Why was Fullerton building made a National Monument now?

I was pleasantly surprised at the designation of the Fullerton building as a National Monument (“Fullerton building: From GPO to national landmark”; Dec 7).

It is a historic building that has seen tumultuous and important events in Singapore’s history, and has architectural value that merits conservation.

Its designation, however, also raises questions on the decision-making process and rationale behind determining what buildings to recognise and protect.

First, it was granted conservation status in 1996 by the Urban Redevelopment Authority. It then underwent restoration and was opened in 2001 as a hotel.

Was any new and significant information about the Fullerton building discovered after 1996, or any threat that warranted a status upgrade for the building?

Why was it not designated as a national landmark from the start — did the authorities get it wrong in 1996? This is not a pedantic question because it has implications for other conserved buildings.

If Singapore’s other conserved buildings are unworthy of National Monument status, what are the reasons?

By having a more critical discussion about the rationale for the Fullerton building’s status, both the public and owners of conserved buildings would better understand the difference between a conserved building and a National Monument.

The latter has its own tailored preservation guidelines for owners to restore and preserve the monument’s architectural and intrinsic historical value.

Given that, I question how the intrinsic historical value of the Fullerton building is able to be restored, since only the facade and portions of the interior were kept intact. The building was, after all, converted into a hotel.

Offices that used to house government departments were converted into hotel rooms, and four original air-wells were removed and replaced by a covered atrium.

I hope the National Heritage Board will be able to clarify these questions.