Singapore Academy of Law

From the SelectedWorks of Jack Tsen-Ta LEE

December 16, 2013

A Presence of the Past: The Legal Protection of ’s Archaeological Heritage Jack Tsen-Ta Lee

Available at: https://works.bepress.com/jacklee/39/

School of Law Singapore Management University 60 Stamford Road, #04-11, Singapore 178900 [email protected]  http://www.law.smu.edu.sg

28 February 2013

A Presence of the Past: The Legal Protection of Singapore’s Archaeological Heritage

Jack Tsen-Ta Lee*

* LLB (Hons) (Nat’l University of Singapore), LLM (UCL, Lond); PhD (B’ham); Advocate & Solicitor (Singapore), Solicitor (England & Wales); Assistant Professor of Law, School of Law, Singapore Management University.

© 2013. This article appears in a revised form, following peer review and editorial input by Cambridge University Press, in (2013) 20(3) International Journal of Cultural Property 257–288 (© International Cultural Property Society; published by Cambridge University Press: doi 10.1017/S094073911300012X). This pre-publication version may be obtained from Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University (InK) at http://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1193/, from Selected- Works at http://works.bepress.com/jacklee/39, and from the Social Sciences Research Network at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2362830.

A Presence of the Past: The Legal Protection of Singapore’s Archaeological Heritage Jack Tsen-Ta Lee1

Singapore is not well known for its archaeological heritage. In fact, chance finds in the early twentieth century and systematic archaeological excavations since the 1980s conducted at sites around the have unearthed artifacts shedding light on the island’s early history. In addition, the value of archaeology for a deeper knowledge of Singapore’s British colonial past is increasingly being recognized. Nonetheless, Singapore law provides only a rudimentary framework to facilitate archaeological investigations and protect cultural artifacts. This article considers how the National Heritage Board Act (Cap 196A, 1994 Rev Ed), the Planning Act (Cap 232, 1998 Rev Ed), and the recent Preservation of Monuments Board Act 2009 (No 16 of 2009, now Cap 239, 2011 Rev Ed) may be strengthened in this regard.

MOST PEOPLE are surprised to hear that there are archaeologists working in Singapore. In fact, systematic archaeological projects have been taking place in this diminutive Southeast Asian island-state since the 1980s, and have uncovered artifacts dating back to the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Because of the dearth of written records, it is such finds that have enabled scholars to fill in the blanks in Singapore’s precolonial history and conclusively situate Singapore as a port at the confluence of trade routes between and the Malay world. Increasingly, archaeological digs have been conceptualized and executed to shed light on Singapore’s more recent history – its World War II experience and period of rapid industrialization. These projects have largely taken place in the absence of a comprehensive legal regime. Although provisions exist in the National Heritage Board Act2 allowing the Board to enter upon land to carry out an archaeological investigation, an examination of them soon reveals their shortcomings. The occupier of the land may deny permission for anything more intrusive than a surface survey, and can block any investigation relating to a dwelling-house or its surrounding land. There is no obligation on people intending to carry out works on land to conduct heritage impact

1 LLB (Hons) (Nat’l University of Singapore), LLM (UCL, Lond); PhD (B’ham); Advocate & Solicitor (Singapore), Solicitor (England & Wales); Assistant Professor of Law, School of Law, Singapore Management University. I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers of the article w