E.W. Barker
Singapore
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This is a simple Bill which seeks to amend section 33 of the Land Acquisition Act on the amount of compensation payable to owners of land compulsorily acquired under the Act.”
“For the five-year period from 1st July, 1981 to 30th June, 1986, the HDB demolished a total of 8,098 units. As the HDB's new accounting system was only implemented from 1st April, 1985, the Board does not have ready information on the value of flats demolished prior to 1st April, 1985. RELOCATION OF CREMATORIUMS 4.”
“The HDB did not allocate any MP's office to the previous PAP MPs for Anson and Potong Pasir constituencies. NUMBER OF H.D.B. UNITS DEMOLISHED 3.”
“I would not know. Why don't you ask them? I don't know. Sir, to put things in a nutshell, it is the legal profession amongst all the professions that help in the administration of Singapore. Doctors help to cure you of diseases.”
“I am not saying it's wrong. I am not telling you stories. I am relating. So they decided to take us on. When we went into Select Committee, the first day and the later part of the second day, there was confrontation between the Committee and the lawyers.”
“As the Member for Anson would know, the Minister for Law is not in charge of prosecutions or the conduct of any criminal proceedings in court, nor does he give any directives on these matters.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,152 lines we hold for E.W. Barker, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 44.
“Sir, we chose the 1st January 1986 because in the last few years the price of land was the lowest on that date. We are conscious that we must save your money. But the difference is not much. The difference between 1st January 1986 and 1st January 1987 is probably about 5%. It is really not much. But the difference between the 30th November 1973 and the 1st January 1986 is substantial. So this is a good move. As for ex-gratia payments, this is not provided for in the Bill. But it is done administratively. In the past, even now, where a person owns just one house or residential property and it is acquired and if he gets, say, $200,000, today it is not enough to buy a comparable piece of property. So we top it up by giving him an ex-gratia payment of, say, $400,000 to give him about $600,000. This practice will continue, though it is not part of the legislation. I could not get the point of the Member for Jalan Kayu, but the price of HDB flat is no concern of mine. 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 E.W. Barker]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] Clause 1:”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This is a simple Bill which seeks to amend section 33 of the Land Acquisition Act on the amount of compensation payable to owners of land compulsorily acquired under the Act. The new basis of compensation will apply to any land acquired on or after 30th November last year. The position as the law stands prior to this Amendment is that compensation for acquired land is based on its market value as at 30th November 1973, or its market value as at the date of notice of acquisition whichever is the lower. Sir, values of land in Singapore have changed considerably since 1973 when the present provision was introduced. The Government has therefore decided to change the basis of compensation payable by pegging it to the value of the acquired land as at the lst January 1986 or as at the date of notice of acquisition, whichever is the lower. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“For the five-year period from 1st July, 1981 to 30th June, 1986, the HDB demolished a total of 8,098 units. As the HDB's new accounting system was only implemented from 1st April, 1985, the Board does not have ready information on the value of flats demolished prior to 1st April, 1985. RELOCATION OF CREMATORIUMS 4. Mr Leong Horn Kee asked the Minister for the Environment whether his Ministry intends to relocate crematoriums to less populated areas; and, if so, whether it plans to move the crematorium at Bright Hill Drive to a rural location.”
“The HDB did not allocate any MP's office to the previous PAP MPs for Anson and Potong Pasir constituencies. NUMBER OF H.D.B. UNITS DEMOLISHED 3. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for National Development how many units of Housing and Development Board flats were demolished during the last five years ending 30th June, 1986 and what was the total value of those flats demolished.”
“When Government acquires land, the purpose for doing so is always stated. Where private land is required for a specific development, i.e. road widening, Mass Rapid Transit, school development, defence or Housing and Development Board purposes, the Gazette Notification under section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act will always as a matter of policy specifically state so. However, for cases where development is of general nature, i.e. for clearance of dilapidated structure under the Garden City Programme, for sprucing up land within the water catchment boundaries where urbanisation will not be allowed or for clearance of remnant squatters, the public purpose under section 5 in the Gazette Notification will then be stated as "General Development". In the majority of cases, the acquisitions are for specific purposes. ANSON MP'S OFFICE 2. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for National Development why was it necessary to break down the walls of the Workers' Party Branch Office at Anson Constituency in such a hurry, when he has not repossessed or broken down the walls of the People's Action Party Branch Offices at Anson and Potong Pasir Constituencies. The Acting Minister for National Development (Mr E.W. Barker): The premises at Block 145 Jalan Bukit Merah #01-1112 was allocated as an MP's office at a nominal rental of $5/-per month. It was not allocated to the Workers' Party as a party branch office. Since Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam is no longer the MP for Anson, the Housing and Development Board repossessed the premises as provided for in the license agreement. Now that it is no longer used as an MP's office, the HDB decided to demolish the walls and re-convert the premises to its original state ie void deck space for the residents' use.”
“As the Member for Anson would know, the Minister for Law is not in charge of prosecutions or the conduct of any criminal proceedings in court, nor does he give any directives on these matters. Section 335 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that - "The Attorney-General shall be the Public Prosecutor and shall have the control and direction of criminal prosecutions and proceedings under this Code.". The Constitution of Singapore specifically provides in Article 35(8) that "The Attorney-General shall have the power, exercisable at his discretion to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for any offence." In view of these provisions, the question from the Member for Anson is not appropriate. REINSTITUTION OF FLAT RESALE PROCEDURES IN HDB AREA OFFICES 2. Mr S. Vasoo asked the Minister for National Development if the administrative procedures for the resale of flats could be reinstituted at the respective Housing and Development Board Area Offices.”
“Promised by whom? Me? Mr Speaker: The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."”
“I am not the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I am not the Prime Minister. If you want a better answer, I merely quoted to you what the Prime Minister said in Select Committee. But if you are so very interested, there will be plenty of time for you to file a Question for Oral Answer and if the Speaker rules it relevant, you will get a good answer from the Prime Minister.”
“I heard you loud and clear and I will be frank with you. I have to go back, not to the one-legged chicken but on the Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Bill. There was a lot of controversy as to whether the Council of the Bar should confine itself to pure legislation or was free to comment on matters which are not really part of the legal profession. I do not want to go into that controversy. All I am telling you is that we amended the Bill to make it loud and clear that we only want their assistance on matters which we submit to them.”
“Sir, I think I will let Mr Jeyaretnam have the last word, and close it up. Thank you.”
“Yes. Are you so afraid of the other two? Mr Jeyaretnam: I am talking about advocates and solicitors or members of the profession.”
“Aren't you all lawyers? Some members of the Legal Service go out. You are one outstanding example.”
“I am not here to name anybody. I am talking generally. So this Bill is a tightening up Act. I hope it works. If it does not, we will have to come back again to this House. But the proposals are not so devastating for the lawyers. In the Inquiry Committee, lawyers have a majority. In the Disciplinary Committee, they still have a majority and they will still be ruled by their peers. Why not?”
“I would not know. Why don't you ask them? I don't know. Sir, to put things in a nutshell, it is the legal profession amongst all the professions that help in the administration of Singapore. Doctors help to cure you of diseases. Architects draw, engineers build, but it is people like Mr Chiam and Mr Jeyaretnam in their practice who deal with the human problems of their clients. From the day a child is born, he may need legal help; questions as to whether he is legitimate, illegitimate. When he grows up into adulthood and buys landed property, he needs your help. When he has a fight with his neighbour or is knocked down on the road, he needs your help. When he dies, he still needs your help! His estate, you look after his estate. So the legal profession - I am not running down the others - the legal profession helps this Government to run the place. Now, that being the case, the public needs protection. As the Member for Whampoa pointed out, some of the larger law firms have vast sums of money in their clients' accounts. I am not suggesting that they run away with it.”
“I am not saying it's wrong. I am not telling you stories. I am relating. So they decided to take us on. When we went into Select Committee, the first day and the later part of the second day, there was confrontation between the Committee and the lawyers. But fortunately at the end of the day, that confrontation ended, and the Committee completed its hearings that day on a very amicable note with the members of the Council of the Bar. They did not promise cooperation but they said they would help. And this is what we needed from them. At the last meeting of the Select Committee when we went through the Bill clause by clause, the amendments which I moved were prepared by the Attorney-General with the assistance of four or five draftsmen from the practising profession. They sat for one and a half days and helped the Attorney-General to draft those amendments. The Member for Anson asked me whether they accepted this proposal or that proposal, I do not know. I gave no directions to the Attorney-General. He drafted the provisions with their help, and that is good.”
“We are talking of the Legal Profession Act. You talk of democracy, the end of democracy. You say the Select Committee meetings remind you or bring back memories of the McCarthy trial. Let me put it this way. Again, I speak frankly to you. We passed what was the Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Bill. Big noise and hoo-ha because the Law Society came in and made its recommendations. Then there was a guy called One-legged Chicken who wrote several letters. [Laughter]Anyway, the Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Act has been enacted. But on the day that the Second Minister for Law took the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill through its Second Reading, that was the very day when the members of the Law Society held a big meeting. I do not know the exact number but about 400 of them passed very strong resolutions condemning the Government, condemning this Bill.”
“Then the Member said that we were weeding out "perceived Workers' Party sympathisers from the Law Society." There is nothing wrong with lawyers being members of the Workers' Party or the PAP. But what we are against is really using the Law Society for politicking and concealing their true colours. You say there are PAP men in other organizations. Of course, there are. Trade unions, for instance. Nothing wrong with it. But they are there publicly and openly, not in a clandestine manner.”
“What secretly? Right in front of television cameras. Secretly?”
“In Select Committee, in this House - through the backdoor? Right in front of you?”
“Yes. And if we think fit, we stick it in. But it is not your Bill. It is not the Bar's Bill. It is our Bill. It is our Bill. But you said we sneaked it in and we made no reference. There you are, those are the references.”
“Why should it be? Why should it be? We chop and we change. We go to Select Committee. We hear views.”
“No, no, no. He never agreed. I did not say he agreed. But you attempted to say that we never raised it in Select Committee; out of the blue, we stuck it in. Let me be frank. This is not a Bill proposed by the legal profession. This is a Bill initiated by the Government.”
“Well, that is a matter of opinion. The Member for Anson in criticising some of these amendments said the Bar made no representations and nothing was done or heard about in Select Committee. Can I refer the Member to page B46?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I will first deal with Mr Chiam's question, comparison of Mr Marshall being appointed Ambassador. Let me first say that I have the greatest respect for Mr Marshall. He was unfortunately suspended some years ago but that was years ago. But he was not suspended for fraud. The Minister for Foreign Affairs thought he was a fit and proper person to be made an Ambassador, and he has done and is doing a very good job for us in France. To Mr Chiam's question again, can I refer to the Report of the Committee, pages B29 and B30. And I proceed to quote at the bottom of the page, B29, Prime Minister asked Mr Harry Elias: 'Suppose you accept my standards, not moral turpitude but moral rectitude, that any man sitting on the Council which is to decide whether a member has been errant and must be disciplined must have clean hands?' Reply from Mr Elias: 'You have got to be uniform, Mr Prime Minister. Forgive me. We have to be uniform. Members of Parliament have a chance. Ambassadors have a chance. Why can't we have an equal chance?' And the Prime Minister: 'Ambassadors don't sit in judgment over members of a profession whose relationships with their clients are often of the utmost confidence. Members of Parliament do not hold themselves out to lay members of the public as intermediaries to negotiate with the Government. They cannot sell their services. A member of the Council is allowed to sell his services like every other member of the Bar. But when he is on the Council, he is sitting indiscipline, jealously guarding standards. It is different, isn't it? That is the Prime Minister's reply.”
“Sir, on a point of order. Can I just ask the Member to stick to the Legal Profession Act?”
“It will now be obligatory for a Disciplinary Committee to carry out its work expeditiously and, as a sanction, powers are given to the Society to apply to the Chief Justice for directions to be given to a Disciplinary Committee, if the Disciplinary Committee fails to make findings and determination within six months from the date of its appointment. This coincides with one of the recommendations of the Law Society. Sir, we have recently seen the Law Society being drawn into politicking under the absurd guise of "assisting" the Government. We have amended section 39(1)(c) which sets out the purposes and powers of the Society as well as section 61 (1)(d) which deals with the specific powers of the Council in assisting the Government in regard to examining legislation, current or proposed. These subsections will now be amended by the insertion of the words "submitted to it" after the word "legislation". In doing so, the specific wording in both provisions have been restored to the position that obtained in the Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance of 1935 where almost identical provisions are to be found. For some reason, the draftsman in 1966 had thought these words to be tautologous. The Law Society in order to function properly, having in mind its main objects to seek the advancement of its members as well as to maintain standards, should confine itself to such activities as would be germane to the profession's well -being. Sir, I beg to move.”
“I should explain why one member of the Disciplinary Committee should be from the small permanent panel. This is to ensure that some members of the Disciplinary Committee will handle cases regularly and make for consistency over a period of time. Sir, the fact that much of the work of the Law Society in disciplining its members is carried out in a shroud of secrecy, has contributed much to the cynicism and distrust of the profession when disciplining its members. Accordingly, the law is amended in section 93 to require publication of the findings and determination of the disciplinary inquiry. Henceforth, copies of theseproceedings will be made available to members of the public upon payment of the prescribed fee. Sir, another representation of the Law Society concerned an existing provision which obligated the Chief Justice himself to be a member of a court of three Judges determining the punishment to be meted out to those found guilty of disciplinary offences. It was felt that this provision will offend the rules of natural justice where the Chief Justice himself was the complainant. A change has therefore been made to section 98 by clause 16. Henceforth, a Judge who is the complainant will not be a member of the court of three Judges determining such matters. A serious complaint made by the Attorney-General to the Select Committee concerned the undue delays in disciplinary proceedings. These have given rise to much criticism and allegations of cover-up and lack of will and determination in maintaining discipline and standards by the Law Society. Therefore, a new amendment is proposed to section 93 by clause 14.”
“We reached a compromise, namely, that after a period of five years expires, the disqualified person can once again stand for election but only with the leave of three Judges of the Supreme Court. How he should go about obtaining such leave is set out in detail in clause 4 of the revised Bill. Sir, it was originally proposed that a layman should sit as a member of the Disciplinary Committee. The Council strongly opposed this and suggested that the layman could better serve in the Inquiry Committee. The Select Committee accepted this representation. The Inquiry Committee will now consist of four persons:- (a) two advocates and solicitors; (b) a legal officer; and (c) a layman. A casting vote, when required, will be given to the Chairman, namely, a practitioner. The Chief Justice will appoint the members of the Inquiry Committee. He will also appoint 20 laymen to be members of the Inquiry Panel. As I said before, it was envisaged originally that a layman will be a member of the Disciplinary Committee. We have now provided that the lay person will only be an observer in the Committee with no vote in decision-making. However, he will be there to see that justice is being done. He will be there to improve the public perception of the disciplinary process and to dispel any cynicism about lawyers protecting their own kind. The Disciplinary Committee to be appointed by the Chief Justice will consist of: (a) a person from a panel of not more than five persons being persons who have been Judges or who have been advocates and solicitors with not less than 12 years' experience; (b) a practising advocate and solicitor; (c) a legal officer who has at least 10 years' service; (d) a lay member of the Inquiry Committee.”
“Now, Sir. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Sir, when the House last met on 22nd September 1986, the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill was taken through its Second Reading by the Second Minister for Law and then sent to a Select Committee. I was then away in Korea for the Asian Games. Sir, the Select Committee has met and its proceedings have been widely reported and published. The Committee's Report has been circulated to Members. Sir, the Committee received several representations. Those in writing are set out in Appendix II of the Report. In addition, oral representations were heard from members of the Law Society. After considering all representations carefully, the Government has made certain changes to the Bill. The revised Bill incorporating these amendments is set out in Appendix I of the Report. It is that Bill, as further amended on Recommittal, which is now before the House. Sir, the Council of the Law Society in making their representations generally supported the amendments to the Legal Profession Act. However, in doing so, they suggested certain changes. Where their proposals did not derogate from the basic rationale of Government in amending the Act, our response was positive and these were accepted or accepted with modifications. We originally proposed that a practitioner member who has been struck off the roll or suspended from practice for a period of six months or more, or has been convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty, shall not be eligible for election as a member of the Council. The ban was to be permanent or for life. The Council was unhappy and proposed instead that the ban should be for a period of five years.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 7, line 18, after the word "line", to insert "and substituting a full-stop". Sir, it is necessary to replace the semicolon with the full-stop because the proviso is being deleted. Amendment agreed to. Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments. Third Reading”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 7, line 13, to leave out "not being a lay person" and insert "appointed under paragraph (a) of subsection (1)". Sir, the intention is to pay a member of a Disciplinary Committee who is not a practising advocate and solicitor and not pay those in practice. Hence this amendment. Amendment agreed to.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 7, lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words "of the Disciplinary Committee". Sir, these words are not needed. Amendment agreed to.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 6, after line 39, to insert - "(c) by deleting the words "or subject to the limits aforesaid increase the number of the members of a Disciplinary Committee" in subsection (3); and". Sir, under the present subsection (3) of section 91, the Chief Justice may at any time revoke the appointment of any Disciplinary Committee or remove any member of a Disciplinary Committee or fill any vacancy in a Disciplinary Committee or, subject to the limits aforesaid, increase the number of the members of a Disciplinary Committee. Sir, under section 91(2), the present Disciplinary Committee consists of not less than three nor more than five persons, as the Chief Justice thinks fit. These numbers under the present Bill have been cut down to three. Hence these amendments to subsections (2) and (3) of section 91. Amendment agreed to.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 6, line 31, to leave out "service" and insert "experience". The word "experience" seems to be more appropriate. Amendment agreed to.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 6, lines 23, 24 and 25, to leave out "persons who have been Judges of the Supreme Court or" and insert "retired judges or persons". Sir, our proposal is to have a panel on the Disciplinary Committee, a panel of five chosen from retired Judges and from advocates and solicitors with the necessary experience. Apparently, there are very few Judges of the Supreme Court who have retired and are available. We therefore propose also to appoint retired District Judges. Hence this amendment. Amendment agreed to.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 4, line 3, to leave out "(2) and (3)", and insert "(1) and (2)". This is to correct an error in numbers. Amendment agreed to.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, after line 43, to insert - "(b) by inserting, immediately after the words "section 55" in subsection (3), the words "or under subsection (1) of section 57"; and". This is a tidying up process. Amendment agreed to.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, line 37, after "paragraph (a)", to insert "of subsection (1)". This is to correct an error. Amendment agreed to.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 32, to leave out "subsection (2B) within the", and insert "that subsection within a". This is just to improve the English, Sir. Amendment agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 -”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 21, after "after", to insert "a period of". This is just to improve the English. Amendment agreed to.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 19, after "election", to insert "or appointment". Sir, this particular clause deals with the election of members and prohibits them under certain conditions from standing for election. Members of the Council of the Bar are also appointed by me. In fact, I appoint three of them. Hence, after the word "election", we have to insert "or appointment". Amendment agreed to.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, lines 12 and 13, to leave out "subsection" and insert "subsections". This is to correct a typographical error. Amendment agreed to.”
“Now, Sir. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clause 4 -”
“Once again, Sir, I am not the Committee of Privileges. I am just one Member. To be fair to the Member for Anson, we have got the Member for Potong Pasir in the Committee. These matters will be discussed in Committee and the Committee will decide after hearing evidence what witnesses are relevant, what witnesses should be called. But it is not for me to bind the hands of any Committee of Privileges of which I am only a Member. Let us come to the Committee stage where the Member can make his representations. He will be given a fair hearing.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I cannot speak on behalf of the Committee of Privileges of which I am just one Member. There is a Committee headed by the Speaker as Chairman. There are others, including the Member for Potong Pasir. I am just one Member. But it really depends on the evidence that the Member himself would like to give. If the witnesses are relevant to what is heard, they will be called. We are not afraid of calling witnesses. But if there is no evidence, then no witnesses will be called. But the Member will not be allowed to go on a fishing expedition. I am speaking for myself. I cannot bind the Committee.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Motion* standing in my name as it appears in item 5 on the Order Paper. *The Motion reads as follows: That this Parliament takes note of the Special Report of the Committee of Privileges contained in Paper Parl. 4 of 1986 and resolves that, in relation to the complaints made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the House, Mr S. Dhanabalan, on 19th March, 1986 and on 30th July, 1986 against the Member for Anson, Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam, (1) a Law Officer of the Legal Service do attend the Committee of Privileges and assist the Committee in the examination of witnesses; (2) Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam have leave to be heard by himself as counsel or by counsel if he thinks fit; and (3) the Committee have leave to hear counsel to such extent as they think fit on behalf of any other persons. Sir, in relation to the complaints made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Leader of the House on the 19th March and 30th July this year against the Member for Anson for breach of privilege, the Committee of Privileges met on Monday, the 18th August 1986, and came to certain resolutions which they have agreed to report to Parliament. These resolutions are set out in the Special Report of the Committee in Paper Parl 4 of 1986 and are as follows: '(1) That the Committee desire the assistance of a Law Officer of the Legal Service in the examination of witnesses. (2) That Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam have leave to be heard by himself as counsel or by counsel as he thinks fit. (3) That the Committee have leave to hear counsel to such extent as they think fit on behalf of any other persons.' Sir, the Report of the Committee was agreed to unanimously. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, That the Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. - [Mr E.W. Barker]. STAMP DUTIES (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“For better management of the affairs of the management councils, council members should, wherever possible, serve for a reasonable length of time. The Bill will require companies which are subsidiary proprietors to nominate individuals to represent them for election as members of such councils and these nominees when elected, will serve the management councils. A management corporation will be required to establish a sinking fund to meet expenditure which will be incurred for major repairs and renovations. This fund is in addition to the management fund which a management corporation is now required to maintain. Management corporations will also be given express powers to appoint managing agents to take charge of the management and administration of subdivided buildings and the affairs of a management corporation. The Act is now silent on this point. The Commissioner of Buildings will also be empowered to appoint a managing agent for a management corporation when he is satisfied that the management corporation is not carrying out its duties or functions satisfactorily and that it is in the interests of the subsidiary proprietors of the development concerned or the creditors of the management corporation to appoint a managing agent. The duties of subsidiary proprietors to their management corporations will be spelt out in greater detail in order to remove uncertainty. Sir, this Bill has attracted considerable public interest and since it will affect the rights of property owners and mortgagees, it is proposed that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of Parliament to allow these people to air their views and for a more detailed examination of the provisions of the Bill to be made. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap. 277) was enacted in 1967 to make provision for the issue of subsidiary strata certificates of title for separate units called "strata units" in high-rise developments and to incorporate a management corporation for each development to take over the maintenance and management of the development from the developer. A management corporation comprises the owners of all the strata units in a development and therefore the owners of these units called "subsidiary proprietors" have a say in the management of their development and its common property. Sir, the Bill seeks to amend the Act for the purpose of providing solutions to problems which have come to light since its introduction. These are problems encountered by management corporations in the management and maintenance of the subdivided buildings and their common property. The Bill therefore seeks to make new provisions dealing with the internal management of the affairs of a management corporation, the management and control of the common property, the powers and duties of a management corporation and the enforcement of the rights of the subsidiary proprietors and of the management corporation. The changes are introduced for the purpose of ensuring that subdivided buildings will be better managed. I will now highlight some of the new provisions. Many strata units are owned by companies. At present, although these companies have been elected to serve on the management councils, the law does not expressly prohibit such companies from having different authorized personnel to attend meetings of management councils at different times.”
“Sir, I understand from my colleague, the Minister for National Development, that the Housing and Development Board is undertaking these projects to create additional land for future housing. Part of the reclaimed land will also be used for refuse dumping, industrial and recreational purposes. The land proposed to be reclaimed north-west of Punggol is intended for the future Seletar/Jalan Kayu New Town, while the land north-east of Punggol is proposed for the Punggol New Town and for other uses. Should any further detailed supplementary questions relating to this matter be raised, I would suggest the Member pose these questions to the Minister in charge. HDB/HUDC FLATS (Priority in allocation) 2. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for National Development to what categories of persons the Housing and Development Board gives priority in the allocation of flats, including the flats which were taken over from the HUDC either for rental or for purchase.”