A Monumental Legacy: Preserving Singapore’s Past and Heritage

Credits to Unsplash (Unsplash: rigel) https://unsplash.com/photos/cars-parked-in-front-of-white-and-brown-concrete-building-during-daytime-ODvBSv3a_Dk

In this Explainer, find out...

What is the Preservation of Monuments Act and how does it work?
How has the Preservation of Monuments Act evolved over the years?
What are some key concerns that have arisen as a result of the Preservation of Monuments Act?

Introduction

Singapore’s urban landscape features many iconic structures — Housing Development Board flats, skyscraper office buildings, and luxury hotels. Most of these structures were built during the formative years of nation-building post-independence.

In contrast, the landscape also features buildings such as the House of Tan Yeok Nee, Hajjah Fatimah Mosque and Istana Kampong Gelam. These were constructed in the 19th century when urban development was disorganised and less regulated. How have these historic buildings survived the waves of change Singapore has seen? In this Policy Explainer, we will shed light on the Preservation of Monuments Act 1970 (PMA) and examine its role in preserving Singapore’s monuments and historic places.

Development And Conservation In The Early Years

Throughout the 1960s and beyond, Singapore’s urgent need for urban renewal, economic development and safe housing required demolishing buildings in large population centres, such as shophouses and old homes. The iconic Amber Mansions built in the 1920s, for instance, was a well-known shopping centre for wealthy socialites. It was demolished in 1984, paving the way for the construction of the Dhoby Ghaut Mass Rapid Transport (MRT) station (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Amber Mansions (left) and Dhoby Ghaut MRT station (right)

Notwithstanding this need, city planners and government officials at the time recognised the importance of preserving historic sites. They kept a list of buildings whose preservation would not upset urban renewal efforts, making it easier for future preservation efforts to take place. Local advocates also played a key role in increasing public awareness of the importance of conservation. Groups such as the Singapore Planning and Urban Research Group argued publicly in favour of preserving local architecture, emphasising its unique role in national identity.

Enactment And Evolution Of The PMA

Introduction of the PMA and its Enforcement

In light of this growing awareness, the Government enacted the PMA in 1970. The Act subsequently established the Preservation of Monuments Board (PMB) as its enforcement body, which holds the authority to propose sites and monuments for protection. Together, the PMA and PMB sought to safeguard monuments by identifying buildings and structures of historical, cultural, archaeological, architectural, or artistic interest, and recommending them for preservation as National Monuments. In 1973, eight culturally representative buildings were marked by the PMB for conservation, including the St Andrew’s Cathedral (see Figure 2) and Thian Hock Keng Temple (see Figure 3).

Amendments Over Time

Over the years, the PMA continued to evolve amidst the backdrop of Singapore’s increasing effort and commitment to preserving our national monuments. The current iteration of the PMA reflects developments within various government agencies over time. At the same time, policy refinements over the years highlight the continuous balancing act between urban development and heritage conservation in the small city-state. In particular, three key changes have been put in place since the PMA was first enacted.

First, the agency enforcing the PMA has changed. On 1 July 2009, the PMB merged with the National Heritage Board (NHB) and was eventually renamed the Preservation of Sites and Monuments (PSM) in 2013, forming a division under NHB. This merger was crucial as it better reflected the institution’s role in the preservation of sites, in addition to buildings and monuments, as mandated in the PMA.

Second, the definition of “monuments” has broadened. On 4 October 2021, the PMA (Amendment) Bill was introduced in Parliament to enhance the preservation and promotion of National Monuments. The Bill proposes an expansion of the definition of a “monument”. The outdated definition of “monument” in the PMA only allowed for the preservation of buildings and structures, as well as sites containing the remains of any such building or structure. With this amendment, sites with no remains, such as the Padang, can be preserved.

Third, the enforcement powers of the NHB have been strengthened. The Amendment Bill enhanced the policing powers of NHB by allowing them to serve an Enforcement Notice and put a stop to any operation or activity that places a National Monument at risk of being destroyed, removed, damaged or altered.

How The PMA Works

Gazetting a National Monument

With the above amendments, today’s PMA comprehensively sets out how National Monuments and historical sites, determined by the NHB, should be protected. The NHB is tasked with administering and enforcing the PMA, researching identified monuments, and setting guidelines for their preservation, restoration and maintenance. Additionally, NHB advises the Government on issues regarding conservation and maintenance.

Once it has finished assessing an identified site, the PSM division recommends to the Government whether the site should be preserved. The Minister for Culture, Community and Youth then decides whether to issue a Preservation Order to place the site under PMA protection. This issuance will also be published in the Singapore Government Gazette, and the site will thereafter be known as a National Monument.

Responsibilities and Enforcement of Preservation Duties

Once a monument is gazetted, it is protected by the PMA — its owner is not allowed to do the following without written approval from the PSM:

Demolish or change any part of the site, including repairs, redecoration and renovation works;
Pollute any part of the site by dumping waste or flooding its land;
Extract minerals from the site’s grounds or cultivate or clear plants or trees; and
Make any changes that would alter the “character of the neighbourhood” — that is, to disrupt the relationship between the site and its surrounding environment.

In addition, the PMA makes it clear that the responsibility of maintaining National Monuments falls on the owner and occupier, who must take “all reasonable measures” to do so per PSM-issued guidelines. This may raise potential concerns regarding state authority over monuments which are also private property, which will be addressed later in this Policy Explainer.

To support these owners in their responsibilities, the National Monuments Fund (NMF) assists in funding maintenance and restoration efforts. Over the years, government funding for the upkeep of monuments has increased, and the scope of maintenance works covered by the NMF has expanded. In 2017, a total of S$2.2 million was allocated for the preservation of 17 National Monuments, of which S$200,000 was directed to the co-funding of maintenance works for 16 of those monuments, shared between their respective owners and the NMF.

The NMF is complemented by the Tax Exemption Scheme for Donations to National Monuments, which allows monument owners or managers to receive tax-exempt donations. These donations can be used to cover the entire cost of approved maintenance and restoration works.

Overall, national monuments and sites are integral to a nation’s development and should be protected even amidst rapid modernisation. They serve as a reminder of what came before us and constitute an important part of one’s national heritage and cultural identity. The PMA thus contributes to fostering a sense of belonging and place among Singaporeans by safeguarding our shared history, which is crucial given our local diversity.

Concerns Arising From The PMA

Not all monuments or monuments-to-be were built for public use; some may be part of one’s private property as a place of residence. This poses a potential challenge for the Government as the maintenance and management of this infrastructure may not be directly under state control.

In Singapore, the PMA empowers the Government to decide how National Monuments are treated, even if they are owned or occupied by private individuals. As mentioned earlier, the PMA mandates the owner of a property to take “all reasonable measures” to ensure it is properly maintained at all times.

In addition to gazetting a privately-owned site and having its owner maintain it, the Government also has the authority to acquire the site. This option is taken if government ownership is deemed more suitable for carrying out the planning intent for the site. For instance, the Government may choose to acquire a building that was initially meant to allow significant public access but is refused by the owner.

In this case, if a preservation order has been made for a privately owned home, the Government has one year from the date of the order to acquire the property under the Land Acquisition Act. If it is not acquired, however, the order expires and the building’s monument status will no longer be valid.

This authority possessed by NHB then raises another question: should the state have the power to overrule the wishes of a private owner? This concern is made more stark because the PMA stands in contrast with the legislation of other countries. For example, in the United States of America, a private property owner is “under no obligation to protect historic property under federal law” according to the Historic Preservation Act 1966.

These concerns have previously captured great scrutiny. In October 2024, NHB announced that founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s house at 38 Oxley Road would be assessed for potential preservation as a National Monument, recognising its historical, heritage, and architectural significance as a pre-war bungalow. As mentioned, this assessment opens up the possibility of 38 Oxley Road (see Figure 4) being gazetted as a National Monument in the future, guaranteeing PMA protections for the site.

However, this was contrary to the wishes of its owner, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, who had applied for the house’s demolition. Under the Land Acquisition Act, the site can still be gazetted even if the owner intends to demolish the house. This then raises a debate about whether the state should have the authority to override the wishes of private individuals in the name of protecting heritage.

For instance, despite regular NHB engagements with heritage societies, monument owners and grant recipients, there is no formal process outlined within the PMA for the public to provide feedback or raise objections. This seems to have been deliberate, presumably to allow for a more flexible process as different sites would require different timetables and considerations when deciding whether to preserve.

However, the omission of a formal process of feedback and objection is not uncontroversial. For instance, the Old National Library Building was demolished in 2004 despite significant opposition. As the PMA continues to evolve, such concerns will likely remain important in the policy-making process in this area.

Conclusion

The National Monuments that remain standing across modern Singapore are a symbolic tribute to those who came before us. It signifies the value of appreciating our history and maintaining a constant sense of national pride and identity for Singaporeans past, present and future. This is not to say that conservation has been an easy process. Efforts continue to be invested into this area and tradeoffs have constantly been weighed and evaluated as Singapore’s response to conservation matures and evolves. Little, it seems, can be taken for granted.

So, the next time you walk past a National Monument, take a moment to pause and appreciate its rich history, architectural beauty, and the stories it holds about our past!

This Policy Explainer was written by members of MAJU. MAJU is a ground-up, fully youth-led organisation dedicated to empowering Singaporean youths in policy discourse and co-creation.

By promoting constructive dialogue and serving as a bridge between youths and the Government, we hope to drive the keMAJUan (progress!) of Singapore.

The citations to our Policy Explainers can be found in the PDF appended to this webpage.