State Lands Protection Bill

4.23 pm

Order for Second Reading read.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, state land is, currently, put to various uses for the benefit of Singaporeans. These include residential, commercial, institutional and utility uses, amongst others.

It is important that state land is protected from unauthorised use and damage, as such acts can impede Singapore's development, create public safety issues and affect public enjoyment of our scarce resources. However, there have been individuals in the past who encroached significantly on state land and refused to remove their encroachments, even after the impact of their actions was explained to them.

One such case, which was reported in the news some time back, involves private landowners who extended their property on to adjoining state land by building structures on it. This act disrupted and delayed PUB's drainage improvement works in the area. The landowners refused to remove the encroachments, despite extensive engagement and multiple deadline extensions granted by the authorities. The Singapore Land Authority (SLA) eventually filed charges against the landowners for trespassing on state land under the State Lands Encroachment Act 1883 (SLEA). However, in the intervening period, PUB incurred additional costs coming up with temporary flooding measures, as the encroachments impeded its drainage improvement works.

Sir, this example illustrates that the improper use of state land can have very serious environmental and economic consequences. This Bill, if passed, will put in place an up-to-date and comprehensive enforcement framework, to better support SLA in protecting state land from misuse and damage. The SLEA, which contains the current enforcement framework, will be repealed. Outdated provisions, such as the appointment of forest rangers and penghulus to carry out duties, which are no longer relevant to modern Singapore, will also be removed.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]

I will now take the House through the key features of this Bill.

Part 1 of the Bill introduces the fundamental concepts used in the Bill. The Bill defines state land to include lands that are unalienated, vested, surrendered or acquired by the Government. The Bill does not deal exhaustively with all state land. Excluded are unalienated lands managed by PUB, NParks and LTA under their respective legislation. This is to avoid the overlapping of laws and criminalising of activities on state lands that are already under the management of these public sector agencies.

The Bill also includes updated definitions to better reflect and capture present-day activities which constitute unauthorised use of state land. The Bill clarifies the definition of a "structure" which, when erected on, under or over state land, may constitute an encroachment. This includes land reclamation works and external features which protrude outwards from buildings.

Sir, Part 2 of the Bill sets out the offences and makes important updates to the penalties for unauthorised use of state land. Part 2 also sets out the proceedings in Court that may be taken to recover state land from improper use and unauthorised activities on state land.

A non-exhaustive list of unauthorised activities deemed to be offences under the Bill includes unauthorised clearance and digging of state land; unauthorised enclosure of state land; unauthorised dumping and leaving of waste on state land; and unauthorised works for the reclamation of land.

Under the new Bill, the penalties have been raised to align with penalties for comparable offences in newer legislation, such as the Parks and Trees Act and the Environmental Public Health Act. These present penalties in section 7 of SLEA are no longer deterrent vis-a-vis a fine not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both.

The Bill raises the fine. Clause 5 prescribes a penalty comprising a fine of up to $50,000 or imprisonment for a term of up to six months, or both, for the offence of carrying out unauthorised activities on or damaging state land. In the case of a continuing offence, a further fine of up to $500 will be imposed for each day during which the offence continues after conviction. Higher penalties may be imposed for a repeat offence of disposing rubbish or waste on state land using a vehicle.

The Bill also provides that the Court may order a convicted offender to pay monetary compensation to the Government, on top of any fine imposed, for any loss or damage suffered by the Government due to the offence, such as de-contaminating polluted soil; the value of any forest products or other substances removed from state land; and the costs and expenses incurred by SLA in abating the encroachment.

In addition, a new provision in the Bill now provides that the Court may order a convicted offender to compensate the Government for the costs and expenses incurred by an electricity or gas licensee or the PUB in complying with a Court order to discontinue the supply of electricity, gas or water.

The Bill thus provides for a wider scope of compensation than what is available under the current SLEA.

Where there is imminent harm or danger that is unlikely to be effectively addressed by the issuance of an encroachment notice, the Bill empowers the Commissioner of Lands to apply to a Court for an interim injunction against a person suspected of an offence under the Bill, before the person is convicted.

This includes situations where there is irreparable damage or harm caused to state land, or where state land may collapse, or cause the collapse of adjacent land, or pose a danger to the public.

Sir, Part 3 of the Bill sets out the powers that may be exercised by SLA to stop improper use of or unauthorised activities on state land.

Today, under current law, SLA must serve a notice giving 28 days for the unlawful occupants to vacate the state land and remove their movable property. If they do not vacate and remove their movable property by the notice timeframe, SLA must obtain a warrant for dispossession from the Court to remove unlawful occupants on state land and seize and forfeit any movable property. SLA must also obtain a Court order for the demolition of unlawful buildings and structures.

Under the existing process, the time taken for the removal of encroachments can be lengthy, during which the offender can continue his or her offence on the state land. In addition, the existing process does not allow for much flexibility to adopt a differentiated approach taking into consideration the complexity and seriousness of each case.

The Bill will introduce a streamlined process to enable SLA to deal with encroachments more expediently, especially those that may pose a public safety concern or delay redevelopment works on state land.

Specifically, the Bill enables an authorised officer to serve an encroachment notice to any person whom the officer has reasonable cause to believe is engaged in the improper use of state land. The encroachment notice will require the person to abate the encroachment by a specified date. It will also include an objection period, during which the person can give an objection if he or she does not wish to comply with the notice.

If there is non-compliance with the notice and no objection is received, the authorised officer can proceed to seize and remove any movable property involved. If an objection is received, the authorised officer may then file a complaint to the Magistrate's Court on the unauthorised activity committed on the state land.

Part 4 of the Bill sets out the circumstances under which abandoned private land may be resumed to become state land. Sir, this is not new. The current SLEA already sets out the mechanism by which alienated land, which has been abandoned for three years or more, may be forfeited to the state. The Bill retains this three-year threshold but makes some changes to update the resumption process.

The process begins when the Minister for Law grants approval for a particular piece of land to be declared liable for forfeiture to the state. Following this, a notice of the declaration must be made in the Government Gazette. This is similar to the current process under SLEA. However, under the Bill, there will no longer be a requirement for a physical notice of the declaration to be posted on the land in the English, Malay, Chinese and Tamil languages. Instead, SLA will publish the notice in the four official languages in the major local newspapers. This ensures that there will still be adequate publicity of the fact.

Claimants will also now have three months after the notice is published to make a claim to the land in question, instead of the six months under SLEA. Otherwise, the land will be deemed forfeited to the state. Sir, this will expedite the process and align the claim period to comparable legislation in other countries.

Part 5 of the Bill provides for the various powers of enforcement that can be exercised in the administration of the Bill, provided that the relevant statutory thresholds are met. To aid investigation, the Bill empowers authorised officers to:

(a) Enter either state land, or any other land, in or from which the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect an offence under the Bill may be committed, and inspect, make documentation of, and take extracts from the land or anything on that land;

(b) Request documents and information from any person reasonably believed to be acquainted with the circumstances relevant to the suspected commission of an offence under the Bill; and

(c) Request an individual found in, on or near any state land to disclose his or her identity and place of residence if the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the individual has committed or is attempting to commit an offence under this Bill in relation to that state land.

As in many other laws, the obstruction of an authorised officer in the discharge of his or her duties under this Bill, as well as the intentional tampering with any encroachment notice or summons, will be offences under the Bill. Authorised officers can also compound minor offences by collecting a sum not exceeding the lower of $5,000 or half the maximum fine prescribed for the offence. Sir, on the whole, these new powers will allow SLA to carry out its duties more expediently and effectively.

Part 6 of the Bill provides for the appointment of officers for the administration of the Bill. In particular, SLA may appoint enforcement officers from among public officers, employees of any public authority except a Town Council and any auxiliary police officer appointed under the Police Force Act. The enforcement officer's role is to assist SLA in the administration of the Bill in any particular area in Singapore.

Finally, Sir, the Bill also includes consequential amendments to (a) the Parks and Trees Act under NParks; (b) the Sewerage and Drainage Act under PUB; and (c) the Street Works Act under LTA.

As I mentioned earlier, the Bill defines "state land" in a way that avoids the overlapping of jurisdiction between the public sector agencies. These amendments will ensure that PUB, NParks and LTA will have sufficient powers to take enforcement action on state land under their respective legislation, as SLA does under this Bill.

Sir, to conclude, the new Bill replaces the State Lands Encroachments Act 1883 with an up-to-date and comprehensive enforcement framework that will better protect state land against improper use and damage, so as to enable public use and enjoyment of appropriate state land and facilitate multiple uses of state land where practicable. This is necessary as land is one of our most valuable resources for the future. These changes will allow SLA and the agencies overseeing the management of state land to take effective measures to protect our state land from damage and misuse.

With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

4.35 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill updates our laws for the protection of state land with modern provisions. State land belongs to all Singaporeans and we must protect it from being damaged or unfairly used for private purposes. I, thus, support this much needed review of the law, but I have three clarifications.

My first clarification relates to the defence against an offence of unauthorised use of state land. Under section 7, someone accused of unauthorised use of state land must prove that they did not know and could not have reasonably expected to know that the land was state land. In some cases, it is fairly obvious that the land is state land, such as setting up makeshift structures or farms in forest areas. But it is less clear in cases involving the boundaries of private property and state land. The average home owner would not know whether their fence crosses into state land. Home owners would likely rely on the expertise of their contractors to ensure compliance. Workmen would also rely on the instructions of their managers. Would reliance on the due diligence of third parties be enough to make up the defence in section 7?

In addition to the OneMap app example in the explanatory statement, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary give guidance when someone would not be reasonably expected to know if the land was state land?

My second clarification relates to the process for objecting to an encroachment notice. Section 12(3)(a)(ii) states that the encroachment notice must state a timeline to comply with the notice and to raise objections. However, there is no requirement or guidance on the minimum time that must be provided.

Given that encroachment might involve a person's home and that rectification might be complex or expensive, there must be sufficient time to seek advice on whether to raise objections to the encroachment notice. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary confirm that reasonable time will be given to raise objections, proportionate to the facts of each case?

Also, where objections are raised, the Act is silent on any procedure for the authority to consider the objection and notify the recipient of the results or reasons for rejecting the objection. Instead, it only states that on receiving an objection, the officer may make a criminal complaint to a magistrate. This approach appears to skip the necessary steps to resolve the objection in a clear and transparent manner. Given that land issues can be sensitive due to costs or attachments formed, we should have a clear process to reach a smooth resolution. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify if, prior to a criminal complaint, the authority will notify the result of the objection and give time to comply with the encroachment notice?

My final clarification relates to the forfeiture of abandoned land. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify how the authority will determine that land is "abandoned"? Given the scarcity of land in Singapore, it would be economically efficient to ensure that abandoned land is reclaimed by the state and applied to the benefit of all Singaporeans. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share some estimates of the amount of land that might be abandoned? Will the authority be taking active steps to identify abandoned land and use these processes to recover land as state land, and then reinject it into the market? Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

4.38 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is timely to review the laws pertaining to our state lands. The last review was 48 years ago, almost half a century ago. I wish to seek clarifications in three areas.

First, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we should leverage the use of technology for the reporting and verification of state land issues. Residents are our eyes on the ground. We should count on them to report issues that were missed during routine inspections. We have the OneService app that allows for easy, one-stop reporting of municipal issues. Even when issues are reported to the wrong category, they are rerouted to the correct agency to be worked on. This ensures that problems are quickly resolved. Most importantly, this ensures that the resident need not approach different agencies to get their issues settled.

However, it may not be straightforward to give feedback pertaining to state land. There is comparatively less awareness about accessible and reliable information resources. In fact, unknown to most, the OneMap app and website provide extensive information about land ownership in Singapore. Clicking on the land lots on the digital map displays the responsible agencies and contact information. I would like to ask whether SLA tracks how often the public uses the information from OneMap to report or clarify issues. Is there adequate awareness about OneMap? Does SLA intend to promote its use amongst the public?

Can residents, in fact, use the OneService app to report or seek clarification on state land encroachment cases? Is there a one-stop public hotline for residents who are less tech-savvy? When there is less ambiguity and a simplified reporting process, problems can be quickly identified and resolved.

OneMap is a comprehensive resource on land ownership in Singapore. However, what is on a digital map may differ from actual ground. Unlike a map, there are no clear boundary markers on the ground. Misunderstandings or unintentional encroachment may arise when the resident property and state property are bordering each other and if the boundary is unclear. At present, the onus is on the individual to prove that, only on a balance of probabilities, he did not know and could not have reasonably been expected to know, that the land concerned was state land.

Can the Ministry clarify how can the individual prove this? How does one prove that they do not have the knowledge? How do the authorities differentiate between ignorance and negligence in checking? Can we do away with this concept in the first place?

Second, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when multiple Government agencies have a stake in managing a piece of state land, ambiguity must be kept minimal. For example, the greenery on a piece of state land is centrally maintained by NParks. Cleaning comes under the Department of Public Cleanliness in NEA. Despite the clear distinction, these issues are often intertwined. When there is illegal dumping on a piece of state land, NParks' maintenance work could be hindered before the problem is resolved.

This could manifest in other problems that inconvenience the residents living nearby. Examples include pooling of water that leads to mosquito breeding or pest issues. Which agency is, ultimately, responsible for resolving the issue at hand? The landowner or the maintenance agency? Is there a system in place to designate the responsible stakeholder, with the aim of resolving the problem as soon as possible?

Some recent policies and initiatives may contribute to the complexity of enforcement. For example, there is the Community in Bloom project under NParks, where residents can plant greenery in common spaces. This may lead to the assumption or misunderstanding that residents can do more with the land outside their property and contrary to the intent of this Bill. Residents may use such land to create composts or do micro-farming, in the name of sustainability. This is usually innocuous and with good intentions. How do we strike a balance between giving residents discretion and a stake in improving their living environment, while preventing encroachment on state land?

Land encroachment becomes a potentially sensitive problem when religious artifacts or buildings are involved. In fact, it is not rare to see religious paraphernalia, such as altars and statues, left at the foot of trees or on an empty plot of land. I wonder if agencies have made exceptions for such cases because of their religious nature. Nevertheless, laws should be applied fairly and consistently. What is the protocol for agencies to deal with encroachment when the offence is one of a sensitive nature? Can they count on guidance and support from religious organisations to do so when it is necessary?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my third clarification concerns the management of abandoned land. When and how long does it take for the Government to conduct such necessary inspection before determining whether land has been abandoned for three years or more? I make reference to the discovery of skeletal remains of two sisters in an abandoned house in Upper Thomson. The house remained in a dilapidated state for more than a decade before the Public Trustee's Office took ownership in 2015.

During this period, the first set of skeletal remains was detected in 2006 after NEA officers entered for a mosquito check. The second set of remains was then found in 2015 by BCA contractors who were there to erect a temporary roof. From this example, it appears that it took a long time before any intervention was done. Will there be a system of coordination between SLA and the Public Trustee's Office to better handle similar situations in the future?

Another example is the Chee Guan Chiang House, which has largely been abandoned. Located on prime land, it received conservation status in 2008. However, it is largely derelict, though it is supposedly own by Lee Tat Development. What constitutes abandoned land? Is it just when there is no claim or when there is also a lack of development?

With the new laws in place, will the Government take proactive measures to quicken the process of managing and inspecting abandoned properties? In line with the Upper Thomson example, abandoned land may prove an opportunity for criminals seeking to dispose of evidence.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, land is a precious commodity in land-scarce Singapore. The new laws highlight the severity of misuse and encroachment of state land. They reflect the Government's resolve to use our land prudently. When the time comes to put an empty plot into use, be it for building an HDB estate, a hospital, a public amenity and so forth, it will not cost excessive resources and time to reinstate it to a useable state. I, therefore, support the higher penalties against land encroachment and misuse, which would serve as deterrence.

More importantly, we need to put our residents at the heart of what we do. I take a personal interest in this Bill because there is state land in my constituency. State lands do not just concern the state, or the Government, so to speak. Clarity is critical for the quick resolution of problems pertaining to state land. We live in a densely populated country. Residents will often find themselves being in close proximity to state lands. When these lands are not properly managed and issues simply take too long or even years to get settled by the Government, residents are inconvenienced.

The Government must be resident-centric. We must ensure that we have strong enforcement as well as streamlined measures to manage state lands in the most effective and efficient way. I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin.

4.46 pm

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. I have some clarifications as well as suggestions on how the Bill can be expanded in the future.

Firstly, I note that the proposed Bill will halve the notice period for abandoned land to be claimed from six months down to three months. While I understand that this enhances SLA's operational efficiency, I have two questions.

First, how does SLA work with other agencies, such as NEA, if there are concerns by neighbours of any threats on the abandoned land, for example, dengue or other public safety concerns, during this notice period?

Second, as the effect of shortening the notice is significant, I am concerned that three months may be too short as landowners may have legitimate reasons for being uncontactable – for instance, if they have migrated overseas. I note that the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned publication in major newspapers. Will there also be digital outreach? What efforts will SLA make to ascertain that landowners have received the notice by the end of the three months, if possible?

Secondly, the Bill introduces much stiffer penalties for encroaching on and damaging state land. The maximum fine for all unauthorised activities on state land will be raised by about 10 times to $50,000. However, there have been cases in the past of the elderly, for example, who encroach on state land by secretly growing vegetables, having small religious altars or even sleeping rough in patches of forest. These retired seniors' activities hark back to a simpler time for them and are, generally, not harmful to themselves or others and it can prove very challenging for them to pay the higher penalties.

I understand that SLA encounters about 180 cases of encroachment every year. Could SLA provide an anonymised breakdown of the profile of individuals who commit these offences? This could help us to really understand if the increased penalties are, in fact, proportional as a deterrent.

In other cases, residents of private landed estates may, inadvertently, encroach on state land by expanding gardens, walkways, or even part of their homes, into small areas in between houses. While land grabbing should certainly not be encouraged or excused, these residents do sometimes face challenges when coordinating with the authorities about the management of this public space. For instance, state land might not be maintained for a long period of time, turning them into breeding grounds for mosquitoes. In such situations, residents may take over the land and take care of it as they perceive it to be abandoned.

In such instances, the Bill should be supplemented by greater coordination efforts between SLA and home owners to encourage communication on land management concerns and ensure the timely management of state-owned spaces. In addition, it would be helpful, in particular, in landed estates, if there could be a more systematic and efficient way in vesting state land into the care of a particular agency for building and maintenance – for example, where such lands have formed useful but informal shortcuts for residents over time to access amenities, such as bus stops, outside of their estates. Some may hope to make such shortcuts safer and official with pavements and light fixtures. Currently, the considerations, timelines and processes for doing so are unclear.

Lastly, the Bill also allows enforcement officers to enter and inspect any land without a warrant if they have reasonable suspicion that the land is being used illegally. They can then issue notices to the offenders to leave the land or fine the offenders.

Since no warrants or criminal proceedings are required for these actions, what measures will SLA take to prevent trespassing or scams under the pretext of a legitimate inspection?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am heartened by the Bill's provision to ensure that state lands are well taken care of. However, even as we protect what the eyes cannot see, we must not forget to protect what is harder to see but is also under threat – our sea spaces.

Singapore's waters are some of the busiest in the world, but they are home to over a third of the world's coral species. Unfortunately, about 60% of these reefs have already been lost to land reclamation. Singapore needs to establish stronger regulations on land under water as well – our seabeds – to allow remaining marine life to flourish. I sincerely hope that just because we are occasionally able to sight beautiful creatures in our waters, including blacktip reef sharks, dugongs, or even turtles and anemone fish, we should not take such things for granted and accept the status quo. We must be more proactive in protecting such gems.

Singapore, currently, has one marine park set up in 2014 – that is, the Sisters' Islands. Here, it is an offence to fish, collect coral, or moor boats, without NParks' permission. However, this marine park accounts for just 0.04% of Singapore's marine area. SLA manages the islands near Sisters' Islands, namely Saint John's, Lazarus and Kusu. There are multiple users of the waters around these islands, including recreation and research, to name a few.

Commercial fish farming also exists in the waters off these islands, which have an impact on the seabed, water and shores.

During COVID-19, visitor volume to these islands increased by 60%. It is good that more Singaporeans are appreciating our natural environment. But increased carrying capacity comes with increasing impact and strain on the lands. Given the rising interest, I would like to ask what SLA envisions with regard to the protection and enhancement of these Southern Islands and their heritage.

The Southern Islands' management, currently, straddles several Government bodies – NParks, SFA, SLA, URA and MPA, to name a few. Perhaps the next step towards protecting state lands would be to have a more coordinated whole-of-Government approach to protect land on these islands and the surrounding waters to engage stakeholders with a more systematic framework and build institutional knowledge.

Additionally, a more robust environmental protection framework would foreground the importance of protecting our precious land space, seabed and marine space while ensuring that any plans to develop tourism or commerce in these areas can be enacted in a sustainable way.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, land is more than simply living spaces. While many of this Bill's amendments come across as administrative in nature, people do form emotional connections with their environments. With our limited resources, as we continue to develop regulations governing the space around us, we must balance different stakeholders' needs and wants while actively forecasting for the future. Notwithstanding the clarifications, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam.

4.53 pm

Ms Rahayu Mahzam: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members who spoke in support of the Bill.

Let me now address the questions raised.

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked whether the increased maximum fine for offences under clause 5 is a useful and proportional deterrent. In particular, she cited cases involving individuals who are sleeping rough on state land, or retired seniors who engage in unauthorised cultivation on state land.

The enforcement framework set out in this Bill covers all manner of encroachment offences, taking into account the different circumstances of trespass. The Bill, therefore, sets out a maximum penalty since some forms of trespass can cause severe damage.

Not all cases are, eventually, prosecuted in Court. Furthermore, for those prosecuted, the penalties imposed by the Court upon conviction will, ultimately, depend on the surrounding facts and circumstances. There is no minimum punishment for any of the offences in the Bill.

Also, in practice, SLA, generally, does engage and will continue to engage those encroaching on state land. There would be an opportunity to rectify the encroachments first, absent irreparable damage or danger due to the encroachment.

In cases involving rough sleepers on state land, SLA works very closely with MSF who will engage and provide support to these individuals. This could include referring them to suitable shelters or accommodation, in the interest of their safety and well-being.

With regard to cases where enforcement action is taken, Mr Louis Ng asked about the defences available to those prosecuted under the Bill. This includes whether reliance on the due diligence of third parties would constitute a defence under clause 7 of the Bill. Mr Yip Hon Weng also asked, in relation to the same clause, how individuals who encroach on state land can prove that they did not know and could not have reasonably been expected to know, that the land concerned was state land.

The scenarios under which a defence may be constituted are varied and will depend on the particular circumstances of the case. Nonetheless, the Members' underlying concern appears to be situations where an individual does not know that they are encroaching on state land.

Let me first draw Members' attention to clause 5 of the Bill. The elements of the offence in this clause are engaging in the listed activities on state land without lawful authority and intentionally. Wholly accidental incursions would not be an offence. Also, as I mentioned earlier, SLA, typically, engages those encroaching on state land, before taking enforcement action.

On the specific example raised by the two Members on private home owners, the property owner should also take responsibility to ensure that there is no encroachment onto adjoining state land. This includes engaging a registered surveyor to carry out surveys to confirm if there are encroachments.

If encroachments are found from the surveys, owners should check with SLA on whether the encroachment must be removed.

SLA will also be embarking on public education efforts after the Bill is passed, to raise public awareness of the new Bill and also address any misconceptions.

Moving on to the process for abating encroachments.

Mr Louis Ng asked about the timeline to comply with or raise objections to the encroachment notice. Mr Ng also asked if the Authority would notify the result of the objection and provide time for individuals to comply with the notice before Court proceedings are initiated.

Let me, first, address the issue of the objection and compliance period. The removal of the fixed 28-day notice period is intended to provide SLA with greater flexibility to deal with encroachments more expeditiously, if appropriate or necessary, based on the circumstances of the case.

To provide some context, this draws on SLA's experience with past encroachment cases, where members of the public had requested that SLA take action against the reported encroachments quickly. This is often because the encroachments might have posed disamenities and obstruction to the public.

In addition, there might be cases where SLA needs to take action more quickly, for example, where there is ongoing harm being done to the state land.

Nevertheless, SLA will strike a balance between giving individuals time to rectify their encroachments and stopping the harm done by these encroachments. In general, SLA will provide a reasonable timeframe for owners to comply with encroachment notices, taking into consideration the nature and scale of the encroachments.

On whether the Authority will notify potential offenders of the results of the objection, I would like to, first, clarify that once an objection is filed, clause 16 of the Bill allows the Authority to refer the matter to the Courts. The usual Court processes, after making a complaint to a Magistrate under the Criminal Procedure Code, will then apply.

That said, generally, SLA will respond to the potential offender on SLA's position on the basis of his or her objection, before filing a complaint to the Court. Alternatively, the encroachment notice may be cancelled if there is merit in the case contained in the objection.

Apart from the process for objection, the Member's concern may also relate more broadly to whether there is sufficient notice given before matters are escalated to the point of legal action.

As I have mentioned earlier, SLA, typically, engages those encroaching on state land before commencing any enforcement action.

Most encroachment cases are resolved amicably. However, if there is a need to issue an encroachment notice, reasonable time will also be given to comply with the notice or to raise objections. This will be proportionate to the facts of each case.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about encroachments involving religious artefacts or buildings. Mr Yip rightly pointed out that our laws should be applied consistently and fairly when it comes to encroachments which could cause public obstruction or damage to state land.

First and foremost, the setting up of any structures or the leaving of any objects on state land without lawful authority would constitute an encroachment. That being said, similar to the approach for other types of encroachments, agencies, typically, engage owners of any religious items placed on state land. Agencies will explain that these are unauthorised encroachments, before taking enforcement action, if needed. Where appropriate, SLA also works with the relevant religious organisations to ensure that the matter is handled sensitively and with respect.

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked about safeguards to prevent trespassing under the pretext of a legitimate inspection under the Bill.

Authorised officers and enforcement officers must declare their office and produce their identification card when asked. The owner of the private land can demand to see their credentials and when the officers seek entry for inspection or other purposes provided for in the Bill.

As stated in clause 26, subsection (3), if officers do not declare their office or produce their identification card when asked, it is not an offence for any person to refuse to comply with their orders. These provisions are directed at preventing illegal trespassing and scams, such as what Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin had described.

On the issue of public awareness and feedback, I thank Mr Yip Hong Weng for his suggestion to leverage the use of technology in interfacing with the public on state land issues. Indeed, OneMap is an example of our multi-agency effort to provide reliable, timely and accurate location-based information and services to the public.

While SLA does not have data specifically on how often the public uses information from OneMap to provide feedback on state land, SLA does track the usage of OneMap. SLA regularly promotes OneMap through various social media channels. It has also broadened its efforts to raise awareness of the services on OneMap to industry and members of the public. For example, SLA has signed collaborative Memoranda of Understanding with industry players, such as real estate agencies, developers and business chambers, to promote the use of geospatial solutions. SLA will continue to review ways to raise awareness of OneMap.

Mr Yip Hon Weng and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin also raised important considerations about coordination between agencies and adopting a resident-centric approach in resolving land-related issues.

When the maintenance of land straddles the purview of multiple agencies, we will ensure that agencies coordinate our responses such that the issues relating to state land are resolved promptly.

We recognise that it can sometimes be confusing for members of the public to identify the agency-in-charge. We have taken efforts to streamline our touchpoints with the public and to address their feedback effectively and efficiently. For instance, members of public can report or clarify state land issues using the OneService app, which is a one-stop platform where residents can provide feedback on municipal issues, without having to figure out which Government agency to contact. SLA will then follow up on any feedback or clarifications relating to state land issues. In addition, members of the public can also contact SLA’s hotline to report any unauthorised use of state land. SLA will assist to direct feedback to the relevant agency if it is not within SLA’s purview.

Mr Louis Ng, Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the process of forfeiture. Forfeiture of land is uncommon. We have encountered about five cases in the past 10 years. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we recognise that the issue of forfeiture should not be taken lightly as it involves private owners' rights.

To address Mr Louis Ng and Mr Yip Hon Weng’s questions, in general, we do not actively identify abandoned land to pursue resumption. We, typically, take action when alerted to pieces of abandoned land that could pose a hazard to public safety or health. This could arise from public feedback on maintenance and safety issues, as pointed out by Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin. The reduced claim period will help to expedite the forfeiture process, so that agencies can commence any necessary works to address safety and health issues on the abandoned land.

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin also highlighted situations where there are pressing concerns, such as dengue, which might require a quicker response. In such cases, SLA will coordinate with the relevant agencies to consider the options available to address these concerns, even before the forfeiture process is completed.

The cases of abandoned land that we have encountered thus far involve mainly isolated strips of land like back or side lanes. These are, typically, incapable of independent redevelopment.

On Mr Yip Hon Weng’s query on the type of land that qualifies for forfeiture under the Bill, land is deemed to be abandoned and forfeited when no claims are established to it within the stipulated claim period. In other words, the lack of development of a piece of land does not, in itself, allow the state to forfeit the land.

Also, for cases involving land owned by deceased individuals without beneficiaries, such as the Upper Thomson Road case cited by the Member, the Government becomes entitled to the land, pursuant to the Intestate Succession Act 1967. The Public Trustee's Office has separate existing procedures to dispose of the land that has so accrued to the Government, in accordance with the Civil Law Act 1909 and the Probate and Administration Act 1934.

As for Mr Louis Ng and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin’s queries on the process for determining if land is abandoned, SLA will carry out checks with agencies, such as the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority and the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore, to trace the whereabouts of the owners.

SLA will only commence the forfeiture process if it appears that the land has been abandoned for three years or more and the owners cannot be traced from SLA’s checks.

To Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin’s question on the resumption notice, as mentioned in my speech earlier, a declaration will be made in the Government Gazette. This is similar to the current process under the State Lands Encroachments Act.

In addition, as mentioned in my opening speech, SLA will also now publish the notice in the four official languages in major local newspapers, including the digital versions.

This improves upon the current process, where SLA affixes the physical notice on the land, as greater publicity can be secured through publishing the notice in the local media. This includes cases where the potential claimants are not physically in Singapore.

Even after the land is forfeited, any person who can establish a claim to the satisfaction of SLA, within six years from the date of forfeiture, can still be entitled to receive compensation for the value of the land. Taking this into consideration, potential claimants should have sufficient time within which they can claim compensation for their interest in the land.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how we will strike a balance between protecting state land from unauthorised use and facilitating community use of state land.

As Members would be well aware, Singapore has limited land resources. As custodian of our state land and properties, SLA is also continually looking for innovative ways in which our state land can be used to benefit the community. Where there are suitable vacant state lands which are not required for immediate development, SLA will also work with other agencies to put out these sites for public recreational activities. The current list of these Community Use Sites can be found on SLA’s website.

The Member has also mentioned NParks’ Community in Bloom initiative. We encourage members of the public to take advantage of these initiatives.

Our concern with unauthorised cultivation and plantings on state land is that these can create potential health hazards, such as mosquito breeding hotspots, and impede the maintenance of state land. Unauthorised use of state land for activities can also affect public safety and, potentially, damage the land.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe I have addressed the salient issues raised by Members relating to provisions within the scope of the Bill.

Separately, there were a number of comments relating to matters outside the ambit of this Bill.

First, I thank Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin for her suggestion on the vesting of land to facilitate maintenance. Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin may wish to file a separate Parliamentary Question on this matter. We will help provide her feedback to the relevant agencies.

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin also spoke about increasing protection for Singapore’s marine spaces, in particular, for the Southern Islands. While the question of marine spaces is not within the scope of this Bill, I agree that this is an important issue which should be further studied and we will convey her feedback to the relevant agencies.

SLA will also consider her suggestions in its management of the Southern Islands. Generally, the enhanced enforcement framework under the Bill will also better support SLA in protecting state land in the Southern Islands from unauthorised use and damage.

I thank the Members who spoke in support of the Bill, and I believe I have addressed their questions and suggestions. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with that, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move.

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. – [Ms Rahayu Mahzam].

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