NATIONAL LIBRARY (Retention)

Mr Simon S. C. Tay asked the Minister for National Development why the Urban Redevelopment Authority has not seen fit to reply to public suggestions on ways in which the existing National Library can be retained.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Mah Bow Tan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I presume by "public suggestions" Mr Simon Tay is referring to the alternative proposal for the Singapore Management University campus that was submitted by Mr Tay Kheng Soon. If that is the case, then perhaps, before I reply to the Question, may I, by way of background, trace the history of the National Library issue.

Sir, the possibility of the National Library building being removed was first made public in 1988 when the URA was formulating the Civic District Master Plan. URA held an exhibition on the draft Master Plan for the Civic and Cultural District which was the area around the Bras Basah Park area in April 1988. This was followed by a public dialogue in May 1988 between the then Minister for National Development, Mr S. Dhanabalan, and professional bodies and members of the public.

There was general support for the removal of the National Library building to open up the view of Fort Canning Hill from the Bras Basah area. There was another proposal to realign Stamford Road behind National Museum so that the National Museum would be better integrated with Bras Basah Park. This would also entail the demolition of the library building.

The public feedback led to further studies by URA and the former PWD on how to better integrate the land parcels in the area to create a more pedestrian friendly environment. Several options were explored, including depressing Stamford Road, providing an alternative at-grade alignment behind the National Museum and a tunnel through the National Library. The only feasible option was the tunnel option, and this was subsequently incorporated into the Master Plan for the Civic District. The finalised Master Plan was completed and exhibited to the public in February 1992.

In December 1998, SMU announced that it would build its campus in the Bras Basah area. There was a series of Forum page letters in the newspapers and direct suggestions to URA following the announcement. URA responded to these letters, and explained the plans to them.

In March 1999, SMU chaired a public symposium on the physical development of its campus. Issues such as why SMU was located in Bras Basah Park, and the need to remove the National Library building were addressed by the URA representative at the symposium. URA also explained the issues to the press, and the press published these explanations on 20th March.

On 15th January this year, SMU chaired a technical workshop to obtain feedback from architectural professionals on three alternative proposals put up by SMU's master planners. At the workshop, Mr Tay objected to the plans which proposed buildings on Bras Basah Park, and the removal of the National Library building. He subsequently called a press conference on 24th January to present his alternative proposal for the SMU campus.

URA did not participate in Mr Tay's press conference because it was not invited. Neither could it respond to the proposal then as it had not received a formal proposal from Mr Tay.

Mr Tay wrote to the Prime Minister about his proposal on 31st January 2000. The Prime Minister then referred it to my Ministry for evaluation. Subsequently, I met with Mr Tay on two occasions to better understand his plan. On the second occasion, I asked Mr Tay to present it to my Ministry officials with URA and LTA present to give their professional inputs.

My Ministry made an assessment of Mr Tay's and URA's plans and I replied to the Prime Minister on 28th February. I am informed that the Prime Minister's Office has replied to Mr Tay. Sir, I have the Prime Minister's permission to release both letters to the public. May I circulate both letters to Members of the House for their information. [Copies of letters distributed to hon. Members.]

Sir, may I refer Members of the House to my letter to the Prime Minister dated 28th February? In particular, may I read part of the letter starting from paragraph 3:

"Mr Tay's proposal and URA's guidelines differ over two fundamental issues. The first issue is the extent of the open space in the Bras Basah area. The second issue is whether the existing National Library building should be retained. Mr Tay Kheng Soon's Proposal

Mr Tay feels that the Bras Basah Park should be kept as a large open space with completely open views from the roads and unblocked by buildings, in order to retain what he perceives to be a crucial element in the mental map which Singaporeans have of the city. He thus proposes to create a sunken park below street level, reflecting pool, and waterfall; and to replace the current foliage with structured rows of palm trees to give this area a sense of monumental scale.

However, the sunken park would restrict pedestrian movement between the various buildings at street level as the public would have to walk around the edges of the park to get to buildings on the other side. Since the MRT tunnels under the sunken park would limit the usable area, Mr Tay proposes to meet SMU's floor space requirements via clusters of tall buildings of up to 15 storeys at the foot of Fort Canning. These tall buildings would not be in keeping with the low-rise character of the Civic District with its many historic buildings. It would also block the views to and from the Fort Canning Hill.

Mr Tay agrees that the National Library building lacks architectural merit. However, he feels strongly that the Library should be preserved for historical and sentimental reasons. To avoid the Library, he proposes that the new road tunnel run alongside the current Stamford Road for a stretch and then dive down under it. This plan requires a long, deep trench, flanked by one-metre high parapet walls, to be created in front of the National Library up to the entrance of the National Museum. This will severely mar the landscape of the area and restrict pedestrian movement between Bras Basah Park and the National Museum area. URA's Planning Guidelines

URA's plan for this area recognises the importance of retaining an open space and the visual connection between the Singapore Arts Museum and the National Museum. By allowing SMU's buildings and some public facilities to be built on the park, the plan seeks to encourage better public usage of the park. Capping the height of buildings around the Fort Canning Hill area to around 4 to 5 storeys will maintain the character of the Civic District and protect the view to and from the hill. The addition of low-rise institutional buildings would further enhance the civic quality of the area.

The realignment of the existing Stamford Road and the building of the tunnel through Fort Canning Hill provides the most direct route for traffic moving from Marina Centre and the Central Business District to Orchard Road, and thus siphons traffic away from the Bras Basah area, making it more pleasant for pedestrians. It will provide SMU with more regular land parcels to work with. However, this alignment requires the removal of the National Library building. MND's Assessment

Essentially, Mr Tay's and URA's plans seek to achieve different planning intentions, with very different start-points. We need to decide between a plan which provides a large unshaded open space and retention of the National Library building and one which seeks to bring more public activity into the centre of the area. With the former, the trade-off is a poorer road network, a tunnel which cuts the area into two and high rise buildings in an essentially low-rise environment.

MND clearly prefers URA's plan as it is more people-friendly, facilitates better pedestrian flow and preserves the ambience and environment of the important Civic District. It also allows SMU greater flexibility to plan the area to meet their requirements. URA's plan brings about better coherence in the cluster of buildings for SMU in that it facilitates pedestrian traffic throughout the cluster without being subdivided by a Stamford Road which will carry heavy and fast vehicular traffic.

MND acknowledges that some members of the public are in favour of retaining the National Library building. However, the Preservation of Monuments Board and the National Heritage Board have assessed that there are insufficient merits to preserve the building. Nevertheless, PMB will look into how the social memory of the building of the library can be captured and commemorated. We will also encourage SMU to incorporate in the design of its buildings features that would help Singaporeans evoke memories of the Library."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that the issue of the National Library has been extensively discussed and debated, both publicly and privately, not once, not twice, but many times, by way of public dialogues, symposiums, workshops, letters to the press and private consultations since 1988, and now this debate in the House. So my view is that there is no question that URA or any other relevant authority has not seen fit to reply to public suggestions on this issue.

Mr Simon S C Tay (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I begin by thanking the Minister for his full reply and welcoming the steps in meeting the architect, Mr Tay Kheng Soon. May I ask the Minister: will he not consider further public process and attempt for dialogue with the public in general, in the sense that meeting with an individual architect is not the same as meeting other people who might feel that the Library or the Park is worth saving?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Sir, in the chronology of events that I narrated just now, it is quite obvious that there have been a lot of public dialogues and discussions on not only the subject of the National Library, whether it can and should be retained, but also the general discussion on the whole environment of the area. In this particular case, there was a very specific alternative proposal. This specific alternative proposal entailed a technical alternative, ie, to realign the tunnel. There was also a general proposal regarding the ambience of the area as it pertains to retaining the Park. I have met the proponent of the new plan, Mr Tay Kheng Soon, not once, but twice. I wanted to understand what was the rationale for the proposal and why he proposed it this way. I also wanted, at the second meeting, to evaluate the technical feasibility of it. So this is a very specific proposal which has to be dealt with, responded to and evaluated in a very specific manner. There have been, as the Member would agree, a lot of dialogues and discussions on the generalities of the proposal, whether the Library should be retained, the historical merits of retaining the Library as opposed to the perceived lack of architectural merit and so on and so forth. I do not think there is a need now for us to reopen the debate again, especially when there is on the table a very specific alternative proposal. I thought it was proper for us to evaluate and look at the alternative proposal seriously, and we have done this.

Dr S. Vasoo (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not really good in architectural details. But what I would like to ask the Minister is: why is the National Library not kept in view of strong public sentiments and there are a lot of debate and views on it? Is a cost issue involved?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the question of keeping or not keeping the National Library was not the starting point of the discussion. As I recounted just now, when the Masterplan for the area was done in 1988, the whole question of upgrading and improving the ambience of the area and turning it into a civic and cultural district was the objective of the exercise. The removal of the National Library, at that time, was felt desirable because it would open up the vista to the Fort Canning Hill. That was the starting point of the process. And at that time, many who participated in the dialogue session, from reading the minutes of the discussions and newspaper reports, did not feel very strongly about the library. In fact, many agreed with the idea of removing the library in order, as I said, to completely open up the whole area to show off Fort Canning Hill.

Subsequent to that, there was also the question of how we could improve the transportation network and this involved the building of a tunnel. In fact, this idea of a tunnel, of an alternative road, came from the public dialogue itself. I believe it was a proposal from one of the industry participants in the dialogue. Studies were made and it was felt that that was the best alignment for the tunnel and that also required the removal of the library.

If the library had very strong architectural, historical or sentimental value, and if the Preservation of Monuments Board and the National Heritage Board had so classified it, we would have had to look at alternative plans. But in this particular case, these authorities were consulted and it was the general consensus at that time that there was no such strong merit. And indeed, many architects had come out publicly to say that there is also no architectural merit. So there is no question of us setting out to demolish the library but, in the overall scheme of things, the general appearance and ambience of the area can obviously be better enhanced if we are able to remove the library.

I do acknowledge that there are many people who feel very strongly about the library and I understand their feelings why they feel this way. I must admit that I too have very fond memories of the library and the area because I studied for six years there. I was in St. Joseph's Institution from 1960 to 1966 and I remember spending many hours in the library and in the park. But I also remember that there were many other old buildings in the area. There was the Catholic Centre, a Bakers' Bakery next door, bookshops in the area and a bus-stop just outside the cathedral. It was actually more than a bus-stop, as SJI boys and RI boys would testify, because that was the meeting place where you went there not to catch a bus, but also to catch the attention of somebody special. That is what many of us who had studied in that area remember. The library is part and parcel of that general sentiment and ambience of the area.

But I think our memories are more than just of physical buildings. They are also memories of the environment of the area, the hustle and bustle of that area, the youthful energy and exuberance of the area. Many of those buildings are gone. The Catholic Centre is gone, Bakers' Bakery is gone, the bus-stop is gone. The park, which was the old school field, is now deserted and quiet most of the time. And yet, if you ask me whether those memories are still there, I say, "Yes. They are still there." To me, it is not just a matter of keeping physical buildings. It is also trying to re-capture the spirit of the area, of the past. And when I look at the plans for the area, with SMU coming into the area and the new campus being located in the area, I feel tremendous excitement because I think this is going to bring back the old spirit of the area. It is going to bring back life into that very important part of the city. It is going to make that area once again throb with life and energy. That to me is probably as important, if not, more so than the whole debate of keeping the park open or the need for us to keep the library. And this is how I would like to see people view this new plan, to look at it in this perspective.

When I met Mr Tay, I asked him why did he feel so strongly about retaining the library building because in 1988, he actually supported the removal of the National Library building. He told me he was involved with the National Museum at that time and the National Museum wanted to expand and one of the ways to expand it was to remove the National Library. I think he did not feel very strongly about the National Library then. I asked him, "Why have you changed your mind?" He said that he had discovered new historical facts about the library and he referred me to one of the poems which one of the young people sent to him. It was a poem by Edwin Thumboo. He gave me a copy. It is called "The National Library, Singapore" written by Edwin Thumboo, and one of the lines in that poem said, "To preserve the past, ensure the future."

To Mr Tay, the library is more than just a library. It is an icon, a symbol. If you knock it down, you would have knocked away the past. If you preserve it, you preserve the past and therefore you ensure the future. After looking at his plans and looking at the whole redevelopment of the area with SMU coming in, I thought to myself that perhaps another interpretation of what Mr Edwin Thumboo wrote - "Preserve the past, ensure the future" - would be to actually redevelop the area along the lines that have been proposed. And what better way to preserve the past and ensure the future than to bring life back into the city, to bring back what was there in the past, the atmosphere, the hustle and bustle, the throbbing energy and vitality, thousands of young men and women going about their work, going to class, hanging around in the public spaces in between classes. I thought that really is something which is in keeping with the sentiments expressed because, by doing so, you are not just preserving the past, but you do so in a way which provides an opportunity, an environment, an institution which will benefit many generations of Singaporeans to come.

I would like to say to Members of this House and to the public, please look at the plans when they are produced by SMU and the planners that have been commissioned by SMU to redevelop the area, to bring life back into the area, to bring back the past and give us a wonderful new institution which will cater to future generations of Singaporeans.

Mr Simon Tay: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think many of us would share an interest in the Minister's exciting vision of the street life. May I move to the question about the principles of consultation. The Minister has said that there seem to be more public sentiments now for preserving the building and, secondly, he has mentioned Mr Tay Kheng Soon, the architect, wrote directly to the Prime Minister's office. May I ask whether there are some general principles or circumstances that his Ministry would look at when considering possible change of plans? And secondly, may I ask whether there is a formal or regular route for any such suggestions from the public rather than everyone writing to the Prime Minister?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Sir, consultation is not something that we have suddenly discovered, that we have seen the light and now we have public consultation. If we look at the track record of the Government, not just my Ministry but other Ministries, there have been extensive public consultations in many, many areas. In this particular area alone, I went through in quite great detail the degree of consultation that took place more than 10 years ago, when the first plan for the Civic District was mooted. It was not just a plan that was put up. There was an extensive series of dialogue sessions chaired by the Minister himself. And arising from those dialogue sessions, there were a whole series of studies that were done. It was only in 1992 that the final plans were publicised and put into the public domain as a result of four years of consultation and studies. And even then, thereafter, when SMU was given the mandate to locate its campus in that area, I am given to understand that there was also a series of dialogues that were carried out with industry professionals, architects and members of the public.

When a specific proposal came to us, we looked at it very seriously because the people who were behind this proposal were serious people. They put up serious proposals, spent a lot of time, money and effort in putting them up and I thought this was worth considering. There are many suggestions that unfortunately are not so serious. In fact, some of them are frivolous. I think those do not deserve the kind of attention that serious proposals deserve. This is the process that we have followed. Indeed, the Concept Plan is going to be reviewed this year and next year. My Ministry intends to hold a series of discussions and consultations with the public on a broad basis and, after that, we will take in the people's views and inputs and finalise the Concept Plan.

It does not follow that every single idea or input that comes to us can or will be accepted. I think the Member himself would agree that it is not possible for us to do so. And it is this very nature of consultation which gives rise to this result. Some ideas we may take in and some ideas we may not take in, or we may not take in any ideas at all. But that does not, in any way, suggest that there is no consultation. If you ask me if there is a specific formula or process, the answer is no. There are many channels open. First of all, there is a proactive approach that the Government takes in terms of major plans and policies. Then there is the iterative process of feedback and discussion, back and forth, and there are other channels such as private communications. My Ministry meets with the industry bodies on a regular basis, with the Singapore Institute of Architects, with individual architects, engineers and so on. At each and every meeting, there is opportunity for dialogue and discussion. And this is the whole purpose of having these meetings. So, there are many different channels, including writing directly to the Prime Minister. I think the Prime Minister receives many letters on this and many other issues.

What is the right way to go about it? What is consultation all about? I think it is about giving people who are affected by the plans which, in this case, means all Singaporeans, a chance to have a say in the plans before they are finalised. As a result, if we may have missed something, if we do, hopefully this will be taken care of. At the very least, they would have had greater ownership of the plans. And I hope the Member would agree that this is what we have done in this particular case.