STREET WORKS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of State for Transport (Dr Balaji Sadasivan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the Street Works Act (SWA) was first passed and came into effect in 1995. This Bill contains a range of amendments. Its primary objective is to update the legislation to support new developments and to facilitate LTA's operations. In this regard, Sir, the Bill:

(a) empowers LTA to carry out enforcement actions against obstructions, so as to keep passageways clear for pedestrians;

(b) empowers LTA to require plans to be submitted before engineering works are carried out within the road structure safety zone. This is to ensure integrity of the road structures;

(c) empowers LTA to enter into non-State lands to carry out road works and install traffic control and monitoring equipment;

(d) facilitates the introduction of a lodgement scheme to allow for self regulation; and

(e) winds up the Municipal Provident Fund.

Sir, let me now elaborate on these and highlight the key provisions in the Bill for the proposed amendments.

Enforcement actions against obstructions

Sir, there is a need to ensure that the public is not inconvenienced by obstructions placed along passageways. These passageways include public streets and backlanes vested in Government, five-footways and certain private footways that serve as key linkages for pedestrians. Currently, LTA only has the powers to seize and remove obstructions on public streets but has no powers to dispose of the articles should they remain unclaimed. If the goods remain unclaimed, LTA needs to seek further directions from the court via a court application.

Hence, LTA needs to be empowered to seize and dispose of obstructions found on passageways, particularly those that are heavily used by pedestrians. Clauses 17 and 18 create new sections in the SWA to empower LTA to clear obstructions on these passageways. The amendment will also allow LTA to enact regulations to dispose of all seized articles if their owners do not claim them within a specified time.

I would also like the House to note that enforcement action will only be carried out against movable obstructions. Where immovable obstructions, such as illegal structures and walls are found on passageways that are located on State lands, the Government has sufficient powers under the State Lands Encroachments Act and the Building Control Act to deal with these.

Powers to ensure integrity of road structures

Sir, clause 4 introduces a new section to empower LTA to regulate engineering works carried out within the road structure safety zone, which is defined as 20 metres from the outermost edge of any part of a road structure such as bridges and flyovers. Prior to the commencement of such works, engineering plans and other relevant information will have to be submitted by qualified persons to LTA for approval. Any failure to do so will be considered an offence.

Powers to enter into non-State lands

Sir, we also propose to amend the SWA to empower LTA to enter private lands to:

(a) construct earth retaining walls and ancillary buildings;

(b) install traffic control and monitoring equipment;

(c) operate and maintain earth retaining walls, ancillary buildings and traffic control and monitoring equipment; and

(d) improve walkways.

Currently, LTA has powers to enter private lands to construct road structures such as bridges, underpasses and tunnels. However, for the construction of earth retaining walls and ancillary buildings, LTA has to acquire the lands. In some cases, only the underground portions of these structures extend into private lands. As LTA does not require the land above the underground portion, acquisition is not a good option as it will lead to unnecessary sterilisation of this land.

To avoid this, clause 3(d) amends the definition of "road structure" to include earth retaining walls and ancillary buildings. With the amendment, LTA can now enter private land to construct the underground portion of these structures without the need to acquire the land. Notwithstanding this, Members can be assured that as far as possible, LTA will locate road structures on State land so as not to inconvenience private owners.

Similarly, LTA currently also has powers to enter private land to construct road-related facilities such as traffic signs, street name signs and directional signs. However, for the installation of traffic control and monitoring equipment, the current practice is for LTA to negotiate with private landowners on commercial terms. This process of negotiation may take months, resulting in inefficiency and delays in implementing traffic control systems.

To expedite the process, clause 3(d) expands the definition of "road-related facility" to include electronic and computerised traffic monitoring and display equipment. Examples of such equipment include EMAS cameras, Junction Eyes, dynamic traffic information display signboards and electronic signs. With this amendment, LTA can now enter private land to install, operate and maintain road-related facilities such as traffic control and monitoring equipment, without engaging in lengthy negotiations with the private owners. Owners who wish to make a claim for compensation as a result of this entry can do so in accordance with the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Act.

Apart from the above, there are occasions when LTA will need to tap electricity from private premises to operate and maintain road-related facilities, such as traffic surveillance equipment erected on non-State land, or to light up signages at bus and taxi stands located on adjoining State land. Clause 7 will empower LTA to tap electricity from the private premises. LTA will pay the electricity supplier directly based on the amount indicated on the electrical meters. In cases where no electrical meters are installed, the electricity supplier will be paid in accordance with the formula specified in section 10A. In no circumstance will the owners of the private premises from which the electricity is being tapped be billed for the electricity that is tapped for this purpose.

Third, the SWA will also be amended to empower LTA to enter any land to improve walkways. LTA currently has powers to enter any land to construct walkways for use by the public, but no powers to enter the land to improve it. Clause 15 amends the SWA to enable LTA to do this. LTA will only exercise this power as a last resort in the interest of public safety.

Self-regulation for submission of plans

Sir, in line with Government's policy to streamline the approval process, clause 10 amends the SWA to enable LTA to set up its own lodgement scheme for the submission of plans for the construction of new streets. Instead of requiring LTA's approval for each plan, the plans will be deemed as approved upon lodgement by a qualified person with LTA. The new scheme will be based on self-regulation. In other words, the onus will be on the qualified persons to ensure that the street plans are in compliance with the requirements of the SWA and its regulations. LTA will carry out random checks to ensure that the submitted plans comply with the requirements stated in the SWA.

LTA intends to start the scheme with landed housing developments that are not affected by road widening. It will be extended to other developments if it proves to be effective in ensuring that qualified persons check their plans for compliance with LTA's requirements before making their submissions. It will be an offence if the qualified person makes a false declaration when submitting plans under the new scheme.

Winding up of Municipal Provident Fund

Sir, we also propose to take the opportunity of amending the Street Works Act to wind up the Municipal Provident Fund. The Municipal Provident Fund was established in the 1920s by the then City Council under the provisions of the Municipal Ordinance. Currently, it is provided for under the Second Schedule of the Street Works Act after the Local Government Integration Act was repealed in 1995.

The Fund was set up to receive contributions from its members and to make payments to them on death, resignation or retirement. Its members comprised employees in the Housing and Development Board and the Public Utilities Board as well as those in Government ministries who had prior service with the City Council. The last eligible member was paid in September 2001.

The Fund also has an unclaimed balance of $6,645 due to some ex-members. Many of these payments had remained unclaimed since 1979, with some unclaimed since 1960s. The Accountant-General's Department (AGD) has made many attempts to contact these ex-members. However, these attempts have not been successful. As the AGD does not envisage any further transaction, it intends to wind up the Fund.

Clause 22 seeks to dissolve the Fund. The balance in the Fund will be transferred to the Consolidated Fund upon the Fund's dissolution. Any person who wishes to make a claim to the unclaimed moneys in the Fund may still do so at any time in the manner set out in clause 24.

The remaining amendments proposed in the Bill concern the refinement of existing procedures and consequential amendments to the SWA and other written laws arising from the amendments I have spelt out.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Street Works (Amendment) Bill moved by the Minister of State for Transport.

However, I have two concerns with respect to this Bill which I would like the Minister to clarify further.

The first concerns clause 5 which amends section 9(1) to enable entry by LTA into non-State land and take possession of any land with the intent of constructing and improving streets or install or remove road structures and road-related facilities thereon.

It is my hope, Sir, that such works, as far as possible, are performed on State lands and that entry into private properties is considered only as a last resort with the interest of the general public in mind.

Section 9 of the Street Works Act 1995, subject to the provision of a two-month notice period, empowers the Authority to enter private land for the purpose of constructing road-related facilities or structures without providing any compensatory claims to the person entitled beforehand. The person entitled is required to file his claim for losses if he desires so.

Sir, as our nation inches towards developed nation status, it is imperative that we pay particular attention to legislation that leaves a segment of our population without proper legal recourse. I see the provision of the Act to acquire land which the Authority feels necessary in the public interest without determining compensation for the land before the acquisition takes place, such as being provided for in the Land Acquisition Act, as denying property owners of their basic rights. It appears not to be in congruence with our objective of building a nation with a competitive mindset.

As our Government enterprises and Government-linked companies sell land and charge rents based on prevailing market conditions, we need to bear in mind that acquiring land under such forced situations and uncompetitive conditions is unfair and not in the direct interest of our citizens. This amendment to the Street Works Act should therefore take this issue into account by removing the injustice of disregarding due process for our citizens who own land. The amendment should take into consideration Singapore's maturing status and address this issue so that land may be acquired under firm means but paid for at a reasonable and, preferably, prevailing market price. Consideration should also be given for inconveniences that private property owners have to be subjected to when such works are carried out within their premises. It is important that the message comes through to those outside of our Parliament's walls that their Government is firm but also fair. Clarifying this section will reinforce public sentiment that a fairer playing field is now on stage. Private owners of land need not worry about losing their properties but will find due recourse through fair consideration and compensation.

The second concern is the amendment to section 27 as provided for in clause 15 of the amendment Bill. The same concerns I have expressed earlier also apply to the newly substituted subsections (1) and (2) of this clause. In addition, as Singaporeans are encouraged to use public transport and simpler modes of transportation, we will require better walkways and footpaths to traverse on. While subsection (2) of section 27 of the 1995 Act states in minimal wordage that "footways should be up to a maximum of 3.6 metres wide", the clause is silent in specifying a minimum width for footpath.

As we progress as a nation, I think it is important for the Government to place on equal parity the safety and well-being of the population that uses its public walkways for its everyday needs to that of the Government's when it comes to managing efficient and smooth-flowing roads. This will help, albeit in a small way, to encourage more to use public transport than to depend on private methods of transportation. Every little bit counts in our drive to conserve land by discouraging the use of private vehicles. This is an opportune time for us to realise our vision as part of this legislation. What the public would like to see and what the Street Works (Amendment) Bill should consider providing at the minimum is legislation that ensures (a) convenience; (b) safe; and (c) accessible walkways for a large segment of the population. I feel that our present Bill needs a clearer mandate to help encourage people to make use of our walkways in a manner that provides a seamless connector to their destinations or their travel origins.

I would like to propose a broader and better defined set of characteristics that will help our population make use of our walkways to get to our bus stops, MRT train stations, public buildings or simply move from one neighbourhood to another. These include (a) setting a minimum width for a footpath where two adults walking abreast can have enough room to traverse comfortably; and (b) having a set of guidelines that would provide for a comfortable gradient when a footpath comes to an end, eg, at road crossings or at level shifts between buildings.

In addition to this, it would also benefit our pedestrians to have these walkways offset some distance from the road tarmac, wherever possible. This would make them safer in the minds of our pedestrians and, possibly, discourage jaywalking if immediate accessibility to the road tarmac is removed. These proposals will go a long way in encouraging our senior citizens, families with children, those with strollers and especially the handicapped gain greater mobility, independence and ease to get from one point to another. It is a concern that as we progressively develop more sophisticated modes of public transportation that the last mile to and from our stations is left only for the brave and adventurous. We must, as a progressive nation, look ahead to building a footpath network that will complement our otherwise world-class transportation infrastructure.

On that note, Sir, once again, I support the amendment Bill.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to speak on this Bill.

Sir, I cannot support this Bill. Some of its provisions are too unfair. For example, clause 5 which amends section 9 of the principal Act is one of them. This clause gives the Authority more power to acquire land compulsorily to build roads without paying any compensation at all to the landowner whose land has been taken by the Authority. I do not see why compensation should not be paid to the landowner. The land is acquired to make it into a public road. True, a public road does provide a public good. But the Government is not providing the public good for nothing. On the contrary, in these days of COE and high motorcar registration and licence fees, the Government is reaping millions of dollars each year from motorists for road use and the privilege of owning a car. In view of the fact that the Government is making huge profits for road use by motorists, I think it is fair that clause 5 of the Bill should be amended to include a provision for the payment of compensation to landowners whose land has been compulsorily acquired for building a public road.

In practice, in the past, the Government did pay compensation to landowners whose land was compulsorily acquired for construction of public roads. The amount paid was normally $1. The reason for that token payment is that the Government wants to protect itself in law. The Government does not want to end up in a situation later on where the landowner turns around and claims the land back on the ground that his land was acquired without payment of a valuable consideration. As all lawyers know, a contract without a valuable consideration later may be declared null and void. So, the Government pays the landowner a compensation of $1 which is a valuable consideration in the eyes of the law. But with this amendment in clause 5 of this Bill, the Authority is armed with statutory powers to compulsorily acquire land for construction of public roads without payment of any compensation at all. So, the past practice of paying $1 to provide a valuable consideration for the compulsory acquisition of land is now redundant.

I had a former client, when I was still in legal practice, whose land was compulsorily acquired for road building. He was paid $1 compensation by cheque. He did not bother to bank in the $1 cheque into his bank account. He had the $1 cheque framed up and hung on his office wall. I am just wondering whether that $1 cheque, which was in payment of compensation for land taken for road building by the Government, is still on his office wall. If it is, then it is a valuable collector's item. Because with this amendment today, the Government shall not be making payment of $1 cheques anymore to compensate for the compulsory acquisition of private land to construct public roads.

The other provision in the Bill which I am dissatisfied with is new section 10A(6). Under this clause, the Authority is allowed to tap electricity from adjoining land when the Authority is carrying out construction or improvement works on a piece of land. Later, should there be a dispute in the quantity of electricity used by the Authority, the landowner's only recourse is to make an appeal to the Minister. We must remember that it is the Minister's department which is a party to the dispute with the appellant over the amount of electricity used.

Sir, at this point, I must make it clear that I am not saying or insinuating that the Minister is an unfair person, and is sure to side the officers of his own department. But in the eyes of the law, justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. In this case, the Minister cannot be made the arbiter when his own department's officers are involved in the case. To me, I think it would be fairer if this new section 10A(6) be amended to allow the appeal to be made to a manifestly neutral person, say, either a judge in chambers of the High Court or the subordinate court. This clause, as it stands, makes the appeal to the Minister where his decision is final very unfair.

The other amendment which I do not agree is new section 32A(3)(c). New section 32A(1) states:

"No person shall -

(a) deposit or cause or allow any article or thing to be deposited on any public street, five-footway or private footway; or

(b) cause or allow any article or thing to remain on any public street, five footway or private footway, so as to create any obstruction or inconvenience to the passage of the public on such public street, five-footway or private footway."

Anyone who contravenes the abovementioned clauses shall be guilty of an offence. If such an offence is committed, the Authority can go after (a) "the owner of the article or thing;" (b) the person who caused the article or thing to be illegally deposited; and (c) "the owner or occupier of any land or building fronting, adjoining or abutting on the public street, five-footway or private footway." I cannot agree with sub-clause (c). How can the owner of any land or building that is fronting or adjoining on the public street, five-footway or private footway be held liable when things or articles are illegally dumped in his vicinity? To me, he is an innocent party. He cannot be made to look out for illegal dumping in the adjoining public street, five-footway or private footway all the time. I agree that the owner or the person who throws unwanted bulky items on the public street, five-footway or private footway be made responsible, but not one who lives next to a public street or private footway. This is the first time I have come across a provision where a person is made liable for a crime by virtue of the fact that he is close to the crime where the crime took place.

At Potong Pasir, there are high-rise blocks of flats which are situated close or next to the central rubbish centres. Sometimes, there are outsiders who, in the stealth of the early hours of the morning, make illegal dumping of bulky items in these centres. When that happens, my Town Council has to spend quite a lot of money to clear all the illegal bulky items that are dumped at our rubbish centres. Can I, as the Chairman of the Potong Pasir Town Council, make the residents who live adjacent to the central rubbish centre pay for the removal of those illegal items? I certainly think not. Up to now, the Potong Pasir Town Council has been responsible for preventing illegal dumping and also apprehending those culprits that we find, and we take responsibility to remove the dumped items.

Similarly, I do not think that those owners or occupiers of land adjoining the public streets, five-footways and private footways should be made responsible for any illegal dumping on them. I would urge the Minister to delete new section 32A(3)(c), under clause 18 of this Bill, and let the Authority take on itself the responsibility of preventing illegal dumping on public streets and apprehending and punishing the wrongdoers.

Mr Andy Gan Lai Chiang (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Street Works (Amendment) Bill.

Many a time when I see street works in progress, I wonder how much more public streets and their related road structures and facilities can Singapore conti- nue to bear without encroaching onto private land or State land that has already been built upon. As a country progresses and aspiration increases, new buildings for offices and homes will continue to sprout up. Street works then become more complicated as demand for common space in a limited land area increases. A sensible and fair handling of plan for the construction, improvement, repair, maintenance and management of streets and back-lanes and the prevention of obstruction of footways are necessary.

Clause 3 introduces new definitions to section 2 of the Street Works Act (Chapter 320A). Public streets are now clearly defined to mean only streets that are vested in the Government. This is important as otherwise any street which is privately owned but through the goodwill of the owner allows public to use may over time be wrongly classified as "public streets". Such clarification will also help in the valuation of private properties.

The addition of a new section 32A (under clause 18) is certainly a necessary power for the LTA to ensure that Singapore's public streets, five-footways and private footways are clear and clean. However, I would like the Minister to clarify what does "obstruction" mean. The new section 32A, subsection (1), states that:

`No person shall -

(a) deposit or cause or allow any article or thing to be deposited on any public street, five-footway or private footway; or

(b) cause or allow any article or thing to remain on any public street, five-footway or private footway, so as to create any obstruction or inconvenience to the passage of the public on such public street, five-footway or private footway."

Does "obstruction" here extend to young saplings which over time will grow to become huge public trees blocking the path of a public footway? Let me explain.

Along East Coast Road, in front of the Katong Shopping Centre at Mountbatten, is an overhead pedestrian bridge which has been in existence for many years. About a metre away at the foot of the steps leading down from the bridge to the footpath, which leads to the bus stop, stands a huge Angsana tree obstructing pedestrians from having a clear passageway. One has to be nimble in his footwork when stepping down from the steps onto the footpath to avoid the roots of the tree that have protruded from the ground. In fact, one could literally hug the tree after stepping down from the steps of the bridge. Furthermore, while making a swing round the tree, one has to, at the same time, make sure that he does not step onto the busy street before walking towards the bus stop. I am not too sure whether it was the tree that was planted after the overhead pedestrian bridge was built or the other way round. But, clearly, an obstruction is in the way of a busy passageway. Will this proposed amendment then allow the LTA to cut down the tree which, I believe, comes under the National Parks Board's care? Or does it mean that LTA will have to move the pedestrian overhead bridge away from the obstruction? I hope it does not require another amendment to the legislation to provide a commonsense solution to such a problem.

Another example, which is the opposite extreme, also arises from matured trees. But, this time, the trees are not obstructing the public streets. It was to my horror that I discovered on Friday last week, 27th June 2003, that the Land Transport Authority, in the name of street works, cut down 10 healthy Casuarina pine trees along Dunman Road, in front of the Guillemard military camp, after the proposed Tanjong Katong MRT station that will form part of the new MRT Circle Line. Those trees have been there for about 35 years. They provided good shade and beauty, and are not obstructing any public street or footpath, nor are they in the way of the construction of the underground MRT station. I understand that more will be chopped off as I speak now.

These examples show the exercise of powers without due consideration to other factors that do contribute to a neighbourhood rich in history. The serenity and beauty that took so long to achieve have now been destroyed. Again, a commonsense approach could have saved those trees rather than treating them as an obstruction.

Clause 17 introduces a new section 29A that clearly states that, "The Authority shall be responsible for the management, maintenance and repair of back-lanes vested in the Government." This is a welcome move as it will ensure that the back-lanes are well looked after and provided for because additional common space for residents living along the lanes will benefit from them, rather than letting these lanes become homes for unwanted animals and undesirable characters.

Clause 5 seeks to amend section 9(1) to provide more powers to the Land Transport Authority of Singapore to enter upon and take possession of any land, not being State land, and construct or improve street, or install or improve road structure and road related facility thereon. While it is a good intention of the Authority not to do anything that shall alter the ownership of the land that is affected, the owner may still face great inconvenience and a loss of income in some cases as a result of the road works. This is especially so when the Authority has the right to give them the minimum of only two months' notice, under section 9(2), of its intention to enter private land to construct new streets. Most land owners would take a while to overcome the shock of knowing that their land would be encroached upon; thus leaving a few short weeks after the news to prepare for the time when the bulldozers start going into their property. Knowing that this is the feeling of land owners, I trust the Authority will exercise fairness and compassion in the enforcement of its powers.

Finally, the amendment to section 20 (under clause 11) which seeks to regularise the practice of accepting security bonds from banks and insurance companies in lieu of cash is timely, especially when businesses are seeking ways of making their cash balances work harder for them.

Sir, I support the amendments to the Street Works Act.

Ms Braema Mathiaparanam (Nominated Member): I thank the Minister of State for explaining the rationale to the amendments in this Bill, which I agree will help to improve the conditions for commuters and pedestrians. However, I have two concerns that I hope the Minister of State will kindly clarify.

First, like my other colleagues before me, I would like to refer to clause 5 which amends section 9(1) to authorise the Land Transport Authority to take possession of any land to construct or improve any street, or install or remove any road structure and road related facility. Could the Ministry please clarify and give details on how the owners of land will be notified or compensated under this Bill? Currently, there are such provisions under the Land Acquisition Act for the LTA to negotiate with land owners for land that is needed on a non-urgent basis. Does the property purchasing section of the LTA function in the same way under the Street Works Act when land is being acquired for better roads? Could the Ministry please clarify should some amendments be included in the Schedule to this Bill?

My second concern is in reference to clause 15 (section 27). Land can be acquired to improve existing walkways or to construct new ones. In the process of designing or redesigning walkways, may I please ask that provision be made for wider footpaths to accommodate especially the width of wheelchairs. In some cases, some footpaths are really narrow. And I think with an aging population and more people wanting to be mobile as they use their wheelchairs, it becomes important that our footpaths are wide enough. Some of our elderly do use walking sticks; some mums and dads do push their babies out in strollers; and where the walkways are concerned here, sometimes the quality is not there and they are not well maintained. As such, under the Street Works (Amendment) Bill, is it possible then to add a clause where safety issues are considered such that maintenance of walkways will always be there, so that people can use them knowing that they will not be injured? Like my colleague Mr Andy Gan said earlier, we have seen tree roots in the walkway itself. We have seen lamp posts intruding into the footpath that has been beautifully constructed. We have also seen those huge grey utility boxes taking up almost a third of the width of a footpath.

One special section of a footpath that I would perhaps like to draw attention to would be Bedok South Avenue 1 along Upper East Coast Road. It is a very narrow footpath that I think anyone who is not able will not be able to use. While we spend much money on such construction, it will be good to have a safety clause so that that becomes a maintenance issue that we can take into consideration.

Before one can support this Bill, I would like some assurance, please.

Dr Balaji Sadasivan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members for their speeches on this Bill and I shall clarify some of the questions that have been asked by Members.

Mr Ahmad Magad asked if we were depriving property owners of their basic rights with the amendment made by clause 5. Mr Chiam See Tong was also concerned about this and so too were the other two Members. Mr Ahmad Magad has also mentioned that we should consider using the powers to enter into non-State land as a last resort.

Let me assure the House that these are indeed our intentions, ie, to try and protect the basic rights of owners and to try and enter into their land as a last resort. As I mentioned earlier, this amendment will allow LTA to construct earth-retaining walls and ancillary buildings without the need to sterilise the land above the underground portions of the structures. This will therefore reduce the need for land acquisition. Furthermore, LTA will try as far as possible to carry out all such works on State lands and entry into private properties will only be carried out as a last resort. In cases where LTA needs to enter private land, LTA will also compensate the owners for the displacement loss, ie, the loss of use for the period of time when LTA is carrying out the works. The owners are required to submit the claims because the details may vary from case to case. Without this amendment, LTA would be forced to acquire the land in order to do this work. But with this amendment, LTA can avoid acquiring the land. So the aim of this amendment is actually to allow property owners to keep their land. However, in cases where the owners would prefer LTA to acquire the land, the Bill also provides for flexibility for LTA to consider this option.

Mr Ahmad Magad has also suggested minimum width and guidelines for gradient to be set for walkways to ensure that they are convenient, safe and accessible. Ms Braema Mathia is also concerned about the width of the walkways so that the disabled on wheelchairs can use them. I would like to assure the House that the LTA does have standards for the construction of footways. This varies from between 2.4 metres and 4 metres and its width is more than comfortable for more than two people to walk or a wheelchair to be used. However, the preferred approach is to use these standards as guidelines rather than mandatory minimum requirements, as there may be situations that call for flexibility in the exercise of such standards. For example, a footpath may need to be a couple of inches short of the minimum width requirement at a specific point, for example, when there is a heritage tree. In such an instance, we would not want to chop down the tree so that we can meet the minimum width requirement, nor would we want to avoid building the footpath because of the tree.

Mr Andy Gan has asked what is considered an obstruction. He also asked whether the proposed amendment will allow us to remove trees. Allow me to clarify that obstructions in the context of the Street Works (Amendment) Bill refer to articles or things that a person deposits or allows to remain on any public street, five-footways or private footways. Trees will not fall within this definition. If any particular tree is causing an obstruction or danger to the public, the Government has powers under the Parks and Trees Act to deal with it and NParks enforces this Act.

Mr Chiam was concerned about LTA tapping electricity from private premises. The purpose of having this amendment is so that in the construction of roads, special cables need not be laid just for obtaining electricity for the purpose of the construction. As this electricity tap from private premises will have meters, it is quite easy to determine how much electricity has been used by LTA and to pay directly to the Electricity Board the amounts due.

He was also concerned about the liability of owners of private property to obstruction in public land in the vicinity of the private property. The amendment in new section 32A will only affect the owner of the private walkway when he has a legal duty to maintain that walkway in a manner without obstruction.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, may I get some clarifications from the Minister of State. I cannot understand when he says that, under clause 5, the authority can take possession of any land without owning it. Am I correct? So you are only taking physical possession but not legal possession. When the authority uses this land for road use, is there a transfer of legal title to the authority? I would want this point clarified.

I have got two more points. As regards the point on tapping of electricity, I was more concerned of the manner in which the appeal is made. The appeal is made to the Minister and the Minister is, at least, outwardly a biased person because it is his own department that is appealing to him. So in law, not only justice has to be done, but it has to be seen to be done. In other words, when people say that the appeal is to the Minister, they would straightaway say it is not fair. But if you appeal to a neutral person, they will be quiet. So we should have the appeal to a neutral person.

As regards new section 32A, I do not think there is anything in the section which says that the owner of the land, or the occupier of the land adjacent to the public street, has the duty to take charge of the street. It does not say that. As long as you are living adjacent or abutting the public street and if somebody throws some rubbish there, you are liable if a notice is served on you for 21 days and you do not do anything about it. That is how I read it. Is that correct?

Dr Balaji Sadasivan: Mr Speaker, Sir, without going into detailed legal arguments with Mr Chiam, as he is a lawyer and I am not, I would like to clarify the three points that he raised. With regard to the first point, yes, LTA will possess the land in order to build ancillary structures, but it will not acquire the land, and it will pay compensation for the use or displacement during that period.

With regard to the second point, I do not see a major problem in determining how much of electricity that is being taken from the private premises as there will be a meter which will record how much electricity is being used.

And with regard to his third legal point, the principle is, if the owner has the legal duty to maintain that space and he does not keep that space free of obstruction, such that pedestrians cannot use the walkway, then the LTA will act.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I am sorry I have to take up this point again. Whatever the Minister of State says, it is not reflected in the amendment. He says that compensation shall be paid to the land owner when his land is taken by LTA. Where does it say that in clause 5? Can he point out to me? Under clause 5, there is no legal duty for the authority to pay any compensation to the land owner for the land in which it has taken possession of. It does not say that at all. And it does not say that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act shall also have effect. It does not say that. So I do not know where he gets the legal standpoint from.

As regards new section 32A, it does not say that the owner or occupier of any land or building fronting, adjoining or abutting a public street, five-footways or private footways has got any legal duty to take charge of this public street. It does not say that. As long as you are living or occupying next to a public street and somebody throws something and you have a 21-day notice served on you, you have to clear the rubbish. It is as simple as that.

Dr Balaji Sadasivan: Mr Speaker, Sir, again, I would like to explain to Mr Chiam that the reason why there is no compensation for acquisition is that, under this amendment, we are not acquiring the land. The compensation that is being paid is therefore not compensation for acquisition, but compensation for displacement or loss, that is, the loss of use for the period of time when LTA is carrying out the work. We have checked with the AG's Chambers on the language of the Bill and it feels that it is sufficiently clear in explaining these and the other points that have been raised by Mr Chiam.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I want to clarify one point. If the authority occupies or takes possession of the land, my question to the Minister of State is: who has got legal title of the land?

Dr Balaji Sadasivan: The legal owner has title of the land.

Ms Braema Mathiaparanam: Sir, I am a little bit more confused now. How temporary is temporary because if we are widening the walkways under the other clause, surely we are not going to give back the land at some point? In other words, it is not a displacement issue, is it?

Dr Balaji Sadasivan: You have got the clauses confused. Clause 5 is entry into State land to build ancillary structures. Most of the ancillary structures we are talking about here are underground structures. You are talking about the clause that covers walkways. The amendment in the clause that covers walkways is to repair walkways. Currently, we have the power to build walkways on private land but we do not have the power to improve or maintain them, and the amendment allows us to do that.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I just want a clarification. In the new section 32A, it specifies that LTA can dispose of whatever that is taken or removed from obstruction. It says that it would dispose of within a specified time. Can the Minister of State clarify what is a specified time in new section 32A? And if he tells me it is within a reasonable time, then what is a reasonable time?

Dr Balaji Sadasivan: Currently, when objects are found to obstruct the private walkway, they are removed and a court order is required for the objects to be disposed of. Under this amendment, my Ministry will have the power to draw up regulations and to stipulate how much time is given to people to claim the objects before LTA can dispose it. And I would like to assure Members that we will give a reasonable amount of time. I will inform the Ministry officials to study the problem. I presume it will be several weeks to two months.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I would like to put on record that I am dissatisfied with the answers of the Minister of State as they do not reflect what appears in the provisions of this amendment 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. - [Dr Balaji Sadasivan].

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