Ini Indexs
After World War II, the art scene in Singapore and Malaya underwent rapid changes.
The Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts (NAFA) under founding principal Lim Hak Tai (1893–1963) had reopened in 1946 and was now attracting students of different nationalities such as British, American, Australian, Czech, Indian and Indonesian for postgraduate studies.
Such a development was what Lim, well-versed in both Chinese and Western art, had wanted for NAFA. In 1955, he reviewed his original objectives for NAFA and expanded them into six guidelines, namely integrating the cultures and customs of the various races, fusion of the art of the East and the West, developing the spirit of science and current social thinking of the 20th century, expressing the local flavour through art, reflecting popular demands of local people, and emphasising the educational and functions of fine art.
From the 1960s, there emerged a number of second-generation artists such as Teo Eng Seng, Choy Weng Yang, Thomas Yeo, Ng Eng Teng (1934–2001), Goh Beng Kwan and Anthony Poon (1945–2006), who studied in Europe and the United States after completing their basic art education in Singapore. They returned with new ideas, creating works with a significant impact on the art scene in the 1960s and the 1970s. What they stood for somewhat echoed the aspirations of the Modern Art Society, which had a few members who studied abroad.
Apart from Choy, as well as Teo (who attended evening art lessons at the British Council), all of these second-generation artists had either attended NAFA, or studied under a NAFA teacher, before going abroad for further studies. A little later came women artists such as printmaker Chng Seok Tin (1946–2019) who had studied in NAFA in the early 1970s before pursuing art studies in England, France and the US from the late 1970s to 1980s, and sculptor Han Sai Por, who studied in the UK and New Zealand after graduating from NAFA at around the same period.
The art scene in the 1960s also saw various arts groups and associations, many of them visual arts societies, coming together to form the Singapore Arts Federation. Despite their diverse aesthetic directions, their practice was characterised by the primacy of painting, which could be traced back to the 1920s and 1930s.
This remained unchanged until 1972, when Cheo Chai Hiang, a member of the Modern Art Society who was then studying in England, submitted a proposal for a work to be shown at the Modern Art Society’s annual exhibition that year. Cheo’s proposed work, titled Singapore River, consisted of a set of instructions to draw a 5′ x 5′ square on a wall and the floor. As a piece of conceptual art, it challenged the dominant status accorded to painting in Singapore, especially with the Singapore River as a ubiquitous subject matter for landscape works. Ho Ho Ying (1935–2022), then-president of the Modern Art Society, rejected the work, suggesting in his reply that the artist had not considered how the viewer might respond to it. Ho found Cheo’s submission unconvincing, describing it as “hollow”, “empty” and “monotonous”.1On the other hand, Cheo in his conceptualist strategies intended to provoke the audience to examine assumptions underlying painting in Singapore, an aim which would have met the ambition of the Society.
Questions, especially those regarding what was art and what was non-art, arose from this exchange over Cheo’s Singapore River. This was a time when younger artists returning from their studies in Europe and the US “began to re-examine notions of place, time and self in relation to specific cultural and social context”.2 Although Cheo’s proposal was then unrealised, it sparked much discussion and has come to be regarded by the National Gallery Singapore as one of the preludes to the contemporary practice in Singapore.3
In the 1980s, especially towards the end of the decade, a number of emerging artists in their late 20s and early 30s, such as Wong Shih Yaw, Vincent Leow, Lim Poh Teck, Amanda Heng, Baet Yeok Kuan, Lee Wen (1957–2019), Ahmad Mashadi and Zai Kuning, initiated practices such as performance and installation art, whose aims differed from those of established art forms. They were drawn to The Artists Village, a contemporary art group founded by Tang Da Wu in 1988 at Lorong Gambas, Sembawang, where exhibitions and performances were held until 1990. Since then, The Artists Village has been operating without a studio or an exhibition space, with only an office at Hindoo Road. It holds most of its events in public places, where it hopes to bring art closer to people.
From the late 1970s, a number of major state-supported visual arts initiatives were realised. A formal exhibition space specially for art exhibitions was made available in the National Museum in 1976. This function was later taken over by the Singapore Art Museum (SAM), which opened in the restored building of St Joseph’s Institution in Bras Basah Road in 1996. SAM’s main approach was to organise exhibitions from its permanent collection and in collaboration with other organisations. In 1991, the National Arts Council was established, assuming the functions of the National Theatre Trust, Singapore Cultural Foundation, and the Ministry of Community Development’s Cultural Affairs Division. Visual artists and art groups would be able to receive support through schemes such as grants, scholarships, and provision of studio facilities, on top of participating in events such as arts festivals and biennales. In 2015, the National Gallery Singapore, housed in the former City Hall and Supreme Court buildings, was established. The gallery currently holds the world’s largest public collection of Singapore and Southeast Asian art, consisting of more than 8,000 artworks.
Ini Indexs
The Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation (OCBC) is one of Singapore’s three major local banks. It has a sailboat in its logo, which reflects Singapore’s history.
Since the 15th century, the junk — a type of Chinese sailing ship — had made its mark on Southeast Asia,1 deeply influencing the development of the Chinese communities in the region.
According to research by Chinese historian Tien Ju-k’ang (1916–2006), the 1,500- to 2,000-ton clippers built by the Portuguese by 1850 were considered large in the context of European shipbuilding history. In reality, however, Chinese junks had already achieved such heights as early as the 12th century, and they were capable of accommodating over 1,000 passengers.
Malaysian historian Lee Yip Lim (1935–2023) believed that Chinese junks played an important role in the early history of Singapore. To promote economic development, Sir Stamford Raffles (1781–1826) established a free port system. He favoured the lightweight, numerous and easily manoeuvrable Chinese junks over vessels built in other countries. He implemented liberal policies — such as reducing port tariffs — to encourage Chinese junks to navigate to Singapore.
With a rich history and a diversity of ship designs, Chinese junks played a pivotal role in fostering friendly relationships, facilitating trade, and encouraging cultural exchanges among Southeast Asian nations. The emergence of these ships, which produced the world’s greatest variety of ship blueprints, significantly contributed to these connections. Beyond exporting Straits local produce, British manufactured goods, and armaments to China, Singapore also served as a transshipment centre for the export of Chinese porcelain.
At the same time, Chinese junks also brought merchants, craftsmen, and labourers from China to Singapore. The Chinese who left their hometowns relied on these junks to inquire about news from their homeland, send money to their families, or return home for family visits and ancestral worship. The junks became a source of comfort for many Chinese people at that time. The merchants who relied on the vessels for their businesses contributed to the establishment of temples, clan shrines, and clan associations in Singapore, such as donating maintenance fees to Heng San Teng temple and Hokkien burial grounds.
It is a little-known fact that despite China’s strict prohibition on opium trafficking, Sir Stamford Raffles used frequently traversing junks to transport significant quantities of opium into China in secret. The ship merchants of junks would often hide opium below the ship’s deck to evade scrutiny by Chinese officials. During that time, British opium merchant Sir James Matheson (1796–1878) even proposed establishing a central station in places like Manila, in the Philippines, as well as Singapore, to help with the transportation of opium into China.
Later on, the influence of junks waned across Southeast Asia. They were at their peak from 1841 to 1842, when the tonnage of entering ships reached a high of 18,400 tons. After that, the overall tonnage saw a continued decrease. By 1865 and 1866, it had dwindled to just 3,280 tons. Chinese junks could no longer maintain their absolute dominance in the early external trade of Singapore, signalling an irreversible decline.
The main reasons for the decline of junks can be traced back to the implementation of the Treaty of Nanking in 1842. This treaty opened China’s doors to foreign trade, allowing foreign ships to directly enter Chinese ports and rivers without relying on Chinese junks.
In addition, the intrusion of foreign powers led to chaos and poverty in Chinese society, which hindered the normal development of the manufacturing techniques and operational methods of junks.
Coastal piracy in China further deterred many Malayan Chinese merchants from using junks, due to the risk of loss. They began turning to cheaper, safer, and insured European sailing ships.
Over time, European sailing ships gradually replaced Chinese junks. Today, we can only glimpse the traces of junks in Singapore’s early history in historical photographs.
Ini Indexs
Nanyang Siang Pau and Sin Chew Jit Poh are significant chapters in the history of Singapore’s Chinese press. The two newspapers merged in 1983 to form Lianhe Zaobao, the flagship Chinese-language newspaper in Singapore today.
Both Nanyang Siang Pau and Sin Chew Jit Poh were established in the 1920s by prominent business figures. Apart from publicising their respective commercial activities, the founders of both newspapers adhered to traditional Chinese principles of running newspapers, that is, disseminating information, guiding public opinion, educating the public, and promoting Chinese culture.
Like many pre-war Chinese newspapers in Southeast Asia, the two newspapers were not only concerned with local politics and economic developments but paid close attention to political developments in China too. In their early days, both newspapers were in support of the nationalist government and the anti-Japanese movement in China.1 Following the 1931 Mukden Incident till 1941, the anti-Japanese movement surged. Both Nanyang Siang Pau and Sin Chew Jit Poh published numerous articles penned by Chinese journalists and writers in the region, spearheading fund-raising campaigns in Singapore and Malaya to support the resistance against the Japanese.
After World War II, both newspapers supported the anti-colonial movement and advocated for the political interests of the local Chinese community. As a sense of national identity gradually took shape, the newspapers also underwent a transformation in their political stance. The Chinese media in Singapore was no longer China-centric. Instead, they played a part in upholding racial harmony in a multi-racial society, defending the sovereignty of the country while focusing on local news and reflecting public sentiment. Both newspapers progressively evolved into national newspapers under these circumstances and also began using simplified Chinese characters in 1972.
Chinese newspapers such as Nanyang Siang Pau and Sin Chew Jit Poh were somewhat different from English newspapers in that the former always strove to uphold their social mission. Besides carrying the voices of the times, Chinese newspapers actively participated in the promotion of Chinese culture, education, and the arts. They attached great importance to their role in representing public opinion and played a vital part in uniting the Chinese community.
Nanyang Siang Pau was founded in Singapore on 6 September 1923 by prominent overseas Chinese leader Tan Kah Kee (1874–1961). As an entrepreneur, Tan’s goal was to promote commerce and education. The word “siang” (or “shang” in Chinese, meaning business) in its name clearly pointed to the newspaper’s focus on business news. Tan also published an article titled “The relationship between education and business” in the inaugural issue of the newspaper.
The first manager of Nanyang Siang Pau was Lim Cheng San (unknown–1976), and the editor was Francis S. Fang (unknown–1942). The inaugural issue consisted of 16 pages in four large sheets, and 3,000 copies were printed, selling at 10 cents each. This was later expanded to 24 pages in six large sheets, of which half were advertisements. About 2,200 copies were sold daily.
Unfortunately, the prosperity was short-lived. On 28 October 1923, just 50 days after its first release, Nanyang Siang Pau was suspended by the British colonial government on the grounds that its publication of articles “involving partisan politics” had violated the law. As a result, Lim and Fang left the newspaper. It was only on 1 February of the following year that Nanyang Siang Pau was allowed to resume publication. The new editor was Yang Zhixiang (1895–1931), who was later succeeded by Lim Tu Pu (c. 1903–1980s), and the manager was Yap Cheng Swah (birth and death years unknown), later succeeded by Hou Say Huan (1883–1944).
The post-May Fourth New Culture Movement at the beginning of the 20th century had a direct influence on the editorial style of Nanyang Siang Pau. All articles in its supplement, Xin shenghuo (New Life), were written in vernacular Chinese, while the weekly supplement Wenyi zhoukan (Arts and Literature Weekly) was introduced with horizontally arranged headlines at the start of 1929, a novelty at that time. In 1930, the newspaper further broke conventions by launching a Sunday supplement, Xingqi kan (Weekly Edition), which was well-received by readers.
In 1928, five years after its founding, Nanyang Siang Pau purchased a rotary printing press, the most advanced of its kind at that time, with a capability of printing 5,000 copies per hour. This was a first for Chinese newspapers in the whole of Southeast Asia.
As the anti-Japanese movement in China grew, Chinese cultural figures came in droves to the region to rally the people against Japan. Many of them were renowned authors or journalists who were then hired by local newspapers as writers, such as Khoo Kok Chai (1907–1988), Li Tiemin (1898–1956), Chen Lien Tsing (1907–1943), Hu Yuzhi (1896–1986), Fu Wu Mun (1892–1965), and Yu Dafu (1896–1945). A significant number of them joined Nanyang Siang Pau, further strengthening the newspaper’s team.
In the late 1920s, the Great Depression affected Tan Kah Kee and made it difficult for him to sustain Nanyang Siang Pau on his own. The newspaper was taken over in August 1932 by brothers Lee Kong Chian (1893–1967) and Lee Geok Eng (1894–1965), and underwent restructuring. In 1937, Lee Kong Chian was made the chairman, while Lee Geok Eng became director and general manager, and veteran journalist Fu Wu Mun was hired as the editor. By the end of 1938, daily sales of the newspaper had exceeded 30,000 copies.
On 8 December 1941, the Japanese launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbour which started the Pacific War. Singapore fell to the Japanese and was renamed “Syonan-to”. All Chinese newspapers ceased publication, and the premises of Nanyang Siang Pau were seized by the Japanese to publish Syonan Jit Pau.
After the Japanese surrendered in 1945, Nanyang Siang Pau resumed publication on 8 September. Its circulation and regional influence grew significantly, with copies selling beyond the Malayan Peninsula to countries such as Indonesia and Thailand. The newspaper even purchased its own small aircraft to facilitate cross-border distribution. Between the 1960s and 1970s, Nanyang Siang Pau grew steadily and sold 60,000 copies daily.
Following the separation of Singapore and Malaysia in 1965, Nanyang Siang Pau was split into two and operated independently in each country. The one in Singapore began its post-independence transformation, focusing more on local news and contributing to the building of a harmonious multi-racial society as well as a national identity.
The newspaper’s editorials also shifted towards domestic affairs, but some of its discourse unfortunately violated the Internal Security Act. On 2 May 1971, general manager Lee Mau Seng, editor-in-chief Shamsuddin Tung Tao Chang (1923–1995), senior editorial writer Ly Sing Ko (1913–1996), and public relations officer Kerk Loong Sing were arrested under the Act in what became known as the “May Storm”. The managing director, Lee Eu Seng, was also arrested on 28 January 1973.
On 28 August 1974, the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act was passed after its third reading and the law came into effect the following year. Nanyang Siang Pau ceased to operate as a family-owned enterprise, and Nanyang Press Singapore Ltd was established and registered as a public company on 15 February 1975. By 1978, daily sales of the newspaper had exceeded 90,000 copies. On 1 September 1980, Nanyang Siang Pau began publishing an evening newspaper named Kuai Bao (Express News).
| Former editorial leaders of Nanyang Siang Pau | |
| 1923: Francis S. Fang (unknown–1942) | 1945: Wang Chung Kwang (1903–1972), Chan Sim Eng (c. 1902–1988) (managing editor) |
| 1924: Yang Zhixiang (1895–1931), Lim Tu Pu (c. 1903–1980s) | 1956: Li Vei-chen (c. 1903–1977) |
| 1927: Shen Zhimin (birth and death years unknown), Chan Siang Shih (birth and death years unknown) | 1960: Sze Chu Sian (1910–1990) |
| 1928: Wang Choong Loo (birth and death years unknown) | 1969: Lien Shih Sheng (1907–1973) |
| 1930: Zeng Shengti (1901–1982) | 1971: Shamsuddin Tung Tao Chang (1923–1995), Feng Li San (1907–1998) (acting editor-in-chief) |
| 1932: Lan Bigong (birth and death years unknown), Khoo Kok Chai (1907–1988) | 1972: Tan Chin Har (1911–1987) |
| 1937: Fu Wu Mun (1892–1965) | 1978: Chung Wen Ling (birth and death years unknown) |
| 1940: Hu Yuzhi (1896–1986) | 1980: Mok Lee Kwang (1926–2020) |
| * The lead editor was known as the editorial director in the early years, and the title was changed to editor-in-chief in 1945. | |
Sin Chew Jit Poh was founded by “Tiger Balm King” Aw Boon Haw (1882–1954) on 15 January 1929. Aw’s motivations for establishing the newspaper were similar to those of Tan Kah Kee for Nanyang Siang Pau. Besides promoting his Tiger Balm products, Aw started the newspaper mainly to enhance the patriotism of the overseas Chinese community. He once said it was “better to run one’s own newspaper than spend on advertisements”. It was under this principle that he founded Sin Chew Jit Poh. He also invited Chiang Kai-shek (1887–1975) to pen the four characters of the newspaper’s Chinese masthead.
Other than a preface for its launch, the inaugural issue of Sin Chew Jit Poh also included the newspaper’s manifesto. It was stated in the preface that it would focus on areas including “the status of overseas Chinese in Nanyang, the responsibility of public opinion, and the mission of the newspaper”, and that it will “fulfil its duty of speaking out against any evil”. On the current state of society, the foundation of unity, the importance of development, and the mission of the newspaper, the manifesto declared that Sin Chew Jit Poh sought to “pursue national, political, and economic equality, encourage overseas Chinese to invest in China to build up its strong foundation, and provide education to bridge the gap between Eastern and Western cultures, so as to improve the status of overseas Chinese”.
At its inception, Sin Chew Jit Poh had only 11 employees in its editorial department. Teng Lee Seng (birth and death years unknown) had served as the manager while Tchou Paoyun (birth and death years unknown) was the chief managing editor. Veteran journalist Fu Wu Mun became the editorial director in September 1929. On top of his editorial duties, he also penned the newspaper’s commentaries.
The newspaper placed great importance on talent, and its editorial team flourished under the leadership of the second editorial director, Kwan Chu Poh (unknown–1942). Cultural figures such as Yu Dafu, Chang Lee Chien (1900–1955), Hsu Yun Tsiao (1905–1981), Yao Nan (Yao Tsu Liang, 1912–1996), and Lee Chan Foo (1899–1966) had all worked at Sin Chew Jit Poh. To commemorate the newspaper’s 10th anniversary, Kwan orchestrated and edited a 1,300-page volume titled Xingzhou shinian (Ten Years of Sin Chew). This publication remains a notable piece of work in the study of the local newspaper industry to this day. At that time, the Marco Polo Bridge incident of 1937 had just taken place, and Chinese readers at home and abroad were very concerned about current affairs. The commentaries written by Kwan were very well received as they were broad in perspective and took a firm stand.
After the fall of Wuhan to Japan in 1938, Yu Dafu came to serve as the editor of Sin Chew Jit Poh’s literary supplement. He was responsible for several of the newspaper’s significant supplements, such as Chenxing (Morning Star), Fanxing (Star Clusters), and Wenyi (Arts and Literature). While actively promoting the development of arts and literature, Yu also wrote political commentaries and promoted the war against Japan.
In 1941, the Pacific War broke out. The newspaper industry came to a halt as Singapore and Malaya fell under Japan’s rule. After the Japanese surrendered on 5 September 1945, newspapers sought to resume circulation. Nanyang Siang Pau resumed publication on 8 September, as did Sin Chew Jit Poh in combination with The Union Times. On 10 December that year, Aw Boon Haw returned to Singapore to expand the newspaper and began recruiting talent to enrich its content. Hu Weifu (birth and death years unknown), Hu Langman (1908–1991), and Jiang Jingfan (birth and death years unknown) took turns to serve as editors-in-chief in 1945 before Wang Sze (1911–1982) took over in 1950.
On 4 September 1954, Aw died of a heart attack in Honolulu, Hawaii. The parent company of Sin Chew Jit Poh, Sin Poh (Star News) Amalgamated Ltd, underwent restructuring, and Aw’s nephew, Aw Cheng Chye (1924–1972), became the chairman of both the company and the newspaper, while Aw’s son, Aw Kow (1914–1984), was made the managing director. Wang continued to serve as editor-in-chief.
On 1 July 1975, in accordance with the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act which came into effect that year, Sin Chew Jit Poh was converted into a public company named Sin Chew Jit Poh (Singapore) Ltd.
| Former editorial leaders of Sin Chew Jit Poh | |
| 1929: Tchou Paoyun (birth and death years unknown) (chief managing editor), Zhou Yinong (birth and death years unknown) (chief managing editor), Fu Wu Mun (editorial director) | 1950: Jiang Jingfan (birth and death years unknown), Wang Sze (1911–1982) |
| 1937: Kwan Chu Poh (unknown–1942) (managing editor) | 1977: Frank Wong (1929–2024) (acting editor-in-chief) |
| 1940: Yu Songhua (1893–1947) (editorial director), Yu Dafu (editor-in-chief and managing editor of supplement) | 1978: Wu Shik (1928–1979) (acting editor-in-chief) |
| 1941: Pan Gongbi (1895–1961) (chief editor and editorial writer) | 1979: Frank Wong |
| 1945: Hu Weifu (birth and death years unknown) | 1981: Loy Teck Juan (1940–1995) |
| 1946: Hu Langman (1908–1991) | |
| * The leading editor position was known as managing editor and editorial director in the early years, and the title was changed to editor-in-chief since 1945. | |
On 20 April 1982, the Prime Minister’s Office issued a statement announcing a major restructuring in the nation’s newspaper industry: Nanyang Siang Pau and Sin Chew Jit Poh were to merge into a single holding company. In May 1982, the two companies announced that the new company would be named Singapore News and Publications Ltd. Both Nanyang Siang Pau and Sin Chew Jit Poh published their final issues on 15 March 1983.
Ini Indexs
Singapore’s leading Chinese daily Lianhe Zaobao is the primary product of the merger of Nanyang Siang Pau and Sin Chew Jit Poh. It was launched with evening daily Lianhe Wanbao on 16 March 1983. When it was first published, Lianhe Zaobao’s name was not prominently featured on its own masthead — the focus was on “Nanyang” and “Sin Chew” instead, as the latter two boasted long histories and had loyal followings. One must therefore take Lianhe Zaobao’s two predecessors into account when tracing its history.
Both Nanyang Siang Pau and Sin Chew Jit Poh were established in Singapore in the 1920s. The former was founded on 6 September 1923, and the latter on 15 January 1929. Lianhe Zaobao’s celebration of its 100th anniversary in 2023 indicates that it dates its history back to the founding of Nanyang Siang Pau.
The founders of Nanyang Siang Pau and Sin Chew Jit Poh were Tan Kah Kee (1874–1961) and Aw Boon Haw (1882–1954) respectively. The two were prominent businessmen who used their newspapers to publicise their respective commercial activities, but apart from that, they both upheld the traditional Chinese principles in running newspapers, namely disseminating information, guiding public opinion, educating the public, and promoting Chinese culture.
Like typical pre-war Chinese newspapers in Southeast Asia, Nanyang Siang Pau and Sin Chew Jit Poh did not merely concern themselves with local political and economic happenings but also closely followed the political developments of China. After Singapore became independent in 1965, as a sense of national identity gradually took shape, local newspapers adjusted their stance accordingly and removed their China-centric lenses to focus more on local news and public sentiments. In addition to reporting on and lending a voice to local Chinese communities, both newspapers also made every effort to reflect the characteristics of Singapore’s multi-racial society.
Following the separation of Singapore and Malaysia in 1965, both Nanyang Siang Pau and Sin Chew Jit Poh started independent operations in the two countries. While the two newspapers in both regions retained their original names, their content and focus differed significantly. Malaysia’s Nanyang Siang Pau and Sin Chew Daily are still in operation today and are published by Media Chinese International Limited.
The 1970s were a time when Singapore’s Nanyang Siang Pau and Sin Chew Jit Poh flourished and tried out new approaches, including the adoption of simplified Chinese characters and horizontal layouts. These changes were inherited by Lianhe Zaobao after the merger and continue to this day. Both Nanyang Siang Pau and Sin Chew Jit Poh were later listed as public companies in 1977. Nanyang Siang Pau went public first on 24 September and was listed for trading on 31 October; the latter followed suit on 21 October and 19 November respectively.
The consolidation of the two newspapers into Lianhe Zaobao was first announced in a statement from Singapore’s Prime Minister’s Office on 20 April 1982, which stated that Nanyang Siang Pau and Sin Chew Jit Poh were to combine into a holding company. The merger was finalised in September of the same year, and the company was named Singapore News and Publications Limited (SNPL).
Lianhe Zaobao and Lianhe Wanbao were first housed in the original premises of Nanyang Siang Pau in Alexandra Road after the merger. The arrangement was less than ideal, as former employees from Nanyang Siang Pau and Sin Chew Jit Poh were all crammed under one roof. Singapore News and Publications Limited then decided to build a news centre that included offices and printing facilities on Genting Lane. The move was completed in 1985.
By then, the newspaper industry in Singapore had undergone a transformation — three newspaper groups, namely SNPL, The Straits Times Press Limited, and Times Publishing Berhad, had merged into Singapore Press Holdings Limited in August 1984. The board chairmen of all three companies issued a joint statement which explained that the main reasons for the merger were:
In the 1980s, as the number of English-speaking Singaporeans increased, English dailies naturally became readers’ first choice. Lianhe Zaobao’s strategy to compete for bilingual readers was to provide comprehensive coverage as far as possible, while leveraging its strengths. These included enhancing its reporting of local news and stories from the Chinese community, as well as general and financial news from China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, making sure public sentiment and voices of the Chinese community were fully reflected through its opinion pages. It also offered interesting content through its diverse supplement pages. Furthermore, the language the paper used had to be accessible yet refined, catering to readers of all ages and language proficiency levels.
In addition to fulfilling its role as an important news publication, Lianhe Zaobao — along with other Chinese newspapers under Singapore Press Holdings — inherited the tradition of Chinese newspapers to promote Chinese culture while supporting the country’s multicultural policies. For instance, Lianhe Zaobao and Lianhe Wanbao jointly organised a Chinese book fair — the largest of its kind then — for the first time in 1986. The book fair later became an annual event and was rebranded, more than 30 years later, as the City Reading Festival in 2023. In 1987, the two Chinese newspapers also organised River Hongbao to celebrate Chinese New Year, garnering support from various sectors of the Chinese community. Since 1992, the event has been jointly organised by the Singapore Federation of Chinese Clan Associations, Singapore Press Holdings, Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Singapore Tourism Board, and People’s Association. It is still a major annual event that attracts millions of visitors every year.
Over the years, in order to expand its scope, reinforce its authority as a source of news, and enhance its supplements, Lianhe Zaobao has been seeking more writers in Singapore, as well as establishing partnerships with newspapers or news agencies in the region to share news and articles. The newspaper’s guiding principle for international news is to always observe and report from Singapore’s perspective. It has been sending journalists abroad since 1987, and currently has correspondents in areas including Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, and Malaysia.
In March 1990, Singapore Press Holdings underwent a restructuring. Lianhe Zaobao, Lianhe Wanbao, and Shin Min Daily News came to be grouped under Chinese Newspaper Group (now Chinese Media Group), with the editorial departments of each newspaper remaining independent. While adhering to common editorial policies and general principles laid out by the company, each made their own decisions on editorial content and style, and the way news, opinions, and supplements were handled. The three newspapers kept up a healthy competition among themselves in a bid to raise their standards of their services to readers.
Lianhe Zaobao became fully computerised in 1991. From reporters’ copies to the pages that editors laid out, everything was digitised — a first in the world for a Chinese newspaper. It was also the first foreign Chinese-language newspaper to be authorised for public distribution in China in 1993, and the first Chinese newspaper to go online when its website was set up in 1995. This was a major milestone as it allowed Lianhe Zaobao to reach out to a worldwide digital readership.
With the arrival of the new millennium, Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) set up a subsidiary, SPH MediaWorks, to compete with Mediacorp in the television broadcasting industry. With the launch of Channel U the following year, the employees of SPH’s Chinese and student newspapers, including Lianhe Zaobao, got involved in producing television news as well. This lasted nearly four years before SPH and Mediacorp merged their television operations in September 2004, ending the competition between the two companies, with Channel U taken over by Mediacorp.
The era of Web 2.0 had arrived by the time the simultaneous operation of print and television came to an end for local Chinese newspapers. Traditional print media had to take on an all-encompassing approach using new media to adapt to the ever-changing digital age. At the end of 2011, Lianhe Zaobao launched its app. In November 2013, the newspaper’s website underwent an overhaul so as to better serve the different needs of readers in different regions. Zaobao.sg was launched for Singaporean readers, while zaobao.com continued to focus on the China market. In 2015, Lianhe Zaobao attempted its first live broadcast on the night of Singapore’s general election in collaboration with other Chinese newspapers and websites under the Chinese Media Group, reporting and analysing the elections’ results in real time. An enhanced version of zaobao.sg took off on 8 September 2016 as a one-stop website that integrated the content of Lianhe Zaobao, Lianhe Wanbao, and Shin Min Daily News and included a diverse series of videos, animations, and other interactive multimedia content.
Besides developing online platforms, Lianhe Zaobao promotes culture and interacts with its readers offline. In 2011, the newspaper began holding charity events and also started the annual “Word of the Year” voting competition. In 2014, it started conducting newspaper-reading sessions as a community service together with Lianhe Wanbao. This is a weekly event in which newsmakers and volunteers join elderly in the neighbourhoods to discuss the week’s events.
In 2017, the news desks of Lianhe Zaobao and Lianhe Wanbao were merged into the Chinese Media Group NewsHub. This mode of operation, in which a singular NewsHub team contributed to the two newspapers as well as zaobao.sg, ceased after the closure of Lianhe Wanbao in December 2021, and team members were reassigned to Lianhe Zaobao to serve both the physical newspaper and digital platform.
On 1 December 2021, Singapore Press Holdings divested its media business and transferred it to SPH Media Trust, a company limited by guarantee chaired by former minister Khaw Boon Wan, marking a new era in the local newspaper industry. Upon learning that SPH Media Trust is a recipient of government funding, some members of the public expressed concern that this would affect the impartiality and professionalism of journalists, as well as the independence of newsrooms. In response, Lee Huay Leng, the Editor-in-Chief of Chinese Media Group, made a promise to readers in Lianhe Zaobao that the newspaper would continue to adhere to the principles of professional journalism, focus on producing high-quality news, and continue to pursue its strengths as a public good.
In 2023, Lianhe Zaobao commemorated its 100th anniversary with a series of celebratory activities. It has developed through the years into an all-rounded multimedia news platform and is no longer merely a physical newspaper.
| Former editors | |
| 1983: Mok Lee Kwang, Loy Teck Juan | 1995: Lim Jim Koon |
| 1986: Loy Teck Juan | 2011 to present: Goh Sin Teck |
| 1993: Lim Jim Koon (acting editor) | |
Ini Indexs
The term xinyao first appeared on 4 September 1982, at a seminar on Singapore’s Mandarin pop music titled Women chang zhe de ge (The Songs We Sing). Organiser Peh Chon Seang, who was from the media, had proposed it as a term to refer to original songs by young Singaporeans. The media promptly picked up on it, and before long, xinyao was widely used to refer to Mandarin ballads composed by the youth in Singapore.
In 2018, xinyao was included in the National Heritage Board’s inventory of 50 intangible cultural heritage elements. Prior to that, the term had been documented in the Times Dictionary of Singapore Chinese in 1999, and in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians in 2001.
The emergence of xinyao was an unexpected phenomenon. In the mid-1970s, Taiwanese campus folk songs had risen in prominence and were gaining popularity, influencing many students in Singapore. In contrast to mainstream pop songs from Hong Kong and Taiwan, these Taiwanese campus songs had more refined melodies and lyrics that were closer to the lives and sensibilities of Singapore’s youths. Their rich, literary lyrics struck an emotional chord.
Many of Singapore’s students were inspired and started to compose songs themselves, using them as a way to express their feelings and thoughts. With support from print media, radio, and television stations, a great number of xinyao groups started to form on various campuses. The Mandarin songwriting scene took off.
Our Singers and Songwriters (1982–1989), a radio programme created and hosted by broadcaster Lim Cher Hui on Singapore Broadcasting Corporation’s Radio 3 (now Mediacorp’s CAPITAL 958), played a crucial role in promoting the xinyao movement by providing a platform for amateur songwriters to showcase their works. It was through this programme that many of the main players of xinyao were first introduced to the public. Among them were xinyao groups such as Shuicao Sanchongchang (The Straw Trio: Billy Koh, Koh Nam Seng and Ng Guan Seng); Dixiatie (Subway: Eric Moo, Low Swee Chen, Tan Kah Beng, and others); Hefeng (Breeze: Dawn Gan [1963–2018], and others); Qingqing Cao (Green grass: Roy Loi Fey Huei, and others); Yayun (Elegant rhymes: Lee Soon Guan, Ong Pang Kit, and others); and Lang Tao Sha (Waves washing sand: Lee Hock Ming and Lam Chao Phang). There were also solo artistes such as Liang Wern Fook. One of the many songs presented on Our Singers and Songwriters was Xiehou (Encounter), composed and sung by Eric Moo and Huang Huizhen. In a first, it topped the music charts before the song had even been recorded in an album.
Our Singers and Songwriters was not the only radio show featuring original local music. Another was Diyi ge yinfu (The First Note), launched by cable-transmitted radio station Rediffusion Singapore in 1990.
As the songwriters were students, most xinyao compositions were simply accompanied by guitar and piano, with some incorporating instruments such as the violin and harmonica. Whether they were sung live on campus or recorded for radio, early xinyao songs were known for their simple, elegant style. It was only when the songs were recorded for albums that the arrangements became more elaborate.
The first xinyao compilation album by several singers and songwriters, Mingtian 21 (Tomorrow we’ll be 21) was released to great success in May 1984, with sales exceeding 10,000 cassette tapes. Songs from the album, such as Shamo zuji (Desert Trail), Xiehou, and Dongdong de gushi (Story of Dongdong), made their way onto Singapore’s pop music charts. Xinyao became a major cultural phenomenon in Singapore’s Mandarin music scene in the 1980s, garnering coverage from local Chinese and English media.
The 1980s were the heyday of xinyao. The annual Xinyao Festival was held six times between 1985 and 1990, and the Sing Music Awards was introduced in the third edition of the festival to recognise outstanding performers and songwriters. Besides radio shows, many members of xinyao groups also took part in Chinese Talentime, and wrote songs for local Mandarin television dramas.
As the quality of xinyao compositions matured, numerous songs were picked up by overseas singers. Hong Kong singer Paula Tsui Siu Fung covered Yifu hua (A Picture), originally by the group Tiao Dong Lü (Beat rate: Chua Ee Gein, Chew Chuan Lee, and others). Taiwanese singer Monique Lin also recorded a rendition of Pan Ying’s hit song Talking As Before. There were also attempts to sing xinyao songs with English and Cantonese lyrics, but those met with little success.
Around 1990, the definition of xinyao had broadened to include any songs written by Singaporeans.1 From the 1990s, however, the lustre of the music movement started to fade. Fewer emerging artistes were calling their works “xinyao”, and local singers who debuted in this period — among them Jimmy Ye, Kit Chan, Mavis Hee, and Joi Chua — were not dubbed “xinyao singers” either. However, the teams involved in writing and producing songs for these artistes often comprised xinyao veterans such as Tan Kah Beng, Ng King Kang, and Billy Koh. Xinyao continued to exert its influence in different ways in a “post-xinyao” era. During this time, xinyao activities scaled down considerably — the national xinyao camps organised by a non-profit group Feeling Station in 1991, 1992, and 1994 being some of the more significant ones. These nurtured many music artists who are still active today.2 The prevalence of folk music cafés in the 1990s, coupled with new consumer trends among young people, also helped to keep the spirit of xinyao alive.
In the 21st century, xinyao continues to be enjoyed by new and old audiences alike. Event management and music recording company TCR Music Station has organised a series of xinyao concerts since 2012. The 2023 edition was named Xinyao 41 (明天41) — a nod to the title of the 1984 xinyao album, Mingtian 21 (明天21), and harking back to old times even as the music lives on.
Another event is the Xin Kong Xia National Schools Xinyao Festival, a xinyao singing and songwriting competition produced by TCR Music Station and jointly organised by the Committee to Promote Chinese Language Learning, Lianhe Zaobao, and Jurong Pioneer Junior College (a merger of Jurong Junior College and Pioneer Junior College). Held annually since 2015, it exposes the younger generation to xinyao.
Xinyao is an important cultural phenomenon in Singapore. Scholars have noted that xinyao lyrics speak to local youth’s awareness of their identity and shared sense of identity.3 The fact that xinyao musicians — originally amateurs making music on campus — went on to produce records, establish record companies, and gradually enter the mainstream of pop music, reflects the many directions in which xinyao developed. It is an important chapter in the history of Mandarin music in Singapore.
Ini Indexs
If Chinese art is a subset of Chinese culture — both of which are difficult terms to pin down — what could the term mean in the Singapore context? In this approach, Chinese art may refer to a painting style, an art form, an art lineage, a set of aesthetic values and characteristics, creative outputs by artists who are ethnic Chinese, or a narrative of Singapore’s modern art history that is closely associated with another much-discussed term, Nanyang feng or Nanyang (Southeast Asian) style. Chinese art may also designate an “interpretive community”, which refers to a discursive and aesthetic community with a keen interest in Chinese art in its different manifestations.
It is challenging, especially given Singapore’s multicultural context, to work through the various definitions of Chinese art and how they relate to one another. But such an approach is necessary to examine how they relate to categories such as ethnicity, multiculturalism, modernity, and especially in Singapore’s case, language. Such considerations will in turn enrich the conversation about Chinese art in Singapore’s cultural and historical context.
On one hand, nailing down “Chinese art” is an attempt to build the definition from “core” elements, such as Chinese aesthetic history, stylistic lineages, ink painting, and relation of painting to calligraphy, literature, crafts, and philosophy. On the other hand, it involves deconstructing the core elements: examining 20th-century social and cultural transformations, modernity, relations to languages, geographies (the focus here being Singapore), and Nanyang as the Southeast Asian context of cultural transformations, lived experiences, and cultural productions.
The complex personality and dispositions of the artist Liu Kang (1911–2004), celebrated as a “pioneer artist” of Singapore, offer insights into what defines Chinese art. Born in Fujian, China, Liu spent his childhood and formative years in Malaya. He returned to China for his art education in Shanghai and graduated when he was 17. He then went on to study in Paris and returned to Shanghai to teach Western art when he was 22. With the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945), Liu returned to Malaya and Singapore in 1937 when he was 26. For the subsequent seven decades or so, he became a key figure in the Singapore art scene. Liu’s writings, art, and biography spanned a broad spectrum of dimensions, such as in public discourse, education, community leadership, and social engagement.
We consider two themes in Liu’s writings, with selected quotes from his important collections of writings: the original collection in Chinese with Liu’s own foreword in 1981,1 and the collection translated into English in an expanded edition by National Gallery Singapore in 2011. The two themes are: an overview of modernity in art as seen through the assessments of key 20th-century art movements and artists; and the purposes and functions of art articulated through cultural and collective frames (“Chinese”, “multicultural”).
Many art historical writings on 1940s to 1980s emphasised the emergence of nationalism in Singapore art following the end of World War II. Liu’s writings, too, showed these transitions. However, there were also themes about art and aesthetics that were more fundamental but, for the lack of more suitable terms, were expressed in relation to essentialism and nationalism, such as xiandai zhongguoren (“modern Chinese”; see the 1948 quote below). This is important in the question of Chinese art, as there could be themes that cancelled out possibilities of broader global and historical depth in art and aesthetics as they had to attach to a certain collective frame, be it “Chinese” or formulaic multiculturalism.
Liu wrote this about the art of two towering figures in 20th century art — Pablo Picasso (1881–1973)/Cubism, and Huang Binhong (1865–1955)/Shanghai School:
…performs diffusion of subjective vision into the object, subtly permeates and then deconstructs the object, dissolving it into various elements and then combining these fragments to form a new self-constructed form. (1948)
Binhong was not as well known as Beihong in Nanyang. Even if people knew him, it is not certain if they understood him. In fact, his artistic aspirations were an accumulation of the merits of past and current masters, a unique style that could very well be the peak of artistic perfection in the history of local art. (1955, trans in 2011: 63)
In comparison, Liu Kang thought less of the art of Xu Beihong (1895–1953):
Beihong’s art is predicated on realism. The artist attaches great importance to formal likeness in his Chinese and Western paintings. To achieve formal likeness, one must have proficient skills. As a result, skills are ranked first in art, while the consciousness of the times and national style become secondary. (1967)
Liu’s weighing in on Picasso and Huang underpinned his own search, within the parameters of tradition and innovation, of something dynamic that reflected the zeitgeist of the age as expressed through art. However, with minzu fengge (ethnic style), we get into the tricky question of (ethnic-, civic-, cultural-) nationalism/collectivism. Liu spoke of a higher or fundamental purpose of art. Unfortunately, such an ideal had to be expressed with the aid of some nationalistic/collective framing:
We have experienced what kind of society we encounter …We know better what is the correct goal and the right path. Putting aside many details, what we want to create is: art that can express ‘modern Chinese people’. (1948)
With cultural exchange, mental wellbeing, and spiritual cultivation, a foundation is built, and only then will the entire human race be able to realise a higher realm beyond material comforts. (1950)
The transition to multiculturalism and nationalism in Singapore has been regarded positively in most of the art historical writings by Liu. Take these 1960 and 1969 quotes by him:
We also have a sense of pride because we enjoy the culture of multiple ethnicities and therefore adopt a unique creative direction… (1960)
…while the power of art transcends national boundaries, artistic concepts and formal aspects may still vary greatly… Singapore is a newly independent country… in terms of its resident ethnic groups, Singapore’s cultural makeup is not only rich and complex but is also a few thousand years old… Our cultural tradition is not only enriched by the different races, it also straddles both East and West. (1969, trans in 2011: 111)
In fact, in Liu’s own foreword to the 1981 collections, he spoke, rightfully so, of his many writings forming a historical archive of Singapore’s art and culture:
Much of the content relates to promoting art and creative trends in our nation in the past half-century. It would not be incorrect to regard it as part of our country’s historical documents. (1981)
Liu painted primarily in the oil medium but also produced some ink works. He also practised calligraphy. To a 20th-century artist, art was naturally a trans-cultural practice, as seen in how Liu articulated the need to combine East and West, along with multicultural sources and inspirations. One could just end the story here, which the post-1960s writings of Liu somewhat did. However, what was missing in this later period of his writings was the attempt to speak of art in a higher order, where the human race is “able to realise a higher realm beyond material comforts”. Liu appeared to have involved himself with the organisational and administrative aspects of art, given his role as a key arts leader in Singapore.
The collection of Liu’s writings published by the National Gallery Singapore in 2011 reorganised his essays chronologically and under different thematic headings, with book and section introductions written by Yow Siew Kah. By Yow’s argument, Liu’s oil paintings could be regarded as Chinese art, as “Liu’s works in the 1950s show figures and objects defined by bold lines of variable thickness, meant to emulate a type of Chinese literati painting brushstroke”.2 Yow further noted that Liu’s paintings were “characterised by its use of empty spaces, stylised depiction, and lines… to convey texture and movement”3 and Liu understood literati painting to be an expression of an artist’s interiority”. Yow added that Liu “appropriated European artistic ideas for the sake of creating a modern Chinese art”.4
These were all commendatory. However, Yow’s critique also made clear that “Liu never wholly intended to create a national art, but was primarily preoccupied with modernising traditional Chinese painting” (2011:100). Yow did not say what “national art” should otherwise be like. Did the line about appropriating European artistic ideas indicate that a “national art” should be predicated fully on European artistic ideas? Shouldn’t Chinese art, along with other traditions in the Singapore context, be the very source of this “national art”?
In his speech at the book launch of Wang Gungwu’s Living with Civilisations on 5 December 2023, President Tharman Shanmugaratnam recalled that “Professor Wang emphasises… the distinction between the Sinic civilisation and contemporary China’s national culture as it keeps evolving.” He adds that “the same can be said about the Indic civilisation and the evolving contemporary Indian culture, and likewise Islamic. For each of the civilisations that have shaped us and continue to shape us, we should always distinguish between the enduring civilisational ideas and values and the contemporary national cultures, temperaments and impulses in the parts of the world that they came from. ”5
This is relevant to the discussion on Chinese art in Singapore, as having a long historical lineage, along with other aesthetic sources such as Indic and Islamic, form the foundation of art even as we speak of a “national art”. The historical layers cannot be confined to just the decades following the emergence of 20th-century nationalism, whether in inspirations or expressions. Even more important is the recognition of the necessary detachment of an artist’s aesthetic resources with forms of collectivism, such as the uncoupling of Chinese culture with “contemporary China’s national culture” and even multiculturalism, unless it is a formula that an artist finds productive. Cultural sources, collectivism, and notions of multiculturalism operate on different registers in art practice.
The eminent art historian Wu Hung highlights some key characteristics of Chinese painting that are totally different from the Western painting tradition.6 The term “landscape painting” as a standalone category in Western art emerged only in the 16th century. The Chinese “landscape painting”, which predated Western landscape painting by more than a millennium, may not be read using Western perspectives. The ink landscapes first emerged as a transcendental experience rather than to capture the physical sceneries as the eyes encountered them. Instead of a specific landscape, the paintings presented a conceptual schema of a broad geography incorporating the metaphysical. By the 11th century, the monumental ink landscapes had become further composites of viewing experiences through multiple perspectives, distances, and times, so as for the mountains to transcend a specific human experience and to be “alive” in their own right.7
Chinese paintings, particularly in the handscroll format, entailed very different conceptions of space and time. Even if “we imagined them as ancient forms of films or videos; in films and videos the viewers still do not control the speed of the screening; and therefore there were still fundamental differences in essence”. 8
Chinese art and Chinese culture may be constituting dimensions in Wang’s “Sinic civilisation”. But unlike Wang’s view on the timelessness of the latter, Wu sees Chinese art, particularly in the context of global art history, as one that is always changing: “The content and concept of Chinese art are bound to be constantly changing; the identification of its characteristics and language is to find the reasons for the change and the perennial, within the ever-changing art form and content and its social environment.” 9
There may be gaps in the timeframes of Chinese art, Chinese culture, and Sinic (Chinese) civilisation in the different ways these terms were looked at above. Whether highlighting permanence or transience, in so far as art practice is concerned, a rich history of lengthy temporal range is needed as references and resources. This was what Liu attempted to do.
In Tharman’s speech, he also noted that Singapore is “unique in the region, in that the community which came to be in the majority in Singapore, the Chinese, had a long experience of being a minority community in Southeast Asia”.10The discussion on Chinese art in Singapore in this paper is not centred on the Chinese ethnicity as the majoritarian. Rather, it is about the need for a fuller picture of the art historical development that was closely linked to a large group of Chinese migrant artists here, such as Liu.
These artists not only advanced, practised, and taught art, but also forged a lineage of engagement with cultural modernity following the May Fourth Movement, the Shanghai modern art education, and Chinese art as an aesthetic source and value. The extent of the work and ideas of these artists formed an art historical topic outlined as the Nanyang feng in the work of art historians Yeo Mang Thong, T. K. Sabapathy, and others.
The Nanyang style is not the only story of Singapore art. Tharman’s description of that disposition of being concurrently majoritarian but always appended by awareness and sensitivity of being a minority parallels the methodological approach of needing to be thorough in art historical understanding of art developments here, and yet always framed by its “exteriorities”, decentring and breaking down categories, in thinking through the challenging notions of “Chinese art” and “Chinese culture” in Singapore.
Ini Indexs
Since the late Qing dynasty, writers born and raised in China have left their homeland for Nanyang (Singapore, Malaya, Indonesia, and other Southeast Asian countries) for a variety of reasons. Such reasons include making a living, seeking refuge, going on diplomatic missions, pursuing education, and immigration. Collectively referred to as “writers who came south”, most of them were engaged in Chinese education and journalism. Before 1919, they wrote classical-style poetry and prose using classical Chinese, but many started to use vernacular Chinese to create new literature after 1920, under the influence of China’s May Fourth Movement.
At least five waves of Chinese writers have come to Nanyang over the past century. The first arrivals began in the late Qing period and included diplomats such as Tso Ping-lung (1850–1924), Huang Tsun-hsien (1848–1905), and Yang Yunshi (1875–1941). Others were literati such as Khoo Seok Wan (1874–1941), Yeh Chih Yun (1859–1921), Kang Youwei (1858–1927), and Xiao Yatang (birth and death years unknown). Their works belonged to classical literature and mainly expressed concern for the times and their homeland. Much was dedicated to promoting Chinese education and strengthening the Chinese community’s cultural identification with China. Some works, however, depicted local customs and practices — such as Huang Tsun-hsien’s poems about durians, and Khoo Seok Wan’s Nanyang poetry.
The turbulent period between the early days of the Republic of China and the Marco Polo Bridge Incident of 1937 brought a large number of writers to Nanyang, including Lin Kexie (1892–1954), Zhang Shu’nai (1895–1939), Tan Yunshan (1898–1983), Chen Lien Tsing (1907–1943), Wu Zhongqing (1900–1948), Zeng Shengti (1901–1982), Ma Ning (1909–2001), Wang Gekong (1903–1959), Lin Cantian (1901–1972), Qiu Shizhen (1905–1993), Yang Sao (1900–1957), Xu Jie (1901–1993), Pan Shou (1911–1999), and Zhang Chukun (1912–2000). This was the group that pioneered Malayan Chinese new literature, advocating for a perspective on Nanyang through this emerging genre of literature. The acclaimed calligrapher and poet Pan Shou was also involved in the advancement of this genre while he was working as an editor, and wrote vernacular poems himself.
From the Marco Polo Bridge Incident in 1937 to before the fall of Singapore and Malaya in February 1942, another batch of writers turned up on Singapore’s shores to propagate resistance against the Japanese and advocate for world peace. Among them were Tie Kang (1914–1942), Liu Yanling (1894–1988), Wang Junshi (1910–1942), Gao Yunlan (1910–1956), Yu Dafu (1896–1945), Hu Yuzhi (1896–1986), Shen Zijiu (1898–1989), Baren (1901–1972), and Hong Sisi (1907–1989).
When Malaya and Singapore fell to the Japanese, some of these writers were killed, while others fled. After the war, some of the survivors returned and even stayed on for good. One such individual was Liu Yanling, who spent his final years in Singapore. He belonged to the first generation of Chinese vernacular poets, and his works were posthumously included in a collection titled Zheliu nanlai de shiren: Liu Yanling xinjiapo zuopin xuanji (The poets who came south: collection of Liu Yanling’s literary works written in Singapore).
After the end of World War II came the Chinese Civil War. Ding Jiarui (1916–2000), Xie Baihan (1919–2011), Yang Jia (1917–1995), Yue Ye (1920–2001), and Yao Zi (1920–1982) were among the writers who came to Singapore and Malaya during this period. The 1950s was also the Cold War era, and writers such as Li Kuang (1927–1991), Huang Ya (1931–1992), Yao Tuo (Yiu Hong, 1922–2009), Bai Yao (1934–2015), Ma Moxi (1918–1971), Seow Yeoh Thian (1913–1990), and Yang Jiguang (1925–2001) travelled south from Hong Kong and contributed to the Chinese literary scene of Singapore and Malaya through the founding of publications Chao Foon and The Student Weekly.
From the 1960s to the 1980s, cultural exchange between China and Nanyang were stagnated for various reasons. After Singapore established diplomatic relations with China in 1990, a large number of Chinese started coming to Singapore for purposes including education, immigration, business, overseas assignments, and reunion with their families. A handful of them became new immigrant writers.
The aforementioned five waves of writers stayed in Nanyang for periods ranging from a few months to several decades. Some of them eventually settled down for good and acquired citizenship in their country of residence, while some went back to China as returned overseas (guiqiao) writers. Others left the region and moved to a third country.
There are differences in the literary works among the various generations of writers who came south. Writers from earlier times were seen as overseas Chinese writers as they considered themselves sojourners with no sense of belonging to the local community. In contrast, some writers from the same era chose to stay and made Nanyang their homeland. Examples include Yao Zi, Li Rulin (1914–1991), Xing Ying (1912–1967), and Li Kuang, who contributed to the growth and development of Chinese literature in Singapore and Malaysia through their writing, editing, and publishing efforts.
The establishment of diplomatic ties between Singapore and China brought the two countries’ relationship into a new era. Besides encountering the sights and sounds of Nanyang, Chinese writers who came to live in Singapore post-independence have witnessed the country’s economic prosperity, political integrity, social stability, and multiculturalism. A number of them have integrated into the local community, becoming Singapore citizens themselves and developing a sense of belonging.
Ini Indexs
Calligraphy was traditionally an integral part of Chinese education. Part of daily life, it was used in public and private correspondence, records, and bookkeeping. Most Chinese schools in Singapore from the early 20th century to the 1970s therefore ran calligraphy classes.
The Chinese in mid-19th century Singapore recognised the importance of education. Generally speaking, the curriculum of early Chinese schools “still followed the old Chinese tradition, teaching little beyond the Three Character Classic, Thousand Character Classic, Youxue qionglin (The primer for traditional Chinese culture), the likes of Four Books and Five Classics, as well as calligraphy and zhusuan (knowledge and practice of performing arithmetic calculations using an abacus)”.1 Similarly, the teaching of calligraphy in traditional private schools was mainly for practical purposes. For example, the account books used by the early Chinese business houses were usually neatly written in Chinese brush and ink, in two variants of the regular script — gongkai and xingkai.
In the early 20th century, the scholar Khoo Seok Wan (1874–1941), known as nanqiao shizong (“master poet of southern overseas Chinese”), had a circle of friends who were mostly literati, academics, artists and politicians from the late Qing period. Of the many different forms of written expression, they chose calligraphy as their medium for inscribing prefaces and postscripts on each other’s paintings or collected artworks, for exchanging complimentary verses, and even for exploring ideologies and debating politics. Meanwhile, art collector Huang Man Shi (also known as Huang Cong or Huang Mun Se, 1890–1963), had a coterie of literati, artists and intellectuals who had received a modern education. His studio Bai Shan Zhai was an important salon in Singapore at the time.2 The people in Khoo and Huang’s circles represented the middle and upper classes of Chinese society. Besides interacting with each other, the groups also had some members in common. Generally speaking, Huang’s circle was more active than Khoo’s in promoting the development of local calligraphy. 3
As large numbers of Chinese immigrants sailed south at the end of the 19th century and in the first half of the 20th century, clan associations and Chinese temples were established in Singapore. In keeping with Chinese tradition, these buildings had plaques or couplets inscribed by distinguished people. In parts of Singapore where there is a lot of traditional architecture, this offers a feast for the eyes even today. One example of this is Thian Hock Keng Temple, built in 1839 on Telok Ayer Street. Above the main hall, there is a plaque bearing the characters bo jing nan ming (calm waves on the south sea) in the hand of Emperor Guangxu. Over at Lian Shan Shuang Lin Monastery, which was founded in 1898, the calligraphy on plaques and couplets are from distinguished figures of the past century. These inscriptions were not merely instructive — they also added a touch of beauty to the monasteries. At clan and guild associations, plaques inscribed by well-known modern calligraphers from China are also a common sight. The plaques or couplets in these locations, including any ink works hung on display, do not just illustrate – they also form an important part of local Chinese visual art heritage.
For an artistic style representative of the era to emerge, members of the literary and artistic community need to create works, develop their calligraphy skills, and pass them on. Media coverage will also help it enter public consciousness. During the pre-war period, some important journalists who were also calligraphers and painters included Yeh Chih Yun (1859–1921) and Zhang Shu’nai (1895–1939). Yeh Chih Yun, who was editor-in-chief of Lat Pau for 40 years, was well-versed in calligraphy and painting, seal cutting and traditional Chinese medicine. After arriving in Singapore in 1919, Zhang Shu’nai took up a post as lead writer and editor-in-chief of Sin Kuo Min Press. He was also an early advocate of xin wenxue (new literature), and many plaques belonging to local shops were created by him. Other important figures promoting the art of calligraphy were calligraphers and painters who had travelled south to exhibit their art or make a living. Among them were Pan Shou (1911–1999), Lim Hak Tai (1893–1963), Ng Here Deog (1910–1994), Ho Hsiang-Ning (1878–1972), Xu Beihong (1895–1953), as well as the brothers Gao Guantian (1876–1949) and Gao Jianfu (1879–1951). After the 1937 Marco Polo Bridge Incident, more scholars and artists also headed south. Prominent names were See Hiang To (1906–1990), Liu Yanling (1894–1988), Liu Haisu (1896–1994) and Yu Dafu (1896–1945). They either stayed for a short period or became citizens after Singapore’s independence. All of them contributed to the development of calligraphy in Singapore.
During the period after World War II, Chinese education in Singapore was well-developed. There were about 280 Chinese primary and secondary schools on the island in the period from pre-war to the 1980s, before the education policy changed.4 Among them, several prominent Chinese institutions such as Tuan Mong School and Chung Cheng School had no lack of calligraphers among their teaching staff. This included Tan Keng Cheow (1907–1972) and Chan Shou She (1898–1969), who championed calligraphy education in their respective schools. Students who were talented in calligraphy emerged in waves from both schools, and often came tops in competitions, be it in the primary or secondary school categories. Many of the calligraphers nurtured by Tuan Mong and Chung Cheng have become active calligraphers in Singapore since the 1980s. Tan Siah Kwee, who heads the Chinese Calligraphy Society of Singapore, for example, is a Chung Cheng graduate. The society co-hosts a couplet-writing (hui chun) calligraphy competition with community clubs every Lunar New Year to promote the development of calligraphy in Singapore — allowing it to reach the general public and become a popular art.
In addition, Chen Jen Hao (1908–1976), who was the principal of Dunman Government Chinese Middle School (now Dunman High School) from 1956 to 1969, had always attached importance to the influence of calligraphy on students. After it became a Special Assistance Plan (SAP) school, calligraphy remained part of its curriculum. One former student who studied under Chen is the local calligrapher and painter Koh Mun Hong.
Since the 1960s, a growing number of calligraphers have imparted their craft via private lessons. Calligraphers who had done so over the years include See Hiang To and his students Tan Kian Por (1949–2019), Tan Kee Sek and Teo Yew Yap; as well as Pan Shou, Chang Kwang Wee, Koh Mun Hong, Chang Sow Yam, Choo Thiam Siew and Wong Joon Tai. After the 1990s, new immigrants who were talented in calligraphy also added vibrancy to the local scene. Among them are notable names such as Guo Shuming, Ma Shuanglu and Kong Lingguang.
When Singapore’s economy grew rapidly in the 1970s and 1980s, Singaporeans enjoyed greater spending power. More shops selling wenfang sibao (“four treasures of the study”) started to spring up. At the time, people looking for brushes, ink, paper and inkstones had more options besides Chung Hwa Book Company, The Commercial Press Agency, and Shanghai Book Company. They could also head to places such as Tsing’s Book & Art (Jinshi Shuhuashe), Si Bao Zhai Arts Gallery and Chen Soon Lee Book Stamp and Coin Centre in Bras Basah Complex (dubbed the “book city”). In the 1970s, Chung Hwa Fine Art Gallery — located on the fourth floor of Chung Hwa Book Company in the South Bridge Road area – would hold a yaji (literati gathering) every Saturday afternoon. Many regaled stories of how Pan Shou, surrounded by a crowd, would pick up his brush, dip it in ink, and complete a piece of work in a flash — whether it was a banner, couplet, fan, or zhongtang (calligraphy hung centrally in a hall).
After changes to Singapore’s education policy in the 1980s, English became the medium of instruction in schools, and Chinese was relegated to a single subject. However, various community clubs and associations have continued to be active in organising calligraphy competitions. The Chinese Calligraphy Society of Singapore, community clubs, Nanyang Calligraphy Centre, Siaw-Tao Chinese Seal Carving Calligraphy & Painting Society, and Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts, conduct calligraphy courses, providing more avenues for the many people interested in learning calligraphy.
Since 1969, Singapore’s National Day Art Exhibition has been an annual feast for the eyes. From the 1970s to 1980s, it was a platform for the first and second generation of calligraphers in Singapore to exhibit their works. Prominent local art associations such as the Society of Chinese Artists, Siaw-Tao Chinese Seal Carving Calligraphy & Painting Society, and the Chinese Calligraphy and Art Research Society (predecessor of the Chinese Calligraphy Society of Singapore) hold numerous calligraphy and painting exhibitions.5 More recently, calligraphy and painting groups such as the Hwa Han Art Society, Molan Art Association, Lanting Art Society have also become a driving force in the development of local calligraphy.
In the 1980s, when Singapore’s economy took off, there was a growing trend among Hong Kong and Taiwan calligraphers and painters to hold exhibitions in Singapore to sell their calligraphy and paintings. At the start of China’s reform and opening-up, some antique shops or galleries in Singapore were also very active in inviting modern Chinese calligraphers and painters to exhibit in Singapore. This triggered a wave of interest in collecting Chinese calligraphy and ink paintings, as well as in learning calligraphy.
Since 2000, prominent annual calligraphy exhibitions in Singapore such as the Singapore Book Fair, Shicheng Moyun calligraphy exhibition, the National Day Calligraphy & Painting Exhibition hosted by Ngee Ann Cultural Centre, and Nanyang Calligraphy Exhibition, have transformed learning calligraphy into a trend in self-cultivation. From teenagers to the middle-aged and elderly, many have taken the bold step of participating in calligraphy exhibitions.
Looking back on the developments of the past decades, it can be said that despite the closure of Chinese-medium schools, the calligraphy scene in Singapore continues to be vibrant and alive.
Ini Indexs
As was customary in the early days of the Chinese community in Singapore, where immigrants arriving from China formed associations or societies based on familial and trade connections, those in the art sector also banded together to set up groups to promote their interests and practice.
The earliest example goes as far back as the first two decades of the 20th century when some Straits-born Chinese formed a hobby group known as the Amateur Drawing Association in 1909. It received strong support from eminent community leaders such as Lim Boon Keng (1869–1957), Song Ong Siang (1871–1941), Tan Jiak Kim (1859–1917), and Tan Boo Liat (c. 1874–1934).
When Yang Zhi’ai (birth and death years unknown), a China artist who stopped by and then settled in Singapore when returning from his studies in France, found the art scene here too quiet, he established an art association called Tanmei huahui (“Explore beauty painting society”) in 1929 to organise art exhibitions. Otherwise, visual arts activities of the time would likely be left to organisations such as Nanyang Chinese Students’ Society, which were dedicated to more general cultural interests including literature and theatre.
The 1930s saw an increase in the number of art groups being formed. More and more artists were arriving from China, especially towards the second half of the period due to the imminent Second Sino-Japanese war. For example, the Nanyang Journalistic Caricature Association was formed in 1931, and was dedicated to the promotion of cartoons which were becoming increasingly popular as the main medium to spread anti-Japanese messages among the Chinese population in Singapore.
In 1935, the Salon Art Association was established by the alumni of the Xinhua Academy of Fine Arts and Shanghai Art Academy, whose membership was later extended to include artists from Malaya and the Dutch East Indies. This resulted in the formation of the bigger and more inclusive Society of Chinese Artists (SOCA) in the following year, which received a big boost with members of the intelligentsia arriving in Singapore to escape the war breaking out in China in 1937. SOCA played a significant role in the establishment of the Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts (NAFA) in 1938.
As artists in Singapore came increasingly under China’s influence during the Second Sino-Japanese war, they turned to the art of woodcutting and cartooning as they joined the anti-Japanese war movement on the island. The SOCA organised a Save-China Cartoon Exhibition to raise funds for China’s war efforts. Many in the arts then were urging artists to make full use of cartooning as a powerful weapon in propaganda against the Japanese, especially among the illiterate in the community. Within the five years leading up to the war, there were a good number of cartoon exhibitions to raise funds in aid of war victims.
In 1940, NAFA also started a “woodcut and cartoon research programme”, which involved Lu Heng (1902–1961), Chen Chong Swee (1910–1985), Tchang Ju Chi (1904–1942), Dai Yinlang (1907–1985), Xu Junlian (1911–unknown), Chen Puzhi (1911–1950), Chuang U-Chow (unknown–1944), Liang Zuokan (birth and death years unknown) and Yong Mun Sen (1896–1962), all of whom actively exhibited their works.
As part of the anti-Japanese war effort, the SOCA and the Singapore Art Club also joined forces to organise the Fight for Freedom Art Exhibition in 1941 to raise funds for British war victims. This was the first time Chinese and expatriate artists in Singapore worked together towards a common cause, transcending the interests of their respective groups.
Following the disruption of art activities during Japanese occupation (1942–1945), the art scene in Singapore and Malaya underwent rapid changes after the war. Most art associations were not revived post-war except for the SOCA, which changed its Chinese name from Huaren meishu yanjiuhui to Zhonghua meishu yanjiuhui. In 1949, British officers Richard Walker (1896–unknown), Carl Alexander Gibson-Hill (1911–1963) and Francis Thomas (1912–1977), together with local artists such as Liu Kang (1911–2004) and Suri bin Mohyani (birth and death years unknown), established the Singapore Art Society (SAS) as a multicultural body. It amalgamated various ethnic-based arts groups such as SOCA, Malay Society of Arts, Indian Fine Arts Society as well as NAFA and the British Council. The overarching SAS clearly set out to promote Malayan arts and culture as a new consciousness now that the war was over. Those who had served as its president included Carl Alexander Gibson-Hill, Liu Kang, Ho Kok Hoe (1922–2015), Christopher Hooi (birth and death years unknown), Ho Ho Ying (1936–2022) and Khor Ean Ghee.
In 1956, Lee Boon Wang (1934–2016) led a group of young artists such as Lim Yew Kuan (1928–2021), Lai Kui Fang (1936–2022), Chua Mia Tee and Koeh Sia Yong to establish the Equator Art Society (EAS), advocating a realist approach to art to depict the reality of life and express noble thoughts and feelings through images. These artists had previously been active in the Singapore Chinese High Schools’ Graduates of 1953 Arts Association, formed earlier with a stronger anti-colonial stance. With a few hundred members at its height, the society was championing realism in art and opposed to modernist style of painting. It also cautioned members that only by knowing the value and worth of true art would one be bold enough to forge ahead against “the temptation of personal aggrandisement in all its devilish forms” and that what is great about true art is that “it does not lose its integrity amidst the ugly commercial dealings belonging to the decadent bourgeois”.1Though EAS was deregistered in 1972, the group left behind an enduring influence and legacy in the Singapore art scene.
In the early 1960s, a group of young artists whose artistic position was diametrically opposed to that of the Equator Art Society met frequently to discuss what direction art in Singapore should take. Ho Ho Ying, Wee Beng Chong, Tong Siang Eng, Tay Chee Toh, Tan Yee Hong (1932–2003), Goh Tuck Hai and Ng Yat Chuan formed the Modern Art Society (MAS) to challenge and encourage artists to reinterpret nature with a new vision. In a newspaper article in 1964, Ho Ho Ying lamented the lack of aesthetic direction in the art scene driven by associations such as SAS and SOCA. Earlier in 1963, Ho had written that “Realism has passed its golden age; Impressionism has done its duty; Fauvism and Cubism are declining. Something new must turn up to succeed the unfinished task left by our predecessors. Any attempt to recover past glory shall be in vain because history will not repeat… Art like all things in the world is ever changing and we are trying to catch up with the change.”
In 1969, watercolorists including Chen Chong Swee, Gog Sing Hooi (1933–1994), Ong Kim Seng, Lim Cheng Hoe (1912–1979), Sim Kwang Teck (1906–1993), Loy Chye Chuan, Khor Ean Ghee and more founded the Singapore Watercolour Society. The members would go on painting trips in the city area along the Singapore River on Sundays, and occasionally travelled around the region in search of pictorial subjects.
Between 1961 and 1970, Yeh Chi Wei (1913–1981) gathered a group of friends to go on field trips in the region to sketch and paint so that they would be able to exhibit their works on their return. Known as the Ten Men Group, which was not a formal association, members included regular participants such as Lee Sik Khoon, Seah Kim Joo, Yeo Tiong Wah (birth and death years unknown), Chen Cheng Mei (Tan Seah Boey, 1927–2020), Cheah Phee Chye, Choo Keng Kwang (1931–2019), Lim Tze Peng, Lai Foong Moi (1931–1994), Shui Tit Sing (1914–1997), Tan Choh Tee and Tan Teo Kwang. Together they have travelled to Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Cambodia.
Other groups which have remained active today will be described in a separate article, because most of them may be categorised by the medium of Chinese ink on which their practice is based.
Ini Indexs
St John’s Island is located in Singapore’s southeastern waters. It is a popular tourist destination for locals and foreigners, boasting clear waters and ferries shuttling back and forth from its shores. More than 200 years ago, however, this serene and leisurely scene was a desolate island covered in wild vegetation.
On 28 January 1819, at around four o’clock in the afternoon, Sir Stamford Raffles’ (1781–1826) fleet arrived at Sakijang (now St John’s Island). The next day, as he was hesitating over whether to disembark in Singapore, a Chinese man on his ship volunteered to set foot on the island first. He asked that 20 Indian Sepoy soldiers go with him. Led by this Chinese man, the soldiers landed in Singapore and raised the British flag on the island. After seeing the flag, Raffles felt it was safe to disembark.
The Chinese man, Chow Ah Chey (Cao Yazhi), was a Taishan Cantonese carpenter on Raffles’ ship, the Indiana. According to legend, to express his gratitude for Chow’s efforts, Raffles granted him two parcels of land:
However, when we carefully examine this widely-circulated legend, we can find many points that are questionable. First, there is uncertainty over the exact location of Chow’s landing. Some sources claim it was at the mouth of the Singapore River (behind present-day Parliament House), while others suggest it was at the mouth of Rochor River. There is still no consensus on this matter. Furthermore, British archival records do not mention Chow’s landing, and Raffles’ Log Book also lacks any related entries.
If we look at the situation back then, it is unlikely that Raffles would have entrusted 20 Indian Sepoy soldiers to a carpenter without military training. On top of that, if Chow really did land in Singapore, it would be more likely that he raised the flag of the British East India Company, rather than the Union Jack (flag of the United Kingdom).
So, did Chow really exist? According to the research of Tan Yeok Seong (1903–1984) in the article “Xinjiapo kaibu yuanxun Cao Yazhu kao” (A study on Cao Yazhu, pioneer of Singapore’s founding), Chow Ah Chey (Cao Yazhi) really existed, but his real name was Cao Yazhu. In the dialect of Taishan, Guangdong, the pronunciations of the characters “志” (zhi), “珠” (zhu), and “枝” (zhi) are exactly the same. Tan Yeok Seong’s verification is based on land deed records, which provide historical evidence.
If we rely solely on historical sources, whether Chow landed in Singapore before Raffles remains debatable. I believe Chow represents the image of early Chinese pioneers. Like Pangu, the creator god in Chinese mythology, the contributions of Singapore’s Chinese population require a legendary origin story. If it was not Chow Ah Chey, it could very well have been someone else, perhaps a “Wu Yazhi” or “Huang Yazhi”.