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.

The heritage study of the former Old Police Academy at Mount Pleasant served as a pilot for the Ministry of National Development’s Heritage Impact Assessment framework introduced in 2022. (Photo: URA)

This audio is generated by an AI tool.

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?

CNA Games Guess Word Crack the word, one row at a time Buzzword Create words using the given letters Mini Sudoku Tiny puzzle, mighty brain teaser Mini Crossword Small grid, big challenge Word Search Spot as many words as you can Show More Show Less

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.

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.

Get our pick of top stories and thought-provoking articles in your inbox

Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories

Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app

国际古迹遗址理事会新加坡分会的 Kevin Tan 和 Yeo Kang Shua 表示，建筑保护和工程方面的能力捉襟见肘，这可能会影响遗产研究的质量。

位于芒特普莱森特的前旧警察学院的遗产研究，是国家发展部于2022年推出的遗产影响评估框架的试点项目。（图片：市区重建局）

这段音频是由人工智能工具生成的。

新加坡：过去几年，新加坡的公共机构委托开展了一系列与遗产相关的研究，旨在指导具有遗产意义的地点的重建。

其中包括 2021 年对芒特普莱森特旧警察学院的研究，该研究作为国家发展部于 2022 年推出的遗产影响评估 (HIA) 框架的试点项目。该框架后来被应用于武吉知马的草坪城和吉尔曼军营的研究。

还有一些项目不在《历史影响评估》（HIA）框架之内。例如，新加坡土地管理局（SLA）最近在亚当公园的招标中要求进行考古缓解措施。建屋发展局也为两个未来开发区的相关遗产研究项目进行了招标。

委托创作数量的增长令人欣喜，这标志着文化遗产在政策制定中融入方式发生了重要转变。但这同时也引出了另一个问题：新加坡是否具备足够的专业知识来做好这项工作？

CNA游戏 猜词游戏 逐行破解单词 流行词游戏 用给定的字母组成单词 迷你数独 小小谜题，挑战你的大脑 迷你填字游戏 小方格，大挑战 单词搜索 尽可能多地找出单词 显示更多 显示更少

少数专家

新加坡没有正式的文物保护从业人员名录，不同学科的从业人员数量也各不相同。建筑保护领域主要依靠数量相对较少的专业机构和大学团队，而历史和社会历史研究则往往依赖于个别历史学家和研究人员。

一项大型历史影响评估可能需要多种专业知识，涵盖建筑保护、档案研究和社会研究等领域，但每个项目所需的专家人数并没有统一标准。海外公司可以为本地团队提供补充，但熟悉新加坡的历史资料、物质文化和规划背景仍然至关重要。

目前也没有针对文物保护顾问的正式执照或认证制度。

投标通常会考虑资质和过往业绩，专业协会会员资格也可以作为有用的参考指标。然而，过往业绩只能表明曾经做过类似工作，并不能保证质量。

考古领域的情况更为严峻。新加坡拥有丰富本地实地经验的考古从业人员寥寥无几，活跃的专业人才储备更是少得可怜。国家文物局（NHB）在2024年就已意识到需要培养本地考古专业人才，但随着考古工作日益融入发展相关的遗产研究，这一需求也变得愈发迫切。

建筑保护和工程领域的资源已捉襟见肘。虽然目前尚无证据表明研究耗时延长或系统出现崩溃，但仍有理由令人担忧。

招标的前提是存在一个足够成熟的市场，可以从中遴选出合格的供应商。如果只有少数经验丰富的考古学家，那么竞争性采购就无法培养出相应的能力或建立合适的标准。

低质量的研究会造成严重后果。不充分的建筑评估可能会误判遗址的重要性，并影响关于保留、改建或重建的决策——而这些决策往往难以逆转。在考古学中，还存在额外的风险：挖掘具有破坏性。为了了解遗址，必须移除地层。如果环境遭到破坏，或者文物和记录保存不完整，那么未来的研究人员就无法重建原始证据。

问题并非止于调查结束。一旦报告被采纳，便具有实质性效力。其结论可能决定是否需要进行进一步调查、遗骸是否保留或开发工作是否继续进行。

认定某个遗址意义不大或毫无意义本身并没有错，但这样的结论必须建立在严谨专业的调查之上。因此，委托机构不应简单地全盘接受顾问的报告。它需要具备足够的专业知识，无论是内部专家还是通过独立审查，来仔细审查报告的方法、证据和推理。

这不仅适用于考古学，也适用于建筑遗产研究。但由于考古人才库规模有限，且大部分可用专业知识都集中在国家文物局（NHB）下属的HeritageSG机构，因此寻找独立评审员就显得尤为迫切。

国家是否应该发挥更积极的作用？

在专业知识严重匮乏且调查可能永久改变证据的情况下，国家可以发挥更积极的作用。

在亚当公园，SLA招标要求中标者委任一名项目考古学家，负责开展修复工作，以收集和记录考古材料和遗迹。那么，谁应该制定研究方案和方法，确定项目负责人的资质，并确保研究质量呢？由于相关专家数量有限，单独招标可能无法找到合适的人才，也无法建立统一的标准。

如果国家能够发挥更积极的作用，相关机构就可以设定范围和方法，确定适当的资质，并在遗址具有重大考古潜力的情况下进行独立审查。这将建立一个国家框架，而不是让各项要求在历次招标中随意制定。

目前已具备相应的制度基础。国家文物局的考古咨询小组为考古项目和政策提供建议，而2024年提交公众咨询的立法提案则设想赋予国家文物局更直接的监管职能。

建立国家级系统可以确保实地记录、图纸、照片、文物登记册和数字数据得到持续保存和查阅。每一项以发展为导向的调查都可以为国家级档案的累积做出贡献，同时，实地考察也为当地从业人员和学生提供了持续积累经验的机会。

新加坡在更早、更频繁地将遗产保护纳入规划方面取得了重要进展。现在的问题是，能力和监管是否跟上了步伐。

对于建筑遗产而言，这意味着加强专业基础建设和审查。而对于考古学而言，由于专业知识极其稀缺，且考古工作本身可能破坏其试图理解的证据，因此，由国家主导的模式值得认真考虑。糟糕的遗产研究可能导致不可逆转的决策。在考古学领域，它甚至可能意味着证据本身的不可逆转的损失。

陈凯文是国际古迹遗址理事会（ICOMOS）新加坡分会主席，同时也是一位法学教授。杨康舒是国际古迹遗址理事会新加坡分会副主席，同时也是新加坡科技设计大学建筑史与文物保护专业的副教授。

订阅我们的邮件，即可获取精选热点新闻和引人深思的文章。

订阅通知，第一时间获取突发新闻和精彩报道。

加入我们的频道，即可在您常用的聊天应用上获取当日热门文章。