Whatever you may think of Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s first prime minister, the fact remains that he is and will be the symbol of Singapore for many years to come.

Lee Kuan Yew is more recognised and iconic, one might argue, than the 78-metre Control Tower at Changi Airport, or the Merlion located at One Fullerton, or the Gardens by the Bay.

The name “Lee Kuan Yew” itself is synonymous with Singapore.

And so his death has brought about an upsurge of interest in all things having to do with the man – from his books to his DVDs, from his personal belongings and personal stories, to his home and whether it should be demolished, as he had requested and indeed willed.

The last has become such an issue of public interest and concern that Lee’s younger son and daughter have issued a statement to clarify and reiterate their late father’s wishes regarding the matter.

The siblings’ statement disclosed what Lee had said in his will:

“I further declare that it is my wish, and the wish of my late wife, KWA GEOK CHOO, that our house at 38 Oxley Road, Singapore 238629 (“the House”) be demolished immediately after my death or if my daughter, Wei Ling, would prefer to continue living in the original house, immediately after she moves out of the House. I would ask each of my children to ensure our wishes with respect to the demolition of the House be carried out.”

The two children then said:

Our father has made public this wish on many occasions, including in his book Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going. In addition, both our parents have expressed this same wish with respect to our family home to their children in private on numerous occasions. Indeed, he stated in his Lee Kuan Yew Will that ‘My view on this has been made public before and remains unchanged’.”

You can read the full statement by Lee’s two children here: “Statement by Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Wei Ling, urging the will of Lee Kuan Yew to be respected”.

As the children’s statement said, Lee had indeed declared his preference on several occasions.

“I’ve told the Cabinet, when I’m dead, demolish it,” Lee had said in the abovementioned book.

“I don’t think my daughter or my wife or I, who lived in it, or my sons who grew up in it, will bemoan its loss. They have old photos to remind them of the past,” he said.

“I’ve seen other houses, Nehru’s, Shakespeare’s. They become a shambles after a while,” he said, the former referring to India’s independence hero Jawaharlal Nehru.

Lee had also once decried how old British buildings cost millions of pounds a year to upkeep, and how some are so run down they are infested with termites.

What then is the reason for Lee’s insistence that his house, which clearly interests many people, be torn down?

Well, the reason seems to be quintessential Lee – pragmatism.

“Because of my house the neighbouring houses cannot build high,” he told the interviewers for his book. “Now demolish my house and change the planning rules, go up, the land value will go up.”

So, it is because Lee wants his neighbours to benefit from the potential increase in the value of their properties.

One would say it is typical Lee.

But perhaps matters are so no simple. In fact, when it comes to Lee, few things are straightforward, even though the man himself was a straight talker.

Lee’s house was the site of several events which took place at a historically significant time leading to Singapore’s statehood and thereafter.

It was, for example, the venue of many meetings of the People’s Action Party (PAP), meetings which would have momentous consequences for Singapore.

And with the passing of most of the old guards of Singapore’s founding political leadership, such historical sites have become important for what is essentially still a fledgling nation which celebrates its 50th year of independence this August.

If nothing else, the house of Lee will be a symbol of the struggle of a people for self-identity.

Lee himself, in fact, realised the importance of preserving such old buildings or sites of heritage and history.

He said in 1995:

“We made our share of mistakes in Singapore. For example in our rush to rebuild Singapore, we have knocked down many old and quaint Singapore buildings. Then we realized we were destroying a valuable part of our cultural heritage that we were demolishing what tourists found attractive and unique in Singapore. We halted the demolition. Instead, we undertook extensive conservation and restoration of ethnic districts such as Chinatown, Little India and Kampong Glam and of the civic district, with its colonial era buildings: the Empress Place, old British Secretariat, Parliament House, the Supreme Court, the City Hall, the Anglican Cathedral, and the Singapore Cricket Club.

“The values of these areas in architectural, cultural and tourism terms cannot be quantified only in dollars and cents.

“We were a little late, but fortunately we have retained enough of our history to remind ourselves and tourists of our past. We also set out to support these attractions by offering services of the highest standard.”

Ironically, Lee’s house could be one of the most important buildings in Singapore, in terms of its physical existence and its historical importance.

And he wasn’t all against its preservation, actually.

“If our children are unable to demolish the House as a result of any changes in the law, rules or regulations binding them,” Lee said in his will, “it is my wish that the House never be opened to others except my children, their families and descendants.”

One can only wonder why Lee would insist on such a condition.

Perhaps he does not want to be an idol of worship, something which he had disavowed when he was alive. Or he does not want himself and/or his house of more 70 years – an intimate home which he shared with his wife and children – to be turned into a tourist attraction to be gawked at.

These reasons would be reasonable and understandable.

Still, the question remains: should his house be preserved?

There is every reason to do so.

Should it be accessible to the public?

Perhaps not at the moment, since Lee had just passed and it is only right that we observe and respect his wish.

Perhaps in the distant future, when enough time has passed, his future generation would decide to open it to the public. It is right to leave such a decision to Lee’s family.

But it should not be demolished because the history of the house, even as it belongs to Lee, also belongs to the nation.

Thus preserve the physical house, but allow future generation of Lee’s descendants to decide to open it to the public.

“We were a little late, but fortunately we have retained enough of our history to remind ourselves and tourists of our past.”

The above article was first published on Public Opinion.

Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Sun Xueling graces event organised by Kuek's company; Kuek says no one hurt in 2015 train disruption

It was reported in the media that PAP politician, Senior Parliamentary Secretary…

民众倡议国会直播 傅海燕新闻秘书称恐沦为“表演舞台”

对于普通老百姓也应有机会看国会直播的建议,对此国会领袖傅海燕的新闻秘书声称,直播国会议事不一定能增加透明度,反而可能让国会变相成了“表演舞台”。 本月11日,有读者致函《今日报》,提倡即便普通群众都只是被动参与者,但也应让大家有机会去观察决策和立法的过程。“我们应有机会观看完整的国会议事、提问时的辩论火花、以及议员发表热情洋溢的演说。” 不过,傅海燕新闻秘书 Michele Khoo则在昨日(15日)回函,认为新加坡人希望他们的心声受到讨论和在国会得到回答,因此直播下,“公共表演的成分无可避免”。 她强调国会是认真议事的平台,国会辩论可以激烈但言辞需清醒,议员需应对议题和其复杂性,避免在国会中“装腔作势”。因此国会无意进行现场直播,而改变国会议事的氛围。 再者,她也重申要求直播的需求很低,而民众仍能上网观看仅稍微延迟上载的国会视频,这理应能确保透明度和问责。 本月5日,官委议员王丽婷和工人党非选区议员贝理安(Leon Perera),不约而同呼吁国会应进行直播,让民众也能理解和跟进国会针对疫情和其他重大政策的讨论。 不过傅海燕则指出,广播并不在此次宪法修正案的讨论事项。再者民众目前仍能以现有的方式,“即时、方便地”获取国会议事内容。

李显龙称国家安全不假手于人 惟骁勇辜加部队仍是维安砥柱

针对17个月来,包括战备军人冯伟衷等至少四名国民服役人员在军训事故中丧生,我国总理李显龙在上周五首次打破沉默,在脸书发文表达对牺牲士兵的哀痛,并强调,政府必须向遇难者家属、向人民交代,不会敷衍了事,草率处理任何过失。 其中,他提到武装部队必须坚持使命,不能停止军训和执行军事任务。我们不可能把新加坡的安全和国防外包给其他人,或者另外一个国家。 “我们的国家要由自己来保卫。有了强大的防卫,新加坡才能享有今日的和平及稳定,和其他国家保持和睦。”与此同时,他感谢社会群众给予武装部队和国民服役的支持。 仍雇佣辜加警察 除了武装部队,国民服役人员也可能被调到警队中服役,协助维持治安和社会秩序。 有趣的是,虽然总理李显龙声称,国家安全和国防不可能外包给其他人,但我国政府确实有将维持治安的工作,外包给赫赫有名的“弯刀部队”— 辜加警察团,他们以骁勇、纪律严明著称。(已有许多文章描述过对尼泊尔辜加兵的评价,在此表过不提,有兴趣者诸君可自行搜寻浏览) 在去年六月,我国举办川普和金正恩的峰会,辜加警察团的弯刀标志、土黄色软帽还有独有的辜加弯刀,很自然让外国媒体留下深刻印象。 新加坡外交部在去年6月也宣布,川金会的实际开销达到1千630万新元,大部分开销都花在保安事项。政府部署了将近5千名警察和武装部队,确保峰会万无一失。 事实上,在国家级重要场合或设施,或保护重要人士的任务,都可看到这支辜加部队协助维安和反恐工作。他们在我国警队下分属特别保安部队。 在2015年5月,多达28个国家国防代表和政治领袖出席的“香格里拉对话”,就曾发生有车子不服从警方指示意图冲撞,驾驶遭辜加警察开枪制止。 根据英国智库–国际战略研究所每年出版的《军事平衡》(Military…

聋人协会分发300特殊口罩 方便聋哑学生读老师唇语

在人人都需要戴口罩出门的情况下,如果是需要依赖读唇与人沟通的聋哑人士,就会遇到许多不便。有本地热心人士发挥创意,将口罩中嘴巴的部分以透明塑料替代,让聋哑学生也能够看见教师所说的话! 随着学校开学,透明口罩也开始出现迫切的需求,为了让聋哑人士能够顺利开课,透明口罩开发者之一,56岁的Chan Siang Choo,在过去几周内一直在修改原型,并努力制作新的口罩。 新加坡聋人协会(Singapore Association for the Deaf ,简称SADeaf)、特殊学校励航学校(Lighthouse School)与嘉诺撒学校(Canossian School)也将会分发300个口罩给予150名特教教师。…