LAND TITLES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Senior Minister of State for Law (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, this Bill amends the Land Titles Act to provide the legal framework necessary to implement Singapore Land Authority's Electronic Lodgement System (or ELS). It was drafted in consultation with the relevant Government agencies and statutory boards.

Let me highlight the main changes to the Act.

This Bill will allow the electronic lodgement of documents affecting land to update the land register through electronic means; namely, the Internet (clause 4). The current framework of the Act only allows manual lodgement of documents.

Sir, there are clear benefits in switching to ELS. Let me cite some examples. Lawyers using ELS will save on manpower and transportation costs, as there will be fewer trips to SLA for lodgement. There will also be lower incidence of documentation data errors, which attracts additional fees. The new system has an in-built automated checking mechanism that will assist lawyers in their preparation of documents by minimising data errors. Also, lawyers will be able to offer better services to their clients through more effective case management, for example, by checking their accounts with SLA concerning lodgement fees and the status of their lodged documents.

And, finally, Sir, they will also be able to use value-added services such as being alerted to expiring caveats which will help to ensure that their clients' interests are not left unprotected.

From the land registry's perspective, ELS will do away with the need to re-key data at the SLA's end as the data is transmitted from the lodging party. This will effectively ensure almost 100% accuracy of the information captured. This will better safeguard the integrity of the land register and enhance public confidence in land dealings in Singapore.

As to the types of documents that can be lodged electronically, for a start, when the system is implemented, only caveats, writs of execution and orders of court can be lodged electronically. These are documents that do not pass title to the land from the registered owner to another person. Other types of documents will still need to be submitted physically to SLA even after the electronic format of the documents has been transmitted to SLA via ELS.

Sir, the reason why we are limiting the application of ELS to these documents is because the Electronic Transactions Act does not apply to documents that pass title in immovable property. As land is probably the most valuable asset to most Singaporeans, there are concerns in extending the application of the Electronic Transactions Act to land documents that pass title or interest from the landowner to other parties. Nevertheless, these land documents will still benefit from ELS because the priority of their lodgement will be secured at the point in time when their electronic formats are transmitted to SLA.

Sir, also, the Bill will enable the Registrar to dispense with proof of execution of documents. At law, execution of land documents has to be witnessed by someone other than a party to the document. This is to prevent any doubts being raised subsequently as to whether the document was properly executed by the parties. Given the nature of the documents covered under ELS, which do not pass title, we have decided to dispense with attestation. This amendment will not only facilitate easy usage of ELS, but also obviate increased business costs of arranging for witnesses to sign either electronically or by way of digital cards.

Sir, the Bill will also deal with the execution of companies. Currently, the Bill provides for companies to execute by way of affixing the common seal in the presence of two of its officers. In the electronic environment, this will not be possible. Instead, the Bill will allow the Registrar to prescribe such other acceptable manner of execution. One such manner of execution would be for them to execute the documents through their authorised officers.

Finally, Sir, this Bill will help Singapore to achieve its vision of implementing eGovernment services, wherever possible, to ensure easy accessibility of Government services via the Internet.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I wish to seek a clarification on clauses 13 and 14 which are to amend sections 161 and 164 of the Act. The original sections 161(1) and 164(1) of the Act allow the public access to the Land Register and to obtain a certified copy of any document lodged with it upon payment of a fee. These sections will be amended to allow the public to search and obtain a copy of such electronic documents as the Registrar shall determine. This means that not all electronically lodged documents can be accessed by the public. My question is: which are the documents that will no longer be available for public inspection, and why is there a need to limit public access to certain documents which will result in less information being available to the public?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, as I understand it, it is not the purpose of this amendment to limit public access to the documents but rather to save public time in checking. Also, possibly, because of the electronic environment, the clause gives flexibility to the Registrar to protect the integrity of the database. Just in case there is a need to limit, there is the power to do so, but the intention is not to limit.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Further clarification. If the intention is not to limit, but the amendment states that the Registrar will now determine what kind of documents will be available, is it not clear enough to say that it is to limit? The Bill says that it is to limit. So I wonder why impose such a limit and give the Registrar such a power to determine what document to release and not to release. So where is the right of the public for information in the database?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: As I said, Sir, we are doing this in phases. The important thing is to protect the databases. So, in terms of even how the public accesses the documents, it is better to give the powers to the Registrar to implement any steps that may be needed, for example, to ensure the identity of the public accessing the documents. I think it is good to give the Registrar these powers, which can be exercised, if necessary. But the intention is not to limit public access, but for him to ensure that whoever accesses it will not, for example, corrupt or abuse the database. This is a technical point. If Mr Low wants further clarification, this can be sent to him.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, does the Senior Minister of State agree - and this puzzles me - that these are two different issues? How do you prevent people from accessing the database to try to do something funny to it, damage the database, and to restrict access to certain documents? I do not understand why they have to be together.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, like I said, what is important is to clarify the policy intent. The policy intent is not to restrict whatever level of public accessibility that is currently enjoyed. That is the main point. I think that is the point Mr Low is trying to make.

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 - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee].

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

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Sir, I beg to move,

"That Parliament do now adjourn to tomorrow, 25th April 2003, at 1.30 pm."

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Non-Constituency Member, Mr Steve Chia, has withdrawn his right to raise the matter on the motion for adjournment.