Jamus Lim: 38 Oxley Road issue is ‘a family dispute best settled privately’

SINGAPORE: Having been one of the Members of Parliament who spoke in a recent session on the Government’s decision to preserve the home of founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew at 38 Oxley Road as a national monument, Workers’ Party Member of Parliament (WP MP) Jamus Lim (Sengkang) posted about the issue on social media on Monday morning (Nov 17), saying that like his party, he “won’t take sides in what I believe, ultimately, is a family dispute that is best settled privately.”

Since the announcement was made on Nov 3, there has been much written about the issue, as Assoc Prof Lim acknowledged. In his view, however, “the main tension comes from what it means when the government exercises its right to take over private property, and what sort of circumstances would justify doing so.”

While there is a case to be made for the state taking over private property for fair compensation in the name of public interest over individual rights, this principle of eminent domain may not be weighty enough, and there should also be “some overwhelming efficiency case,” he added, as in instances where land is taken for building hospitals, schools, public housing, and the like.

This does not hold for 38 Oxley Road, however, as the property would be preserved for its historical and national significance. Additionally, the owner of the property, Lee Kuan Yew’s younger son Lee Hsien Yang, has been vocal in his stance against the decision to preserve it as a national monument.

Assoc Prof Lim added that his interest “is more in ensuring that the institutions of the state are not inadvertently being corralled to functions they should not be involved in” and that a compromise is found, given that many Singaporeans hope that there will be a way to preserve Mr Lee’s memory and his significance to the country’s heritage.

He brought up a suggestion of this type of compromise in Parliament.

@jamusjlim

Much has been written about the 38 Oxley matter. I won’t spill much more electrons over this, but from my perspective, the main tension comes from what it means when the government exercises its right to take over a private property, and what sort of circumstances would justify doing so. Typically, the economic case for eminent domain—the legalese term for actions of this nature, where the state takes over private property, for fair compensation—is that the public interest more than trumps individual rights. This principle alone can’t be sufficient, however; after all, if so, then we would suffer from all sorts of insecurities in society that would come from the tyranny of the majority. So there should be some overwhelming efficiency case, too. Usually, this is why the power is generally exercised for taking over land for schools, hospitals, public housing, or highways. This is what makes the Oxley property a little different, because the public interest element is less measurable, and stems from the intangible benefit of preserving something of historical and national significance. That’s why the property isn’t being preserved under the Land Acquisition Act (an older law that dates back to 1966), but a newer one, the Preservation of Monuments Act, which was passed in 2009. Moreover, in this case, the property owner has objected to the gazetting. This is novel, and in this sense, then, the events unfolding are unprecedented. Like the workersparty, I won’t take sides in what I believe, ultimately, is a family dispute that is best settled privately. My interest is more in ensuring that the institutions of the state are not inadvertently being corralled to functions they should not be involved in, and—to the extent that a sizable number of Singaporeans do hope for some means of preserving the memory of Lee Kuan Yew and our nation’s heritage—that a compromise solution is found. I made one such suggestion in Parley, but I’m sure there are others. #workingforsingapore

♬ original sound – Jamus Jerome Lim

It is evident from Assoc Prof Lim’s post that many people feel strongly about the issue. While some agreed with the points he raised, others questioned whether the issue is purely a family dispute, as the MP had described it.

Read also: Gerald Giam: Should the public know the price for 38 Oxley Road?