CONTROL OF RENT (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.19 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr Chan Sun Wing): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Control of Rent (Amendment) Ordinance, No. 4 of 1960, which temporarily suspends for a period of six months those sections of the Control of Rent Ordinance which operate to the detriment of farmers and tenants of attap and wooden huts, expires on 23rd July, 1960. It is the intention to introduce new legislation to protect farmers and others engaged in food production and to do what is fair and just to those popularly called squatters. However, in view of the prorogation of the Assembly and the business at the opening session, it has been necessary to introduce this as an urgent Bill at this sitting.

The new legislation is being drafted. It has provisions for long leases and, in certain cases, for compensation in accordance with the People's Action Party's announced programme. The effects and ramifications of this legislation have to be carefully studied and weighed, particularly in regard to land use, development needs and quantum of compensation. Hon. Members will therefore agree that the circumstances warrant, a further extension of the provisions of Ordinance No. 4 of 1960 to enable the new legislation to take its course at the next session of the Assembly.

Here I would like to point out with emphasis that in the drafting of the Control of Rent Ordinance, this Government will see that the interests of the farmers are protected. They will not be victimized by the private landowners either by raising rents or causing them to be evicted. The increase of rents and the eviction of the farmers only enhance the interests of the private landowners, but they are; detrimental to the immense benefits derived from the social production by the farmers. However for the sake of industrial development, it is necessary to provide sites for the building of factories and also the building of schools and hospitals. This may give rise to a situation where the interests of the farmers may conflict with the long-term interests of the State, especially when there is a need for the State to acquire land from the private landowners. Of course, if this conflicting situation can be avoided, we will certainly do our best to avoid it. But all of us are aware that Singapore is a small island. Sites have been fully developed. It seems that a conflict between the interests of the farmer and the national interests cannot be avoided. However, I will have this point thrashed out so that people can make preparations in regard to this matter.

Question proposed.

3.20 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Opposition is not against this Bill. But the Opposition must draw the attention of this House to the fact that this is the third time that this Bill has come up before this House. At the sitting on Jan. 13, this year, the Minister for National Development tabled a similar Bill on a certificate of urgency. During the debate, Sir, I pointed out to the Hon. Minister for National Development that the Opposition was in support of this Bill. I would take the liberty, Sir, of quoting what I said from Hansard, Vol. 12, No. 1, Col. 50:

"Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister has said that the Bill is an involved piece of legislation and that it may result: in many representations from interested parties. Would the Minister please say whether he anticipates that the Bill can be presented to this Assembly in time before the six months is over? If he cannot do it, we are even prepared to extend the period to one year. We are just as interested in looking after the interest of the farmers as the Government."

And the Minister for National Development boldly replied:

"Mr Deputy Speaker, the new Bill will be presented and passed within the six-month period."

Here, Sir, is another instance of the P.A.P. Government saying things that they do not mean or they do not mean what they say.

Today, in moving the Second reading, the hon. mover of this motion should have said, "We are sorry that we have not been able to get this Bill out in time, and we therefore ask for an extension of another six months." Instead of which the hon. mover keeps on repeating the same thing over and over again. "We have the interests of the farmers at heart". So have we. We were prepared to give the Minister for National Development one year. He did not require it. He said he could do it within six months. It may be, Sir, that because the Minister no longer has the power to look after this particular job, the Bill could not be presented in time.

3.26 p.m.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Leader of the Opposition always treads on rather risky and dangerous ground. Firstly, if he were so anxious and desirous of helping the poor farmers and squatters, why did he not suspend the operation of these two clauses of the Bill when he had the power to do so?

Secondly, Sir, the reason why the Bill has not been tabled for First Reading before the prorogation of this House is that unexpected difficulties have arisen as to how to assess compensation other than by referring it to the Rent Conciliation Board. We are trying to work out a procedure whereby if the straightforward formula which the Government uses as a basis for compensation, and which private developers would have to pay their squatter tenants cannot be satisfactorily accepted by both parties, then there must be a much more simple procedure than a reference to the Rent Conciliation Board. It may well be that we are unable to discover a more simple and expeditious method. This might have the undesirable result of increasing the already heavy work of the Rent Conciliation Board. But if we had up to July to do it, I think we could have tabled the Bill for First Reading now, move the Second Reading, Committee stage and Third Reading in June. It is not July yet and the Bill is not due to expire until the 23rd of July. Unlike the last Labour Front Government which went on and on and on and never knew when to stop, we decide that once a year the Assembly should be pro rogued and we should have the House tidied up, all papers nicely bundled up for the year. Therefore, because the Assembly is going to be prorogued after our sitting on 1st of June for the election of the Speaker, all Bills will die, as we do not intend to have the opening of the next session until some time in July itself, and then seven clear days for the debate on the Government's policy address. We have thought it prudent thereafter to put in this Bill by an extension of six months rather than inconvenience the House in July.

3.29 p.m.

Mr Rajah: Sir, the Control of Rent Ordinance (Cap. 242) has been amended on two previous occasions in order to suspend the two sections under discussion. On the second occasion, Mr Speaker, Sir, it was the Control of Rent (Amendment No. 2) Bill. This is the third occasion on which the Government is coming to the House to ask for a third extension. In view of this, should not this be the Control of Rent (Amendment No. 3) Bill rather than the Control of Rent (Amendment No. 2) Bill, because (Amendment No. 2) Ordinance was debated at the sitting on the 13th of January this year? That is one point. While appreciating that -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think that probably is a point which could well be made in Committee. We are now on the principle of the Bill.

3.30 p.m.

Mr Rajah: The other point is that we do appreciate that the amendments to these sections will involve difficult points of law and procedure, and it was because of that that we offered the Government a further six months to what they had asked the House. Even now, Sir, the Opposition is prepared to give the Government another six months should they find difficulty in so far as procedure is concerned and in tying up these two difficult sections and balancing conflicting interests.

The Prime Minister: We do not require your patience in this matter.

Mr Speaker: Mr Parliamentary Secretary, in reply?

Mr Chan Sun Wing: No.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Chan Sun Wing].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

3.35 p.m.

Clause 1-

Quest on proposed, "That clause 1 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, this is the third occasion on which the Government is coming to the House with a request to extend the operation of these two sections. In view of that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I was wondering whether clause 1 should not read:

"This Ordinance may be cited as the Control of Rent (Amendment No. 3) Ordinance, 1960..."

and not "(Amendment No. 2)" as it now stands.

The Chairman: The answer is in the Clerk's office. That is, the Control of Rent (Amendment No. 2) Bill was introduced in 1959 and it was passed in 1960. It then became the Control of Rent (Amendment) Ordinance, 1960. Consequently, this Bill will now become the Control of Rent (Amendment No. 2) Ordinance, 1960.

Mr Rajah: I am much obliged, Sir.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.