kampong GLAM

kampong GLAM FROM VILLAGE TO ICON

A P H O T O E S S AY Submitted For: Singapore Urban History & Architecture [SSD2213] On: 20th April 2015 Tutor: YEO Zheng Hang By: Tutorial Group 3, Team 2 By: Charlene KUEHN [A0101055B] By: Gabriel NG Yong Woon [A0097211L] By: LIN Derong [A0111196M]

0. PRELUDE In this study, we would examine the discrepancy between the way Kampong Glam is presented and its actual placelessness.

The methodology is a threefold process. First the image of Kampong Glam is constructed by relooking at its existing physical and cultural landscape through a historical approach. This is followed by an image construe which is to examine what is presented to us today. Lastly, the actual experience on site would be conducted through fieldwork. Various maps, oral accounts and visual representations of Kampong Glam would be overlaid as well.

PAGE 1 OF 31

1. KAMPONG IN FLUX The first part of the study requires an understanding the physical transformation of Kampong Glam from the past and their driving events. The site is thus studied in relation to its larger context. The morphology is traced with a series of official maps in juxtaposition to the development of post independent Singapore since 1950s.

Figure 1_1954 Map

Figure 2_1975 Map

Rochore Canal

Park Royal Hotel

Nicoll Highway

1954 – 1975 Kampong Glam in 1954 was perhaps already a matured area with a sophisticated network of road and social infrastructure. Fast-forwarding 21 years ahead, Singapore had been through drastic radical changes, which affected Kampong Glam as well. Singapore saw her self-independence in 1956, the establishment of Housing Development Board (HDB) in 1960 and Economic Development Board (EDB) in 1961. The 1971 concept plan was further adopted in reference to the Koeningsberger Plan (1963)i where expressways were constructed and Singapore moving rapidly towards first world modernization. In conjunction to all these new plans, the 1975 map saw the newly built Park Royal Hotel and Nicoll Highway. Public facilities were also established to serve the dwellers.

PAGE 2 OF 31

Figure 3_1989 Map

Bali Lane

Ophir-Rochore Corridor

Figure 4_1991 Map

The Golden Landmark

The Gateway

1975 – 1989 The next radical change is in 1989 when Kampong Glam was gazetted as conservation site ii . Due to its proximity to the Central Business District (CBD), the scale of Kampong Glam was in the way of golden mile development iii . Road network was visibly altered, especially the creation of Ophir-Rochore corridor which links direct to Nicoll Highway. It cuts Bali Lane in an awkward manner. Modern buildings were erected around Kampong Glam. Most notably, this time frame saw the disappearance of several public facilities like the Kota Raja Malay School. This signifies the gradual loss of a social culture as dwellers were relocating out by the government.

1989 – 1991 1991 saw the completion I.M. Pei’s The Gateway iv. It was established to create a line of vista with Masjid Bahru in reaction to site context and Singapore’s then urban planning style (strong symmetries). By now, the boundary of Kampong Glam had drastically reduced as compared to 1954.

PAGE 3 OF 31

1. KAMPONG IN FLUX

Figure 5_1995 Map

Figure 6_1998 Map

Muscat Street Busorrah Street

Empty Site

The Concourse

1991 – 1995 4 years later, the site saw major shophouse refurbishment by the Singapore Tourism Board. The functions of Bussorah Street had changed into a tourist friendly shopping district, paved with pedestrian walkways. Various elements like the arches, palm trees and the Indo-Saracenic dome of Masjid Sultan were glorified. Emphasis were changed in the mid 1990sv. The Malay culture takes centre stage and there was a need to appeal to the layman public.

1995 – 1998 This was perhaps the most appalling change. There was an urgent need to rehabilitate the depilated site towards Singapore vehement progression in the late 90s. The site beyond Ophir-Rochore corridor was portrayed as an empty land. Supposedly stood Masjid Bahru (1870-1996) and Javanese dwelling, they were erased for new developmental plans.

PAGE 4 OF 31

1. KAMPONG IN FLUX

Figure 7_2007 Map

Parkview Square

Figure 8_2015 Map

DUO Residences

1998-2007-Today Parkview Squareiv occupied the original Javanese dwelling by 2002. The land was akin to being amputated from Kampong Glam’s boundary. The map also included the former depilated Istana, last seen in 1954 – (1999 Conserved into Malay Heritage Centre). By 2015, Kampong Glam is a tourist site. New developments grew – DUO residences in construction – and thar particular site was totally erased from its memories.

After an understanding of Kampong Glam’s transformations across the ages, we concluded that at the end, it was the connection to Kampong Glam’s rich cultural life and diversity that was gradually lost. Kampong Glam was a site of social rituals, but as dwellers moved out upon government’s conservation, the Kampong is flattened as a Malay Kampong – A visual monotony of shophouses surrounding the Istana Kampong Glam and Masjid Sultan.

It was observed that there was both an exclusion and inclusion of certain architectural elements and buildings across the years. Theses maps are manner of an official top down presentation. It allows us to understand why Kampong Glam is the way it is today in terms of its tangible physicality. The role of Kampong Glam in today’s context is in connection to the general popular culture in relevance to our nation’s progression. This brings us to the next part of examination: an image construe.

PAGE 6 OF 31

2 . T O WA R D S A N E W H E R I T A G E Kampong Bounded Firstly, it is apparent to our group that the portrayal of the current boundary of Kampong Glam is selective and thematic. The government had selectively omitted certain historical parts of Kampong Glam that perhaps deal less with a tourist-friendly image.

The following diagrams portrays the boundary of Kampong Glam in maps from the Singapore Heritage Board (2013) and Urban Redevelopment Authority (2005).

This current boundary of Kampong Glam was a shrunken one from the original as observed in Part 1 study.

In the 1976 Electoral Map, the boundaries of Kampong Glam was defined to extend beyond the westernmost limits of Bali Lane. However, this portrayal glosses over the fact that when Ophir Road was constructed, a large chunk of Kampong Glam (the Javanese Kampong) was eradicated by 1999.

Figure 9_Official Boundary

PAGE 8 OF 31

Figure 10_1976 Electoral Map

Figure 11_1976 Heritage Trail Map

Figure 12_URA Heritage Map

PAGE 9 OF 31

2 . T O WA R D S A N E W H E R I T A G E Kampong Edited Kampong Glam is a historical enclave with a multi-diverse cultural landscape. It includes the Bugis, Arab, Javanese, Boyanese et cetera. In the light of the Javanese Kampong, there was no mention of the second civic mosque, Masjid Bahru, in the brochure from the Singapore Heritage Board. In fact, Parkview Square stands on its original site now and it is defined beyond the boundaries of Kampong Glam. The site was once a large Javanese dwelling with Jeddah Street leading to Masjid Bahru. This mosque had served as an important role in the social infrastructure of Kampong Glam. However, it was excluded from the conservation boundary in 1989 by URA. Perhaps it was the “mis-fitting” architectural style, coupled with the negative perception of the depilated area that the site was not spared from demolition. There were also two other historic Mosques which still stand today, however, according to various maps, they seem to have little physical connection to Kampong Glam today.

Figure 13_Kampong Glam’s Boundary today shaved

PAGE 10 OF 31

In the Singapore Heritage Board map and the URA map, Masjid Sultan is instead glorified – celebrating its onion-dome appearance. Before reconstruction in 1924, Masjid Sultan was originally a three-tiered Javanese-roofed mosque built in 1824. It was redesigned with an Indo-Saracenic styled mosque by Swan & Maclaren that hearkens to a Middle-Eastern Muslim identity.

Figure 14_Masjid Sultan circa 19th c.

Figure 15_URA Brochure today

Figure 16_Masjid Sultan c. 1950

Figure 17_Masjid Sultan c. 1950s

PAGE 11 OF 31

2 . T O WA R D S A N E W H E R I T A G E

Furthermore, during the pre-colonial period, the Mosque was not Kampong Glam’s anchor point as portrayed today. In the Figure 18 the “heart” of Kampong Glam was originally that of the royal palace, forming an axis with the royal cemetery to the sea. Yet in the maps today, we do not see this axis. Instead, Masjid Sultan frames the center of activity in Kampong Glam today, which is further emphasised through the paving of Bussorah Street and superficially lining it up with decorative palm trees which we have discussed in Part 1.

In the cover page of the URA brochure, Kampong Glam is branded as a Muslim enclave with Sultan Mosque taking the central of the image. The onion dome is marked as an icon with a strong association to the Malay Mosque. It thus implicitly leaves the reader with that specific image of Kampong Glam – an image that does not truly represent the multi-diverse culture that once inhabited this area.

Apart from the Mosques, the Royal Malay Cemetery was left out in the maps and conservation boundary.

It was an important element which formed an axis with the Sultan’s Residence and Mosque towards the sea.

However, given the neglect overtime, the cemetery is not in its pristine condition as compared to its heydays.

Figure 18_Kampong Glam’s Axis

PAGE 12 OF 31

Figure 21_Mosque emphasised on URA map

Figure 21_The Royal Axis

Figure 20_Bussorah Shopping Street

Figure 22 & 23_Malay Cemetery today

PAGE 13 OF 31

2 . T O WA R D S A N E W H E R I T A G E Kampong Disneyland As a move from the third world to first, Singapore’s vehement interest to brand itself for a global appeal was evident in its heritage like Kampong Glam. It was thus repackaged into a tourist destination in the name of site rehabilitation and conservation. As such, it is evident that Kampong Glam has been presented in a thematic structure. It was in a bid to assign a single homogenous identity to the site that is comprehensible and appealing to the public and tourists.

This approach is especially exemplified in the way which the government statutory boards such as the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) loosely interchange the word Malay, Middle-East and Muslim in the portrayal of the site. There are in fact stark difference between them. The homogeneity thus does not stop in its architectural form, but also its intangible cultural identity.

Further instances of the thematic branding of place include the usage of murals depicting scenes which are not native to Singapore. The renaming of streets after Middle-Eastern places, such as Muscat Street, Baghdad Street and Kandahar Street, and many devices somehow mislead people and creates a single homogenous Muslim identity of Kampong Glam. These are yet another clash with Kampong Glam’s original genius loci which creates a false notion of a Malay cum Middle-Eastern vibe that construct Kampong Glam as a tourist destination.

Figure 24_Decorative Tiles

Figure 25_Wall Murals

Figure 26_Decorative Arches

Figure 27_Bussroah Street PAGE 14 OF 31

This phenomena has led to the Malay origins and history of Kampong Glam diluted. The site was originally allocated for the Sultan and his 600 family members in 1823. This is evident when we examine the 1823 Jackson Plan (with Kampong Glam highlighted), which depicts the original settlement of the local population before the arrival of the British in 1819. This precolonial heritage is not focused in the heritage brochure, instead there were attempts to frame Kampong Glam’s history from the British colonial rule onwards. This selective heritage focus is pertinent when we realised the omission of the Royal Malay Cemetery, the treatment of Sultan Mosque and erasing the Javanese Kampong.

In all, the current representation simplifies what Kampong Glam actually was. Through flattening Malay Muslim culture with Middle-Eastern one, one is accustomed to acknowledge and consume Kampong Glam’s Malay heritage with a false mix(s)-matched identity.

Figure 28_Kampong Glam on Jackson Plan

PAGE 15 OF 31

3. PLACING PLACELESSNESS A Perceived Boundary In the maps previously presented, the boundary of Kampong Glam is clearly demarcated along the conservation line by URA. However, this boundary is not as distinct as it is made out to be.

On site, Kampong Glam is presented to us as homogeneous area of shophouses. After field observation and interviews, it appears that the perceived boundary of the Malay and Muslim Kampong Glam is in fact significantly smaller than the official boundary line.

It was observed that the most crowded and frequented areas were of those on the southwest of Kampong Glam. The area encompass Bali Lane – Haji Lane – Arab Street – Bussorah Street – Kandahar Street. These areas are perhaps more widely marketed and refurbished more pristine than the rest. Figure 31 shows the various nodes in relation to the circulation paths of Kampong Glam.

According to a textile vendor along Arab Street, most activities happen around the immediate vicinity. The vendor himself is unfamiliar with the eastern part of Kampong Glam. He added that business improved since the conservation efforts a decade ago, however, it has been stagnant since. The initial conservation efforts indeed brought Kampong Glam into limelight, however, it pertains to only to the selected places of interest.

We had also interviewed a tourist from Munich whom was drew to Kampong Glam only due to Haji Lane and Masjid Sultan. Aliwal Street and Pahang Street is relatively unknown to her and there was no interest into venturing the other side of Kampong Glam.

Figure 29_Haji Lane at night

Figure 30_Park Royal Hotel and Palm Trees

PAGE 16 OF 31

Figure 31

Figure 32

PAGE 17 OF 31

3. PLACING PLACELESSNESS

This is in fact justifiable. Physically, there was a discrepancy between how well these different areas are maintained. The most ornate and well-maintained areas are located on the western half of Kampong Glam. This is in contrast to the depilated shophouses which are found on the eastern half of Kampong Glam. This perhaps accounts for the concentration of activities on the south-western side of Kampong Glam.

Therefore, the interviews corroborated with the observations made. Even though the Kampong Glam as portrayed in the tourist and heritage brochures seemed to cover the entire conserved area, places of interest only encompassed a smaller area.

Therefore, even within the boundary demarcated today, Kampong Glam is not the same in every part. Evidently there were much discrepancies as our group ventured in the zone with stark differences between the newly conserved and the depilated.

Figure 33 & 34_Depilated shophouses in Kampong Glam along Aliwal Street

Figure 35_Juxtaposition of the old, the refurbished and the new PAGE 18 OF 31

Figure 36

Figure 37

PAGE 19 OF 31

3. PLACING PLACELESSNESS The Forgotten Mosques Apart from its urban boundary, Masjid Sultan takes on the icon of Kampong Glam today. Masjid Sultan is celebrated as the focal point of Kampong Glam as observed in Part 2. The onion dome is visible from all three paths leading to the mosque, with arches at A and C on Figure 38 and superficially lined with palm trees at B. Beyond a place of worship, Mosques are integral to the Malay community. During interviews with tourists, most of them would only know of Masjid Sultan Mosque. There were several other Mosques other than Masjid Sultan in Kampong Glam as well. The Masjid Hajjah Fatima, Masjid Malarbar which originated from south India and Masjid Bahru (demolised) also served the former wider Kampong Gelam area and its communities in the vicinity. They are also a representation to community’s life, traditions and customs. However, despite their historical importance, these Mosques are shadowed by the prominence of Masjid Sultan. They lie outside of conservation boundary and seemed to be in physical disconnection with Kampong Glam today – Masjid Malabar is divided by Victoria Street while Masjid Hajjah Fatima seemed to rest closer with the Lavender heartland.

Figure 38

PAGE 20 OF 31

Figure 39_Kampong Glam c. 1985 with Masjid Bahru, Masjid Sultan and former Istana

Figure 40_Masjid Bahru c. 1920s

Figure 42_Masjid Hajjah Fatima c. 2015

Figure 41_Malabar Masjid c. 1960s

Figure 43_Malabar Masjid c. 2015

PAGE 21 OF 31

3. PLACING PLACELESSNESS In Celebration of ‘Malay-ness’ In part 2, we acknowledged that Kampong Glam is branded both as a Muslim and Malay area in the Heritage, URA and the Tourist brochures. It was in a manner that largely flattens and homogenizes the Malay and Muslim culture as established previously. This false notion is evident not just in the way it is being promoted, but in its refurbished built environment as well.

Textile vendors along Bussorah street was interviewed, and no one was aware of the original mosque’s design with the three-tiered roof and some were even surprised to hear that the mosque had actually been designed by an Irish under the British supervision, (architect Denis Santry in 1824). As such, the heritage of Kampong Glam is much more complex, where the Malay culture, as much as it is intertwined with Islam, has aspects that distinguish itself from other Muslim cultures. This distinction, however is grossly diluted in Kampong Glam today. Streets were names were named after middle-eastern countries/ cities and there was a presence of several middle-eastern eateries and sheesha parlours (an Arabic import). The cultures are lumped together and associated with various Middle Eastern cultures to form the “Malay-ness” of Kampong Glam which we experience today. Through this way of association with the Middle-East, some local tourists we interviewed were not only unaware of the original dwellers who used to live at Kampong Glam – the Arabs, Javanese, Bugis, Malay, Boyanese, Chinese and Indian, but also were under the impression that the primary inhabitants had been Malay or “Middle-Eastern people”.

Furthermore, as our group ventured east of Kampong Glam, we visited the Aliwal Arts Center. It was originally two Hokkien schools built in the Art Deco styles in the 1950s. This signifies that there was a substantial number of Hokkien Chinese present in Kampong Glam. It further proved the multi-diverse cultural landscape in Kampong Glam. Yet, the two schools adopted the name Aliwal upon conservation, almost in attempt to bury the building’s Hokkien Chinese origins. The placelessness of Kampong Glam exudes a homogeneous “Malay” aura. Be it architectural elements, activities or facilities, they all seemed to have a direct superficial association to the word “Malay” when in reality most of them were imported from other cultures and fitted into the “Malay” stereotypes.

Singapore has four official races, with the Malays taking the second majority. The demand for heritage consumption rose when the conscience for conservation surfaced. However, given our land scarcity, Singapore has to make it efficient for economic growth and tourism. Therefore, in the attempt to recreate a new cultural landscape, the complexity of Kampong Glam is regrettably disregarded.

PAGE 22 OF 31

Figure 44-48_Eateries from a diversity of cultures and sheesha palours around Kampong Glam PAGE 23 OF 31

3. PLACING PLACELESSNESS The “Other” Kampong Glam Furthermore, areas that were once part of Kampong Glam but excluded from the conservation boundary, took on a complete different character. To the west of Kampong Glam, stood the former Javanese Kampong and Masjid Bahru which was wiped out by the Ophir-Rochore corridor. In Part 1, we observed its Tabula Rasa in 1998 map and today it was rebuilt to the point where many people (excluding older shop vendors) whom we interviewed were completely unaware of this fact.

The Malay cemeteries on the northern parts were also omitted despite its presence today. As mentioned earlier, the cemeteries played an important role for the community in Kampong Glam. However, today it is being separated from Kampong Glam by Victoria Street and the conservation boundary. More interestingly, a part of Kampong Glam (Junction of Aliwal Street and North Bridge Road) has become an unofficial gathering spot for alternative musicians and Chinese night clubs. On the periphery up north, the spatial characteristics changed drastically where Chinese eateries, shops dominate the tenure. Therefore, Kampong Glam today is in actual fact richer than what it is portrayed on official brochures. Those are the “other layers” that exist, but not reflected anywhere officially.

Figure 49-51_Traces of the “other” Kampong Glam

PAGE 24 OF 31

4. EPILOGUE Artificial Nostalgia of A Past We thus began to question the reasons behind the discrepancies. With prior research in Part 1 and Part 2, we have acknowledged that Singapore is constantly evolving. Official visual representations of Kampong Glam varied with actual site experience. Heritage conservation has to appeal to the general public, where often it does not coincide with its authenticity.

Therefore, to conclude, Kampong Glam today is an intentional attempt for a global appeal towards tourism.

Gathering from our site investigation, the original sense of place differs largely form what it is today. Even though Kampong Glam today is trimmed, sanitized and oversimplified as compared to its original situation, we have to understand the driving forces behind this. The Kampong Glam today is no longer the dwelling with complex social layers in the 19th – mid 20th century, but of a perceived pristine but historically diluted site.

Everyone looks at history with an individual biasness, however, it is thus a question of how to reduce this selectiveness. Tradition, history and conservation will always take a controversial stand especially in land scarce Singapore. 50 years since independence, we are a capitalistic cosmopolitan. It is inevitable that heritage has become part of our commodity in which we consume and sell to the world. At the end of the day, it still boils down to the matter of questioning tradition and history and what it really is for Singapore. Kampong Glam is in the residual state from its past. This history is important because it is an evidence of the existence of Singapore’s modern beginning and it is what makes Singapore what it is today. However, coating our past with a layer of sugar would only make us romanticize its artificial nostalgia which at the end, we would end up losing that part of the memory.

By uncovering its layers, we would have a deeper understanding of its site context and hold on to what is truly important. This would then allow us not only able to preserve the true essence of its Heritage, but also plan and build ahead for a better and sustainable future ¡

Figure 52 Kampong Glam 2015

PAGE 25 OF 31

i. end notes i. Turnbull, C. M. (1989). A history of Singapore: 1819-1988. Singapore: Oxford University Press. ii. Urban Redevelopment Authority. (1995). Kampong Glam: Historic district. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority. iii. Dr. Imran Bin Tajudeen, SSD2213 Lecture 06 iv. Pei Cobb Freed & Partners official website http://www.pcf-p.com/a/i/#g v. Turnbull, C. M. (1989). A history of Singapore: 1819-1988. Singapore: Oxford University Press. vi. http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/parkview-square/10198 vii. http://www.yoursingapore.com/see-do-singapore/culture-heritage/places-of-worship/sultan-mosque. html

PAGE 26 OF 31

ii. bibliography -Urban Redevelopment Authority. (1995). Kampong Glam: Historic district. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

-Tantow, David, NUS Dissertation, GLOBALISATION, IDENTITY AND HERITAGE TOURISM: A CASE STUDY OF SINGAPORE’S KAMPONG GLAM, 2009 -Kampong Glam: Historic district (pp. 7, 14-19). (1995). Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

-Turnbull, C. M. (1989). A history of Singapore: 1819-1988. Singapore: Oxford University Press.

-Kong, Lily. “Conserving our Heritage.” In Conserving the Past, creating the future: urban heritage in Singapore, 37-73. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2011.

iii. references -Perkins, Jane. (1984). Kampong Glam: Spirit of a community. Singapore: Times.

-Tyers, R. K. (1976). Singapore, then and now (pp.179-182). Singapore: University Education Press.

-Imran bin Tajudeen. 2012. “Beyond Racialized Representation: Architectural Linguæ Francæ and Urban Histories in the Kampung Houses and Shophouses of Melaka and Singapore.” In Colonial Frames, Nationalist Histories, edited by Madhuri Desai and Mrinalini Rajagopalan, 213-252. Farnham. England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

-http://singapurastories.com/kampung-gelam-rochor-kallang/ -http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_249_2004-12-16.html

PAGE 27 OF 31

i v. i m a g e s o u r c e s Figure 1-8: Diagrams illustrated in reference to onemaps Figure 9, 13, 18, 21, 31-32, 36-37, 38: Mapping & Fieldwork Figure 11:National Heritage Board Figure 14: Extracted from Lecture 02 SSD2213, j. widodo Figure 12, 15, 21, 52: Urban Redevelopment Board Figure 10, 16 - 17, 28, 40-41: National Archive Singapore Figure 20, 22-23, 24-27, 29-30, 33-35, 42-43, 44-48, 49-51: Fieldwork Photography Figure 29: Image from Ian Lloyd (1985), Singapore from the Air, with special thanks to Vikas Bhatt Kailankaje - http://singapurastories.com/2012/07/kampung-gelam-from-the-istana-to-masjid-bahru-masjid-maarof/#prettyPhoto

v. o r a l i n t e r v i e w s Name: Sheryl Lim Identity: Singaporean, Local tourist Location: Muscat Street Interview Date: 21st March 2015

Name: Ismail (actual name undisclosed) Identity: Dilip Textiles’s Shop Uncle, worked since 1998 Location: Arab Street

Name: Ada Boehler Identity: Tourist from Munich Location: Haji Lane Interview Date: 21st March 2015

Name: Siti (actual name undisclosed) Identity: Textile Shop Auntie, took over since 20010 Location: Bussorah Street Interview Date: 21st March 2015

Name: Esma Identity: Turkey Kebab Manager Location: Beach Road Interview Date: 21st March 2015

PAGE 28 OF 31

vi. newspaper clippings The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser (1884-1942), 1 January 1930, Page 10

PAGE 29 OF 31

vi. newspaper clippings The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser (1884-1942), 4 November 1926, Page 11

PAGE 30 OF 31

vi. newspaper clippings The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser (1884-1942), 7 July 1932, Page 7

PAGE 31 OF 31

FIN D E PA R T M E N T O F A R C H I T E C T U R E | N AT I O N A L U N I V E R S I T Y O F S I N G A P O R E | 2 0 1 5