Govt has powers to do ‘what is in national interests when it comes to property rights’
A view of former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew's Oxley Road residence in Singapore June 14, 2017. Photo: Reuters
SINGAPORE — The dispute between the Lee siblings over their Oxley Road family home has highlighted an issue that has arisen from time to time - the Government's rights over property owners.
Recently, the case of the Merpati Road houses being acquired to make way for the future Mattar MRT station also made the headlines. As in the case of acquisition of land, homes or buildings for public amenities or other uses, the Government can also take over ownership of a property by gazetting it as a national monument, property law experts contacted by TODAY said.
Over the last few years, as the building of infrastructure has accelerated, such land acquisitions have become more common. Earlier this year, for example, the Singapore Land Authority put the Raffles Country Club on notice that it would have to vacate its 143-ha premises, which include a golf course, to make way by Jul 31 next year, for the Singapore-Kuala Lumpur High Speed Rail.
The experts reiterated that in general, the Government has the legislative powers to do what is in the national interest. This includes overriding an individual's wishes in a will regarding a property.
Dr Kevin Tan, a legal academic and president of the International Council on Monuments and Sites Singapore, said the State can legislate and "do anything that (it) thinks is in the interest of Singapore". For instance, if a property is under consideration to be gazetted as a monument under the Preservation of Monuments Act, it would be a decision for the Preservation of Sites and Monuments division, which is under the National Heritage Board, and the National Development Minister.
"By operation of law, of course, you can override an individual will," he said, pointing to cases where wills were overridden on the grounds that they went against public policy. For instance, in the "rule against perpetuities", one cannot hold a property forever.
"You can't say, 'I want to give it to my great-grandson's grandson's grandson; that's against public policy," Dr Tan explained.
Mr Laurence Wee, director of law firm Quahe Woo and Palmer, said the Government can use its powers to designate a property as a conservation site or acquire land under conservation laws or the Land Acquisition Act, for example, although these can be challenged in court by aggrieved parties.
"They can do it when a (person) is alive and they can do it, therefore, when he's under a will … The will doesn't make it any stronger… It's a desire, but everyone has wishes that are not always met," Mr Wee said.
MSC Law Corporation managing director Michael S Chia gave the hypothetical example of shophouses in Chinatown, many of which are subject to preservation.
If a shopowner had expressed his wish to demolish his shophouse after his death, but a preservation law states the property must be maintained for the area's heritage, "where does that put the intention of the testator?"
"Which takes precedence? Surely, it must be the legislation that says this property must be preserved," said
Mr Chia. "The individual's desires and the larger national interests … are what the Government will have to contend with," he added.
Property expert Desmond Sim, head of CBRE Research for Singapore and South-east Asia, said that once conservation guidelines are imposed on a house, the rule of demolition is "immediately written off". "You cannot touch a building (that has been designated) a conservation building," he said.
On demolishing a property before it is gazetted as a monument or conservation site, lawyers said the necessary permits must be sought from the authorities.
Mr Wee said, under the Building Control Act, permission has to be sought before demolition can proceed. While the authorities may reject the application, "they will have to answer why". Still, he said there was "not much available to impede a person's ability to deal with a property" and demolition was "a lot easier to achieve".
Mr Chia said, however, that those with a vested interest in a property may try to stop the demolition by taking an "urgent injunction" in court. However, they must bring their case that it is something that "cannot be replaced" in monetary terms.
"Normally, how a court evaluates whether an injunction can be given is, if the (action) is proceeded with, can it be compensated with money?" he said. "Only if you satisfy the court that this is something that cannot be compensated by money and ought to be stopped before the trial of action, then the court will stop it."
