RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED PREMISES (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) BILL changed to CONTROLLED PREMISES (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) BILL (AS reported from Select Committee)

Order for Third Reading read.

5.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker: Before I call upon the Minister, I draw attention to an oversight in the Bill as amended by the Select Committee. This error has to be corrected. It is in clause 6, which appears in page 7 of the Report of Select Committee. In line 21, "three" should, in fact, read "four". This is a change that makes no material difference and it will be done.

The Minister for Law and National Development (Mr E. W. Barker): I am much obliged. Sir, 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 Select Committee on the 22nd of May, 1968.

The Bill, which is novel in concept and potentially far-reaching in its social and economic impact, has aroused a considerable amount of interest and it has been a subject of much well-informed comment. This interest is evident from the number of representations that were made to Select Committee. In all, thirteen written representations were received and the Committee heard oral evidence from ten of the representors. Representations came not only from landlords, tenants and developers but also from interested professional and business associations, such as the Singapore Advocates and Solicitors Society, the Singapore Real Estate Valuers Association, the Singapore Planning and Urban Research Group and the Chinese Chamber of Commerce. Apart from the representations of the Singapore Advocates and Solicitors Society, which confined itself to the technical legal aspects of the Bill, almost all the representations were concerned either with the scope of the legislation or with the compensation formula that is proposed in the Bill. There was much difference of opinion in the representations on both these aspects of the Bill. Despite this, or maybe because of it, almost all the representations had something of value to contribute and gave the Select Committee much food for thought. In the result, as Members may observe from the Report, many of the suggestions and proposals in the representations have been adopted and are written into the Bill, and undoubtedly have improved it .

Although the Bill as tabled does not provide the perfect solution to some of the problems raised, and although it may in regard to the compensation formula lack the sort of legal precision to which legislators would aspire, I would suggest it does provide a satisfactory framework in which the policy of the Bill may be carried out and under which the interests of landlords and tenants affected by the Bill will be adequately protected.

The Committee's Report was presented on the 13th of June, 1969, as Paper Parl. 3 of 1969. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill as now tabled before the House incorporates the recommendations of the Select Committee. Members will observe from the Report that fairly detailed statements are given therein explaining the reasons for accepting all the major amendments. I need not burden the House by repeating them. It may, however, be of interest to Members if I refer to a basic provision in the Bill upon which representations were made to the Select Committee and which the Committee were unable to accept.

I refer to clause 3 dealing with the application of the Bill. Certain representations, particularly those from developers, proposed that the whole of Singapore should be designated as a development area or, alternatively, that any landlord may make an application for the area in which his controlled premises are situated to be declared a development area. It is not difficult to see that the effect of accepting either of these proposals would be that the Tenants' Compensation Board would be flooded with applications for possession of premises and the whole of the provisions of the Control of Rent Ordinance would be nullified, for all controlled premises in Singapore would potentially be liable to decontrol. This was not the purpose of Government in introducing this legislation. On the contrary, if Government had decided that it was time to nullify the effect of the Control of Rent Ordinance, it would not have adopted this backdoor method of doing so. It was precisely because Government considered that the time was not as yet opportune for an outright repeal of this Ordinance that it was considered that, in the general context of Government's policy to promote development in the private sector, the approach in this Bill of a limited and phased form of de-control with payment of compensation to dispossessed tenants was adopted. If and when the time comes for the repeal of this Ordinance, it would by no means follow that compensation would be paid to tenants who would be obliged to leave their premises because they could not pay the resulting increases in rent. The reason being that if Government decided to repeal that Ordinance, it would be because the economic and housing situation as it affected protected tenants would be such as to persuade Government that no further control over rents was necessary. In other words, this category of persons would then be able to pay an economic rent or obtain suitable alternative accommodation.

By and large, the Control of Rent Ordinance confers protection upon the poorer sections of the community, and although Government is fully aware of the price that has to be paid for this protection in terms of unsightly buildings and slum tenements and the discrimination against one section of the community at the expense of another, which is inherent in the present system, Government considers that we have not yet reached the stage when this protection can be thrown overboard. The repeal of this Ordinance would have the effect of rendering homeless thousands of persons in Singapore and, though much has been done to provide low-cost housing for these poorer sections of the community, we are not as yet in a position to rehouse all the persons that would be affected. However, everyone is aware of Government's policy to encourage home ownership, and there is no doubt that the time will come when this Ordinance may be safely repealed - at first in part and then as a whole. I can assure the House that Government is, in fact, giving very serious and careful consideration to the question of decontrol;-perhaps commercial or business premises could be decontrolled in about five to seven years' time and residential premises in 10 to 12 years' time, but there will be complications where premises are used for mixed purposes unless a just solution is found or some equitable formula arrived at. For the moment, it is Government's intention to advance slowly and in an orderly manner in this respect.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.