Old National Library Revisited (2)

Old National Library, circa 1970s

Sad remnants of the old National Library today - 2 red pillars and some fencing

I have blogged about the old National Library here and there.

I am really no authority on the National Library but somehow, I do get enquiries from research students on the subject every now and then. Reproduced below is one such email interview late last month:


1. What was the issue at stake for the public in the demolition of the old National library?

The public could be divided into 3 main groups as described below. What issue was at stake depends on which group the person belonged to:

a. Those who were all for the demolition of the old National Library (NL). They felt that the National Library (NL) stuck out like a sore thumb amongst the modern architecture of the SMU and the neo-classical and elegant National Museum. Built in 1960, they felt that it was not that old and not worthy of preservation. There was also nothing very special about the architecture of a basically red-brick building. Of course, being sited on very expensive land in the city made the reason to have it demolished even stronger. The opportunity cost for retaining the old NL would be very high. LTA obviously fell into this group.

b. Those who were indifferent about the fate of the NL. This group was likely to be the very young who never or seldom visited the old NL or who did not grow up in Singapore. They have no emotional attachment to the old NL. If they remembered it at all, it was just an old red-brick building standing besides a very busy thoroughfare. They did not care whether it was preserved or not - they had nothing to lose if it were to go, neither did they have anything to gain if it were to be preserved.

c. Those who were dead against the demolition of the old NL. This group grew up with the old NL. They visited it often when they were young, before the advent of the Internet completely changed the way traditional research was done. They spent a lot of time in the old NL, i.e. the children and adult sections on the lower level and the air-conditioned reference section on the upper level. They had such fond memories of the old NL that they were emotionally attached to it. This group was also the most vocal - in the print media, on-line forums, blogs and lately, on facebook. Needless to say, I belong to this group.


2. How did the community react to these issues?

The group against the old NL's demolition was vocal and articulated their views passionately. They wrote many letters to the press on why the old NL should be preserved and also suggested alternate uses for this red-brick building. The following passage titled 'Public Dissent' is quoted from this Wikipedia link:

"From March to April 1999, there arose a huge groundswell of public dissent in the media over the National Library building's fate, as well as the drastic physical alterations of its environs. A number of featured columns by journalists touched on gradually disappearing heritage landmarks, as well as shared memories of Singaporeans.

On 24 January 2000, after SMU chaired a technical workshop to obtain feedback on three alternative proposals, a well-known architect named Tay Kheng Soon held a press conference at The Substation to unveil his unofficial SMU masterplan. URA was invited to the presentation but did not show up. His proposal entailed re-routing the tunnel in order to save the National Library building. A week later, Tay wrote to the Prime Minister's Office regarding his proposal which was referred to the MND. Many members of the public wrote in publicly either in support of Tay's plans or argue for heritage conservation in general. A few articles and letters highlighted that the adamant official response to public dissent ran counter to the spirit of the Government's S21 Vision, which expressed a desire to foster civic participation and active citizenry."

3. Could you describe the process/actions the government/stakeholders had taken to address the issues?

The experience or perception of the public is that if the authorities have the intent to carry out a plan or action, a public outcry seldom changes the final outcome. A case in point is the two IRs. The government/stakeholders did not seem to have taken much action in the old NL case except to say that the public feedback had been given due consideration but still, demolition was in the final analysis, the better option. Again quoting from the same Wikipedia link:

"On 7 March 2000, the Minister for National Development, Mah Bow Tan, announced in Parliament that the National Library building would have to go. According to Mah, the authorities had assessed Tay's plans but concluded that the URA's plan was a better proposal for preserving the Civic District's ambience and being more people-friendly. With no choice, the public and activists accepted the final decision to demolish their beloved Library and the debates slowly frizzled off."

4. Have the above actions helped to address the issues?

No. The public experience or perception is still the same. And so will be the likely outcomes for any future issues.


5. What do you think could have been done better?

In my opinion, it is not matter of what could have been done better but rather, would they want to do it or not?


6. Looking back, how do you feel now?

More angry than sad at first. But now, more sad than angry.

Old National Library Revisited

I wrote about the Old National Library here before.

Ms Clara Ann, a 4th year History major from the National University of Singapore will be writing on the former National Library at Stamford Road for her dissertation. In an email dated 26 Jan 2010, she asked me some questions (in blue below) about the library for which my answers are in italics:


1. What was a typical visit to the National Library like for you?

It depends on what age I was at. When I was in primary school (1963-1968), I visited the Children's Section. While in secondary school and Pre-U (1969-1974), I visited the Adult Section. At that time, I was staying at Cheng Yan Place which was about 15 minutes' walk away from the National Library. I always walked to and from the library.

To make full use of the visit, each time I would try to borrow the maximum allowable number of 4 books. I think the books were due to be returned in 3 weeks' time. The due date was chopped on a leaflet which is glued onto the first page inside the front cover of the book. I always tried to return books on time. The fine then was 5 cents per book per day of overdue. It is not considered a big sum today but in those days, it was a significant amount, considering that I was given only 20 cents for pocket money everyday.

2. What do you recall and feel about the times you spent at the library?

I remember more about using the Adult Section. I spent many Saturday evenings at the library. I often stayed till closing time at 9 pm. At that time, four persons can share a table. Sometimes, I hoped that a pretty girl would come join the table... but I was usually disappointed. :p Of course, besides looking at girls, I studied as well.

Once around 1970, there was a film crew from the English TV station at the library. They were filming a snippet for the newsreel (a segment of film which was broadcast during the TV news). The crew asked for permission to film me borrowing a book at the checkout counter. They told me to behave normally. That evening, I appeared on TV as promised. It was my proud "5 seconds" of fame which I am sure nobody cared a hoot about.

I was a victim of an attempted robbery while walking home from the library late one night. I think it happened in Queen Street. One guy from a group of 3 ran from across the street to accost me. He checked my breast pocket but found no money. Then he lifted up my left forearm to take a closer look at the old and worn watch on my wrist in the dim street lighting. After realising that my watch had "zero book value" (pardon the "book" pun), he decided to go away empty-handed. But before he went away, he made me promise not to tell anybody of our encounter. Believe it or not, I am breaking that promise only now.

3. How did you feel/react when you heard about plans to demolish the Old National Library?

Sad of course, like most people. But I didn't take any photos of the building because film photography and digital cameras were expensive then. I also didn't have the time.

4. Why do you think it was demolished when there were many who felt it was worthy of preservation?

The authorities always have "very good reasons" for demolishing any buildings. National Theatre is a very good example (reason - "unstable cantilever"). New 7th Storey Hotel is another (reason - construction of Downtown MRT line). Sometimes the reasons seem valid, sometimes they appear to be just excuses. For instance, as stated in my blog, the National Library was originally claimed to be demolished to make way for the Singapore Management University. However, today only a big hole stands in its place, otherwise aptly known as the "shortest tunnel in Singapore that terminates with an ERP gantry".

5. How did you feel about the eventual outcome? That despite attempts to save the Old National Library, it was still demolished.

Sad of course. It was like a part of your memories being wiped out. You can only look at old photos and even these are hard to come by.

6. How do you find the new National Library at Victoria Street as opposed to the old one?

It is modern, spacious and well-stocked with good books. There are also talks and exhibitions held at the new National Library. These were unheard of in the old National Library. Oh, by the way, did you know that the new National Library was built by demolishing an old hotel that was also worthy of preservation, in my opinion?

Update on 1 Feb 2010

Thanks to James Seah who sent me some photos on what the old National Library site looks like today:

Compare the above photo with one that shows the old National Library behind the same set of red pillars and you can see how much this place has transformed:

The following passage is extracted from this Wikipedia entry:

"The old National Library was eventually torn down in 2005. Today, all that remains of the building at its original site are two red-bricked entrance pillars standing near the Fort Canning Tunnel. The controversy surrounding the building's demise has been credited for sparking greater awareness of local cultural roots and an unprecedented wave in favour of heritage conservation among Singaporeans."

You can refer to James' very interesting post on the old National Library here.

New Paper Articles On Not-so-young Bloggers

Early this week, I received an sms from Chun See. He said that Mr Ho Lian-Yi, a reporter from the New Paper had interviewed him earlier and he would like to interview me as well. Chun See asked if he could give my hp number to Mr Ho. I replied the sms half an hour later saying, "May I have his hp number instead?" Chun See responded almost immediately, "Since no reply, I gave him your hp no. already." Oh my, that was the first time someone considered my half-hour sms response time as "no reply".

So thanks to Chun See, an article about my blog appeared in the New Paper today. Mr Ho is of small build and looked like he's in his 20s. He came to my office's cafeteria with photographer Mr Mohd Ishak who brandished a very professional-looking Canon EOS-1 Mark 2 digital SLR which cost several thousand dollars. He took a few dozen photos of me posing 'facelessly'. The two powerful flashes alerted one of the security staff who came and investigate what was happening.

Reproduced below (portion in blue) is the article here for all who care to read but especially for my good friend and colleague Chris who'd rather save 80 cents on the price of the tabloid. He just refused to buy the paper even though I told him that our mutual friend Chun See was also featured. I don't know why Chris is still my good friend. Maybe next time I'll just call him "my colleague".

'Old dogs' can do good blogs

Mr Victor Koo, 51, owner of victorkoo.blogspot.com, in which he writes about everything under the sun

He wanted to show that "every old dog could do a good blog".

So when IT consultant Victor Koo's younger colleague threw down the gauntlet two years ago, he promptly picked it up and started up his blog Taking Up The Challenge (victorkoo.blogspot.com).

Light-hearted and jokey, Mr Koo writes about everything under the sun.

One funny post about "Chingrish" (his word for Singlish) involved having his readers guessing an object based on a poorly-written label - and he even created funny awards for the contestants, including a "Booby Award".

"There's a joy in blogging - you have to be in it to realise it," he said.

"I'm my own writer, my own publisher, I don't need permission from anybody. There is no need to censor myself - within reasonable limits," he added.

Almost too much joy sometimes. His wife, a civil servant, is not in favour of his hobby because he spends too much time on the PC.

She prefers him to coach their two sons in schoolwork instead.

"So I have to show some self-restraint sometimes, kek-kek (pretend) go and do some coaching," he joked.

However, Mr Koo also values his privacy. So he refuses to put any clear images of himself on his blog, relying instead on the relative anonymity of his name. Which is also why he declined to show his face for this report.

"You have less inhibitions to say what you want," he said. Once you identify yourself, you have restrictions. Your relatives will know. Your friends will know. You become more guarded."

His is in contrast to former chief executive officer of insurance giant NTUC Income Mr Tan Kin Lian's blog, tankinlian.blogspot.com.

The 59-year-old has been blogging since 2005 and has gained a sizeable following for his blog as he dispenses his views on financial matters and insurance, and the occasional tidbits about his personal life.

"Many people write to me for advice. I also wanted to give my views on social issues, so that more people can learn to live a better life in Singapore," he said.

Gee, thanks for comparing me to a former CEO who is still a household name, Mr Ho. Why is it that suddenly, I feel not only faceless (in every sense of the word) but also so small?

For the benefit my colleague Chris, here is the part where Chun See mentioned his (Chris') blog:

But hanging with the younger folk online isn't always easy. One of the blogs he frequently reads simshaddy.blogspot.com, often ends each post with the letters LOL.

For a long time, that confused him.

"I didn't know what was LOL. I thought LOL meant 'lots of love'," he said.

Now wouldn't you LOL or even ROTFLOL (roll on the floor laughing out loud) at that?

ROTFLOL