Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill

We have time for clarifications for the Minister. Mr Andre Low.

Thank you, Speaker. I just wanted to clarify the point about why I raised about Maju and Gillman Forest.

I never tried to make any insinuation that this regime might have saved Maju Forest in any way. I think I was just drawing the analogy that Singaporeans are concerned about the use of our land and the competing demands for it. And I did say that I am in favour of urban renewal and therefore, this Bill is another feather in our cap that we can use to facilitate the process of urban renewal. And I was just using the illustration of Maju and Gillman to show that Singaporeans care very much about these issues.

Minister Tong, do you wish to respond?

Well, I thank Mr Low for the clarification. I think I take it that he accepts that the two issues are not to be conflated and there is really no question that any discussion we have on the use of land – whether Gillman and, I think, he mentioned the Western Islands as well, Maju – has got nothing to do with the use of land arising from en bloc sales. Would that be correct?

Mr Low.

I would not necessarily agree with that definitive statement. I was just trying to set out the broader picture of urban redevelopment and urban renewal. And I think that there are many sources for land that we can find in Singapore – brownfield redevelopment or en bloc sales of private properties. So, I was just trying to set out the landscape.

Well, Mr Low had talked about the debates on Maju Forest and Gillman that show how much Singaporeans care about the natural space around us. He also talked about the proposed Western Islands and then he said, "As you plan for further growth in Singapore, we should examine how much more we can accommodate on land we have already developed before accepting the loss of places that would be difficult to replace."

I read this as him linking the use of Maju, Gillman and Western Islands with the issue at hand today, which is land that we can develop. So, I am just seeking clarification that, in fact, those two ought not be linked. Am I right?

Mr Low.

Then, I think our opinions differ. I do think the issues are linked, albeit not directly, which the Minister seems to be insinuating.

I think the insinuation that I understood from the Minister's closing speech was that if we had implemented this collective sale regime earlier, potentially, we could have saved Maju Forest. I was not insinuating that.

Sir, I thank Mr Low for that clarification.

Any other clarifications for the Minister? No.

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 Edwin Tong Chun Fai].

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