Commentary: Singapore is doing more heritage studies – but does it have enough experts?

Commentary: Singapore is doing more heritage studies – but does it have enough experts? Capacity in architectural conservation and engineering is stretched, and that can impact the quality of heritage studies, say Kevin Tan and Yeo Kang Shua from the International Council on Monuments and Sites Singapore. SINGAPORE: Over the past few years, public agencies in Singapore have commissioned a steady stream of heritage-related studies meant to guide the redevelopment of sites with heritage significance. These include the 2021 study of the former Old Police Academy at Mount Pleasant, which served as a pilot for the Ministry of National Development’s Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) framework introduced in 2022. The framework was later applied to the studies of Bukit Timah's Turf City and Gillman Barracks. There are others that sit outside the HIA framework. At Adam Park, for example, the Singapore Land Authority’s (SLA) recent tender requires archaeological mitigation. The Housing and Development Board also called for a tender for heritage studies related to two future development areas. This growth in commissioned work is welcome, as it represents an important change in how heritage is incorporated earlier in policymaking. But it brings another issue into focus: Does Singapore have enough expertise to do it well? A SMALL NUMBER OF EXPERTS There is no formal register of heritage practitioners in Singapore, and the pool varies by discipline. Architectural conservation draws on a relatively small number of specialist practices and university-based teams, while historical and social-history research often depends on individual historians and researchers. A single large HIA may require several kinds of expertise, from architectural conservation to archival and social research, though there is no standard number of specialists for every project. Overseas firms can supplement local teams, but familiarity with Singapore’s historical sources, material culture and planning context remains important. There is also no formal licensing or certification system for heritage consultants. Tenders commonly consider qualifications and track records, while professional affiliations can be useful indicators. Still, a track record only shows that similar work has been done and does not establish quality. The situation is more acute in archaeology. Singapore has very few practitioners with substantial local field experience, and the active professional pool is exceptionally small. The National Heritage Board (NHB) acknowledged the need to build local archaeological expertise in 2024, but that need has become increasingly urgent as archaeological work becomes part of development-related heritage studies. POTENTIAL ISSUES Capacity in architectural conservation and engineering is stretched. There is no evidence yet of studies taking longer or that the system is breaking down, but there are reasons to be concerned. A tender assumes that there is a sufficiently developed market from which capable providers can be selected. Where only a handful of experienced archaeologists are available, competitive procurement cannot create the capacity or establish the right standards. Poor-quality studies have serious consequences. An inadequate building assessment may misstate a site’s significance and influence decisions about retention, alteration or redevelopment – decisions that can be difficult to reverse. In archaeology, there is an added risk: excavation is destructive. Deposits are removed to understand them. If contexts are disturbed or artefacts and records are inadequately documented, the original evidence cannot be reconstructed for future researchers. The problem does not end with the investigation. Once accepted, a report acquires substantive weight. Its conclusions may determine whether more investigation is needed, remains are retained or development proceeds. A finding that a site has little or no significance is not inherently wrong, but such a finding must rest on competent and rigorous investigation. A commissioning agency should therefore not simply accept a consultant’s report at face value. It needs sufficient expertise, internally or through independent review, to scrutinise the methods, evidence and reasoning. This applies to built-heritage studies as well as archaeology. But when the archaeological pool is so small, and much of the available expertise is concentrated within HeritageSG under NHB, finding independent reviewers becomes especially pressing. A CASE FOR A MORE ACTIVE STATE ROLE? Where expertise is critically scarce and investigation can permanently alter the evidence, the state can take a more active role. At Adam Park, the SLA tender requires the successful tenderer to appoint a project archaeologist to conduct mitigation works to recover and document archaeological materials and features. Who should set the research design and methodology, determine the qualifications of those leading the work, and ensure its quality? With the small number of experts available, separate tenders, on their own, may not be able to supply the right people or establish consistent standards. If the state could play a more active role, the authority would set the scope and methods, determine appropriate qualifications and provide for independent review where a site’s archaeological potential is substantial. This would establish a national framework instead of leaving requirements to ad hoc formulations in successive tenders. There is already an institutional foundation. NHB’s Archaeology Advisory Panel advises on archaeological initiatives and policies, while legislative proposals put forward for public consultation in 2024 envisaged a more direct regulatory role for NHB. A national system could ensure that field records, drawings, photographs, finds registers and digital data are consistently deposited and accessible. Each development-led investigation could contribute to a cumulative national record, while fieldwork creates sustained opportunities for local practitioners and students to gain experience. Singapore has made important progress by bringing heritage into planning earlier and more regularly. The question now is whether capacity and oversight have kept pace. For built heritage, that means strengthening the professional base and review. For archaeology, where expertise is exceptionally scarce and the work can destroy the evidence it seeks to understand, a more state-led model deserves serious consideration. A poor heritage study can lead to an irreversible decision. In archaeology, it can also mean the irreversible loss of the evidence itself. Kevin Tan is President of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) Singapore and a law professor. Yeo Kang Shua is Vice-President of ICOMOS Singapore and an associate professor at the Singapore University of Technology and Design in architectural history and conservation.