S Jayakumar
Singapore
“It is well and good for countries to announce various targets and emissions. But one vexing issue ultimately is: what will be the method for verifying compliance with each country's announced measures? Another vexing issue, of course, is the issue of financing.”
“I would appreciate it if she were to give me some specifics of the negative feedback. But the general feedback I have had about our judiciary, both of the Supreme Court and the Subordinate Courts, has been nothing but positive.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the information that I have is that there is always medical advice present when caning is administered and that if the medical opinion is that caning cannot proceed beyond a certain point, that medical opinion will be observed and the caning will not proceed.”
“Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport in view of the recent announcement to make immediate improvements to the public transport system (a) whether the Ministry has set a timeline for the increase in frequency of feeder bus services; and (b) whether the Ministry can immediately target such services that are currently running at…”
“SCDF will continue to work with HDB and other relevant agencies to ensure that such older buildings with one exit staircase meet the prevailing fire safety requirements when they undergo major renovation or upgrading works. CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONERS 3.”
“The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Mr Teo Ser Luck) (for the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to take Mrs Jessie Phua's and Dr Lim Wee Kiak's questions together as they both relate to the same issues.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,291 lines we hold for S Jayakumar, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 17 of 66.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought my position is very clear. If there is a United Nations Security Council embargo which enjoins its members from exporting any arms to any country, we will, as a member of the United Nations, observe that embargo and any other sanctions which are part of our international commitments. As for the general policy which I indicated has been consistently observed by Singapore of not disclosing arms sales, this is a policy adopted by many countries. As for the second part of his question, the drift of his question shows that the Member has a strange notion of how modern day diplomacy and international relations are conducted. There are some 180 or more countries who are members of the United Nations, different sizes, shapes, forms of government, constitutional systems, degrees of representative governments, and most of them have international relations and interactions with each other. Countries do not place preconditions on the internal systems of government and policies when they establish diplomatic relations and have normal international interactions. This is a fact of international life. If this were not so and if countries placed conditions, then very few countries would be able to have diplomatic relations with others. This is not to mean that countries approve and endorse everything that another country does when they have diplomatic relations. Similarly, for Singapore, Myanmar is a member of ASEAN, it is a member of the South-East Asian community, and we have international relations and interactions with them just as the majority of the international community do so.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it has been stated in this House before that as far as arms sales are concerned, it is a general policy of the Government neither to confirm nor deny arms sales to any country. And I do not intend to depart from that position. Let me assure this House, however, that Singapore pursues a responsible arms sales policy. We honour all international obligations and have always enforced international arms embargoes.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as I know, no such assistance is given.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as a fellow member of ASEAN and a close neighbour, Singapore shares with Myanmar our experience in a number of areas through our bilateral technical co-operation programmes. Such programmes are primarily focused on helping Myanmar upgrade its manpower and human resources and are funded by the Singapore Co-operation Programme and the Myanmar Technical Assistance Fund. Since 1993, some 1,850 Myanmar officials have received training in Singapore in areas ranging from agro-technology, communications, and trade and tourism promotion. Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask the Minister whether Singapore provides special training for the intelligence officers, the Special Branch, in Myanmar to cope with the dissidents, supporters of the NLD?”
“Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad asked the Minister for Health whether a polyclinic will be built soon in Pasir Ris Town and, if so, when and at which location.”
“The Bartley Road extension project was gazetted for acquisition on 10th December 1998 and the Central Expressway/Braddell Road Interchange project was gazetted for acquisition on 21st December 1998. The statutory compensation was arrived at in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The Act provides that the compensation to land owners should be based on the value of the land as at 1st January 1995 or the date of publication of the declaration for acquisition whichever is the lower. In both these cases, the market value of the properties at the date of gazette was lower than the value at 1st January 1995. Therefore the statutory compensation is based on the market value of the properties at 10th December 1998 and 21st December 1998 respectively, as determined professionally by the Chief Valuer. As Government's professional valuer, the Chief Valuer assesses the value of a property in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and accepted valuation principles. He takes into account recent sales evidence of similar properties in the vicinity to determine the statutory compensation for the acquired property. He also inspects every property. In addition to the statutory compensation as provided by the Land Acquisition Act, Government will also grant ex-gratia payment to landowners who face financial hardship arising from the acquisition. They will have to submit their requests to Land Office. A Ministry of Law Appeals Committee will assess the owners' request for ex-gratia payment on a case by case basis. Ex-gratia will be assessed based on the merits of each case. POLYCLINIC IN PASIR RIS TOWN 33.”
“There is no need for such an amendment. In the first place, under our constitutional structure and legal system, such disputes have always been decided by the ordinary Courts. The Courts are vested with the power to review the validity of legislation and executive acts on the basis of constitutionality. This is the long-established way in which constitutional disputes are resolved in common law countries. Secondly, in 1994 the Constitution was amended to provide for the President, acting on advice, to refer any question as to the effect of any provision of the Constitution which has arisen or appears likely to arise, to a tribunal of not less than 3 Judges of the Supreme Court. This system of settling disputes or questions on constitutional matters is therefore satisfactory and we do not need to change it. COMPENSATIONS FOR FREEHOLD PROPERTIES COMPULSORILY ACQUIRED FOR BARTLEY ROAD EXTENSION 32. Mr Goh Choon Kang asked the Minister for Law how the compensations for the freehold properties compulsorily acquired for the proposed Bartley Road extension and proposed expansion of the Central Expressway/Braddell Road Interchange were arrived at.”
“The visit of the Malaysian Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid was an introductory visit in keeping with the tradition of new ASEAN foreign ministers visiting their counterparts. We reaffirmed the importance of maintaining good bilateral relations and noted that both countries should remain focused on the long-term relationship and benefits of mutual cooperation. We also agreed that both sides should press on with negotiations on the package of outstanding bilateral issues. However, we did not engage in detailed discussions on specific issues during Datuk Seri Syed Hamid's visit. This is because negotiations are currently ongoing at the senior officials' level. They have already had three rounds of discussions, and will probably meet again later this month in Kuala Lumpur. Datuk Seri Syed Hamid and I agreed that the officials on both sides should try to narrow the gaps on the issues, so as to arrive at a "win-win" package deal. In this regard, he also noted that as our Prime Ministers had agreed on the broad framework for resolving the issues, both sides must translate this into reality. I share his view on this. PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL HERITAGE 25. Mr Tay Beng Chuan asked the Minister for Information and the Arts what are the current efforts made by his Ministry to preserve the rich and diverse cultural and historical heritage of our different ethnic communities and whether his Ministry will implement any financial assistance/grants and incentive schemes to encourage greater participation of private organisations and voluntary sectors in these efforts.”
“Mr Harun A Ghani asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the recent visit by the Malaysian Foreign Affairs Minister has brought about a better chance for Singapore and Malaysia to resolve outstanding bilateral issues, including the Customs, Immigration and Quarantine, water supply and Central Limit Order Book issues.”
“It is clear, however, that peace and stability in Southeast Asia and the wider Asia-Pacific is the essential foundation for economic growth and recovery. ASEAN's essential purpose is to manage diversity and differences in Southeast Asia within a cooperative framework. We are a very heterogeneous region and the potential for conflict is never absent. Disputes and potential flashpoints have to be carefully managed to ensure that tensions do not escalate. With this in mind, ASEAN Ministers met Dialogue Partners at the ARF and Post-Ministerial Conferences and reviewed common security concerns in the context of the broader implications for regional peace and stability. In this connection, ASEAN reaffirmed the need for a Regional Code of Conduct in the South China Sea. The ASEAN Working Group on ZOPFAN and SEANWFZ has been tasked to elaborate the document. I was encouraged by the fact that there was a candid exchange of views even on difficult and sensitive issues. This shows that the ARF has made progress and the comfort level achieved by the ARF Ministers has increased over the past six years. At the same time, the Foreign Ministers also recognised that the ARF process must continue to progress in order to remain relevant. To facilitate the evolution from Confidence Building Measures to Preventive Diplomacy, Singapore, on behalf of ASEAN, is preparing a paper on the concept and principles of Preventive Diplomacy for further discussion in the next inter-sessional year. RESOLUTION OF OUTSTANDING SINGAPORE-MALAYSIA BILATERAL ISSUES 24.”
“The recent meetings of the Foreign Ministers of ASEAN and Dialogue Partners saw a candid and substantive exchange of views on a variety of issues, including sensitive subjects like good governance, human rights and recent developments in the South China Sea, Korean Peninsular and Kargil. As regards the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting, the highlight was the Minister's Retreat. At the Retreat, we brainstormed the challenges facing ASEAN against the backdrop of the regional economic crisis and an expanded membership. One of the concrete outcomes that emerged from this self-appraisal process was the unanimous endorsement of PM's proposal for an ASEAN Joint Roadshow. The ASEAN Joint Roadshow will collectively market ASEAN to the major economies in North America, East Asia and Europe as an attractive investment destination. We hope to get the first Roadshow out before the end of this year. By pooling our resources and working closely together on this project, ASEAN will send an important message to the world that it is resolute, effective and united. The meetings that took place in Singapore last month were essentially meetings of Foreign Ministers, not Economic Ministers. Hence, we did not directly discuss specific aspects about the regional economy, although we reaffirmed our commitment to remain open, market-oriented and plugged into the global economy. Unlike last year, there was a strong mood of optimism among ASEAN and the Dialogue Partners at the recent ASEAN meetings that countries in the region had turned the corner. At the same time, they were realistic and recognised that reforms must be on track and protectionist tendencies should be resisted.”
“Based on the data from the Supreme Court's computer database, 11 writs were filed in 1997 and 48 writs were filed in 1998 for copyright infringement, whilst 1writ was filed in 1997 and 3 writs were filed in 1998 for patent infringement. MEETINGS OF ASEAN MINISTERS AND ASEAN REGIONAL FORUM 23. Mr Simon S C Tay asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs how will the meetings of the ASEAN Ministers and the ASEAN Regional Forum contribute to the prospects for peace and economic recovery in the region.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“" 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“' 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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“We should leave it to the parties, whether it is the emotional aspect of an elderly lady or widow or some other emotional aspects. These cases are so numerous and so imponderable that it will not be possible for the Strata Titles Board to decide on. But it can mediate, it can recommend, it can suggest. But in the end, it should be a decision left to the parties to decide. Whether individuals or developers own a large chunk of the voting rights, if they own 25%-30%, then, of course, they may meet the requirements of the Bill, and then the ingredients for en-bloc sale will proceed. I hope I have answered most of the questions, Sir. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. TREASURY BILLS (Motion)”
“This should not be read as the Committee disregarding primacy over home ownership as opposed to those who are not having the unit for their home. Basically, paragraph 17 dealt with the proposal by some who argued that when calculating the voting rights, a higher weightage be given to those owners who are living in their own homes. The first problem that the Select Committee had with that is you immediately would have an inconsistency with the whole structure of the Strata Titles Board where for all other matters concerning maintenance, funds, sinking funds, decisions on whether you are going to spend half a million dollars on repairing the swimming pool or putting in new lifts, all those decisions are based on share values, and not whether you are staying there or not. So the Select Committee decided it is better to keep to that basic approach. Secondly, you may not be living there, but why should you have a lesser voting right on such important decisions than a person who is living there? So what if you have rented it out? You might have allowed your son or daughter-in-law to stay there. So should you have a lesser voting right? I think Mr Simon Tay has completely missed the thrust of that paragraph. As to his point that individuals must have rights, I have already alluded to it. This Bill is about balancing of rights, balancing the interest of the minority whose viewpoint is to be safeguarded, who feel that they should not be forced to alienate, as well as the interest of the majority who cannot understand why their interest to alienate should be frustrated. Coming back to his final point about emotional factors, the approach taken by the Board is not to adjudicate and decide on these matters.”
“Let me explain why we have made an amendment to provide for Extraordinary General Meeting. This was a change made by the Select Committee after hearing many representors. The concern of the representors was that if we did not have a general meeting - let us leave aside for the moment Extraordinary General Meeting or Annual General Meeting - they felt that individual owners can be pressurised by various kinds of representations. So the thrust of this amendment is transparency. Have a general meeting. The next question is: why Extraordinary General Meeting? I think it is better to have an Extraordinary General Meeting so that it can be a special meeting. There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that it is called for a special purpose. To have an en-bloc sale proposal is indeed a very significant step. So it should be delinked from the Annual General Meeting. I have taken note of his point that it is very difficult to convene an EOGM, but perhaps that itself may be a good reason to have an EOGM, because, do not forget, to have a 90% or 80% requirement is not going to be easy in any case. So I would commend keeping the Extraordinary General Meeting requirement. Mr Shriniwas Rai made some suggestions as to the future composition of the Strata Titles Board. In view of the amendments for its enlargement, whether we could draw in people from other professions and community leaders. I shall give this some thought in consultation with the President of the Strata Titles Board whose views will have to be solicited. Let me deal with a specific point that Mr Simon Tay raised. He talked about paragraph 17 of the Report. I think he has missed the point.”
“I say we have a difference of views, because the Government's approach as well as the approach taken by the Select Committee is that it is best to leave it to the parties to come up with their own arrangements. Why do we take that approach? Because the factors that will have to be taken into account can be very diverse, and Mr Simon Tay has alluded to that. If you read the Report, some even talk about customs, superstitions, feng shui and so on. How does one quantify this at the level of Strata Titles Board or by the courts, if it were to go to the courts? Then there are emotional factors. There was this problem of a divorcing couple. How do we have objective criteria to work this into a decision? So, it is best to leave it to the proponents of the en-bloc sale to negotiate and try their best to accommodate the objections of the minority, and the objections of the minority can be based on numerous pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary matters. Mr Simon Tay pointed out that there may be a case of someone who recently bought the flat and spent a lot of money in renovations. So it can be quite a complicated business. It might be best to leave it to the parties to come up with a proposal. As to the methods of distribution of proceeds and whether they are fair or not, his point that the Strata Titles Board ought to take into cognizance his suggestion, I think they will do so. But please bear in mind that the Board is not going to impose its terms and conditions. It will really leave it to the proponents of the application for en-bloc sale. Mr Chiam's other point was to change the Fourth Schedule so that instead of an Extraordinary General Meeting (EOGM), it can be an Annual General Meeting.”
“Sir, if you look at the existing scheme, under section 78, it is possible for an applicant or some applicants to go to the court and get a court order even though you do not have 100% consent to achieve exactly what the Bill achieves, except that the Bill now provides a more facilitating method of achieving this result. So it is not a question that it was impossible for a subsidiary proprietor or group of subsidiary proprietors where there is no unanimous consent not to have en-bloc sale. It is possible. What we are doing here is to recognise the frustrations and difficulties, to recognise in land scarce Singapore, this will enable optimum utilisation of land. Is it or is it not desirable to make this move? So that is the fundamental question which has been addressed in the Second Reading debate. The Third Reading here is to discuss the improvements which have been made by the Select Committee. I think Mr Chiam said that he agrees with the approach where the Strata Titles Board will pay attention to factors such as is there collusion, is there conflict of interest? And he therefore is in agreement with that approach. He also agrees with the approach of not taking an interventionist approach. His main point was about the distribution of proceeds, and here we have a difference of views. Mr Chiam's approach would be, first, for the Board itself to decide on the distribution of proceeds. Secondly, in conferring the power to the Board to decide, he also has a proposal which is that it should not be by share values, but by open market value, take the average of two valuation reports.”
“You are having an identifiable airspace but with respect to land and other common properties, you have common ownership together with the rest of the subsidiary proprietors according to the share values. Therefore, if you read the Select Committee's Report, many of the representors agreed with me, in fact, all agreed with me, when I put it to them that, in the end, it is a question of balance. The minority can say he has a right not to alienate but the majority also has a right to alienate. So, how do you balance these two? I think Mr Simon Tay wants to take the floor.”
“If you read the Select Committee's Report, the papers which had been presented and the discussions which the Committee had with many of the representors, it will be evident that this is not a clear-cut issue of the majority imposing its will on the minority. We have a very good illustration which was brought to the attention of the Committee where actually it was the unreasonableness of the minority. You had an en-bloc sale which was frustrated by a couple who were divorcing and each party to the divorce wanted to get the maximum out of the proposal of the en-bloc sale and the majority of the committee decided to overcome this by coughing out from their own pockets to meet the demands of one of the parties to the divorce. So it is not so clear-cut that this is really a minority being run roughshod by a majority. Then we have a point made in the Second Reading and repeated now, about this question of the home, the heartware, Singapore 21 and so on. We pointed out during the Second Reading that you have to distinguish between landed property and the concept of strata title development. Mr Simon Tay referred to actual delineated ground space. In strata title, there is no delineation of the subsidiary proprietor's identifiable plot of land. There is no such thing. You have, in common with the other subsidiary proprietors, a certain share value of the land area as well as a share value of all the common properties, and when we talk about common properties, it covers a whole range from carparks, the pool, the garden, lifts, corridors, external walls, columns, roads, drainage, sewerage and gas pipes and electric cables serving the development. So there is a distinction. When we talk about strata titles, the concept is different.”
“The Bill, as amended by the Select Committee, addresses these issues consequent to the principle to move away from unanimous requirement. We can have a divergence of views on all these consequential matters because it will not be honest for me to say that there is a perfect or correct answer to each of these solutions. It calls for a judgement. Government's response, as now modified by the Select Committee, is to arrive at what we think is a reasonable and practical approach to work out this regime for facilitating en-bloc sales. It is really a facilitating process. It need not be the Government or the Strata Titles Board directing or instructing that such and such a development should now proceed with en-bloc sale. The regime is really to leave it as much as possible to those in the development to decide for themselves. Then we have this key feature, ie, 90%/80% consent requirement pegged to the age of the building, ie, 10 years or less and 10 years or more, coupled with the institutional mechanism of the Strata Titles Board rather than the Courts for the reasons which are spelt out in the Bill. And the role of the Strata Titles Board is, again, that of facilitating the process, as an avenue for mediating when there are objections and the situation and the type of objections are imponderable. Some examples were given but those are not the only ones. The Board will be taking a non-interventionist approach but we do spell out a few of the categories where the Board expresses its disapproval. But apart from that, the Board will really take a mediating role.”
“Sir, I thank the three speakers for their comments on the Bill. Both Mr Chiam and Mr Simon Tay began their speeches by restating their positions during the Second Reading of the Bill about the sanctity of the home, the importance of property ownership and so on. I have two ways of dealing with it. One is to go again into all the explanations and justifications which had been made by the Minister of State, Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee. But that is not the purpose of the Third Reading. The purpose of the Third Reading is really to examine the changes which had been recommended by the Select Committee and not to have another full-scale debate on the issues or questions of principle which had been fully canvassed and debated in the Second Reading. Much as I am tempted to go into details on the points raised by Mr Chiam and Mr Simon Tay, I will not go into them except to recapitulate the points which had been very cogently put forward by my colleague, the Minister of State. The first point is that, for those who oppose the very principle of the Bill - and the principle of the Bill is to change the law to move away from unanimous requirement - I recognise they have their reasons to do so. If you oppose that basic principle, then of course, you must oppose the rest of the Bill. But if you agree with the fundamental principle that unanimous requirement should be changed to something less than unanimous, then you have to deal with a host of questions. What should be the majority consent level, if it is not unanimous? Should it be pegged to the age of the development, and what should be the age of the development? How do you deal with objections, financial and pecuniary, as well as emotional objections? What should be the institutional mechanism to deal with this?”
“One representor suggested that the Bill should stipulate the maximum amount of compensation payable to obviate cases where lessees demand an unreasonable compensation. The Committee felt that it is difficult now to decide on the maximum compensation. This is a matter on which the Board could formulate some guidelines when this issue first arises. Then there is a question on the composition of the Board to enable it to deal with en-bloc sale cases. A number of MPs and representors felt that the Board should have more panel members drawn from a wider range of relevant occupation groups so that it can effectively perform its enlarged functions. Sir, the Select Committee has amended the Bill in several ways: (a) to increase the number of members on the Board's panel from a proposed 24 to a maximum of 30; (b) to appoint up to three Deputy Presidents instead of the proposed two Deputy Presidents; and (c) to give the President of the Board power, where necessary, to appoint four instead of two panel members to form a Board of five or three persons headed by the President or a Deputy President. In closing, Sir, let me say that the Select Committee certainly benefited from the suggestions and views given by the representors, some of whom were experts in their respective fields. I believe that the changes which are now incorporated in the Bill will improve the legislation and help it achieve its objectives more effectively. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“The Select Committee has accepted the representors' views that the procedure for giving notice to the owners and other interested parties should be made much clearer, as well as be included in the Bill itself. As a result, many changes have been made, including the following: (a) the requirement that there should be convened at least one general meeting to discuss the en bloc sale before the majority owners can apply to the Board; (b) advertisement in all the four language newspapers; (c) service of notice of the sale to all the owners, the mortgagees and chargees and the management corporation by registered post and by leaving a copy under the main door of every unit; (d) affixing a copy of the notice to the door or gate of a minority owner; (e) affixing a copy of the notice to a conspicuous part of each building in the development; and (f) filing a copy of the application to the Board with the Registrar of Titles and Deeds for notification on the land register. Another issue concerns the role of the Board with regard to matters of compensation payable to the lessee of a minority owner's unit. A number of representors felt that the Board should decide on the compensation payable to the lessee of a minority owner in order to expedite and facilitate an en bloc sale. The minority owner may be unable to agree with his lessee on the latter's compensation. The Committee agreed that the Board can determine the amount of compensation payable to the lessee of a minority owner on the latter's request. The Board, however, will not decide on the compensation payable to the lessees of the majority owners, as the majority owners must make their own arrangements with their lessees before they commit to the en bloc sale.”
“Where mediation on objections of a personal or non-pecuniary nature fails, the Board cannot stop the sale from proceeding unless the Board is satisfied, for example, that the minority owner will suffer a loss, that is, the purchase price which he will receive is less than the price he paid for his unit, including all allowable deductions; the purchase price also which a minority owner receives is not sufficient for him to discharge a mortgage or charge on his unit; the Board can also refuse if the minority owner is forced to be part of a joint venture agreement with the purchaser/developer; or if the Board is satisfied that the sale is not in good faith or at arm's length taking into account the sale proceeds, method of distributing the sale proceeds and the relationship of the purchaser to any of the unit owners. In deciding on a case, the Board will not impose its own terms and conditions on the parties. If the Board feels that the price is too low or the method of distribution of the sale proceeds is not equitable, it will order that the sale not proceed. The majority owners must then address the issue. Sir, let me add that when the revised approach of the Board as I have outlined just now was clarified to the representors who spoke on this issue, most of them agreed that the Board, rather than the court, would be the more appropriate body to mediate and hear en bloc cases. One representor felt that the Board would then be performing a function which was more administrative than judicial. Another issue was the setting out in greater detail the procedure for service of notice on all the owners of units and other interested parties.”
“But the Committee agreed with the view expressed on the need for greater clarity of the approach of the Board in dealing with objections. The Select Committee also agreed with representors on the need to spell out in greater detail the factors which the Board will take into account. Accordingly, several important changes have been made: Firstly, even where there is no objection, the Board must review every application to the Board for en bloc sale and satisfy itself that the transaction is in good faith and at arm's length, taking into account the sale proceeds, the method of distributing the sale proceeds and the relationship of the purchaser to any of the unit owners. The Board must also ensure that the sale and purchase agreement does not compel a minority owner to be part of a joint venture agreement with the developer of the land. This will address concerns expressed on the safeguarding of the interests of the minority owners; Secondly, where objections have been raised, the Board will, where relevant, mediate.”
“Many of these developments which have 10 or fewer units are old or have large areas which are under-utilised, thus rendering them suitable for redevelopment. In fact, as at September 1998, developments with 10 or fewer units account for nearly half of all strata developments in Singapore. Of the 2,272 strata developments which are freehold or close to 999 years, 47% are developments with 10 or fewer units. These developments account for 7% of the total number of units and about 80 hectares (10%) of the land area. Requiring unanimous decision will frustrate en-bloc redevelopment of these developments. Another issue concerns whether it should be the High Court or the Strata Titles Board which should hear objections, and whether the approach and guidelines in the Bill for en bloc sale should be made clearer as well as expressly stated in the provisions of the Bill. A number of MPs during the Second Reading debate as well as some representors during the Select Committee hearings felt that the High Court and not the Strata Titles Board should hear en-bloc cases. In the Select Committee hearings it became clear that some representors had taken this view because they felt that the general guidelines in the Bill were too broad or gave insufficient guidance on how the Board will decide on the objections of the minority. Some representors also felt that even if no objections are raised, the Board should in any case review the application to see if it should be approved. The Committee felt that the Strata Titles Board and not the Courts would be the appropriate body to hear objections because the objections would almost invariably be non-legal issues which lend themselves more to mediation or counselling rather than to adjudication.”
“The Select Committee has decided to keep the present approach in the Bill, ie, the 90% consent level for developments less than 10 years and 80% for developments 10 years or older. Ultimately, it should be left to market forces and conditions which will determine if an en-bloc sale is economically viable. The 90% / 80% level linked to the 10 years age of the development was considered a reasonable criterion. The consent level should be pegged to the age of the development as it is more likely that older developments will be sub-optimally utilised and have higher repair bills. The second issue concerns developments with 10 or fewer units. The Bill originally had excluded developments with 10 or fewer units. It was thought that it may not be possible in some of these cases to designate a clear 90% / 80% majority because of the small number of units in these developments, eg, in a development with four units of equal shares, three out of the four owners would account for only 75% of the share values. One representor proposed that the Minister or the Strata Titles Board be empowered to decide on a case by case basis if a development could qualify for en-bloc sale. Others suggested lowering the consent level to 70% or allowing a sale if there were not more than one or two objecting unit owners of such developments. The Select Committee has decided to make a change so that the majority owners of developments with 10 or fewer units should also be able to apply to the Board provided they can meet the specified consent level of 90% / 80%. However, the Committee did not think that this consent level should be lowered as it would not be fair to the minority owners of such developments.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." As Members know, this Bill was referred to a Select Committee. The Report of the Select Committee was presented to the House on 19th April 1999. The Select Committee received 46 representations which reflected a good cross section of views. They were from 39 individuals, one management corporation, two en bloc sale committees and four organisations. The four organisations were the Association of Property and Facility Managers, the School of Building and Real Estate of the National University of Singapore, the Law Society of Singapore, and the Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers. The Select Committee, however, did not limit itself to the views put forth by the representors but also considered views expressed in this House during the Second Reading debate. The Select Committee has accepted several useful suggestions and incorporated them in the amended Bill which is before the House. The full explanations for the various amendments are set out in the Select Committee's Report. Therefore, I do not intend to repeat all that is extensively set out in the Report which Members would have read. What I propose to do is to highlight only some of the changes made by the Select Committee as well as some of the issues considered by the Committee. Firstly, the issue as to whether to vary the 90% / 80% majority share value consent level. The Committee heard diverse and sometimes diametrically opposing views on this issue. Some felt that 90% / 80% consent level should be made stricter. Others were in favour of a more liberal, lower level consent requirement, especially for older buildings.”
“This new scheme, as I said, is for a period of 30 years, which we think is more than reasonable. It should take care of most of their adult life. It cannot obviously be in perpetuity because the intention was never to be in perpetuity. VENTURE CAPITAL FUND FOR TECHNOPRENEURS (Criteria for eligibility) The following Question stood in the name of Mr Zulkifli bin Baharudin - 5. To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry, in respect of the Venture Capital Fund for technopreneurs, (a) what are the criteria for eligibility; (b) whether there are any other schemes to help technopreneurs have better access to loans; and (c) whether there are plans to have more liberal policies to deal with problems of business failures and bankruptcies.”
“Indeed, because under the present scheme, all the 79 beneficiaries are entitled to the payments, so the revised scheme would also apply to them.”
“Secondly, this new sum of $350,000 per annum will be maintained for a fixed period of 30 years starting from this year to be distributed among the existing number of beneficiaries in the same proportion to the total annual payment that they are receiving at present. This revised fixed income will be a substantial increase of more than 10 times the actual annual payment to the beneficiaries at present which amounts to about $29,231. In addition, if any beneficiary wishes, the Government will allow him the option of receiving a lump sum payment up-front which would be equivalent to the present value of the future stream of payments under the new scheme. This new scheme will apply to all existing beneficiaries regardless of where they presently live. Those beneficiaries who are now occupants at the former Istana Kampong Glam will benefit from this new scheme of payments in addition to whatever resettlement benefits they may get as described earlier. This new scheme is an equitable way of meeting the interests of the existing beneficiaries. The alternative of maintaining the status quo will mean progressively diminishing amounts of payments. The Land Office will contact the beneficiaries individually to explain the new scheme to them.”
“' Therefore, the Kampong Glam Estate including the former Istana has been State Land since 1897. The British Government then enacted the Sultan Hussain Ordinance in 1904. The intention of the Ordinance was to take care of the financial needs of the family at that time of the late Sultan Hussain who were described by the then British Governor as "very improvident people". The Ordinance provided for annual payment of monies to the family of the late Sultan Hussain pegged to the income derived from the Kampong Glam Estate. These payments were not intended to be in perpetuity but were intended to be made only to "the family of the late Sultan Hussain" at the time the Ordinance was enacted. Nevertheless, for historical reasons, annual payments were continued to be made by subsequent Governments all these 100-odd years. This has led to a very unsatisfactory situation. Firstly, while the number of beneficiaries has steadily increased, the payments are getting smaller as the income from which the payments are made has diminished. Secondly, in future the payments would become even smaller over time as the number of beneficiaries increases. In view of these factors and with the recently announced new conservation projects for Istana Kampong Glam and the adjacent building as a Malay Heritage Centre, Government has decided that it is timely to review the scheme of payments under the Ordinance. The Government has therefore decided on a new scheme of payments. Firstly, we will increase the actual payments to $350,000 per annum.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the first part of the Member's question concerns resettlement benefits of the occupants. In the case of the former Istana Kampong Glam, those occupants living there at the cut-off date of 13th March 1999 will be considered for resettlement benefits under prevailing resettlement policy. As for Lot 53 which was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, the normal process is for Land Office to make a compensation award based on vacant possession, in which case the issue of resettlement will not arise. However, if the landowner does not deliver vacant possession, an award on an encumbered basis will be made instead, in which case the occupiers of the property will be cleared under existing resettlement policy. The second part of the Member's question asks about the Government's plan with respect to the Sultan Hussain Ordinance. There are some 79 beneficiaries who are receiving payments under that Ordinance. Many of them are not even in Singapore. Of those in Singapore, only a few of them, about 14, actually live in the former Istana Kampong Glam. The position of the Sultan Hussain Ordinance has been clarified by Government in the past. In particular, the former Minister for National Development, Mr S Dhanabalan, set out the position clearly in this House on 12th March 1991, and I quote an extract: '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 the 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.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1999/2000 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”