PLANNING BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Chuang Shaw Peng (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, on an island republic such as Singapore where land is scarce, the law of economics dictates that real estate bears great value. It is a well-known fact that real estate accounts for a major portion of assets in many companies and for many individuals as well. Hence, an Act as important as the Planning Act carries with it the power to effect changes that will have strong and far-reaching implications on the population's distribution of wealth.

The 1998 Planning Bill effectively sums up the Planning Act of 1990 with some revisions. With due regard, the current Act and the subsequent amendments have served our nation well in all aspects. The steady transformation of Singapore's skyline over the years, I believe, is only one of the positive results of the sound master planning by the competent authority. By this virtue, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill in principle. However, there are several areas which I feel deserve further study. In putting forward these points, I hope to map out the concerns that this Bill would have on the parties directly involved in the real estate industry.

First, I would like to comment on clause 15(1)(f). The condition for granting approval gives the competent authority enormous power to take any amount of land out of a development at no cost. It would definitely be more persuasive, and appear more reasonable, if it is stated more specifically in the Bill that the acquired land is to be used for such purposes as substations, road widening, open space for landed estates, and so on. For the acquisition of any land for public scheme or purposes not related to development, the Land Acquisition Act should be used, instead of this one.

Next, I would like to touch on clause 15(1)(g). This clause, which is already in existence in the current Act, states that not less than 30% of the floor area of any development on the land shall remain in the ownership of one person for a period of 10 years. At this point, I would like to declare my interest as the Deputy Chairman of the Property Committee of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry which is currently carrying out a joint development of an office building downtown. Land in Singapore is getting scarce. In order to achieve better development potential, owners of different plots of land have the tendency to amalgamate and develop their land collectively. If a new company is formed to undertake this joint development, then no technical difficulties will arise from the imposition of the 30% condition. However, there are cases in which the owners prefer to hold the amalgamated land as tenants-in-common, instead of forming a company. Upon completion of joint development, subdivision would take place and titles would be issued to the various owners as tenants-in-common. By an instrument of partition, each owner would then receive his space entitlement proportionate to his original land contribution, save and except that 30% of the floor area of the development shall remain in the names of the owners as tenants-in-common. Under this arrangement, many inconveniences will arise because consent must then be sought among all tenants-in-common for matters such as mortgage and sale, and this is not easily achieved. Hence, I would like to call on the Minister to consider modifying the condition to encourage joint development of small plots of land so as to allow larger scale comprehensive development of higher quality. I am convinced that solutions to this are readily available.

The third point I would like to bring up is on clause 18(2). The Bill maintains that the competent authority is to grant outline permission only after having considered matters relating to the land use, intensity, type, form and height of the proposed development. What I would like to highlight is the word "form". Essentially, the competent authority has the subjective power to decide whether he likes the design put up by the architect. Would it not be better that the design aspect of the development, such as form, be left in the good hands of the design architects? In a free market economy, I doubt that the developer or design architects would be likely to put up a design which is not economically attractive. By not restricting the form, we can then make headway in encouraging our designers to be more creative and innovative. I believe this is something most of us would like to look forward to in the future of our nation.

Having made all these comments, Sir, I want to state the fact that the Planning Bill 1998 has managed to capture the spirit of the previous Planning Act. To enhance its intended purposes, this new Bill contains several additional provisions which I believe would be welcomed by the members of the public. For example, the Bill now allows the competent authority to grant subdivision permission at the same time while it is granting planning or conservation permission. This saves time and energy.

Clause 15(1)(h) gives the competent authority the powers to require the developers to design and construct buildings with better links between them. This requirement would not only increase public convenience but also allow for a better flow of pedestrian traffic. All these make good planning sense and I have no doubt that the nation would benefit from such an integrated approach.

In summary, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have not had very much time to go through this Bill and to see what the changes are, all the changes to the previous Act. But listening to the Minister, one of the major changes to this Act would appear to be the enhancement of powers that are to be given to the enforcement officers and the enhancement of punishments provided under the Act. We were told that the fine is being increased from $6,000 to $200,000. It is a great jump. The punishment would appear to be enhanced greatly. May I plead, even if it be the lone voice, of yet another instance, and this is increasingly the case, of denying the citizen any review by an independent body of any of the powers that are exercised by Government officers in the carrying out of their duties under the Act.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I see that by clause 28(9) there shall be no questioning of the validity of any enforcement notice except by way of an appeal to the Minister. The courts are not to be appealed to by anyone aggrieved by an enforcement notice. When one looks at clause 29, one finds the provision which, as I said, seems to have become the standard practice in Singapore. In every Act, one finds the decision of the Minister shall be final.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the powers, as I have said, have been enhanced and they are, in some cases, very drastic powers. One Member has drawn attention to clause 15 where the competent authority may alienate any part of the land. It shall be transferred free from encumbrances to the State or any public authority, as he rightly pointed out. That is a very wide power. Should that not be restricted and should there not be an appeal if that power is abused for some reason or other? Not an appeal to the Minister but an appeal to an independent body.

Similarly, should there not be some recourse for the person who is aggrieved by the refusal to grant planning permission or by the issue of any enforcement notice to seek a review by somebody other than the Executive, and the Minister of course is part of the Executive, the civil servant acts under the authority of the Minister. Why is it not possible for us to consider the setting up of an independent tribunal to entertain any appeals in such vital matters as this is where the citizen's interest may be affected quite drastically and quite extensively? That would at least give the citizen the feeling that his grievances will be considered by an independent body who would listen carefully to his grievances and then decide them.

As it now stands, and I know from what is the usual procedure in appeals to the Ministers, the citizen or the aggrieved person is not allowed any hearing before the Minister. He perhaps can make a written representation. I do not know whether that is allowed or whether all his objections to the competent authority are just put before the Minister who then decides whether the competent authority was right or not. It would give the citizen a greater sense of fairness or feeling that his complaints will be considered fairly and by an independent body. There is much to be said for not entrenching the Executive with all the powers and making them the final judges of whether they are right or wrong. That decision, whether they are right or wrong, should be left to an independent tribunal. I can see an argument that the courts should not be burdened with this. But what is the objection to setting up a tribunal? This has happened in other countries where there is a planning tribunal which hears representations from people who are affected by any order made under the Planning Act. Why can Singapore not follow that so that we introduce a little bit of democracy into the functioning of the Government in Singapore?

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Let me thank Members for speaking up in support of the Bill. I think there are three key issues that have been addressed. I would like to take these three key issues. One, how to strike a balance between having a Master Plan that we follow religiously versus the flexibility to amend the Master Plan. The second key issue is how do we have the powers to vest land without it being abused. Third, how to have a review of the Minister's decision, again to prevent abuse. And then I will take the other issues raised by various Members.

The first issue is the importance of the Master Plan to guide long-term development of Singapore and to have certainty in that Master Plan so that everybody can make their individual decisions through that Plan. At the same time, we know that Singapore is very small and we have to respond to many changes and we need some flexibility in that Plan. What we have arrived at after many years of practice is to have a Master Plan comprising now of 55 Development Guide Plans. We set out the planning intentions of the different areas in Singapore. Before this Development Guide Plan is gazetted, the draft Plan is put out to the public for comment and if anybody is aggrieved by the proposals, they can write in and they can object to the Plan. The Planning authority and the Ministry of National Development will then look at each and every one of these objections.

At the same time, we are reviewing these plans every five years but in between these five years, events may change and we may need to make amendments to these plans. For example, the proposed development of the Light Rail Transport will require a complete change of the planning intentions in that area. So we need to strike this balance between certainty of the Plan and the flexibility to change. So what we have provided for in the Bill is to set out the five limited circumstances in clause 14 where consideration of public interest should be allowed to take precedence and even where such circumstances are there, the competent authority must first obtain the approval of the Minister and the Ministry. So the flexibility is limited and clearly circumscribed and therefore we can be sure that public confidence in the Master Plan as a reliable guide for the development of land in Singapore would not be undermined.

The second issue is the vesting of land. We could use the Land Acquisition Act for every piece of land that the Government needs for public purposes. But, again, through practice, we find that as you develop a particular site, it is more efficient to vest that piece of land that is required for the public work, for example, to the Government and at the same time, you do not suffer from any less development rights. The development rights of that piece of land are transferred to the rest of the development. That has, in practice, proven to be very effective and has not led to abuse. In the old days, where developments of large tracts of land are involved, vesting of lands was also required for setting up of parks and schools. But that phase of Singapore's development is largely over. Today, the vesting of land primarily refers to situations where you give up the land in front of your site for the widening of road, or you give up the land by the side of your site for drainage reserves. We have found this current practice of vesting of land to be effective, efficient and has not led to abuse and this is continued in the present Bill.

The third main issue is whether there ought to be other mechanisms of review over the Ministry's and the Minister's decision. Again, over the years, we have set up a practice where any change in the Master Plan is put out in the public domain and anybody who is aggrieved can object to it or make representations. The Ministry treats the competent authority at arm's length. Within the Ministry, the officials will evaluate that complaint or representation separately. In situations where the issue is very important, we will set up a panel of Planning Appeal Inspectors. These are planners drawn from the university, the private sector, or other statutory board, not within the Ministry of National Development. We should then look at the planning decision of the competent authority separately and recommend to the Minister whether or not there is a case for the appeal. So there is established mechanism for this review. We are not in favour of independent tribunals. We do not want to refer every appeal to the court because the experience in many countries with such a mechanism is that planning applications get bogged down and it takes a very long time for any sensible development to take place. It becomes a mechanism by which different vested interests will use that to block future developments.

I will now take the other issues raised by Members. Mr Rai asked why not use the District Court instead of the High Court. I must confess that I would have to be guided by the AG's Chambers on this. My understanding is that the requirement to go to the High Court imposes a heavier responsibility on the competent authority. Under the circumstances that we need to apply to the High Court for an injunction would be in situations where the owner excavates land and we want to put a stop to it. The AG's Chambers' advice is that the competent authority must approach the High Court rather than the District Court. But I would take it up with the AG's Chambers and refer the two suggestions by Mr Rai to them.

Mr Rai also suggested a subdivision of conservation units. Today, we do allow subdivision of shophouses in areas other than the conservation district. In other words, in shophouses not gazetted for conservation, we do allow them to be subdivided into two units as long as they have separate access, etc. We are a little bit more cautious in the conservation district because we want a single owner to make sure that there is proper maintenance and proper upkeep of the conserved area. But we would continue to monitor this. If the subdivision in the other areas, other than the conservation district, does not lead to a degradation of the standards of conservation and maintenance, we will be prepared to look at this issue again.

Mr Zulkifli asked whether there is a difference between "conferred" and "empowered". I think this is the new language. I was told that in simplifying language, the clause says that the responsibility and the functions conferred, rather than the old way of saying that we are empowered to do this and empowered to do that. The substance remains the same.

On the valuation method, we have found the standard valuation method to be effective. We have done this for many years. We have been reviewing the standard development charge every year. We have found this to be very effective. It provides greater certainty to the market. We still retain the provision to allow somebody to appeal for an individual valuation if he finds that the standard valuation does not quite meet his requirement.

The additional amendment in this Bill allows the Minister to set a certain limit below which one cannot ask for a separate valuation. This is for practical purposes where the development charge is not expected to be very much. We will discourage applications for separate valuations, because this requires a lot of time and resources.

Mr Chuang raised the issue of the 30% rule. Again, we found that if we want to have a very high standard of maintenance, particularly in shopping centres and strata title developments, it is necessary to have one owner having at least 30%, so that that owner can set the tone and the character of the development. If the entire development is completely subdivided, very soon you find the standard of maintenance goes down and that there will be no leadership in redevelopment, modifications or improvements. So this 30% rule has proven to be quite effective. We will monitor this. Of course, it imposes certain burdens on the owner to retain the 30%. It also creates problems where individual owners of small plots combine to develop the entire property. We will look at this and see how we can find a solution to overcome this - how to achieve singularity of purpose that is given when you have a 30% ownership, like single owner versus the obstacles that such a rule creates.

I also like to assure Mr Chuang that it is not the intention of the competent authority to look at individual designs, except in critical areas. We have designated areas where the buildings will have to go before an architectural design panel. This is to ensure that the design is compatible in what we call "designated routes". These are key routes leading to the Istana or what we designate as "ceremonial routes". Beyond these very restricted routes, it is not in our interest and we do not intend to regulate design.

Mr Jeyaretnam talked about the enhancement of enforcement powers and fines. I mentioned this in my speech. Many of these enforcement powers have to be increased for us to act expeditiously on complaints. A typical example will be illegal use of residence for workers' quarters or the illegal use of residence for place of worship. Under the present Act, the URA officers find it very difficult to take enforcement action. People congregate in a house to be used as a temple over the weekend, at night or for certain religious ceremonies. It creates a big nuisance. Under the present Act, we do not have the powers to enter. We have to collect a lot of evidence before we can take action. And when we do take action, invariably there will be a long series of appeals to Members of Parliament, Ministers, etc. Meanwhile, the people who live around the residence will have to put up with it being used as an illegal workers' quarters or illegal temple for a long time. So I think we want to strike a balance in which we can take more effective action against such illegal uses.

As for the enhancement of fines, again, as I have explained, it is the relativity between the fines and the economic value of continuing with the illegal use. That relativity has to be struck again. Otherwise, they just continue with the illegal use and pay the $50 fine per day.

I hope I have clarified many of the very important points raised by Members and I would like to thank them again for supporting the Bill.

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 Lim Hng Kiang].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

The Chairman: There is a note. In page i, to leave out "1997" where it occurs in the two lines above the line "Arrangement of Sections" and there to insert "1998". This will be done.

Clause 1 -

The Chairman: In page 2, the citation year "1997" will be changed to "1998". This will be done.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 -

Amendment made:

In page 2, after line 31, to leave out "President" and insert "Minister for Law". - [Mr Lim Hng Kiang].

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 63 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64 -

The Chairman: There is a note. In page 45, lines 5, 12 and 18, to leave out "1997" where it occurs and there to insert "1998". This will be done.

Clause 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

First Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Second Schedule -

The Chairman: There is a note. To leave out the citation year "1997" wherever it occurs and there to insert "1998". This will be done.

Second Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.