Amending the Preservation of Monuments Act to further Safeguard our Built Heritage

OPENING SPEECH FOR THE SECOND READING OF THE PRESERVATION OF MONUMENTS (AMENDMENT) BILL

1. Madam Deputy Speaker , I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time”.

2. Madam, Our National Monuments form an integral part of our national identity. 

   1. They serve as critical markers of Singapore’s historical journey and development from pre-independence, and they are also tangible manifestations of shared experiences and milestones in our history which strengthen our sense of belonging. 

   2. They tell the Singapore Story, and stand as enduring testaments to Singapore’s history and our nationhood. 

3. 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 the care for National Monuments.

   1. In particular, the PMA lays out the legal protections, 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. 

   2. 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. 

4. Expanded definition of “monument”

5. In 2019, DPM Heng Swee Keat announced during the National Day period that the government would preserve the Padang as a National Monument.

   1. 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. 

   2. These include:

      1. the victory parade celebrating the formal surrender of the Japanese in Singapore in 1945; 

      2. the swearing-in of Yusof Ishak as Head-Of-State in December 1959, when we obtained self-government;

      3. the announcement of the merger with Malaysia in September 1963; and 

      4. our first National Day Parade in August 1966.

6. 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. 

   1. The Padang, as an open space, however does not fall within this definition. 

   2. The PMA will therefore be amended to expand the definition of “monument” to include any “site”, including open spaces and inland waters, so that sites of national historical significance like the Padang can be preserved. 

   3. Consequently, the Bill proposes an amendment to the definition of “monument” in the NHB Act for alignment with the PMA.

7. Madam, such a definition is consonant with many overseas jurisdictions. 

   1. 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. 

   2. 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. 

   3. Another example is the Domain in Sydney, a 34-hectare open space, which has been included in the New South Wales State Heritage Register.

8. With the expanded definition to include a site, certain aspects of the PMA will also need to be updated. 

9. 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.  

   1. These actions, such as “reconstructing”, “repainting” and “renovating”, they apply primarily to buildings and structures. 

10. So to better protect sites which are to be preserved as National Monuments, 

    1. We will also need to control actions such as clearing, digging, excavating or cultivating horticulture on the site; 

    2. In addition, extracting, mining, quarrying or interfering with any thing or groups of things that evidence human activity (past or present).

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

11. Strengthened protections for National Monuments

12. Madam, as part of our review of the PMA,

    1. we will also make amendments to improve protection of our heritage,

    2. to ensure that National Monuments are adequately protected from unauthorised alterations and changes. 
       Protections for proposed National Monuments

13. 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. 

    1. 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.

    2. The owner and occupier are given a “reasonable period” to make any objections to the proposed Preservation Order. Every objection would be considered thoroughly by NHB which then submits its recommendations to the Minister.

    3. 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 give feedback on proposed National Monuments with NHB.

14. It follows naturally that there should also 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. 

    1. 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. 

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

16. According protection to a proposed National Monument, even before final confirmation, is common in other jurisdictions. 

    1. For example, under the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance in Hong Kong, the Authority may declare any place, building, site or structure as a “proposed monument”. These places would then have the same protections as those which have been declared as a “monument”. 

    2. 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 of such interest. 

    3. 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. 

    4. 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.

17. 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.
    
    Levelling up enforcement powers
    

18. Madam 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 at any part of such monuments should not be treated any less seriously than that of conserved buildings. 

    1. This principle was applied, at the time, to the introduction of higher penalties for unauthorized works, as well as acts of destruction or defacement, for closer alignment to the Planning Act.

    2. 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.

    3. We will therefore in this bill accord monuments and proposed monuments with the same protection, as 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. 

    4. This is to allow NHB to carry out its enforcement and protection duties more effectively and also expeditiously. 

19. 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. 

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

       1. 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 a 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.

       2. 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 be able to demonstrate that he or she was unable to enter, or is refused entry to the land or site in question.

    2. 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 the manner as delineated in section 27(1), namely:

       1. Inspection of the National Monument or proposed National Monument;

       2. Investigating any contravention or suspected contravention of the PMA;

       3. Ascertaining whether any of the functions or powers under PMA should be exercised; or

       4. Taking any action or carrying out any work authorised or required under the PMA.

20. Taking reference from the Planning Act, 

    1. 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. 

    2. Additionally, they may also make measurements of the land and take samples of water, soil, vegetation or other similar substances from the land or site

       1. to better ascertain if there had been activity that have or could negatively impacted the monument.

21. 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.  

    1. We propose correspondingly to also extend this to a proposed National Monument as well.

    2. And 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. And members will know that, as I mentioned earlier, this is the period in between when a monument is being considered up till 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 protections for monuments then apply. 

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

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

24. First, as the PMA may overlap with the statutory powers of other public agencies, 

    1. 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. 

    2. 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.

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

25. Second, the amendments in clauses 10 and 12(1) of the Bill will require for 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.
    
    Working with stakeholders
    

26. Mr Speaker, Sir, 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 overly onerous requirements on the owners. 

    1. Going forward, NHB will continue to support owners and occupiers in their duty to maintain National Monuments.

    2. And NHB will 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.

27. Conclusion

28. Madam, some of our National Monuments are almost two hundred years old – and in the case of the Padang even older, and it is our duty to ensure that they continue to stand proudly for many years to come. 

    1. 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.

29. 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.

30. Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.