CONTROL OF RENT (AMENDMENT NO. 3) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.55 p.m.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I have His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommnedation to proceed with this Bill, and I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Control of Rent Ordinance was originally designed to impose controls on landlords in order to prevent the full effect of a shortage of land and housing arising from the last war from falling completely on the shoulders of tenants. The Ordinance imposed restrictions on increases of rent that could be charged for premises and also gave the tenants protection from eviction. From time to time, the Ordinance has been amended, and as it stood in 1959, the Ordinance enabled an order for the recovery of possession of any premises to be given inter alia in cases falling with the provisions of paragraphs (i) and (k) of section 15 (1) of the Ordinance. They enumerated two sets of circumstances. First, where the premises consisted of a building or buildings of a temporary character and the site is required by the landlord for the erection of a building or buildings of a permanent character; and the second set of circumstances, where the landlord of any premises intends to demolish the same for the purpose of rebuilding on the site, and the Court is satisfied that such demolition is necessary in the interests of public health or town improvement. Sir, until this Bill, fortunes have been made at the Bar in arguing the intricacies on the meaning of "town improvement and public health", and many a landlord has been able to reacquire possession of his land. But I think it weighs heavily on the conscience of many an advocate acting on behalf of landlords that the provisions of paragraphs (i) and (k) of section 15 (1) of the Control of Rent Ordinance have operated harshly against tenants, who have suffered to be removed without compensation in the interests of an abstract ideal embraced in the phrase "public health and town improvement".

Again, the Ordinance as it stood did not give protection, where land was being cultivated but where no buildings which can constitute "premises" as defined in the Ordinance existed on the plot of land. This worked adversely against farmers who, though in occupation of and in cultivation of land, nevertheless were not protected by the Ordinance because they did not have their homes on the holdings they cultivated.

This Bill seeks to redress the position. Sir, it is inevitable that development which is beneficial to the community as a whole must proceed. But at the same time, a balance has to be struck between this and the other important aspect, that of the occupiers who are usually economically in the lower income brackets. This amending Bill seeks in a fair and equitable manner to maintain the balance, on the one hand, development of land by owners of land and, on the other, the interests of the tenants who have to be sacrificed by being evicted from the land in order that the land can be developed.

Sir, the Bill extends the protection of the Control of Rent Ordinance to agricultural land which includes houses and other buildings built thereon, whether before or after the 7th day of September, 1947. The rent of agricultural land will then be subject to the control of the Rent Conciliation Board.

The Bill in Part IIIA provides that no order or judgment for the recovery of possession of any agricultural land or of any premises comprised in a tenancy shall be made or given under section 15 (1) (i) or (k) unless the landlord has obtained the prior written consent of the Commissioner of Lands. The Commissioner of Lands may require the landlord to satisfy him that the development proposed is in the interests of town and country planning, and that the eviction is therefore desirable. He may also require the landlord to deposit with him a sum of money recommended by the Panel of Assessors as a fair compensation to the tenant. If an Order of Court for recovery of possession is made, this sum will be paid over to the tenant. If no Order is made, the sum will be refunded to the landlord.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this proviso requiring the consent of the Commissioner of Lands before any action can proceed for the recovery of possession of agricultural land is complementary to the clause in the sister Bill, which prevents the transfer of agricultural land from one person to another person other than for the same agricultural purposes. Where land which is being used for agricultural purposes is sought to be recovered to be developed other than for agricultural purposes, then the Commissioner must first be satisfied that it is imperative in the interest of public health or town improvement or town planning. In this way, added protection is given to tenants who are not desirous of obtaining long leases for various reasons, either because they do not wish to be burdened with a long lease, or because they may fear the adjustment in rent which is allowable under the Agricultural Leases Bill to approximate more closely an economic rent if a long lease is sought for. This impediment in the power of any landlord in recovering possession of his land gives some measure of protection to the month-to-month tenant farmer who may wish to continue as a month-to-month tenant farmer rather than acquire a twelve-year lease.

Sir, all farmers or other tenants (including, in this case, any person who has occupied and used any premises whether built after 7th September, 1947, or not for a period of not less than three years prior to 1st January, 1961) will now be able to get compensation if required to move in the interests of town planning and public health. This is a move made to make recovery of possession of land by private owners more approximate to what happens when the Government recovers Crown property.

Section 26B [clause 5] of the Bill provides for the manner of the appointment of a Panel of Assessors and section 26c for rules to be made to give effect to the provisions of this part of the Ordinance. The Control of Rent (Amendment No. 4) Ordinance will be repealed. The provision of paragraphs (i) and (k) of section 15 (1) of the Control of Rent Ordinance will come into force again.

The Panel of Assessors will consist of not less than three persons and will assess the quantum of compensation that should be required in each case. They would be guided by the Government Rates of Compensation* which are applicable in the case of Government clearances. Copies of these Government rates of compensation have been distributed for the use of the Members of this Assembly.

*Copy placed in the Assembly Library.

In short, what the two Bills will contrive to do is that squatters in the agricultural zone or such other areas, which, although not designated as agricultural zone in the Master Plan, are so designated by the Minister, will be entitled to complete protection by either asking for a long lease; or if he chooses to stay as a month-to-month tenant, to be prevented from eviction unless the Commissioner of Lands decides that the owner can commence proceedings for recovery, because it is necessary in the interest of public health or town planning. Those squatters who are outside the agricultural zone, or such areas which will be designated as agricultural zone, will not have the same privileges as tenant farmers like the squatters you have in the city area. They will have to go, in the first instance. New buildings will have to go up in the congested areas of the town. But in asking them to go, private landlords will be asked to observe the minimum standards which the Government itself offers to all squatters who are asked to move from Crown land. Here again, instead of referring the matter to the Rent Conciliation Board, we have decided to set up a Panel of Assessors in the hope that thereby a more expeditious method of assessing compensation payable would be devised.

Sir, it is our intention to refer this Bill also to a Select Committee for proper scrutiny of its provisions and its effect and side effects on existing interests, either on the landlord or the tenant or the squatter.

Question proposed.

4.07 p.m.

Mr Ng Teng Kian (Punggol): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if this Bill is restricted to the city area, I will not oppose it. But this Bill concerns the whole rural area. In respect of this Bill, I wish to request the Government to pay attention and give due and careful consideration. Outwardly looking, it is the Government which has extended its facilities and establishments to the rural areas. In fact, it is not so. If we carefully study the consequences of this Bill, it is not difficult for us to see that this Bill possesses many harmful effects which will injure the welfare of the people. And the people who will really receive the blessings will be the landlord. The Nanyang Siang Pau published the contents of this Bill on 22nd December. For example, the landlord, under the Control of Rent Bill, if he wants to apply for getting back any agricultural land or any house, should get the permission of the Commissioner of Lands beforehand. The Commissioner of Lands, however, has absolute power over the request of the landlord. Before he agrees to the request of the landlord, the latter must observe the following. First, regarding the asking back of the agricultural land, the landlord must prove that it is for the sake of the development of the city, or for construction plans. Taking all these matters into consideration, if approval cannot be given, the landlord will suffer a great loss. Secondly, the landlord will be instructed to pay a deposit. The amount according to the opinion of the Commissioner of Lands is meant for the compensation of the tenants, for the Court may have instructed the landlord to get back his agricultural land or house. We all know that under the Singapore Master Plan, many rural areas are listed as housing development areas. These areas are densely populated by attap-hut squatters who have lived in these places and obtained their food from these places for tens of years. Although their lives are hard, they are happy for they commit themselves to heaven. Although in some places the villagers have been oppressed by the landlords, yet they have co-operated and formed their united organisations to negotiate with the landlords. In most cases, the danger has been averted and now there is peace. In recent years, many landlords have attempted

Mr Lee Teck Him (Tiong Bahru) rose -

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order? Will the Member first indicate whether he is rising on a point of order or elucidation?

Mr Lee Teck Him: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the hon. Member was not addressing the Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I do not know which way the hon. Member was looking. But he seemed to be looking in my direction. I take it he was speaking to the Speaker. Mr Ng Teng Kian.

Mr Ng Teng Kian: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, although I look at my manuscript, this draft has been drafted by me. It does not mean that somebody has written it for me.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Member for Punggol is now indicating what the point of order is. The point of order seems to be that perhaps the hon. Member was reading his speech. But I have not noticed anything out of the ordinary. Perhaps the Member can carry on. Please continue.

Mr Ng Teng Kian: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, now the landlords are backed by the Government and protected by the law. It is believed that these landlords will take advantage of the passing of this Bill to pursue their activities on a wide scale. If only they can get the approval of the planning section, after submitting their plans, and pay some compensation to the tenants which will satisfy the Minister, they can chase out these unfortunate attap squatters. The governing party sympathizes with these few landlords who were unable to increase their wealth in time. But thousands of villagers will become homeless and unemployed as a result of the loss of their agricultural lands and houses. I wonder why this situation will not attract the Government's sympathy. I really cannot understand why the so-called Government for the working masses will adopt this sort of attitude and policy.

Regarding the compensation mentioned in this Bill, it is not clearly stated. For example, the Bill provides that the Minister will appoint three assessors. When the Court approves the request of the landlord, they have to suggest to the Commissioner of Lands what is reasonable compensation for the tenant. But the Commissioner is not bound by their consideration, findings or suggestions. After all, what is reasonable and what is unreasonable? I think there should be a standard and a reasonable provision. Does it mean that the fate of these unfortunate squatters has to be controlled by the authorities? According to the way of compensation in the past, for a wooden house with concrete floor the compensation was one dollar per square foot; for the other type of earth floor, it was eighty cents per square foot. Each of these attap houses mostly occupies over 1,000 square feet. If it is based upon the standard of compensation in the past, then the most they will get is about $1,000 or a little more. Moreover, the squatters live together with their parents, brothers and sisters. How can this little compensation do anything for a family of more than ten people? Even if they can rent an S.I.T. flat, how long can they carry on paying rents?

I believe that the passing of this Bill will greatly harm the attap squatters in the rural areas.

4.18 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what I want to say now is very simple. Just now, when the Member for Punggol was making his speech, I was wondering whether he was not following the footsteps of the former Member for Hong Lim, because his speech was full of distortions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, these two Bills clearly show that they will provide protection for the farmers in the rural areas. But from the Member for Punggol's viewpoint, the purposes of these two Bills are to bring harm and suffering to those oppressed people living in attap huts in the rural areas. If he wants to pursue this course of distortion, then the Government will simply refute it. But that is not good enough. I will, however, do my best to explain to him in simple Mandarin the meaning contained in these two Bills.

Firstly, when he was a P.A.P. candidate for the last election, 1� years ago, the Member had proposed to the rural people our Five-Year Plan. If he had not read or seen it for himself, he could have gathered it from the other Assemblymen that we had promised certain things in our plan for the rural areas. The P.A.P. Government wants to help the farmers in the rural areas by putting them in a secure position. They fully understand that many landlords have made use of the laws prevailing then to drive out the tenants of the land. Therefore, we have thought of a method to let farmers have a secure long-term lease. We hope these two Bills can put our farmers under very favourable conditions so that there will be a chance for them to develop agriculture for the good of the country. How can they achieve this purpose?

First, all those landlords who have been unscrupulously making use of the laws to drive out their tenants will be prohibited from doing so. The landlord must first get approval from the Land Office. He must let us see clearly why he wants to drive out the tenants from his land. If, for instance, a farmer does not like a long-term lease, he can still carry on as usual, by paying monthly rents for the land and so on. This is the first method of protection provided by the Government.

The second method of protection is this. If a tenant wishes to have a long-term lease, he wants his boss to give him 12 years' secure position. If the boss does not agree to that, he will have to put up his case to the Land Office for a reasonable decision.

So these two Bills are clearly for the protection of the rural farmers. But the Member for Punggol says that they are bringing harm and suffering to the farmers and are oppressing them. I hope he will bring out his proof in this Assembly to show how these Bills will bring about suffering and harm to the farmers. If he cannot substantiate this, he can make investigations.

Lastly, I hope it will be best for the Member for Punggol not to occupy the seat over there, because that seat has a very bad significance. The Member formerly occupying that seat spread all sorts of lies. I hope the Member for Punggol will not pursue the same course.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Mr Speaker: Before the Prime Minister moves, is it his intention that this Bill should be committed to the same Select Committee that will consider the Agricultural Leases Bill?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, that will be convenient.

Mr Speaker: Will the Prime Minister move accordingly?

Bill accordingly committed to the Select Committee appointed to consider the Agricultural Leases Bill. -[The Prime Minister].