Mr Speaker, Sir, considerable interest inside and outside this House has been aroused in respect of my denial of the allegation that Government makes exorbitant profits when it acquires land and subsequently sells it. At the outset, I must point out that I did not say that we do not make any profit. We do. But not in every case and the profits are certainly not exorbitant. That was the myth I was referring to - "exorbitant profits". Sir, last Tuesday I took pains to outline the several factors why land sold under the urban renewal sales, sells at higher prices than the actual price of acquisition. I need not repeat all these factors again. But the major ones which I mentioned are the generous instalment terms in respect of the sale price -20 per cent down payment and the rest over 10 to 20 years. Secondly, the 12 per cent property tax which is very attractive. Sir, I reiterate that the procedure for the acquisition of land is set out clearly in the Land Acquisition Act, 1966, which obliges the Government to acquire land at market value. The Act provides for an appeal to the Appeals Board if the owner feels that he has been inadequately compensated. There have been grumblings about the valuation of our valuers. But on an appeal, the appellant has his own valuers to give their valuation. So the judge hears both sides and he decides. As to costs, I find it hard to believe that an owner of land cannot raise $5,000 to pay costs. If he is really broke, he can fight his own case. If he is not broke, he gets hold of a lawyer. But I repeat I find it hard to believe that an owner of land in Singapore cannot afford the services of a lawyer or a valuer. Sir, I have been asked by the Member for Potong Pasir to explain section 3 of the Act. Under this section, a notification is published of Government's intention to acquire a particular land required for a public purpose. The section is used only in cases of real necessity and primarily to put a stop to unscrupulous speculative land deals which often take place as soon as it is learnt that a property is likely to be subject to compulsory acquisition. 7.45 p.m. Sir, in order to acquire the land, we send a team down to survey it. The moment they see the team, some, I do not say all, arrange for a resale. Hence section 3. If we move under section 3, we must acquire the land within six months of the notification. If we do, then the price is the market price at the date of the notification. If the land is not acquired within six months of the date of notification, any subsequent acquisition under section 5 will have to be made at the market price on the date of acquisition under section 5. The only advantage is the six months' period to prevent speculative dealings once the owners hear that acquisition may take place. Sir, a further mischievous impression has been created by the allegation that Government indiscriminately re-zones private lands as open spaces so that they can be acquired cheaply and resold at much higher prices. This is completely misleading. There are only two cases of re-zoning initiated by Government prior to acquisition, as against the hundreds of cases of acquisition and the hundreds of cases where private landowners have obtained an alteration of the zoning in respect of their own lands. The Member for Potong Pasir complained about the Government not allowing someone to re-zone so that he could sell the land at $10 a square foot. I believe the land is a "green belt" area. To allow him to re-zone would be all right if the planners think there should be re-zoning, but the action of re-zoning is not just to allow him to make a huge profit. He must satisfy the planners that re-zoning is justified, in which case he must set out his grounds. If they agree, he gets it. But to grumble and say, "I can sell my land at $10 a square foot if you allow me to re-zone", is, I think, a weak argument. It is not denied that the Government can acquire rent-controlled properties at a low price. But Government properties are not bound by the Control of Rent Ordinance, and the argument is quite irrelevant. May I put it this way? If Government's intention is to make profits out of land transactions, it would simply acquire all rent-controlled properties, say, in the "Golden Shoe" area and resell them to private developers who are hungry for land for redevelopment. Instead, Government has introduced new legislation to enable private landowners to obtain vacant possession of their properties upon payment of compensation to be awarded by the Tenants Compensation Board. We would like to invite private participation in the redevelopment of Singapore. I have mentioned just now two cases in which we re-zoned before we acquired the land. If the objective was to resell the land for money, we would resell both properties. You cannot make a profit until you resell. In neither of these two cases has the land been resold. One recent case is still the subject of an appeal. Since the matter is sub judice, Mr Speaker, Sir, and as I am reminded of your warning earlier on this afternoon, I am not free to comment on it. But in another case, the property was re-zoned precinctal open space so that a garden for the benefit of the general public could be developed. The Government did not sell the land. In order to create this garden, we did not think we should pay the price of the land at the commercial rate. Hence the re-zoning to precinctal open space, and there is your garden. The owners had their remedies. They objected. When the rezoning took place, there was a hearing. They were heard and the re-zoning was upheld. They had legal advice. They could have taken the matter further to the High Court if they had felt that the principles of natural justice had not been complied with by us. Perhaps it is either because of the legal advice or their public spirit that they did not take the matter further. It is not denied that in the few cases where acquired properties were resold under the Urban Renewal Redevelopment Scheme, Government obtained higher prices than the prices paid for them. In addition to the reasons I have already given, another reason for the higher prices is that there is usually a lapse of time between acquisition and resale of the same properties. Sir, in the first sale of urban renewal sites, we offered several sites along the "Golden Mile" for public tender. No one tendered for any site. Anyone who had tendered at $5 a square foot would have got the land. But no one tendered; no one was interested. That was several years ago. In the subsequent second and third sales, the prices jumped up. Today they are rushing to get land along the "Golden Mile" at $60 to $70 a square foot. But do not blame us for that. The price of land has gone up since. Let us put it the other way. Let us say that the price of land has gone down. Who bears the loss? We bear the loss! Perhaps we can take some of the credit. The place is booming, money is rushing in, and the recent increases in the price of land have been quite fantastic. Because of stability, everyone in Singapore benefits; so does the Government. I would like to emphasise that of the three sales of urban land undertaken by the Government, only a very small percentage of the land sold was acquired land. I will give you the figures. Most of the land was always Government land which we offered to them three years ago and which no one wanted. Now they are all rushing in. The details are as follows: In the first sale, about 33 acres of land were sold by tender. Ninety-two per cent of this was state land and was always state land. Some 8 per cent was private land which was acquired. In the second sale, 13 acres were sold - 75 per cent was state land and 25 per cent private land acquired. In the third sale, 14 acres were sold - 78 per cent was state land and 22 per cent private land acquired. Perhaps Members are interested in the land along the "Golden Mile". Of the roughly 23 acres sold in what we call "the Golden Mile" area, 96 per cent of the land sold was always Government land and a mere 4 per cent (about 25,000 square feet) was private land acquired. Members may also be interested in the state land at Shenton Way which is selling today at $90 to $100 a square foot. People are rushing to buy. Please do not think that we acquired this land. All the state land along Shenton Way always was Government land. We have acquired not one per cent of it. Lastly, may I say that without urban renewal, this town cannot develop. With rent control, private owners find it hard to evict tenants and redevelop sites. Government owns large tracts of land and has acquired some pieces. There was an allegation before that the Housing and Development Board wanted to develop the whole of Singapore and hence we invited private participation. But we cannot just give the land to the buyer and say, "Pay $5 for it." Then there will be allegations of bribery and corruption. One has to have a public tender. The first public sale was not successful. Only seven sites were taken up, and there were only about 13 or 14 tenderers. In the second public sale, people became wiser, and about a little more than 50 tenders were received in respect of 14 sites, and 13 were sold. In the last and third sale, more than a hundred tenders were received for 14 sites, all of which were sold. If we do not have a public tender, then there will be the allegation that Government wants to redevelop the land by itself. This is not true. We are happy to invite private participation. As far as the "Golden Shoe" is concerned, rent control legislation was amended in order to encourage private participation. Lastly, may I say that whatever profit the Government makes goes into the treasury and is ploughed back by way of social services to build roads and schools, supply water, lights and gas.