LAND ACQUISITION BILLS

2.44 p.m.

The Minister for Law (Mr E. W. Barker): Mr Speaker, Sir, Members will recollect that in June last year we introduced two complementary Bills to amend the law relating to the acquisition of land for public purposes. The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, which was taken through on a Certificate of Urgency, froze the position of appeals pending the enactment of substantial alterations to the law embodied in the Land Acquisition (Amendment No. 2) Bill, which was referred to the Select Committee for study.

The main provision in the Land Acquisition (Amendment No. 2) Bill is to ensure that increases in land values as a result of public development should not benefit the owner, but should benefit the community at large. The Bill aimed to save the Government from having to give land-owners windfall gains and increases in value as a result of public expenditure incurred in the area. Since the Bill was introduced into the House, further consideration has been given to the problems of urban redevelopment, and, in particular, to the pressures from private developers on the old squatter settlements in the urban and semi-urban areas. Unable to evict squatters and tenants because of the freezing of certain clauses of the Control of Rent Ordinance, private developers are finding it profitable to pay compensation to squatters to move out of the areas they have been living in for many years.

A social problem is created in that quite a number of these communities, after taking compensation, have moved out into the outer rural areas, adding to the Government's difficulties in providing water, electricity, roads, rails and other social amenities at high cost in remote areas.

It is now proposed that where private development necessitates the removal of these old established kampongs in the urban and semi-urban areas, the Government should have the power to acquire a portion of the land sufficient for enough low-cost housing units to be put up to re-house families of Singapore citizens who have been there since 1958. In this way, when urban re-development takes place, all sections of the community will share in the advantages of re-development. In order that such schemes can be practicable and do not become prohibitive in cost to the Government, compensation rates for the acquisition of a portion of the land for re-housing should take into account what the developers would have had to pay these squatters to move out into other areas, and the fact that the Government will be undertaking the responsibility not only of low-cost housing for all citizens regardless of their race, but also in the case of Malays who are Singapore citizens and whose family incomes are less than $200 per month, or perpetual subsidy of 20 per cent of the rent.

The State Advocate-General's Chambers have looked into these matters and have advised that, in order to remove any doubts on the validity of this new legislation, it will be necessary for the Malaysian Parliament to exempt such a Bill from the operation of Article 13 of the Constitution, which provides that:

`no law shall provide for the compulsory acquisition or use of property without adequate compensation.'

Representation will be made to the Central Government for such an exemption provision to be passed in Parliament in order that these projects can be carried out in Singapore without any uncertainty about the constitutional validity of the formula for compensation.

In this context, it may be relevant to note that the Indian Government, when faced with a similar problem in connection with their plans for land reform, had to effect a constitutional amendment to a corresponding provision in the Indian Constitution in order that their land reforms could be implemented.

It is the Government's intention to re-introduce this Bill after the necessary additional provisions have been added for acquisition of land under private developers for re-housing of squatters who are Singapore citizens and have been there since 1958. If the Government were to carry the responsibility of re-housing squatters arising out of private development without being held to ransom by private landlords, then we must ensure that land acquired for public projects can be obtained at economic cost so that the private landlord, while he does not lose, would not gain any windfalls as a result of Government development expenditure and because the Government is undertaking the burden of public re-housing of their encumbered land. Increase in value attributable to public expenditure in laying sewers, roads and supplying community facilities in the area should not go into the pockets of a few land-owners who have done nothing to add to the value of the land, hut should accrue to the State for the benefit of the whole community.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government expects to re-introduce the Bill with necessary amendments at the appropriate time at the next sitting of the Legislative Assembly.

Mr Poh Ber Liak (Tampines) rose ---

Mr Speaker: If the Member wishes to ask any question arising out of the Ministerial statement, he may do so, but he is not entitled to make a speech.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): I would like to raise a few questions in regard to the Ministerial statement, Sir.

Mr Speaker, the Minister touched upon land acquisition and said that the Government would not allow landowners to get benefits out of the Government programme of development.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have said that the Member should not make a speech. If he wants to ask questions, he may do so. And he must not preface his question by making a speech. Let him go into his question direct.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Law has said that the Government intend to look after the interests of the squatters and not allow their interests to be exploited by the landowners. What are the interests he was referring to?

Mr Speaker: The Minister would like to answer that?

The Minister for National Development (Mr Lim Kim San): Mr Speaker, Sir, while we say we are looking after the squatters' interest, we, in fact, mean that we would not allow the landowner just to turf out the squatters without any compensation. The Government itself is paying compensation. That is what is meant.