Remarks by Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Law & Ministry of Transport, Mr Murali Pillai SC at the Book Launch of The Singapore Torrens System After Baalman
4 September 2026 Posted in Speeches
From Mysterious to Indefeasible:
The Transformation of Land in Singapore
The Honourable Justice of the Court of Appeal, Justice Ang Cheng Hock
Dean of the Singapore Management University Yong Pung How School of Law, and Lee Kong Chian Professor of Law, Lee Pey Woan
Chief Executive of the Singapore Academy of Law, Yeong Zee Kin
Associate Dean of Yong Pung How School of Law, and Associate Professor of Law, Edward Ti
Distinguished guests,
Ladies and gentlemen,
Introduction
1. Good afternoon – delighted to meet colleagues today.
2. Thank you, Professor Lee Pey Woan, for your opening remarks. Many thanks too, to the SMU Yong Pung How School of Law and the Singapore Academy of Law for the opportunity to join you today.
3. We are here to mark the launch of The Singapore Torrens System After Baalman, a book which builds upon John Baalman’s landmark 1961 treatise and brings it forward across more than six decades of legislative development and judicial decision-making.
4. I congratulate Associate Professor Edward Ti, the Consulting Editors Mr TPB Menon and Professor Tang Hang Wu – my old friend – and all who contributed to this book.
5. The subsequent segments of today’s programme will examine the book in greater depth. In my remarks, I want to take a step back — to look at the Singapore Torrens System through a wider lens and ask what it tells us about Singapore’s approach to the Rule of Law, and indeed how it has made a difference to the lives of ordinary Singaporeans – from the assurance of their property rights if they owned a home, to the facilitation of a transaction should they wish to sell it.
SGLaw200 and Singapore’s Approach to Legal Development
6. This year marks, as most of us know, the 200th anniversary of the Second Charter of Justice of 1826, which laid the institutional foundations of Singapore’s modern legal system. We are commemorating this bicentennial as “SGLaw200” — an occasion to reflect not only on those origins, but on how Singapore has progressively adapted its legal system to meet our own needs, our own circumstances, and our values.
7. The law is a “live” document in the Singapore story, a story of a small, densely populated, and multiracial society.
8. The Singapore Torrens System is a compelling illustration of that story. Transplanted from South Australia in 1956, it has been shaped through decades of legislative refinement and judicial development. Today, it plays a crucial role in a city-state where land is scarce, property ownership matters deeply, and confidence in land transactions is essential.
The Singapore Torrens System — From the Deeds System to Indefeasibility
9. Let me say a word about what came before the Torrens system — and why the change mattered so much. In the beginning, land was mysterious. Under the old Deeds system, a purchaser of land could not simply look at a single document and know that the title was good. He had to trace the chain of ownership backwards through a series of deeds, sometimes spanning many decades, to satisfy himself that each transfer of ownership was valid. This is highly inconvenient to say the least.
10. But it gets worse. Under the Deeds system, registration is not compulsory. This made tracing the ownership in title difficult as not all deeds were properly registered. The Deeds system also allowed claims of unregistered interests in land to surface. A purchaser would therefore have to face the daunting possibility of a third party making a claim to the land.
11. Land was therefore mysterious and shaky. These ambiguities were only removed under the Torrens system where title only passes upon registration of the transfer.
12. These were not edge cases. They were common occurrences in a system that placed the burden of investigation squarely on the purchaser, with no guarantee that even the most diligent search would uncover every risk.
13. The Torrens system addressed this directly. At its heart is the indefeasibility of title, backed by three key principles:
a. First, the mirror principle — which means that our land titles register should accurately reflect all interests in the land;
b. Second, the curtain principle — a purchaser need not look behind the register; and
c. Third, the insurance principle — where the system causes loss, there is a mechanism for compensation. {:start="14"} 14. Section 46 of the Land Titles Act 1993 (“**the Act**”) provides that the registered proprietor of land holds that title free from all encumbrances, liens, estates, and interests whatsoever, except those recorded on the register and the overriding interests specified in the Act. {:start="15"} 15. Once title is registered, it is conclusive. In addition, registration is compulsory and title only passes upon registration of the documents lodged. A purchaser who takes title in good faith and for valuable consideration is protected — he need not look behind the register, and he need not fear that some defect in an earlier transaction will unravel his ownership. {:start="16"} 16. The register became not merely a record, but also a guarantee — and this is backed by an assurance fund that provides compensation where persons suffer loss through omission, mistake, or misfeasance in the registration process. {:start="17"} 17. Over the years, we have continued to innovate. When the Act was first enacted in 1960, there were provisions to enable the Registrar of Titles to convert land under the Deeds system to the Titles system when: first, deeds were presented for registration, second, land was granted development approval and third, when an owner applied for conversion. {:start="18"} 18. However, the number of lots converted under these provisions was low. Hence the Act was amended in 1993 to allow the Registrar of Titles to convert all land under the Deeds system based on deeds already registered in the Register of Deeds. {:start="19"} 19. Also, the Registrar was given the power to permit entire developments comprising flats with leases registered under the Deeds system on unregistered land to enter the Titles system, and to issue a subsidiary certificate of title for leases in respect of the units in a building. {:start="20"} 20. The third innovation relates to qualified folios with automatic lapse of cautions - this converts qualified titles to fully indefeasible titles after the statutory period even without post-conversion sales. {:start="21"} 21. The Titles Conversion project was completed in 2001 with more than 90% of the land converted at that time. {:start="22"} 22. To date, 99.97% of land in Singapore has been brought under the Act. Virtually 100%. What is left behind includes land that has been set aside for roads, drains or parks. The relevant government agencies will eventually arrange for these lots to be vested in the State. **Adaptation to the Singapore Context** {:start="23"} 23. These innovations did not take place just for reasons of efficiency and utility. Our adaptation of the Torrens system has been guided by a clear policy imperative: that we must be able to ensure the optimisation of the use of Singapore's limited land. {:start="24"} 24. In Singapore, land matters more than in most other countries. Land is not merely a private economic asset— it is a national resource in a very real sense. If I may remind us all – that our reserves are funded by the proceeds of land sales, and the investment returns income funds much of our national budget every year. {:start="25"} 25. Our land administration framework must therefore be designed not only to protect individual rights, but to support the efficient and confident use of land across the whole of Singapore. {:start="26"} 26. I will illustrate this through three examples. **_Example 1: Protecting the Register: Adverse Possession_** {:start="27"} 27. **The first example concerns adverse possession**. When the Act was re-enacted in 1993, it dealt away with the acquisition of title to registered land through adverse possession. {:start="28"} 28. Under the common law concept of adverse possession, if a person occupies someone else's land openly and continuously for a prolonged period of time – typically twelve years – without the owner's permission, he could claim legal ownership of that land. In plain terms: if you squatted on someone's land long enough, the law would eventually recognise you as the owner. This doctrine still applies in some countries like Australia. {:start="29"} 29. But, in Singapore, this makes little sense in our context as a small, densely developed city-state where every plot of land matters. The concept of adverse possession is likely to cause disputes between neighbours, and our view is that it is not right to acquire title to other people’s property in this way. {:start="30"} 30. Section 50 of the Act now provides that no person may acquire title to registered land by adverse possession. A registered owner is a registered owner — and no level of occupation by another person can change that. {:start="31"} 31. This also reinforces the core promise of the Torrens system: that the register is a guarantee, not merely a record. And it does so in a way specifically calibrated to Singapore's circumstances as a land-scarce city-state. **_Example 2: Enabling Greater Utility of Land: Court-Ordered Easements_** {:start="32"} 32. **The second example takes us in a related but distinct direction. If the first example is about protecting what the register says, this one is about ensuring that land can actually be put to its most effective utility**. {:start="33"} 33. Consider this scenario. A plot of land is landlocked — it has no direct access to a public road. The owner wants to develop it but needs a right of way across his neighbour's land. The neighbour refuses. The land sits undeveloped. In a land-scarce city like Singapore, that is a real and significant loss. {:start="34"} 34. Singapore's response is section 97A of the Act, which was introduced in 2014 to empower the court to create an easement over registered land where that easement is reasonably necessary for the effective use or development of neighbouring land — even without the consent of the landowner whose land will be burdened, provided that: first, the use will not be inconsistent with the public interest, second, the burdened landowner can be adequately compensated, and third, all reasonable attempts have first been made to obtain the easement directly from that landowner. The court may also vary or extinguish existing easements. {:start="35"} 35. This amendment to the Act reflects a clear-eyed recognition that in a city-state where land is scarce, the inability of private parties to reach agreement should not stand in the way of land being put to its most productive use. Where negotiation fails, the law provides a path forward — one that is fair to all parties, but that keeps Singapore's land working. No doubt, the Benthamites amongst us would be very cheered by this approach. **_Example 3: Xpress Print Pte Ltd v Monocrafts Pte Ltd and another [2000]_** {:start="36"} 36. **Finally, the third example captures the duty of support that landowners have towards their neighbours’ properties, especially given Singapore’s intensive land use.** {:start="37"} 37. In _Xpress Print Pte Ltd v Monocrafts Pte Ltd and another_ \[2000\], a case that Professor Edward Ti has dealt with in some detail in his book, the appellant and the 1_st_ respondent owned adjacent plots of land. The 2_nd_ respondent, a contractor, was engaged to construct a building on the 1_st_ respondent’s land and erected a temporary retaining wall between the two plots of land. After excavation on the 1_st_ respondent’s land began, cracks formed along the driveway of the appellant’s building and water pipes underneath the driveway burst. The appellant claimed against the respondents for wrongful interference of support and nuisance. {:start="38"} 38. The Court of Appeal eventually found the 1_st_ respondent under a duty to support the appellant’s property, including any buildings on it. The proposition that a landowner might excavate his land with impunity, without regard to his neighbour’s building and property, was inimical to a society which respected citizens’ property rights. {:start="39"} 39. Critically, the Court of Appeal noted, and I quote: “\[w\]e acknowledge that in imposing a strict duty on landowners we are going further than our learned colleagues in the Commonwealth cases cited above, but the law **_must adapt itself to modern conditions and local policies_** …”. {:start="40"} 40. Together, these examples – which are covered in detail in _The Singapore Torrens System After Baalman_ – illustrate a consistent thread. Whether the question is protecting a registered owner’s rights to his or her property or ensuring that a landlocked plot can be developed despite a neighbour's refusal, the answer has always been shaped by the same imperative: that our legal system must ensure that Singapore's limited land can be used to its fullest potential. **Closing** {:start="41"} 41. The Torrens System is where Singapore's approach to legal development meets the demands of everyday life. With decades of careful adaptation, we have turned land – away from its mysterious, shaky beginnings into a firm, indefeasible foundation for the homes we own and the rights we rely on. It is a living system — written into our laws, tested in our courts, and maintained through trusted institutions like the Singapore Land Authority. {:start="42"} 42. SGLaw200 invites us to look back with pride at what two centuries of legal development have produced. But its deeper invitation is to look forward with purpose — to ask how we continue to develop our legal system for the next two centuries. {:start="43"} 43. I hope _The Singapore Torrens System After Baalman_ serves both purposes: as a record of where we have come from, and as a strong foundation for where we go next. {:start="44"} 44. Congratulations, once again, to SAL, SMU, Associate Professor Edward Ti, and to all who contributed. I wish everyone a fruitful and stimulating session ahead. {:start="45"} 45. Thank you.
Last updated on 4 September 2026