I presume by "public suggestions" Mr Simon Tay is referring to the alternative proposal for the Singapore Management University campus submitted by Mr Tay Kheng Soon. First, by way of background, let me trace the history of the National Library issue.

2 The possibility of the National Library building being removed was first made public in 1988 when the URA was formulating the Civic District Master Plan. URA held an exhibition on the draft Master Plan for the Civic and Cultural District in April 1988. This was followed by a public dialogue in May 1988 between the then Minister for National Development, Mr S Dhanabalan, and professional bodies and members of the public.

3. There was general support for the removal of the National Library

building to open up the view of Fort Canning Hill from the Bras Basah area. There was another proposal to realign Stamford Road behind National Museum so that the National Museum would be better integrated with Bras Basah Park. This would also entail the demolition of the library building.

4. The public feedback led to further studies by URA and the former

PWD on how to better integrate the land parcels in the area to create a more pedestrian friendly environment. Several options were explored, including depressing Stamford Road, providing an alternative at-grade alignment behind the National Museum and a tunnel through the National Library. The only feasible option was the tunnel option, and this was subsequently incorporated into the Master Plan for the Civic District. The finalised Master Plan was completed and exhibited to the public in February 1992.

5 In December 1998, SMU announced that it would build its campus in the Bras Basah area. There was a series of forum page letters in the newspapers and direct suggestions to URA following the announcement. URA responded to these letters, and explained the plans to them.

6 In March 1999, SMU chaired a public symposium on the physical development of its campus. Issues such as why SMU was located in Bras Basah Park, and the need to remove the National Library building were addressed by the URA representative at the symposium. URA also explained the issues to the press, and the press published the explanations on 20 March.

7 On 15 January this year, SMU chaired a technical workshop to obtain feedback from architectural professionals on three alternative proposals put up by SMU’s master planners. At the workshop, Mr Tay objected to the plans which proposed buildings on Bras Basah Park, and the removal of the National Library building. He subsequently called a press conference on 24 January to present his alternative proposal for the SMU campus.

8 URA did not participate in Mr Tay’s press conference because it had not been invited. Neither could it respond to the proposal then as it did not receive a formal proposal from Mr Tay.

9 Mr Tay wrote to the Prime Minister about his proposal on 31 January 2000. The Prime Minister then referred it to my ministry for evaluation. Subsequently, I met with Mr Tay on two occasions to better understand his proposal. On the second occasion, I asked Mr Tay to present his proposal to my ministry officials with URA and LTA present to give their professional assessment of his proposal.

10 My ministry made an assessment of Mr Tay’s and URA’s plans and I replied to the Prime Minister on 28 February. I am informed that the Prime Minister’s Office has subsequently replied to Mr Tay. I have the Prime Minister’s permission to release both letters to the public. May I circulate both letters to members of the House for their information. [see Annexes 1 and 2]

11 In conclusion, there have been extensive discussions on this matter, both as public debate and as private consultation. There is no question that URA or any other relevant authority has not seen fit to reply to public suggestions on this issue.