Interview #3: Dr. Ho Puay Peng
Conservation in motion, as a landscape, and of modern society
This interview features Dr. Ho Puay Peng, a professor at the National University of Singapore (NUS) Department of Architecture and the current UNESCO Chair on Architectural Heritage Conservation and Management in Asia. With his extensive knowledge in international heritage conservation, Dr. Ho shares his insights on "conservation in motion," intangible vs. tangible preservation, and criteria for evaluating heritage sites.
About This Interview
Dr. Ho Puay Peng currently serves as a professor at the NUS Department of Architecture and the current UNESCO Chair on Architectural Heritage Conservation and Management in Asia. Previously, he served as Director of the School of Architecture and University Dean of Students at The Chinese University of Hong Kong. His primary research interests lie in architectural history, conservation practices, and religious culture.
This conversation explores the value of preserving heritage sites in their pristine physical state, as Dr. Ho posits his stance on the extent to which the older generation and past memories should determine changes in the contemporary landscape of conservation.
Interview Details
Guest: Dr. Ho Puay Peng
Interviewer: Christine Oh
Date Recorded: March 25, 2026
Location: NUS, Singapore
Language: English
Duration: 26:32
Format: Video & Audio Recording
Interview Questions
Below are highlights from our conversation with Dr. Ho Puay Peng, organized by topic. These excerpts capture his vision for cultural preservation through inclusion.
Please introduce yourself to the audience.
Dr. Ho Puay Peng: I’m a professor at the National University of Singapore, where I’ve been for 10 years. I currently also hold the UNESCO Chair on Architectural Heritage Conservation and Management in Asia. My recent research has focused on conservation in China, Hong Kong, and Singapore, pushing the boundaries of architectural conservation practice.
With your extensive experience in translating conservation practices into NUS curricula or UNESCO efforts, do you have any advice for how I can engage young people in Singapore in the same way?
Dr. Ho Puay Peng: That is very important because heritage conservation should be both top-down and bottom-up. In many East Asian countries, decisions are often top-down, which isn't necessarily bad, but there must be ground-up involvement in education and advocacy. I am very interested in getting youth interested so they might work as conservationists or engage in mass education and advocacy. It’s vital for the whole society to be involved.
As you said, there is a difference between policy-driven efforts by authorities and what students can do. What are some ways young students can help preserve these heritage sites in Singapore?
Dr. Ho Puay Peng: In Singapore, the bottom-up effort is still in its infancy compared to places like Hong Kong or Korea. A young person can start by understanding value assessment—learning how we judge if a building or landscape is worthy of conservation. We shouldn't conserve just because of nostalgia; we want students to understand the scientific and social history basis for it. It’s not just about a building's age. While international standards often focus on buildings 50 years or older, we’ve looked at building clusters from the 1990s because we need to take a long-term view to ensure we don't lose heritage 20 years from now. We also look at communal value, such as the Golden Mile Complex, which, despite being built in 1973, remains significant to the Thai community. Even "common" places like hawker centers in public housing complexes (HDBs) relate to everyday life and have conservation value.
Regarding my recent interview with Mr. Raymond Wong of the Tian De Temple, he mentioned using multicultural events like durian festivals to keep the temple relevant as a communal space. Have you seen similar strategies used by other religious centers or heritage sites in Singapore?
Dr. Ho Puay Peng: Many religious centers, especially Chinese ones, lack youth participation. Creating activities to attract the young is one way. Clan associations formed by migrants from China also face this issue, as younger generations may not strongly identify with a hometown from three generations ago. To continue that link, some wealthier associations offer scholarships or host cultural events. However, we cannot force identity. We are currently the custodians of these buildings, but the next generation must decide what they identify with. I call this "conservation in motion"—it must adapt and keep up with the times. If a building is no longer relevant, we might not keep the physical structure, but we can keep its memory through documentation and digital archiving.
The idea of conservation seems different to everyone. How would you define preservation for heritage?
Dr. Ho Puay Peng: It is defined by relevance and significance to you. It’s not just about how old or beautiful a site is, but how it relates to you. If there is no relation to you, then conservation becomes difficult to justify.
Would preservation only be possible if we preserve the physical state, or are there other ways to preserve heritage sites?
Dr. Ho Puay Peng: Physical state is often considered best, but a building without interpretation is almost meaningless. If you tell the story behind an object, it becomes meaningful. With proper interpretation and digital means, you can preserve the essence of a building without the actual physical structure.
As the UNESCO Chair of Asia, how do you define preservation, or feel you have contributed to the preservation of historical sites?
Dr. Ho Puay Peng: I work at two levels. At the agency or government level, I push for better conservation agendas, focusing on interpretation, techniques, and community participation. The other level is exchanging experiences through actual projects and conferences in places like Japan, Thailand, and Cambodia. For example, in Cambodia, their concept of conservation often focuses on buildings from a thousand years ago, whereas I encouraged them to also look at their French colonial past from the 1930s and 1940s. Every country has a different perspective; in Singapore, we define identity through our nation-building process rather than ancient history.
I’ve been trying to discover heritage sites that are in danger or need more attention from Singaporeans. Based on your perspective, are there any heritage sites in Singapore that deserve more attention?
Dr. Ho Puay Peng: Most buildings from before 1950 are already covered by Singapore’s Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and National Heritage Board (NHB). However, there are exceptions, like the land belonging to the Sultan of Johor near the Botanic Gardens, which contains a villa for the royal family that we cannot easily access. There are also cemeteries like Bukit Brown and "Kopi Hill" (Kopi Sua). Singapore often clears cemeteries for land, but they are significant because of their scale. I also believe we should focus more on buildings from after the 1950s and move toward treating conservation as a landscape, viewing the building and its surroundings in their totality.
How can we convince even the most multicultural people that Singaporean heritage is relevant to them?
Dr. Ho Puay Peng: I look for cross-influences. One can relate to a building here if they’ve seen something similar in Hong Kong, Seoul, or Busan, showing the migratory routes and shared influences between East and Southeast Asia. Industrial heritage from the early 20th century is very similar across Asia because industrialization affected many places simultaneously. Finally, the ideology of nation-building is a shared experience; although Korea is ancient, its recent democratic nation-building period mirrors Singapore’s. Relating to the ideology behind certain sites can create that connection.
