LEASES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND

2.35 p.m.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

That this House considers that in any legislation in respect of the grant of leases of agricultural land, provision should be made in the case of working coconut and rubber estates, whereby the tenant should be given the option of either a lease at economic rent or a licence to occupy the land for specific user such as rearing of poultry or pigs, with the right to possession and enjoyment to the coconut or rubber remaining in the landlord.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the House will recall that two Bills - the Agricultural Leases Bill and the Control of Rent (Amendment No. 3) Bill - went to Select Committee and, arising out of the representations in the Select Committee, a curious phenomenon has come to light on which considerable ingenuity and time will have to be spent to work out the rights of the interested parties.

Out of an estimated 30,000 acres of the Master Plan's agricultural belt, an estimated one-third, or 10,000 acres, is covered by coconut and rubber plantations. In nearly all these plantations there is, de facto, a situation where the landlord has let out not the land but a licence to tenants or squatters to rear pigs, poultry or fish, whilst retaining possession and tapping his rubber or collecting his coconut. Therefore, the provision to allow a tenant to acquire a lease from the landlord at an economic rent, subject to certain maximum safeguards on behalf of the tenant, will work an obvious injustice in that, first, the tenant never had enjoyment of either the coconut or the rubber, and his rent (the base upon which the maximum economic rent is tied), because he did not enjoy the fruits of the coconut and the rubber, was a nominal one. Therefore, to grant the tenant a lease would be to exclude the landlord from possession and enjoyment of his crop - be it rubber or coconut - and give the tenant something which he never had, never was entitled to, and never expect-ed to be entitled to. Therefore, it is being considered now - and I am recommending this to the House - that in any legislation in respect of the grant of leases of agricultural land, provision should be made, in the ease of working coconut and rubber estates, whereby the tenant should be given the option of either a lease at economic rent, or a licence to occupy the land for specific user such as the rearing of poultry or pigs, with the right to possession and enjoyment to the coconut or rubber remaining in the landlord. In other words, what we hope to achieve would be, in effect, to give the tenant a licence which is irrevocable for a specified term of, say, 12 years, but the licence will specify the user to which the licensee is entitled. I mean, if he has been rearing chickens or pigs, he will continue to rear chickens or pigs, but the landlord will continue to collect his coconut and rubber. The alternative is for the tenant to pay the whole economic rent and he collects the rubber and the coconut.

I am unable to say that we can produce legislation which will please all parties, but I do suggest that if we are to do justice in this case, this is the only way in which we can ensure that conditions are created in which farmers are given if not security of tenure, then security of user of land for specified purposes to carry out activities in agriculture - be it poultry-farming or pig-rearing - and, at the same time, allow the landlord to continue to derive that interest in the land which he always had, namely the collection of rubber and coconut.

It is the intention of the Government to allow the two Bills to lapse. The House will be prorogued sometime in the near future. In fact, it was prorogued last year after the May sitting. But for various reasons which have to do with legislation, we have taken this sitting in June. After the prorogation, it is hoped that new Bills will be introduced which will incorporate these new clauses. By tabling this motion, I am, in fact, inviting a debate - I hope a constructive one - as to how we can equitably work out our policy of giving encouragement to agriculture but under terms and conditions which would not impose an unnecessary radical change in the proprietary position of land-ownership or the enjoyment of the fruits of the land.

I would like to mention here that several representations have been made in the Select Committee, a number of which are unacceptable to us as the Government. I can only say now that we cannot hope to push such legislation through without, in principle, accepting the fact that there is an interference of the right of ownership to land, and that by this legislation we are, in fact, interfering with the absolute right of ownership to land. There have been representations from private estates and the Land and Housing Development Association saying that to push through these new provisions would, in fact, be to foist statutory tenants on landlords, that they had bought land which had no tenants prior to 1947, and that therefore they would be deprived of a reasonable expectation of their ability to get rid of their tenants as and when they wished to build. I am afraid that, in principle, we cannot consider all such representations if we are to pursue the objects of the Bill, but we can, to a certain extent, meet periphery representations as to the workings of the Bill.

For instance, representation has been made on the point that for the Bill to have the phrase "economic rent" and, at the same time, to tie down economic rent to a maximum of a certain percentage over present rent is, in fact, a contradiction in terms. Logically it is. Certain amendments in this respect to make it less illogical but nevertheless still practical are being considered. On the side of the tenants, they also would not like any maximum mentioned, not for the reason that they think the maximum is not to their advantage, but that they feel there would be a tendency for landlords always to insist on the maximum in negotiating for leases. Both the representations - the one from the landlords that the maximum rent being tied to present rent and economic rent is illogical, and the other one from the tenants that maximum rent should never be mentioned at all because it would incite landlords to demand the maximum - are being considered, and provision will be introduced in the new Bill which will, we hope, meet the objections from both parties insofar as they can be reconciled. There was also representation that there should be not just one arbitrator who is a Government official, but that there should also be a tribunal - one representing the landowners and one representing the tenants. And it is proposed to introduce a provision whereby in cases where the arbitrator deems it necessary, he can call upon the services of the tribunal to assist him. But in normal cases where he does not deem it necessary, he can proceed by himself. The-

Mr Speaker: Order. I am just wondering whether the Prime Minister is not going perhaps away from the motion itself. In fact, I think he is inviting a debate on the Report of the Select Committee. If he carries on in this strain, then, of course, he will invite a debate on the whole of the Select Committee's Report and all the representations which have been made. The motion itself seems to confine the aspect of this problem to the grant of leases vis-a-vis working coconut and rubber estates.

The Prime Minister: Just as you like, Mr Speaker. I had no intention to expand the scope of the motion. I only wish to give the Members of the House, and through the House the parties interested, a brief impression of the deliberations which are taking place on the representations that have been put in. But the one question upon which I would ask for a debate is that of resolving those cases, covering about one-third of the land, where at present there are two persons enjoying the rights of user of the land.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

2.48 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker. Sir, I can quite appreciate the difficulty encountered by the Government in the introduction of that Bill which went to Select Committee. We did encounter such a difficulty during our time, and we support the principle of seeing to it that, in so far as the tenant who has been using the land for a specific use is concerned, he should be allowed to continue that tenancy for that specific use. But one anomaly may creep in when the occupier of that land, who is using it to raise poultry, wants a lease for rubber estate and coconut estate. He may be made use of by competitors who would like to break up the estate, and I do not know in what way that can be met. Of course, on the whole, we support the principle of this motion.

Mr Speaker: Is there any other Member who wishes to speak? Does the Prime Minister wish to reply?

The Prime Minister: No, Mr Speaker. I do not wish to reply. I have fairly stated the position of the Government. At a later date, there will be provision to incorporate these provisions in a new Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House considers that in any legislation in respect of the grant of leases of agricultural land, provision should be made in the case of working coconut and rubber estates, whereby the tenant should be given the option of either a lease at economic rent or a licence to occupy the land for specific user such as rearing of poultry or pigs, with the right to possession and enjoyment to the coconut or rubber remaining in the landlord.