in property law it was pointed out to us that singapore has no constitutional protection for property, something which americans, with their rather absolutist view of land rights, would find unthinkable. in fact, there had been some protection of property in the malaysian constitution, which our founding government deliberately removed from ours upon independence, because solo singapore desperately needed public land for development. “trauma shapes constitutional architecture,” said a professor in lecture. and this is an example of the deep initial trauma she must mean — unwilling expulsion from malaysia and deep-seated fear of non-survival — shaping the constitution. the idea being that it is against the public good for a land-scarce new nation to have checks on the ability to expropriate land for public development. and its impact is felt not only on land-use policy in singapore to this day — never mind state acquisition for a new MRT station (we grumble but we accept it despite the fact that until recently we have never even compensated adequately for state acquistion of land) — but we have never internalised the idea of land being fundamental to us — from kampung to HDB — we are constantly displaced, but also reaccommodated, rehoused, we are used to non-permanency in our dwellings, we have embraced this ourselves by en-bloc sales.and yet maybe i only say this because i do not know what it means to be displaced, for i still live in the house which my grandfather bought — a post-independence house built in the 1960s, and even as a child my grandfather kept telling me: “i gave this house to your father and one day he’ll give it to you.” - the privilege of the only child of an only child… i’m as land-rooted as they come, and by golly i love this house, yet even as i feel threatened by our eminent domain policies, i do think i would feel any loss as a grave and traumatic personal misfortune than as a rights-based fundamental violation. we simply do not internalise the sense of land ownership being a fundamental right, and any idea that such an argument about land on constitutional grounds was even possible was already dispelled once and for all by chan kin foo v city development last year.
and why should we? we’re mostly leaseholders of 99 years, 999 occasionally, but we have no new creation of fee simple or perpetual grant lands. but that too is misleading — because we’re not homeless, we don’t live under tyrannical government who take away our homes, unchecked by this particular omission in the constitution. where do HDBs come from, if not from state acquisition? almost every singaporean has a home, owns a home — leasehold, incidentally, despite the name, is true ownership, entered on the land register and legally protected by the land titles act. communitarian? yes, we are that, and it is not a bad thing. for finally, do you want the right to a house, or do you want a house?
Best of the Transparent Hummingbird