I am troubled by the terms of reference for the Oxley House
Ministerial Committee. It looks to me
that this Committee may be serving a personal vendetta instead of the public
interest. Let me explain.
According to a Statement by Cabinet Secretary Mr Tan Kee Yong issued
on 14 June 2017, this Committee was set up “to
consider the options for 38 Oxley Road (the “House”), and the implications of
those options. These included looking into various aspects, including the
historical and heritage significance of the House, as well as to consider Mr
Lee Kuan Yew’s thinking and wishes in relation to the House.”
 |
| Clause 7 of Mr Lee's Last Will |
But DPM Teo Chee Hean then went on to say: "The Committee has thus been looking at the options available for
38 Oxley Road while paying particular attention to respecting Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s
wishes for his house."
What is the relevance of
Mr Lee’s wishes for the House?
In considering the historical and heritage significance of the
House, what is the relevance of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s thinking and wishes for the
House?
How are Singaporean interests served to find out whether Mr Lee Kuan
Yew’s really wanted the House to be demolished or not?
Has it been the Government's policy when considering the
"public interest aspects of any property with heritage and historical
significance", to give weight to the wishes of the property's deceased
owner?
On the contrary, my own impression is that the Government would
place public interest over the personal wishes of any property owner, let alone
the wishes of its deceased owner.
The Oxley House saga is the first time I have heard our Government
saying that it wants to understand and respect the wishes of the property's
deceased occupant, even to the extent of disregarding the wishes of the
property's current owner. Our present Government is so concerned with the fate
of the House and the wishes of its deceased occupant, that it has formed a
special Committee comprising four Ministers to look into those issues.
How is the public interest served by our top leaders spending their
time to delve into one particular property and what its deceased's occupant
wished for it?
Granted that Mr Lee Kuan Yew is no ordinary Singaporean. But then
again, how much time and effort is too much to spend on figuring out Mr Lee
Kuan Yew’s wishes for the House. How much
a factor should Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s wishes bear on the Committee's decision?
What are public interests?
I would have thought that the more important questions for the
Government to consider are:
- How the public would benefit from retaining the House?
- What national ethos or shared value(s) would be served or expressed by retaining the House?
- Conversely, will it serve to express a shared national value to demolish Oxley House?
- How much would it cost the Government to upkeep the House if it is retained?
- Besides the direct maintenance costs, what are the opportunity, economic or other indirect financial costs if the House is retained?
- What would Singaporeans lose if the House is demolished?
- What other options are available to similarly serve the public interest or national values (e.g. preserving history, heritage) besides retaining the House?
Instead of considering such questions, the Committee looks to be
conducting an inquest on who actually prepared Mr Lee Kuan Yew's Last Will and
whether Mr Lee Kuan Yew really wanted his home to be demolished after his
death.
I would have thought that the question whether to retain or demolish
the House (or to carry out any other intermediate end) should be decided
primarily on the benefits which the public would reap from the ultimate
solution. Effort should be made to articulate the value proposition to
Singaporeans would be obtained for each scenario. Acquire (or gazette the House
under the relevant statute) if it benefits Singaporeans. Leave the House alone
if the benefits to Singaporeans are not sufficient to warrant denial and
encroachment of the current owner's full property rights.
In the interest of serving the rule of law, the state should not
interfere with the legal rights of property owners, unless justified by
overriding public interests. A heavy
burden should lie on the state to justify encroaching on a citizen's property
rights on the basis of public interests.
In my books, the interests of the public are in terms of jobs,
security, education, elderly, housing, medical, cost of living and so
forth.
 |
| Old National Library Building |
I am all for serving Singapore’s history and heritage. But it is not
right to serve Singapore’s history and heritage only when it coincides with the
political ends of the ruling party and to otherwise disregard artefacts from
which no political mileage can be derived from preserving them. [7]
Singapore’s history is much more than the political ascendency and achievements
of the ruling party.
 |
| 18th century fort built by the British at Katong Park in Singapore |
For this reason,
when making recommendations or decisions on the fate of any building or
property of potential historical significance, politicians should not be
involved. How can we tell if the politician
is seeking to preserve an artefact that is closely linked to late leader in
order to capitalise on its political significance on the pretext of serving the
public interest? It would be a huge disservice
to Singaporeans to be given a distorted narrative of Singapore’s history.
The Oxley House saga is a family dispute between two opposing sets
of siblings as to what should become of their parents' home. To serve their
personal vendettas, the rival camps have appealed to the public to decide the
outcome on the basis "What Mr Lee Kuan Yew would have wanted".
Unfortunately, the narrative fed to us by the mainstream media may
have led Singaporeans to conflate Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wishes with the Nation's
Interests. According to this false
linkage, it is in the National Interest to follow Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wishes, so
we need to know his wishes.
Actually, Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wishes are personal to him, and so they
are irrelevant in the consideration of public interests. Public interests centre on the Government's
responsibility to make our lives better.
The Committee has set off on a Hunt for the Author of Mr Lee Kuan
Yew's Last Will and on the Quest to seek his True Wishes. Will the answers they
find make the lives of us ordinary Singaporeans better?
Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss
[1] E.g. Sungei Road flea
market will soon close http://www.asiaone.com/singapore/7-things-you-ought-know-about-sungei-road-market-it-disappears
[3] E.g. the old national library building https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2015/02/03/was-the-demolishing-of-the-old-national-library-a-well-thought-decision/
[4] E.g. Dakota Crescent flats http://jeannettechongaruldoss.blogspot.sg/2015/07/keep-dakota-crescent-vital-link-to-our.html
[5] E.g. http://www.asiaone.com/singapore/7-things-you-ought-know-about-sungei-road-market-it-disappears
[6] E.g. Bukit Brown cemetery https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/07/land-starved-singapore-exhumes-its-cemeteries-to-build-roads-and-malls
[7] E.g. the buried fort
at Katong Park http://jeannettechongaruldoss.blogspot.sg/2015/08/a-buried-fort-spirit-of-katong-awaits.html
A fair comment. It would be a challenge for the incumbent government to separate the public interest from personal and party interest. A non-partisan outcome would be another positive legacy for the late Mr LKY.
ReplyDelete