"LAND-OWNERS' PROFITS WOULD SHOCK THE DEVIL! Marshall backs Acquisition Bill

"The history of profits made by landowners over the past 50 years and the exclusion of small income groups from possession, or even rental, of a bit of roof will 'shock the conscience of the Devil' charged Mr D. S. Marshall, a prominent member of the Singapore Ratepayers' Association yesterday.

Championing land acquisition, Mr Marshall said that the attack on the Colony's Bill was not by small landlords, but "exclusively by individuals and groups owning land by the hundreds of acres and houses by the dozen and who utilised such land exclusively for personal profit."

The first thing I wish to make clear to the public is that this Bill does not seek to stabilise land values. All it seeks is to stabilise the price, which Government will have to pay for land which it may acquire in the future for public purposes", he pointed out.

Mr Marshall emphasised that transactions between private individuals and organisations were not affected. "The Master Plan", he said, "will be providing satellite towns to 'siphon' off the dreadful overcrowding in the city." He added that for these satellite towns Government must acquire land for roads, schools, police stations, swimming pools, civic centres and other amenities. If Government had to pay the increased price brought about by the publication of the Master Plan and the pressure of increasing population, these satellite towns would be rendered an impossibility.

The Bill, Mr Marshall explained, sought to pay the maximum price of October 1953, which, in his opinion, was a very high price indeed. "Where is the confiscation? Where is the suffering?" he asked. He added, "The Bill is timid. It does not go anywhere near far enough. There should be an immediate overall freezing of all land values so that human beings of today and of posterity may be able to afford a bit of roof over their heads without having to pay ransom to owners of land, not by 100 per cent but by thousands and tens of thousand per cent."

Mr Marshall then explained his stand in the Singapore Ratepayers' Association. "I was in Kuantan when the Association, on an urgent 48-hour notice, called an emergency meeting to seek approval of a memorandum to the Colonial Secretary in respect of the Land Acquisition Bill." Mr Marshall immediately sent the Association a telegram in which he expressed disapproval of any condemnation of the principle of freezing land values. "With a rapidly growing population in a limited area", the telegram stated, "healthy development required restrictions on uninhibited exploitation by land-owners. There is no sacred right to hold posterity up to highway robbery in return for the opportunity of a roof. When requested to weep for land-owners look back fifty years and their swollen profits look forward fifty years and the growing legions of wretched homeless", the telegram added.

The meeting of the Singapore Ratepayers' Association held on November 11, 1953, by a majority vote decided to condemn the Bill."

This is in reply, Sir, to what the Member for Telok Ayer has said in connection with the stand of Mr Marshall on the Land Freeze Bill. I would like, Sir, with your permission to quote extracts from a joint memorandum to the Chairman of the Select Committee of the Legislative Council on the Acquisition of Land (Amendment No. 3) Bill, 1953, in which Mr Marshall is a signatory. I find it necessary because this is in reply to the attack from the Member for Telok Ayer -

Mr R. Jumabhoy rose-

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order, Mr R. Jumabhoy?

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, I never attacked anyone. I only asked the opinion of Mr Marshall now as the Chief Minister.

Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Yew Hock.

Mr Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, he attacked by insinuation. In a memorandum to the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Acquisition of Land (Amendment No. 3) Bill, 1953, Mr Marshall stated the following:

"We have followed the controversy over the principle introduced by Section 9 of the Bill, and are all too conscious of some of the one-sided representations made to you by interested parties whose occupation it is to make profits out of land and who could, and did, give considerable time and spend money on legal advice and representation to present their sectional view.

Each of us is a domiciled British subject keenly interested in the welfare of this Colony and with no axe whatever to grind in the matter now before you.

We view the provisions of this Bill against the background of certain basic factors: -

(1) This Colony is a very small island.

(2) There is living on this small Island a population of more than 1,100,000, and it is reliably anticipated that this population will be doubled by internal expansion in 20 years, so that in that period we have to find room for another 1,100,000 people in the limited area at our disposal after making provisions for defence requirements, catchment areas, etc.

(3) This intensive internal increase of population within so limited a space is, we believe, a phenomenon unparalleled elsewhere.

(4) The price of land during the past 50 years principally as a result of the pressure of increasing population has risen fantastically, and landlords have reaped and are reaping profits out of all proportion to even commercial concepts of reasonable returns on capital outlay.

We have no objection to the principle as such of profit making on however large a scale, and rejoice with whoever discovers gold and diamond mines, or wins a lottery, or perfects an invention, but where uninhibited exploitation of the law of supply and demand precludes human beings from utilising, basic necessities of life, then, in our view, such uninhibited exploitation for prohibitive profits is a public evil, and such anti-social conduct should be controlled.

(5) It is apparent to us that the conduct of landowners in exploiting to its utmost the considerable demand for land due to pressure of population is directly responsible for the horrible state that exists in certain areas in this Colony of a thousand human beings per acre piled up in wretched cloth cubicles. Such conduct is also directly responsible for the very unhealthy position that exists of only a handful of domiciled persons owning their own homes in this Colony.

(6) The doctrine of freedom of action of individuals is accepted by all responsible persons, including the objectors to this Bill, as being limited within the framework of the good of the whole; and we have at all times had the protection of the Courts in the enforcement of the Criminal Law to prevent the freedom of action of the individual from being exercised in abuse of the good of the general public.

The objectors to this Bill, however, seem to consider that the principle of limitation of freedom of action within the framework of the good of the whole is not applicable to the realms of commercial economics and particularly not applicable to landowners who seemingly have some sacred right to freedom of action in unimpeded exploitation irrespective of the detriment to the public.

We cannot accept this contention, nor do we believe has it ever been accepted by any Government at any time in the history of the world, and it is our hope to prove in this memorandum, that such alleged right to uninhibited exploitation should not be permitted to exist.

(7) It is our considered view that it is the duty of responsible Government in this Colony to take urgent steps to-day to make provisions for the housing, not only of the homeless of to-day who live piled up in foetid hovels, but of the anticipated increase of population in the next 20 years.

(8) We sincerely believe that the possession of a home and a place to work in is one of the basic needs of a human being, and an economy which requires human beings to live and work in wretched circumstances, which the objectors to this Bill would not permit their dogs to be subjected to, will create antagonistic rebellious anti-social elements. The potential danger of not providing housing for the population is very great and especially for the type of persons who object to this Bill. It is unfortunate they cannot see, in their own personal interests, that, there should be some limitation to the uninhibited exploitation which is the dragon's teeth they sow and which will reap for them and the rest of the country grave retribution in the future.

We prefer to appeal to you on the wider basis of elementary justice to human beings.

(9) Within this view of the needs of the domiciled people of this country, the aim and effect of the Bill is extremely limited.

As we understand it the Government, in common with all persons with any acquaintance of land values, is satisfied that there will inevitably be a considerable increase in the price of land due to increase of population in the future.

Furthermore, we understand that there is a Master Plan for the development of this Island, to relieve the dreadful pressure of the homeless for housing, and that the publication of this Plan awaits the coming into force of the provisions of this Bill.

We furthermore understand the Government is satisfied that the publication of this Plan showing areas required for particular development will immediately affect land values. This is strenuously denied - "

Mr Speaker: Order, please. I think the Minister has possibly said quite enough in explanation of the memorandum that was read, unless, of course, he is adopting those views as his own opinion on this particular Bill.

Mr Lim Yew Hock: I share the same opinion, Sir; so, may I be permitted to continue? I have read it through and I share the opinion, Sir.

Mr Speaker: In that case, you must not read!

Mr Lim Yew Hock: This is the last sentence, Sir

" - This is strenuously denied by the objectors, but we accept it as logical and empirically valid."

Mr Speaker, Sir, as late as January and February of 1954, before the Hon. the Chief Minister ever thought of contesting the election, he already held such views. Now that we are returned to serve the people as a Labour Coalition Government, we were returned with a mandate to see that the Land Acquisition (Temporary Provisions) Bill becomes law.

We have this morning heard from the Opposition Members their views that although they support the Bill, because they feel that they cannot object to the Bill, they raise various points which make one think that their support for the Bill is just sheer nonsense. The Member for Telok Ayer, Sir, has said that two attempts failed. These two attempts failed because of similar tactics adopted by members of the same Party during the previous administration.

The Hon. the Chief Minister has, in his reply to the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck), covered almost every objection that can be raised against this Bill. Are we to look after the poor and needy, or are we to look after the handful of rich landowners who do nothing but suck from the poor?

The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas): Mr Speaker, Sir, some 2,000 years ago or more there was in China a utilitarian philosopher called Ho Kuan-tze, and I recollect one of his sayings which seems to me highly in point in this debate. He said, "Seek nothing for yourself. Only what is for the general good is permissible." If we apply this to land policy, it will have most far-reaching effects; and it has been applied.

Historically, you can say that there has been through recorded history a struggle between the powers that sought to treat land as the basic necessity for human life and therefore a thing which must be shared equally and fairly, and the people who say that land is a basic necessity of life, and we will grab it and exploit our position and compel people to pay the maximum rent for it that we can extract. That has been a long and historical struggle, and you will find traces of it in the laws of England. The original theory there was that land was held in trust, not for the purpose of private profit exploitation, but when a man had proved himself to be a good and worthy servant of the King, he then received a grant of land which was held in trust in relation to his past and future services. He was not there to exploit the land, but to use it as a means of service. You can find the same idea in my small reading in the subject in India and in Egypt, in China and in the Western European countries generally.

The fact is that land is not a proper commodity for trade at all. I know that Members of the Opposition will very much resent that view. They feel that it is a highly proper commodity for trade because it is extremely profitable. It is profitable to the individual, but it is disastrous to the community. I expect nearly everybody in this Chamber knows what a traffic block is, and the whole basis of our traffic blocks in Singapore is uncoordinated development by private individuals on the basis of profit. Instead of having your streets developed as traffic arteries down which traffic flows, they are developed as trading centres in which people are seeking to exploit preferential positions; and as a result of that attempt at exploitation, you have streets obstructed and blocked, and it is extremely difficult for vehicles to move.

In the same sort of way, I expect many of you look at your consolidated bills from the City Council, and say, 'Well, that is an awfully expensive bill.' It would be a great deal cheaper if the town had been planned as an overall development instead of being developed by private enterprise for private profit. The cost of your City Council, both in its capital cost and in its recurrent expenditure, derives very largely from having to lay their underground pipes and that kind of thing through a maze of ill-planned streets and unco-ordinated development.

We have had some pitiful words about the hardship of the man who owns a little bit of land. In many cases, it may be true, and the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing is perfectly aware of it. He has referred to the possibility of there being hard cases of that kind, and has said they will get special treatment. But I would like to point out to hon. Members opposite that a small piece of land can still be extremely valuable. A piece of land the size of a badminton court down in this part of the town will have a much greater value in the market than a very large area of land in the middle of the Sahara desert. It is not the size of the land that necessarily produces its exploitable value, but it is its position. When files come across my desk in my office, I am continually seeing how the overall development, one service or another, is held up by the fact that somebody is sitting on a piece of land and he cannot be moved; and when you want to move him, you find that somebody else is sitting on another piece of land and you cannot move A to B because B will not get to C. The public interest is continually obstructed by people who have some sort of tenancy right; they just sit there and you cannot move them out. It is absolutely essential, if you are going to get development that can possibly cope with a population coming up to 2,000,000, that you should have very wide powers indeed - powers both to secure land when necessary and see that the small man does not suffer hardship as a result. When you have to transfer the small man from one piece of land in order to get a new road, you may have to put him on another piece of land. You are not going to pay some rich landlord a very large sum before you can transfer your squatters there.

The Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede), I think, said that he did not object to the principle that there should be no profit made out of increases in value arising from the Master Plan, but he did not apparently object to people making profits out of a rise in population. A population increase is the essential thing that will produce higher land values, and the man who makes profit out of that factor is like a fireman who would refuse to rescue a baby from a fire until he had extracted the last possible dollar from the parents as a sort of reward. The situation is that we are going to have an increasing slum population, and everything that blocks the provision of proper homes for these people is a horrible exploitation of the misery of hundreds of thousands of people.

There are other points which he raised which I think perhaps could be dealt with more profitably in the Committee stage of the Bill, but he did note various complications which arise, particularly from the bad inheritance of the past - private roads for example. There are private roads in Singapore that are a shocking blot and disgrace, not to the Government or the City Council, but to the landlords. Very often, they managed to get through ill-co-ordinated plans and they also managed to get people to buy a house in the expectation of a road going through, and they left the road as a morass instead. They did nothing about it. I do not think, therefore, that you can rightly raise the bad practices of the past and say, because these foolish complications have risen up through the errors of the past, proper planning for the future cannot be allowed.

There is one final quotation that I will make, not from 2,000 years ago, but from I think it is at the end of 1950 or the beginning of 1951. I do not recollect the date perfectly, but I do recollect the words. It was a United Nations Commission that came to this happy island, and they remarked, when they left: "Singapore is being strangled in an iron ring of landlords and land-owners": and it is that iron ring that has to be broken.

Mr Speaker: Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat, in reply?

Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat: Mr Speaker, Sir, I expected opposition from the Benches opposite me, particularly from the Members of the Progressive Party. I have always maintained, Sir, that apart from representing themselves, they also represent that section of the community, which has always thought of themselves more than they think of others.

The Bill before us today, Sir, was published almost two months ago, but no attempt was made either by the Members of the Progressive Party or the Democratic Party, or for that matter any representative of the land trade in Singapore, to submit their opinions and their criticisms to me. As I see it, Sir, their action today is nothing short of an attempt to stifle this Bill, just as their predecessors in the previous administration had stifled other Bills that would have brought great benefit to the vast majority of the people of Singapore.

Sir, as I propose to commit the Bill to a Committee of this House, I do not intend to reply point by point to the objections raised by the Opposition. These will be dealt with in the Committee stage if they are brought up again.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

The Chief Minister: Division, Sir.

Mr Speaker: You are a bit too late, Mr Chief Minister!

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Sir, I move,

That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee with the Speaker as Chairman and Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

Question put, and negatived.