Preservation of Monuments (Amendment) Bill

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.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (The Minister for Culture, Community and Youth): 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.

Source: Hansard