Halimah's Reflection

a)     What was your impression of Singapore history and cultural heritage before 
going on the trail?

          Before the trail, my only impression on Singapore history was the dominant narrative that was taught in primary and secondary school during Social Studies. The dominant narrative which started with Sang Nila Utama naming this island as Singapura followed by Raffles discovery of this 'backwater' island. The same narrative was also reinforced through various media such as local television series and the National Day Parade skits. Hence, giving me an impression that this dominant narrative was all there is to Singapore’s history.

           Previously, when cultural heritage was mentioned, I would only relate it to three areas, Chinatown, Kampung Glam and Little India. This was due to my personal interpretation of cultural heritage in the form of traditional ethnic food, places of worships and customary practices. Hence, relating cultural heritage to the above mentioned areas due to the availability of traditional food, places of worship and where customary practices are still practiced.

           The Civic District area gave an impression that it was an area with many relations to Singapore’s colonized past due to the presence of many buildings that were built during colonial times. It was also an area that witnessed many historical events  such as the surrender of Japan as well as the first National Day Parade. The Civic District area however was not an area that I would relate to cultural heritage due to the absence of traditional food and customary practices.

b)    How has your experience of the trail changed your perception of Singapore history and her cultural heritage?

          After the trail, I had learnt that Singapore has much more stories and events in her history than the master narrative that I had been exposed to. An example would be the Indian National Army (INA) marker. Through this marker, I had learnt that during the Japanese Occupation, there was an INA leader in Singapore who was supported by the Japanese government. Hence, through the many monuments, markers and buildings in this trail, I had learnt that there are many stories and events in Singapore’s history. It also made me realise that Singapore does have a rich history.

          This trail also gave me an opportunity to take a closer look at the Civic District area and question my own interpretation of cultural heritage. I had learned that architectural style is also a form of cultural heritage. While observing the sites, I noticed that most of them are heavily influenced by European architecture. One example of such site would be the Victorian style of Tan Kim Seng Fountain which is decorated with many classical figure sculptures.

         In addition, there was one site that differs from the usual European architectural style. That site is the Lim Bo Seng memorial which was designed with a mixed of modern and traditional Chinese architectural elements. This architectural design is known as the Chinese National style.

c)     Share some insights (if any) about Singapore’s past and the way it is represented (symbolically and physically) that you have gained from the trail.

        Singapore’s representation of history is selected and conserved based on the historical objectives that ‘she’ would like to achieve. After going through the trail, two main historical objectives came to mind. The first historical objective for the Civic District trail would be to attract and intrigue tourists, especially those from English-speaking countries. This is due to the sites’ architectural designs that had ‘originated’ or had been heavily influenced by Europe. Hence, tourists would be intrigued to find such European designs in an Asian country. Moreover, most of the information provided at each sites are in English.

         The second historical objective would be to reinforce the dominant narrative that glorifies Singapore’s colonized past to the general public. An example is the trail map’s  recommendation of Raffles landing site as the first site to visit. This is due to the dominant narrative’s selection as well as glorification of Raffles as the ‘founding father’ of Singapore. According to the dominant narrative, Singapore was a backwater island upon Raffles’ arrival. She was only developed into an active trading port after Raffles arrival and his ‘far-sighted vision’ of the island. However, the findings of John Miksic's archeology digs and the Belitung shipwreck treasures showed that Singapore was already an active trading port before Raffles ‘founded’ Singapore. All of these archeological evidences however, are being left out in order to reinforce the dominant narrative that glorifies Singapore’s colonized past to the general public. Thus, explaining the trail map's recommendation of Raffles landing site as the first site to be visited. 

Additional questions:

●      Think of the names of the roads, the buildings etc in the area you are at. What significance do you think they hold?

            Most of the names of roads and building in the Civic District area are historically significant . These roads and building are named to signify its role during Singapore’s colonized past or to commemorate a powerful figure from that time period.

            An example of the name of a building that signifies its role during Singapore’s colonized past is the Former Supreme Court building. Initially a hotel, the land was then acquired by the government and turned into a courthouse. One example of a road that signifies its previous role is the Old Parliament Lane, which is in front of the the Old Parliament House, which is currently known as the Arts House.

            An example of a road named to commemorate a powerful figure would be Connaught Drive. Initially known as New Esplanade Road, it was renamed in 1907. This was done to commemorate the visit of Queen Victoria’s son, Prince Arthur, The Duke of Connaught, and his wife’s visit in 1906. Another example would be Queen Elizabeth Walk, initially known as the seafront promenade. It was renamed in 1943 to commemorate the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II.

            There are also some exceptions where the names of buildings reflects its current use today such as the Arts House. It is where many artworks are currently being displayed. Another example is the Asian Civilization Museum which was initially known as Empress Place.

●      Look at the architectural styles. How different are the buildings and what do the styles suggest to you in terms of the ages of the buildings, the conservation process etc?

            Just by taking a glance, certain buildings have very distinct European architectural style, suggesting that they were built during Singapore’s colonial times and had been conserved ever since. Some examples of these buildings are the Victoria Theatre and the Old Supreme Court building.

The Victoria Theatre has distinctive features of the 19^th century British Neo-Classical architecture such as tall Corinthian Columns. It also has Italiate windows. Since it was built in 1862, this building had been around for more than a century. Hence, to be able to see the frieze moulded with festoons of detailed fruits as well as oval shields with initial V, R and I (which stands for Victoria, Regina (Queen) and Imperatrix (Empress)) on its exterior wall with no visible damage and dirt, suggests that it had been recently restored and repainted. This suggestion is true, as according to research, the Victoria Theatre and Concert Hall had recently undergone a refurbishment project where its exterior designed is conserved. This refurbishment project ended last year.

The Old Supreme Court Building  was also designed using the Neoclassical architectural style. It has distinct features such as the Corinthian and Ionic Columns as well as a copper-green dome which is similar to St. Paul’s Cathedral. Since it was built in 1939, the building has been around for more than seventy years. The Allegory of Justice crafted by Italian sculptor, Rudalpho Nelli, and the scenes on its frieze is still visible. These however are more worn out when compared to the frieze’s festoons from the Victoria Concert Hall and Theatre. This suggests that there were efforts in conserving the Former Supreme Court building but it had not been recent. This suggestion is true as according to research, the Former Supreme Court Building is currently undergoing refurbishment and restoration to be made into National Gallery Singapore. It is scheduled to be opened at the end of 2015.

●      Along the trail, consider how significant, historically, are the sites that have been chosen for conservation.

            Each sites chosen for conservation have a historical narrative that matched a theme, which is to conserve and glorify Singapore’s colonized past. Most of these sites do have a significant historical narrative behind it, in a sense that that it marked an event or individual that led to a significant change and contributed to Singapore’s community during that time period. Others were there to ‘show’ and glorify Singapore’s colonized past.

            An example of an event or individual that led to a change is the Tan Kim Seng Fountain. It is a water fountain that was built to commemorate his generous contribution to the building of the first waterworks. Another would be the Lim Bo Seng Memorial. He was an active member of the anti-Japanese efforts and contributed significantly towards the cause.

           An example of a site that ‘showed’ and gorified Singapore’s colonized past is site of Raffles landing. It is conserved, as he is publicly known as ‘The Founding Father of Singapore’ whose vision of Singapore led to her development into a thriving port. Another is the Dalhousie Obelisk. Even though Lord Dalhousie’s visit eventually did not lead to much change in administration, this obelisk is still conserved and placed in Esplanade Park.

●      Do you think the sites serve their purpose of educating the general public about the history of Singapore?

            The sites do serve the purpose of educating only the English literate members of the  general public. The summarized descriptions at each sites are only provided in English. These descriptions are crucial in giving the public a better understanding about each site as it states the background information and its significance in Singapore’s history.

            Although there are some descriptions written in Tamil, Chinese and Malay (Jawi) on some monuments. These descriptions are brief and did not give much background information. This is especially evident for the descriptions found on the Cenotaph and Dalhousie’s Obelisk.

●      At the end of the trail, did you come away with the feeling that you have learnt something or you just carried out a tourist jaunt around an area of no historical significance whatsoever?

            There are some historical significance behind the sites that are conserved. Through the many monuments, markers and buildings, I did learn more about Singapore’s history in terms of her colonial past as well as the impacts of World War 2.  I had also gained more awareness on the efforts taken to conserve and represent Singapore’s past.

            Although I did learn more about Singapore’s history and 'her' efforts in conserving it, what I had learnt did not managed to invoke much emotional response and a sense of patriotism. This differed to when I had carried out my own research on these places. The brief summarized information that was provided at the site could not give the thorough context of the narratives behind each monument and building. In addition, I felt that the way Singapore's history was represented and selected throughout this Civic District trail was meant to glorify her colonized pasts as well as means to 'sell' our colonized history to the tourists.