order No. 31 (9)?

Mr Speaker: I have it. Mr Chief Minister, what is your point?

The Chief Minister: My point, Sir, is that the Member for Telok Ayer (Mr R. Jumabhoy) has no right to refer to what I have said outside, unless you see, Sir, that I should be given the right to reply.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Certainly, I think so.

Mr Speaker: Standing Order No. 31 (9) reads as follows:

"The personal conduct of Members of the Assembly shall not be referred to except upon a substantive motion moved for that purpose."

As I see it, the Member for Telok Ayer is about to quote something which the Hon. the Chief Minister said sometime ago. Whether that is "personal conduct" or not I do not know. I have not heard what the hon. Member is going to quote; but if it is a quotation which perhaps needs explanation by the Hon. the Chief Minister, he will certainly be allowed a chance of explaining what he said on some other occasion.

The Chief Minister: Thank you, Sir.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. There is nothing in what I say about "personal conduct". It is only the valuable opinion of a learned gentleman by the name of Mr D. S. Marshall that I am quoting on a very important subject - the freezing of land values in Singapore. I am glad, and I want to hear - because my mind is quite open on -

Mr Speaker: Will the hon. Member please continue with his speech?

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Yes, Sir. To continue:

"It is desirable to protect these people against undue inflation of land values. We are doubtful whether their interests are sufficiently protected by the sub-section as drafted. Although there may be a balance of probability that land values will tend to rise in Singapore so that the Board would get land for less than its market value, there is at least a possibility that land values will fall. There is no doubt that Singapore has experienced since the Liberation a prosperity that cannot be expected to last forever. When this comes to an end, it may have an adverse effect on land values. If so what would the Board do? Purchase at a price above the market? Abandon or delay development? Or would it persuade the Government to amend the Ordinance so as to reduce the value at which it compulsorily acquires land? Almost certainly, it would adopt the last of these courses. Owners of property are entitled to proper protection and this section appears to us to introduce a new and iniquitous principle whereby partial confiscation is cloaked by fixing an arbitrary date of valuation for compensation which does not take into consideration normal changes in market values.

There are bound to be cases where injustice will result from the adoption of 1st December, 1949, as the date for fixing market values. There have already, to our personal knowledge, been transactions since that date at prices in excess of those ruling on 1st December, 1949.

We must also draw attention to widespread stagnation in land dealing, and consequently in private land development that must result from the attempt in the Development Board Ordinance to freeze land values at the level they had reached at 1st December, 1949. If land values are left to be determined by the market, they may go up or they may go down: the one thing that is certain is that they will not remain stationary.

Suppose in a free market land values would have gone up; what is the effect of the Ordinance? People owning land that is acquired by the Board have part of their property expropriated. Apart from the manifest injustice of this another consequence ensues: people who might have bought land for private development, fear that if they do so the Board may prefer to develop it, and in the process of acquiring it, inflict a loss on them of the difference between the market value at the date of acquisition and the value at 1st December, 1949. In short, people who might benefit Singapore by private development of land are deterred from doing so. We have already reached the conclusion that the housing targets of the Board cannot be financed unless private builders are permitted and are given every possible encouragement to undertake a large share of the work. It is clear from what we have said above that the attempt to freeze land values will tend to deter private builders from taking part in the project. We consider that the protection of the Board's operations would be achieved by providing that land is to be acquired by the Board at its fair market value at the date of acquisition, such value not to include any appreciation, which is attributable only to the operations of the Board. In other words, landowners should receive the fair market value of their land excluding any extortionate increase arising from anticipation of development by the Board. It may be difficult but it should be impossible to determine such fair market values.

The provisions as to the value at which land is acquired would result in the Board doing practically all the future developments of the Island.

To make it impracticable for the citizens of a free country to use their vision and energy in developing that country, and to assume that a monopoly of these qualities is possessed by a handful of officials, is not only unjust but absurd."

As I have said before, this opinion has been delivered by a body of learned persons whose names I have already quoted, Sir. It will be most interesting to hear what the Chief Minister has to say about the opinion expressed by Mr D. S. Marshall. My mind is quite open, and I would like to hear it, Sir.

Mr William Tan (Tiong Bahru): Mr Speaker, Sir, hon. Members here present no doubt are aware of considerable public feelings against the proposed Land Acquisition (Temporary Provisions) Bill now before this House. I would state at the outset, that my Party is not opposed to "enforced" acquisition of land or property by Government strictly for public purpose, but will be opposed to such acquisition by Government for "commercial" purpose.

In the case of enforced acquisition by Government of land for public purpose, a Land Acquisition Ordinance already has been in existence for many years. The proposed Bill, now before this House, neither repeals nor amends any part of the Ordinance, and the provisions are in part repugnant to the Ordinance.

For instance, clause 3 of the proposed Bill enables acquisition by Government for a new town site. This is not for a public purpose. It enables the Government to acquire land for the purpose of reselling it to private ownership in part or as a whole. Clause 3 further enables the Government to obtain what is in fact a statutory opinion over the land to be acquired, but does not require the Government to proceed with the acquisition nor to pay for the land until the same is eventually and actually acquired. Under such circumstances, a piece of land may be rendered useless to the owner as long as such option continues. This, I suggest, is unjust.

The proposed Bill, it is claimed, is necessary in order to enable the Master Plan to be implemented, but I am of the opinion that this is not the case. In the first place, the Bill is in no way restricted in its scope to dealing only with those cases in which the Master Plan comes into question. In the second place, it should be asked what the real problems are which should be considered so far as the Master Plan is concerned. These may be summarised under three headings.

(1) To defeat speculation,

(2) To prevent the public from having to pay the landowner compensation for any "windfall" which might accrue to him as a result of the publishing of the zoning provisions of the Master Plan, and

(3) To ensure that in dealing with points (1) and (2), no injustice is inflicted upon the landowner.

Point (1) is already provided for by the existing legislation and it does not require the present Bill to meet it. Point (2) is one, which could be easily dealt with more fairly and equitably by a different form of legislation. In this regard, reference is made to the Minority Report published by the Select Committee, which was appointed to consider the Land Acquisition (Amendment No. 3) Bill, 1953. After reviewing the whole problem, three unofficial members of the Committee made alternative suggestions, which appear to be fairer and more satisfactory than those, proposed in the present Bill. As regards point (3), it may be pointed out that, if land values rise during the next five years for some reason unconnected with the Master Plan, the landowner whose property is to be acquired is not going to receive the fair value for his property. It is therefore extremely probable that the Bill will result in serious injustice, which could be avoided by some alternative form of legislation.

Finally, if it is the intention of Government to freeze values of land which comes within the Master Plan, it would be fairer and more just that only values of such land should be frozen and not every inch of the entire island! In this connection, it should be possible to publish the Master Plan simultaneously with the implementation of the Ordinance. It is difficult to see any justification in freezing values of property or properties which are not required by Government.

In the proposed Bill, certain points require explanation and clarification. Under clause 2 (f), "capital value" of buildings and improvements is, I suggest, not capable of interpretation. Does it mean cost or a number of years purchase? There should be a definition to this.

Similarly, under the same sub-clause of the same clause, the phrase "buildings bona fide erected" sounds nonsensical. Perhaps the draftsman has in mind some provisions similar to those contained in section 25 (2) (a) of the existing Ordinance!

Finally, the true value of land is always bound to fluctuate according to the operation of the law of supply and demand, to the economic condition from time to time, and to the true value of the country's currency. These natural processes have nothing whatever to do with the provision of any Master Plan, which may be produced by Government. Any attempt to disregard them can only result, over such a lengthy period of five years, in producing highly unrealistic, artificial "values" for the lands affected. In the long run, this will not be in the public interest and will cause serious injustice. Furthermore, the effect of the proposed Bill may seriously discourage investments in land and landed properties. This, in fact, is already apparent in the recent lack of interest in real estate investments after the announcement of the proposed legislation. Perhaps more careful and exhaustive consideration may be given in this matter as a whole or at least improvements to the Bill itself should be made before legislation may be adopted.

Mr M. P. D. Nair (Seletar): Sir, I rise to support the Bill. This Bill, Sir, has a very long history. In October 1953 my hon. Friend the Attorney-General (Mr E. J. Davies) introduced into the then Legislative Council a Land Acquisition (Amendment No. 3) Bill, the object of which was to stabilise land values and to effect a few minor amendments to the original Ordinance, and to enable the Master Plan to be published. Before the Second Reading of this Bill took place, it was referred to a Select Committee. For about nine months this Committee deliberated on this Bill, and finally, on the 27th of July, 1954, made its Report. It was not unanimous as was expected.

My attempt in December last year to force the Bill through all its remaining stages during the life of the then Legislative Council failed, and the then Government felt that the Bill should be passed on to the newly-elected Government of Singapore which would have by then a clear mandate from the people on the future of land policy in Singapore. Soon after the election, Sir, the newly elected Government made it quite clear that it would seek additional powers for the acquisition of land for public purposes, and powers for the freezing of values of immoveable property. It also declared that it was the firm intention of the Government to ensure that land was used in the best interests of the people.

I am indeed glad, Sir that the first step towards this process has now begun and the Government has now translated its policy into action. It is my considered view, Sir, that it is our duty to take urgent steps to make provision for the housing not only of the homeless of today, who live in extremely unhappy circumstances, but of the expected increase in population in the coming years. We will be doing a great disservice to the people of this territory if we are complacent of our duty in this direction. The land of the Colony is limited in amount, and on it must be found suitable space for such major land projects as housing, industry, education, agriculture, recreation and communications, etc., for our rapidly growing population. There can be no matter of more importance to the inhabitants of Singapore than the land upon which they live, work and have their recreation, and the policy should be so framed as to secure that each piece of land is used in a manner which will best serve various interests.

Vested interests are apt to object to this Bill, as they have done in the past. They are only a handful. Their objection is not unnatural as their personal interests are involved, but I am sure, Sir, that all those who believe in Singapore and have consideration for the thousands of their less fortunate fellow citizens, who are landless and are compelled by circumstances to live piled up in hovels, will sacrifice their personal interests for the happiness of the community as a whole. After all, all lands belong to the people.

The Land Acquisition (Temporary Provisions) Bill, which is now the subject of discussion, aims at stabilising land values in the Colony. The method adopted is identical with that adopted in very many other countries in implementing any planning scheme of this kind that we have here, that is, fixing the value of land at a date prior to the publication of that Master Plan. There may be an interregnum between the publication of the Master Plan and the time acquisition is necessary, during which land may change hands several times at a rocketing price, and the aim here is to prevent this tendency. An upper price limit is necessary in order to prevent exploitation at the expense of the community on the land planned for development in accordance with the needs and requirements of the community. Sir, stabilisation of land values is a prerequisite to successful town and country planning.

The Master Plan, Sir, is flexible and is subject to revision every five years. The fact that the duration of the proposed legislation is also five years should satisfy those objectors who believe that the fixing of land values should not be for an unlimited period. The directions to the Courts in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded and the considerations to be accepted must, I think, assure the landlords that the Government is not being unfair to their interests. In fact, the terms of compensation are indeed liberal. I am sure, Sir, that the landlords will realise that it is essential that every piece of land should be put to the best use in the interests of the community, and that it cannot be treated as an ordinary marketable commodity. The earlier we give consent to this Bill, the better it is for our country and the people. I do hope, Sir, that although some people might object to this Bill, they will live to realise that the implementation of this Master Plan will give them the joy and inspiration of seeing a happy and prosperous Singapore.

Mr John Ede: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill under consideration, in my opinion, is not a satisfactory Bill because it does not provide for what everyone agrees needs to be provided. What is needed, as my hon. Friend here has said, is a Bill to provide that any increase in land values arising from the Master Plan, or from development by and at the expense of Government, shall not be added to the market value of land if acquired for public purposes.

If a simple Bill of this sort were introduced, it would be legislation of a practical and realistic kind, but the whole principle of this Bill is entirely different. Under this Bill, persons owning land, whether they be rich or poor, are going to have burdened on them the cost of the future development of land and the rest of the community is going to benefit. What is more, can the Minister offer any guarantee that this Bill will not result in more land deals beneath the counter than above it, with the effect of causing more contempt than respect for the law? If he can, I might be more willing to support him.

The Minister, in his speech in this House last April, said that land-freezing legislation was necessary if the Government is to keep its pledge of "improving the standard of living of the poorer classes and providing them with adequate low-cost housing". These sentiments are well understood, but what about the poor smallholders of land and the effect of this Bill upon them? How can you draw the line between the poor and the more well-to-do and give special consideration in some cases without creating invidious distinctions in others?

Turning to various clauses of the Bill, I wish to make a few comments. Firstly, this is a Bill to stabilise the value of land. This surely is really a misnomer. You cannot, in point of fact, fix the value of land. Land must always get more valuable or less valuable according to circumstances. You can only, if you insist, fix its price, but can control of price any more than rent control stamp out the tea money racket? Leaving terminology aside, we should like to know under clause 2 (a) whether Government will pay the 22nd of April value of land even if the price has dropped lower, and the events of the past four months have in many cases produced this situation. If Government does this, paying more for the acquisition of land than the current value, public money will be wasted. To avoid such waste, are we then to find the Government rushing through an amending Bill to amend the 22nd of April date -

The Chief Minister: Wait till then!

Mr John Ede: - to a date more favourable to them? Such a situation breeds so much uncertainty that there will be no dealings in land whatever and there will not merely be a freeze in land but a deep freeze. I hope that we can expect some explanation from the Minister on this question.

Again, under clause 2 (a), let me quote an example of a person owning a piece of land who dies, say, in August 1956. The trustees pay estate duty on his property based on values prevailing in August 1956, at, say, $3 a square foot. Before the trustees can dispose of this property, Government acquires it, compensation payable under this Ordinance being based on $2 a square foot, being the market value on the 22nd of April, 1955. Will Government refund the death duty on the difference, namely a dollar a square foot?

Clause 2 (f) seems to be most unsatisfactorily drafted. What is meant by "the actual capital value"? Is this the actual cost at the time of building, without taking into account the fact that building costs can rise? And what is meant by "bona fide erected"? All buildings are bona fide erected in the sense that they are approved first by the Singapore Improvement Trust, the City Council or the Rural Board. But if Government means that owners might make improvements in the hope of getting better compensation at the time of acquisition, this, I submit, is nonsense, because, in view of the provision "less an allowance for depreciation", nobody is going to erect a $20,000 house on land likely to be acquired if he is to get only, say, $18,000 for it a short while later.

Under this same clause 2 (f), what happens to the owner of a low-lying piece of ground who bona fide has started earth-filling operations prior to the 22nd of April 1955? Supposing $25,000 worth of filling has been done before this date and the balance of $10,000 afterwards. If the Government acquires this property in October 1955, will he receive compensation for the $25,000 spent before the 22nd of April?

Coming to clause 3, we find that Government will be able to acquire any area of land it pleases by designating such an area "as a site for a new town". This gives the Government exceedingly wide powers and makes all ownership of land insecure. And governments have been known to change their minds before now. Are we to see large areas of land acquired for new towns at the 22nd of April price, plans later abandoned, and the land sold again at a much enhanced price?

I turn to another point, concerning the making-up of private roads. There are many owners - some quite poor owners - who are frontagers on private roads shortly to be made up and taken over as public roads. These frontagers have to pay for the making-up of their roads. They will also have to pay extra assessment once the road is completed. The annual value will increase as each new amenity is brought within their reach, such as electricity, water or sewerage. Despite this increased valuation and extra expenditure on rates, will the Government still acquire their properties at the 22nd of April market value? Will this not be a case of great hardship, indeed injustice, to numbers of by no means well-to-do people living on private roads?

Sir, I have said, I hope, enough to show that this is not a very desirable Bill in its present form - vague, full of loopholes, made all the more undesirable if it is to be pushed through this House without proper consideration. I repeat, nobody wants to see speculation arising or special advantage gained as a result of the publication of the Master Plan; but a much simpler Bill than the present one is all that is needed to see that this is prevented, and to prevent an otherwise inevitable black-market in land transactions.

The Minister for Labour and Welfare (Mr Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Telok Ayer (Mr R. Jumabhoy) in his speech just now said that this is the third time that the Government has tried to impose a Land Freeze Bill on the public. It is utter nonsense, Sir. This is the first time that this Government is introducing a Bill in the interests of the public. The two other times, in 1949 and 1953, I think - I may be wrong, but anyway those are the years - were attempts made by past administrations, and they were frustrated because of the presence of the so-called representatives of the people, as represented by the Party opposite.

The Member for Telok Ayer in his speech read out a statement attributed to Mr D. S. Marshall, together with a few other names. I will follow his style, and will therefore read newspaper reports in connection with what Mr Marshall said before Mr Marshall ever thought of even contesting the elections.

The Sunday Standard of January 31, 1954 - there was no thought of election in his mind then: