Statute Details
- Title: Preservation of Monuments (Exemption) Order
- Act Code: PMA2009-OR3
- Type: Subsidiary legislation (Order)
- Authorising Act: Preservation of Monuments Act (Chapter 239, Section 17)
- Commencement: 1 October 1993
- Citation: Preservation of Monuments (Exemption) Order
- Legislative Instrument Number: G.N. No. S 402/1993
- Revised Edition: 1994 RevEd (30 March 1994)
- Current Status (as provided): Current version as at 27 Mar 2026
- Key Provisions (from extract): Section 1 (Citation); Section 2 (Exemption)
What Is This Legislation About?
The Preservation of Monuments (Exemption) Order is a short piece of subsidiary legislation made under the Preservation of Monuments Act. Its central function is to grant a specific exemption for certain monuments that are already under the protection of the Preservation of Monuments Board. In plain terms, it identifies particular buildings and states that they are exempt from a particular statutory restriction found in the Act.
Although the Order is brief, it is legally significant because it modifies how the main Act applies to named monuments. The Act generally regulates what can be done to protected monuments—particularly where changes, alterations, or certain actions may be prohibited unless conditions are met. The exemption order carves out exceptions for the listed monuments, thereby allowing them to be treated differently from other protected monuments under the same statutory regime.
In the extract provided, the exemption is expressly tied to section 9(1) of the Preservation of Monuments Act. That means the Order does not repeal the Act or remove the monuments from the Board’s protection. Instead, it limits the effect of one specific prohibition (or requirement) in the Act for the monuments named in the Order.
What Are the Key Provisions?
Section 1 (Citation) provides the formal name of the instrument. This is standard drafting: it tells practitioners and courts how to refer to the Order in legal documents, submissions, and pleadings.
Section 2 (Exemption) is the operative provision. It states that the following monuments—already placed under the protection of the Preservation of Monuments Board—are “hereby exempted from section 9(1) of the Act”:
(a) Istana, Orchard Road
(b) Sri Temasek, Orchard Road
In other words, the Order identifies two specific monuments and provides that the restriction (or regulatory requirement) in section 9(1) does not apply to them.
From a practitioner’s perspective, the most important legal work is not merely reading the names of the monuments, but understanding the scope of section 9(1) of the Preservation of Monuments Act. The exemption is only as broad as the underlying provision it references. If section 9(1) concerns, for example, prohibitions on certain works, alterations, demolition, or other regulated acts without approval, then the exemption would typically mean that those acts are not caught by that particular prohibition for the exempt monuments.
However, the Order’s wording also indicates that the monuments remain “placed under the protection” of the Board. That phrase matters: it suggests that the exemption is targeted and does not necessarily remove the monuments from the overall protective framework of the Act. Practically, this means that other provisions of the Act—outside section 9(1)—may still apply. For example, there may be continuing obligations relating to preservation, oversight, or other approvals, depending on how the Act is structured.
Finally, the Order is drafted as a legal instrument with a specific effective date (1 October 1993). For counsel advising on compliance, this date can be relevant when assessing whether a particular action taken before or after commencement was lawful, and whether the exemption was available at the time.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
The Order is structured in a very simple format, consisting of:
1. Citation — the short title by which the Order may be cited.
2. Exemption — the substantive clause listing the monuments exempted from the operation of section 9(1) of the Preservation of Monuments Act.
There are no additional parts, schedules, or complex procedural provisions in the extract. The instrument functions as a targeted amendment-by-exemption: it does not create a standalone regulatory regime; it modifies the effect of the main Act by excluding certain monuments from one specific statutory restriction.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The Order applies to the named monuments—namely, Istana, Orchard Road and Sri Temasek, Orchard Road—to the extent that they are “placed under the protection of the Preservation of Monuments Board.” Therefore, the primary legal “audience” is not the general public in the abstract, but rather the parties whose activities may intersect with the protected status of these monuments.
In practice, this typically includes:
- Owners, occupiers, or custodians responsible for the maintenance and management of the monuments;
- Contractors and consultants engaged in works affecting the monuments;
- Government agencies or entities operating within the premises (where applicable); and
- Any persons seeking to undertake actions that would otherwise be regulated under section 9(1) of the Act.
Because the exemption is limited to section 9(1), the Order does not necessarily exempt the monuments from all statutory controls under the Preservation of Monuments Act. Accordingly, counsel should treat the exemption as a partial carve-out and conduct a provision-by-provision analysis of the Act to determine what obligations remain.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
Even though the Preservation of Monuments (Exemption) Order is short, it has real compliance consequences. In heritage and conservation law, the difference between “protected” and “exempt from a specific prohibition” can determine whether a particular action requires approval, whether a permit is needed, and whether enforcement risk arises.
For practitioners, the Order is important because it provides a clear legal basis for treating the two listed monuments differently from other protected monuments. Where an issue arises—such as whether certain works are prohibited under section 9(1)—the exemption order is a direct authority to cite. It can be decisive in disputes, regulatory reviews, or enforcement proceedings.
From an enforcement standpoint, the exemption reduces the likelihood that section 9(1) can be invoked against these monuments. However, it may not eliminate enforcement entirely. If other sections of the Act impose duties or restrictions not referenced by the exemption, the Board (or relevant authorities) may still require compliance with those provisions. Therefore, the Order should be read as part of the broader statutory framework rather than in isolation.
Finally, the Order’s identification of specific monuments underscores a policy approach: certain nationally significant sites may be managed under special circumstances while still being recognised as monuments under the Board’s protection. This can reflect practical considerations such as operational needs, security, or governance arrangements—though the legal text itself focuses only on the exemption from section 9(1).
Related Legislation
- Preservation of Monuments Act (Chapter 239), including section 9(1) and section 17 (the authorising provision for making exemption orders)
- Preservation of Monuments (Timeline) (as referenced in the provided material)
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Preservation of Monuments (Exemption) Order for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.