Safety Inspections of Properties Managed by SLA
8 May 2024
Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Law in each year of the past five years (a) what proportion of rent collected from residential properties managed by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) was spent on maintenance and safety inspections; (b) what safety incidents were there; and (c) how regularly are safety inspections conducted.
Mr K Shanmugam: SLA manages a wide portfolio of State properties ranging from commercial buildings, former school compounds, to apartment blocks and heritage properties. The properties are mostly old properties. They are usually returned by various Ministries and Agencies to SLA for management and are put to a variety of uses, including commercial, residential and social and community. In addition, the maintenance and inspection requirements for each property will vary depending on the specific context, such as the age and condition of the building, the use of the property and different levels of maintenance or repair may be required. SLA can provide the aggregated cost of maintenance and inspection and rent, but it will not be a meaningful comparison.
SLA and its appointed managing agents, conduct safety inspections on the residential State properties periodically as part of the maintenance regime. They also ensure that the properties comply with the requirements imposed by the regulatory authorities.
It is difficult to be comprehensive on the kinds of safety incidents handled by SLA and their managing agents, but some examples include the deterioration of the timber structures and the presence of asbestos in older State properties. Where these safety issues are identified, SLA will take steps to quickly address them, including taking advice from relevant professionals and carrying out the necessary rectification works; for example, replacement of timber structures, asbestos control measures.
Ridout Road Saga
3 July 2023
Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Law (a) whether written approvals from the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation were sought and granted for the felling of mature trees at 26 and 31 Ridout Road; (b) if so, who requested and applied for the approvals; (c) when were the approvals granted; and (d) how many mature trees were felled at each Ridout Road property respectively.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: These questions have been addressed in the Ministerial Statement at today’s Parliament Sitting.
3 August 2023
Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Law since 2018 and for black and white bungalows, what is the number of instances of the Singapore Land Authority (i) renting them out at exactly the amount of guide rent, (ii) spending over $500,000 in essential repair works to restore them, (iii) allowing the tenants to build swimming pools within the rented properties and (iv) clearing adjacent state land on the tenant’s request which is not part of the rented property.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (Second Minister for Law): The Singapore Land Authority (SLA) does not specifically track the number of cases involving residential heritage bungalows managed by SLA, which fall into the categories set out by the Member.
SLA’s approach with regard to the management of state properties was explained in detail in Parliament on 3 July 2023. [Please refer to (a) “Rentals of State Properties”, Official Report, 3 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 105, Ministerial Statements section; and (b) “Approvals for Rental of and Works to be Done at State-owned Bungalows”, Official Report, 3 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 105, Written Answers to Questions section.] The Member can refer to the speeches as well as to the various clarifications addressed in Parliament. We highlight the following two points.
On the rental of properties at exactly the guide rent: as explained in Parliament on 3 July 2023, SLA’s practice for its residential state properties is that these properties can be rented out if the offered rent is equal to or above the guide rent. Thus, there would have been cases where residential heritage bungalows were rented out exactly at the guide rent.
On site clearance – SLA’s approach to cases where there is feedback on issues related to vegetated land located within and adjacent to the properties, including whether site clearance is required, is to assess each case on its merits, depending on the specific circumstances and always with a view to safeguarding SLA’s interests as the landlord. SLA will take into consideration, amongst other factors, whether there are any public health and safety concerns, the specific tenancy details and how SLA’s interests would be best achieved in the context of the tenancy and its surrounding circumstances. The solution to the issues may also be site-specific.
3 August 2023
Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Law (a) what is the total rent received by the Government from black and white bungalows in 2022; and (b) what are the total expenses incurred by the Government on maintaining and marketing black and white bungalows in 2022.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (Second Minister for Law): It was explained at length in Parliament on 3 July 2023 how the Singapore Land Authority manages its portfolio of heritage black and white bungalows. The Member can refer to the speeches made in Parliament as well as the responses to the various clarifications. [Please refer to (a) “Rentals of State Properties”, Official Report, 3 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 105, Ministerial Statements section; and (b) “Approvals for Rental of and Works to be Done at State-owned Bungalows”, Official Report, 3 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 105, Written Answers to Questions section.]
Based on the matters already set out in Parliament, the total rent collected on heritage properties exceed the total expenses incurred, including on marketing and maintaining these properties. This was also the case in FY2022.
3 August 2023
Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Law since 2013, what are the sizes of the state land cleared in other instances of land clearance around state-owned black and white bungalows for safety or health reasons.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (Second Minister for Law): From time to time, the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) receives feedback, from the tenants of residential state properties it manages and/or other residents in the vicinity, on issues related to vegetated land located within and adjacent to the properties.
SLA’s approach to such cases, including whether site clearance is necessary, is to assess each case on its merits, depending on the specific circumstances and always with a view to safeguarding SLA’s interests as the landlord.
SLA will take into consideration, amongst other factors, the nature of the tenants’ public health and safety concerns, the specific tenancy details and how SLA’s interests would be best achieved in the context of the tenancy and its surrounding circumstances. The solution to the issues may also be site-specific. For example, some cases involving mosquito breeding can be resolved through more frequent fogging. However, site clearance may be carried out if the disamenity persists and it is necessary to address public health and safety concerns.
The considerations behind the site clearance for the cases at 26 Ridout Road and the state property at Dalvey Estate were explained in Parliament on 3 July 2023; these considerations did not include the size of the land to be cleared. [Please refer to “Rental of 26 Ridout Road”, Official Report, 3 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 105, Ministerial Statements section.]
Charges Against Karl Liew
8 May 2023
Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Law (a) what are the reasons for not pressing charges against Mr Liew Kai Lung Karl under section 177 of the Penal Code for furnishing false information to a public servant and section 193 of the Penal Code for giving false evidence, as announced by the Police on 4 November 2020; and (b) whether he will ask the Attorney-General to make the reasons public.
Mr K Shanmugam: In November 2020, the Prosecution preferred two charges against Mr Liew under sections 177 and 193 of the Penal Code. These charges were for furnishing false information to the Police and giving false evidence in judicial proceedings, respectively. Mr Liew eventually pleaded guilty in March 2023 to an amended charge under section 182 of the Penal Code for giving a false statement in Court, instead of under section 193 of the Penal Code. The other charge against him under section 177 of the Penal Code for giving false information to the Police was taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing.
Members will be aware that it is normal for the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) to proceed on amended charges – in this case, the section 182 charge – as well as to take other charges into consideration for the purposes of sentencing when an individual elects to plead guilty. This is regularly done; in fact, it is the norm in cases involving a plea of guilt.
On this, I should highlight that the Member’s statement that the Prosecution did not press charges under section 177 of the Penal Code against Mr Liew is not accurate. It gives the impression that the charge was not before the Court or was otherwise withdrawn. The charge was, in fact, taken into consideration, meaning it would be considered for the purposes of sentencing.
There was, therefore, nothing exceptional about how this case was dealt with.
As for the Member’s suggestion that the Attorney-General make the reasons public, I should clarify that the Attorney-General had recused himself from this case. This was disclosed to the House previously.
It was the AGC which decided to prefer charges against Mr Liew in the first place, and they carefully considered the facts. In assessing the charges to proceed on and to take into consideration in a plea of guilt, factors which are generally taken into account by the AGC include the strength of the Prosecution’s case, the accused person’s level of cooperation with the investigation authorities and any relevant personal mitigating circumstances.
In Mr Liew’s case, the Prosecution considered these same general factors in deciding to accede to the representations made by Mr Liew’s lawyers and accept the guilty plea by Mr Liew.
Necessity for Good Samaritan Law
2 August 2021
Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Law whether the Government has updated its position on the necessity for the implementation of a Good Samaritan law in Singapore.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Government has previously given its reasons for deciding that we did not need a Good Samaritan Law¹.
The Government’s position remains the same at this time. This position will be reviewed as necessary.
Note(s) to Question No(s) 7:
¹ See (a) Singapore Parl Debates; Vol 84, Sitting No 1; Col 169; 21 January 2008; (b) Singapore Parl Debates; Vol 88, Sitting No 13; Page 1163; 14 February 2012;'(c) Singapore Parl Debates; Vol 88, Sitting No 13; Page 1163; 14 February 2012; (d) Singapore Parl Debates; Vol 92, Sitting No 5; 29 March 2014.