Was the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road a waste of public resources?

With the National Heritage Board (NHB) reopening the case of 38 Oxley Road as a potential National Monument, significant questions have arisen about the relevance of the 2016 Ministerial Committee’s work—some say even its redundancy—particularly since that committee’s findings are seemingly set aside.

In response to questions from Members of Parliament, Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong explained that the NHB has initiated a new assessment to evaluate the site’s eligibility for designation as a National Monument following an application for its demolition by Lee Hsien Yang, the youngest son of Lee Kuan Yew.

This situation has led to public criticism and pointed questions: Is the NHB’s new study an unnecessary expenditure of public resources, and did the Ministerial Committee truly serve the public interest?

The Ministerial Committee, formed in 2016 and led by then-Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, was tasked with creating “drawer plans” for the property. This included exploring options ranging from preservation to demolition, without committing to a specific outcome.

Over the span of nearly two years, the committee assessed 38 Oxley Road’s architectural, heritage, and historical value, collected perspectives from Lee Kuan Yew’s children, and compiled information to serve as a reference for future governments.

This work culminated in a report issued in 2018, which outlined several options but deferred any specific recommendation, citing the “life interest” Lee Kuan Yew had left to his daughter, Dr Lee Wei Ling, who resided at the property.

Yet, the lack of a decisive outcome, now compounded by NHB’s reassessment, has raised serious doubts about the effectiveness of the committee’s work.

Tong clarified that while NHB research was included in the 2018 report, it was never formally presented to the Preservation of Sites and Monuments Advisory Board (PSMAB), the independent body overseeing national monument designations.

The committee opted to keep “all options open,” avoiding any presentation to the PSMAB or decisive recommendation.

With the NHB now conducting a near-duplicate review, many are questioning why the committee’s findings cannot be reused.

If, as Minister Tong or the NHB might argue, these findings are considered outdated (setting aside the notion of a historical assessment becoming ‘outdated’), it raises the question: was the committee’s work effectively redundant, and if so, who is accountable for any wasted resources?

Some wonder why the government didn’t simply wait for a formal demolition request or a significant change in circumstances, such as Dr Lee choosing to leave the house or her passing, before initiating a review of 38 Oxley Road’s status.

Under Section 12 of the Preservation of Monuments Act 2009, a preservation order lapses if the government does not acquire the property within a year. This raises questions as to why a committee was convened before a formal demolition request or a significant change in circumstances, such as Dr Lee leaving the house or passing.

The review involved prominent Cabinet members—Ministers Grace Fu, K Shanmugam, and Lawrence Wong—all of whom managed portfolios tied to culture, law, and urban development.

Convening such a high-level committee with no clear directive to make recommendations or reach a decision, only to repeat the process years later after Lee Hsien Yang’s application, seems to many like an irresponsible use of public resources.

With the NHB now conducting an assessment without the same level of ministerial involvement, the initial need for such senior officials seems questionable.

A recent survey by Black Dot Research found that over half of Singaporeans polled support the demolition of 38 Oxley Road, aligning with Lee Kuan Yew’s stated wishes.

Nonetheless, it is also public knowledge that the PAP Cabinet, during Lee Kuan Yew’s lifetime, expressed unanimous interest in preserving the property against his will.

The ongoing saga has also surfaced issues beyond just the fate of a historical property. It underscores unresolved tensions within the Lee family, particularly in light of allegations of power abuse and preferential treatment by certain state actors, which contributed to Lee Hsien Yang and his family seeking refuge overseas due to alleged state persecution.

Singaporeans are left wondering: did the Ministerial Committee—which Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee referred to as a “secret committee”—even serve a real purpose, or was it simply a way to pursue other aims?