SULTAN HUSSAIN (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Members will recall that the former Minister for Information and the Arts had announced in this House on 12th March 1999 that the Government planned to develop a Malay Heritage Centre which would involve conserving and redeveloping the Istana Kampong Glam and the adjoining Lot 53.

Members will also recall that on 15th April 1999, I informed the House of the Government's proposed new payment scheme under the Sultan Hussain Ordinance. This Bill is to give effect to that proposed new scheme.

As I explained in this House on 15th April 1999, there are some 79 beneficiaries who are receiving payments under the Ordinance, many of whom are not residing in Singapore. Of those who are residents in Singapore, only a handful (14) are actually living in the former Istana Kampong Glam. The former Minister for National Development, Mr S Dhanabalan, had explained to this House on 12th March 1991 that the Kampong Glam Estate including the former Istana had reverted to the State as confirmed by the Court of Appeal in 1897.

The Sultan Hussain Ordinance was enacted to take care of the financial needs of the late Sultan Hussain's family at that time. Since then, the number of beneficiaries has steadily increased and the payments have been diminishing as the income from which the payments were made declined. The individual payments would become even smaller over time if the number of beneficiaries increases. The Government had therefore decided to implement a new scheme that would work to the advantage of the beneficiaries. Under this scheme, the Government will increase the amount of payment from the current level of $29,231 per annum to $350,000 per annum, which is more than 10 times the current annual payment. This revised sum will be maintained for a fixed period of 30 years, starting from this year. In addition, the Government will offer any beneficiary the option of receiving a lump sum payment up-front instead. The lump sum would be equivalent to the present value of the 30-year payment stream. From the beneficiaries' point of view, this would work out to be more advantageous than the current system of receiving a dwindling annual sum indefinitely.

The Land Office has informed all the beneficiaries of the proposed new scheme. So far, an overwhelming majority of 64 beneficiaries or 81% have informed the Land Office that they wish to opt for lump sum payment. When the amendments to the Ordinance come into force, payments can be made to the beneficiaries who have opted for a lump sum payment under the new scheme.

Sir, turning to the actual provisions of the Bill, new section 4A enables the establishment of the proposed new payment scheme.

The proposed scheme will apply to members of the family of the late Sultan Hussain who, before 4th May 1999, were receiving an annuity under the Ordinance.

New section 4A provides that sections 3 and 4 of the main Ordinance shall cease to have effect on the day the new scheme is established. What this means, Sir, is that the existing scheme of payments will cease upon the establishment of the new improved scheme.

The existing section 4 of the main Ordinance also contains the declaration that the lands in Kampong Glam were Crown lands. The amending Bill does not in any way derogate from the legislative effect of that declaration. That declaration had come into effect when the Ordinance was enacted in 1904. The lands remain as State lands.

The new section 4A also provides for regulations to be made for the detailed implementation of the new scheme.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Information and the Arts (Encik Yatiman Yusof) (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to join in the debate. I support the proposed Sultan Hussain (Amendment) Bill 1999 tabled by the Minister for Law and wish to give my opinion on the Malay Heritage Centre project.

The Minister for Law, in his speech in Parliament on 15th April, mentioned about the new payment scheme under the Sultan Hussain Ordinance. Today's debate is held to pass the Ordinance. I support that this scheme be enforced for the benefit of its recipients.

I am happy when I heard the Minister's statement that the majority (64 people or 81%) of the descendants had informed the Land Office that they had opted to receive lump sum payments. I believe they have made careful consideration on the advantage of the option over annual payments. The increasing number of descendants and inflation have caused the annual payments to decrease to an insignificant sum. They must have definitely considered this point.

Mr Speaker, in my opinion, the offer under the new scheme is very attractive, especially on the lump sum payment option. At a rough estimate, the payment under the new scheme, if paid annually, will total about $10.5 million. (This is based on an annuity of $350,000 annually for 30 years.) If shared among 79 people, it means every person will receive about $133,000 each. We are also told that a majority of them do not even live in Singapore. (If some of them live in Malaysia, this means that they will receive about RM$295,000).

The amount is not small. I am confident that such a hefty sum is offered based on the Government's spirit of goodwill towards the descendants. This is in accordance with the original spirit of the formulation of the Sultan Hussain Ordinance, which is to meet the financial needs of the late Sultan Hussain and his descendants.

Mr Speaker, the main issue that emerges from this proposed amendment is actually connected to new section 4 which retains the declaration that lands, as mentioned in one part of the old section 4, in the Kampong Glam area remain as lands belonging to the British government (Crown lands). The Minister has said that the Bill that was tabled does not in any way derogate from the legislative effect of that part of section 4 which states that these lands are Crown lands. This section took effect when the Ordinance was drawn up a long time ago and hence, these lands now remain as State land.

In my opinion, the legal position, whether of the original law or the amended one, is clear, that these lands are no longer the property of any descendants of Sultan Hussain. This was decided by the Court of Appeal in 1897 and remains effective today. As far as I am aware, the legitimacy has never been challenged in court in the last 100 years.

Although the issue is very clear, I am disappointed to find that there are certain quarters in Malaysia who have taken the opportunity to try to confuse public opinion in their own interest and for their own benefit. I refer to Malaysian TV and print media that distort facts, coming up with what is not there and burying the truth. After the Government announced the Kampong Glam Malay Heritage Centre project, it seems that the media in that country is very enthusiastic in having coverage of the issue. What disappoints me is that most of the news reported are not true. Among those reported are, first, and I quote:

'Residents also reject the government's offer to pay US$350,000 (RM782,340) to them in the period of 30 years.' - Utusan Malaysia, 3rd May 1999, page 19. This is totally incorrect. The actual amount is S$350,000 per year for 30 years, and the total amount is estimated at S$10.5 million.

Second, that the Istana Kampong Glam, "Singapore's last Malay bastion will be destroyed" - front page of Utusan Malaysia, 13th May 1999. We, in Singapore, know that the Government will spend millions of dollars to conserve and restore Istana Kampong Glam as a Malay Heritage Centre.

Third, Mingguan Malaysia dated 9th May 1999, pages 24 and 25, published a two-page article entitled "The disappearance of Singapore's Malay bastion" and "300 descendants of Sultan Hussain refuse to move out to preserve the historical heritage of the Malay sultanate." It quoted someone saying that the Istana Kampong Glam project would end and erase the historical heritage of the Singapore Malay sultanate. Fourth, Utusan Malaysia, 14th May 1999, published a letter from a reader named Zia-Ul-Arief with a sensational news headline, "Singapore wants the history of Malay supremacy to vanish" on page 7. Let me quote some of the fiery words used:

'The Istana Kampong Glam episode in Singapore is a tragic incident about the fate of the Malay race. It is not about an old building being demolished for development purposes but a final episode to eliminate the history of Malay supremacy in Singapore."

I further quote:

'Singapore's intention to build the Singapore Malay Heritage Centre is merely an excuse. To it, the Malays have no right to step in Singapore.'

I further quote:

'Finally, the Malays in Temasek will disappear with time.'

Another quote:

'The Malay community must realise and understand. If the Malay race is destroyed, our supremacy in this country will vanish. Perhaps the words of Hang Tuah that 'the Malays will not disappear from the world' will not be a reality in Temasek and our homeland.'

Mr Speaker, I find such words are highly inflammatory.

Fifth, Awang Sulung in his column Bisik-bisik or Whispers in Utusan Malaysia and Utusan Melayu dated 4th June, made these comments:

'As expected, the descendants of Sultan Hussain Shah who live in Istana Kampong Glam in Singapore will not be able to bear up for long in their struggle to defend their istana. Instead, they will have to be content with some compensation that does not match their position as descendants of the sultan. Therefore, they have to move from a "palace" to ordinary people's flat. Thus, that is the end of the last symbol of Malay supremacy in the republic once known as Temasek. Nothing can change the situation. The glory of the past will only remain a sad memory. What could be useful to ponder now at this sad moment is why the Singapore Malays become like that.'

Sixth, the word "seize" was used repeatedly in several of their reports. A commentator of the Analisis programme by TV3 which was telecast on Wednesday, 30th June at 7.30 pm, which could be viewed by Singaporeans, made the same allegation. The TV programme commentator accused the development of the Malay Heritage Centre as "a subtle move to abolish the only symbol of Malay glory in Singapore." Mr Speaker, these allegations and statements are untruths.

Seventh, the TV3 commentator also claimed that, "the Singapore Government suddenly seized the Istana and evicted the approximately 300 residents around the Istana." She added by saying, "the now powerless descendants of Sultan Hussain are being trapped by the PAP's urbanisation and resettlement policies. It is made an excuse to acquire the Malay sultanate land or clearly, Malay rights." Sir, this is gross mispresentation of facts. The fact is that the former Minister for Information and the Arts, BG George Yeo, had announced the formation of a committee to study the development of the Istana Kampong Glam as a Malay Heritage Centre as early as seven years ago. As far as I can remember, the number of residents of Istana Kampong Glam that are affected by the resettlement is 170 persons, not 300, as claimed. Why do they have to lie? Mr Speaker, we know what is going on by the look of things.

Eighth, is it appropriate for Zain Mahmud, an ex-senior officer in the former Radio and Television Singapore who is now a Malaysian citizen, to write in MASSA (issue of 26th June 1999) saying, "Singapore forces the heirs of the former Sultan of Singapore to break up and move to flats to enable the inherited Istana to be made into a Malay Heritage Centre. Could this be seen as a move to put the Malays into the museum?" Are these words not mischievous, to say the least?

Mr Speaker, the list of media reports which I quoted earlier shows that they have an axe to grind. The setting up of the Malay Heritage Centre at Istana Kampong Glam is part of Singapore's national project. The problem arising from the resettlement of Istana Kampong Glam's residents is an internal affair of Singapore. Such false and distorted articles on sensitive matters, on our internal matters are trying to sow the seed of discord and stir up ill feelings between races in a multi-racial Singapore. Singaporeans have to be vigilant against such attempts. We in Singapore must not be trapped by their remarks because we in Singapore know the facts, and are aware of the truth.

Mr Speaker, let me add that these acts of interference in our internal affairs were made at a time when their leaders and their media took exception and strongly criticised the Business Times editorial recently, while at the same time they were doing what they were condemning. Is this not sheer hypocrisy or double standards?

The setting up of the Malay Heritage Centre has actually received wide support of the Malay community. Allow me to quote the words of Haji Ridzwan Dzafir, the Chairman of the Malay Heritage Foundation, last Friday in Berita Harian:

'The Malay community accepts the proposal well. This is a major opportunity for us to develop a Malay Heritage Centre based on our own knowledge, and we will also invite Malay experts in all areas of history. We will surely be able to manage it well.'

I have not actually heard the Malay population in Singapore expressing their displeasure on the Malay Heritage Centre project in Istana Kampong Glam. The willingness of distinguished, highly qualified and independent-minded professionals to sit on the Board of Directors of the Malay Heritage Centre is proof of the strong support of the Malay community for the project.

Mr Speaker, we should not lose sight of the underlying reasons for the setting up of the Malay Heritage Centre and why the Istana Kampong Glam was chosen as the site. The Malay Heritage Centre is intended to complement the museums of the National Heritage Board. It will capture the history and cultural heritage of the Malays in Singapore and trace its linkages with kinsmen in this region and beyond. Personally, I see it as our way of showing respect for the past, including the history of the Malay sultanate, just as we appreciate our past by not changing the names of our roads and streets, because they are part of our heritage. It is also our way of preserving our culture and heritage and to share it with fellow Singaporeans, people in this region and the world.

We should not forget that Istana Kampong Glam is located in the midst of a historic area bordered by Rochore Road, Beach Road, Jalan Sultan and Victoria Street. Its choice as the Malay Heritage Centre itself is an opportunity to turn it into a major landmark. For it was an area that had located the Malay Sultanate. It was also a place, the vicinity of which had witnessed the birth of Malay/Muslim entrepreneurs, businessmen, writers, printers, haj agencies, together with the rise of Muslim education centres, publishing houses, a place where songkoks were made, Malay leather slipper-making, polishing of diamonds, sailing and accommodation of travellers. It is the heartbeat of the Malays of the olden days. This is the spirit we wish to revive as we face the new millennium.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Harun bin A. Ghani (Hong Kah): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate.

I support the Sultan Hussain (Amendment) Bill proposed by the Minister for Law based on the explanation and clarification made by him when he brought forward the proposed Bill in Parliament.

After the proposal was read in Parliament, I went down to various coffeeshops, hawker centres and places of worship. I found out that not even one member of the Malay community in Singapore questioned the status of the Istana Kampong Glam. Only a handful of individuals wanted to know the type of compensation to be given to the rightful descendants of Sultan Hussain. The majority of them welcomed the proposal by the Minister for Law because the Malay community had long thought that the Government has to do something about Istana Kampong Glam. They also wanted to know whether the cost for refurbishing and preserving the Istana is sufficient and how the Malay community could raise funds for the Malay Heritage Centre.

In the meantime, I wish to pose several questions to the Minister for Law. Even though we have heard about the new payment scheme mentioned by Mr Yatiman Yusof, I believe that it would be much better if the Minister for Law himself could explain further.

(1) Am I right that the proposal made by the Minister is in accordance with the law and not based on the whims and fancies without taking any consideration of the interest of the descendants of Sultan Hussain?

(2) Is it true that the descendants of Sultan Hussain are forced to move out without being fairly compensated?

(3) Is it true that they have been poorly compensated? Perhaps the Minister can give us some information on the resettlement progress.

Sir, slanted and distorted reports in the newspapers and television in Malaysia, particularly a TV3 programme which was telecast on 30th June 1999, appear to have the objective of bringing about uncomfortable feelings among the Malay community. Also, there will be bad elements from those outside Singapore wanting to shake our racial harmony through their atrocious articles and statements.

Those who wish to do such a thing should realise that Singapore Malays value the importance of education and tertiary learning. Do not make the Malays as pawns in their game of chess. We have learnt a lot from past experience where the words "race" and "religion" had been used by certain quarters for their interest. The Singapore Malays are now open-minded and rational in their thinking.

The foreign media, whether in print or electronic, should not interfere with the internal affairs of Singapore. When Singapore newspapers made inadvertent mistakes in reporting about their country, not only their media were angry but also their leaders will condemn Singapore and insinuate about our leaders. It is best that the media of the said country find ways to overcome their problems pertaining to housing, drugs or the education of the Malay community as voiced out by their leaders.

The Singapore Malay community is aware of the game played by the media of our neighbour. Remember, the Singapore Malays are not the pawns in the game of chess of the said country.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Loh Meng See (Kampong Glam): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the amendment to the Sultan Hussain Ordinance.

Sir, as the Member of Parliament for Kampong Glam, obviously I have a very keen interest in the issue of this very sensitive and delicate nature.

In introducing the new scheme for the payment of annuity or commuted gratuity to the family of the late Sultan Hussain, the Government has increased the quantum from $250,000, last revised in 1991, to $350,000 this year. This amount is fixed for a period of 30 years. The eligible persons are also given the option of receiving a lump sum payment upfront. The next-of-kin or estate is assured of the annuity even on the death of the person eligible for payment.

It is well known from the long established records that the intention of the Sultan Hussain Ordinance enacted in 1904 was to take care of the financial needs of the family of the late Sultan Hussain at that time. I think the emphasis is "at that time". The then British Governor described them as "very improvident people". These payments were not intended to be in perpetuity but made only to the family of the late Sultan Hussain at the time the Ordinance was enacted.

The Government has been generous in continuing with the practice of paying the allowance even to the subsequent generations of the late Sultan Hussain's family. This payment of allowance should have stopped with the original family members at the time of 1904. Many descendants could have been better off over the years and are no longer improvident. Yet the Government continues to pay them the allowance irrespective of their wealth and status. A number of beneficiaries also no longer reside in Singapore, yet the Government gives them the allowance regardless of where they are. In fact, our Government has done more than meeting its basic legal obligations to the family of the late Sultan Hussain. The gesture and goodwill demonstrated by our Government reflects its care and concern for the well being of the late Sultan Hussain's family.

Sir, as my two colleagues have alluded to earlier about the Malaysian media, the Malaysian TV3 Malay programme, Viewpoint, did the interview with the Chairman of the Singapore Malay Heritage Foundation, Mr Ridzwan Dzafir on 10th June 1999. The topic discussed was the redevelopment of the former Istana Kampong Glam as the Malay Heritage Centre. I have the opportunity to read the full transcript of Mr Ridzwan's interview. It is amazing how TV3 has distorted a very candid and honest expression of the vision of the Malay Heritage Centre in Singapore. Through selective quotation, TV3 has done a great disservice to their Malay viewers both in Malaysia and Singapore. Clearly, the Malaysian TV channel has been mischievous, misleading and provocative.

As we are aware, the Malaysian political leaders took umbrage at the Business Times' editorial on the subject of political succession in Malaysia when commenting on the forthcoming Malaysian general elections. Singapore leaders must also express our disgust at TV3 for incorrectly and improperly depicting the redevelopment of Istana Kampong Glam to a Malay Heritage Centre as an issue of Malay rights. Perhaps, the Malaysian Malays are fearful that Singaporeans would do a better job in promoting Malay culture, history and tradition with our Malay Heritage Centre.

We in Singapore do not wish to interfere with the domestic politics in Malaysia. This is in line with what the Malaysian political leaders had asked our media not to interfere with theirs. The Chinese community in Singapore has been careful not to champion or speak out against the Malaysian authorities on Malaysian Chinese issues, whether on Kampong Cina or Chinese ancestral places in Malacca, Kuala Lumpur, Ipoh or Penang. It is important that the media on both sides be considerate not to interfere in the domestic politics in each neighbouring country.

I find it instructive to learn from the interview that many in the Malay community in Singapore are made up of Arab, Indian and even Chinese origins. Even as the Singapore Malay leaders express concern over the trend of young Malays knowing very little about Malay culture and history in Singapore, we also have a new generation of young non-Malay Singaporeans who do not speak and understand even simple Malay. The Malay Heritage Centre will not only serve to educate young Malays but will also promote better knowledge and understanding in the Malay heritage among Chinese, Indian and other Singaporeans. We must continue to work hard to promote and sustain the inter-racial harmony into the psyche of the future generations of Singaporeans.

Recently, a number of residents of Istana Kampong Glam have received resettlement notices. I wish to find out from the Minister the progress of the resettlement exercise of my Kampong Glam residents. Are all residents in Istana Kampong Glam eligible for their resettlement benefits? Will they be able to afford the HDB flats with the resettlement benefits given?

I hope the Minister can give us an update of the resettlement of the Istana Kampong Glam residents. 2.15 pm

Mr Zulkifli Bin Baharudin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

Sir, there have been many discussions, both in Singapore and quite surprisingly and cheekily across the Causeway, about the many implications of this Bill. But I would like to touch on a few issues that were not covered by perhaps the previous three speakers.

I agree with the overall intention of the Bill, that is, to support the overall conservation and preservation of the area, and specifically Istana Kampong Glam. But here I would like to give four points.

First, I think this is not about the interest of the descendants of the late Sultan Hussain. This is also not about the interest of the Malay community. I think this is about the interest of Singaporeans as a whole. All Singaporeans have an interest in that area, in Istana Kampong Glam, because it is our shared heritage of past history which we want to preserve, to reflect and share not only to record the historical developments of this country but also as preservation for our future generations. So this is about Singapore as a whole. The development of Singapore is not just the role played by Singaporeans. It has been played by many people in the region, including the Sultanate of Johor, who are still in Johor Baru, in Malaysia, including other people from India, from countries as far as Arabia, China, Myanmar, including the British interest. And here I want to make it clear that in the best interest of these people who are no longer Singaporeans, whether British interest or state of Johor and their descendants, the best is in keeping this interest alive, by making sure that the historical improvements, the redevelopment of the Malay Heritage Centre, are done well, that will reflect their role in the development of Singapore. To do otherwise, to sabotage and cast all types of allegations is not serving their best interest, let alone our own collective interest. And this is where I appeal to all parties who have made statements, including Singaporeans, to see this in a larger perspective.

The second point is that this project represents an opportunity. Some people have forgotten that, and that is, the whole purpose of the Heritage Centre cannot be achieved without the cooperation of the people I have mentioned, who have taken part in this historical development of Singapore. In order to make it more than just a museum, but a living archive of our past, we need the cooperation of the Sultanate of Johor and the many descendants all around to be part of this project. I think it represents a wonderful opportunity for all of us. That spirit of opportunity and cooperation has been lost because each of them has got his own specific interest.

The third point I want to stress is that there is also a role for the descendants themselves. I think there is fear that by the time they are compensated, and relocated, they do not have a role. Today, many of them are staying there. They actually, I understand, do still continue to practise some of their very unique court customs and traditions. And, really, I think they have a very large role to play in making sure that some of these customs and traditions are documented, and perhaps even at this stage, they can provide a consultative role in the process. But my sense is that if you really want to share with Singaporeans or with others who have an interest in Singapore about our past, what better way than to have people who are familiar with the customs and traditions, people who have linkages, either historical relations or family linkage, to really be part of the process, because they are the best persons to really share with Singaporeans what really took place, what are the customs and traditions. In the process, I think we can have a more effective way of teaching future generations about this.

Finally, my fourth point is that we cannot afford not to succeed. We must succeed. Some of the reservations expressed by the people and community is that, I must say quite frankly, the past project of the Malay Village has raised quite a lot of expectations. People wanted the Malay Village to serve exactly the same purpose that the Malay Heritage Centre is supposed to serve. But quite unfortunately, things did not quite work out the way it should be. To a lot of people in the community, they feel this is a last chance as there is no other parcel of land, no other location, where we could preserve this and do a very good exercise. Therefore, there is a lot of concern to make sure that it will succeed this time. I think to succeed, we must make sure that every available relevant person is involved, the resources of the state are also given, in the sense of expertise and funding, to make sure that we succeed in this exercise.

So I would just like to end by appealing to the Minister, in view of the four points I have mentioned, that perhaps he could help to get resources from the other neighbours that we have in Johor, and how we can borrow some of their historical annals and archives to preserve that. I understand that some are also in Riau. But, more importantly, are the other financial resources and the expertise that are currently available in Singapore.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M): Mr Speaker, Sir, I see two main impact of the proposed amendment:

First, to establish a new scheme of payment of up to $350,000 to be paid annually to the descendants of the late Sultan Hussain for up to 30 years, and allowing individual beneficiary to ask for a one-time commuted gratuity.

Second, to pave the way for the Istana Kampong Glam premises to be conserved and turned into a Malay Heritage Centre, a project, I am sure, Malays in Singapore and other Singaporeans happily welcome.

Sir, firstly, I would like to ask if the Minister could inform the House how much the proposed amendment is likely to cost the Government, aside from the $350,000 gratuity. There are resettlement benefits involved and resettling those who are still staying in the Istana compound. How soon are they likely to vacate the place and thus make way for the Malay Heritage Centre project?

Sir, I am asking these questions partly because I was informed that not all of them have agreed to accept the offer made by the Land Office. Some are even thinking of challenging the Government's right to conserve the place and turn it into a Heritage Centre. In fact, they believe that the Istana and the entire Kampong Glam estate should rightfully belong to the Sultan's descendants indefinitely. They maintain that it is not state land.

As far as I know, and to some extent explained by the Minister earlier, it has been over a century long now that the land in Kampong Glam, including the Istana compound, had reverted to the country - first as Crown land when we were under the British, and later as State land of independent Singapore. Sir, I would like to ask again whether this is an accurate explanation of the status of the land, and whether there are any disputes or grey areas involved here. I recall that sometime ago the Minister had stated the legal position of the land. Perhaps he should re-state it again so that the descendants and other Singaporeans could have a clearer picture on this issue.

Sir, I can say confidently that the Malay community in Singapore look forward to see an upgraded and improved Istana Kampong Glam. They are also waiting for the day that it becomes a heritage centre and hopefully play a major role in preserving and propagating the heritage of the community.

Geylang Serai may be regarded by many as an emotional umbilical cord of the Malays in Singapore. This is due to its recent history and the existence of a certain "Malay flavour" in the area. However, the real and actual important history of the Malays and Singapore emanated more from the Kampong Glam district.

On that account alone, I think the Government makes the right decision by choosing to conserve and upgrade this historical district. Generally, Singaporeans, including our Malay community leaders, accept the decision. Kampong Glam deserves to be awarded that position and status. We should also find more ways to bring life and add colour to the district.

However, Sir, the media in Malaysia, as mentioned by my esteemed colleague earlier, seem to see it differently, and I suspect with some dubious intention. The most recent example I could recall was a TV3 programme aired on 30th June 1999. I notice that TV3 and the other media in Malaysia were quite consistent in reporting that the whole exercise of setting up a heritage centre at the old Istana was intended to close permanently an important chapter of Singapore's history linked to the Malay kingdom which once ruled this island.

I do not know how such a thing could possibly be done. As far as I know, history cannot be changed. It is a well-known fact that Singapore was once part of the Johor-Riau sultanate, that we used to be administered from Kota Tinggi (the old capital of Johor) and from Riau. We also know that the powers of the last surviving sultan ended abruptly the day he transferred the administrative power of Singapura at that time to the hands of the British, I was told, for a meagre sum of $5,000.

On the contrary, if the core ideas of the plan outlined by the Malay Heritage Centre committee are implemented, I say it would only heighten our awareness about that part of Singapore's history and not closing it as a chapter of our history. The history of the Malay sultanate here and its linkage to the Malay kings in the region, form part of that history. In fact, all these could be brought back to life by way of exhibitions as well as through dance and drama performances. I was told there was even a plan to do further research into the different sub-ethnic or ethnic groups of the Malay community in Singapore and how they link up to the whole region.

The centre would provide Singaporeans from every racial group, including the younger generation of Malays, and even tourists from every nation, including Malaysians, a greater opportunity to have a better understanding of our history. When it is ready, I believe, a visitor could practically walk into our past and get a feel of it.

Sir, I think it is most unfair and misleading on the part of the media in Malaysia to portray the project in the most negative light. What they are saying is that because Singapore is not a Malay-majority state, it is only natural that the Government here will erase any trace or symbol of history linking this island to the Malay rulers of the past.

Sir, if at all it is true that the Government is race-biased and has ill-intentions against the Malays and their historical position in our country, I can assure you that I, and most likely all my Malay MP colleagues, would not be here in this House as a member of the Government.

The question is: is the Malaysian media trying to provoke the Malays in Singapore to be angry against our Government over this issue? Why are they against the fact that a Chinese-majority Singapore is making the effort and is willing to spend millions of dollars to set up a Malay Heritage Centre? If a similar effort is regarded as unthinkable in Malaysia, why should they say it is bad for us?

Why are they saying we want to eradicate Malay history and culture in Singapore when we are actually taking a step further to conserve Kampong Glam into a heritage centre and giving it the pulse it deserves? If a similar effort is regarded as not do-able in Malaysia, why should they say we should not venture into this?

Sir, the fact that almost all the media in Malaysia were saying about the same thing in this matter seems to suggest a planned salvo against Singapore. While such a wayang may be useful for a certain party to regain its lost ground, it is most unkind that in the same breath it tries to undermine that of another. It is strange and absurd to me, Sir, that while some Malaysian leaders are angry against a certain newspaper in Singapore, namely, the Business Times, and accusing it of interfering in Malaysian domestic affairs, the media in Malaysia have almost simultaneously and blatantly interfered in the internal affairs of Singapore.

Sir, we have our heritage and we have every right to preserve it. And just as the various communities in Malaysia, I am sure, can look after themselves, we can look after ourselves and protect our interest. Outsiders should not interfere. And worse still, Sir, if they employ misleading reports to create an air of distrust and suspicion of the Malays here towards our Government.

From what I know, following our separation from Malaysia, there was tacit agreement that we do not try to influence each other's domestic ground. And for that reason, our respective newspapers do not circulate in each other's country. It may be necessary to say that greater care should be applied to television which can transcend borders. It is also a more powerful medium in influencing and affecting the emotions of its viewers. That is why the recent TV3 programme is a gross interference in our domestic affairs. I thought the tacit agreement between the two countries in 1965 was a sensible one and should be adhered to closely, especially as it concerns matters of race in two closely linked independent states. I hope that the media in both countries will bear this in mind.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Chng Hee Kok (East Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Sultan Hussain (Amendment) Bill. I also share the sentiments and views of my hon. colleagues.

Sir, unfortunately, the Malaysian media, especially TV3, have chosen to join in this debate. TV3 is a private and politically connected television station in Malaysia. In its Malay broadcast, which my colleagues have mentioned in Viewpoint on 30th June 1999, the programme and the presenter deliberately and selectively slanted the report on this issue. It has gone to the extent of accusing the Singapore Government of taking away Malay rights. The interview of Mr Ridzwan Dzafir was edited to fit in with their slant reporting. Facts which Mr Ridzwan Dzafir took great pains to state in the full transcript, which I read, were ignored.

Sir, had this been a Singapore media report on Malaysia, it would have caused no less than an uproar. When the Business Times penned an editorial on 18th June 1999 on the subject of the Malaysian election and its leadership, the event caused a storm. Malaysia's Foreign Minister, Syed Hamid Albar, was reported to have told Asiaweek that "it is appalling that a paper from a friendly country should take upon itself to meddle in our internal politics."

Sir, if the TV3 broadcast is not more than meddling in our internal affairs, then what is? We do not tell the Malaysians how to run their country. They should do likewise. Unfortunately, Malaysian politicians and their media indulge in double standards. They act as if they have a monopoly and a right to criticise and make comments about Singapore as it suits them. Just this very morning, there is a report in the Straits Times and the headline reads "Singapore rapped for looking down on Malaysia". The commentary in Sunday's Mingguan Malaysia by the former Chief Editor of the Utusan Malaysian group criticised the so-called media, our media, of course, and SM's negative views on Malaysia.

Sir, the short response is that this is sheer paranoia. There is nothing further from the truth. It is in Singapore's interest to see a prosperous Malaysia, and we have stated in no uncertain terms and on many occasions that we believe and act no less on the "prosper thy neighbour" philosophy. Nothing hurts Singapore socially and economically more than a troubled Malaysia. When Malaysia sneezes, Singapore catches the flu.

Implying that Singaporeans can be easily manipulated by western powers, the commentary goes on to play the "foreign" card, which is very popularly used in Malaysia these days, especially in the last two years. To say that the west is more comfortable with SM Lee and not so with the "anti-western Dr Mahathir" is in my view laughable. Everyone knows that SM Lee has more than his share of detractors in the west and in the western media with the likes of William Safire. It is only SM's intellect that has earned him and Singapore grudging respect.

Sir, negative reports on Singapore in the Malaysian media are often received with stoic silence in Singapore. Singapore leaders and Singaporeans who are riled often take it quietly in our stride. We cannot choose our neighbours, but we can choose the way we respond to intimidation and bullying tactics. But the report on TV3 on the Sultan Hussain (Amendment) Bill takes a dangerous and provocative line, and this has to be debunked. This my colleagues have done so.

Sir, Singapore's response to the Business Times' editorial, which I mentioned earlier, is a criticism of the Business Times by our Prime Minister. Will a Malaysian leader do likewise with the TV3 report?

Encik Ibrahim bin Othman (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, like my colleagues, I wish to seek clarification from the Minister in regard to the legal status of the land at Istana Kampong Glam. Just now, in his speech, the Minister has confirmed that it is State land since 1897. The question is: if it is State land, why is it that the Government is providing annual payments of monies to the beneficiaries of the late Sultan Hussain? Are there avenues for these beneficiaries to claim that the land belongs to them and not to the Government? Are there any attempts by them, through legal channels, to stake their claims?

Sir, I ask all these questions because there have been some statements made by some beneficiaries, as reported in the foreign media, that the land still belongs to them and that the Singapore Government suddenly confiscated Istana Kampong Glam and chased out about 300 residents.

Next, Sir, I wish to ask the Government's stand with regard to the distorted reports from the foreign media, as mentioned by my colleagues just now. There have been many mischievous reports from the foreign media accusing the Government of trying to erase the last symbol of the Malay Sultanate in Singapore and also to erase the history of the Malays in Singapore. This statement is very mischievous. My question is: what is the Government going to do to correct this distorted picture? Personally, I strongly object to the interference from the foreign media with regard to our local matters, especially pertaining to the Malays in Singapore. The examples given by Mr Yatiman in his speech is a clear move by some foreign media to meddle in our internal affairs.

Finally, Sir, I wish to ask the Minister about the progress on the resettlement process of the tenants of Istana Kampong Glam. Are the Government agencies giving them assistance to facilitate their move to their new homes?

Sir, the very generous offer by the Government to the 79 beneficiaries of the late Sultan Hussain is much appreciated. Apart from receiving monetary payments, tenants of Istana Kampong Glam who are eligible would be getting their own flats and be able to live in a better environment as compared to their living environment now. But above all, the most important aspect is the noble intention of the Government to establish a Malay Heritage Centre at Istana Kampong Glam. This Heritage Centre will portray the Malay culture, arts, history, traditions and everything that is related to the Malays in Singapore. I am sure the future generation will be able to gather more information with regard to the Malays, including the Malay Sultanate, before the arrival of Sir Stamford Raffles in 1819.

Sir, the Malays are proud of the history of the Malay Sultanate in Singapore. However, that era is now part of our history. The Malays now look towards the future with confidence in a meritocratic Singapore. While some hearts still hold for the golden past, the Malays are now more realistic and want to move along with the mainstream to face the challenges of the new millennium.

Sir, I support this Bill as it will benefit not only the Malays but, most importantly, all races in Singapore because the Malay Heritage Centre shall be a part of the heritage of a multi-racial Singapore.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the Members who have spoken - Mr Yatiman Yusof, Mr Harun Ghani, Mr Loh Meng See, Mr Zulkifli Baharudin, Mr Mohamad Maidin, Mr Chng Hee Kok and Encik Ibrahim Othman. Let me touch on the points that they have raised.

First, the matter of clarifying the legal aspects which some of my colleagues, Mr Yatiman Yusof, Mr Mohamad Maidin and Encik Ibrahim Othman, referred to. I have already outlined the legal position at a previous sitting but in response to the questions raised by Members, let me reiterate that the legal position is very clear. In fact, the former Minister for National Development, Mr Dhanabalan, said in this House on 15th April 1989, and I quote:

"In 1896 towards the end of the last century, there was a dispute among the family of Sultan Hussain as to who was the successor to the Sultanate and to the estate, ie, the Kampong Glam Estate. This matter went to court and in December 1897, the Court of Appeal ruled that there was no one who could claim to be successor. The estate therefore reverted to the Crown. It became State Land and it was no longer subject to the treaties which previously affected it."

Since then, Sir, that is for more than 100 years, the Kampong Glam Estate, including the former Istana, has been State Land. Furthermore, this legal position has been made very clear in the Sultan Hussain Ordinance, which was enacted in 1904. The Ordinance, Sir, (and I am referring to the main Ordinance, not to the amendment Bill) has several provisions which reiterate this position. For example, section 2, and I quote, "The said land situate in Kampong Glam having reverted to the Crown shall be administered by the Collector of Land Revenue in the same manner as other Crown lands."

And section 4 reads, "If the said lands in Kampong Glam which are hereby declared to have reverted to the Crown as decided by the Court of Appeal of the Colony."

The legal position is very clear that these have been and are State lands. In answer to the specific questions by Encik Ibrahim Othman on why we have the annual payment, as I have stated in my main speech today as well as in the previous sitting, it was especially provided for in the Ordinance as an obligation of the Government to pay. But as I also said in this House the rationale was to take care of the then family of the late Sultan Hussain who was described by the Government at that time as being financially improvident. So, that was the background to that.

I was asked by some who spoke about the progress on resettlement of occupants. I would say, Sir, that the resettlement exercise is proceeding well. Of course, this process takes time because the Land Office has to identify and ascertain who were the occupants and who are eligible for resettlement benefits. For example, I was told that a few who were staying there were foreign workers. Some are eligible for certain kinds of benefits and some are eligible for lesser benefits. Some were occupants of HDB flats or were actually in ownership of HDB flats. Under the normal rules for resettlement, we have to assess their different eligibility.

As to whether the resettlement payments and benefits will enable them to pay the downpayment for HDB flats, in my discussion with my officials, I was assured that those who would qualify for HDB flats would have the ability to pay for whatever initial payments for the HDB flats.

As to the progress of the resettlement exercise, as of today, the Land Office has processed the majority of cases and almost three-quarters, some 122 out of the 170 individuals, have already accepted the resettlement package and have moved out or are in the process of moving out.

I was asked about the cost and expenses to the Government. The final cost of the annual improved payments will actually depend on how many finally opt for annual payment and how many opt for the lump sum payments. Taking into account the number of people who have opted for lump sum payment, the new scheme may cost the Government close to $6 million at today's value. But the Government also incurs cost as regards the resettlement benefits but I am unable now, in this House, to state exactly what the cost will be as the exercise is still in progress and individual claims are not identical. But we expect it to be around $1.5 million.

Mr Zulkifli Baharudin made some comments about the Malay Heritage Centre which will be taken into account, I am sure, by both MITA as well as the Malay Heritage Foundation. He made some specific points on the need for involving other descendants, the need for being open to cooperation from different quarters and different sources. I have had a discussion with Mr Ridzwan Dzafir and from these discussions I have a clear impression that he is a man receptive to ideas and suggestions from all quarters and I have no doubt that, with that kind of willingness, he will be prepared to consider cooperation and ideas from all sources, whether within Singapore or outside, as to how to make the Malay Heritage Centre a truly, lively and effective heritage centre.

Let me turn to the other main points raised by colleagues concerning the comments, false reports, distorted reports and even mischievous reports which have appeared in the Malaysian media, including the more recent TV3 programme. Let me recount some of these false allegations and distortions.

Firstly, it had been erroneously reported that the Istana building will be demolished. This is of course untrue. Not only it is not to be demolished, but the building will be conserved and used for purposes of the Malay Heritage Centre. This has been made clear right from the beginning.

Secondly, it was erroneously reported that the beneficiaries would receive a total of only $350,000. This again is not true. The truth is that they would get $350,000 per annum over 30 years, if it is on an annual payment scheme.

Thirdly, some reports also stated the Government had "suddenly seized the land and evicted the 300 residents". As Mr Yatiman Yusof pointed out, it is not 300, but 170. But the main sting of this mischief is that we suddenly seized the land. This is also untrue. The Government had, on several occasions, as far back as 1993, announced in this House, the Government's plan to develop the Istana Kampong Glam into a Malay Heritage Centre. In May 1993, the then Minister for Information and the Arts, my colleague, BG George Yeo, informed the House that Mr Ridzwan Dzafir was chairing a working group to look into this project. So, it is untrue to say it was "sudden". Furthermore, no one has been suddenly evicted because normal resettlement procedures have been followed, giving everyone ample time to make arrangements. Also, as I have mentioned, the Kampong Glam Estate has been State land for more than 100 years. The question of the Government "seizing" the land therefore does not arise.

I spoke about the resettlement exercise. Some of these Malaysian media reports had distorted the facts about the resettlement scheme and gave the impression that they were being evicted without any resettlement benefit. Mr Harun Ghani asked me about this. Sir, the truth is that the occupants have been offered attractive resettlement benefits which include alternative HDB housing, removal allowances, payment for individual structures in the vicinity of the Istana from which they are vacating and also ex-gratia payments. The media reports in Malaysia have also conveniently ignored or omitted the fact that the project was to establish the Malay Heritage Centre which would benefit not only the Malay community but also preserve Singapore's multi-cultural heritage. Several MPs, Mr Zulkifli, Mr Loh Meng See and others, have emphasised the important point that this is not an issue of just preserving the Malay heritage, but the heritage centre is a project which is going to benefit the entire Singapore community. It is a symbol of our shared heritage.

Members have also referred to the recent TV3 programme which is a good example of suppression of facts. TV3 interviewed Mr Ridzwan Dzafir, Chairman of the Malay Heritage Foundation. However, it suppressed the important points made by Mr Ridzwan. For example, Mr Ridzwan had said, "the Malay community greatly welcomes the Malay Heritage Centre." This was not carried by TV3. He also said, "Regarding the land or Istana Kampong Glam and the Bendadara House, they have become State land for almost 100 years so it is not a problem for the Government here.". This was also not carried.

TV3 had also mischievously portrayed the development of the Malay Heritage Centre "as an excuse to acquire the Malay sultanate land", deny Malay rights and "erase the history of the Malays". How can the intention be to erase the history of the Malays when so much efforts and so much money have been expended by the Government to preserve and project the heritage of the Malays, which is part and parcel of the Singapore heritage?

Sir, I therefore share the views of Members that such irresponsible and mischievous media reports amount to interference in our internal affairs.

These media reports have deliberately distorted and played up the facts of a sensitive racial internal issue, without regard to the possible damage to the racial harmony and social stability in Singapore. They could have easily worked up our Malay ground, caused ill feelings between the different communities and soured race relations. Fortunately, Sir, the facts were well publicised and known to all Singaporeans so that these slanted reports failed to provoke a response from Singaporeans or to damage our racial harmony.

Sir, recently Malaysian media and others had accused the Singapore Business Times (BT) of interfering in Malaysia's internal affairs by commenting on political developments there. Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong's Press Secretary wrote to the BT to put on record the Government's disapproval of the BT editorial in question. As the Members who have spoken have pointed out, non-interference cannot be a one-sided matter. The Malaysian media should not practise double standards. They should heed their own advice and refrain from interfering in Singapore's internal affairs.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. S Jayakumar].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.25 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.00 pm until 3.25 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.25 pm