Safeguarding our National Monuments to tell the Singapore Story

Madam 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 as well to enjoy.

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 in as well as ownership of heritage. After all, heritage is about our shared values, shared vision, and a shared sense of identity. And we will do that as part of 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 questions and queries raised by Members.

Let me first address the points made by Mr Xie, Mr Ng, and Mr Perera, on the scope of the enforcement powers under the Preservation of Monuments Act (PMA), including our reasons for taking reference from the Planning Act. Mr Xie, on the one hand, said that powers could possibly go beyond that of the Planning Act given the relative considerations between a conserved property and a National Monument. On the flip side, Mr Ng asked if the powers could be calibrated further, including an explicit consideration of urgency or time sensitivity. I think Mr Perera also had several questions concerning the ambit of Section 27. I should assure members that these powers will be exercised judiciously as I mentioned. The fundamental consideration is to ensure that the value and the distinctive nature of these places, monuments, and 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 gazette as National Monuments.

As I mentioned earlier, the proposed amendments that we have in this Bill will take reference from the Planning Act. And these powers in the Planning Act have worked well to protect more than 7,000 conserved buildings, but at present do not extend to National Monuments. Mr Perera drew a distinction and sought to say that there is no equivalent [in the Planning Act] for forced entry onto premises should there be an apprehension of concern over damage to 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 property in question under the Planning Act. And that was an amendment that was made in 2017, as I explained.

To Mr Xie's question, first of all, about powers that go beyond the Planning Act. We had thought about this, and considered this given the relative position of both types of properties. But we eventually decided against it, and we felt that the proposed amendments in this Bill ought to be sufficient to ensure that 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 Perera and Mr Ng's questions, the proposed amendments to Section 27 for the Director of the National Monuments or 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.

As I mentioned earlier, this provision is only operative if the Director or Monument Inspector already suspects, on reasonable grounds that an offence under 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 old – an old property, building, or site – and any damage will likely be irreparable and difficult to make up. And these four sections that Section 27 cites are matters which go to the heart of preserving and protecting the site. Section 13(7), for example, deals with the 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 an Enforcement Notice. Section 22(1) deals with situations 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 taking place, or is 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 the owner or occupier of the land is present, then the officer concerned must first, before entering, approach the owner or occupier, show identification and in that context explain the circumstances in which one needs to enter the premises. So far from the image which I think Mr Perera sketches out in which 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 that land or site concerned. So every attempt is made to demonstrate that you are either unable to enter, or that 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 Section 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 premises are circumscribed by Section 27(1). In other words, there are certain statutory functions and powers that the officers are in charge of and are responsible for, and those are the purposes for which entry is sought.

To the extent that we compare our legislation with comparable legislations overseas, it is obviously in different contexts and one also has to appreciate that the nature of monuments, the nature of sites, would be different from one jurisdiction to another. 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 that has an item of the environmental heritage, can then enter to carry out an inspection in that building. In Hong Kong, as Mr Perera says, provided that a 48-hour notice is given, the officer concerned may at all reasonable times, enter and inspect any proposed monument or monument. In the UK, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, Section 88 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 a 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, including surveying, ascertaining whether an order has been complied with, ascertaining whether an offense has been or is being committed, and also ascertaining whether any building, land or site is being maintained properly, or whether it is in a proper state of repair. 

These are the provisions elsewhere in other jurisdictions. I am not saying that 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 and on occasion, to enter a site. And the reason for that is obvious, as you are talking about premises, buildings, and 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 site 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 Perera's suggestion on how we can further help monument owners or occupiers maintain their premises better. I think we agree 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 of the monument. 

Mr Ng and Mr Xie made suggestions on how we could enhance other areas separately from legislation to better deter damage to National Monuments. Mr 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 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-facing entrance. For these properties, NHB will work with the monument owners to put up prominent signage where appropriate to remind the public to pay due respect to the National Monuments. On this I think it is really not rocket science to know that you should not at any time deface, destroy or damage anything that is in public, let alone something that is of heritage and monumental value. 

Mr Xie asked about NHB's efforts to educate the public on the significance of our National Monuments. Indeed, preservation and enforcement powers help us safeguard National Monuments, but that in itself is not sufficient if the public is not aware of its significance and also appreciate them for its heritage value. 

Many of us would have noticed that several of our National Monuments are have also been given a new lease of life, to borrow Mr Perera's words, through careful adaptive re-use, 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, while at the same time appreciating their history and significance. 

So some examples include the Former City Hall and Supreme Court, which is beside the Padang, and now house the National Gallery. Members may also have gone past the former St James Power Station.  But the point about adaptive reuse is well understood. Sometimes it is a question of trying to balance modernising and preserving the heritage, and adaptively re-using with imagination to repurpose the interior, which sometimes can maximise preservation, and also the affinity to the public, who is drawn more to the premises, rather than just 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 and learning journeys for schoolchildren, at least in pre-pandemic times, led by volunteer guides who share stories of the history and significance of 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 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 schoolchildren as I mentioned, NHB offers Monumental Robo-tours. Not only for schoolchildren, Members are always welcome to try it 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, and which was released last year. I am pleased to say that perhaps because people cannot be physically present as much as they would like to be, that garnered more than 300,000 views, which is very encouraging.

These digital programmes will be with us over for the long-term even after the pandemic. They will expand the menu of 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, and new memories of hopefully members of the public at these historic places.

I would just like to respond to some of the specific points that Mr Perera raised in terms of trying to strike a balance. I will explain how Section 27 is designed to work. 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 protection of the greater site itself. 

In terms of the duration of the period for objections to be raised after the Notice of Intention (NOI) is served, I noted Mr Perera's point, and we can consider it. But one also needs to appreciate that as you are gazetting, or considering the gazetting of sites for preservation, no two sites will be the same. Some, in fact, after these amendments, will be a site, others might be a building. Some are larger, some are smaller. Some have more complex histories, and some might require a little bit more work, as Mr 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 Perera says why don't we follow Hong Kong which says one year. But you know, in some cases, one year is too short, in other cases one year is too long. So, for now I think it is probably best for us to look at the sites on a case-by-case basis, and given the level of interactivity that NHB has with stakeholders, with owners, with occupiers, with members of the public, with heritage groups, it is sufficient for now I believe to leave it as “reasonable period” so that there is some flexibility in the 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, or all sites and buildings. 

Mr Perera raised a point about engagement. There is no provision in the Bill that stipulates a timeline and plan for engagement, but Mr 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 Perera looked at, including Hong Kong and the UK, some have, but some do not have a formal process. We chose not to have a formal process hard coded into the legislation but that does not mean that NHB does not engage. 

In fact, NHB regularly engages the heritage stakeholders in Singapore regularly, including NGOs, docent leaders, monument owners and occupiers, and also NHB grant applicants. NHB also conducts focus group discussions, and public consultations for our major projects and initiatives. Our SG Heritage Plan is part of that, but also for museum or institution revamps, NHB does public consultations on these. 

And as pointed out by Mr Perera, following the amendments in these Bill, after the Minister has formed the intention to gazette a site or a monument, this intention will be published. Mr Perera asked if it will be online and if it will be free. I think if it is online it will be free and NHB intends to publish it online. So 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, 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 will be published, and the public will know about it. 

There were some questions by members on the operation of the new Section 22(A). As I explained in my opening speech, sometimes for a site being subject to a Preservation Order, and regulations on how it is to be 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. So what Section 22(A) does is to provide that these other agencies may come in and deal with their area of operations and their works without running afoul of the PMA. And to Mr Perera's suggestion, he should be assured that there is close collaboration between MCCY, NHB, URA and relevant public agencies whenever there are such works that concern, touch on, or impact heritage sites or buildings. 

Finally, on Mr Perera's last point on due process, I think he can be assured that it applies to all. There is no one particular site that these amendments have in mind. In all sites and cases, due process will apply. I want to assure Mr Perera that due process will always be preserved, pun also intended. 

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.