Changing Landscape Of Singapore (3)

I was at the Civil Service College last month to attend a course. Copies of PS21's Challenge magazine were available for free at the college. I picked up a copy and found an interesting article titled An Urban Cowboy's Riddle which was written by renowned journalist Ravi Veloo. The article is about urban planning in Singapore and explains to a certain degree why some changes in our landscape, though unpopular, are in fact unavoidable:

IT'S fascinating to think that the urban planning of the entire island was once in the hands of a 20-year-old, younger than some of our most famous laksa recipes.

And that nearly 200 years later, we still have our Central Business District and civic area located on both sides of the Singapore River.

The face of Singapore's landscape was then in the hands of one Lieutenant Philip Jackson, a young British Royal Navy officer who was ordered to draw up the first detailed city plan for Singapore by an irritated Stamford Raffles who returned in 1822 for his third and final visit and found the colony growing helter-skelter.

You can be sure that the people now planning where things go in Singapore have a few more years on them. Some are even as fond and sentimental as the rest of us about the places which we have grown up in and plan to conserve them.

Yet the riddle of modern Singapore remains - that what is defined as public interest often overrides public sentiment.

Yes, there is much effort in finding out from Singaporeans what they want, and in general terms, the government delivers. More nature areas and parks, and better access to them; it will materialise.

But if you drill down to the specifics, that's more of a pickle. For example, there was a loud clamour to save the old brick-walled National Library building where every earnest student of a certain generation once spent many hours. It still made way for the shortest road tunnel in Singapore.

A sensible public will just have to accept that in tiny Singapore, the planning will generally be driven top-down, with fine-tuning mainly based on public sentiment and feedback. There are just too many sensitive issues involving space and planning and we have grown so used to having it that way that we are now uncomfortable with candid discussion.

It also doesn't help when a loony fringe now and then makes demands out of step with the general public, like the group that once demanded the reclaimed Marina Bay area be declared a nature reserve because some migrating birds had built nests there.

But there is still no great reason for a large gap between ground and ceiling when it comes to problem areas such as cyclists on sidewalks, void decks which are nothing but that on certain occasions, sleazy sex shops fronting some of our busiest buildings in Orchard Road and the civic centre, and a host of other areas.

As a sometime grassroots leader myself, I realise there needs to be a more robust mechanism in place to tap into the public psyche, to rethink where necessary and to deliver on the shape of what is really about "how we live, work, play and dream".

On the broad strokes, a lot of things are like our main airport - they're in the right place after they were rethought and relocated. On the details of everyday life, there still remains a lot to be gained by having an ear to the ground.

Jack Neo Admits Affair With Model

I was shocked to read about Jack Neo having an extra-marital affair with a 22-year-old girl by the name of Wendy Chong - read articles here and here.

Jack made a name for himself as Singapore most successful film-maker with his first film Money No Enough in 1998. He even earned a mention by the then Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong in his National Day Rally Speech on 18 August 2002:

Why not be like Jack Neo? He has applied his creative energy to produce three movies. Two of them were highly successful ? "Money No Enough" and "I Not Stupid". I watched "I Not Stupid". I can understand why it touched many parents' heart. My wife liked it so much that she watched it three times. She felt that Jack Neo deserved a National Day award. But I told her, "Two No Enough"!

Indeed, in 2004 he became the first local filmmaker to be honoured with a National Day Award. In the following year, he won the Cultural Medallion by the National Arts Council (NAC), the highest art and cultural award in the nation.

All these years, the public's impression of Jack is that he is a model husband who will not stray in marriage. In fact, Jack himself told The New Paper in a 1996 interview that it was too difficult to have a secret affair:

My philosophy on an affair: I have no time for it. If you want to look for a secret lover, you got to pay for it, not in terms of money but something more valuable - time. You got to make lovey-dovey phone calls, go pak-tor (dating), spend time making yourself look good for the woman. (Sigh) Too difficult for me, lah.

Now let me try to interprete the real meaning behind the sentences in the preceding paragraph:

Jack: I have no time for it.
Meaning: You will find time if you take her along on overseas working trips.

Jack: You got to make lovey-dovey phone calls
Meaning: SMS also can

Jack: Go pak-tor
Meaning: See movie Lucky Star also same same

Jack: Spend time making yourself look good for the woman.
Meaning: Actually, I look quite good already. With or without the clothes. Maybe better without.

I remember the dialogue in one of Jack Neo's movie (can't remember which one) said something like this:

偷吃要记得擦嘴巴

Translated, it means "when you steal a bite (=stray), remember to wipe your mouth clean (=remove all incriminating evidence)". Tsk, tsk, tsk, talk about dishing out advice which you don't follow yourself. Seems like Jack forgot to follow that golden rule.

They say that marriages go through the seven year itch. Wah, Jack is 20 years late - he is married for 27 years already. Maybe it is because his name Liang Zhi Qiang 梁智强 has the same hanyu pinyin as 两支枪 which means "have 2 guns". No wonder for him "that one no enough".

And I am not withholding any admonition for the woman in the story either. No, not Madam Irene Kng (Jack's wife) who is the real victim but Wendy Chong. The latter said that she just wanted people to know that "(Jack Neo) may say that he loves me, but the next moment, he lies to me".

Hello young woman, is lying more severe a crime than being a third party to a marriage? I certainly don't think so. And whoever invited reporters and photographers to come along for the meeting in Crowne Plaza hotel definitely had an ulterior motive.

Why not be like Jack Neo? Do be careful where you apply your creative energy though.

But alas, Jack seems to be playing Tiger Woods too. Aw come on, that girl is young enough to be your daughter, okay? What do you have to say? That you are human too and are prone to making mistakes just like all of us? Sigh, I just hope that this whole episode didn't actually happen but is only a publicity stunt for your current movie, aptly titled Being Human. But then, it is too early for an April Fool's joke, isn't it? Aiyah never mind lah, you can always make good use of this third-party first-hand experience to make your next "social issue" movie.

Who knows? You could even earn another mention in this year's National Day Rally Speech. If this happens, I hope it is for the right reason. I wish you well.

Changing Landscape Of Singapore (2)

Singapore's landscape has been changing rapidly since its independence. Time and again, there have been calls by concerned people for the pace of change to slow down. Some even wrote letters to local newspapers appealing to the authorities to consider saving what is left of our past. If the authorities had heeded these calls, some of which came decades ago, we might not have needed the Integrated Resorts to bring in the tourists.

Today, I reproduce one such letter published in the Straits Times of 15 June 1985 and bring you some old photos which evoke the memories conjured up by the letter writer, aptly called by the pseudonym "well-wisher". To the best of my knowledge, the letter remains unanswered, up till now.

Time to think about saving what's left

I have lived in Singapore for many years and I suppose it goes without saying that I like it here. I admire this country and I defend its policies. But there is one policy which puzzles me because it seems to be self-defeating. We are concerned at the reduced level of tourism, yet we are systematically removing many of the features that tourists love. I am speaking of the older colourful parts of our town.

I am frequently involved in taking out visitors and amongst those who know anything about Singapore, there is hardly a single one who fails to ask to be taken to places such as the Orchard Road car park (long gone), Bugis Street (going), Albert Street and Fatty's (going soon), Raffles Hotel (hanging on), and the Chinatown night market (gone).

My visitors lament when they learn that these pieces of original Singapore are gone or going. They are, of course, impressed by our new hotels, shopping complexes and skyscrapers. Singapore has been outstanding in these developments and they marvel at such obvious progress. However, there is a boring sameness about such structures; from Hongkong to Houston they are similar and unlikely to be of sustaining interest to tourists.

And when it comes to local colour, tourists prefer the real thing, not artificial copies. Visitors want to experience Singaporean life rather than something concocted specifically for tourists - like themselves.

After we have eliminated the last street market, the last eating stall, the last wayang, the life of the streets will be extinct and it will not be possible to recreate that atmosphere ever again.

Presently the pressure to provide land for redevelopment has eased - one might say expired. We probably have enough office space, hotel rooms, shopping complexes, warehouses to last us for some years to come. Could we not use this breathing space to rethink policies and perhaps to save some little of what we have left?

WELL-WISHER
Singapore 1128

Orchard Road carpark, before the hawkers (and the bulldozers) moved in. Could you see the hand pointing "this a-way" to the carpark for those who had lost their way? Only kidding, of course. It is actually a Federal Motors signboard advertising the sale of Austin cars and trucks.
(Circa 1960s. Photo credit: P's Collection)

The hawkers queueing up on Orchard Road before moving into the carpark. Did you notice the topless man? Would you dare to buy your food from such a hawker today? And I wonder if he would have managed to obtain even a "D" grading from the NEA if he were to serve food in that outfit now.
(Circa 1960s. Photo credit: P's Collection)

The hawkers have taken up their strategic positions now. Soon comes nightfall and this carpark will be teeming with hungry customers. The pointing finger is still there but the advertising signboard on the left has different pictures from the first photo above. And now we know that the concrete road divider was the first thing to go.
(Circa 1960s. Photo credit: P's Collection)

Similarly, the day scene in Bugis Street will be transformed into a very different one at night...
(Circa 1960s. Photo credit: Derek Tait)

What did I tell you? Bugis Street at night - another food haven to rival the one at Orchard Road carpark.
(Circa 1960s. Photo credit: Derek Tait)

And for beef kway teow lovers, there are not one but two stalls located opposite each other in Malabar Street to whet their appetite. Hmm... yummy! Simply haven... er, I mean heaven! Aiyah, whatever lah! Just give me my beef.
(Circa 1960s. Photo credit: Derek Tait)

Night market in New Bridge Road near Chinatown.
(Circa 1962. Photo credit: National Archives of Singapore)

Night market. The stall on the left is selling fireworks and fire crackers. The stall on the right is selling sweet Swatow Mandarin oranges at only 60 or 70 cents a KATI. Wah, so cheap! But still, look at who has more customers. Ahh, those were the days, my friend.
(Circa 1960s. Photo credit: Derek Tait)

Undated postcard showing Raffles Hotel in the daytime many decades ago.

Recent photo of Raffles Hotel at night. Raffles Hotel was gazetted as a National Monument on 6 March 1987 and 3 June 1995. Hmm... I wonder why it had to be gazetted 2 times? To be doubly sure or what?
(Photo credit: Victor Koo)