PRESERVATION OF MONUMENTS BILL

PRESERVATION OF MONUMENTS BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

2.16 pm

The Acting Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

In Singapore, 55 buildings have been gazetted as national monuments. The number is not large, and that is why they are all the more precious to us. These monuments are some of the finest buildings we have that reflect our rich

Column: 3646

architectural and cultural heritage. Amongst them are the City Hall and former Supreme Court buildings, which continue to stand loftily amidst the modernity today as enduring testaments of Singapore's history and identity. There are other buildings that tell the story of our nationhood. For example, religious monuments such as the Sri Mariamman Temple at South Bridge Road, Thian Hock Kheng at Telok Ayer Street, Sultan Mosque in Kampong Glam and St Andrew's Cathedral at St Andrew's Road, tell the world of our multi-ethnic and multi-religious harmony that we enjoy; a cornerstone in our endeavour to build a modern Singapore. There are also national monuments such as the Raffles Hotel, Chijmes and the Telok Ayer Market, which have been successfully adapted for modern use and have become popular with both locals and tourists alike.

Without these familiar landmarks, Singapore would be a less distinctive and identifiable place that we are proud to call home. It is important that these social markers of history continue to withstand the passages of time and urban progress. To do so, there must be sufficient safeguards in the Preservation of Monuments Act to make sure that they will continue to stand proudly for many more years to come.

Objectives of review

Mr Speaker, Sir, the current Preservation of Monuments Act (PMA), whose core provisions have largely remained the same since it was enacted in 1971, is no longer adequate for the purpose of monuments protection. Our enforcement mechanisms need to be more robust to protect these monuments against wilful destruction and illegal renovation works. In amending the Act, MICA is taking a two-pronged approach – to enhance the enforcement powers of the authority and to revise the penalty framework.

Column: 3647

Changes to the enforcement and penalty frameworks

Sir, the new Act will provide for greater control over the repairs, renovation or construction works carried out on national monuments by their owners, principals or agents. This will be through requiring monument owners to provide information on works done to the monuments and giving the Board the authority to enter a monument to inspect and assess works being carried out, and to take actions to halt the works including requiring the owner to restore the monument. With more authority, the Board can better monitor and prevent indiscriminate alteration or destruction of monuments, which, once done, may be irreversible.

This enhancement of the Board's enforcement powers will be incomplete if the legislation does not provide for owners and occupiers to have a duty to maintain their monuments. This is currently absent in the PMA. A new clause will be introduced, vesting the owners and occupiers with a general duty to ensure that the national monument is properly maintained. With this clause, the Board will be given the legal authority to issue preservation notices to owners to carry out the restoration work deemed necessary by the Board.

Sir, the second prong is to update the penalty framework which has become outdated in today's context. The penalty framework of the PMA has been unchanged since the Act was first passed 38 years ago in 1971. It carries a maximum fine of $5,000 for penalties. Let me illustrate the inadequacy of this fine quantum with a case in which an owner of a national monument got away with a mere $500 fine for undertaking illegal works some years ago.

The management of this monument had carried out alteration works between

Column: 3648

1999 and 2001 without the approval of the Preservation of Monuments Board (PMB). The management committee refused to rectify the illegal works despite notices issued by the PMB. After a year of impasse, the PMB brought the case to court and in 2003, the secretary of the management committee was found guilty of undertaking illegal works and was fined a total of $500. Not only was extensive damage inflicted on the monument, but the authority could take no further action under the current Act to compel the management to restore the damaged monument.

We therefore need to update our penalties comprehensively to achieve greater deterrence and punitive effect, to prevent similar incidents from occurring. As a general principle, the new clauses in the Act draw reference from and, where applicable, are pegged above that of the Planning Act which governs conserved buildings. National monuments are deemed buildings with greater heritage and architectural value, and hence illegal works on them or destruction should not be treated any less seriously than conserved buildings.

There are two key thrusts to the revised penalty framework. One, higher penalties will be imposed for unauthorised renovation or alteration works that are carried out by the building's owners, principals or agents. The current penalty stands at a maximum fine of $5,000. Under the new Act, individuals will be fined a maximum of $100,000 and/or a maximum jail term of 12 months, with a further maximum fine of $5,000 daily in the event of a continued offence. Corporations and companies will be fined a maximum of $200,000 and a further maximum fine of $10,000 daily in the event of a continued offence. In addition, the Court may order the offender to restore the monument in accordance to the Board's specifications, at the owners' expense.

Column: 3649

Secondly, higher penalties will be imposed to deter acts of wilful destruction to our national monuments. Currently, the penalty for such acts of wilful destruction is a maximum fine of $5,000, and/or a maximum jail term of six months. Under the new Act, an offender charged with defacing, say, the City Hall building, shall be liable on conviction to a fine of up to $30,000 and/or a jail term of up to six months. The Court will also be empowered to make an order requiring the offender to restore the national monument at his own expense, in accordance with the Board's specifications.

Let me assure the House that these legislative enhancements are intended as a safeguard to deter potentially errant parties who wilfully destroy or damage the monuments or are negligent in their duty to maintain the monuments. It is not intended to penalise the majority of the monument owners nor occupiers who have been dutifully maintaining their buildings. In administering the Act, the Board will exercise due diligence to identify the specific party responsible for the actions, or the person who is in actual possession or control of the monument. For example, should the owner or the occupier of the monument be found to be fully responsible for a misdeed, third party persons, such as the caretaker or volunteers involved in the care of the building, would not be liable for the charges.

The new PMA – an exercise of joint responsibility

Mr Speaker, Sir, the rich built heritage that we have preserved brings intangible pride and prestige to their owners and benefits society as a whole. While the main responsibility of preservation lies with the monument owners as they should be responsible for maintaining their own buildings, the Government will co-

Column: 3650

share some of this responsibility. I would like to assure the monument owners that the State will continue to do its part as partners, particularly given the current economic climate, which may make the task all the more challenging for monument owners.

The State will continue to lend assistance through support schemes like the Tax Exemption Scheme (TES) which was launched in 1994, and the National Monument Fund (NMF) which was introduced in 2008. The TES assists non-profit and religious organisations to raise funds for the restoration of the buildings, namely through double-tax benefits to donors. The National Monument Fund, on the other hand, was introduced in response to feedback from stakeholders on the need for the Government to share in the cost of sustaining our historic buildings. We have set aside $5 million to be disbursed over a period of five years, to assist owners of religious and non-profit national monuments to undertake urgent and necessary repairs. In its inaugural year, the Government supported the applications of the Sri Mariamman Temple, Hong San See Temple and Church of our Lady of Lourdes to co-share the funding of urgent repairs. A total of about $620,000 was awarded for the rectification of faults. Going forward, more applications will be assessed and supported in the coming years.

Merger between the PMB and NHB

Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the new Act will legislatively effect the merger of the Preservation of Monuments Board and the National Heritage Board (NHB) to enhance the quality of policy, strategies and services. The PMB has done a good job in championing built heritage over the last 12 years under MICA's direct purview. It is now timely to integrate their efforts with the larger heritage promotion efforts undertaken by the National Heritage Board. The required related amendments

Column: 3651

to the NHB Act and consequential amendments to other written laws for alignment with the new PMB will be made.

MICA recognises that the protection of our national monuments is a critical heritage function. This merger will therefore enhance the impact of our overall heritage promotion efforts, and enable us to reap natural synergies and economies of scale.

In conclusion, Sir, with the amendments to the enforcement and penalty frameworks to strengthen the PMA and the merger of the Preservation of Monuments Board and the National Heritage Board, we will be better prepared to safeguard our national monuments and enhance the role that heritage plays in giving Singaporeans a shared sense of identity and anchoring us to Singapore.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

2.26 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

I notice that I am the only speaker for this Bill, compared to the 16 for the Bills on Public Order and Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore. I know that these two other Bills touch on important subjects, but I thought there could be a better balance. Maybe the young should also pay some attention to that.

Mr Speaker: Mr Zainul Abidin. Carry on.

Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed: Mr Speaker, Sir, I trust it is not because of lack of interest on the subject of preservation of monuments but more because of the confidence our Members have in MICA

Column: 3652

and PMB on a job well done. I think one need only be with Dr Lee Boon Yang on some overseas trips, which I went on once to the Middle East, to observe his eye for details and his heart for such matters. In fact, the same spirit was also shown by our new Acting Minister when he officiated at the MOU signing for the heritage institutions.

Sir, this Bill was first enacted in 1971, some 38 years ago. But it also brings me back down memory lane, because 28 years ago when I was the Editor of Sunday Times , we were very actively involved in debating this issue of whether the Singapore Government was doing enough for the preservation of monuments. I think this is an important subject because it is not just about our past but about our contemporary thinking on our past and values for the future. If I may, Sir, I would like to quote this editorial written in 1981 in the Sunday Times , and it reads:

"It is always a cheerful sight to see the government responding to the needs of the nation. That is as true of preserving our links with the past as it is with tearing down dilapidated structures and putting up spanking new buildings in their place or in creating jobs and providing public housing. As our society matures and grows older, new demands and priorities will set in. Conserving what we have of our history and our roots is just one of these new factors in the task of a successful administering of a country."

Sir, I would like to congratulate the Monuments Board. Although it had a very slow start, from eight monuments in 1973, it has grown to 55 in 2006. But yet, I suppose, more could be done. If one were to look at the number of buildings that have been gazetted as monuments, you will see historical, ethnic, religious, education, tourism, and even industry to remind us of the war. But maybe it is about time, Sir, that we should also look at buildings which have

Column: 3653

actually contributed to the moulding of our modern and new nation.

Here, I would like to suggest that the PMB and NHB look at the former Trades Union House and the Singapore Conference Hall. This was built in 1965. In fact, this was a venue for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference in 1971. It was a popular convention centre in the late 60's and 70's, before the arrival of the World Trade Centre, Raffles City Convention Centre, Suntec City and the Singapore Expo. To Singaporeans, it was also an important nomination and counting centre at elections where election results were announced and post-election press conferences held. And the Prime Minister's National Day Rally was also held there in the early 80's before it moved to Kallang Theatre in 1986.

It was also a popular venue for pre-university seminars in the 70's. Many National University of Singapore graduates will also remember the place as their convocations were held there during the 70's and the 80's. Enough of the past.

Let me now move on to the future, Sir. I would like to raise two specific points here. One, I know that the Acting Minister has mentioned that the penalty is raised from $500 to $10,000. But I wonder actually in present day dollar terms whether even $10,000 is sufficient to make sure that those who are culpable and responsible for lack of action are taken to task. So I would like to suggest that the Ministry reviews that amount and see whether it is necessary to raise it in the future.

Having said that, I believe that the Government should also provide more financial support for those generally in need of help for maintenance of our national monuments. Sir, Singaporeans are concerned about retaining their

Column: 3654

cultural built-up heritage. There have been recent letters in the press where some Singaporeans from the older generations mourn the loss of historical markers. Monument owners, on the other hand, fight a losing battle since the building maintenance costs are high. Now PMB and NHB's role is crucial to offer them support. I think it is more than just money. I think they should also continue to advise them on matters of restoration and intra-agency assistance from other Ministries, where possible. The National Monument's grant of $5 million, which I was told, would be spread over five years, while welcomed is still rather small. I think the Government is only providing that as a token assistance, not really for maintenance but for at-risk restoration works. So I would like to urge the Ministry to increase the support to make our preservation efforts be more fruitful.

3.05 pm

RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first thank the Member who has spoken so passionately in support of the Bill. Let me assure him that while he may be the lone speaker, his support is neither measured nor treasured based on quantity, but rather the quality of his input and certainly he has done great credit.

The Member has raised several points, and let me try and take them in turn. One is the possibility of gazetting the Singapore Conference Hall as a national monument. Let me run through the process. We have an ongoing process to look at buildings which we consider to be historically or architecturally meritorious to be considered as buildings to be preserved as national monuments. There is a process, and it is ongoing. Every few years, we nominate a number of such institutions, whether religious, commercial or otherwise, to be considered as national monuments. I believe that in time to come, we will also be adding to the 55 buildings that we have as national

Column: 3655

monuments. Buildings which are historically rich and structures that have added significantly to our past to grow the collection of national monuments that we have today.

On whether the penalties are sufficient, we have revised the penalties for the first time since 38 years ago. From $5,000, individuals can be fined now up to a maximum of $100,000. And for corporations, that fine is doubled to $200,000 with additional daily fines of between $5,000 and $10,000 in the event that it becomes a continued offence. This is drawn in line with other Acts, for example, the Planning Act, and we believe it should be a sufficient deterrent at this point in time. But we will certainly take the Member's input into consideration and monitor if such penalties are sufficient. There are, indeed, actually very few cases where monuments have been wilfully defaced or where the owners have been recalcitrant, in terms of restoring such monuments, as suggested by the Board. But we believe that the enforcement framework and penalties' framework that we have introduced today will suffice for the time being.

On the recommendation to increase the level of support and advice from agencies, this is indeed something that we can take into consideration, particularly in issuing more detailed renovation and maintenance guidelines. The new NHB, PMB will indeed be doing so in the coming year.

On the level of support, I think the principle is that it is the responsibility of the owners or the occupiers of the national monuments who have the primary responsibility of undertaking the proper maintenance and repair of these monuments. The Government steps in where necessary, particularly for urgent, major repairs which, unless they are effected, would put the monuments in

Column: 3656

danger altogether. We have put $5 million over the next five years, as a start. We hope that this will be sufficient. If not, we will have to go back and see whether we can raise more funds. We believe that the primary responsibility is indeed on the owners. The Government can step in from time to time to co-share in the responsibility financially but largely in terms of providing the right level of advice and support.

On that note, Mr Speaker, I want to thank the Member once again for his input to the Bill that is before us today. I think monuments certainly are something that we continue to treasure. Without them, Singapore would be a less distinctive and familiar place and therefore, given the importance of these monuments, there need to be reasonable laws that will empower the Board to carry out its duties and to deter potentially errant parties who may cause damage to these social markers of our history.

So, in conclusion, Sir, I put the Bill before the House and ask for their support in effecting it to law.

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. – [RAdm Lui Tuck Yew].

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

Column: 3656