LAND ACQUISITION ACT

1.         When Government acquires land, our approach is to pay a fair and reasonable total compensation package according to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, current policies and practices. I think she will also know that we have in place an ex-gratia payment scheme, introduced in 1982, which we have over several steps and several years enhanced quite a bit. This is paid to landowners on a case-by-case basis to ameliorate hardship suffered by them.

2.         If a portion zoned road is acquired, it will not necessarily result in nil or nominal compensation being awarded. The compensation amount payable for each property varies according to the physical attributes of the property and of course the facts of the case.

3.         Indeed, there have been cases where Government has paid compensation for strips of land that are acquired when they were zoned Road.  I understand that Ms Indranee had acted for the landowner in one such case.  In that case, the Appeals Board took the position that the strip of land acquired had no market value on its own but awarded compensation based on severance damage. 

4.         Compensation for severance damage is provided for under the Act S33(1)(c), and not given ex-gratia. The Land Acquisition (Appeals Board) used the “before and after” method to determine severance damage, and that is something which I think lawyers would know, computing the compensation derived from the difference between the market value of the entire lot before acquisition less the market value of the remaining land after acquisition. Going forward, when we acquire land in part that is zoned “road”, based on the Board’s approach, I would expect that there could be some compensation given by way of severance damage in many of these cases.

5.         Ms Indranee Rajah also asks whether the Land Acquisition Act should be amended to clarify the reference to “the purpose designated in the Development Baseline referred to in section 36 of the Planning Act” and to consider also taking into account the negative Pointe Gourde principle in statutory compensation. 

6.         I agree with her that the reference to the development baseline in the Land Acquisition Act does not define the purpose directly. However, the current drafting has been in place since 1998, and it is understood by those in the industry that development baseline refers to the paid-up developmental rights of a site. So I think there is no ambiguity there. And I think more importantly as she has said, even though it’s a circuitous route, but nevertheless, the meaning can be derived.

7.         The next point I want to address is the application of the negative Pointe Gourde principle. There is a decision on that. The Court of Appeal has ruled by majority decision that the principle does not apply in Singapore because it is not part of our law. 

8.         So the question is whether we should amend the Act to reflect the views of the minority judgement and the views expressed by the judge there.  We are reviewing the LAA but I would say that it is unlikely that we will incorporate the negative Pointe Gourde principle and there are good reasons for not doing so. 

9.         As Singapore develops, Government will continue to introduce measures to enhance the use of our limited land. Some of these measures may enhance the value of properties nearby, others may lower them. Indeed, Singapore’s rapid development since independence is owed in no small way to the setting aside and acquisition of land for key infrastructures, including roads and expressways.

10.       For example, landowners benefit from enhanced property value when an MRT station or a giant retail centre is built nearby. Also, many Singaporeans benefit from governmental action in “upzoning” where their properties are given a higher plot ratio which can facilitate en-bloc development. Of course, on the other hand, landowners may suffer a loss if there is a columbarium built nearby, or part of their land is set aside for road development. In short Sir, some owners will enjoy a gain; others will suffer a loss.

11.       In any case, if landowners still suffer from financial hardship, Government does give ex-gratia payments on a case-by-case basis, in addition to the statutory compensation and indeed this has been done for many past cases.

12.       And the last point, which is also an important point, is that if a property is partly zoned Road is put up for sale, interested buyers will factor the depressant effect of the road zone into the purchase price.  That is the market value of the property for which the owner is compensated. In other words, if we disregard the effect of the road zone on the property value, we would actually be deviating from market practice.

OPEN SPACE FOR PUBLIC USE

13.       Let me go on to Mr Ravindran’s point.  First, I thank him for making the cut again.  Repeatedly in Parliament, he has urged us to do more to open up State land and State properties.  We have been doing this. 

14.       So, we will continue with our pro-business and pro-community measures.  As he knows, for community measures, we have opened up many plots of State land.  For example, 78 TOLs have been issued for purposes such as football and gardening at a discount to the market.  In fact now, it is about 85% of market rates.  Our residents all enjoy that on the ground.

15.       Recently, SLA opened up 153 pieces of State land for recreational uses by replacing “No Trespassing” signs with “Enter at Your Own Risk” signs.  This has enabled many Singaporeans to use these lands on weekends and other times.  Going forward, another 100 of such lands will be opened up.

16.       SLA also works with other relevant agencies like MOE, MCYS and SSC to open up various lands. This includes one at Upper Serangoon Road for archery. And of course, many school fields are being opened up.  This is spearheaded by MOE and MCYS.  We will facilitate this.

17.       In addition, we now have a portal that sets out a comprehensive list of vacant State properties for viewing. Grassroots organizations can apply online for use of vacant State land sites for community and social purposes.

18.       Another key thrust of SLA is to help businesses better use State land sites and properties.  For example, in partnership with EDB, SLA has released a number of former school buildings to private schools to enable them to quickly start their programmes with much lower upfront investment.  Also, SLA has also worked with MDA to make State properties, such as old colonial buildings and other suitable sites, available to film producers for filming purposes. 

19.       To encourage and reward creativity, SLA is currently considering proposals under the “first mover” initiative, under which companies that propose new business uses for vacant State properties will be given an advantage to secure the property for such uses, thus incentivising them to come up with new business uses for State properties.

20.       Lastly, companies which propose new and novel uses for State properties at the tender submission stage will be recognized for their business ideas.  We are considering inserting an entrepreneurial clause where bidders can propose and price in innovative uses not specified in the tender.  All these are new initiatives.

21.       We will press on with opening up more lands and State properties.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

22.       Ms Indranee made the point in the budget speech, and so did Dr Tan Sze Wee, on the need for us to educate SMEs and members of the public, including children and parents that Dr Maliki talked about. 

23.       This is being done, and more will be done. For example, last year was a busy year for IPOS. IPOS had many key programmes: IP Consult series, Software Asset Management seminars, grassroots and schools outreach. And indeed even for school children, which is one of Dr Maliki’s focus, more than 10,000 students were exposed to IP matters through school seminars and talks alone last year.    

24.       Now going forward we will do more. Parents and children will be able to have the benefit of knowing more about IP.  For example, we have the “Honour IP” or “HIP” Alliance, which is a collaboration with IP rights holders.  If you go to the cinemas, I don’t know whether he has the time to do that, but if he has the time to do that, he will see that there is this campaign in the cinemas, outdoor and print media – “Say No to Piracy”. So we will step up on that.  Recently we launched a short, light-hearted video, “Copy Not Right”, and this also contains useful tips on respecting copyright in both the physical and digital realms, something that Dr Maliki talked about, and which will be distributed also in schools.  So, I think, with this outreach, more parents and more children will know what they can do and what they cannot do.

25.       Indeed right now even as we talk, the International Trademark Association (INTA) is holding the inaugural Asia-Pacific forum on “Emerging Issues in Brand Protection” here in Singapore. And in another key development, the World Intellectual Property Organization, or WIPO, UN Specialized Agency for IP, is opening an Office here in Singapore.   So we will continue with that.

26.       Then the last point is Dr. Magad’s point, where he asks whether we should introduce a second tier patent system to reduce the cost and the time taken to register a patent, particularly for those which may be of a lower order in terms of inventiveness, which may not qualify under the standard system and which probably may require a shorter time, because it has a shorter shelf life.

27.       Well, first I would say that as he has given, the figures he gave, occur on the high side – $30,000 to $100,000.  To register a simple patent in Singapore, you would probably need about $10,000. And this is the type of patents we are talking about, simpler inventions.

28.       Nevertheless I take his point, that we should always be mindful about cost and also time taken to register.  And that is why indeed last year in Parliament, I enacted amendments to the Patents Act to introduce a two-track system, to enable the inventors to register their patents within 42 months, faster track, and 60 months, the longer track. 

29.       Nevertheless I have asked IPOS to study other systems which may be in place with regard to a second tier system, because we always want to improve our patent system.

30.       Well, as to costs too, of course, Dr Magad will know about the “Patent Application Fund Plus”, which is administered to help SMEs and that is his concern, and this Fund will also help the financial aspect of it.

31.       So in short, Sir, we will consider this suggestion. If it helps we will implement it, and if it doesn’t, then we won’t.  Whatever it is, we are open to suggestions.  Thank you Sir.