To Keep or Not To Keep? Preserving vs Modernisation

The house at Oxley Road. To keep or to demolish? 

Hi, in one of our recent CID lesson, we discussed preservation versus modernisation. While preservation of a heritage site is vital to the preservation of our culture and also attracts tourism and gives a unique feature to the history and culture, tensions between modernisation and preservation have been rising with different parties taking different stands. To decide whether or not to keep, different viewpoints must be taken into account. 

Former prime minster Lee Kuan Yew's house is one example. Upon his passing, Mr LKY's will and testimony was activated. In his will, he states that the house was to be demolished upon his death if his children (mainly his daughter) was to move out. However, there has been great debacle on what to do with the house. These are some of the viewpoints that create so many different opinions. 

LKY's family: To demolish. In order to respect their late patriarch, the family of LKY (or Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong) would choose of respect his wishes and prevent people invading their privacy. However, as people who grew up in the family home, not all the family would want to demolish a place where memories were formed.  

National Heritage Board and Tourism Board: To keep. The house is rich with history and heritage (PAP was formed there). Keeping the house means keeping the history and this can attract tourism. Tourism can also be used to make money. 

Singaporean adults: Maybe some would demolish, some would preserve. To demolish means to respect his last wishes. Mr LKY has already given his all to Singapore, so many people would choose to respect his last wishes as a sign of respect. However, knowing the house is full of heritage and history, some adults would also choose to keep the heritage as it would be a shame to demolish such a significant house. 

Personally, my stand is to keep the house. Although Mr LKY's house could be written down in history books or displayed as a mini model in a museum, without the house there, the ambience of the site is lost. The younger generation would not be able to fully appreciate the site where hard work and crucial cornerstones of nation building took place. Keeping the house means students can visit as an educational trip and preserving the physical roots of our nation's beginning. 

Sometimes preservation is good. However, in modern times like these, is it truly possible to keep everything in top-notch standards without upgrading or reconstruction? Would we sometimes need to add modern prospects in? Preserving a heritage site means tourists would start visiting. Carparks are added, toilets are added, water coolers are added. Modernisation need to take place in this case, in order to cater to the consequences of preservation. Would this, then, take away the former ambience, or the authenticity of the heritage site?