Preserving our Heritage, Culture and History – Conserving Dakota Crescent

ADJOURNMENT MOTION

The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn."

Question proposed.

Preserving our Heritage, Culture and History – Conserving Dakota Crescent

5.29 pm

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Thank you, Mdm Speaker. Mdm Speaker, I raised this Motion so as to create a better understanding on the need to preserve our heritage, culture and history and, in particular, to urge the Government to consider the conservation of Dakota Crescent.

When I was young, I was a regular visitor to the National Library at Stamford Road. The National Library allowed me to read books and to find out more about the world without having to take a single step out of Singapore.

I recall spending hours at the old National Library reading fictional books, books about playing chess, stories about Greek mythology and so on.

When the National Library at Stamford Road was torn down in 2005 to make way for Fort Canning Tunnel, I was very disappointed. The National Library was a building which carries many fond memories not just for myself but for many other Singaporeans around my age group. I can still recall eating ice kacang from the stall full of bees flying around at the coffeeshop. Sadly, those memories of my time as a young boy at the Stamford Road National Library would now only remain as memories.

In 2011, LTA announced that Rochor Centre would be demolished to make way for the new North South Expressway. I had lived at Rochor Centre from 1977 to 1990. I shifted there when I was in Secondary 2 when it was a new block of flats and lived there until I married and moved out. I spent the better part of my growing up years in that estate. It was at Rochor Centre that I started volunteering as a grassroots leader because I wanted to improve the condition of the estate. It saddens me that the four multi-coloured blocks of flats which carry 40 years of memories for those residents would disappear soon.

Over the years, we have seen the demolition and loss of other prominent buildings like the National Theatre, the Van Kleef Aquarium and Queensway Cinema. Prominent places like New World, Gay World, Great World – they are all gone. The old Bugis Street, Chinatown and Sungei Road are also all gone and, in their places, we have commercial buildings and shopping complexes, many of which lack the original identity. Critics say that they all look similar to other buildings and shopping complexes which can be found all over Singapore.

I recognise that Singapore needs to progress and development has to take place. However, when Singaporeans experience loss of too many familiar buildings, familiar places of entertainment and environment, there will be this sense of loss of roots, a loss of emotional attachment to Singapore.

Museums should not be the only repositories of a nation's memories and history. Our children and the future generation should not be left to read about Singapore's heritage, culture and history only through history textbooks, photographs or some heritage trails.

Our future generation should have the opportunity to walk through and experience for themselves the same places which their parents had previously walked through, to allow them to experience and feel the presence of a particular environment of a local culture. Just to cite an example, I can show a person a picture book of the Botanic Gardens, or even take him on an interactive journey on the computer to explore the Botanic Gardens, but it is never the same as taking him to the Botanic Gardens for a walk in the park to admire the rainforest, the Ginger Garden, the majestic Tembusu tree or to watch the swans at the lake.

Mdm Speaker, we need to do more to encourage our citizens to develop a greater emotional connection to Singapore, to develop greater social cohesion and to better identify themselves as Singaporeans. One way to do so is to identify the collective memories of Singaporeans and to see how we can preserve the existing way of life and the local identity. Old buildings like the National Library, National Theatre, Van Kleef Aquarium; places like Sungei Road, Chinatown, Little India, Bugis Street; they all form part of the culture and heritage of Singapore. These are the buildings and places which existed during the days of nation building. They are all part of the Singapore history.

Many other countries are also taking steps to preserve their heritage and culture. Just look at the efforts by Japan, Hong Kong and the countries in Europe. If Singapore does not take urgent action to evaluate what to preserve and how to preserve our local heritage, culture and identity, these memories may be lost forever. Try as we may, we may never be able to re-create the same culture, the same setting. Just look at Chinatown and Bugis Street as examples of our attempts to re-create the environment and setting but which did not succeed. One of my concerns is that when a Singaporean leaves the country to work or study for a few years, when he returns, the place becomes unrecognisable because new buildings keep sprouting up and older buildings get demolished.

Prof Tommy Koh, in a recent speech at the World Cities Summit, said, "History and culture can play an important role in the rejuvenation of cities and in transforming ordinary cities into great cities." Prof Koh said that "the Singapore conservation movement came in time to realise the importance of conserving our built heritage and the anchors of our individual and collective memories".

This brings me to the question: how does the Government balance between developing our country for better progress as against preserving our heritage, culture and history? Can the Government help citizens to develop a greater sense of belonging to Singapore by preserving more of our history, more of our culture and more of our heritage buildings? How can we recall our past with nostalgia?

Hence, I wish to call on the Government to reconsider its plans for redeveloping Dakota Crescent which is within Mountbatten constituency. I raised this matter in 2015 in a Parliamentary Question.

And plans for the redevelopment of Dakota Crescent were made known sometime in 2014. After the announcement, HDB started to brief the residents about their relocation options and the plan to move the residents to a new block of rental flats. During this period, many residents came to share with me that they will miss the place after staying in Dakota Crescent for more than 50 years. They have so many stories to tell and so many memories attached to the place.

Even people whom I have not met before came up to me to share that they had lived in the estate when they were young. They can recall their days growing up in the Old Airport estate and Dakota area.

Sometime in 2015, several residents approached me to argue that there is sufficient merit for the Government to consider preserving Dakota Crescent. I met these residents and other interested parties to better understand their viewpoint. After hearing them out, I agreed with them.

Dakota Crescent was built in 1958 by the Singapore Improvement Trust (SIT), the predecessor of HDB. There are 10 blocks of seven-storey flats, four blocks of three storey flats and one block of two storey flats. It is a tranquil place located next to the river. In fact, I would invite Members of the House to drop by there one day just to walk in the evening, very tranquil. To many Singaporeans who pass by Old Airport Road regularly, they call the flats the "seven-storey houses", or what they say in Hokkien, "qi lao chu". Dakota Crescent is one of the first public housing projects built during the SIT era to provide mass housing just before the role of mass building for the public was passed on to HDB. The fact that this estate is older than Singapore is a cause for celebration and should be an important consideration for conservation.

The estate was named after a Dakota plane crashed at Kallang Airport. In the midst of the estate sits a dove-shape marble playground which I was told is the only dove-shape playground left in Singapore. I was also told that in 1959, the Constitution Exposition was held at Kallang Airport to commemorate internal self-government in Singapore. It was a spectacular exhibition and a huge celebration at that time. Dakota Crescent was witness to this exhibition as it was situated just next to Kallang Airport.

The group of residents whom I talked to laboured for many months and they have prepared a Conservation Report to URA and the National Heritage Board. This report is a ground-up movement from interested residents who feel passionately that Dakota Crescent should be preserved. In the Conservation Report, they shared more about the architectural, historical and social significance of Dakota Crescent and the rationale for wanting to preserve this unique piece of estate. I have seen the report. Mdm Speaker, it is with me and it will be presented to NHB and URA. It is very interesting to learn more about the uniqueness of the design of the flats from an architectural point of view.

The Conservation Report shared about how Dakota can be used to become a space for educating the future generation about Singapore. There are suggestions as to how the estate can be re-developed for use by arts groups, social enterprises, or as rental flats for couples waiting for their BTO flats. So, this is not just a call by residents to conserve the place. They have even taken the effort to share more about how the Government can use the space even as we conserve it.

Many of these suggestions warrant serious consideration by the town planners. I hope that by speaking on this Motion, I can persuade the Government to re-think its redevelopment plans for Dakota Crescent.

I believe that this Government can do more to preserve our heritage, culture and history. And by preserving key portions of a unique neighbourhood like Dakota Crescent, the Government would encourage cultural and social networks to be involved and to thrive. This, Mdm Speaker, I submit, would make Singapore a better place for all our future generations.

5.40 pm

Mr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion because I believe that as we continue to forge ahead in terms of national development, it is crucial that we have an acute appreciation for our cultural assets and incorporate them holistically in urban planning.

Let me illustrate this through the example of Toronto's Wychwood Barns.

In 1996, the Wychwood Barns, a complex of five tram sheds constructed in 1913 for the Toronto Civic Railway was slated for demolishment and the land where it sat on was to be sold.

While the Barns was an important transit facility from the 1920s to the 1940s, when trams were phased out, this unique red-brick complex was decommissioned, unattended to and soon degenerated into disrepair. Then, it was closed for many years.

However, fearful of what might be redeveloped on the site, local City Councillor Joe Mihevc and some of his residents around the area decided to act quickly. The Barn was opened for residents to visit and acquaint themselves with the space. Many were awed by the structure, its high ceiling and its enchanting red bricks. The community rallied together, requesting that a Heritage and Environmental Impact assessment be conducted. People gathered together over many sessions to discuss plans for the building and the land. The residents also engaged Artscape, a non-profit organisation that engaged in real estate and programme development for the arts and creative sector, to help develop ideas. The conversations and the consultations took many years and the final proposal was only ready in 2005.

I visited the Barn in 2014 and was awed by what it has become. The Wychwood Barns reopened in 2008 and has become the "social heart" of the community, hosting 26 artist live­work spaces, programming and administrative facilities for 10 non-profit organisations, 14 artists' studios, indoor and outdoor community gardens, a community-run gallery and an 8,000-square feet covered street used for farmers and art markets, conference and events.

There are many other such amazing creative place-making projects, like Project Row House in Houston, Pillsbury House in Minnesota.

I quoted these examples because they have so much resonance with what my fellow parliamentarian Mr Lim Biow Chuan has shared in his speech. I am supportive of his Motion and the effort to champion this important cause for two very important reasons.

One, redevelopment with cultural assets as a resource. I would like to reiterate that any argument for conservation is not, and I repeat, not an argument against development. What the conservationists are arguing for is development that takes heritage as our cultural asset into consideration such that heritage becomes a resource for development.

As we strive to become a more liveable, sustainable city state, such cultural assets should be a key component for redevelopment because they can serve to enhance its overall value. Conservation of precincts, such as Dakota Crescent, allows us to protect and promote our identity as a nation with rich and complex identities, histories and narratives – all of which are traits that not only make us interesting and exciting, but also show our resilience and the relevance of our historical development to our success today.

While demolishment may be the cheapest solution or the easiest one, we lose not just tangible assets like buildings but also intangible cultural assets, historical narratives and memories.

Some may say that history can be told through books and photographs. But I would counter that by arguing that these cannot replace the role and power of actual sites, resplete with their stories, lessons learnt and hopes for the future. Heritage is not about celebrating the past.

Hence, I urge the Government and urban planners to embrace cultural assets as a resource for development and, in considering adaptive uses for them, move from just urban planning towards cultural planning.

Secondly, the ground-up Initiative. Joe Mihevc, the Toronto City Councillor who led the ground-up effort to transform the Wychwood Barn, reflected, "If there is one key lesson to be learnt it is that positive things happen when Torontonians step up and take charge. The passion and dedication of hundreds of people created a critical web of support. Together, with each holding a piece of the puzzle and needing the cooperation of the others to make it happen, the Barns project was an unstoppable force."

Going back to the case of Dakota Crescent. When news that the SIT flats of Dakota Crescent would make way for future development, Singaporeans and residents of Dakota very quickly responded. People visited Dakota Crescent to take pictures of the quaint little estate, artists came to create engagement projects to document what was valuable about Dakota. Some, like Dakota Adventures, helped people to understand more about the area. Others, such as residents like Jonathan Poh, organised themselves and envisioned a different future for Dakota Crescent.

Clearly, for many Singaporeans, city-building is not merely about the physical or architectural side of projects. Rather, they saw and valued intangible assets of the precinct, personal relationships and organisation within the community, meaning-making of the space they lived in and were proud of it. In short, what we witnessed was a case of citizens who want to take ownership of their community and history. And their sense of ownership is what makes for successful development.

The proposal that Mr Lim had presented earlier is exactly what the Government has always been looking for – ground-up initiative with a bold vision. The proposal requires us to work with many different communities within and outside of Dakota, to redevelop the place into something inclusive, yet deeply respectful of the heritage and community of Dakota Crescent.

Furthermore, the proposal has the makings of a successful place-making project. One, it has leadership and ownership from the community. Two, it embraces collaboration, and is consultative. Three, it embraces diversity and openness. And four, it is creative.

The proposal is spearheaded by a community that has rallied together through a common recognition of a cultural asset of the precinct and a desire to enhance this value. It is a ground-up initiative by a community that seeks to strengthen itself and remain relevant to our nation's narrative.

Mdm Speaker, I firmly believe that this proposal as presented by Mr Lim is an extraordinary community effort that should be taken seriously. I would therefore urge the Government to consider this proposal positively, to give residents the opportunity to redevelop and re-purpose Dakota.

What we have is a potentially pioneering project that could become a milestone in our approach towards urban and community development, one where the people take ownership and proactively negotiate amongst themselves to put forward viable, sustainable plans for the future.

5.48 pm

The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mdm Speaker, I agree with both Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Kok Heng Leun that it is important to protect our heritage buildings.

Some old buildings hold significant historical meaning. Others may not quite be so historic, but they have become a part of many Singaporeans' lives and we have formed collective precious memories about such buildings and about such places.

If we can keep and protect these buildings, they can help build a deeper sense of identity and rootedness for Singapore and Singaporeans.

In master-planning our land-scarce city-state, our planners have many considerations to address. We have to provide for housing, medical facilities, schools, sports facilities, social amenities, religious and civic space. We need space for economic purposes to create jobs for Singaporeans, space for transport, land for nature reserves, parks, greenery and the list goes on.

Given these tight constraints, the need to redevelop and rejuvenate our city will always be present. But increasingly, the challenge we have to throw at ourselves is whether we can keep our city vibrant and dynamic and cater to the needs of Singaporeans while retaining that sense of time and space, that feeling of familiarity and nostalgia even amid change.

In short, the question is, can we develop without sacrificing our identity and our heritage? And can we conserve without stalling progress and change? The answer, I think, must lie in striking the right balance, between preserving our past and catering to the needs of the present and the future. Mr Kok talked about cultural planning where both development and conservation can co-exist. I think these are solutions that increasingly we have to find.

MND is very mindful of this balance. When we do our work, our focus is not just to plan and build new infrastructure but to undertake development in a way that is sensitive to nature and to our past, and to build stronger emotional connections with our city. That is why, over the years, we have placed more emphasis on the conservation of buildings as an integral part of our urban master plan. For example, we have conserved large areas, such as the Historic Districts of Chinatown, Kampong Glam, Little India and Singapore River. And for Kampong Glam, some of you may know, there is actually a community committee, both of people who live there, people who run businesses there, stakeholders who are interested in heritage, culture and so on.

We have retained several pre-World War II residential flats in Tiong Bahru built by SIT. We have also conserved many historical buildings which are representative of our rich architectural heritage and bear testimony to the history and development of Singapore, such as the Queenstown Public Library and the key buildings of the Alexandra Hospital.

This process of identifying buildings and sites for conservation is an extensive and rigorous one. It is not just based on nostalgic or sentimental value alone, but, importantly, we take into account the historical and heritage significance of the buildings, as well as their architectural merit.

We also involve many stakeholders in the process. MND and URA take in feedback from our Conservation Advisory Panel (CAP), local community groups and also members of the public. In addition, NHB has recently embarked on a tangible heritage survey to build on NHB's existing database of heritage resources. This survey includes research and documentation of buildings and sites of historic or cultural interest found in Singapore and completed in and before 1980. This will also allow us to be better informed when drawing up future land-use plans.

Even after deciding to conserve a building, much research and documentation work still needs to be carried out. In particular, URA will study how the building can be adapted for re-use and contribute meaningfully to the plans for the larger area, while being sensitive to the history of the conserved building. As far as possible, we look for ways to enhance the overall heritage value of the place.

One example is Balestier, which is a key identity node because of its strong heritage value and distinctive old world charm. The area is rich in history and home to an interesting mix of conserved pre- and post-war shophouses and the Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall, which is a National Monument.

When a parcel of state land at Balestier was sold in 2008 for a hotel development, the sales conditions included requirements for the developer to provide a public park at the entrance to the Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall.

The unique hotel-park development synergises with the Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall and the surrounding heritage shophouses, adding to the vibrancy of the larger Balestier area. Today, the area continues to be bustling with people visiting the heritage buildings, Zhongshan Park as the new park is called, and going to the area for lighting and hardware shops and, of course, not forgetting the famous "Tau Sar Piah" in the Balestier area.

I highlight this example because heritage conservation work does not stop when buildings are gazetted and protected. Otherwise, they risk collecting dust and melting into obscurity and people will forget about them. The intangible dimensions of our heritage are, in fact, also an important part of our shared identity and provide a link between the past and the present and, hopefully, with the future. Intangible cultural heritage can refer to the festivals we celebrate and the diverse aspects of our traditions and our culture.

These cultural expressions of living heritage are history in the making. They not only provide an emotional connection to our past, but also serve as inspiration and anchors for the future. At the same time, building owners also have a part to play in conservation.

When we started out in the 1980s, many building owners did not see the value of conservation and, in fact, had to be persuaded quite hard at times to conserve their buildings. It was seen as a burden with additional cost, hurting their property rights, and many were reluctant to do so. But now we are seeing a change of mindset and, increasingly, more owners are becoming more receptive to the idea of conserving their buildings.

Our collective efforts at conserving and revitalising our built heritage have slowly gained recognition at the international level. Since 2001, a number of restoration projects in Singapore have been conferred UNESCO Asia-Pacific Cultural Heritage Conservation Awards. These recognise and encourage public-private initiatives in restoring structures of heritage value in the region.

URA's conservation programme was also conferred the distinguished Urban Land Institute 2006 Global Award for Excellence in recognition of its works. And last year, Singapore's oldest Teochew temple, the Yueh Hai Ching temple at Phillip Street, which was established in 1826, also received the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Cultural Heritage Conservation Award (Merit). And, of course, we witnessed the inscription of the Singapore Botanic Gardens as our first UNESCO World Heritage site.

Madam, we have come a long way in our conservation journey. It has not been easy. There have been hits-and-misses and we need to do a lot more work on the road ahead. Not many Singaporeans realise this, but there are more than 70 national monuments on our island and more than 7,000 conserved buildings dot our cityscape. Going forward, we will continue to add to this list and expand our heritage spaces, even as we strive to transform our city to meet our future needs.

Madam, in the case of Dakota Crescent, we recognise that the area holds special memories for many people who grew up there and lived there. Even for people who have not lived there before, they look at Dakota Crescent and either see a reflection of their early childhood, or, for younger people, they see it as an opportunity or a window into the past. And that is why the National Heritage Board (NHB) has worked on several initiatives to commemorate the heritage of Dakota Crescent. For example, NHB commissioned a research project in April last year to document the history of the Dakota Crescent area, including key community landmarks and buildings of architectural interest.

NHB is also working on a video documentary of the estate, which will be uploaded on NHB's heritage portal, Roots.sg. Community groups have also been active in their efforts to commemorate Dakota Crescent by collecting individual memories, conducting tours and documenting the history of the estate. Beyond these efforts, our planners are open to looking at the different ways in which the area can be redeveloped and rejuvenated, while retaining its distinctive identity and character.

We understand that the residents and the heritage community who are passionate about conserving Dakota Crescent have been working on proposals, and when Mr Lim Biow Chuan showed the set of documents, we see it for the first time, although from a distance. We look forward to receiving these suggestions and will engage Mr Lim, members of the Heritage Community and the various groups that have worked on this project, to come up with a plan that is sensitive to the character and heritage of Dakota, while keeping our eye to the future.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn."

Adjourned accordingly at 5.58 pm.