LAND TITLES BILL (As reported from Select Committee)

Order for Third Reading read.

The Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Sir, when moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I pointed out that it was a fairly technical piece of legislation and that therefore we had undertaken considerable consultations, including with bodies like the Law Society, the Real Estate Developers Association, the Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers. Nevertheless, because of the technical nature of the Bill, I decided it should be submitted to a Select Committee.

The Select Committee received seven written representations and heard oral evidence from three representors. They made several useful suggestions, many of which have been accepted.

The Report of the Select Committee was presented to this House on 18th August and the Bill, as set out at Appendix I of the Report, incorporates the amendments made by the Select Committee. The explanations for all the amendments are contained at Appendix V of the Report. Therefore, I only propose to draw the attention of Members to some of the more important changes made by the Select Committee.

First, adverse possession for unregistered land. It was suggested to the Select Committee that as the Bill will abolish adverse possession for registered land, adverse possession for unregistered land should also be abolished. A new clause 177 has been inserted to amend the Limitation Act (Cap. 163) to abolish adverse possession in respect of unregistered land in two types of cases: first, where the land is unlawfully occupied by a squatter; and second, redemption actions against mortgagees in possession.

Purchasers of land rarely distinguish between registered and unregistered land. Since claims to title by way of adverse possession will no longer be permissible for registered land, it follows that such claims should also be abolished for unregistered land. Furthermore, as it would take about 10 years for almost all lands in Singapore to be registered under the Land Titles Act, it would seem odd to continue this distinction between registered land and unregistered land.

The amendment is limited to two types of actions which I have referred. Other actions to recover land or to enforce proprietary rights in land will not be affected. These actions must still be instituted within the relevant limitation period, otherwise they will be time-barred.

I also wish to stress that the amendment is not retrospective. It will not affect those in possession who have already acquired their title by adverse possession prior to the amendment coming into force. Nor will such persons in possession be required to apply within a time-frame to the court for an order as to their title to the land.

I should point out that should any land become registered land through the issue of a qualified certificate of title, an adverse possessor's claim to the land will remain protected only as long as, first, a caution as to title remains on the certificate of title; and, second, the adverse possessor lodges a caveat before such caution has lapsed or been cancelled.

Secondly, clause 172(9) enables persons who have, prior to the coming into operation of the Bill, established their title by way of adverse possession of registered land to apply to court for an order or to the Registrar of Titles for a possessory title. Clause 172(9) has been amended to give such persons six months instead of three months to do so as it was represented to the Select Committee that six months would give more flexibility.

Thirdly, joint tenancies and tenancies in common. Clauses 53(5) and 174(f) have been amended to make it clear that unilateral service of a declaration to sever is an additional means of severing a joint tenancy. Other recognised methods of severing a joint tenancy will still be applicable. This amendment is made to clarify the position because in the Select Committee it was pointed out that this was not sufficiently clear as to whether other recognised methods of severing a joint tenancy would still be applicable.

In closing, Sir, let me say that the changes are quite technical. The Select Committee is grateful for assistance given by members of the Law Society and other representors, some of whom are experts in their respective fields. I believe that the changes which are now proposed will improve the Bill.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.