Preservation of Monuments (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

Madam, our National Monuments form an integral part of our national identity. They serve as critical markers of Singapore's historical journey and development from pre-Independence and they are tangible manifestations of shared experiences and milestones in our history which strengthen our sense of belonging. They tell the Singapore Story and stand as enduring testaments to Singapore's history and nationhood.

The Preservation of Monuments Act, or PMA as I will call it, sets out the functions and powers of the Government and the National Heritage Board (NHB) in relation to the designation, protection and care for National Monuments. In particular, the PMA lays out the legal protection and the enforcement powers that NHB is empowered with to protect National Monuments from alteration and change, including damage and defacement, which would affect their character and significance.

Since the PMA was enacted in 1970, we have gazetted 73 National Monuments, which are accorded the highest level of legal protection amongst all of our built heritage in Singapore.

In 2019, Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat announced during the National Day period that the Government would preserve the Padang as a National Monument. Not only is the Padang one of Singapore's oldest open spaces for public recreation, it has also witnessed key milestones in Singapore's history.

These include the victory parade celebrating the formal surrender of the Japanese in Singapore in 1945, the swearing-in of Yusof Ishak as Head of State in December 1959 when we obtained self-Government, the announcement of the merger with Malaysia in September 1963, and our first National Day Parade in August 1966.

The current definition of "monument" in the PMA allows for the preservation of buildings and structures, as well as sites containing the remains of any such building or structure. The Padang, as an open space, however, does not fall within this definition. The PMA will, therefore, be amended to expand the definition of "monument" to include any "site", including open spaces and inland water, so that sites of national historical significance like the Padang can be preserved. Consequently, the Bill also proposes an amendment to the definition of "monument" in the NHB Act, for alignment with the PMA.

Madam, such a definition is consonant with many other overseas jurisdictions. For example, in Malaysia, Brunei, Hong Kong, the US and Australia, they also provide for the protection of historical and heritage sites or places, in addition to buildings and structures. Such protected sites include Central Park in New York City, which I believe needs no introduction, and which was designated in 1963 as a National Historic Landmark. Another example is the Domain in Sydney, a 34-hectare open space, which has been included in the New South Wales State Heritage Register.

With the expanded definition to include a site, certain aspects of the PMA will also need to be updated. For instance, in the current PMA, section 15(1) stipulates a list of activities that a person must not do in relation to a National Monument without the permission of NHB. These actions, such as "reconstructing", "repainting" and "renovating", apply primarily to buildings and structures.

To better protect sites which are to be preserved as National Monuments, we will also need to control actions, such as clearing, digging, excavating or cultivating horticulture, on the site. In addition, extracting, mining, quarrying or interfering with anything or groups of things that evidence human activity, past or present.

Under these amendments, which are set out in the new proposed section 15(1A), these new sets of actions will also require NHB's prior approval before they can be carried out on protected sites.

Madam, as part of our review of the PMA, we will also make amendments to improve protection of our heritage, to ensure that National Monuments are adequately protected from unauthorised alterations and changes. Before a monument or site is accorded the status of a national monument and protected by law, a Notice of Intention (NOI) is required by section 11 of the Act to be given to its owner and occupier, informing them of the Minister's intention to make a Preservation Order for that monument.

This signifies the Government's assessment that the monument or site is of such historical, cultural, traditional, archaeological, architectural, artistic or symbolic significance and national importance as to be worthy of preservation as a national monument. The owner and occupier are given a "reasonable period" to make any objections to the proposed Preservation Order. Every objection will be considered thoroughly by NHB which then submits its recommendations to the Minister. Under the proposed changes in this Bill, the public will also be aware. Once an NOI is served, the monument or site becomes a proposed National Monument and NHB will make this public on its website. Interested parties can share their views and feedback on proposed National Monuments with the NHB.

It follows, naturally, that there should be some form of protection in place to prevent actions to the monument or site, including any alterations and changes that may alter the character and significance of a proposed national monument, before a final decision is made by the Minister to preserve it. Otherwise, the decision to preserve may be entirely defeated or rendered nugatory by alterations and changes taking place during the period in which objections are made and when we are still considering the objections.

Such protection is currently not provided for in the PMA. The amendments, therefore, in clauses 6, 7 and 11 will extend protection to monuments or sites that are the subject of NOIs.

According protection to a proposed National Monument even before final confirmation is also common in other jurisdictions. For example, under the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance in Hong Kong, the Authority may declare any place, building, site or structure as the "proposed monument". These places would then have the same protections as those which have been declared as a "monument".

Equally, in the UK, local planning authorities may serve a Building Preservation Notice to a building which is of special architectural or historic interest and is in danger of demolition or of alteration in such a way as to affect its character as a building or such interest. While the Notice is in force, the building is subject to the same protection as a listed building, which is the equivalent of a gazetted monument in Singapore.

The Hydro Hotel in Leeton, a historic accommodation house, and a barn at Michelmersh Manor Farm are examples of historic properties which have benefited from these protections in Australia and the UK respectively.

If the Minister decides, in a reasonable time, not to make a Preservation Order after the Notice of Intention is issued, the protections will be lifted accordingly.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, when the PMA was last amended in 2009, the Minister then noted that National Monuments ought to have greater heritage value and significance compared to conserved buildings and that illegal alteration works or destruction of any parts of such monuments should not be treated any less seriously than that of conserved buildings. This principle was applied, at the time, to the introduction of higher penalties for unauthorised works, as well as acts of destruction or defacement, for closer alignment to the Planning Act.

In 2017, the Planning Act was amended to include powers of forced entry where there is an apprehended commission of an offence and powers to take video or audio evidence on site. We will, therefore, in this Bill, accord monuments and proposed monuments with the same protection which follows the principle, as articulated in 2009. We, therefore, propose to amend the Act to align NHB's powers of enforcement and investigation with those under the Planning Act for conserved buildings. This is to allow NHB to carry out its enforcement and protection duties more effectively and also expeditiously.

Just as similar powers are accorded to competent authorities under the Planning Act, the amendments in clause 9 to section 27 of the Act will enable NHB officers who are public servants – namely, the Director of National Monuments or a Monument Inspector – to forcibly enter any land or site without warrant. This allows NHB to intervene, when necessary, to protect National Monuments from alteration, defacement or damage.

The legislation provides for the powers to be exercised judiciously, under specific conditions. Let me take Members through them.

First, NHB must suspect on reasonable grounds that an offence under the PMA has been or is being committed in relation to the land or site. These offences, which are defined in the Bill, are serious ones, such as the failure to maintain a National Monument or proposed National Monument in accordance with NHB’s guidelines; the offences also include unauthorised works or alterations; non-compliance with an enforcement notice; and wilful defacement, damage or interference. These are offences which could have grave consequences and irreversibly alter the character and significance of our National Monuments, if they are allowed to transpire.

In addition to having reasonable grounds on which to believe that an offence of the nature that I have described has been committed or is being committed, the public servant must also be able to demonstrate that he or she was unable to enter or is refused entry to the land or site in question.

In addition to these two conditions, upon entry, the Director of National Monuments or a Monument Inspector can only exercise their powers of entry to carry out their statutory functions in a manner as delineated in section 27(1) of the Act, namely: inspection of the National Monument or proposed National Monument; investigating any contravention or suspected contravention of the PMA; ascertaining whether any of the functions or powers under PMA should be exercised; or taking any action or carrying out any work authorised or required by the PMA.

Taking reference from the Planning Act, the amendments to section 27 of this Act will also allow the Director or Monument Inspector to take photographs or make an audio or video recording within the land or site.

Additionally, they may make measurements of the land and take samples of water, soil, vegetation or other similar substances from the land or site to better ascertain if there had been activity that has or could negatively impact the monument.

Currently, NHB may serve an Enforcement Notice to stop any activity that has caused or is likely to cause danger or damage to a National Monument.

We propose correspondingly to also extend this to a proposed National Monument as well. Hence, on that score, we propose to amend section 18 of the Act so that NHB can serve an Enforcement Notice to put a stop to any operation or activity that may place a proposed National Monument at risk of being altered, removed, damaged or destroyed. Members will know that, as I have mentioned earlier, this is for the period in between when a monument is being considered up to the time when it is either no longer being considered as a monument or it is then eventually gazetted as a monument, in which case, the usual protection as a monument would then apply.

These enhancements are intended to act as a safeguard to deter potentially errant parties who may cause harm to National Monuments.

Madam, the Bill further proposes two sets of miscellaneous amendments to the PMA.

First, as the PMA may also overlap with the statutory powers of other public agencies, the new section 22A in clause 8 of the Bill and amendments to section 15 of the Act in clause 6(g) will make clear that the provisions within the PMA will not constrain the statutory powers and duties of other public agencies.

So, for instance, certain powers may need to be exercised expeditiously at the site to safeguard public health. In those situations, those other public agencies will be able to take the appropriate action.

These amendments will also facilitate routine repair and maintenance works, which would not alter or damage a National Monument.

Second, Madam, the amendments in clauses 10 and 12(1) of the Bill will require the payment of composition fines collected by NHB into the Consolidated Fund instead of retaining them. This is to give effect to a 2016 policy introduced by the Treasury, after the last set of amendments were made to the PMA.

Madam, NHB has, thus far, worked well with owners and occupiers to ensure that our National Monuments are protected in accordance with the dignity they deserve, while at the same time not imposing onerous requirements on owners.

Going forward, NHB will continue to support owners and occupiers in their duty to maintain National Monuments. NHB will also take a considered approach to assess the specific circumstances and any concerns on a case-by-case basis, before exercising its powers and responsibilities under the Act.

Madam, some of our National Monuments are almost 200 years old – and in the case of the Padang even older. It is our duty to ensure that they continue to stand proudly for many years to come. There must, therefore, also be sufficient measures in place to protect the character and integrity of future proposed National Monuments which are deemed worthy of preservation.

These amendments, therefore, seek to strengthen the provisions in the PMA to further safeguard key markers of our national identity, for future generations of Singaporeans. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

5.06 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, it is important to safeguard our heritage for the benefit of future generations of Singaporeans. This Bill sends a clear signal on the importance of our heritage sites and gives the authorities the tools they need to protect these sites.

I have three points of clarification to make.

My first point is about the punishment for those who damage our monuments. The new section 15 provides some leniency to those who damage or alter our monuments. One situation is when a person acts in good faith to comply with a Government order or requirement.

I welcome this amendment. It would be unfair to punish someone who acts in good faith and is complying with a Government order.

In the spirit of providing effective deterrence against people damaging our monuments, could I also suggest that MCCY work with monument owners to ensure there are clear signs and labels to inform members of the public when they come across a monument?

The list of gazetted monuments is long. I am sure that many members of the public have no idea even when they are in or around a national monument. This will especially be the case as we expand the definition and start gazetting less concrete things like bodies of water and plots of land. Deterrence works best when expectations are clear, after all.

My second point is about clearer definitions. I agree with the existing defence in section 15(8) being retained. A person will not be liable for a section 15(4) offence if he had acted because of a person’s or property’s safety and had exercised all reasonable care to ensure that the act or omission would have no more effect on the “character or appearance” of the monument than was “necessary in the circumstances”.

Can the Minister clarify whether there are any guidelines or subsidiary legislation in determining how a monument’s “character or appearance” is affected?

As something that seems quite subjective, it would be useful to have some factors for consideration. Similarly, can the Minister also provide some examples of what may be considered “necessary in the circumstances” and whether there is a legal or factual threshold to be met?

My final point is about conditions for a warrantless entry. With the new section 27, a Director or a Monument Inspector will have the power to forcibly enter any land or site without warrant if certain conditions are fulfilled.

I agree with the Director and Inspector having stronger enforcement powers and understand that there could be certain situations where taking enforcement action can be urgent. However, I note that time sensitivity is not one of the conditions that have to be met for the Director or Inspector to enter the premises without a warrant. Can the Minister clarify why this is the case?

If the enforcement action is not urgent and no monuments are in immediate danger, I do not see why the Director or Inspector should not apply for a warrant before entering the premises. This will ensure that proper process is followed and reduce the likelihood of allegations of improper misconduct made against the enforcers. Madam, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

5.09 pm

Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I am supportive of the general direction of this Bill, the Preservation of Monuments (Amendment) Bill.

In the Hollywood movie Monuments Men, the fictional President Truman is persuaded to set up a special US Army unit to preserve classic European works of art from the Nazis. The central idea behind the movie was to recognise that the value of our lives depends on economic concerns, but it goes beyond that.

Madam, in the uncertain times we live in, with geopolitical and economic certainties thrown up in the air, our heritage and monuments remind us of where we came from. A people who do not appreciate where they came from cannot chart a meaningful path forward.

Madam, we must approach heritage protection as a democratic effort, requiring buy-in and active involvement of different stakeholders, including monument owners, occupiers, civil society and the general public.

In this spirit, while I support the Bill, my speech will put forth suggestions in three areas of protection: firstly, protection of monument owners’ and public interests through appropriate judicial oversight; secondly, protection of our actual and proposed national monuments through stronger stakeholder engagement and support, particularly with civil society; thirdly, protection of heritage in a more holistic manner.

First, I would like to talk about protecting the interests of owners and occupiers of actual and proposed national monuments through appropriate judicial oversight.

I note with particular concern that section 27(2A) will enable the Monument Inspector to “forcibly enter” the site “without warrant” when they suspect on reasonable grounds that the site is being defaced, damaged or interfered with, “including by breaking open any outer or inner door or window”. I urge careful reconsideration. How is such violent action consistent with protecting our monuments? Such actions could damage the very monuments they are intended to protect.

While I do agree with the thrust of the Bill to increase protection powers for these sites, I believe the law needs to be more balanced and should not encroach on the rights of monument owners and occupiers, especially at the risk of damaging the actual monuments, unless absolutely necessary. I repeat the Workers’ Party’s position from the debate on the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, or FICA, that exceptional Executive power must be matched with strong judicial oversight.

I have two specific questions to ask. Firstly, in what circumstances will the Monument Inspector deem it of such necessity to forcibly enter the site that the accompanying potential damage to the site’s windows and doors is justified? Can the Minister give some examples?

Secondly, in the 51 years of existence of the Preservation of Monuments Act, has the Government ever seen the need for forced entry without warrant into a monument or proposed monument to protect the site for the same reasons that confer such powers in the Bill?

I would like to suggest a circumscribing of the powers of forced entry without warrant by bringing in judicial oversight, unless in particularly exigent situations. The existing section 21 of the Preservation of Monuments Act already provides that the Director or a Monument Inspector may apply to the High Court, quote, “for any actual or apprehended contravention of the provisions of this Act to be restrained by injunction”, unquote.

In urgent cases, it is possible to obtain a temporary injunction from the High Court within days. The owner is compelled to comply with the injunction or may be charged with contempt of Court and possibly a jail term.

Hence, I propose to circumscribe the powers of forced entry without warrant to the following situations: firstly, non-compliance of the owner with an injunction issued under section 21; or, secondly, where there is reason to believe, on balance of probability considerations, that irreparable damage to the site will happen before an injunction order can be obtained.

I note, however, that in urgent cases, it is possible to obtain an injunction order fairly quickly. I would welcome the Minister’s assurances on the substance of these proposals.

In the Hong Kong and UK equivalents of this provision, there are stronger checks and balances than what is proposed here. Hong Kong’s Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance, section 5, also provides for public officials to have such powers of entry to inspect monuments. For entry into residential sites, written consent must be obtained from the occupier, or the Authority must give not less than 48 hours' written notice of their intention to enter. Furthermore, section 22(2)(b) of this Ordinance reads, quote, “no regulations made under this Ordinance shall confer upon a person any right which he would not otherwise have had to enter upon private land", unquote. This is from Hong Kong.

The UK’s Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, section 88, also allows for forced entry into recognised heritage sites, but only with a magistrate’s warrant. According to guidance notes by the UK Institute of Historic Building Conservation, forced entry with a warrant, quote, “should be seen as a last resort”, unquote. And I quote, “To convince the Magistrates that forced entry is necessary, the planning authority needs to show what steps have already been taken to gain access by agreement and why these have failed", unquote.

Thus, in Hong Kong and the UK, safeguards with independent judicial oversight are provided which protect private property owners’ interests, while balancing the need to protect heritage.

I note the Government’s reasoning that this provision is to align the PMA with powers of forced entry under section 27 of the Planning Act for protecting conserved buildings. However, the Planning Act provision does not have any mention of forced entry without warrant. Furthermore, we should remember that other than conservation, the Planning Act also covers land use and development in a broader sense and does not perform a monument preservation function.

Madam, my second proposal for better protection of monument owners’ interests is to ensure the certainty of timelines in, firstly, objections made to preservation orders; and, secondly, the duration of a preservation order.

When the Minister makes a preservation order in relation to a monument, sections 7(b) and (c) of the PMA allow the owner or occupier to make objections and require that the Board considers these objections and makes recommendations to the Minister.

However, there is no specific timeframe on how long the Minister has to consider these objections and make the final decision on the preservation order. Given the often onerous responsibility of maintaining a proposed national monument, it would be helpful for owners and occupiers of these sites to have greater certainty on the duration of the process. And I seek assurances from the Minister on this point.

I note that section 12 of the PMA does require that dwelling-houses that are served a preservation order be acquired by the state within a year, or the preservation order would lapse. But this applies only to dwelling-houses that “appear to be occupied” at the time of the issuance of the Order.

Once again, it may be helpful to take a leaf from Hong Kong’s Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance, which clearly set out the process, procedures and timelines for how declarations of “proposed monuments” and objections may be made. Section 2B of the Ordinance provides that the declaration of a “proposed monument” only has effect for 12 months. Section 2C of the Ordinance provides that if the proposed monument is within private land, the owner or occupier may at any time apply to the Authority for withdrawal of the declaration. The Authority has to consider such objections within one month of the objection. If unsuccessful, the owner or occupier can pursue their objections further with the Chief Executive and Chief Executive in Council. The clear and transparent statutory timelines provide certainty for all stakeholders.

Madam, moving on to the second big concern of my speech, I would like to speak on how we can go even further in the protection of monuments and proposed monuments by deeper public engagement in the gazetting process, stronger support for owners in maintenance of monuments and ensuring the legitimacy of the PMA in relation to other laws.

Firstly, I urge the Government to engage the public and heritage groups more deeply in the process of gazetting a national monument.

As it stands, the process for making, amending or revoking a preservation order appears, by law, to be one solely between the owner and occupier of a monument and the authorities.

Section 11(7)(a) of the PMA provides that before the Minister makes, amends or revokes a preservation order, the Board is required to “give notice in writing of the Minister’s intention to do so to the owner and occupier of the monument and any land adjacent thereto which will be affected (by the preservation order)”. There is no legal provision or mechanism enshrined in law for members of the public or heritage groups to provide feedback or objections in this process. Such engagement seems to be up to the discretion of the Government, the kind of broad discretion that is often given to the Government in the language of many of our laws.

If our national monuments are sites that we, as a people, reflect upon as sources of meaning and identity, public and heritage groups must have avenues, inscribed in law, to provide feedback on whether sites should be preserved. This would enhance the public’s investment in the heritage preservation cause.

I propose we adopt, in subsidiary legislation, the same process as the Planning (Master Plan) Rules, specifically Rule 4, which requires that a proposal for an amendment to the Master Plan (for example, to designate a site as a conservation area) be advertised by notice and made available for public inspection. Rules 5 and 6 make provisions for members of the public to submit representations and objections to the amendments and require that, if the objection is not ruled frivolous, they have to be attended to by a hearing or public inquiry by the authorities.

I note that the amendment to section 11(12) does provide that the Board shall publish a list of monuments and proposed monuments, “in such manner as it deems fit”. May I clarify what this manner is and whether the Government can commit to publishing such a list online and for free?

Next, Madam, my first point on resources is in respect of the National Monuments Fund. Amendments to sections 4 and 5 of the Act extend the functions of NHB to cover “maintenance” of monuments and proposed monuments. I understand that NHB also administers the National Monuments Fund, a co-funding scheme.

Can NHB look into expanding the list of qualifying maintenance works? Increasing the amount of financial support for national monument owners will allow them to undertake timely and proper maintenance of monuments, thus delaying the need for major conservation works downstream. We should not be penny-wise and pound-foolish.

My second point on resources is about the availability of craftsmanship expertise to restore and maintain monuments. One of our national monuments that had been gazetted early on in 1980 is Lian Shan Shuang Lin Monastery. In the 1990s, it fell into disrepair and was infested by termites. But the restoration and reconstruction took almost 20 years due to the difficulties in, firstly, finding local craftsmen with the necessary expertise and, secondly, bringing in foreign craftsmen.

Singapore currently classifies heritage building maintenance and restoration under the construction industry, so, these craftsmen can only work here as foreign construction workers. However, the highly-skilled and experienced craftsmen preferred for these projects are often older and would face the age limit obstacle when applying for a work permit. Furthermore, they would only be allowed to work on a single “construction” project, and would have to leave on project completion. So, there is no one available to attend to the daily maintenance of these heritage buildings. I also note that, in recent years, it has been even harder to attract such foreign craftsmen to come here, given that the pay in Singapore may not be significantly more attractive than in their home country. Could the Ministry look into this problem more closely in collaboration with MOM and perhaps consider relaxing entry requirements for foreign craftsmen by recognising them as such, instead of seeing them as “foreign construction workers”; and allowing them to work on multiple projects while here?

In the longer term, Madam, we need to build up local expertise. Could the Ministry work with local Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) and architecture or construction firms to professionalise career pathways for these craftsmen or artisans of heritage sites? Could IHLs also consider incorporating practicum options for IHL students to be involved in craft work on heritage projects?

Over the past year, I have spoken about the need to move more Singaporeans into trades jobs sustainably. It is said that many Singaporeans do not want to go into these jobs, such as highly-skilled construction workers and plumbers. To fix this problem of lack of local craftsmanship expertise, I would like to repeat my call for ensuring decent working conditions and enhancing the standing and pay of these jobs.

Next, Madam, on the new section 22A, this provides exemptions from Part IV Provisions for Preservation of Monuments and may mean that the provisions of other laws will always supersede a preservation order issued under the PMA. I would like to clarify: under what circumstances would the Government deem it necessary to use this provision?

To address this, I propose that statutory authorities be under a statutory obligation to consult the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth and/or the NHB before taking or omitting to take any acts in relation to a national monument or proposed national monument.

A precedent for such an obligation is section 19(3) of the Parks and Trees Act, which requires LTA, before carrying out work or activity within a heritage road green buffer, to consult NParks.

The final concern I would like to highlight in my speech is the importance of protecting heritage in a more holistic manner so that the proposed amendments can be truly meaningful.

I will start off by proposing the incorporation of the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) mechanism into our heritage management policies going forward. The HUL mechanism incorporates community participation in the process, especially in the mapping, identifying and categorising of historically significant monuments and sites. It would bring us towards greater “democratisation” of heritage management and protection by giving a greater voice to broader communities and all stakeholders. This mechanism was recommended by UNESCO to all member countries for urban heritage management.

Next, besides being preserved, historic urban spaces in Singapore need to be used more adaptively, or they run the risk of being underutilised and “lifeless.” One such space that would benefit from such adaptive reuse is the Padang. In MCCY’s press release on this Bill, the Padang had been singled out as a site that will be proposed for preservation. Despite having borne witness to key historical milestones, the Padang today is regrettably an under-utilised public place. When there are no major events held there, it is deserted and almost "lifeless". Beyond simply preserving the site, could our urban planners and architects be challenged to imagine new ways of bringing the space to life, so future generations can be a part of its story?

Next, on our modernist, post-war architecture. Most of our preserved and conserved buildings are from the colonial era. However, our post-war, modernist buildings are equally, if not more, iconic, representing the prowess of our pioneer architects and engineers and the post-war growth of our nation as they strove to create something architecturally unique in the early years of our Independence.

I urge URA and NHB to explore the conservation of more post-war buildings and to ensure their economic sustainability through adaptive reuse.

Recently, Golden Mile Complex was gazetted for conservation. A number of buildings like the Pearl Bank Apartments and the old National Library have gone, but it is not too late to save what we have, like People's Park Complex, for example.

The Government can explore the promotion of rehabilitation of old buildings, which is also greener. For instance, some buildings in Krakow, Poland, have been rehabilitated: a market for merchants in the mid-13th century was turned into an underground museum and a bank in the 19th century was turned into a cultural centre.

Various tools can be used, for example, tying in rehabilitation with revitalisation of an urban core, a community improvement project, or offering grants and subsidies.

Next, Madam, going forward, I urge the Government to implement a mandatory heritage impact assessment (HIA) scheme for development plans that are likely to impact any heritage sites.

In an answer to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) I raised in February this year, MND explained that every development proposal is subject to a robust planning evaluation process that considers the development’s impact on traffic, public health, environment, as well as built heritage. I urge the Government to go one step further in enshrining this process in law and committing to a rigorous and transparent HIA process with deeper engagement with the public and civil society.

A HIA scheme will better allow the Government and private owners to consider the impact of specific developments in a particular site on our built, as well as intangible, heritage. Mandatory HIA regimes have been implemented in other countries, even in land-scarce Hong Kong.

HIAs, for which there are recognised templates and prescribed processes, should be conducted at an early stage of planning and the public should be engaged.

URA commissioned a historical documentation study for the area in Bukit Brown that was meant to be exhumed. This was consistent with a baseline study of a HIA. However, for Bukit Brown, the study was, unfortunately, commissioned only after the decision to exhume the cemetery was made and, hence, no mitigation measures, such as an alternative alignment of the expressway, were proposed.

Lastly, Mdm Deputy Speaker, one issue which I think looms large in the public mind and represents a potential conflict between the interests of the owner, occupier and heritage preservation mandate of the state is the status of 38 Oxley Road, the former home of our first Prime Minister, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew. If the house comes under consideration for preservation, it is this very Act, the Preservation of Monuments Act, that will determine what is due process.

The Workers’ Party does not have a position on what should be done with the house and neither do we think it is our place to decide, but what we care deeply about is the heritage due process that we hope will be upheld, in a rigorous, transparent and fair manner. Given the high-profile nature of this case, how it is handled will set a precedent for future heritage decisions. This will be monumental, pun intended, for heritage management in Singapore. In relation to this case, whether the wishes of a single individual are respected in relation to the national heritage interest, how the public is consulted, how negotiations with the owner and occupier are conducted, how heritage value is assessed and evaluated, whether our heritage institutions and laws are seen to be legitimate and effective – will resonate in the years to come.

On this note, Mdm Deputy Speaker, and, in conclusion, I call for stronger safeguards on the powers of forced entry without warrant, greater certainty of timelines for monument owners and deeper public consultations and engagement on monument preservation and conservation.

Madam, in the final scene of the movie "Monuments Men", the fictional President Truman asks George Clooney’s character if saving these great works of art justified the loss of a soldier’s life. This deep question goes to the heart of the tension between our economic or material aspirations and our cultural aspirations as a society. It should never be an “either or” question. We should use all of our ingenuity and resourcefulness as a people to ensure that the cultural aspiration never becomes the enemy of the economic one but, rather, its steadfast partner.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.

5.29 pm

Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Madam, for a young country like Singapore, the protection of our heritage is important. Not only does it remind the future generations of our roots, it also reflects the values which the society holds dear.

In September, a man was charged under the Preservations of Monuments Act for wakeboarding at the Civilian War Memorial, which was clearly disrespectful of the National Monument. This may be a rare incident – which, I hope, did not leave any permanent damage on the memorial – but society and the Government has a responsibility to safeguard our National Monuments from damage and disrespect.

Today, we have more than 7,000 conserved buildings under URA and 73 National Monuments under NHB. To a layperson, it is not always clear what the difference is between a conserved and a protected building.

I am very happy to hear that the Government has reviewed the Preservation of Monuments Act and is stepping up protections provided under this Act. National Monuments ought to be accorded the highest level of legal protection in Singapore.

The Minister said that the Preservation of Monuments Act will align NHB's powers of enforcement with those under the Planning Act for conserved buildings. This is a good step, but I suggest that the Government look into whether there is a need to strengthen the legal protection of National Monuments beyond that which is accorded to conserved buildings.

In addition, I would like to ask about the efforts that NHB has undertaken, and will undertake, to educate the general public, particularly school children, on the significance of our National Monuments. Madam, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] For a young country like Singapore, the protection of our heritage is very important. Not only does it remind the future generations of our roots, but also reflects the values which the society holds dear.

In September, a man was charged under the Preservation of Monuments Act for wakeboarding at the Civilian War Memorial. This was clearly disrespectful of the National Monument. This may be a rare incident but I hope that this incident did not leave any permanent damage on the memorial.

But society and the Government have a responsibility to safeguard our National Monuments from damage and disrespect.

Today, we have more than 7,000 conserved buildings which are under URA and 73 National Monuments under NHB. To a layperson, it is not always clear what the difference is between a conserved and protected building.

I am very happy to hear that the Government has reviewed the Preservation of Monuments Act and is stepping up protections provided under this Act.

National Monuments ought to be accorded the highest level of legal protection in Singapore. The Minister said that the Preservation of Monuments Act will align NHB's powers of enforcement with those under the Planning Act for conserved buildings.

This is a good step, but I suggest that the Government look into whether there is a need to strengthen the legal protection of National Monuments beyond that which is accorded to the conserved buildings.

In addition, I would also like to ask about the efforts which NHB has undertaken to educate the public, particularly school children, on the significance of our National Monuments.

(In English): The above clarifications notwithstanding, I support the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister Edwin Tong.

5.35 pm

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank the various Members for speaking in support of this Bill and also for the various suggestions that have been raised.

I think we can all agree that there is really a need to better safeguard and celebrate our shared heritage and ensure that it is preserved for future generations to enjoy as well. So, the raison d’être behind this Bill is to step up our preservation and also our outreach efforts. I wish to assure Members that NHB will continue to work with and through the community to grow participation as well as ownership of heritage. After all, heritage is about our shared values, our shared vision, our shared sense of identity. We will do that as part of our Our SG Heritage Plan.

The amendments in this Bill seek to strengthen our sense of identity and belonging by enhancing the safeguards for our built heritage.

Let me plunge straight into addressing the queries raised by Members. First, by Mr Xie Yao Quan, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Leon Perera on the scope of the enforcement powers under PMA, including our reasons for taking reference from the Planning Act.

Mr Xie Yao Quan, on the one hand, said that powers could possibly go beyond that of the Planning Act, given the relative consideration between the conserved property and the heritage monument. On the flip side, Mr Louis Ng asked if the powers could be calibrated further by including an explicit condition of urgency or time sensitivity. I think Mr Leon Perera also had several questions concerning the ambit of section 27.

I should assure Members that these powers would be exercised judiciously, as I mentioned. The fundamental consideration is to ensure that the value and distinctive nature of these places, monuments, sites are well-preserved and protected.

These amendments will ensure that our enforcement powers can be sufficiently robust as we expand the range of what can be gazetted as National Monuments.

As I mentioned earlier, the proposed amendments we have in this Bill will take reference from the Planning Act. These powers in the Planning Act have worked well to protect the more than 7,000 conserved buildings, but, at present, do not extend to National Monuments.

Mr Leon Perera drew a distinction and sought to say that there is no equivalent of forced entry on the premises should there be an apprehension or concern over damage to the property.

That is not correct. Section 27(1A) of the Planning Act provides specifically for there to be forced entry in the scenario where the officer concerned is reasonably satisfied that there is a risk of damage to the conserved property or to the property under the Planning Act. That was an amendment that was made in 2017, as I have explained.

To Mr Xie Yao Quan's question about powers that go beyond the Planning Act, we had thought about this and considered it, given the relative position of both types of properties. But we, eventually, decided against it. We felt that the proposed amendments in this Bill ought to be sufficient to ensure our objectives of better maintaining and protecting the National Monuments whilst, at the same time, requiring reasonable obligations from the monument owners and occupiers.

For Mr Leon Perera and Mr Louis Ng’s question on the proposed amendments to section 27 for the Director of the National Monument or a Monument Inspector, to forcibly enter the land or site without warrant, Members should look very closely at the provision in question, especially when one contrasts it with comparable legislation in other countries.

First of all, as I have mentioned earlier, this provision is operative only if the Director or Monument Inspector already suspects, on reasonable grounds, that an offence under the four delineated provisions has been or is being committed on the land or site.

Members have to bear in mind that this is in relation to a property that is likely to be an old property, an old building or an old site and damage would likely be irreparable and difficult to make up.

These four sub-sections that section 27 cites are matters which go to the heart of preserving and protecting a site. Section 13(7), for example, deals with failure to comply with the preservation notice. Section 15(4) is in relation to works or alterations that are being done to the monument or the proposed monument without prior permission. Section 20(1)(a) deals with non-compliance of an enforcement notice. So, in other words, there is already an enforcement notice and the officer suspects that there is a non-compliance with the enforcement notice. Section 22(1) deals with a situation where there is a defacement, damage or otherwise, an interference with the monument or the proposed monument.

So, we do not start with a blank canvas. We start with an officer having reasonable grounds to believe that one or more of these four scenarios is or are taking place, or is or are likely to take place.

On top of that, the provisions sketched out in section 27(2A) then further provides that the officer must either be unable to enter or is refused entry. To have more clarity on this, section 27(2B) provides that if the owner or occupier of the land is present, then the officer concerned must first, before entering, approach the owner or occupier, show identification, obviously, in that context, to explain the circumstances in which one needs to enter the premises.

So, far from the image which I think Mr Leon Perera sketches out where you come in, you barge in and you take down the door, bust open the gates – it is not that kind of scenario.

Section 27(2C) further provides that even if the owner or occupier is not on site, but someone else is, then the officer concerned must also approach that person, as long as that person demonstrates or appears to be in charge of the land or site concerned. So, again, every attempt is made to demonstrate that you are either unable to enter, or you have been refused entry, and these two sub-provisions that I have cited show that every effort must be made by the officer concerned to make an attempt to either speak to the owner or occupier or some other person who appears to have control of the site – and all that takes place before entering, as is explicit in both sections 27(2B)(a) and (b).

On top of that, once the officer comes into the premises, the purposes for which the officers are present on the premises are circumscribed by section 27(1). In other words, there are certain statutory functions and powers that the officers are in-charge of or responsible for, and those are the purposes for which entry is sought.

To the extent that we compare our legislation with comparable legislation overseas, it is obviously in different contexts. One also has to appreciate that the nature of monuments and sites will be different from one jurisdiction to another.

But if you take New South Wales as an example, it does provide that, after having given reasonable notice, if an officer believes on reasonable grounds that a building, object or a place has an item of environmental heritage, he can carry out inspection in that building – so, enter to carry out inspection.

In Hong Kong, as Mr Leon Perera said, provided 48 hours' notice is given, the officer concerned may, at all reasonable times, enter and inspect any proposed monument or monuments.

In the UK, section 88 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act provides that any person duly authorised by the Secretary of State may at any reasonable time enter any land for the purposes of surveying any building on it, or any other land in connection with the proposal to include the building or exclude it from a list of works and so on. Further, any person duly authorised by the Secretary of State may at any reasonable time enter any land for any of the following purposes that include surveying, ascertaining whether an order has been complied with, ascertaining whether an offence has been or is being committed and ascertaining whether any building or any land or any other land on site is being maintained properly, or whether it is in a proper state of repair.

So, these are the provisions elsewhere in other jurisdictions. I am not saying they are on all fours with our provisions. But you can see that the tenor of provisions elsewhere in the world do accept as a premise that there is a need, urgently or, on occasion, to enter a site, and the reason for that is obvious, as you are talking about premises, buildings, monuments which are of significant national and heritage value.

Mr Louis Ng asked if there were guidelines or examples to determine what it would mean for the "character or appearance" of a National Monument to be affected no more than "necessary in the circumstances", under the proposed amendments to section 15.

Madam, to help monument owners and occupiers fulfil their duty to maintain National Monuments in a manner which befits their status, NHB may issue specific guidelines to include an inventory of the key historic features that ought to be preserved for a particular site.

NHB also publishes broad technical guidelines relating to the repair, maintenance and management of monuments, for instance, how, in some cases, painting works should be conducted and how signages at the sites should be installed. These would also include features and actions which would affect the character of the national monument.

On that note, I have listened carefully to Mr Leon Perera's suggestion on how we can further help monument owners or occupiers maintain their premises better. I think we are in agreement with him. We will take steps to see how we can explore that better and, in the appropriate cases, support monument owners or occupiers to better maintain the historic features behind the monument.

Mr Louis Ng made suggestions, and I think Mr Xie Yao Quan as well, on how we could enhance other areas separately from legislation to better deter damage to National Monuments. Mr Louis Ng suggested clear signs and labels around National Monuments. He might be happy to know that, today, there is already a plaque at a prominent area at each of our National Monuments, such as at the entrance of the monument, to inform the public of the status of the property and also share its significance.

In some cases, such as the Civilian War Memorial, there may not be a single prominent public entrance, or public facing entrance. For these properties, NHB will work with the monument owners to put up prominent signages, where appropriate, to remind the public to pay due respect and so on to the National Monuments. On this, it is really not rocket science to know that you should not, at any time, deface, destroy, damage anything that is in public, let alone something that is of heritage and monumental value.

Mr Xie Yao Quan asked about NHB's efforts to educate the public on the significance of national monuments. Indeed, preservation and enforcement powers help us to safeguard National Monuments, but that, in itself, is not sufficient if the public is not aware of its significance and also appreciative of its heritage value. Many of us would have noticed that several of our National Monuments have also been given a new lease of life, to borrow Mr Leon Perera's words, "through careful, adaptive reuse", which is a pragmatic and sustainable approach to preservation. Even though their historic façades and structures are preserved, the internal uses may evolve over time. This allows members of the public to continue to interact with National Monuments whilst, at the same time, appreciating their history and significance.

Some examples include the former City Hall and Supreme Court, which are beside the Padang, and now houses the National Gallery. Members may also have gone past the former St James Power Station.

But the point about adaptive reuse is well-understood and, sometimes, it is a question of trying to balance modernising and preserving the heritage, and adaptively reusing, with imagination, to repurpose the interior, which, sometimes, can maximise preservation and also affinity with the public, who are drawn more to the premises rather than just by the façade.

To further increase public awareness and appreciation of our national monuments, NHB also runs a slate of programmes for the public. This includes walking tours for the public, learning journeys for school children, at least in pre-pandemic times, led by volunteer guides who share stories of the history and significance of the National Monuments. There is also the Milestones Through Monuments programme, introduced in 2019, which allows the public to learn more about the history of each monument through onsite exhibits and physical installations.

As I have mentioned, COVID-19 has impeded physical programmes to an extent and also NHB's outreach efforts. NHB has also kept up engagement of Singaporeans through digital means, instead of embarking on physical learning journeys for school children. As I have mentioned, NHB offers Monumental Robo-tours. Not only for school children, Members are always welcomed to try for themselves as well. It uses a telepresence robot to create a virtual tour experience for students who can sit in the comfort of their classrooms and still get to experience virtual tours of our national historic and heritage sites.

Other initiatives include the Music at Monuments digital programme, a series of musical performances held at National Monuments streamed online, which was released last year. And I am pleased to say – perhaps because people cannot be physically present as much as they would like to be – that it garnered more than 300,000 views, which is very encouraging.

These digital programmes will be with us for the long term, even after the pandemic. And they will expand the menu of the offerings. We have to promote knowledge of and affinity with our National Monuments and what they symbolise in our journey as a nation whilst creating their own new experiences, new memories, with members of the public at these historic places.

I would just like to respond to some of the specific points that Mr Leon Perera raised, in terms of trying to strike a balance. I have explained how section 27 is designed to work, but Members will be assured to know that, as far as NHB is concerned, any damage to the heritage site will be an absolute last resort, only if necessary to have a protection of the greater site itself.

In terms of the duration of the Notice itself, I have noted Mr Leon Perera's points and we can consider them. But one also needs to appreciate that as you look at gazetting or considering the gazetting of sites for preservation, no two sites will be the same. Some, in fact, after this amendment, will be a site, others might be a building. Some are larger, some are smaller, some have a more complex history and some require a little bit more work, as Mr Leon Perera also outlined, in terms of preserving and making sure that it is something that can be kept well.

So, we have framed it as "a reasonable period" in this case; that is the language of the statute. That is one way of doing it. Mr Leon Perera says, "Why don't we follow Hong Kong?", which says one year. But in some cases, one year is too short; in other cases, one year is too long.

For now, it is probably best for us to look at the sites and, given the level of interactivity that NHB has with stakeholders, with owners, with occupiers, with members of the public, with the heritage groups, it is sufficient for now, I believe, to leave it as "reasonable period", so that there is some flexibility in their engagement. And one can also have regard to the specific context of the site in question. And it does not have to be tied to a particular period, in all cases, for all sites or all buildings.

Mr Leon Perera raised the point about engagement. There is no provision in the Bill that stipulates a timeline and a plan for engagement, but Mr Leon Perera probably knows that NHB conducts public engagements regularly. In fact, some were done even before this Bill was canvassed and proposed. Likewise, in other jurisdictions, including those provisions that Mr Leon Perera looked at in Hong Kong and the UK, some have, some do not have, a formal process.

We have chosen not to have a formal process hard-coded into the legislation, but that does not mean that NHB does not engage. In fact, NHB engages the heritage societies I have mentioned regularly, including NGOs, docent leaders, monument owners and occupiers regularly. And also the grant applicants, those who take grants from NHB, we engage them as our stakeholders. NHB also conducts focus group discussions and public consultations for major projects and initiatives. Our SG Heritage plan is part of that. But also for museum or heritage institution revamps, NHB does public consultations on these.

And as Mr Leon Perera pointed out, in these amendments in this Bill, what will happen after the Minister has formed the intention to gazette a site as a monument, that will be published. Mr Leon Perera asked if it is online and if it is free. I think if it is online it will be free and NHB intends to publish it online, so that members of the public will know in advance if something is proposed to be gazetted as a monument. That is not to say that that is the only feedback that NHB gets. It does not stop anyone with any interest from making submissions and giving feedback to NHB at any time, which has happened.

So, what the provisions do is to say that the moment something is considered and an NOI is filed in respect of that particular site or building, then that would be published and members of the public will know about it.

There were some questions by Members on the operation of the new section 22(a). As I have explained in my opening speech, sometimes, for a site, besides being subject to regulations or orders on preservation, how it is to be conserved, preserved and so on, there is also a question of how it is otherwise maintained by other agencies. In some cases, it may be a sewer, in other cases it may be about the maintenance of the environment. What section 22A does is to provide that these other agencies may come in and deal with their area of operations, their works, without running afoul of PMA. To Mr Leon Perera's suggestion, he should be assured that there is close collaboration between MCCY and also with NHB, together with URA, whenever there are such works that concern or touch on or impact heritage sites or buildings.

Finally, on Mr Leon Perera's last point on due process, he can be assured that it applies to all. There is no one particular site that this has in mind. All sites and, in all cases, due process applies to all. I want to assure Mr Leon Perera that due process will always be preserved – pun also intended.

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. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai].

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