LAND TITLES (STRATA) (AMENDMENT) BILL

Debate resumed.

Mr Zulkifli Bin Baharudin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill.

Singapore has successfully managed to remain a vibrant and efficient city-state because of our ability to rejuvenate and redevelop our infrastructure. In this regard, the primary aim of this Bill, to allow changes in its Development Guide Plans to be translated into better utilisation of scarce land resources and infrastructure can be supported.

We have the Land Acquisition Act that would allow the Government to acquire land and properties if it is in the public interest to do so. Therefore, if it is in the public good to acquire residential properties even though it may be a building of, say, less than 10 years old, then it must be done. After all, the law provides for compensation at market prices. I would go as far as to say that we should also consider invoking the Land Acquisition Act if property owners or management corporations fail to maintain their buildings. Therefore, the provisions to allow management corporations greater powers to compel owners to maintain their properties are appropriate.

However, it is another thing to say that neighbours and other property owners can now decide or influence whether they can now remain in their house, especially when en-bloc sale is justified purely on monetary gains and considerations, not necessarily for general public interest.

I can understand the frustration some property owners feel when they cannot sell their property en-bloc because, under present law, even a single owner can frustrate an en-bloc sale. However, I cannot accept or understand the extreme some owners have gone to force and intimidate other minority owners to sell their properties en-bloc. The opportunity for quick and substantial capital gains has blinded many of these owners into thinking that everyone like themselves should decide to sell their houses simply on monetary considerations. Many give scant attention to other genuine reasons why some property owners prefer not to sell their homes despite the potential for huge windfall. The elderly may not want to move out or be burdened by new financial obligations. The unique thing about property is that there is only one of its kind. Another house is never exactly the same. There are also genuine concerns about location, for example, nearness and proximity to family members, school amenities and the comfort and familiarity with the general neighbourhood. Even on purely monetary considerations, as different purchasers may have paid different prices for their property, the monetary gains to different owners are not the same. Therefore, owners do not necessarily have the same incentives and motivation to sell, especially in the current property market. What if the minority owners have to sell at a loss?

It is for this reason that I think the Strata Titles Board should be strengthened not only in numbers, as stated in section 87, but also in terms of its representation so that the Board can effectively perform its function of protecting minority interest. I would urge the Minister to provide for clearer guidelines to assist the Strata Titles Board so that the genuine interests of the minority are not sacrificed purely because of the monetary interest of the majority. It must be on the onus of the majority to ensure that every possible way has been explored to protect the minority interest through preferential purchase of new apartments on redevelopment sites. It should also be the responsibility of the Strata Titles Board to ensure that non-monetary issues and the interest of the minority owners are given sufficient weightage before the Strata Titles Board can make an order under section 84A(6) or (7).

Until now, property ownership has a proprietary value which is permanent and cannot be removed except for special circumstances, for example, by Government Land Acquisition. As such, the idea of Singapore as our home can be promoted because there is a sense of permanence to one's neighbourhood and home. It may be bricks and mortars that make a house, but a home is about shared experiences, fond memories and emotional attachment that can never be equated in monetary terms. These are matters that deserve very careful consideration. Given the current property market, there is a lesser need for quick action. I therefore welcome the Minister's decision to refer this matter to a Select Committee so that views from a wider cross section of the people can be obtained. This issue has attracted much public debate. Clearly, a consensus on this matter is preferred.

Finally, I believe that there should exist in Singapore the recognition that in our homes or friends and our neighbours, our emotional attachment to our neighbourhood are matters which are far more important than the windfall gains one can make from an en-bloc sale.

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to declare my interest as the owner of a strata title lot.

Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. In land-scarce Singapore, we have no choice but to maximise land use through proper land use planning. The recent revision and development of the Concept and Development Guide Plans by URA clearly indicates the need to update land use plans in Singapore. This is necessary so that we can keep up with changing population and economic trends.

This Bill indeed will facilitate better utilisation of land through en-bloc sales of certain property. At the same time, it will enable the Strata Titles Boards to function more effectively and efficiently for the benefit of all subsidiary proprietors and flat owners.

Sir, I would like to raise the following points on the principles and implications of this Bill.

Collective sale of property

Clause 8 inserts a new Part VA (containing new sections 84A to 84F) to facilitate en-bloc sales of land within a subdivided building. But it only applies to owners of flats or units in a strata or subdivided building or development with more than 10 units or flats. The clause seems to discriminate against developments of 10 units and less. I hope the Ministry could clarify the need for this requirement.

Sir, to be consistent in encouraging en-bloc sales, we should remove this requirement and allow all developments that are eligible for en-bloc sale to make an application for collective sale.

Time period requirement for en-bloc sale

This Bill permits owners of 80% share value in a development to apply for collective sale if the lots are more than 10 years while a 90% share value is required for lots which are less than 10 years. In principle, I agree that the 80% and 90% share value requirement will facilitate en-bloc developments. However, the 10-year time period requirement may result in wastage of resources. This is particularly so for developments which are less than 10 years old. Technically, the life span of a building is about 60 years before physical obsolescence takes place. But in a fast-pace society like Singapore, buildings tend to have shorter life span due to economic obsolescence and changing social trends.

Despite this, it is wasteful to facilitate en-bloc sale and development of buildings that are less than 10 years old. In fact, with the introduction of new building materials and technology, buildings are built to last much longer. Thus, I hope the Ministry will reconsider the time period requirement for en-bloc sale application.

In addition, it would be prudent to specify that applications for en-bloc sales for developments below 10 years should obtain approval from the Minister. This would curb any speculative developments which may have other repercussions or economic implications.

Distribution of sale proceeds

One of the stumbling blocks in en-bloc sale is the obtaining of consensus among subsidiary proprietors or owners with regard to the sharing of the sale proceeds.

Subsidiary proprietors or flat owners often have differing opinions as to the methods of sharing the proceeds. This has indeed hampered a number of potential en-bloc sales. The Bill has not addressed this problem. To facilitate en-bloc sale, the Bill should state clearly the method or formula for sharing the sale proceeds. Based on past en-bloc sales, the use of share value has been commonly adopted as an acceptable means to distribute the sale proceeds.

Jurisdiction of Strata Titles Boards

Clause 14 has removed the jurisdiction of the Strata Titles Boards to adjudicate disputes between management corporations and developers. In practice, management corporations often encounter problems when taking over new developments from developers. These problems may range from simple disputes concerning handing over of relevant documentation to major disputes such as repairs of major building defects. Very often, these disputes are technical in nature and could be either mediated or adjudicated by the Strata Titles Boards. However, with the new amendment, all these disputes would have to go to the courts for settlement. As such, it may create an influx of cases, thus hampering the efficiency of our courts.

Instead, we should expand the jurisdiction of the Strata Titles Boards to adjudicate disputes between management corporations which have become common in recent years.

Composition of Strata Titles Boards

Clause 11 increases the number of persons on a panel from which the Strata Titles Boards may be formed to 24. The increase of panel members from 20 to 24 is probably attributed to the increase in the number of strata title developments, and the amendment in section 86 which allows parties to a dispute to have a say in the choice of members forming a board.

As the real estate and construction industry is small, it may be better to increase the panel members so that the Minister would have more leeway to appoint one or more Strata Titles Boards to expedite dispute settlement.

Thus, I would suggest that in line with the principle of appointing management corporation council members, we should allow the Minister to appoint a panel of members but subject it to a maximum of 30 members. In this way, the number of panel members may vary from time to time depending on the availability of expertise and the number of disputes.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: I am obliged to you, Sir, for giving me this opportunity. Sir, I rise to support the Bill and I congratulate the Minister for agreeing to send the Bill to a Select Committee. This has been proposed by Members as well as the public, because it is a very important question that we are going to deal with, ie, the question of property rights.

I must, first of all, declare my interest. I am a practising lawyer and I am also a member of the Strata Titles Board.

Sir, Singapore has limited land supply and it is of utmost importance that we utilise this to the maximum benefit of the community. This is why the success of Singapore has largely been attributed to the very equitable way in which land acquisition has worked. In this particular case, no acquisition is being made. All this Bill hopes to do is to facilitate en-bloc sales.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one question that has bothered me and other Members is this 10-year period. It is not adequate. We should at least allow a minimum of 15 years. I am happy with the requirement of a percentage of at least 80%, because I think that is also the practice in other jurisdictions. Prof. Chin also spoke about the Strata Titles Board. Sir, the Strata Titles Board is made up of the President, Deputy President and two other members. In fact, it is better than what you get in the High Court because in the High Court only a single judge hears the matter. It would also be more expensive and time consuming.

The other advantage which Members may want to know is that the Board always tries to mediate. In fact, I have been sitting on the Board for more than a year now. The matters which I have dealt with have always been settled without going through a full hearing. So I would like to tell the Members of this House that the Strata Titles Board may be a more appropriate panel because it is made up of people who are not just lawyers but also engineers and architects who appreciate the dispute better. So I hope Prof. Chin would change his view after hearing my arguments.

Sir, there have been some complaints from members of the public, both in the news media as well as some people who have approached me. I know of a case of a retired librarian in the University of Singapore who lives in Holland Road. Her worry is that if her property is put up for en-bloc sale, she would miss the company of relatives who are nearby and other facilities. But I tell people who have this problem that it is in the interest of the community at large and especially, in view of the MRT development, that we should allow maximum utilisation of our land. We have got limited land supply and community interest must take precedence over that of the individual right. As I said earlier, one of the advantages that we have is that because we did not enshrine in the Constitution the right to own property, as some other countries did, we have this development.

Sir, I move to another area which I am a little concerned. Prof. Chin has also mentioned this. This is new section 84A(10). The notice to be given requires only two days' notice. I do not think that is sufficient. If you post a notice on Saturday, the next day is Sunday. I think we should at least have a minimum of five days' notice. Another Member also raised the question of who is to give notice. I think that could be easily addressed. The Registry of the Strata Titles Board would give the notice where members have not been served. It could be a condition that before an application is heard, all the parties have been served properly.

Sir, another area that I am concerned is this. If we do not change the law and allow, as I have said earlier, the period of 10 years to stand, then a lot of properties that have been developed recently and are in good condition would be torn down and rebuilt, which would be an economic loss.

Another area which I think we should also consider is that probably the owners of terrace houses in older estates may wish to have them developed if the plot ratio is increased from two storeys to three storeys. Because some of these estates are in fact in worse condition than some of the HDB estates which are better managed. This is something which the Minister may want to consider.

Sir, the office of Registrar is being created and I am grateful to the Minister for this because, with this amendment, many applications could be dealt with by the Registrar. So the full Board does not have to sit. All we require is the Registrar to deal with applications which are not controversial in nature and it would be helpful when the law comes into existence to appoint a Senior Legal Officer as the Registrar. At the moment, the person holding office is actually qualified for District Judge. I hope the practice will continue.

As I said earlier, I would like to assure Members once again, my experience over the years is that both parties always want to discuss the matter and, in fact, in most cases, mediation succeeds.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Simon S C Tay (Nominated Member): I am much obliged, Mr Speaker. I rise to welcome the reference by the Minister of State of this Bill to a Select Committee, which some of us have asked. I think we need to carefully consider the Bill because we are changing existing rules and private rights. We are changing the ball game. And I want to share some comments and thoughts with the Minister, hoping that this will go to the Select Committee, based on four topics: first, the question of public interest; second, the difference and balance between private property and what the Minister of State has called "communal living"; third, the safeguards; and fourth, the use of the Strata Titles Board as opposed to court.

The first is on public interest. As many Members have said, land is a scarce resource and Singaporeans accept the principle of land acquisition for public interest by the Government. Some, however, will feel that these amendments differ on the public interest but instead serve windfall private profit. I also agree, as many have pointed out, that there is a public interest to protect Singapore's landscape against slums. However, I urge us just to consider that this concern can be met much more simply. Government authorities may issue orders to management councils of such slummy buildings to maintain properly or to face court proceedings. And if they persistently refuse or fail to do so, then condemnation orders can be served or the management corporation may be dissolved. So I do not see this strongly as a matter of public interest. It is more a question of that majority in the building of private owners against a minority.

It is certainly true that under the present law, many may be frustrated. Some have called this the tyranny of the minority. I believe the Minister of State used this term in an earlier parliamentary sitting when he introduced the outline of the present Bill. But others did not see this as a tyranny but rather as a minority simply protecting their rights. They point out that the majority is not stopped from selling their units if they choose to do so. What they cannot do is to get the windfall premium by selling en-bloc. No one is trapped in a building but they are stopped from selling somebody else's house under them. And I think in this sense, this is a debate not simply about efficiency in land use, about abstract rights. This is a debate about the idea of Singapore as our home. We have encouraged home ownership. We wish that Singaporeans feel that the nation is their home, their permanent home which no one can take from them. Of course, this is best served by allegiance to the nation as a whole. At our National Day, I am sure many people will feel that allegiance. But on normal days, in our dreams, in our thoughts, in our hearts, that sense of rootedness of home belongs to one's specific home, one's specific neighbourhood. And in many ways I think that is why private property in Singapore has demanded a premium not merely for the facilities or the quality - the HDB quality is going up all the time - it is for that idea that this home is a private property belonging to me.

Therefore, I do not agree that condominiums are about communal living. The way I look at it is what is common is very small. If we ask ourselves: can somebody by vote at the management committee invite them to my front door, I think the answer is no. If the answer to an invitation to the front door is no, then how can it be that the majority can also sell out not just my front door but my whole house from under me?

So I want to distinguish between this idea of public interest and the majority in a private building and, secondly, the idea of communal living against the idea of private property. As I said also, there is an emotional attachment to a home and this is very difficult to translate purely to monetary terms. As such, I share the concern many Members have expressed that the conditions of a bona fide sale at arm's length transaction are simply not enough. The attachment which an older member may feel for his or her home of 20 years would be considered irrelevant in this equation. This is a monetarisation of emotional attachment and that idea is contrary to the idea of Singapore as home.

There are many personal reasons for preferring not to sell. It includes circumstances like the owner, such as an elderly or ill person, who may not be able to stomach the idea of having to pack everything and move. There is a convenience factor of being near to other family members or the school or amenities, or to simply a neighbourhood with which you are familiar. Additionally, there are hard economic reasons for some preferring not to sell. The purchase price paid by different owners at different times may vary considerably. For example, a condominium unit that fetched, say, a quarter million dollars in 1986 or 1987 may cost by 1990 some $400,000, and then 1994, perhaps at the height or later, to fetch $1 million for the same unit, more or less. As such, if an en-bloc sale results in a price of $1.1 million, say, to all the buyers, the profit of different owners would differ considerably. And so they have different incentives to sell. This is a rational decision, not an emotional one. This is a hard dollar and cent reason for us to help people hang on to their properties and not have them pried out from their hands. And, of course, I do not think this House needs to remember that in the present market where prices are lower than the peak, it could result in a loss. I am gratified that the Minister of State now says that we guarantee that deals do not go through if they result in a loss.

I move on to my third point that more safeguards are needed. I share Prof. Chin's concerns that it is the court who is much more appropriate to fathom the mixture of personal loss, economic loss, rather than the Strata Titles Board. And I do not echo the sentiments expressed by my fellow NMP Mr Rai. I also share the concern that if we are to consider any factors put forward by anyone, this is not in the Bill as drafted. I think we have to consider this particularly because, as I understand them, en-bloc proposals may differ considerably not just in terms of price but also in additional terms such as preferential treatment for new apartment once it is built, rent-free periods - all these differ from deal to deal - and there must be room for the Board or the court to fully consider these reasons as well as the price. I also noted the Bill, and the Minister of State has emphasised mediation. But I suggest that this mediation is not sufficient because if it fails, the majority can still rely on the price.

I share the concern about the timeframes regarding the 10-year properties and the voting percentages outlined earlier by the Minister of State. I wish to finally close on just a few broader points or suggestions.

The first is that when this Bill goes to a Select Committee, I ponder who would speak for the minority owners. I think the developers are well taken care of. They are well organised and can speak with an equal and loud voice. There has been some anecdotal evidence about Kim Lin Mansions or other isolated cases. The Minister has not shared with us how much feedback, how many complaints. And I would ask that the Select Committee go beyond just being open to views but rather seek to survey, study and genuinely solicit views.

The second wider suggestion I have is that the Bill be better served and the minority interest better protected if the majority who wish to sell be placed in a fiduciary relationship to the minority whereby undertaking the sale, they will take on duties to safeguard the interest of the minority as best as possible.

The third and a more general point I wish the Minister of State to put before the Select Committee is that, might it not be better not to exchange existing private rights, but rather to change them prospectively for land and developments that will now arise. This of course has the disadvantage of making different types of land and making choices more complex. But this has the advantage of making sure the people who are presently situated in one system of rights do not find that system changed to their adversity.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I voice my unhappiness about the Bill. A number of other speakers, particularly Prof. Chin and the speaker following him and now Mr Simon Tay, have voiced their concerns which I was going to voice, and so I do not propose to repeat them. Suffice to say that I think they are well-founded and these views must be given sufficient consideration.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let us not make any pretence. This is not a case of a minority or even a single man holding out against the society. It is not a question of society's interests that will be adversely affected if we give way to the man's wish and freedom to do what he wishes. This Bill simply panders to the greed of the developers and the other co-lessees who see, as has been said, a way to get rich quickly. That would appear to be the only reason for this Bill. There is no question of any national interests coming into this. There is, as has been pointed out, the Land Acquisition Act and even there, let me say, it is felt by many that that Act itself is being abused from its primary, original purpose which was that it should only be used for national interests; it is used for lots of other reasons now. So let us not pretend that a minority, even if it be a single man, is holding society to ransom.

This adds another instance to the list that is already growing in Singapore where the citizen is coerced. He is coerced to do something against his will, against his freedom to do what he wishes to do. Is that the kind of society we want in Singapore where a citizen is coerced at every turn and corner? Or is it a society where the citizen feels that he is free to make his own choice provided of course it does not harm the society at large? I am sure the answer to that must be quite plain.

The second point that I wish to raise, and that has been raised by Prof. Chin, is why cannot we allow or ask the majority of the owners to take their application to court. What is wrong with the courts hearing it? Then at least we have an open public hearing. We will have representations on behalf of the minority and we will hear representations from the majority. In a hearing before the Strata Titles Board, we do not get this openness and we may not even get a reasoned decision from the Board when they do come to make a decision. But the courts do have to give their decision. So is it not more preferable that this matter should be left to the courts? After all, they are vested with the judicial power in this country and we should allow them to function in the role that they are intended to function and not keep taking away from the courts their function and giving it to statutory boards and civil servants and the like.

My objection to this Bill is on principle. I think it is wrong to force one man to give up his property. I do not want to go into the reasons why he may be against the sale. Some reasons have been advanced but whatever it is, it is the principle. Do we rob a man or woman, as the case may be, of his or her freedom to do what he or she wishes to do with the property? Why is that necessary in Singapore? As I said, in a number of things, citizens are now being coerced. I think there should be a limit to this coercion.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate. I am surprised, Sir, that the Government should succumb to the greed of property owners and take away the principle of unanimity in regard to en-bloc sales. In 1987, at the last major amendment to the Land Titles (Strata) Act, the Government held firm to the principle of unanimity as regards the sale of the whole development comprised in a Strata Title plan. Why should the Government now make a complete about turn and go back on its own belief?

I believe that the principle of unanimity is correct and the Government should hold on to it. The principle has been upheld by the Government up till now because it believes that the minority interests must be protected. There will normally be a few people who live in a large block of private flats who do not want to be moved out. These people are not spoilers or people who want to hold the other flat owners to ransom and demand high prices for their own units. They just do not want to move out whatever the going price is paid to them. I know of such instances in a private development where an en-bloc sale was proposed. Each flat owner was offered about $1 1/2 million as compensation. Those flats were first purchased in 1969 for only about $27,000 each. So the price of $1 1/2 million was a windfall. It was like touching a lottery. But there were two ladies who refused to sell their units. Those two flat owners did not ask for more money. The compensation paid to them was not an issue. They just do not want to move out and live somewhere else. Many people of course will call them stupid or unable to comprehend them for refusing such large sums of compensation money. But if we value freedom and value the principle that one has a right to live where one chooses for whatever reasons, then I believe we can start to understand the refusal of those two ladies to budge from their places of residence.

Normally, one is only forced to move out of one's home in times of war, or in times of natural disaster like an earthquake, or where there is a widespread contagious disease in the community, or one's property is required for public development. Other than those instances, I do not think that in a civilised society, one should be forced to be evicted from one's own private property against one's own will. The governments of other countries may want to do it to their own citizens. But I do not think that we should follow them. If a property owner wants to make money out of his own property, he is entirely free to do so. But I do not think that he has a right to drag other residents into his money-making scheme if the other residents do not want to have a hand in it.

I think a society must have some ideals, some principles to hang on to. If a society has no principles, no ideals at all, that society, for the short term, may prosper but in the long run, it shall surely collapse. I cannot accept the belief of a well-known businessman in Singapore when he said that everything is up for sale except his own wife. I am certain we do treasure certain things which cannot be sold whatever is the price offered.

Expediency as a philosophy is not a good philosophy for our nation. The American nation, despite its commitment to business and seeming expedient ways, has endured for over 200 years, because it still holds on to certain sacred beliefs and ideals as enshrined in its constitution. As for Singapore, it must not throw all ideals and principles to the wind. For me, I believe in the sacrosanctity of my home. I should be allowed to stay in it as long as I like. I therefore cannot support a law which will allow others to force me out of my home all because they want is to make more money out of it.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, first, let me thank the many speakers who have spoken. Since the Bill will be going to a Select Committee, I will not address all the points, especially the technical ones which can be considered at the Select Committee. However, Sir, I should take this opportunity to outline the reasons why the Government has taken this approach.

As stated by many Members, the underlying objective of the Bill is recognising land is scarce in Singapore and the fact that the plot ratios of many developments have been enhanced, there is a need to facilitate the realisation of more housing units for Singaporeans. We are talking in many cases of prime areas, freehold, 999 years. From the records that are available, some developments have yielded two to three times more units for ourselves, for our children. So this is a step that we take which will have long term impact.

Of course, as many Members have stated, yes, indeed we are dealing with property rights that can be sensitive. But I think we have to also understand that in land scarce Singapore, we should not flinch from taking measures that are necessary which will benefit both Singapore and Singaporeans, which indeed we did in the 1960s when we introduced land acquisition. These land acquisition policies have facilitated and resulted in developments that have made Singapore one of the best cities in the world. Of course, some Members may say that the example may not be quite the same. But I would argue that there is a public interest element, not just in land acquisition but also in en-bloc sale. Let us not forget that, unlike land acquisition where a person's property is acquired, he may lose out financially, the distinguishing factor here is that in an en-bloc sale, the minority owner would very often benefit substantially financially. That is the first point I want to make.

The other point which we should also bear in mind is that, like I have said in my speech, the new scheme will not apply to landed properties, even though one of the Members had urged for it to be applied to terrace houses. I think the difference is fundamental and this is one point that perhaps Singaporeans do not fully grasp, the legal significance of buying a condominium where what a person buys into is a strata lot. He buys into common property. He is designated share values in common property. He has no specific land lot. He has got strata rights, essentially enjoyment of the air space where his unit is located. So what the majority want to do, in effect, is to exercise their rights over the common property. If there are 99 owners in a 100-owner development, assuming the share values are equal and equal area also, what the 99 owners say is, "We want to exercise our rights to sell this strata development" where every owner who comes into this development, unlike buying landed property, knows what he is going in for.

The other point, of course, is besides just the legal nature, one cannot understate the fact of communal living in strata development. And this is another point, which is that Singaporeans over time will better understand what the Land Titles (Strata) Act is all about. It is a complex Act with 130 sections. Why? Because living in a condominium is not just buying your own property and living away from everybody else. There are legal duties; there are legal liabilities. And that is why a management corporation is formed in all developments with powers over many areas. So this is the other point which we should note.

Members have talked about the 10-year rule. Our approach, as I said in my speech, is not to dictate which developments are ripe for en-bloc sale. We leave it essentially to the owners. So there is minimum intervention, unlike Mr Simon Tay who had asked why we do not stipulate terms and conditions in the sale and purchase agreement. We take a non-interventionist approach. I think the starting point is that we leave it to the majority owners. If 80%-90%, all like minded, all with their own faculties to decide what is best, say that this is the way to go, provided, of course, the transaction is at arm's length, there is no collusion, then the sale goes ahead.

Mr Simon Tay: Sir, I just want to clarify that I did not mean that I was encouraging the Bill to allow stipulation of terms and conditions. I was only pointing out that terms and conditions in different en-bloc offers do differ, which may then have to be considered by the Board.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Thank you for the clarification.

Sir, going on this basic objective of creating more space for Singaporeans, we have decided on the 10-year rule. Going on present records, it will not lead to national wastage. One or two speakers had asked whether the 10-year rule, where the buildings are relatively new, would lead to wastage at the national level. From the records, only about 20% of en-bloc developments have been less than 10 years. Nevertheless, we also know that there may be good reasons why owners in a development which is less than 10 years would want to sell en-bloc. It could be because the plot ratio has been enhanced substantially. It could be because the development is next to a vacant plot of land and there is reason to sell it so that development can be built on a larger piece of land. Or it is next to another development which is perhaps also less than 10 years old, but it makes economic sense to sell it together. As the approach we take is to facilitate en-bloc sale, we have adopted the 10-year rule.

Mr Lew says that this will mean that it goes against another objective which is to rejuvenate estates. That is a secondary objective. In time to come, when estates become older, I think this will come to the forefront. But at the moment, the primary objective is to help realise enhanced plot ratios so that many more homes can be created for Singaporeans.

The other big area that we looked at was the role of the Strata Titles Board. I think, like I have said in my speech, it is an important safeguard. The Strata Titles Board will be enhanced. There will be more members. And as Mr Rai has rightly pointed out, based on personal experience, the Board comprises senior professionals in the various fields which are relevant to what the Strata Titles Board will have to do, not decide on the law, but decide on whether the sale price is one where there is no collusion, decide on the method of distribution, whether it is unfair to the minority owners. The composition of the panel will ensure that this task is better done, rather than a judge sitting in court fettered by the rules of evidence.

The other point, of course, I think Mr Rai again brings it out poignantly is the mediatory role of the Board, which again a court will be less suited to do. In a more informal setting, the Board takes a mediation role. That is very critical. As I have said in my speech and Mr Rai, based on his experience, has also backed up, in many cases, the Board will mediate. In many cases, they will succeed in mediation. In many cases, people who may not want to sell, especially those who are not based on financial reasons, if there is skilful mediation, if the parties, especially the majority parties, are encouraged to give some latitude to the minority owners, maybe arrange, if a person wants to live in the area, for the developer to give a right of first refusal, so that he or she can continue staying in the area, relocation or whatever, I think many of these problems can be settled. The Board will be much better.

The other point which I want to say is that I would agree that we should not typecast majority and minority owners, because there are minority owners who may not want to sell based on financial reasons. Yes, there will also be other minority owners who, because of emotional or sentimental attachment, do not want to move. Therefore, I would agree that we should not fix them with the term "tyranny of the minority". When I used it in this House in the earlier debate, it is not to characterise them with a slur, but to describe the situation where one person saying no will prevent the transaction from going through. In this sense, it is one person's objection which has prevented the realisation of the desires of the vast majority.

So the corollary to that is that we should not characterise majority owners, which has been done in this House by several speakers, that they are greedy, they are avaricious, all they want is to make money. I think it is not fair on majority owners, if it is what they are waiting for. But it does happen that Government's actions result in certain people getting richer, getting a windfall. So shall we begrudge that? I would say no. Shall we facilitate it? Well, if it results in a public interest being met, which is the creation of more homes for Singaporeans, a lot of them in prime freehold areas, then I will say yes, provided, of course, there are sufficient safeguards, and the interests of all parties are taken into account. And this indeed is the approach we take in the Bill, if you look at the specific criteria in the Bill taking into account all the objections of the minority, all the circumstances of the case, all the interests of the parties.

Nevertheless, part of the basic approach is that we know that it would be difficult to go away from basic objective criteria. That is why I said in my speech earlier on in this House, that the primary function of the tribunal would be to see whether it is an arm's length transaction, bona fide, no collusion and so forth. But, at the same time, there may be exceptional circumstances. I have mentioned one, which is that no party should lose out financially. If you sell your property at a loss or you sell your property and you cannot redeem it with the bank, then it will be a ground for the Board to intervene. So let us take that approach and see how the Board works.

Sir, the Bill will go to a Select Committee. So I do not think I need to go into the details. I want to thank Members for their many suggestions. Some of them are technical suggestions to improve the working of the Board, to improve the working of the Bill, which can be considered at the Select Committee.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, the Minister of State seems to base his main ground on land scarcity in Singapore. That would appear to be the primary reason. Has the Government considered taking over some of the golf courses? Do we not have too many golf courses in this country?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, this matter of golf courses is nothing new. Government has defended in this House why certain lands are designated for golf courses because they cannot be used for built-up developments.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

"That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and such Members as the Committee of Selection may nominate." - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee].