LAND ACQUISITION BILL (As reported from Select Committee)

Order for Third Reading read.

6.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker: Notice has been given by the Minister for Law and National Development of amendments in respect of clauses 22, 23, 31, 33 and 48 of the Bill as set out in the Order Paper Supplement. The Bill accordingly stands recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of those clauses.

Any other Member who wishes to propose other amendments or new clauses is required to give notice of his desire before the House resolves itself into a Committee on the recommitted matter.

No other Member giving notice ---

Mr Speaker: Committee stage, what day, Mr Barker?

Mr Barker: Now, Sir.

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

6.44 p.m.

Clause 22 -

Amendment made: In page A10, line 28, at end, to insert "and".-[Mr Barker].

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page A10, to leave out lines 29 and 30.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in Select Committee, clause 32 (1) was amended to provide that the costs of an appeal shall be in the discretion of the Board and shall either be fixed by the Board or, on the order of the Board, taxed by the Registrar or the Deputy Registrar of the High Court in accordance with the scale prescribed under the rules of the Supreme Court. Accordingly it becomes necessary to delete clause 22 (1) (e) of the Bill.

Sir, I beg to move.

Amendment agreed to.

6.45 p.m.

The Chairman: There is a consequential amendment to be made, in page A10, line 31, to leave out "(f) " and insert "(e) " because of the deletion of paragraph (e) . This will be done.

Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23 -

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, I beg to move

In page A11, line 17, after "appellant", to insert "by delivering or tendering such copy to him or sending it to him by registered letter".

Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment has been moved as it is considered advisable here to specify the methods whereby a copy of the grounds of an award is to be served by the Registrar upon the appellant.

Sir, I beg to move.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31 -

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page A15, line 37, to leave out "act", and insert "Act".

This amendment corrects a slight printing error in the Bill now before the House.

Sir, I beg to move.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33 -

Amendment made: In page A17, line 21, after "not", to insert ", in the case of any such acquisition within a period of six months of such land being devastated or affected as aforesaid,"- [Mr Barker].

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page A17, line 24, to leave out "such devastation" and insert "the time when such land was devastated or affected as aforesaid".

Sir, it was suggested to the Select Committee that there must be a definite period of time during which Government may acquire land under the provisions of the law. It is in the spirit of this suggestion that I have now moved the two aforesaid amendments so as to restrict the application of this provision to only six months from the date of the occurrence of a fire or any other act of God.

Sir, I beg to move.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 33, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 48 -

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page A24, lines 5 and 6, to leave out "whether before or after the enactment of this subsection,".

This phrase seems redundant and it is accordingly being deleted.

Sir, I beg to move.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 48, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker: Third Reading, what day?

Mr Barker: Now, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Please move.

Mr Barker: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Members of the House will recall that this Bill was referred to the Select Committee on 22nd June this year. Members will also recall that during the Second Reading, I expressed the hope that when the Select Committee calls for representations, persons with positive contributions will come forward with suggestions. I am, indeed, happy to report that the response to invitations for representation was good. Eleven written representations were received and the Select Committee heard oral evidence from six of them. Some of these contributions were valuable and many sug gestions have been accepted. The Committee's Report was published on 10th September, 1966, as Paper Parl. 9 of 1966.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill as now tabled before the House incorporates the recommendations of the Select Committee. I do not propose to burden the Members of this House with unnecessary explanations, but there are two fundamental provisions on which there have been representations which were unacceptable and which I wish to take this opportunity to reiterate.

The first of these is the compensation provision in the Bill. As has already been explained in this House previously, the principle underlining this provision is that no landowner should benefit at the public's expense, from any windfall gains resulting from enhancement of land values either through Acts of God or because of public expenditure in the neighbourhood. Members are aware of the phenomenal increases in land values which result when heavily encumbered lands are devastated by fire. This fortuitous increase in value will not now go to the landowner. Again, development by Government and public authorities in areas like Jurong, Kallang Basin and Kranji has resulted in phenomenal increases in land values in these neighbourhoods. It was ironical that under the existing legislation, when additional lands in these areas had to be acquired for public purposes, Government had to pay compensation at values which Government itself had helped to enhance. The element of enhancement attributable in these cases to public participation (as opposed to participation by the private sector), is the element which under the new Bill will be creamed off when land is acquired for public purposes.

The second point I wish to make today involves the concept of the Appeals Board. Mr Speaker, Sir, a number of representations were received by the Select Committee in which the same point was made. And the point was this: all appeals should be heard by a Court of Law presided by a Judge of the High Court instead of the Appeals Board, as proposed. Mr Speaker, Sir, the move to take appeals away from the Courts and place them in the hands of an Appeals Board or tribunal is in conformity with prevailing trends else. where in the world of entrusting matters of specialist evaluation to Administrative Tribunals where persons with the requisite expertise can deal with issues involving subjects with which they are themselves familiar. Furthermore, procedures before such tribunals are less formal, less expensive, more expeditious and, perhaps, more satisfactory.

The provision of the Appeals Board envisaged in the Bill is similar to the set-up in the United Kingdom, but we have not laid down statutory limitations prescribing minimum legal or professional qualifications in order not to restrict the field of selection. It is envisaged, however, that the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, both of whom will have the status of High Court Judges, will be persons who are either legally qualified or have considerable experience in land administration and other matters. The panel of assessors will be persons with objective minds who will be able to assist the Commissioner in assessing fair compensation after listening to expert evidence on values.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

7.00 p.m.

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, I would like to associate myself with the views expressed by the Minister. Sir, as I see it, this is a piece of legislation which definitely favours the poor man. This is what we the P.A.P. Government stands for - for the poor man. Let me take an example to substantiate my argument. A few years ago when hell broke loose in the Bukit Ho Swee area where thousands of people were rendered homeless by fire, what did the P.A.P. Government do then? Did the Government just merely say, "Well, we will try to rehouse them." No, far from it, not just trying in that direction. But the Government took immediate steps to provide immediate relief to the homeless. Then the Bukit Ho Swee fire site was acquired and plans to put up decent flats with the necessary social amenities were drawn up and at once implemented.

Now, if there had not been any fire and had not the Government acquired this site, today we will not see the beautiful symmetry of a clean and healthy location where numerous blocks of flats for the poor exist. I am sure this House will agree whole-heartedly with me on this matter. The Government, on the one hand, acquires land for community use and those who think they would suffer as a result should retune their minds and look at acquisition as a means of allowing Government to continue to provide the poor with decent homes and better social amenities. On the other hand, the Government, with the people's needs uppermost in its mind, would continue to fulfil its obligations, come whatever the obstacles.

I am surprised that those affected are asking for more compensation than what is arrived at by our valuers. They should have been happy with what they are to get. In fact, I would say that the land value should be reduced to as low a rate as possible in order to allow the Government to continue to provide such amenities. May I, Sir, stress that we do not wish to favour the land speculators who jump at opportunities when Government projects or public projects are carried out in adjacent lands, thereby helping to boost up the land value! We come from the masses and our obligation is to them and them alone. If we allow these speculators free rein, then chaos and financial difficulties would over-run us all and the Government would then have to dish out enormous sums of money to pay for fantastic sums of compensation to those involved. I think those landowners who are rich must be practical. They should be the first to come forward and assist in nation-building and make some sacrifices, for, as the saying goes, Sir, "It is in the giving that we receive." Let me ask them a question. What would happen to them if the country goes down? Where would their landed properties be then? If they would care to look at certain countries not far from us, they would see my point.

Sir, as our main objective is to help establish a more equal and just society, therefore, our declared aim is to acquire lands from time to time which will be developed or utilised for public purposes, say, for example, to build more schools, clinics, more blocks of housing flats, more community centres, veterinary extension centres and many others.

Lastly, Sir, I would urge those likely to be affected to think well of others so that the declared aims of the Government can be achieved with as little inconvenience as possible.

Inche Mahmud Awang: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill. It is, on the whole, good for the lower strata of society. It is appropriate and in line with our new status and new name, the Republic of Singapore, and consonant with the concept of democratic socialism which is strongly opposed by the Alliance, the Barisan Sosialis and other Parties whose aim is to perpetuate bourgeois rule. Why I say so, Mr Speaker, is that lands which are acquired by Government will be fully developed for the purpose of public projects; clinics, dispensaries, hospitals, schools, cheap - I emphasise cheap - flats, not high rental flats, community centres and other projects which would be enjoyed by the lower class society, not parks like the MacRitchie Reservoir Park on which we have debated today.

Our Government is not confiscating properties owned by landowners, Mr Speaker, Sir. Before such lands are acquired by Government, they will be assessed and adequate compensation will be paid, which is not the case in Communist countries. In other words, Mr Speaker, Sir, both parties benefit. As has happened, when a fire breaks out, it is the responsibility of the government of the day to rehouse the fire victims in flats and offer relief. The landowner shakes his legs and when the land is free of squatters, he is in a position to develop it for his own selfish interest. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is appropriate that this Bill, which will be approved by Parliament, will satisfy all parties concerned.

7.10 p.m.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, about this Land Acquisition Bill, we all may have the impression that this is one of the important Bills to be passed by this Parliament. I would like to deal with this Bill in a wider perspective. Inevitably, a country will have certain laws and rights to the land. This is a necessary and an essential feature of the rights of a country. And in the development of a country, it is inevitable that there are certain changes. When certain countries change from an agricultural economy to an industrialised economy, it is necessary to acquire land. This is called land reform. And at times it happens that this leads to a struggle for power between the landowners and the State. In countries which are friendly with us, the Eastern European countries and Egypt - I will just enumerate one example - in Egypt there is also the problem of landownership and there has been certain harm done by the system there. So there is a policy on acquisition of land to meet the requirement of the country in its development. To our minds, the land is part and parcel of a country and it is the right of the State to acquire and manage its development.

Our island is a very tiny one and with our limited land area, we have to build an ideal country. Therefore, we must put our land to the best possible use in order to meet our largest and highest demands. We should have proper arrangements and measures in our island State in order to ensure that every inch of land can be put to the best possible use in order to maintain national development and to promote the prosperity of our country, so that we can extract every benefit out of every inch of land and so that every man can be used to the limit of his ability and everything can be put to the best possible use. We should not have the practice such as is obtaining in feudalistic countries, to divide or allot lands to certain landlords. But here in Singapore, we should try to realise our own paradise. We should not allow anybody to waste too large an area of land. We do not have too many Christmas Islands to be sold. Therefore, we must make the best possible use of our land.

The Members of Parliament and the general public regard the passage of this Bill as one of the important steps taken in the process of development of our country. We should concentrate all our energy and attention on the development of our country, and in this respect, the acquisition of land is very important. It is a very essential feature in the process of nation-building. We are short of land, and there is a saying that God created the world and the Dutch created land. We should also follow suit to show that we can also reclaim land from the sea in order to extend our land area, which is part of our nation-building process. This is a step forward towards a better future and the prosperity and development of our country. This is an inevitable part of our endeavours. I do not view this Bill as a piece of legislation but as a dynamic step forward in the right direction of nation-building. I believe that after the law is amended, it will already have its own proper form to meet the requirements of the time. Therefore, it is now tabled in this House for discussion and passage. It has already been considered in Select Committee and the Report has been published. Advertisements appeared in the Press on the 25th and 27th of June this year inviting representations on the Bill. This is a show of democracy, and I am very satisfied with the process of the Bill. It is also comprehensive in its structure and takes into consideration every aspect of the problem arising out of land acquisition. The acquisition of land is not always for perpetual possession by the State. In some cases, land is to be put to use and is required for a period of 3 years. Stress is put on the use of land for public requirements and needs. Because of this feature, the Bill has brought about a socialistic change in land acquisition. In a socialist country, it is fit and proper that every inch of land should be put to the best possible use to yield the best advantage for the benefit of the people and make a very effective contribution to the development of the country. This is a very essential feature of a socialistic system.

Another characteristic of this Bill is that landowners will not be able to benefit from an increase in land value by receiving a windfall, so that nobody can speculate in land value. This is also a good feature.

I would like this House to refer to page 18 of the Bill. There is a provision that compensation should not always be paid according to market value before acquisition, because there are so many factors which contribute to an increase of land value - some of which are illegal. So after careful consideration and deliberate study, the Bill is now in its best possible form and it will not be detrimental to the people. I have full confidence in it and I believe that when it is put into effect and practice, it will be beneficial to the people and the country.

I express my support for the Bill.

Mr Barker: There has not been a word of criticism. I have nothing much to add except to say that I am glad that our Back-benchers have realised the importance and the necessity for this piece of socialist legislation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.