BUILDING CONTROL (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for National Development (Mr S. Dhanabalan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The objective of the Building Control (Amendment) Bill is to enable the Building Authority to clear more effectively unauthorised buildings and structures, especially those erected by squatters on private lands.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1980, my Ministry embarked on a programme to clear squatter colonies. HDB, JTC and URA removed squatter structures on State land. Private landowners were asked to do the same for their lands. We gave ourselves ten years to make Singapore squatter-free.

While the ten years are up, and we are not quite squatter-free, we have gone a long way. In the ten years, between 1980 and October this year, the Government cleared more than 150,000 squatter cases on State land. There are, however, still 4,700 squatters on State land. These will be cleared by 1992. So all Government or State lands will be free of squatters by 1992. Private land owners have also been given notice to clear the squatters by the end of this year, failing which we said that we would acquire the land. Most, if not all, have taken actions. Some have not been able to complete. We will have to look at each individual case before we decide what to do. But in another two or three years, we should have cleared all squatters. But we still do have, apart from squatters on State land, about 350 lots of private land which are squattered.

The heaviest concentration of squatters on these private lands or non-state lands (more than 1,500 cases) is found on land managed by the Malayan Railway Administration (MRA). Many of the structures on MRA land are makeshift huts, sited on both sides of the railway track. They were erected without permission. They are safety hazards, potential fire risks and blights on our environment. My Ministry put in some effort to screen off the unsightly structures by thick planting. But this is really not a solution because it is just sweeping the carpet but there is dirt under the carpet. The long term solution is to remove them. In fact, many Singaporeans wonder why such blights are still allowed in modern Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we intend to amend the Building Control Act to give the Building Control Division clear powers to act against such unauthorised structures. The Bill also sets out new procedures for enforcement actions.

At present, when the Building Authority detects an unauthorised building, it serves a demolition order on the owner of the building asking him to demolish or remove the unauthorised structure within a specified period of time. If such a person does not comply with the order, he is guilty of an offence. The Building Authority may then take the necessary steps to demolish the unauthorised building.

Clause 3 of the Bill now enables the Building Authority to serve the demolition order on either the owner or the occupier of the building. The Building Authority can also close a building and ask the occupier to vacate an unauthorised building. This is to enable demolition to proceed. A new subsection 13(6) is added to make it clear that the Building Authority has the power to demolish temporary structures. Clause 2 of the Bill, in fact, is a consequence of this clause 3. As for the unauthorised structures which are more permanent in nature, action will be taken to clear them under the present Act.

Clause 4 of the Bill amends section 25 of the Act to make it clear that the Building Authority can take action itself or ask for the removal of goods, furniture, etc, from a building on which a closure order has been served. The Building Authority can, therefore, clear the unauthorised structure before demolition.

Clause 5 of the Bill amends section 42 of the present Act to provide that where any such goods, or furniture, or other effects are removed, they can be sold at the end of two weeks of their removal and the proceeds can be put into an account and if it is not claimed within two years of the sale, the proceeds will be paid into the Consolidated Fund.

Clause 6 of the Bill makes it clear that any notice served shall be deemed to be sufficiently served if the notice is affixed on a conspicuous part of the premises to which it relates. This will help the Building Authority in cases where the owner or occupier of the premises cannot be contacted or traced. There have been instances where everybody disclaims responsibility as either owner or occupier of the building. In such cases, all that the Building Authority has to do is to put the notice on a conspicuous part of the building.

Mr Speaker, Sir, some of the unauthorised buildings are temporary structures which may have had permits issued to them long ago, in one form or other, when they were first constructed. They were meant to meet an immediate temporary need and were, in fact, constructed of shortlived materials. But over the years, they have been repaired, extended and have become a part of the squatter colonies. Clause 7 of the Bill provides that any such temporary permit or permission issued for any temporary building under any law before 5th February 1960 shall be presumed to have lapsed. The Building Authority is empowered to take enforcement action on any temporary building in respect of which no temporary permit is in force. This will make it absolutely clear that the Building Authority has jurisdiction over such temporary buildings.

With the amended Act, the Building Control Division will have clear powers to require the demolition of unauthorised structures and temporary buildings; and to demolish them in the event that the owners or occupiers fail to comply with the demolition orders. If the owners or occupiers fail to demolish as ordered they will be guilty of an offence. They can be taken to court for the offence. They can be made to pay the full cost incurred by the Building Authority to remove such unauthorised structures.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Chng Hee Kok: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

I am particularly pleased to hear that this amendment Bill will give the Minister the power to clear up squatters located along the Malayan Railway. The squatters in this area are not only an eyesore but I think they also pose a health risk and occasional inconvenience to those who are living in the nearby Housing and Development Board estates. Whilst advocating the clearance of these squatters, I am also apprehensive about the welfare of these squatters. Since the land in question is not State land, will the Minister explain if these squatters, especially Singapore citizens, will be entitled to some form of resettlement compensation or be provided with alternative housing? Will the present resettlement policy apply to these squatters?

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to let us know what sort of compensation he has in mind for those buildings which he has said will be removed.

Encik Ibrahim Othman: Sir, I have one question for the Minister. Under clause 7, will this affect the houses, especially the plank and zinc houses on private land, that were built long ago in areas which used to be old kampongs?

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Chng has raised the question of the MRA squatters and whether any compensation will be offered to those who are eligible. I want to take this opportunity, Mr Speaker, Sir, to expand a little bit on the squatters on MRA land. As I mentioned, the heaviest concentration of squatters in private land is at present found in those lands managed by the Malayan Railway Administration. We, in fact, asked the MRA to clear these squatters and they tried to clear them in 1986, but with limited success. The MRA lands are meant for use for railway purposes only. These lands will revert to Singapore when they cease to be used for railway purposes. So it is a very special type of land.

We have agreed with the Malaysian Government that the Singapore Building Authority should move in and take direct action on the unauthorised structures on MRA land. The question may be raised: why do we not do this with other private lands? Why do we not help private landowners to clear the squatters on their behalf? The answer is very simple. Private lands can be used for commercial, residential and other types of developments. MRA lands were alienated for a specific purpose, ie, railway only. All these other buildings that have been put on MRA lands, squatter huts, temples, and so on, are unauthorised, both under the Building Control Act as well as under the Planning Act. The Planning Act requires that the use on that land be according to the use allowed under the Planning Act. The use allowed under the Planning Act for the MRA lands is railway. So all the other uses are unauthorised uses. And even if the owners of such structures apply for permission to regularise their buildings, such permission will not be given because the use will not be permitted. Once railway use ceases, the land reverts to Singapore. So it is a very special type of land. For this reason, we have discussed with the Malaysian Government and have agreed to move in and clear these squatters. That situation, of course, does not apply to other private lands in Singapore.

The Building Authority will take immediate action on the unauthorised structures, whether they are temporary or permanent in nature, after this Bill is passed. The clearance exercise will be divided into two phases. Phase 1 will cover the land between Silat Road and Upper Bukit Timah/Chia Eng Say Road. Phase 2 will cover the remaining MRA lands.

Our programme is to clear the squatters on MRA lands in three years' time. Although the amended Building Control Act enables the Building Authority to take similar actions on other private lands, I have explained why we will not in fact do it. In order to expedite the process of clearance on MRA land, we will in fact be offering the squatters certain resettlement compensation. And these resettlement benefits will be equivalent to those paid out to squatters on State land, and only squatters occupying the MRA land as of today - today is the cut-off date because I am making this speech and the law will be passed today - will be entitled to the resettlement benefits. But of course each case will have to be processed and there is an eligibility requirement and the eligibility criteria applied to those squatters on MRA land will be the same as those which are applied to squatters on State land. All eligible persons and families will be given alternative accommodation. The HDB will make available rental flats as an interim arrangement and then they will be asked to buy flats under the booking system. But our preliminary survey shows that probably about 60% of those who are now living in these squatter colonies will not be eligible for any resettlement benefits, because they are non-citizen single persons. If they are citizen single persons, of course, they will get benefits. They are mainly work permit holders who are using the place to sleep at night and paying very cheap rentals. These people will be given a disturbance allowance and they will have to look for alternative accommodation themselves.

All the clearance costs, the resettlement costs, will be paid by the Singapore Government in the first instance and we will offset these against compensation for MRA lands as and when we have to take over these lands for public infrastructure purposes or as and when they are returned to the Singapore Government.

As far as private lands are concerned, as I said, we have already asked the private landowners to clear the squatters and it is up to the private landowners to settle with the squatters whatever compensation they want. The Government will not be involved.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr S. Dhanabalan].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.