Land Acquisition Act Impact on Singapore Hadrami Wealth: a Case Study of One Family
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Journal of Public Administration Volume 2, Issue 2, 2020, PP 8-14 ISSN 2642-8318 Land Acquisition Act Impact on Singapore Hadrami Wealth: A Case Study of One Family Shireen Naila binte Ramli1, Ameen Talib2* 1Honors student, School of Business, Singapore University of Social Science, Singapore 2Head, Applied Project, School of Business, Singapore University of Social Science, Singapore *Corresponding Author: Ameen Talib, Head, Applied Project, School of Business, Singapore University of Social Science, Singapore ABSTRACT Talib (1997) highlighted four factors for the decline of the Hadhrami wealth and influence in Singapore. One factor was the Land Acquisition Act. The purpose of this paper is to study and gain insight into how the compulsory land acquisitions affected the Hadhrami wealth and influence. This paper reviews the wealth lost thorough land acquisitions for one Singaporean Hadhrami family. The Land Acquisition Act (LAA) gives the government power to acquire land for public use with a compensation determined by the acquirer according to the Act. The main features of LAA, (1) right to acquire land, (2) landowners cannot oppose the acquisition (3) the state pays compensation, and (4) An Appeals Board to appeal the amount of compensation paid. Around beginning of the 20th century, the Hadrami Arabs owned about 75% of the land in Singapore alienated by the British (Zelin??). Many properties under the Arab family was being acquired, today the government is the biggest land owner. This decline in Hadrahmi land ownership is worth investigating. INTRODUCTION Corporation (JTC). (Oon & Lim, 2014). The LAA was amended and currently landowners Talib, (1997) cited the compulsory acquisitions of receive better compensation equal or close to land as one of the factors explaining the decline in market value (Mok, 2014). wealth and influence of the Singapore Hadhrami community. This paper explorers this preposition The LAA compensations had been below market further by looking at one Hadhrami family. We value (The Straits Times, 1973). However, in a hope to fill in the gap currently existing in the recent case the ruling stated:- literature in compulsory land acquisitions impacts “It is one thing to say that land should not be on one Singapore ethnic community. valued with the benefit of planning permission The study analyzes the Sallim Taleb family sett- which in fact it does not have. There can be no lement to obtain insight on the extent of the loss reasonable ground to disagree with that. It is suffered by the Talib family due to land acquisition. altogether another thing to say that to find the The significance of this study is that it highlights market value of the acquired land its potential for the wealth redistribution that has occurred in development or for development along the lines Singapore at an expense of the previous land envisaged in a proposal for an amendment to the owners. The study of a Hadhrami family further original development proposal cannot be taken into account by reason only that written permission or highlights how an ethnic community has suffered provisional permission for such development has through one policy. not been obtained. This is inconsistent with LITERATURE REVIEW principles of valuation.” (Mustaq v. Collector of Land Revenue, 1996) Compulsory Land Acquisition Act has been described as essential for developing Singapore. The Land Acquisition Act was implemented on Cheaply-acquired land was made available for 26th October 1966 and came into effect on 17th housing, commercial and industrial projects of June 1967. The original LAA discounted any public agencies such as the Housing and value increment in the preceding 7 years arising Development Board (HDB), the Urban Redevelop- from public improvements to the vicinity. ment Authority (URA) and the Jurong Town Ngiam (2007) argued that the authorities and the Journal of Public Administration V2 ● I2 ● 2020 8 Land Acquisition Act Impact on Singapore Hadrami Wealth: A Case Study of One Family community pay for the infrastructures through The Talib land can be divided into Civic District tax revenue. Hence, any growth in land-value and Central Business District. Conservative form public expenditures ought to accrue to the prices are being used to calculate the square feet government. By 1984, Singapore government of the land area so that it will be in line with the acquired a total of 77 square kilometers of land, Land Acquisition Act philosophy of using the constituting to approximately one-third of the current value to calculate compensation amount. total land area of Singapore then. Majority of Table1. List of Properties Removed as Part of Talib the land in Singapore was acquired after 1967, Centre and Talib Court thus resulting in the government becoming the biggest landowner by 1985. Removed as Part of Talib Centre and Talib Court Area Sq Ft The amended LAA computes the compensation th 2, 3, 4, 5 Purvis Street 6,761 as the lower of market value on November 30 , 24, 25 Seah Street 39, 40, 41 Purvis 8,945 1973, or on the date of an official notification, Street or declaration (Davidson, 1973). Only in 1985 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 Seah Street 12,626 an amendment was made. The acquisition needs 5 Seah Street 1,592 were by then not as demanding and land prices 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 Purvis Street 8,956 had surged (Aleshire, 1986) 16 Seah Street 1,726 Back portions of houses no. 2, 3, 4, 5 HDB cost of land was low as it was land acquired. 1,471 This resulted in lower the housing costs for the Purvis Street public. Interventions such as LAA are vital in Total 42,077 housing the poor (Yuen, 2005) The Land Civic District Acquisition Act was controversial but crucial and Table2. List of Properties owned by Talib Family in Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew stated that, Civic District “When we were confronted with an enormous problem of bad housing, no development, Civic District Properties Area Sq Ft overcrowding, we decided that unless drastic 171, 172, 173 Middle Road 3,023 measures were taken to break the law, break the 612, 614, 616, 618, 620, 622, 624, 626, 12,878 rules, we would never solve it. We therefore took 628 North Bridge Road overriding powers to acquire land at low cost, 630, 632, 634 North Bridge Road 4,277 which was in breach of one of the fundamentals of 497, 499, 501 North Bridge Road 2,641 British constitutional law – the sanctity of property. 32, 34, 36, 38 Bain Street 3,153 But that had to be overcome, because the sanctity of 477, 479 North Bridge Road 1,716 the society seeking to preserve itself was greater. 503 North Bridge Road 917 So we acquired at sub-economic rates.” (Public 511 North Bridge Road 863 Service Division, 2015) 581 North Bridge Road 1,072 Mattar, (2004) was of the view that the Control of 547, 549 North Bridge Road 3,515 Rent Ordinance (1947) and the Land Acquisition 343, 344 Victoria Street 5,164 Act (1966) had major impact on the Hadhrami 24 Beach Road 1,355 383, 384 Victoria Street 3,427 Arabs. 307 Beach Road 961 DISCUSSION 77 Bras Basah Road 23,095 6, 7 Bali Lane 1,976 Sallim Talib Family Settlement 562 North Bridge Road 879 Sheikh Sallim bin Mohamed bin Talib was among 290, 291 Beach Road 2,162 the wealthiest diaspora Hadramis in the early 289 Beach Road 1,053 twentieth centuries. He was involved in the rubber 487, 489, 491, 493, 495 North Bridge Road 4,435 business and bought many shophouses and a few 243, 245 Beach Road 2,761 223 Rochor Road 918 steamships. He passed away in 1937 leaving 115 Beach Road 1,331 behind the Sallim Talib Family Settlemen (the 42 Bali Lane 1,699 family trust)for his descendants with about 400 36 Bali Lane 1,071 shophouses, (Holmberg, 2010) 334 North Bridge Road 1,873 The family trust consisted of large real estate 605 North Bridge Road 827 holdings in Singapore, only 10 properties remain 646 North Bridge Road 1,231 with total fair value of approximately S$578 227 Rochor Road 856 million. The properties listed in Table 1 below are 35, 36, 37, 38 Ophir Road 39 Johore Road 4,240 now Talib court and Talib center. 459 North Bridge Road 825 9 Journal of Public Administration V2 ● I2 ● 2020 Land Acquisition Act Impact on Singapore Hadrami Wealth: A Case Study of One Family 120 Orchard Road 2,278 267 Jalan Besar 1,620 Vacant Land @ Rochor Road 1,702 Total 128,022 Vacant Land @ Victoria Street 1,530 Vacant Land @ Victoria Street 1,530 Table 2 list the properties in the civic district owned 461 Beach Road 1,085 by the Talib trust prior to acquisition and is 107, 108 Queen Street 2,866 outlined in Figure 1. This list does not include 545 North Bridge Road 1,571 properties that are currently owned by the Talib 33 Arab Street 639 family. They owned 128,022 square foot of land in Vacant Land @ Victoria Street 7,651 Singapore in the Civic district. However, after the 409 North Bridge Road 1,047 Land Acquisition Act was implemented, the 411 North Bridge Road 1,010 properties remaining are as listed in Table 3, where 230, 231 Rochor Road 1,805 they held only 103,823 square foot. This is 4 Hylam Street 963 5 Hylam Street 1,007 excluding 7 Orange Grove Road as this property 564 North Bridge Road 1,313 was only purchased later in 1953. This study is only 236 Beach Road 997 looking at properties at the beginning of the trust, 608 North Bridge Road 1,214 which was in 1936.