So, to demolish or to preserve?
For the sake of history or for the sake of space and other reasons?
In this week's CID lesson, the class touched on final topic of CID before we headed off to Suzhou and Shanghai for our OELP trip. We got to reflect on the importance of heritage sites towards a city and from there, we felt that heritage sites were important in local and international terms. In local's perspective, heritage sites gave a sense of belonging and space, cultural identity to our country and were a great way to understand and reflect on the history behind those monuments. However, in tourist's perspective, the heritage sites were unique features representing the country's culture, making the country unique and that would appeal to me in general. As we gained deeper insights of the importance of having heritage sites, I soon realised the tension between modernisation and preservation and the ways to make full use of preserved heritage without destroying any bits of it. To illustrate such concept, in Singapore's context, this can be represented by the things we are able to enjoy and see everyday. The playground, a strong and fond memory of many Singaporeans when they were a child, is a great example of modernisation and preservation. In the past, the ground of the playground used to be full of sand, however, it has been changed to foam for hygiene and safety purposes. This example got me thinking. In the 21st century, the society is rapidly advancing and changing so much that we have so much trouble catching up and so what are the relevance and cost effectiveness of heritage sites? Do we really have time and space to appreciate heritage and history?
As we continued on with the lesson, we found ourselves in the debate that was still in question. Should we demolish or preserve Mr Lee Kuan Yew's house at Oxley Road? To discern on this hot topic of debate a few years back, the perspective of various stakeholders were needed to fathom the conflicting factors towards the debate. People taken in account ranged from LKY family to the URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority) As I stepped into the shoes of the neighbours living near the house, I found myself in a dilemma, interpreting the house in various context, along with the Singaporean children and adults. As much as I wanted to preserve the house as history of one of the founding fathers of Singapore, the house's demolish would allow the land value to escalate as the HDB flats around it no longer need to not hover over LKY's house. So the big question still remains. To keep or to remove?
Personally, I feel that the house should be demolished. Mr Lee Kuan Yew, a simple and humble national leader, had said in an interview that the house was to be demolished as part of his last will. So, as Singaporeans, it is only right that we pay due respect to this incredible leader that helped change the fate of Singapore, from a third world country to a first world country that we live and enjoy today. It is of his selfless contributions to the nation and the number of sacrifices done that we can live in this metropolis in comfort and in harmony. Thus, it is only fair we play our role as the younger generation to listen and adhere to his wishes, his wishes of not having his privacy opened up and invaded by trudging visitors from everywhere. It is also for the sake of the neighbours as well. By demolishing the house in great need of renovation, the land can be redeveloped and would lead to the fluctuate in land value. I strongly believe that the history of one of our great founding father can be learned through test books, videos or a replica of the house in one of the national museum. Although the impact of Mr Lee Kuan Yew would not be as strong as having the house preserved as a heritage site towards the younger generations, the house would still be better off demolished because to be truthful, the house would require lots of money to renovate the substandard of the foundation of the house. Besides that, with visitors swarming in to observe the house, the house might not be able to withstand such a weight and the items on displays might get damaged along the way as well. The house, though precious and special, will remain as a living history of Singapore when preserved but the quality or standard of it would not be ideal when opened to visitors for a long period of time. Therefore, with that in mind, I then feel that the house being demolished would be a better option to the fate of it.
From the discussions held in class, I realised that heritage sites play an important role in a society because it is a living historical reminder of the past and that history can be represented as heritage as well. Although Mr LKY's house received various points of views and comments, all i can say is that before we do anything, we should ask ourselves:
"Is there real value in being at the actual location and seeing the actual artefacts?" and
"What difference in the impact would be brought about from seeing it in person or seeing it in various platforms of delivering messages?"
Heritage sites hold numerous memories and stories that would benefit future generations but would future generations appreciate and protect them?
No comments:
Post a Comment