RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED PREMISES (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.09 p.m.

The Minister for Law and National Development (Mr E. W. Barker): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr Speaker, Sir, those who were Members of the last Parliament will recall that this Bill, which is being re-introduced, was read for the First Time on 25th January this year, but lapsed on prorogation of Parliament.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as a consequence of the success of our housing programme in re-housing over 400,000 people in modern housing estates, many of the older areas of the city have become available for redevelopment. In fact, redevelopment of these areas has been proceeding satisfactorily. The Government, however, considers it important that there should be maximum private participation in our urban redevelopment programme. To this end, private development tax concessions have been approved for development projects in some 20 designated areas in the city. These provide for exemption of property tax on vacant land during the period of construction and reduction of assessment rates from 36 per cent to 12 per cent over a period of 20 years on completion of a project.

Tax concessions by themselves will not, however, bring about development if the landlord or the owner of the land is unable to obtain vacant possession from his tenants where such tenants take advantage of the protection against eviction afforded to them under the Control of Rent Ordinance to demand exhorbitant sums as a price for surrendering vacant possession to the landlord. In some instances, the landlords have refused to pay such excessive sums as a premium, as it were, for the development of their sites and, as a result, development has been unduly hampered and delayed in some areas which are ripe for redevelopment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the law now stands, there are serious setbacks in the way of private investors who genuinely want to promote development in Singapore, and the Bill now before this House is designed to encourage and promote development in the private sector by enabling landlords of premises, which are at present protected and controlled by 'the Control of Rent Ordinance, to recover possession of these controlled premises for development purposes on payment of a reasonable compensation to the tenants.

As it is the intention to refer this Bill to Select Committee in order that full benefit of public views, particularly on the compensation rates proposed, can be obtained, I shall merely touch on certain salient features of the Bill.

The Bill provides, inter alia, for the Minister to designate certain areas in Singapore that are earmarked for development. A landlord of controlled premises in a designated area may apply to a Board, called the "Tenants' Compensation Board", for an order to recover possession of his controlled premises. The Board, before granting the application, is required to satisfy itself that the landlord has a genuine intention as well as the financial means to develop the area, that this plan for development has been approved by a public officer appointed by the Minister for the purpose, and that he would compensate dispossessed tenants and sub-tenants. If the Board grants the application, the landlord would have to give his tenants at least three months' notice to quit.

To assist the Board in arriving at a fair and just assessment of compensation, the Bill lays down as guide lines minimum limits of compensation to be awarded which will vary according to the nature of the user of the controlled premises, that is to say, whether commercial or residential. It is considered that the formula that has been adopted offers a satisfactory approach in this matter. It is not claimed to be a perfect formula that will provide a ready answer to all the situations that the Board will be confronted with. If there is such a formula, we have been unable to devise it. The merit of the formula that has been adopted in clause 7 of the Bill is that, apart from its simplicity, it does confer upon the Board a great deal of flexibility in its determinations. Only experience gained in the working of this proposed legislation will show whether the formula adopted will assist the Board in carrying out the main objective of the Bill which is, as I have said, the promotion and encouragement of development in the private sector in certain designated areas in our Republic.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I state at this stage that any alternative proposals to the Select Committee on the compensation provisions as well as on any other provisions in this Bill, will be welcomed and will receive very careful consideration.

The Tenants' Compensation Board's order for recovery of possession of controlled premises and an award of compensation will be final and conclusive and will also be enforceable against unauthorised persons on the premises; but the interests of tenants and sub-tenants are protected by a provision which imposes a duty on the Board to advise all interested parties of the proceedings before the Board, enabling them thus to be heard before the Board prior to the granting of an order for the possession of controlled premises.

Should a landlord fail to compensate or fail to complete development within the period laid down in the Bill, the Government may compulsorily acquire the controlled premises.

The Explanatory Statment to the Bill outlines in a general way the various provisions of the Bill.

I commend this Bill to Members as a useful measure that should contribute to the planning and development of the city area and at the same time have the long-term effect of adding to its aesthetic attractions.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.20 p.m.

Mr P. Govindaswamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am in full agreement with the spirit of the Bill as it is designed to encourage and promote development in the private sector in Singapore. It is the duty of every loyal citizen to co-operate and assist in the development of Singapore and, if need be, even to make sacrifices. But such sacrifices should be made to benefit the State and not any section of the community. In this respect, may I draw the attention of the House to two aspects of the Bill.

The premises affected by the Bill are those that were built before January 1947. Under the protection of the Control of Rent Ordinance (Cap. 242), the rents of these premises are considerably cheaper than those of premises of a similar type built after the war. They are, in fact, cheaper than Housing Board premises.

The minimum compensation of eight years' rent for commercial premises and six years' rent for residential premises provided in clause 7 (1) (a) and 7 (1) (b) is anything between one-fifth and one-tenth of the current market value.

The Bill, therefore, seems to benefit the landlords immediately. My main concern is for the poor sub-tenants who live in cubicles or in small units which they rent from sub-tenants of chief tenants.

Mr Sim Boon Woo (Changi): Hear, hear!

Mr Govindaswamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, you will agree that it is difficult, if not impossible, to expect these sub-tenants to get to see the terms of tenancy made between the landlord and the chief tenants at the time when they accepted their sub-tenancy. In any negotiations for compensation resulting in awards granted by the Board, the landlord, according to clause 9 (1) (a) , is not liable to pay compensation to a sub-tenant if the tenant has sublet the premises contrary to the terms of his tenancy. It seems to me that this clause penalises the poor and ignorant sub-tenant while, in fact, it was the chief tenant who ought to be penalised for breach of his tenancy agreement. Moreover, the chief tenant will get the Board's award while the poor sub-tenant may possibly be evicted in accordance with clause 4 (6) of the Bill.

In conclusion, I urge this House to consider the Bill with the utmost care while encouraging and promoting development in the private sector. Steps should be taken to ensure that the burden of sacrifice, if sacrifice has to be made, is equitably shared by all parties concerned and not borne solely by the poor tenants and sub-tenants.

4.24 p.m.

Mr Yeoh Ghim Seng (Joo Chiat): Mr Speaker, Sir,I have no doubt that this Bill has a lot of salient points in its favour, and most of the landowners who genuinely believe in development of their properties must hail this as one step forward in the development of Singapore. Personally, I believe such a Bill has long been overdue. However, I understand that it is better late than never.

The P.A.P. Government has managed in a relatively short space of time to re-house a fifth of our population in modern housing estates, and I am sure this is quite a record in the world. Yet a good number of our people are still living in congested squalor in many of the privately-owned residential premises or even shophouses in many parts of our city. I understand most of these residential premises are leased to tenants, many of whom exploit the shortage of accommodation by sub-letting as much space as is humanly possible to other tenants. These sub-tenants are thus compelled to live in almost sub-human conditions and surroundings. These houses are therefore a constant risk to human lives in terms both of health and fire. Sir, I am as sorry for these sub-tenants as for the owners of such properties. They are victims of the Control of Rent Ordinance. The law protects the principal tenants from eviction and an increase in rents.

The proposed Bill, although very commendable, may yet prove to be a boom to the principal tenants. So far, these persons have enjoyed very low rentals and thus saved a fortune. Many of them have acquired another fortune by subletting to as many persons as possible. Now these principal tenants have the prospects of getting a third fortune, namely, compensation for vacating their rented premises. Surely there must be a limit to so much good fortune being given to these principal tenants. Why must the landowners or property owners be at the losing end all along the way? The Bill expects these owners to develop the properties out of their own funds. I do hope, therefore, that the Tenants' Compensation Board, when formed, will bear in mind the loss of reasonable income by the owners for many years. The amount of compensation calculated must be based more on what the owners can do in the development of Singapore than on what the tenants hope to extract from society. If compensation is to be paid to a principal tenant who has sublet the house to others, then this compensation should also be proportionately parcelled out to the sub-tenants.

Sir, I see in clause 7, sub-clause (1) (a), (b) and (c) , that a minimum compensation is stressed in relationship to controlled premises. Surely if stress is made on a minimum compensation, it would be equally fair if a possible maximum compensation is also stressed so as to cut down demands to a sensible amount. Otherwise, where is the limit to demands by unreasonable tenants?

May I ask the Minister why only certain areas will be designated? How are these areas to be earmarked? Is it by reason of the age of the areas, congestion, squalid conditions, ugliness or tourist attractions? If these are the reasons, then practically the whole city of Singapore must be designated for re-development.

4.28 p.m.

Mr Lee Teck Him (Ulu Pandan): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I also wish to express my support for this Bill, especially the provisions to establish the Tenants' Compensation Board and the payment of compensation to tenants before recovery of controlled premises. This Bill should have been introduced earlier. It is introduced only today but I feel that it is still not too late yet. Past experience shows that many people wanting to recover their property and premises exercised stringency in the amount of compensation to be paid. Thus, tenants normally refused to accept such compensation. They demanded more compensation and the owners refused to give in to their demands. In the end, it usually resulted in fights and court cases.

Therefore, I would say that the Minister is judicious in introducing certain provisions in the Bill which will benefit many of our people and which will solve many of our housing and development problems. In my opinion, many of our streets have to be extended and many dilapidated houses should give way to development in order to modernise our city. This Bill will enable this to be done, so I must support it.

4.31 p.m.

Mr P. Selvadurai (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, the introduction of this Bill in itself is a reflection of the vast social changes that have taken place in Singapore, especially in the field of housing and of which we can be justly proud.

Historically, the systematic control of rent was introduced in many countries in the world, especially in Europe. As a result of the vast social upheavals that took place in the two World Wars, it is in fact a reflection of the degree to which we have mitigated these effects in Singapore that we are able to move a Bill of this nature.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are, however, a few issues of a fundamental nature involved in this Bill upon which I would like to dwell. They relate mainly to the functions and powers of the Tenants' Compensation Board. These powers, which are provided in this Bill, will be much more extensive than those conferred on the Rent Conciliation Board set up under the Control of Rent Ordinance. Under normal circumstances, such functions and powers would have been exercised by the High Court which should be the proper body for administering a statute affecting the very serious rights and liabilities of litigants.

Mr Speaker, Sir, examples of these wide judicial powers are -

(1) the power to grant orders for the recovery of possession of

controlled premises under clauses 4 (3) and 11 of the Bill;

(2) the power to enforce execution of the Board's order under clause 4 (6) of the Bill;

(3) the power to award compensation under clause 6 (12) which will far exceed the powers of a civil District Judge;

(4) orders of the Board cannot be challenged either by appeal or by prerogative writs even where there have been blatant errors of the law or even where the Board has acted ultra vires.

Even in the case of the lesser powers exercisable by the Rent Conciliation Board, the Legislature had wisely seen fit to make the proceedings before the Board judicial proceedings. I would strongly recommend that, in view of this, section 8 (4), (5), (6), (7), and (8) of the Control of Rent Ordinance ought to be adopted as parts of clause 6 of this Bill.

I would also like to draw attention to clause 6 (10) of the Bill which intends to allow a non-qualified person to appear before the Board. I am not a protagonist of a closed-shop policy insofar as lawyers are concerned. But having regard to the gravity of the issues which would be before the Board and the need to make the Board observe the principles inherent in judicial proceedings, I would suggest that all persons appearing before the Board should be practising advocates and solicitors. They are not only capable of assisting the Board in a judicial manner, but are also subject to disciplinary proceedings if they should fail to observe the rules of professional conduct and the regulations applicable to such proceedings.

Clause 7 (3) of the Bill seeks to define the expression "commercial purposes" and "residential purposes". The Bill has overlooked, it would appear, cases where controlled premises may be used both for commercial and residential purposes. It is, therefore, suggested that the House should consider how compensation should be awarded in cases where the premises are used for these mixed purposes.

One views with concern the provisions of clause 15 (3) of the Bill making the order of the Board not only final but beyond challenge of any appeal or prerogative writs even though the Board's judgment may be tainted with error in law or made in lack of jurisdiction. I feel that this proposal should be deleted and the provisions of sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Control of Rent Ordinance should be substituted in its place.

Over and above this, I would support the intent of the Bill which I think is timely if the economic development of Singapore is to move apace.

Mr Speaker: Order. I will suspend the sitting now and will take the Chair again at a quarter past five.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.38 p.m. until 5.15 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.15 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Question again proposed.

Mr Hwang Soo Jin (Jalan Kayu): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the wake of city development and the British withdrawal from Singapore, the introduction of this Bill is very timely and necessary. With the passage of this Bill I think many developers will be able to take part in the Government's urban renewal programme. In the long run this Bill will bring about a better and more aesthetic looking city. It will resolve many problems, such as the congestion in certain streets and areas. There will also be more employment opportunities and economic growth.

We can say that the persons who drafted this Bill have done their best to look after the interests of both land-owners and tenants. But some people consider that the compensation stipulated in the Bill to be paid to tenants and sub-tenants is rather low. Take, for instance, the case of a three-storey building. If the premises come under the Rent Control Ordinance, then the rent would normally be not more than $150 per month. If the premises are used for residential purposes, then under the Bill the tenant can only get a minimum of 150 times 12 times $6, namely, $10,800. If there are three tenants occupying the same building, then each household will be getting only $3,600. That is not too bad. But, in fact, these premises would normally have been in existence for quite a long time and not many people are staying in the same building. So each household will be getting only a very meagre sum as compensation. In addition to this, they will have to move house within a short time. So there is a great difference between the benefit they can get as compensation and the loss they will have to incur and the inconvenience suffered.

According to my calculation, the situation is like this. If the law is put into effect, I hope the Tenants' Compensation Board will consider every case with sympathy and consideration and not stick always to the minimum rate of compensation. Moreover, the sub-tenants and sub-sub-tenants in the building should be given due consideration. We all remember that during the years of the Second World War when there was a housing shortage many chief tenants made use of the opportunity to exploit their sub-tenants and extract money out of them. They disregarded the Rent Control Ordinance and other relevant laws, if any.

In the law in existence up till now, no protection whatsoever is given to sub-tenants. Although according to the proposed Bill sub-tenants may get some compensation from the chief tenants, many members of the public think that the protection and the benefits given to sub-tenants under this Bill are not sufficient. I feel that in stipulating the compensation to be given by the Board to the chief tenant, consideration should also be given to the amount of compensation to be given to the sub-tenants.

With regard to the amount necessary for the development of premises, the Bill does not stipulate a maximum. It is therefore not possible to assess the position. But the Bill provides that when an application is made for the development of premises, the owner has to prove that he has sufficient funds to develop the site and furnish the necessary funds. This is what the Bill stipulates. But this is not very clear and I hope that when the Bill is referred to Select Committee, a more definite picture on this matter can emerge and more clear cut provisions will be put into the Bill. I hope also that the Board will be given a clear picture in regard to this matter, especially when there is no appeal against the final decision of the Board.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, Sir, I merely wish to bring up a small point. I am sure the Minister is well aware that there are tenants, or more precisely occupiers, who enjoy physical occupation of the controlled premises and pay their rent under the names of the previous tenants from whom they have taken over the tenancy right. There are, of course, cases of assignments or transfers effected without the knowledge and consent of the landlord. But there are also instances of occupiers who are relatives or surviving members of the deceased tenants. According to the provisions of clauses 10, 11 and 12 of the Bill, I presume - and I stand to be corrected, Sir - that such occupiers will be classified as trespassers and that they will be paid only ex-gratia payments. It would be gross injustice to treat these occupiers as trespassers simply because they do not have a tenancy agreement with the landlord in their own names.

Sir, I would request the Minister to look into this problem and introduce some remedial provisions to protect the interest of these occupiers. Notwithstanding what I have said, I support this Bill.

5.24 p.m.

Mr Lim Soo Peng (Havelock): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no complaint against the intent of the Bill. The objectives attempted by it are worthy of support by both the landlords and the tenants. There is no doubt that Singapore needs very rapid development. There is even less doubt that one of the major causes retarding development has been the operation of the Control of Rent Ordinance which, for over 20 years, has pegged rents at such unrealistic levels so that slums remain slums. The existence of the Control of Rent Ordinance for so long has also resulted in abuses and inequities being deeply entrenched and interwoven into our social and economic system. Therefore, while I applaud the Government for the bold move to rectify an ancient ill, I must, at the same time, sound a note of caution as to the possible adverse repercussions.

Many tenancies of rent controlled premises have changed hands many times and, quite frequently with the knowledge and connivance of the landlord, at very high premiums. For instance, it is not unknown that certain premises along the busy parts of North Bridge Road have changed hands with tea money paid out as high as $100,000. If the last tenant who paid this huge sum of money for a tenancy of the premises is evicted, it will be a very difficult problem for the Tenants Compensation Board to determine the right amount of compensation.

The Board is required to award a fair and reasonable sum, but this sum will not be less than eight years' rent paid for the premises. Assuming that the Board has found it a fact that the landlord has taken tea money -and this is always very difficult to prove, although it is highly inconceivable that any landlord would have allowed a change of tenancy if his palm were not greased with money, is the Board in a position to take into account the landlord's share of the tea money? If not, will not the landlord get an unfair advantage? Even if the Board can take into account the landlord's share of the tea money, it can at best take into account the last tenancy transfer, as it is highly unlikely that earlier tenants can be traced or, if traced, will volunteer information.

In many instances, the tea money paid by the last tenant, partly to the landlord and partly to the previous tenant, represents a sizable investment, and probably almost his entire capital will, as it were, be gone and replaced only fractionally by the Board's award. How many such businesses owned by such tenants will be adversely affected I do not pretend to be able to guess. But I should like those charged with declaring an area as designated for development, or with the onerous duties of the Board, to bear in mind that brand-new shopping and business premises will mean very little if the businesses that are expected to occupy them are made bankrupt by the process of building the premises.

Sir, I make these observations fully conscious of the provisions contained in clause 7 (2) of the Bill, which allows the Board to give regard to goodwill, probable loss of income, disruption of business, cost of removal, etc. The basic fact is that if the award comes anywhere near the tenant's expectations, the need for this Bill would not have arisen because the tenant would have already come to an agreement with the landlord. But the very nature of this Bill is to enable the landlord to recover premises which he cannot do under existing conditions.

5.30 p.m.

Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel in all sincerity that the Government must be commended for this very sensible Bill on the recovery of possession of controlled premises designed to encourage and promote development in the private sector in Singapore. The Government has, of late, placed much emphasis on the introduction of incentives to accelerate the industrial and economic development of our country. This Bill for the recovery of possession of controlled premises is very constructive, being fair, flexible and providing adequate protection to both landlords and tenants. How I wish that the proposed new labour laws are as constructive and encouraging as this one!

Sir, all obstructions to the progress of our society must be removed in an intelligent way. Squatter areas, illegal and other forms of land occupation which are not only economically unproductive but also socially and physically unhealthy, must make way for new and healthier social and economic development. But such changes must be made with the least possible hardship and in the most fair and equitable manner to all classes of people, be they capitalists or workers, landlords or tenants.

There is in this Bill an elaborate list of provisions to ensure that a landlord claiming land must have a sincere intention to develop the property. There is a heavy penalty - which is the compulsory acquisition of the controlled premises by Government - should a landlord after recovery of the premises fail to complete its development within a prescribed period. The safeguards provided in this Bill against abuses by the landlord are indeed quite complete.

It is also heartening to note that fairly adequate provisions have been proposed to compensate tenants affected by this Bill. I refer to the proposed establishment of the Tenants' Compensation Board, the minimum payment of at least six years' and eight years' rent to evicted tenants of residential and business premises respectively. And there are also provisions for compensation for loss of goodwill, disruption of business, etc. I am, however, quite ignorant of the basis upon which the Government has arrived at the decision to pay a minimum of six and eight years' rent to tenants of residential and business premises respectively. I will be glad if the Minister for Law and National Development can enlighten me on this.

Sir, in the case of evicted tenants, may I suggest that these persons be given priority to move back to their original area of residence or business, if such is possible, after development of the area has been completed? There are some who, I believe, for good reasons would prefer a temporary rather than a permanent uprooting from their original area of tenancy. Certain areas, for example, are strategic areas for business operations enabling lower transportation costs and within convenient reach of many other facilities if these amenities still exist after development. There is no reason to deny priority to those who originally enjoyed them.

I further wish to suggest a more comprehensive procedure to deal with claims from tenants of business houses. Such claims may involve substantial amounts and can be highly complicated. As such, I do not feel that the rulings of the Tenants' Compensation Board can adequately do justice. To be fair, it is my contention that a dissatisfied tenant should have option to appeal to a higher authority, preferably to a civil court of law. This will certainly act as a counter-check to the rulings of the Board and justice will be more fully ensured.

Mr Speaker: I take it that there are no other Members who wish to speak. Mr Barker.

5.37 p.m.

Mr Barker: Sir, it is obvious from the number of Members who have spoken that this Bill has aroused great interest. Most have spoken in favour of the Bill but have criticised various clauses. I do not propose to deal with all criticisms today. The Bill is going to Select Committee. In Select Committee, we will not only receive the views of Members of this House but, what is even more important, the written representations of the public. And if landlords or tenants wish to appear before the Committee, they will be most welcome.

But perhaps I can here deal with some of the salient points raised by hon. Members. One or two Members are not very conversant with the provisions of the Control of Rent Ordinance. These are, I am afraid, rather complicated provisions and even some lawyers do not understand them. Many hon. Members were concerned with the position of the sub-tenant or the sub-sub-tenant. Under the Control of Rent Ordinance, the landlord of the premises is the landlord of the principal tenant. But the principal tenant is the landlord of the sub-tenant. And the sub-tenant is the landlord of the sub-sub-tenant, and so on. But, of course, there are persons who are, in legal terminology, trespassers and some are merely licensees. I will not bother hon. Members with the legal definitions of who is a tenant and who is a licensee.

Our problem here has been to find a quick method of evicting tenants, sub-tenants, sub-sub-tenants, licensees and trespassers by paying those who deserve compensation a reasonable compensation and allowing the landlord to rebuild as quickly as possible. In law, the trespasser is in a very weak position. He trespasses. He should not be there. Why should he be paid? A licensee, on reasonable notice, must vacate. It is only when a tenancy exists that the protection of the Control of Rent Ordinance comes into force. These are all rather complicated problems. And it is no use evicting only tenants and sub-tenants without getting an order against licensees and trespassers because then you will have to go to the High Court to evict trespassers and licensees. It will be a long time before you get judgment in your favour and there can be appeal after appeal.

But the Member for Bukit Panjang, who is a lawyer himself and who understands these problems, has made many important points. He is worried about the order of the Board being a final order. He wants an appeal at least on a question of law. I would agree that, as far as the amount of compensation is concerned, there should be no appeal as in land acquisition cases. But when there is an issue as to whether a man is a tenant or a licensee or a trespasser, then the Board may slip up. But these are matters which the Select Committee can deal with. I am sure the legal profession itself will make representations, if not similar then somewhat on the same lines as have been made by the Member for Bukit Panjang.

As for compensation, in my opening speech I said that the formula was not a perfect formula and I would be happy if any Member in this House could suggest or devise a perfect formula. Roughly, we work on the lines that reasonable compensation would be somewhat equivalent to the tea money which is being paid in Singapore for a transfer of the tenancy or for the surrender of possession. But, obviously, even the amount of tea money varies. You pay more tea money for business premises than for a residence. Hence eight years' rent for business and six years' rent for residential premises. But this will vary not only from business to business but also from place to place.

The Member for Joo Chiat wants to know why we do not declare the whole island a designated area. To do that would raise even a bigger howl. I think it would be best that we proceed cautiously and designate only certain areas as a start, probably the area within a mile of Raffles Place. I say, "for a start" and, then we go on. The areas to be designated will be designated by the Minister but, of course, on the recommendations of his planners and other urban renewal experts. When the Board first starts to sit, we do not want to flood it with so many applications.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Anson, who is not here, raised certain questions of law as to why sub-tenants who under the principal tenancy should not have gone into the premises are barred by this Ordinance from getting compensation; for even under the Control of Rent Ordinance, the landlord can recover possession of the premises from his principal tenant if under the principal contract of tenancy, subletting is prohibited and the principal tenant sublets. It is a contractual obligation which, if broken, gives the landlord certain remedies. If I let out my house to you on condition that you do not let it out to anyone else, and you do, well, you are looking for trouble. And so is that somebody else who takes it from you.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think I need say much more except that I should put on the Select Committee Members of this House who have shown such great interest in the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Resolved, "That the Bill be committed to Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members as follows:

Mr E. W. Barker

Mr Ho See Beng

Mr Hwang Soo Jin

Mr Lee Teck Him

Mr Lim Soo Peng

Mr Phua Bah Lee

Mr P. Selvadurai." -[Mr Barker].