COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF PROPERTIES IN POTONG PASIR
Parliament of Singapore · 27 August 1996
Official Report, 27 August 1996, Vol 66, Issue 6 · Open in the reader (summaries, search, filters)
Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Law, in regard to those properties in Potong Pasir which have been compulsorily acquired, if he will (i) state the timetable for the taking possession of those properties; and (ii) identify those properties at each stage when the Government takes possession of them.
Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee (for the Minister for Law): Sir, Land Office had already written to the affected landowners in July 1996 informing all of them individually as to the scheduled date for them to deliver possession of their properties. The actual date of possession will depend on whether the landowners choose to remain on their properties until the scheduled date of possession or to vacate their properties earlier.
Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I do not remember the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has answered part two of my previous question. Has he answered?
Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Yes.
Mr Chiam See Tong: Will they be paid?
Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Yes.
Mr Chiam See Tong: They will be paid.
Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: In assessing the value of the property, the Chief Valuer will look at the market value of the property and that will include the premises as they are.
Mr Chiam See Tong: I think the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has given the answer in regard to the timetable for possession of the premises that have been acquired. Can he identify those premises in respect of Potong Pasir Constituency?
Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I think it is not for the Land Office to release details on when the individual property owners will hand over possession, even if we can do so. Firstly, because, like I said, it depends on the landowner. He may have a scheduled date for handing over, but he can leave earlier. And even if you ask me, for example, to let you know which residents in Potong Pasir are scheduled to leave by March 1997, which residents by July 1996 and which residents by July 2001, the question is: should it be furnished to third parties? It is a different matter if the Member asks his residents and they let him know these dates. But for us to furnish a list like that may have other consequences. Landowners may not want that date to be made known. Otherwise, they may be inundated, for example, by real estate agents who will pester them about finding alternative accommodation.
Source: Singapore Parliament Official Report (Hansard) for 27 August 1996. Republished on SGParliament.