Public Spaces in Singapore by Jonathan Chua

Title: Public space in Singapore Fostering racial harmony or exclusiveness? A look into the facets of State designed public spaces and its implications for the community.

Jonathan Chua Wei Shen 14 November 2020

Abstract In an increasingly globalised world, cities have become the forefront for a mix of different people from all backgrounds striving to make a living. Cites today have become the economic heart of every country, resulting in ever denser makeup of people and buildings. Singapore is no exception, with the nation-state transforming itself in radical ways within a generation. What is unique about Singapore is its multi-racial demographics, bringing the familiar story of how people of diverse backgrounds came together to build Singapore to what it is today. This diversity, however, has brought with its sources of contention between different ethnic groups, with a history of violence and tension. To mitigate these tensions, the State has directly influenced the outlook of many public spaces in Singapore to align with its multi-racial vision and cohesive social policies. Public spaces are a social glue and a “hub of activities, common grounds for forging community bonds…” (Mike Douglass, 2002). As a multi-ethnic country built with the backdrop of historical racial tensions, there is the ever-important goal of fostering racial harmony and social unity. Thus, this report seeks to uncover how the state development of public spaces can either bring inclusiveness or reinforce exclusiveness of ethnic groups within the Singaporean context. It also aims to critique if such public spaces are genuinely fostering greater social cohesion or are simply a catalyst for future disharmony and possible trajectories of better inclusive spaces. Keywords: harmony, inclusiveness, exclusiveness, public space

Introduction Singapore the “Rojak” Nation

Figure 1. Rojak is a dish that boasts multi-ethnic diversity and myraid variations in taste and ingredients. (VisitSingapore, 2015)

If there is one dish that encapsulates what Singapore is, it will be the rojak dish. An assortment of sweet and savoury dishes like bean sprouts, turnip, pineapples, apples and yu tiao (a form of fried fritter) are cut and seasoned before a unique blend of prawn paste sauce binds them together. A seemingly incompatible assortment of ingredients, yet if one were to try this Singaporean dish, each piece provides a distinct flavour that is somehow harmonious with another, and the result is a plate bursting with flavour and yet remains true to its original taste. In a way, the culture of Singapore started just like that, an assortment of people coming together from all walks of life and origins, seemingly too different to ever be compatible. Nevertheless, what came out of this heterogeneous mix was something special and unique that Singapore acquired, and would be commonly said by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Long, “precious example of a multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-religious society where people live harmoniously together” (Nur Asyiqin, 2017). This multi-cultural narrative has thus been reflected in every aspect of life and is within our collective consciousness.

Shadows of the colonial past: British influence on race perception It is essential to define how the notion of race was never created by locals themselves, but by the British who had certain ethnic prejudice of people in the 1800s. This, in turn, formed the backdrop of the Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others (CMIO) to which influenced how Singaporeans saw their own “race” as such. Despite gaining independence in 1965, Singapore owes many of its racial policies to the British that was handed down. The first was the Jackson Plan for Singapore in 1823, aimed at segregating the Colonial masters from the indigenous and other ethnic groups to control and supervise them (Limin Hee, 2017, p. 24).

Figure 2. Jackson Plan of 1822. (Reprinted from National Archives Singapore, 2008, Plan of the Town of Singapore by Lieut Jackson, Copyright National Archives Singapore)

The British administration’s focus was never to build a cultural identity or ‘nation building instinct’, but in the name of control and managing the city as a place of commerce (Limin Hee, 2017, p. 25). By grouping the disparate groups of people into very simplistic racial archetypes, it helps to build a collective consciousness of similarity within similar racial groups and aims to reduce conflict within each group. When Singapore became independent, the racial consciousness based on the CMIO was too entrenched and was adopted. Now each Singaporean, regardless of their forefather’s country of origin, is inscribed to one of the four designated race categories. It should be noted that most multi-

racial policies of today still reference this key designation of race. Thus, the concept of “community” and “ethnic” groups for this report will be based on this CMIO representation.

Geylang Serai: A Lens to look at a 21st-century ethnic defined public space Public spaces have been a vital tool for the state to enact its vision of a multi-racial society, and as such reinforce the concept by designating many heritage areas to represent the CMIO groups as to reaffirm the distinct diversity and differences, with the most famous areas being the historical areas of Chinatown, Little India and Kampong Glam for each race. This application of ethnic heritage does not apply to historical and conserved wards, but also in modern public areas. One such area is Geylang Serai central, an area with historical and cultural significance, while also presenting a unique heritage public space: one where no historical building is preserved, but instead constructing new typologies that accentuate its past. The notion of redevelopment with time, while holding on to the ideals of an ethnic heritage space presents a unique lens; how does this affect the perception of space, and what are the consequences of a predefined ethnic space? Is defining a space to which a particular ethnic group can claim as their identity prevent other races from forming their own meaning into the space, segregating those who are the ‘in’ group from the ‘out’ group?

Figure 3. Map of Singapore districts, with Geylang area highlighted. (Adapted from Google Maps, 2020)

In this report, we will be examining these key issues about a state defined public space in the name of racial representation and community empowerment, and critically ask if by creating these spaces, are we actually promoting inclusiveness among the different groups, or furthering racial exclusiveness.

Geylang Serai: a 21st century designed heritage space Geylang Serai: Plantation to heritage space The Orang Laut and Malay communities first inhabited Geylang Serai in the 1800s before the area was bought by Hajjah Fatimah (Imran, 2007, p.10). By the latter half of the 19th century, the place was turned into a lemongrass plantation and mill by the Arab family of Alsagoff, (“Geylang Serai, down memory lane”, 1986, p. 16-19) but the failing industry by the 1900s force local Chinese and Malays to switch to other forms of cultivation. (ibid, p. 21). Post-World War two saw its population rise and demographics change, with more Chinese moving out of the area, leaving a majority Malay community (ibid, p. 25).

Figure 5. First Geylang Serai Market completed in 1964. (National Archives Singapore, 1964)

In 1960 the government designated the place for a Housing Scheme. It began modernising the area, removing the old attap houses and building new flats and amenities (“Making of Wisma Geylang Serai”, 2013, p. 6). In 1964 the Geylang Serai Market Complex and bazaar was completed, serving as the leading food and commerce hub, along with a few flats surrounding it. Other landmark buildings around the area were the Joo Chiat Complex that was soon recognised as the go-to place for Jewellery and tailors. The place soon earned the nickname the “Malay Emporium of Singapore” (Patricia, 1985). More hawkers, industries and residential blocks were built till 1985, where development was deemed satisfactory.

Figure 6. Expansion of the market in 1980 with the addition of HDB flats behind. (Robert Steiner, 2004)

These developments coincided with the 1986s governments plan to build an image of the “exotic Asia” branding for Singapore to attract tourists (Imran, 2007, p. 8-9), utilizing the CMIO racial representation and create heritage enclaves that represent each of the three primary race. Geylang Serai was designated as a “Malay district”, and efforts were made to represent Malays, such as the creation of the “Malay Village” in 1989, a theme park that provided a look into Malay Heritage and culture, showcasing handicrafts, food, costumes and Art Gallery featuring historical photos.

Figure 7. The architectural design evokes a common perception of a Traditional Malay Kampung house, such as the Limasan style roof design. (Adapted from “Remember Singapore”, 2011)

While the place was demolished in 2006, the area saw new push and development to emphasise Malay representation and heritage, with the famous Market being redeveloped into a modern hawker and market area in 2011, featuring many adaptations of Malay Architecture. In the same vein, the new Wisma Geylang Serai CC was built to replace the Malay Village, a new community centre dedicated to preserving Malay culture and heritage (“Making of Wisma Geylang Serai”, 2013, p. 12), inspired by many traditional Malay designs, such as the four raised form on stilts reinterpreted in a contemporary image (“Wisma Geylang Serai”, 2019)

Figure 8. Present-day area of Geylang Serai. (Adapted from Google Maps, 2020).

Figure 9. The most recent market now features very distinct traditional Malay tectonics. (Mika Haziq, 2011).

Figure 10. View from the street level. (Jonathan Chua, 2020)

Figure 11. View from the front porch and a series of tile patterns seen in other Kampungs. (Jonathan Chua, 2020) (Tile design from “Malay Heritage Centre Publication”, Amsyar Ashaary, 2015, Retrieved from https://www.behance.net/gallery/49928599/Malay-Heritage-Centre-Publication. Copyright by Amsyar Ashaary)

Figure 12. the market's Hawker centre, a staple of Singapore food culture. (Jonathan Chua, 2020)

Figure 13. View of Wisma Geylang Serai CC. (Jonathan Chua, 2020)

The area is now known for hosting many festivals and events, such as the annual Hari Raya Bazaar, community workshops and educational tours. It is also high on the list of places to visit for tourists, regularly listed on tourism websites and agencies.

Key players in building the “ethnic” public space The first group involved and the original brainchild behind gazetting Geylang Serai as a Malay area was the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) in 1984 as the principal coordinator in partnership with the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), two government statutory boards. Their goal was to use heritage as a promotion for tourism, business and increase real estate value (Tay Kheng Soon, 1985, p. 26)(leong, 1997), and begin introducing yearly events (streetlight up and bazaar) and performances by Malay artist to develop their version of the area. This commodification through the Malay heritage focus became the foundation to which all future developments are pinned.

Figure 14. Ministers presenting the Malay Village in 1985. (Grace Chng, 1984)

Figure 15. News clipping of the proposed site of the Malay Village. (Grace Chng, 1984)

Another key player that truly influenced the outlook was the Malay Affairs Bureau (MAB), representing the Malay communities and leaders, tasked with maintaining Malay representation and rights in Singapore. They consistently advocated for Malay culture to be conserved and emphasised, yet finding ways to commercialise their “heritage” to locals and tourists (Leong, 1997, p. 75). Their ideals of heritage as a means both preserve culture while building a commercial model resulted in one of the first ethnically defined public building built in 1989, dubbed the Geylang Serai Malay Village. These developments were made without consultation from the public due to the top-down nature of implementation, and there were tensions between the boards and new tenants initially (Z. Ibrahim, 1989). Over time the government started to get the local communities involved, such as feedback for the rebuilding of the Geylang Serai Market in 2011, which heavily influenced its Malay outlook. They took feedback from existing stall owners to improve their quality of life and what they feel is vital to

uphold, such as Malay identity and culture. In designing the Wisma Geylang Serai CC, they held focus group discussions in getting consensus on what they would like the CC to be for them, what it could do to evoke Malay character and attributes of the area. (“Making of Wisma Geylang Serai”, 2013, p.24-25). Schools were involved in tackling types of programs and sustainability questions, and the whole design was through a public competition.

A short critique of creating “ethnic” public spaces A forced polarised narrative While there are key successes of developing Geylang Serai into a “Malay enclave”, such as a much higher visitor count than Kampung Glam, another Malay heritage site, one cannot escape the fact that the notion of a racially polarised community is not valid. Though the Orang Laut natives first inhabited the place, it was the Arab family Alsagoff who created the plantations which then Chinese and other Malay immigrants settled and developed the area. However, due to the state’s reinvention of the area to a singular racialised area, the concept of a heterogeneous past is lost. (Imran, 2007, p. 8-9). This allows the state to build a new historical narrative to suit its needs, rather than being true to historical authenticity. Cultural amnesia from selective heritage From the excerpt of the primary publication by the Ministry of National Development for Wisma Geylang Serai CC, “We want to create a Civic Centre that celebrates the heritage of Geylang Serai and is a window into the rich Malay arts and culture… the Malay Heritage Galley within the Civic Centre will be a place where people can learn more about Malay culture and heritage… we will encourage Malay traditional arts and performing groups…” (“Making of Wisma Geylang Serai”, 2013, p. 12). There is an explicit bias towards heritage that fit the Malay narrative and disregard others that do not fit within the mould, even though heritage is supposed to belong to everyone. This train of thought suggests that there are judges who decide what to show and what to hide, presenting a dangerous precedent on what groups are highlighted or not merely because their ethnic profile does not fit the narrative, where heritage space becomes exclusive to a single group, rather than representing all. Reflective of the national theme but not of the local community It is clear that Geylang Serai serves a national agenda, one of building a local heritage space for the original locals to reaffirm their position in Singapore, and serve as the gateway for people, locals or visitors to experience Malay culture. However, in doing so, it no longer relates to the diversity of race and communities of Geylang Serai today. While historically the area was a Malay majority, that is no longer the case today, where only 20% are Malay, and the majority race is now Chinese, partly due to the relocation of residents to HDB flats where race quota is fixed regardless of location. (Data.gov, 2015).

Figure 16. Map highlighting HDB blocks with racial quota, forming the bulk of residents in the vicinity. (Adapted from Google Maps, 2020).

Its population makeup is nearly in line with the national average. Despite this disparity, it is now impossible to revert the space to reflect its multi-racial diversity, since the racial consciousness is too deeply embedded within Singaporeans, and any move to go against this theme is seen as subverting the indigenous right for a culturally representative space. The space now relates to the racial identity rather than the contextual local identity, building a dissonance between the ethnically defined space while having a multi-ethnic community, where non-Malays may view themselves as visitors rather than a rooted attachment to the place.

Defining ownership through built form and exclusive community participation If a space is bound by its racial identity rather than a community identity, then we are forever pigeonholing it to a singular fixed perception of that space, rather than allowing it to adapt with the community. It is ironic given that the perception of Geylang Serai being a “Malay emporium” happened even before any agencies designated the area as a “Malay Heritage” area or built architecture that panders with Malay traditional architecture. The place became a hub for Malay

because of the people that came and made it so, and not by the tangible designs. The place evolved via history and circumstance into what it became, and that vibrancy may no longer with possible now that we have designated it as a Malay site, reinforced with specific Malay motifs in all the architectural buildings. It can no longer become a community characterised area to which people can recreate and redefine its identity. While it can adapt and manifest itself with the times, such as the Geylang Serai Bazaar and celebrations, it will always be tethered to a Malay archetype.

Figure 17. A Malay tailor shop. (Mika Haziq, 2011)

There have been methods to bring greater inclusiveness through community participation and focus groups from tenants and resident rather than imposing a top-down vision of the area. From such feedback, it would be easy to assume that the voices from the community are to be as true to the entire communities’ aspirations. However, it is impossible to have completely inclusive participation, as Mouffee suggested in his book “Deliberative Democracy or Agnostic Pluralism”, is simply due to practical limitations of social life, as well as conflicting points of interesting between sub-groups and various stakeholders. (Mouffee, 1999) In the case of Geylang Serai, these focus groups are in effect entrenching exclusiveness between races, for the people involved, both the agency and participants already have strong ties towards the Malay heritage vision, who wish to continue for the place to be of Malay heritage space.

Figure 18. In focus group discussions note how the question to identity already has an exclusive racial bias. (Adapted from “Making of Wisma Geylang Serai”, Ministry of National Development, 2013, Copyright MND)

Ethnically democratic space: Culture as fluid, dynamic and ever-present In creating an inclusive space, we should be celebrating the diversity and uniqueness of the community types we are inviting, rather than defining a singular community to which others are invited in. We must also be prepared for these definitions and ideas of identity to change, for as Laurajane smith suggests that meaning is not produced or represented simply by heritage spaces or moments, but something actively and continually recreated and negotiated as people, communities and institutions reinterpreted and reassess its meaning (Laurajane Smith, 2011, p. 24). Indeed, the multi-racialism term has meant different things to different people at different historical moments (Quah, 1999), and so too will spaces like Geylang Serai eventually. Thus, spaces should be democratic not just in its design, but in its continual development, rather than being driven by a singular vision. Setha Low imagines the plaza as spatial representations to which different groups battle over their representation, resulting in it as the centre of cultural expression for the daily life of people and building a socially meaningful place for the city (Setha Low, 2000). Indeed, this vein of thought exist in the Hawker typology that exists unique to Singapore, where under a single roof a myriad of different groups exists within a space, cooking dishes that they learnt from their parents. One can experience the multi-ethnic culture of Singapore through its food,

and yet these arrangements are not predetermined by anyone, but by the balloting of stalls (Ghani, 2011, p. 6-9). The result is not only a culturally representative space that reflects nearly the countless facets of community groups in Singapore beyond the CMIO affiliation but one that builds overall community representation.

Figure 19. A hawker setting in Singapore (Eugene Tang, 2018)

Inclusive spaces in the racial and ethnic context thus are about building foundations to which anyone can create and make something which is culturally representative to them and allowing others to experience their culture. In contrast, exclusive spaces are public spaces that have a predetermined racial notion to which only those of that ethnic group ‘own’ that space and others come to experience it, preventing the concept of cross-community experience and developing a synergistic way of life in that space. This also applies in the time context, where public space should afford the community identity to be fluid rather than stagnating to a specific focus group, further preventing an “inside vs outside” community dynamic.

Conclusion Discussing race representation is a sensitive topic in Singapore; however, we must continue to engage such topics. This short report highlights the issue with racializing heritage to the degree that it creates a false narrative of a single race, building its identity around it and actively ignoring heterogeneous communities, resulting in missed representation and building exclusive spaces to the represented group. Geylang Serai, in remaking its identity also defines its community to hundredyear-old ideas and concepts of a homogenous racial heritage, preventing the place from being redefined or being continually recreated by new and existing community groups in the area. The report suggests ethnically democratic spaces, where people are free to create and define their representation, such as a hawker centre, as the way to build a genuinely inclusive and multi-racial space.

References 1. Amsyar Ashaary (2015). Malay Heritage Centre Publication [Image]. Retrieved from https://www.behance.net/gallery/49928599/Malay-Heritage-Centre-Publication (accessed 25th October 2020). 2. Azhar Ghani (2011). A Recipe for success: How Singapore Hawkers came to be. Success Matters: Singapore Hawker Centres. 1-15. https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/docs/defaultsource/ips/ag_history-of-hawkers_010511.pdf. 3. Eugene Tang (2018). Maxwell Food Centre Singapore [Image]. Retrieved from https://theculturetrip.com/asia/singapore/articles/the-best-hawker-food-centres-insingapore/ (accessed 30 October 2020) 4. Chantal, Mouffee (1999). Deliberative Democracy or Agnostic Pluralism. Social Research, 66, 745-758. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40971349. 5. Data.Gov.Sg (2015). Resident Population by Planning Area/ Subzone, Ethnic Group and Sex, 2015. Retrieved from https://data.gov.sg/dataset/resident-population-by-planning-areasubzone-ethnic-group-and-sex-2015?resource_id=08f521ae-c3c2-4c55-b69b-55c5d7671329 (accessed 25 October 2020). 6. Devasahayam, Patricia (1985). Geylang Serai: the Malay emporium of Singapore. Singapore, Singapore. Singapore: National University of Singapore. 7. Google Maps (2020). Satellite Image of Geylang Serai area [Image]. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/maps/@1.3159518,103.897042,838m/data=!3m1!1e3 (accessed 15 October 2020). 8. Google Maps (2020). Map of Singapore. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/maps/@1.303545,103.6570095,75762m/data=!3m1!1e3 (accessed 4 October 2020). 9. Grace Chng (1984, August 14). Cultural Kampung to be built [Image]. The Straits Times. Retrieved from Newspaper SG, National Library Singapore. 10. Imran Bin Tajudeen (2007). State Constructs of Ethnicity in the Reinvention of MalayIndonesian Heritage in Singapore. Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review, 18(2), 7-27. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41758325. 11. Jackson, Philip & National Archives Singapore (1828). Plan of the Town of Singapore by Lieut Jackson [Image]. Retrieved from https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/maps_building_plans/record-details/f9926418115c-11e3-83d5-0050568939ad (accessed 10 October 2020). 12. Jon S.T. Quah (1999). In Search of Singapore’s National Values. Michigan, University of Michigan, USA. Singapore: Institute of Policy Studies.

13. Laurajane Smith, Wilma Wesselink, Pauline V.D. Pol, Riemer R. Knoop (2011). All Heritage is Intangible: Critical Heritage Studies and Museums. Amsterdam, Reinwardt Academy, Netherlands: Drukkerij Hub. Tonnaer B.V., Kelpen-Oler. 14. Limin Hee (2017). Constructing Singapore Public Space: Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements. Singapore, Singapore. Singapore: Springer. 15. Mike Douglass, K.C. Ho (2002). Civic spaces, globalisation and Pacific Asia cities. International Development Planning Review, 24 (4), 345-361. DOI 10.3828/idpr.24.4.1. 16. Mika Haziq (2011). Geylang Serai Market [Image]. Retrieved from http://mikahaziq.blogspot.com/2011/12/singapore-geylang.html (accessed 25 October 2020). 17. Mika Haziq (2011). Typical Stall at Geylang Serai Market [Image]. Retrieved from http://mikahaziq.blogspot.com/2011/12/singapore-geylang.html (accessed 25 October 2020). 18. Ministry of National Development (2013). The Making of Wisma Geylang Serai. Singapore, Singapore. Singapore: Grace House Design + Communications. 19. National Archives Singapore (1986). Geylang Serai: Down Memory Lane, Kenangan Abadi. Michigan, USA: Heinemann Asia. 20. National Archives Singapore (1964). View of Geylang Serai Market on its opening day, 1964 [Image]. Retrieved from https://www.roots.gov.sg/learn/stories/Hawker-Centres/GeylangSerai-Market-Food-Centre (accessed 15 October 2020). 21. Nur Asyiqin Mohamad Salleh (2017, July 24). Singapore a rare, precious example of harmonious multiracial, multi-religious society: PM Lee. The Straits Times. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-a-rare-and-precious-example-of-aharmonious-multi-racial-multi-religious-society (accessed 10 October 2020). 22. Onemap (2020). Detail Map for 1966 [Image]. Retrieved from https://hm.onemap.sg/ (accessed 15 October 2020). 23. Peoples’ Association (2019). Wisma Geylang Serai. Retrieved from https://www.pa.gov.sg/our-network/wisma-geylang-serai (accessed 20th October 2020). 24. “Remember Singapore” (2011). View of Geylang Serai Malay Village [Image]. Retrieved from https://remembersingapore.org/geylang-serai-malay-village/ (accessed 15 October 2020). 25. Robert J. Steiner (2004). Geylang Serai Market [Image]. Retrieved from https://www.tes.com/lessons/_e_TS7TG1rQAmg/geylang-serai-market?redirect-bs=1 (accessed 16 October 2020). 26. Setha M. Low (2000). On the Plaza: The Politics of Public Space and Culture. University of Michigan, Michigan, USA. Published by University of Texas. 27. Tay Kheng Soon (1998). The Committee on Heritage report. Singapore, Singapore.

28. VisitSingapore (2015). Rojak is a dish that boasts multi-ethnic diversity and myraid variations in taste and ingredients [Image]. Retrived from https://www.visitsingapore.com/diningdrinks-singapore/local-dishes/rojak/ (accesssed 2 October 2020). 29. W.T. Leong (1997). Commodifying Ethnicity: State and Ethnic Tourism in Singapore. Honolulu, University of Hawaii, USA. 71-98. DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/9780824865252004 .