Debated in Parliament on 6 Nov 2025.
Mr Speaker, a Notice of Intention was issued on 3 November 2025 to the owner and occupier of 38 Oxley Road, stating that the Government intends to preserve the site under the Preservation of Monuments Act 2009 (PMA). As outlined in the joint National Heritage Board (NHB) and Singapore Land Authority (SLA) media release on 3 October 2025, the Government intends to acquire the site of 38 Oxley Road under the Land Acquisition Act if a Preservation Order is made. [Please refer to "Clarification by Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth", Official Report, 6 November 2025, Vol 96, Issue 11, Clarification section.]
In my Statement today, I will explain the Government's fuller considerations for making this move and set out the next steps forward.
Sir, history gives a nation its soul. Our history is an integral part of our identity as Singaporeans. Current and future generations of Singaporeans need to know where we came from, the challenges we have overcome together and the sacrifices our forefathers have made to build Singapore. When we are grounded in our history and we share a strong identity, we will build our future purposefully as one people, one nation, one Singapore.
Historic sites, buildings and structures connect us to our past and to our heritage. They bear witness to historic events that shaped our nation and allow us to be in the same space as the people who played key roles in shaping our history.
NHB is the Government body charged with the role of preserving these historic sites and buildings under the PMA. It ensures that our National Monuments remain in our urban fabric and are present in our collective memory as physical representations of key milestones in Singapore's historic development. We have gazetted historic buildings as National Monuments, like the Former Parliament House and the Former City Hall. We have also gazetted the Padang site as a National Monument because it has hosted key historical events, including our first National Day Parade in 1966 and celebrations of the installation of Singapore's first Yang di-Pertuan Negara Encik Yusof bin Ishak.
As a young nation, we have 76 National Monuments in Singapore. They collectively convey different aspects of the Singapore Story and identity. Some represent our religious diversity while others are important civic and cultural buildings. Most have their roots from the colonial period. Only a precious few, like the ones I shared earlier, embody Singapore's struggle for self-determination after the Second World War, and our aspirations as a newly independent nation post-1965. We therefore need to carefully steward monuments that reflect this phase in our national history, and protect this cultural inheritance for our future generations. They collectively connect Singaporeans with our Singapore Story.
In land-scarce Singapore, preservation is something we enter into only after a rigorous assessment process administered by NHB. NHB conducts thorough research on the history and significance of the identified site, including the events and people associated with the site, as well as their impact on the trajectory of Singapore's history. This research is then assessed by the Preservation of Sites and Monuments Advisory Board (PSMAB). This is an independent board consisting experts in fields relevant to National Monuments, such as history and architecture.
The PSMAB considers the merits of each case holistically and objectively, based on its historical significance, architectural and design merit, and authenticity. If the PSMAB finds the identified building or site to be worthy of preservation and NHB supports the assessment, NHB will submit its recommendation to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth for decision. If the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth agrees with the recommendation, a Notice of Intention will be issued to notify the owner and occupier of the site of the Government's intention to preserve the building or site. And as stated under the law, the owner and occupier will be provided a reasonable period to submit any objections to the intended preservation. NHB will consider all objections received and make further recommendations on whether to proceed with this preservation. Thereafter, the Government will make a final decision on whether to proceed with the preservation.
Let me now address the site of 38 Oxley Road. The matter has received considerable attention over the years and extensive discussions in this House. I will not recount the background in detail, but let me do a quick recap of the salient points.
First, it was Mr Lee Kuan Yew's preference for the house on 38 Oxley Road to be demolished. It was also Mdm Kwa's wish for the family's living spaces to remain private.
Second, Mr Lee understood that he had to abide by the processes and the systems that he had built, and that the Government has a duty and a responsibility to consider the public interest, and not just those of private individuals. And that was why on 27 December 2011, he had written to the Cabinet, and he had stated, and I quote, "If 38 Oxley Road is to be preserved, it needs to have its foundations reinforced and the whole building refurbished. It must then be let out for people to live in. An empty building will soon decline and decay." In March 2012, he had also applied to the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) to renovate the house. This would had kept the structure of the original house and added other spaces to it.
Third, there was no need to make any decision on 38 Oxley Road prior to this, as Dr Lee Wei Ling was residing in the house. The Government had made it very clear that we would not do anything to affect her right to live in the house. But after Dr Lee Wei Ling passed away in October 2024, the URA received a demolition application for the building at 38 Oxley Road. Hence, NHB launched a formal assessment of the site in line with established processes under the PMA to determine if it was worthy of preservation.
NHB and PSMAB have since completed the process to determine the site's eligibility and suitability for preservation under the PMA, and NHB has made its recommendation to me as Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth. For this case, public officers on PSMAB recused themselves during the assessment to ensure that the site was considered independently.
The PSMAB have assessed 38 Oxley Road to have strong national significance, worthy of preservation as a National Monument. They note that the site bore witness to pivotal events in the 1950s that marked Singapore's transition from a colony to an independent nation. Impactful and consequential decisions were taken there. The site also served as the venue for conversations, activities and decisions of our founding leaders, which profoundly influenced the trajectory of Singapore's independence movement and our subsequent national history.
It was the gathering point for activists and trade unionists who came to seek help and legal consultations with Mr Lee. It also hosted regular meetings, often in the basement dining room, where key individuals such as Dr Goh Keng Swee, Dr Toh Chin Chye, Mr S Rajaratnam and Mr KM Byrne discussed the feasibility of forming a political party to contest the Legislative Assembly elections.
These meetings progressively grew to include other individuals involved in the anti-colonial struggle, such as Mr Lim Chin Siong and Mr Fong Swee Suan, who later split away to form the Barisan Sosialis. Prominent Malayan leaders like Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tan Cheng Lock also visited the site for discussions.
The site witnessed discussions where these key individuals formulated their vision, plans and values for Singapore, leading to the formation of the People's Action Party and its landslide victory in the 1959 Legislative Assembly Elections, resulting in Singapore's first fully independent Government. This makes the site a unique and foundational part of the story of Singapore's independence. And hence, the PSMAB concluded that the site is of national importance with great historic merit. If preserved, the site would allow current and future generations of Singaporeans to reflect upon these significant events and the ideals and the values that have shaped Singapore.
In my capacity as Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth, I have received the recommendations, and I agree with them. It is the confluence of people, place and events that gives a site its historical significance. We have very few such sites in Singapore where there is such a confluence. And 38 Oxley Road is one of them.
As a young nation, we need to retain this unique site for it bears witness to the birth of independent Singapore and to key moments in our history. Preserving and acquiring the site means that it cannot be redeveloped for residential, commercial or other private uses. Preserving the site means we will be able to avoid a situation where private parties attempt to purchase 38 Oxley Road in future, just to have an address that is associated with Mr Lee's residence. I am sure all of us in this House and the vast majority of Singaporeans will want to make sure that that situation does not happen.
I would also like to clarify that the Government's considerations were for the entire site, and not for the buildings or structures within it. If the site is to be eventually preserved and acquired, the Government's thinking is for it to be developed into a public space, such as a heritage park, so that Singaporeans can have access to it and it can be a park of our shared memories.
Preserving the site does not obligate the Government to keep the buildings and structures within the site in their current condition. In fact, the relevant authorities have not had the chance to enter the site to assess the conditions of the buildings and the structures. And that is a key reason why we are opting to preserve the site, rather than just specific buildings or structures.
If access to the site is obtained, the Government will undertake a detailed study of the buildings and the structures within the site. We will take into account factors like the existing condition and weigh the potential benefit of retaining them against the costs. The Government will consider all options, including those proposed by the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road in 2018 which include partial or full demolitions of the buildings and structures.
Regardless of the option taken, the Government will respect Mr Lee and Mdm Kwa's wishes to protect their family's privacy by removing all traces of their private living spaces from the interior of the house. Under no circumstance will the interior of the house, as Mr Lee and Mdm Kwa knew, be displayed or recorded or remodelled or duplicated elsewhere.
In fact, many other countries around the world have preserved and converted sites associated with their nation's independence as spaces for public education and appreciation. For example, there is the Gandhi Ashram in India. This marks the site where Mahatma Gandhi lived from 1917 to 1930 and was the centre of Gandhi's non-violent resistance movement against British colonial rule of India.
There is also the Independence National Historical Park in the United States (US), which includes buildings that witnessed the country's key historic milestones, like the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.
In many such instances, they have made changes to the sites, including modifying or adapting the original buildings with new interpretive structures to better enable the public to experience the site as a park or a heritage space. And that is why we are keeping an open mind as to the treatment of the buildings and the structures within the site.
We will keep all options open and strive for a solution that will unite us as a country, rather than allow this to become a point of contention or division in our society. If 38 Oxley Road is indeed preserved and acquired, the Government fully intends to conclude its plans on the exact use and configuration of the site, including the treatment of the buildings and the structures on the site well within this term of Government. In the interim, there will be no public access to 38 Oxley Road.
Mr Speaker, let me now explain the next steps.
Following the service of the Notice of Intention, due process under the PMA will be accorded to the owner and any occupier. In line with existing practice, a notice period of 14 calendar days will be provided for them to submit objections to the NHB. NHB will then submit any objections received and their recommendations to me, in the capacity of Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth, to decide whether to proceed with the preservation of the site. All objections submitted and recommendations made will be considered objectively and fairly as part of due process.
If, having heard and considered the objections, the decision is to proceed with the preservation, a Preservation Order will be made. The Government will then commence the process for the acquisition of the site as part of the plans to eventually make it accessible to the general public. Such acquisition will be done in accordance with established processes and compensation will be made in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act.
The owner, any occupiers and any other persons interested will be given the opportunity to submit their claims to the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) to determine the compensation. A professional private valuer will also be appointed to assist SLA in determining the market value of the land, taking into consideration any claims submitted.
If the owner or any person interested is not satisfied with the compensation awarded, a Notice of Appeal can be filed with the Land Acquisition Appeals Board.
If preserved, the acquisition will allow the Government to take all necessary steps to safeguard the site and preserve it in keeping with its historic significance and national importance. Mr Speaker, allow me to continue in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] National identity is the bedrock of a nation. Especially for a young nation like Singapore, we must ensure that this and future generations are deeply rooted in our history and our sense of self.
What the Government is preserving is not just any particular building, but a site which has witnessed an important part of our road to Independence. What we are remembering is not a leader, but our struggle towards independence. This is something that is not represented by any other site or monument.
The Government intends to preserve the site, but this does not mean the buildings will be kept in exactly the same form. In fact, if we preserve it, we commit to remove all traces of Mr Lee's and his family's private spaces. We will study the sensitive and suitable treatment of the structures on site to turn the site into a potential place for educating our young on our national history so that they have a deeper understanding of what it means to be a Singaporean.
Yesterday's Lianhe Zaobao editorial pointed out that the Government's decision is based on national interests. It transcends politics, family and individuals. The preservation of the site seeks to ensure that the story of our nation-building journey lives on for generations to come.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has arrived at this approach for 38 Oxley Road, because this is the most responsible approach.
In its 2018 report, the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road stated that a future government will have to make an informed and considered decision on the matter when it becomes necessary. This is the future government, and the time is now. We will take the deliberate steps to decide and we will do so in the best interest of Singapore and Singaporeans now and for the future.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I began this speech explaining the importance of preserving our collective memory, because this is what makes us one people. Our history and journey from immigrants with no rights to an independent country of Singapore Citizens is fought for by key people and through key events that shaped our destiny. The physical spaces that bore witness to these events are our only links to these pivotal moments in our history.
There will come a time when no one who has lived through Singapore's struggle for independence will be around to recount these stories first-hand, but the sights and markers that we choose to keep today will continue to speak for them. They will remind us of our hard-fought path to become a multiracial, multireligious and sovereign nation. In preserving the site, we are not memorialising any single leader. We are safeguarding the grounds where future generations can stand to understand where we came from, who we are and what we overcame together.
We do this so that our children, our grandchildren and their children after them will know the story of Singapore, not as something distant or abstract, but as something lived, earned and entrusted to them. Then, our Singapore spirit will endure and it will grow stronger with every generation. [Applause.]
I see many Members raising their hands. But before I call hon Members for clarifications, I wish to point out that pursuant to Standing Order 23, Members may seek clarification on the Ministerial Statement, but no debate shall be allowed thereon. In other words, no long mini speeches as well.
Members can seek clarifications by way of asking questions. So, I seek Members' understanding to keep your clarifications clear and concise so that the Minister can answer as many clarifications as possible. I would like to ask Minister Neo to also keep his answers clear and concise. Mr Alex Yam.
Mr Speaker, I have three clarifications for the Minister. We had an intense debate on this in the same House in 2017. Given the same sensitivities surrounding 38 Oxley Road, will the Government consider structured public engagement or consultation when developing the interpretative plans to ensure that the eventual design fosters unity and avoids reopening old political disputes?
Secondly, the Minister also mentioned that the Government intends to come to a decision within this term of government. For the sake of public clarity, could the Minister outline the key project milestones that Singaporeans can expect from now until the final configuration, if the site is decided to be preserved?
Lastly, Sir, Minister has also taken pains to explain that the preservation decision concerns national memory and not personalities. Could the Minister elaborate how the Government will communicate this to the public so as to avoid misconception that this is an attempt to memorialise any individual rather than our shared independence journey?
Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Member for his three clarifications.
First is regarding structured public engagements. If the site is preserved and acquired, the agencies will look to identify possible stakeholder groups and conduct engagements to help shape the future of the site and to ensure that the potential of the site for public education is maximised. This is something we do with all our National Monuments.
Some of the possible stakeholder groups include heritage enthusiasts and educators, to ensure that the site can enhance their efforts to enhance public education of our history. Other groups that could potentially be engaged would also include people who represent target demographic groups, for example, the youths or our seniors, to ensure that the stories and the memories are also captured within the use of the site. And most importantly, like I mentioned in my Ministerial Statement, we want to ensure that some of these stories are able to be handed down to the next generation and the generation after that.
Given the technical expertise of the PSMAB in these fields, including history, architecture and conservation, the advisory board will also be consulted to ensure that the treatment of the buildings and the structures on the site befit the historical importance and the national significance of this site.
To the Member's second clarification about key project milestones, Sir, I had earlier outlined to Members some of these key milestones from the issuance of the Notice of Intention to the intended acquisition of the site, if a Preservation Order is made.
If the site is acquired and access to the site is obtained, our agencies will proceed to assess the condition of the site, and that of the buildings and the structures. This will inform our study on the potential options for future uses of the site, which will also include a holistic assessment on the impact of the surrounding neighbourhood, including possible options for public access, parking, traffic impact. And as I mentioned earlier, we will also conduct engagements with stakeholders and residents, and take in their feedback on the eventual use and the design of the site. These are all prudent and necessary steps that any agencies take in evaluating any potential developments.
However, at this point in time, because a Preservation Order has not been made, it will be premature for us to provide any firm timelines on the site.
For the Member's third clarification regarding how we will communicate this, especially to younger Singaporeans that this is something that intends to commemorate our shared independence journey. As I mentioned earlier in my Ministerial Statement, the reason why the PSMAB has recommended the site for preservation is because of its close association with our struggle for self-government in the 1950s, and this is a very rare location, where it is place, people and events – the confluence – and it is also something that is associated with most, if not, all the key participants in this anti-colonial struggle.
If the site is preserved and it is acquired, we will convert it into a public space, possibly a heritage park through which we will educate the current and future generations on this very significant part of Singapore's journey.
The focus of this education, therefore, is on the pivotal historical events that happened there, one that brought us from colonial to self-rule to independence, rather than the lives of those people who lived there.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Thank you, Speaker. Sir, there are Singaporeans who felt strongly that the founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew's original wish to have the house demolished should be respected. It is not just because this is his personal wish but also the values that he espouse, which is not to have personal monuments. So, my first question to the Minister is whether the Government has taken this aspect into consideration in coming to the decision?
Secondly, it relates to the Founders' Memorial which is now being built. Can I ask the Minister would the Founders' Memorial be able to encapsulate the historical and national significance of our founding values and ideals, without having to preserve 38 Oxley Road?
And thirdly, in the light of NHB's recommendation and MCCY's decision, can I ask the Minister if he can update if there has been any change in the Government's policy position with regard to preserving and creating National Monuments?
Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. On the first one about Mr Lee's wish, I would like to reiterate to this House that at this moment in time and at this stage, no decision has been made yet. The issuance of a Notice of Intention is a process under the PMA, allowing for the owner or occupier of a proposed National Monument to submit any objections of the intention to gazette the proposed National Monument, before a decision has been made.
As I stated in my Ministerial Statement, Mr Lee clearly wanted to protect the privacy of his family. Mdm Kwa had also felt strongly about this. And Mr Lee was also quite adamant in his life that he did not want to be idolised or memorialised, and therefore I believe that the approach as outlined in my Ministerial Statement is the best for way forward, given the circumstances. Because given the site's historic significance and national importance, the Government has a duty to consider this, not just from the lens of a private individual, but also from a good public policy lens – what is good for current and future Singaporeans. It is our duty to allow future Singaporeans to have the opportunity to visit the site and to appreciate the gravity of discussions that took place at the site, discussions that brought us to our independence.
In committing to removing all traces of Mr Lee's and his family's private living spaces, we respect Mr Lee's wish for privacy. And we are also clear that it is our intention that we are not preserving the site and using it to showcase the personal effects of Mr Lee or his family. We are focusing on the nationally significant events that took place at the site and not memorialising his life. In keeping an open mind regarding the buildings and the structures, we would then be able to best consider how best to strike the balance between preserving the historical significance of the site and maximising its public value to Singaporeans, and respecting Mr Lee's wishes.
Mr Speaker, on the Member's second clarification regarding the Founders' Memorial, historic sites are preserved because they provide us with an authentic connection to the important events and the people of the past. What is unique is that it gives us an opportunity to stand on the same grounds and be in the very same space where pivotal events in national history took place and we are walking in the same footsteps of those who came before us. And therefore, it provides us with a certain frame of reference, a certain sense of place, to appreciate how far we have come.
That is also the reason why we have preserved several sites in Singapore, such as City Hall, Padang and more recently, the former Kandang Kerbau Hospital, as they help us and the future generations recollect and connect with this critical history that we share as a nation.
This sense of place, this being in the same space as those who came before us, it is not something that can be captured by replication at another site. The Founders' Memorial is a site that is reconstructed. It does not share that same sense of place, that same place that housed all the critical events. The Founders' Memorial is a place that is meant to allow our future generations to learn from the shared values that our founding generation, had which is quite different from the site of 38 Oxley Road. And if preserved, this site will then help to augment the Founders' Memorial by providing a site that gives our visitors a first-hand appreciation of the things that took place at the very same site and provides that historical context and background to some of these ideals that the Founders' Memorial is commemorating.
Mr Speaker, on the third clarification by the Member about the Government's policy position on National Monuments, there is no change in the Government's policy. The NHB and the Government has always sought to identify sites of national significance to be assessed as potential National Monuments, particularly if they attest to parts, key parts, pivotal parts of our national history that is under-represented by existing National Monuments.
As a young nation in our 60th year, it is not unexpected that most of our National Monuments originate from before our independence. But this also means, like I mentioned in my Ministerial Statement, sites that attest to our founding independence and our nation building, there are only those a very precious few, which is why it is so important for us to look at this site with all the full considerations of handing it down to future generations, and what is good for Singapore and Singaporeans, both current and future.
And as important events in our national history, it is important that we continue to look for these sites and to preserve them if they are assessed to be worthy in a way that can allow it to better contribute back to society and to enhance the public's appreciation of some of these very pivotal events.
Mr Foo Cexiang.
Thank you, Speaker. I have two clarifications for the Minister.
First, given that the Government already intends to issue a Preservation Order to gazette 38 Oxley Road as a National Monument, why is there still a need for the Government to acquire the site?
Second clarification, can I seek confirmation from the Minister, point blank, that the paramount reason for the Preservation Order is not because the site is the family home of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, but because it is a historical site where political meetings, activities, decisions which led to the establishment of Independent Singapore, that that was where it took place? In other words, it is not about the private life of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, but about the fight for independence of our people.
Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Member for his two clarifications.
First, on why is there a need for Government to acquire, the Government has assessed that if the site is preserved, the public interest is best served by acquiring the site to safeguard it and to maintain it in keeping with its historical significance and national importance.
For example, the Government has the resources and the expertise at its disposal to ensure that the site is properly maintained and it is maintained in a manner that will be able to benefit Singaporeans. This is the most responsible course of action to ensure that our future generations of Singaporeans can appreciate the significance of the site, and it can be a part of a collective memory and help to build our shared identity.
On the second question, the point-blank question, well, I want to restate, as I had stated in my Ministerial Statement that the site has been objectively and independently assessed by the PSMAB. And I would also like to quote the Statement of Assessment by the PSMAB, "the site was more than just the home of Singapore's founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who lived and worked there from 1950 until his death in 2015. It bore witness to pivotal events in the 1950s that marked Singapore's transition from a colony to an independent nation. The modest buildings contrast with the impactful and consequential decisions taken there."
It is very clear that the historical significance of this site is not solely about Mr Lee Kuan Yew. The individuals that participated in these meetings and the discussions at the site, they came from across the political spectrum. There were journalists. There were students. There were trade unionists. So, the reason for the preservation of the site is because it bore witness to pivotal events that brought Singapore from colonial to self-rule to our independence as a sovereign nation.
Ms Joan Pereira.
Thank you, Speaker. I have two questions for the Minister. First, this matter has been very long running. I am glad that the Government is making efforts to bring this chapter to a close. The Minister said that the Government intends to conclude its plan for the site, "well within this term of Government." Can the Minister provide more clarity on the timeline moving forward? In terms of: the possible acquisition, further study needed to be done and the Government's final decision.
My second question, I understand that one of the possible outcomes for 38 Oxley Road is to turn it into a heritage park. While we understand that further study and planning have yet to be conducted, would the Minister be able to share the following and I have got the following points.
First, how this may look like? The second point is, if residents in the immediate vicinity be one of the parties who will be consulted, but I think just now Minister did mention that they will be consulted, so I thank Minister for that. My third point, Oxley is a very narrow road and there is a lot of illegal parking in the surrounding condominiums too. So, I would like to know if any potential impact to the traffic parking and congestion of the surrounding areas be seriously studied and considered as well.
Sir, I thank the Member for her clarifications.
As stated in my Ministerial Statement, we have currently only issued a Notice of Intention to preserve the site, which was done on 3 November. Under the law, the owner and the occupier of the site has to be given a reasonable period to raise any objections and then, thereafter, the Government has to carefully consider any such objections before deciding whether to make a Preservation Order on the site.
This is the established process for all National Monuments and we are adhering to this same process for the site as well. Therefore, for this reason, as I also mentioned to Member Mr Alex Yam, no decision has been made yet on whether or not the site will be preserved. Therefore, it is very premature for the Government to commit to any timelines in terms of the future milestones and timelines. And this is also the point that I made in my Ministerial Statement, where I said my colleagues and the relevant technical experts have not had access to the site for quite a while. We need to gain access to look at the condition of the site, the buildings, the structures of the site, and weigh the costs and benefits, before we can make a decision and before we can commit to a key timeline.
But the point I made remains that this Government intends to make a deliberate decision on the exact configuration well within this term of Government.
I thank the Member, also, for her second question. If the site is preserved and acquired, like I said earlier for the first clarification, our agencies will conduct a holistic feasibility study on the potential options and the future use. That is not just for the use of the site within itself, but it also includes other agencies, such as the Land Transport Authority, to look into things, such as the traffic impact, parking impact, public access, so that this is more holistic. And then, we can look at doing it in a way that befits its importance and significance, and in a way that allows the public to be able to appreciate the site and at the same time, not create disamenities. We will also engage residents, and we will consider their feedback as part of this process. And we will also be very happy to work with the Member, if acquired, if preserved, on how to be able to develop this site in a way that is in harmony with its surroundings.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Sir, before I begin, I declare that the Workers' Party (WP) has received financial contributions from certain members of the Lee family that are associated with the Oxley property, although these were declared under all relevant regulations. Nevertheless, we have received neither requests nor guidance to speak on this matter, and the statements and questions that follow are entirely our own.
Let me start with a very brief preamble. I understand the fundamental policy tension that the advisory board must confront: the site has clear significant historical meaning for our nation and in this sense, it is as much private property as it is one that metaphorically belongs to all of us; and also, the Government has previously intervened to gazette private property as National Monuments in the past, so in this regard, the decision is not unprecedented.
However, the personal desire of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the original owner, to demolish the site is well-known as well as the application by the site's current owner, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, to proceed with the demolition. I note that the Government has yet to decide on whether, gazette notwithstanding, the site's buildings and structures will be preserved in the present form. And I also note the preservation will take at least the minimal step of removing all private living spaces, in accordance with Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wishes.
My clarifications may be bucketed into two main themes: first, how NHB weighs the tension between public benefits and private preferences in their deliberations; and second, the options NHB is considering going forward.
On the first question, will the Minister share if there is a system that the advisory board follows in evaluating public interest versus private ones, prior to invoking eminent domain to gazette a site? How are significant elements, such as the property's architectural value or socio-cultural significance weighed against development considerations, such as potential future land use and development restrictions implied by the gazette? How much weight would the preferences of the owner for how the property should be treated, since there have, historically, never been any previous objections to an intended gazette?
On the second, will the Government consider future course of action for the site that heavily favours privacy, while preserving the decision to gazette? In particular, will it not consider not demolishing the buildings, but nevertheless, closing the site to visitors, unless explicit permission of the current owner has been granted? Alternatively, will the Government consider dismantling the site's main structures and reconstructing these at the Founders' Memorial? These approaches strike me as more respectful of both the public interest benefit of preserving elements of the site for posterity, while also accommodating the private property rights of the owner to do with the property as he or she wishes.
Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his two clarifications.
On the first point, I just want to make a point that PSMAB is an independent board made up of experts from different fields that are relevant to this subject matter, and their job is to assess the merits of each case independently. So, there is no policy tension on their part. They do not consider other things, like individuals' wishes; they are just scoring it based on technical merit. The established process for which all national monuments are assessed includes both qualitative and quantitative assessments of the identified sites' national significance, historical merit and architectural design merit. These criteria are all based on international best practices for heritage assessments.
The PSMAB will first consider if the identified site is nationally significant, such as whether it is directly linked to key events or people who have had a significant impact on our history. If it is assessed to have national significance, the PSMAB would then deliberate the site's historic and design merit from a technical perspective. For example, sites that have been assessed to be deeply relevant to these historic events or individuals would have to be considered to have strong historic merit. And sites which have been assessed to be of national significance and of exceptional historic and/or architectural design merit would then be considered worthy of preservation.
For the Member's suggestion about the different configurations that can take place as part of subsequent developments, I want to reiterate, first of all, that it is still premature for us to state, because at this moment in time, the Government has not made a decision as to whether it will be preserved, and if preserved, it will be acquired.
I think the second point is that, as I mentioned in my Ministerial Statement, our colleagues and our technical experts have not had the chance to visit the site. They need to go in, they need to assess all the different buildings and structures of the site, weigh the cost and benefits before coming to a recommendation.
And the third point, as I stated in my Ministerial Statement, at this moment in time, all options are open when it comes to the final configuration. So, some of those options that the Member suggested could well be possible. But at this point in time, it is premature to comment.
Mr Lee Hong Chuang.
Mr Speaker, my clarification will be in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] First of all, I would like to thank the Acting Minister for explaining very clearly the development options for 38 Oxley Road. I have three questions regarding 38 Oxley Road, the preservation of the home of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and how it will be handled.
Given its historical, cultural and national significance, what objective criteria and expert consultations has the Government used in accessing the property’s heritage value?
Secondly, if, in the future, we decide to preserve, redevelop or modify the site, how will the Government ensure the decision making will be transparent and maintain a balance with public interest?
Thirdly, will the Government consider establishing an independent advisory team that will comprise historians, architects and community representatives to make recommendations on the future use of 38 Oxley Road, so as to foster social consensus?
Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Member for his three clarification questions. Please allow me to respond in English. On the first question, when it comes to the objective standards and independent assessments, I think I had sort of covered those in my response to the hon Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim; and I would not repeat those answers here.
On the second question about how we ensure that this decision process is in the public interest and it is done in an open, transparent and accountable way, if the site is preserved as a National Monument, our agencies will engage with all the relevant stakeholders, such as heritage enthusiasts, educators, conservation experts as well as some of the target demographic groups, like youths, seniors, to explore possible options for the future use of the site. Therefore, this whole process will be something that is open, transparent and it also ensures that it will be accountable. And then, given their technical expertise in fields, including history, architecture, conservation, the PSMAB will also be consulted to make sure that the treatment of the buildings and the structures of the site befit the assessed historical significance and national importance.
On the third point about forming an independent committee, I think covered that in the second clarification. This is also similar to the clarifications I have given to Member Mr Alex Yam as well as Member Joan Pereira, that we will be involving Members, relevant technical experts as well as important stakeholders and some members of the public in consultations to look at the future use of the site.
Ms Gho Sze Kee.
Mr Speaker, I have two clarifications. I understand that the Government has to act because a demolition application has been submitted. Now that we are at this point where the Government has announced the intention to gazette 38 Oxley Road as a National Monument, our focus should be on future plans. On the practical note, may I ask the Minister if the Landed Housing Areas zoning of the area will remain unchanged or will there be a review of zoning rules in the neighbourhood?
My second question to the Acting Minister, is it truly necessary to arrive at a decision on what to do with this site in this term of Government? I ask this because of my disquiet at some of the options listed in the 2018 Ministerial Committee report, which included options to demolish everything except the basement dining room. We must remember that what is demolished cannot be undemolished. I note that the Ministerial Committee report also noted that there may be a loss of historical context under this option. Would it not be better to leave these decisions on future developments of the site to future generations?
Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her two clarifications. On the clarification about area zoning, as I mentioned in my Ministerial Statement, while the Government intends to preserve the site, there is still a due process that the Government has to follow as required of us under the Act. Any decision on the preservation will only be made after considering any objections received during this notice period. Until a decision on this preservation has been made, it will be quite premature for the Government to review the planning and development controls for the neighbourhood.
On the Member's second question on whether it is necessary, the 2018 Ministerial Committee has always said that it has prepared the drawer plans and the options for a future government to decide on what to do with the site when the time comes. I agree with the Member that we should make an informed and considered decision, because what is demolished, what option is taken away, can never be brought back. But at the same time, I think this Government has a duty to make a deliberate decision to decide. Because, as I said in my Statement, the time has come, this is the relevant time. And we do fully intend to make a decision well within this term of government and make a final decision that will be for the benefit of Singapore and Singaporeans now and for the future. It will be an informed and considered decision.
Ms Lee Hui Ying.
Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Lee Kuan Yew was our founding Prime Minister and played an important role in Singapore's nation-building journey. Many residents I have spoken to describe Mr Lee Kuan Yew as the nation's "Founding Father". I would like to know how the cultural and historical significance of 38 Oxley Road will be integrated into educational and outreach activities to ensure that its significance can be passed on to our young people and future generations? Will the Government actively take measures to continuously remind the public of the importance of this place to Singapore's history and culture?
Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her two clarifications and please allow me to respond in English. On her first clarification about the significant role of this site. If the site is preserved and acquired, we will leverage on it to educate the current and future generations on this significant part of Singapore's history. And this is the main reason why the Government intends to make the site publicly accessible, to be a place for all Singaporeans, to allow our future generations to visit and to foster their own connection to the site. There is nothing quite like being in the same place as our forefathers had been, those who had played a key role in our struggle for self-determination.
And in doing so, the NHB will engage potential users of the site, as I have mentioned to other Members before, such as educators and heritage groups, on the different ways in which we can help shape the most appropriate future use of the site for public education purposes.
And if the site is preserved as a National Monument, the site and its historic significance could also be profiled and featured, as part of NHB's efforts to celebrate our National Monuments. In terms of different ways and different programs to remind Singaporeans of the significance of the site, I think that these are things that either NHB or the Ministry of Education can subsequently think about and look at. But it is our intention to fully allow Singaporeans to really come and appreciate those pivotal events that took place at the site, so that we can enhance our understanding of what it means to be Singaporean and build on our collective and shared identity, so that we can become stronger as a nation.
Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Speaker, I just have one clarification for the Acting Minister. Will an independent valuation of the site of 38 Oxley Road be done before acquisition? And will the Government commit to releasing the full evaluation report and provide transparency on the acquisition cost to the public purse?
Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Member for the clarification. As I stated in my Ministerial Statement, the acquisition will be done in accordance with established processes and any compensation will be made in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act. And as part of this, the owner, occupiers, any other persons interested, will be given the opportunity to submit their claims to SLA to determine the compensation amount. And then a professional private valuer would also be appointed to assist SLA in determining the market value of the land, and taking into considerations any claims submitted.
If any owner or person is not satisfied with the compensation awarded, a Notice of Appeal can be filed together with the Land Acquisition Appeals Board, and all these will be taken as part of the due process that is stated under the Land Acquisition Act.
Mr Ang Wei Neng.
Thank you, Speaker. It is wise to gazette 38 Oxley Road as a National Monument, because if left to free market forces, 38 Oxley Road could be redeveloped into a condominium or a commercial building that will tout it as a prestigious address as the former residence or address of our founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and they can profit from this prestigious address.
I would support the recommendation to remove all traces of Mr Lee and his family's private living space from the building at 38 Oxley Road to respect his wishes. I would like to clarify with the Acting Minister, what does it mean by removing all traces from the building and is the underground dining room considered part of Mr Lee's private space?
Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his clarification. While the site has witnessed discussions and meetings that proved to be foundational in the course of Singapore's history, we also recognise that the site was the private residence of Mr Lee and his family.
To his question about the private dining room, there are spaces within the buildings that have been widely documented in different forms of media in the past, and all these were done prior to Mr Lee's passing, the basement dining room being one of them, that we would consider less private. But there would be other spaces, such as bedrooms, which do not have any association with the historically significant events that took place at the site, and to respect Mr Lee's wishes, such personal spaces would then be reconfigured or removed, and it will range from removing furnishings, fixtures or any objects still left, to potentially also tearing down such spaces, while taking into consideration issues like structural integrity and the safety of the buildings.
And the exact nature of the removal will only be determined subsequently when we are able to access the site and the relevant officers have had a chance to go through, as well as the eventual treatment of the buildings and the structures within the site. But I would like to reassure the Member and all Members in this House, that the measures that we are putting in place are not exceptional measures.
All historic sites, generally, will involve some modifications to some extent, to allow for adaptive reuse, and this also ensures that the site remains something that is beneficial and useful to current and future generations of Singaporeans. Some examples include the former Supreme Court, currently the National Gallery of Singapore, and the Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall. They have all had their interiors somewhat significantly altered, although the exteriors have been preserved.
Ms Eileen Chong.
Mr Speaker, I have one clarification for the Minister. The Minister is correct that there will come a day in the future when no living Singaporean remembers the period of independence. Could he share what additional heritage value or visitor experience, beyond the sense of space, would a demolished and subsequently landscaped heritage park at 38 Oxley Road provide, that will not be more effectively delivered through the experience at the $335 million Founders' Memorial, which is purpose-built to honour Singapore's founding values and nation-building journey, including our early nation building years of 1950s to 1970s, and telling the story of how our founding fathers and the founding generation overcame the odds to build an Independent Singapore, establishing it on values and ideals, such as multiculturalism, openness and integrity?
Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her question. I think the answer I had given earlier to another Member, which is that there is something different about being in the same place, where these events took place.
Like I mentioned in my Ministerial Statement, we have very precious few sites, where there is a confluence of people, events and place. The Founders' Memorial is recreated on reclaimed land. It is not the same space where the events took place. It is not the same space where the people came together. It is not the same space where the struggles took place.
There will not be that same sense of authenticity and which is why, like I explained early in my clarification, this site is unique, and it behooves us to preserve it. If the preservation were to go through, this site will augment the Founders' Memorial to give Singaporeans a fuller understanding of what it means to be Singaporean, our sense of national identity and how we can forge forward as one people.
Mr Christopher de Souza.
First, I would like to thank the Acting Minister for a heartfelt response to this very difficult topic. My clarification revolves around how we debated this extensively in 2017, over two days. It was a very difficult debate; emotional. Mr Lee had only passed two years prior to that. Our then-Prime Minister responded and then, then-Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, at the time, gave what I thought was an excellent conclusion that a future Government, in the fullness of time, on the passage of time, will have to make that decision.
Here we are today and the Minister is now speaking, on behalf of that Government, albeit at an initial stage.
So, here I speak and seek clarification that as we move forward, that we realise there are many different interpretations of Mr Lee's wishes and preferences. And when eventually the Government, the good government of the day, makes this decision, to – I humbly request – be sensitive, be tactful in the explanations, as to why we are doing, or why it is doing what it is doing.
I listened to Ms Chong's question and I also listened to Mr Liang's question, and I think they are both very good questions. We have a parallel Founders' Memorial, which actually is suppose to give the history, the ethos, the value system of our founding fathers. And I understand that the authenticity of the location of 38 Oxley Road differentiates itself from the Founders' Memorial, but I ask also for a deeper explanation, as the time comes, as to why the Government eventually makes its decision.
And here I say this, with the House's interest at heart, with Singapore's interests at heart and Mr Lee Kuan Yew's interests at heart and overall, the Government's. I do apologise for going on a little bit more, but for those of us who were not in the House, I can say that it was certainly one of the most difficult speeches I gave. And we have now come to that situation where we have to make a decision in a future government. I hope it is done sensitively and tactfully, and with Singaporeans' best interests at heart.
Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his points and indeed, it is the Government's intention to make sure that if the property, if the site is preserved and if it is eventually acquired, that we will make a decision that is sensitive, one that is tactful and one that will benefit not just the current, but also future generations of Singaporeans, and one that is keeping and befitting of the site's historic importance and national significance. So, it is my assurance to the Member that all these things will be taken on board, and the Government will make an informed and responsible decision, for the best of Singapore.
One final clarification, Mr Giam.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, I think the Acting Minister has not fully answered my earlier clarification question. I understand that due process will be followed for the acquisition. I am not sure if that process requires the cost of the land acquisition of 38 Oxley Road to be publicly released. But even if not, will the Government commit to still disclose that cost, given the public interest in this matter?
Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for the subsequent clarification. Unfortunately, I am not the Minister for National Development. I am not totally au fait with what is required under the Land Acquisitions Act, but my commitment to the Member is that due process will be given and it will follow the requirements under the Land Acquisitions Act, and an independent valuation will be done. If the Act requires a disclosure, the disclosure will be done as well.
Order. End of Ministerial Statement. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
PAPERCUTS