by Walter Lim

(Published in Zaobao on 1 November, 2013, translated by Fabian Tee )

Taking a Closer Look at Singaporeans’ “Interest in the Wild (side)”

I refer to the commentary by Mr Goh Choon Kang  ( a media professional  and a former MP)  entitled “Looking from the sidelines at Singaporeans’ interest in the wild side” dated Oct 23, 2o13. In it  he posed the question : “why did the dialogue between civilian and government not take place before unilateral action was taken by one party with the expressed hope of opening more channels of communication? Just reflect for a moment, how the official in charge of heritage affairs must be feeling right now.”

This article has created  considerable public misconception. The Prime Minister, after all,  had on the occasion of the opening of the Heritage Festival 2013 said that:

“The government does not own the Singapore heritage. It does not define the Singapore heritage. Our heritage is a collection of individual memories, woven together into a national story. It is something that belongs to every Singaporean, and which each one of us can contribute to and help to preserve, individually and collectively”. PM Lee.

Therefore, it stands to reason that any civilian initiative to help Singapore preserve its  heritage should be a source of comfort for the authorities. Besides, the National Heritage Board’s Alvin Tan is a broad-minded and enlightened official, and not a petty/small-minded individual as implied by Goh.

In Goh’s article entitled “The basis and limits of dialogue”, he stated that “perhaps I lacked culture or cultural depth, but I feel that most Singaporeans are unlikely to bring their old or young to a desolate place in the middle of nowhere during their free time”.

(I agree) Most people are of this (Goh’s )  same mindset – civilians and officials  alike, think that way. It was under such dire circumstances that the application to World Monuments Fund was made. Can anyone imagine holding a dialogue under such circumstances? It would have been  laughable.  Fortunately the unrelenting efforts (of many) have paid off and  many parents do bring their children and elderly parents to Bukit Brown.  For his sake and society at large, I sincerely hope that Goh will deepen his cultural depth so that more young and old will come to Bukit Brown for leisurely walks.

On the government’s heavy burden of providing for the basic necessities for millions,  Goh said that the volunteers are of the opinion that “you (government)  can resolve to solve the existing traffic problems, just leave our  Bukit Brown alone. For the record, many alternative plans/suggestions were submitted to the government once the road announcements were made. Subsequently there were suggestions to leave the tombstones by the roadside,  blending the past with the modern. Recently, we also took part in the exercise to incorporate Biddari’s history into the planning of the new town. These efforts collectively demonstrate  that the volunteers are trying to strike a balance  between  preserving the past and developing the future. Unfortunately, none of our suggestions/feedback for Bukit Brown  found fertile ground and they have since fallen by the wayside.

On the other hand, the plan for Lornie Road reflects a lack of foresight and planning. Three years after expanding the number of lanes on Lornie/Adam Roads in 2009, the government now anticipates  a reduction  in the (Lornie) lanes after the Bukit Brown  highway is built. Instead of expending money on the expansion and subsequent shrinking of Lornie Road, why not just build the Bukit Brown highway in the first place?  The excitement that followed the government’s undertaking to quicken the pace of housing and transport infrastructural development after the last General Election  quickly morphed into a hidden worry. Plans for building Bukit Brown highway were carried out without the benefit of any impact assessment particularly that of a heritage impact assessment in face of a large scale destruction of historic artifacts. In the final analysis, is the Bukit Brown highway really meant for development or is it an unmitigated disaster?

When the plans were announced last year, an estimated 5000 gravestones were to be affected and LTA then reduced that to 3746 due to a change in road plans. Now the official number has been  re-estimated at 4153. What is really going on here? Even more worrisome for us is the sense of how  heritage preservation is considered in this country. Minister  Tan Chuan Jin said in parliament that (the preservation of) material culture including gravestone, carvings and tiles etc are very important. Yet after discussions at the higher level, there has been no concrete plans for a proposed memorial garden for the  preservation of gravestones of important personalities.  The imminent threat of destruction to thousands of graves has not provoke the local museums or Chinese clan associations to show any interest in preservation whatsoever. Dare I ask , is any government body or department truly satisfied with this (state of affairs) or process?

Leaving aside Goh’s portrayal of the  Bukit Brown volunteers as a bunch of “wild enthusiasts”, this unlikely  group of individuals who busy themselves over all things related to Bukit Brown,  stands in stark contrast with the total lack of interest displayed by the leaders of the Chinese Clan Associations. This lackadaisical attitude even extends to the discovery of the tombstones of founding fathers of their clans.

At a time when the Gan Eng Seng alumni paid their respects to his  grave during Qing Ming, the Chinese High and Nanyang Girls High and Industry Commerce Schools etc have instead chosen to forget their history.

When a country’s polity has no regard for our collective history and the hallowed grounds of our Chinese pioneers and civilisation,  evoke nothing but disdain, are policies to blame and have the people all forgotten (the past)?

As Bukit Brown is doomed  to its fate, a group of volunteers  -whose ranks comprises  Indian, Dutch and Japanese and others who know not a single Chinese character – are picking up the Chinese language to decipher tomb inscriptions, studying the various pioneers’ connections with old temples, clan associations, schools and some even extending their research into local history and the Chinese civilization. This abiding interest of the so called “wild enthusiast” calls for a deeper sense of reflection. Surely, this phenomenon is hardly one that can be  understood by anyone looking from the sidelines.

More on the road expansion at Lornie Road here.

The full report in Chinese:

正视新加坡人的“野趣”
观点碰撞
吴俊刚先生在10月23日“侧观新加坡人的野趣”中说：“为什么官民就不能先磋商好才行动，而必须等到单边行动过后，才希望展开更多的对话呢？试想，如果你是官方负责文化遗产事宜的单位，你会有什么感受？”这番话已经造成公众的错误解读。
李总理在文化遗产节时说：“文化遗产并不专属政府，更不能由政府来定义，人们都可做出贡献和协助保留。”因此对民间自发性的协助新加坡保留文化遗产，官方理应欣慰，而文物局陈子宇先生是位胸襟阔达的开明主管，并非吴先生所形容的小家子气。
吴先生曾在“协商的基础和限度”这篇文章就这么说：“也许我缺乏应有的文化与人文素养，但总觉得，一般国人不太可能在闲暇时间，扶老携幼到这么一个四野荒冢的地方逛。”这是当时一般人的观感，民间如此，官方亦然。
武吉布朗就是在这种凄风苦雨的情况下，提出申请世界历史遗址，别说磋商，恐怕告诉别人也会让人笑掉大牙。所幸在不间歇的努力下，今天可以看到父母带着小孩或是长者到武吉布朗，祈望吴先生为自己、为社会增添多一份文化与人文素养，一家大小也来武吉布朗逛逛。
政府有为数百万公民解决衣食住行的重任，吴先生更说：“你可以设法解决交通问题，只要别动到坟山分毫。”这已将志愿者描绘成一味坚持保留而罔顾发展所需。事实上，政府宣布征用坟场之后就提出代替方案，过后又建议保留墓碑在路旁，将过去融入未来，也讨论名人墓园之建议；近期更参与将历史遗迹融入比达达里新镇，这一切都有目共睹，说明志愿者是在旧事物和新发展之间谋求平衡，但各项建议都进不了当局的视野之内，结果不了了之。
反观罗尼路是未曾深思熟虑的工程，2009年扩建后通车三年，就得开辟新道路缓和交通；而今开辟武吉布朗新道路完成后，又要减少罗尼路的车道，请问当年为何不直接开辟武吉布朗新道路，却大费周章的扩建又再收缩罗尼路呢？上届大选之后，政府在房屋与交通方面加快建设脚本，这喜讯反而成为隐忧，道路未全面评估就匆匆建造，尤其不曾评估对文化遗迹所带来的破坏。开辟武吉布朗新道路，究竟是发展所需或许是无妄之灾？
去年估计5000坟墓受影响，陆管局强调因修改道路设计而减少到3746座；今年8月却飙升到4153座，请问发生了什么事？令人担忧的是文物保留意识，陈川仁代部长在国会上说，实质文物，包括墓碑、雕塑、瓷砖等也很重要，过后召开名人墓园事项的会议，现已沦为一记空炮；而本地展览馆华社并不热衷保留先贤墓碑，公路工程即将展开，大批墓碑已陷绝境；敢问政府各部门主管诸位部长，对整个流程是否满意？
姑且不论武吉布朗学会为何成为吴先生笔下的“野趣”组织，倒是日夜为武吉布朗奔波的是一介平民，华社领袖对华人坟场，甚至创办人或先贤的坟墓却无动于衷；在颜永成学校清明节到武吉布朗献花之际，华侨中学、南洋女中和工商等学校却选择遗忘过去。
为政不思追慎远，一堆黄土惹人嫌，是政府的政策妨碍华社追慎远，或是人民已经遗忘？武吉布朗遭人遗弃之际，却有印籍、日籍、荷籍与认识汉字不多的志愿者，为了理解碑铭而学起中文，更进一步探讨古迹庙宇、社团、学校，甚至钻研本地历史与中华文化，新加坡人的“野趣”，有太多值得令人深思之处，岂是斜眼侧观之士所能理会？

林志强
作者是文史工作者和武吉布朗华语导游

Cluster of Qing Tombs circa 1830s resited twice before Bukit Brown – now staked for exhumation to make way for 8 lane highway (photo Catherine Lim)

Story telling for children (photo A.J. Leow)