User:Johntanbengsiang/sandbox

Garam Kim A0179143H Natalie Hon Rui Yun A0172360M Nijel Hong Terng Wei A0139455X Scully Manuella Lynn A0143621R SSD 2213 Semester 2 2017-2018 Assignment 1 Tutor: Fauzy Ismail Tutorial Group: 1B Building Choice: Ellenborough Market

A Market’s Contestation and its Encapsulation of Society Situated on a swamp south of Kampong Malacca (Savage and Yeoh n.d.), the Ellenborough Market was built in 1845 by Captain Charles Edward Faber within the vicinity of the proposed Chinese Town. It was located close to the Chinese and Seamen’s Hospital (on Pearl’s Hill); a venture to improve conditions of living started by philanthropist Tan Tock Seng. (Sue-Ann Chia n.d.) Built in a neo-classical style, possibly with bricks walls and columns, the market was unique then and was the only to have been built with such monumentality. (Tan 2013) An explanation for this choice of architectural expression could be due to the belief in Miasma by the British, for which enclosure was thought to have reduced the spread of ‘bad air’. (Bert 2011) In the 1845 photo of Ellenborough market (figures 2 and 3), blinds are observed on the upper floor of the building, hinting at the possibility of occupancy by coolies (who may have resided within) or colonial officers (who may have used the space as an office). It is also feasible if the space was simply a double volume form to promote ventilation in the building. The typology of the market (figure 5) draws close resemblance to barracks built in Singapore by the British Royal Engineers (figure 4) (Vibart 2015), suggesting an improvisation of the free-plan offered and similarly, to assimilate European architecture (omni-presence of colonizers in a Chinese town). The strict enforcement of opening and closing times for the market (Boon 2013), in part of the colonial government to ensure hygiene and ease for municipal inspectors culminated desolation of the site, ultimately contributing to problems of beggars and gangsters in the more enclosed spaces. Similarly, the confined space proved to be impermeable, restricting the interaction of the peripheral happenings. It was noted in historical sources that events such as Thaipusam and the Hungry Ghost Festivals did happen along the streets around the market. From the start, the Ellenborough market was meant for the sale of fruits and was dominated by Tan Tock Seng, resulting in the construction of the Ellenborough Buildings. It was only in 1891, when an extension to the rear of the market was erected, did the place become associated with the sale of fish (figure 6) (Tan Sri Dato Mubin Sheppard 1982; Grylls 2016). The addition of the annex further popularised the area amongst the Teochews, resulting in the market adopting the epithet of being the Teochew’s Market (Grylls 2016; Savage and Yeoh n.d.). In 1898, after a fire razed the building (The SIngapore Free Press 1897), a new building was completed by Riley Hargreaves & Co in 1902 (“United Engineers Limited - Company History” n.d.), reutilising steel from the 1872 Edinburgh exhibition (Savage and Yeoh n.d.). While the actual design was an adaptation from a pavilion, the visually permeable and porous architecture granted better access and circulation within (in contrast to the former building), and multiple sources recorded Chinese Operas and prayers occurring within during the Sembayang Hantu  (Seng 1915). This was further aided by the pedestals being constructed out of wood, allowing for the ease of rearrangement within the space. In an oral interview with a former stall owner, the performances were mentioned to have been sponsored by the local store owners and hawkers from the market. (Ghim 1996)

“In the interest of public health, the farm system was abolished starting in the Ellenborough market in 1909 than all the others n 1910, thus allowing the commissioners to enforce their landscape of spatial use, restricting hawkers to specific locations” Straits Settlement Government Gazette 1906 “This enclosed, segmented space, observed at every point, in which the individuals are inserted in a fixed place, in which the slightest movements are supervised, in which all events are recorded, in which power is exercised without division, according to a continuous hierarchical figure, in which each individual is constantly located…” Discipline and Punish, Michel Foucault

Commencing with Ellenborough Market, the clamping down on illegal hawking in perusal of greater hygiene standards and efficiency, by the municipal government, indicated the socio-political influence of the market in Singapore’s society. With the arrival of a new Chief Inspector of the City Cleansing and Hawker’s Department, in 1908 (Tan 2013; Huiling 2013; Benjamin 2008), the enforcement on tainted food was heightened, for which heavy fines and jail terms were prosecuted to repeated offenders (Tan 2013). In the 1920s, it was noted that the municipal governors introduced a new arrangement, allowing for stall owners to bring in their entire stock for inspection. In exchange, should there be no tainted products, these stalls would be excused from impromptu inspections (Tan 2013; Benjamin 2008). The idea of trust in this resolution was in part, associated to be attributed to the “openness” of the architecture (Chia 1954), thereby making the market functionally similar to that of a panopticon, for which, the stall owners were always in constant watch by the authorities. In 1942, during the Japanese Occupation, the market functioned as a rationing space where distribution of vegetables and grains took place. (Wong and National Museum of Singapore. 2009). Seafood while widely sold in the market before the war, were dominated by the Japanese fishermen, who having been affected by Chinese boycotts pre-war, saw a resurgence. Post-war, the popularity of the market with the Teochews was restored. The establishment of the Teochew Association’s Headquarters in Ellenborough building and a Chinese shrine (figure 10) at the market for the Teochew vendors transcended the association of the market solely being a wholesale for fish, but similarly, a place of rich Teochew heritage and delicacies. (赖素春 2005) However, the popularity of the location proliferated extortion of occupants by members of Secret Societies, for which money was collected as ‘protection fee’. They largely victimized hawkers, for their stalls being makeshift and located along the periphery of the market, were easier to be destroyed. (Huan 1996; Ghim 1996; The Singapore Free Press 1958) To prevent their arrest, the gangs improvised a system of communication. Hawkers along Boon Tat Street described how there would be watchmen positioned opposite the Central Police Station, and another within a shop along a gang controlled street. (Huan 1996; Chia 1954) Upon observing a police patrol squad emerging from the station, the watchmen would notify his counterpart whom would inform all gang members and similarly, hawkers in their ‘protected’ territory to be ready to vacate. (Huan 1996; Shi 2016) Thus, due to the failure of the corrupted police force, the gangs became notorious yet essential to the survival of hawkers in the vicinity and became increasingly embedded within the site. The post-war period also saw a decline in food hygiene standards where instead of enforcement, corrupted inspectors extorted money (often in larger sums as opposed to the gangs). (Ghim 1996; Thio 1963) The sole latrine located along Singapore river, opposing the market, thereafter became the only source of water for all the occupants. It was reported that hawkers had only a bucket of water each for use – and these buckets were emptied into the Singapore River. (Chia 1954) Carparks around the markets (especially fish street) became a spillover of the interior spaces (figure 11), resulting in huge amounts of refuse dumped openly in the streets. Given the severity of the social and environmental situation, the new government sought to re-establish ‘cleanliness’. This thus could have resulted in the market being set ablaze. On the eve of Chinese New Year, 1968, an electrical fire reportedly resulted in the market being razed. (Ghim 1996) Multiple oral interviews in Singapore archives described the scene to be of an eerie calm for the place was deserted except for two to three hawkers. (Ghim 1996; The Straits Times 1993) The bitumen used as waterproofing of the roof, coupled with the paper-cement mix used in the false ceiling fueled the fire, resulting in the building being leveled. (Ghim 1996) In our research, many of our interviewees recounted the common narrative of the fire being used to flush out the gangsters. However, we suggest another narrative in parallel – that the event was orchestrated to clear the area of the poorer laborers who resided in the vicinity. Two years after the fire, a 22 storey mixed-use HDB was constructed (The Straits Times 1972) to ‘rehouse’ victims of the blaze. In an oral interview with former urban planner Alan Choe Fook Cheong, the estate was cited to have been an initiative to integrate a resident population within the business district, bringing life to the city after-hours. (Khim 1997) The irony was that the HDB consisted of 84 four room apartments (The Straits Times 1972) for which were each priced at around $87,700 – a 57% difference in comparison with a similar unit in a new town away from the city. (The Straits Times 1981) This could mean that the notion of ‘rehousing’ was initiated not as a means to rehabilitate the poorer labourers who were affected by the fire, but more so, to bring the middle-income Singaporeans closer to the city. The erasure of the market also meant a need to consider a new space for the stall owners. Thus, The Ellenborough wholesale market was erected in 1978 to rehouse the initial occupants. Simultaneously, the problems of an increasingly clogged river around Ellenborough Market resulted in calls by various undisclosed sponsors for a new $3 million fish wholesale center even as early as 1956. The proposals included dredging up the river near Ellenborough, or a complete relocation to the mouth of Kallang River. These proposals were outright rejected by the government without any reasons provided. However, one year before the fire in 1967, the operations of the wholesalers was approved by the government to be shifted to Jurong Fishing Port (“Parlimentary Debates Republic of Singapore” 1972). While it was understandable that the fish trade was not welcomed back to the market due to the problems associated, still, the coincidences in displacement of both people and businesses makes the official narrative suspicious, and while we are unable to ascertain the actual narrative, the complete erasure of site nonetheless allowed for the re-planning of the periphery of the Central Business District. With plans to construct Clarke Quay MRT station in 1986 and thereafter the acquisition of Ellenborough estate in 1995 to develop Clarke Quay Central portrayed a continuity to the narrative of injecting nightlife into the city, for which is evident today, given the commercial programs that exist on site. (Grylls 2016) The idea of Clarke Quay being a bustling hub has remained but was reprogramed from a fish trading hub to one that focuses on nightlife entertainment.

When one walks along the Singapore River today, along the façade of Clarke Quay Central, an abstract sculpture depicting fish, remains as one of the few palimpsests that indicate a very different scene at the location many years ago. The Swiss Merchant Hotel has also named one of its restaurant after the market (Ellenborough Market Cafe). So, while few tangible aspects of the original market remain, the story of Ellenborough Market, highlights more than just an erasure of intangible associations. If a market is defined as an anthropological place where humans contest and struggle for space, then the narrative of Ellenborough is similarly one of contestation, for which, encapsulates the ever-changing ideologies of the various ruling governors, and their continuous attempts to restore power and control – a struggle that ultimately ended with complete erasure. Bibliography Benjamin, Yeo Boon Keong. 2008. “Hawker Centre: A Historical Examination of the Establishment as a Form of Social Control by the British During Colonial Period.” NUS. Bert, A C. 2011. Miasma Theory. Chromo Publishing. https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=_kVrXwAACAAJ. Boon, G C. 2013. “Technology and Entrepôt Colonialism in Singapore, 1819-1940.” Modern Economic History of Southeast Asia. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=G4_3AwAAQBAJ. Chia, Cheong-fook. 1954. “The Place of the Hawker in the Community : A Research Paper.” University of Malaya. http://linc.nus.edu.sg/search~S28?/YSingapore+hawker&searchscope=28&SORT=DZ/YSingapore+hawker&searchscope=28&SORT=DZ&extended=0&SUBKEY=Singapore+hawker/1%2C37%2C37%2CB/frameset&FF=YSingapore+hawker&searchscope=28&SORT=DZ&37%2C37%2C. Ghim, Ang Siew. 1996. “CHUA Keh Thien 蔡家细.” Grylls, Vaughan. 2016. Singapore, Then and Now. Pavilion. https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=lCm4jwEACAAJ&dq=now+and+then+singapore&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjA0IfUrtHZAhVBwYMKHZC8AdEQ6AEIMDAB. Huan, Jesley Chua Chee. 1996. “KOH Khiang Siah.” Huiling, Shi. 2013. “Hawker Centre: A Social Institution Evolving from Street Hawking.” NUS. Kamalini Ramdas. 1995. “Spectacle, Surveillance &amp; Resistance : The Politics of Space in Syonan-To, 1942-1945.” NUS. http://linc.nus.edu.sg/search~S24?/Ydisciplining+time+and+space&searchscope=24&SORT=DZ/Ydisciplining+time+and+space&searchscope=24&SORT=DZ&extended=0&SUBKEY=disciplining+time+and+space/1%2C326%2C326%2CB/frameset&FF=Ydisciplining+time+and+space&searchscope. Khim, Soh Eng. 1997. “CHOE, Alan Fook Cheong.” Low Lay Leng. 1983. “NG Seng Yong.” “Parlimentary Debates Republic of Singapore.” 1972. In Second Session of the Second Parliament, 1201–6. NUS. Savage, Victor R., and Brenda S. A. Yeoh. n.d. Singapore Street Names : A Study of Toponymics. Accessed March 4, 2018. https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=DTOJAAAAQBAJ&dq=ellenborough+market+1889&source=gbs_navlinks_s. Seng, Chop Yam. 1915. “Summary of Petitions.” Shi, Toh Wei. 2016. “Comparison Study of Thermal Comfort in Old and New Hawker Centres.” NUS. Sue-Ann Chia. n.d. “From Pauper to Philanthropist: The Tan Tock Seng Story | BiblioAsia.” Accessed March 4, 2018. http://www.nlb.gov.sg/biblioasia/2017/01/04/from-pauper-to-philanthropist-the-tan-tock-seng-story/#sthash.OFbzsXSf.dpbs. Tan, Bertrand Qin Shan. 2013. “Control + Space : A Study of Singapore’s Colonial Markets with Telok Ayer Market as a Case Study (1888-1939).” NUS. http://linc.nus.edu.sg/search~S28?/Ytelok+ayer+market&searchscope=28&SORT=DZ/Ytelok+ayer+market&searchscope=28&SORT=DZ&extended=0&SUBKEY=telok+ayer+market/1%2C7%2C7%2CB/frameset&FF=Ytelok+ayer+market&searchscope=28&SORT=DZ&3%2C3%2C. Tan Sri Dato Mubin Sheppard. 1982. Singapore 150 Years. http://eservice.nlb.gov.sg/item_holding_s.aspx?bid=4080128. The Singapore Free Press. 1958. “Public Help to Close Net on Thugs,” March 5, 1958. The SIngapore Free Press. 1897. “Fire in New Bridge Road,” May 11, 1897. The Straits Times. 1972. “Balloting Soon for 3,480 Flats and Shops,” July 25, 1972. ———. 1981. “New Prices of HDB Flats from June 1 1981,” May 17, 1981. ———. 1993. “25 Years Ago,” 1993. Thio, Kheng-lock. 1963. “A Study of &quot;twenty Singapore Hawkers&quot;” NUS. http://linc.nus.edu.sg/search~S28?/YSingapore+hawker&searchscope=28&SORT=DZ/YSingapore+hawker&searchscope=28&SORT=DZ&extended=0&SUBKEY=Singapore+hawker/1%2C37%2C37%2CB/frameset&FF=YSingapore+hawker&searchscope=28&SORT=DZ&36%2C36%2C. “United Engineers Limited - Company History.” n.d. Accessed March 4, 2018. https://uel.sg/corp_profile/co_history.htm. Vibart, H M. 2015. The Military History of the Madras Engineers and Pioneers, From 1743 Up to the Present Time, Vol. 2 of 2 (Classic Reprint). Fb &C Limited. https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=97wcswEACAAJ. Wong, Hong Suen, and National Museum of Singapore. 2009. Wartime Kitchen : Food and Eating in Singapore, 1942-1950. Editions Didier Millet. https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=2dsumd-EFDQC&dq=wartime+kitchen&source=gbs_navlinks_s. 赖素春 Lye Soo Choon. 2005. “LIM Kok Peng @ Fang Ran 林国平@方然.” Image References

Figure 1. http://www.nlb.gov.sg/biblioasia/2017/01/04/from-pauper-to-philanthropist-the-tan-tock-seng-story/

Figure 2. http://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/photographs/record-details/af67dc5b-1162-11e3-83d5-0050568939ad

Figure 4. Personal drawings

Figure 5. Personal Renderings

Figure 6. http://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/maps_building_plans/record-details/fb0f7442-115c-11e3-83d5-0050568939ad Figure 7. Berita Singapura, Historical Items Figure 8. http://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/photographs/record-details/d393e8bc-1161-11e3-83d5-0050568939ad Figure 9. Singapore Annual Fisheries Report 1949 Figure 10. http://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/photographs/record-details/b765e19f-1162-11e3-83d5-0050568939ad Figure 11. Berita Singapura, Historical Items Figure 12. National Archives of Singapore, fish market Figure 13. http://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/photographs/record-details/b2181644-1161-11e3-83d5-0050568939ad - with the additions of renderings Figure 16. Singapore, then and now Figure 17. Singapore, then and now

References