Ini Indexs
The 1980s were an era when Singapore’s Chinese songwriting scene flourished. The period also saw the emergence of xinyao — a new genre of local Chinese songs. In the beginning, xinyao was merely a channel for songwriters here to express their feelings rather than a proper musical movement. Still, there was no lack of talent or ambition among young xinyao aficionados.
Representative xinyao titles
Meanwhile, songwriters like Li Hua (Li Xuexun) and Huai Hua (Yin Guoqi) penned nostalgic hits in the style of 1970s songs about missing home, such as Chai chuantou (Cha Chun Tau)1 and Guxiang de huainian (Longing for Home).
Other songs with a similar musical style
During the same time, the National Theatre Composers’ Circle set up in 1980, began publishing a compilation series called Women de ge: Xinjiapo gequ chuangzuo (Songs by Singapore Composers) in the early 1980s. This series was a comprehensive collection of locally composed Chinese songs that featured key works of that era.
Collection of hits from Songs by Singapore Composers in the 1980s
Another representative song from the 1980s was Yinyue de huoyan (Flames of Music), a song that renowned musician Lee Howe (1915–2009) wrote for the concert commemorating the 30th anniversary of Lee Howe Choral Society.2
In 1984, the Singapore Arts Festival and the local Chinese theatre groups presented a play, The Oolah World, for which Singapore composer Phoon Yew Tien wrote three solo and choral pieces, with lyrics by Han Lao Da, namely Yue shi guxiang ming (Brighter is the Moon of Home), Yiqie dou neng jia (Everything Can Be False), and Caiyao ge (Gathering Herbs).
Then, in 1986, Leong Yoon Pin composed Jiuge (Nine Songs), an innovative full-scale choral piece based on the poem of the same name by Chinese poet Qu Yuan.
By the 1990s, traditional Chinese choral groups such as Lee Howe Choral Society, Herald’s Choral Society, Metro Philharmonic Choir, Le Yue Chamber Choir, and Melo Art Choir3 were facing a decline as the number of members dwindled. What emerged instead were younger choral groups which tended to be more Westernised in terms of songs and styles, in both classical and modern pieces.4 Many of the performances were also acapella formats, in stark contrast with the Chinese traditional choirs that typically required piano accompaniment. Changes in Singapore’s language and education landscape, where English had become the medium of instruction, also led to a sharp decline in new Chinese choral works in the 1990s. Despite these changes, there were still some new pieces that were written in the same vein as the earlier works.
Local Chinese songs of the 1990s written in the earlier style
In the 2000s, besides pop songs that were succeeded from xinyao, local Chinese songwriting in the traditional and classical style went into a decline. Noteworthy exceptions were Leong Yoon Pin’s Shandi zuge (Folk Flute Vocal Suite)5 written based on the score of the ancient flute in 2015, as well as Huayu (Confucius Cantata), a 10-movement choral work with music by Phoon Yew Tien and lyrics by Chong Wing Hong that was commissioned for the Singapore Festival of Arts 2001.
Under its successive presidents Lee Yuk Chuan, Quek Yong Siu and incumbent Chiew Keng Hoon, the Association of Composers (Singapore), formerly the National Theatre Composers’ Circle, has continued to publish Songs by Singapore Composers, which compilation includes works that are more varied and refreshing than those previously published.
Representative works in Songs by Singapore Composers after 2000
In 2020, Phoon Yew Tien collaborated with poet Lin Zi and produced a series of songs that reminisced about their hometowns in Singapore and Malaysia. These include solo pieces such as Yihai nian jiwang (Wishes for the Year of Yihai), Kunlun lang (Waves of Kunlun), Sanyue liuhuo (Third Month’s Fire), Taiping hu (Taiping Lake), Ouran (Chance Upon), Yujian (Encounter), Jia (Family), Chun (Spring), ), Qiu (Autumn), Zaochen (Morning), and choral pieces such as Chuntian hu (Spring Lake), Dujuan hua (Azaleas), Fengyue youqing (Love of the Breeze and the Moon), Jinian ce (Autograph Book), Na yipian qing caodi (That Patch of Green Fields), Yuandan (New Year’s Day), Yinghuochong (Fireflies), Pugongying (Dandelions), and Qingyuanchun — daonian xiaoshi de huaxiao (Spring in a Pleasure Garden — Remembering the Chinese Schools).6
Singapore has produced a good number of original Chinese songs from the 1930s to the 2000s, which reflected the sociocultural trends, aesthetic sensibilities and intellectual imprints of the times, with quality of the works also gradually improving due to enhancements in the learning environment and quality of teaching staff. Songs were still mainly written in numbered musical notation and stave, and performed in styles such as acapella (be it solo or choral), as well as solo, duet and choral works with piano, accordion or Chinese music ensemble accompaniment. Later, works were also written for vocal solo and a fuller choir accompanied by professional Chinese orchestras or symphony orchestras. On the whole, Chinese songs written in Singapore have kept up with the times and continued to improve in quality.
Ini Indexs
The history of Chinese literary groups in Singapore can be traced back to before World War II. As early as April 1939, poets such as Liu Si (Liu Shichao, 1917–2012), Tao Mu (Hong Lingrui, unknown–1960) and Yun Lang (Li Yunlang, 1914–1969) initiated a poetry group called the “Houshe” (Howl Society). They launched a movement to popularise poetry and published a popular poetry page in the Wenhui (Literary Society) supplement of The Union Times.
From the end of World War II to around 1970, a number of writers called for the establishment of a writers’ association for Chinese literature in Singapore and Malaya. The Singapore Chinese Writers’ Association was subsequently founded in late 1945, and the Singapore Chinese Literary Art Association in 1947. However, they were short-lived.
In the beginning of 1970s, during the debate in the Singapore Parliament on the Budget for 1970–1971, some members of parliament raised the issue of establishing a Chinese writers’ association. They believed that Chinese writers should band together and take it upon themselves to cultivate a conducive atmosphere for the development of literature.
Hence, new Chinese literary groups continued to form in Singapore since the 1970s, although some eventually went defunct due to a lack of successors. The literary groups can be classified into two main categories — literary associations registered with the Registry of Societies, and literary centres affiliated with community centres or clubs, or Chinese temple.
Today, the most significant ones are the Singapore Association of Writers and the Singapore Literature Society.
The Singapore Association of Writers was established in August 1970. The three co-presidents of its first executive committee were Lee Ting Hui (1931–2023), Miao Xiu (Lu Shaoquan, 1920–1980), and Liu Bei’an (Chua Boon Hean, 1906–1995).
Under the leadership of past presidents Wong Meng Voon, Wong Yoon Wah, Xi Ni Er and Denon Lim Denan and with the efforts of the former executive committee members, the association promoted a publishing and a literary culture, helped develop Singapore’s Chinese literature with a distinctively local flavour, and organised four international academic conferences. It received the Singapore Chinese Cultural Contribution Award in 2018. Its flagship publication, Xinhua Wenxue (Singapore Chinese Literature), known as Wenxue (Literature) when it was launched in 1978, remains an important platform for literary works in Singapore and beyond.
The Singapore Literature Society (originally named the Singapore Literature Research Society) was established in December 1980 with Yeo Song Nian as its first president. In 1990, under the leadership of Luo Ming (Yap Koon Chan), the society changed its name to its current one.
Its publications range from Singapore Literature to Xinhua Niandu Wenxuan (Annual Anthology of Singapore Chinese Literature). It also gives out “Salute to Literature” awards to senior Chinese writers who have contributed to the Chinese literary scene, as well as the Singapore Chinese Literature Prize to encourage literary enthusiasts to continue their creative endeavours. Furthermore, the association’s Singapore Chinese Literature Library, established in 2012, while not large, has more than a hundred years’ worth of Chinese literary materials, making it a valuable resource centre.
Ini Indexs
In 1980, the government restructured Radio and Television Singapore (RTS) to become the statutory board Singapore Broadcasting Corporation (SBC). This was in a bid “to free the Department of Broadcasting, Ministry of Culture, from administrative and financial constraints so that the organisation can expand and develop into a lively radio and television station”.1
From the very beginning, local television was tasked with the triple mission of informing, educating, and entertaining. In the RTS era, drama programmes primarily functioned as a means of social education through dramatic storytelling, and their entertainment value was relatively low. Following the establishment of SBC, local Chinese television drama began to shift its emphasis towards entertainment.
To increase viewership and attract advertisers, SBC started recruiting television talents, mainly from Hong Kong,2 to collaborate with local teams to increase the quantity and quality of its programmes. In 1982, SBC officially established the Chinese Drama Division, hiring scriptwriters and full-time actors. That same year, the one-episode drama Seletar Robbery paved the way for more local productions. The following year, in 1983, SBC released a number of television series,3 including the six-episode The Army Series, a military-themed drama filmed with the support of the Singapore Armed Forces.
In 1984, the release of The Awakening, a four-part series consisting of 53 episodes, propelled locally-produced television series to new heights. It saw the involvement of Hong Kong television veterans, with Lai Shui-ching as executive producer and Leung Lap-yan (1948–2020) and Jiang Long as writers. The epic drama series spanned the period from British colonisation and the Japanese occupation to post-war reconstruction, independence, and Singapore’s economic take-off, highlighting the experiences of the Chinese who sailed south to settle in Singapore. That year, SBC also released its first locally-produced martial arts drama The Pursuit.
From 1985 onwards, SBC produced multiple drama series with more than 20 episodes every year, marking a shift towards an era of mass production in local television. In 1986, the 510-episode long-form drama Neighbours was released, airing for two years. Its theme song “Voices from the Heart” is still widely performed and enjoyed by Singaporeans. The Coffeeshop, released in the same year, later became the first local drama series to hit one million viewers.4
In 1979, RTS set up a dubbing unit in response to the Speak Mandarin Campaign. Its initial function was to translate Hong Kong television dramas into Mandarin. After the establishment of SBC the following year, the dubbing unit proved invaluable as many of the recruited actors had a less than desirable proficiency in Mandarin. Seletar Robbery was the first local drama to be dubbed. As the volume of production increased, the dubbing of local programmes became the focus of the unit’s work. It was not until the late 1990s that local television series featured the original voices of the cast. 5
Seeing as Chinese television dramas were so well-received locally, SBC decided to dub some of its more popular Chinese series into English to widen their reach. The first Chinese serial dubbed in English was Samsui Women, followed by The Army Series, The Coffeeshop, On the Fringe, Against the Wind, Crime and Passion, and others. This not only allowed the Chinese who did not understand Mandarin, but also fellow non-Chinese Singaporeans, to enjoy locally-produced television drama series.6
In the 1990s, Singapore television series were not just popular locally, but seen as a form of soft power. Besides being exported overseas to Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Thailand, Malaysia, Australia, the United States, and Canada, among others, these series also gained a huge following in China.7
Apart from dramas, variety shows were another mainstay in Chinese programming. Live from Studio One series, which began with Live from Studio One Friday8 in May 1981, was considered the vanguard of variety shows in the 1980s. Due to positive viewer response, Live from Studio One Monday and Live from Studio One Wednesday were added. At the end of 1983, the show aired every day of the week from Monday to Friday, and was collectively renamed Live from Studio One at 8:30 p.m.. In 1987, it merged with Family Hour in the evening slot and was renamed Studio One Presents.9 The series did not end until 1991, when Variety Tonight10 took over.
Variety shows in this period also included games, trivia, and skits, in addition to song and dance. Wang Sha (1925–1998) and Ye Feng (1932–1995), who were popular in the 1970s for their dialect comedies, continued to bring laughter to Singaporeans through their participation in these Chinese variety shows in Mandarin in the 1980s. At the same time, a new generation of comedy stars such as Hua Liang (1953–1995) and Zhao Jin rose to prominence, alongside emerging talents like Jack Neo and Moses Lim. These performers aimed to educate their audience while entertaining them through skits and comedy.
The production of Chinese television programmes in the SBC era not only increased in quantity, but improved in quality as well. With limited television channels in the 1980s, locally-produced Chinese programmes that aired during primetime slots mostly made the top ten in ratings, with viewership easily starting from 500,000 to 600,000 and peaking at over a million. These Chinese-language programmes were the main driver of SBC’s viewership ratings and, more importantly, allowed viewers to engage with local stories and topics on the small screen. These stories reflected the shared values of citizens in a country that had diverse ethnicities, languages, religions, and cultures.
Ini Indexs
Buddhism in Singapore has undergone various phases of development since it was brought in by early Chinese migrants in the 19th century. In the early days, they practised a popular Chinese religion that incorporated Buddhist deities and elements. Today, Chinese who practised popular Chinese religion and Taoism continue to practise this composite form of religion. While the central deities in many Chinese and Taoist temples may not be Buddhist, there are nevertheless Buddhist deities in almost all of these temples. Despite this, there emerged a group of first-generation humanistic monks who not only catered to the spiritual and ritual needs of the Chinese population but also engaged in different types of welfare services.
The 1970s and 1980s ushered in a new phase in the development of Buddhism in Singapore, culminating in the move towards Reformist Buddhism. Reformist Buddhism during this period entailed three key areas of development: the shift towards Buddhist dharma and teachings; the shift towards the reforming of the organisational structure; and the shift towards introducing different types of socio-religious, educational, and welfare activities as a result of the rise of charismatic Buddhist sangha (community of monks and nuns) and lay Buddhism.
From the late 20th century to the turn of the 21st century, a new phase emerged — the rise of Compassionate Buddhism. In this phase, Reformist Buddhism went one step further and developed social activities, welfare, and Buddhist philanthropy.
During this period, Reformist Buddhism attracted a sizeable group of young Singaporeans in their 20s to 40s, as many of the well-educated Chinese Singaporeans were exploring the religious scene. This was also a time when evangelical Christians were actively recruiting members to their denominations. Some of these well-educated Chinese Singaporeans became aware of Reformist Buddhism and were attracted to the Buddhist scriptures and the charismatic monks who conducted dharma classes on a weekly basis. During this nascent period of Reformist Buddhism, there was only a small group of young male Singaporeans who were ordained as Mahayana Buddhist monks. Some young nuns were also adopted by the nunnery and trained as monastics. Some of the Reformist monks were under the tutelage and influence of the early humanistic monks such as Venerable Hong Choon (1907–1990),1Venerable Yen Pei (1918–1996),2 Venerable Ven Siong Khye (1916–1990),3 and Venerable Long Gen (1921–2011). To supplement the shortage of sangha members, several young Mahayana monks were recruited from Taiwan and served primarily Mandarin-speaking Buddhists. While conducting dharma services, a number of Mahayana monks used Mandarin and Hokkien to engage the older Chinese population.
At the same time, there was the development of the Tibetan and Theravada branches of Buddhism alongside lay Buddhism. These new Buddhist organisations emerged in Singapore to cater to the island’s emerging English-speaking Buddhist population. Several young male Singaporeans were ordained as Theravada monks, while a small group of Tibetan monks were recruited to serve the English-speaking community. There were also two big Theravada Buddhist temples here. Mangala Vihara in Jalan Eunos catered to a large English-speaking Peranakan community as well as Singaporean Singhalese Buddhists, while Sri Lankaramaya Buddhist Temple at St. Michael’s Road served primarily the Singaporean Sinhalese population. Public Buddhist dharma teachings were conducted in the Sinhala language. Both of these temples also conducted dharma classes in English for young Singaporeans.
Today, the focus on Buddhist scriptures remains an important part of Reformist Buddhism. Many of these Buddhist temples and lay organisations conduct dharma classes in either English or Mandarin. Some Buddhist organisations are effectively bilingual and conduct dharma teachings in both languages. Others, such as the Sinhalese Sri Lankaramaya Buddhist Temple, do so in the vernacular language that caters to the local Sinhalese population as well as migrant workers who usually visit the temple on Sundays.
With the increased number of Buddhist expatriates and migrant workers from South Asia and Southeast Asia in the last few decades, many ethnic-based Buddhist temples — namely Thai and Burmese ones — have also emerged.
Another aspect of Reformist Buddhism is the bureaucratisation of Buddhist temples where religious organisations with a charitable status come under the state’s regulatory control. Almost all of the earlier village-style temples had adopted modern bureaucracy, leading to the separation of the religious from the secular within the temple structure, and religious roles from non-religious roles. In the early years, the village-style temple was managed by the head monk and nun with the assistance of some lay people. Today, the temple structure and roles are clearly defined, with a board of directors/trustees as well as financial and other divisions, depending on the scope and scale of the temple and its activities.
Some of the big Buddhist temples have also spun off their socio-cultural and welfare activities into separate entities, although they continue to be associated with the temples. A modern organisational structure with well-defined roles ensures accountability in the use of public money for various socio-religious and welfare purposes. Under Singapore’s laws, religious governance is key to ensuring that the temples function within the purview of the religious framework. This is especially important in multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore, where racial and religious harmony is vital for social cohesion. Additionally, the socio-cultural and welfare activities conducted by the Buddhist temples are generally open to people of all religious backgrounds.
In Singapore, individual charismatic monks, nuns, and lay Buddhists have long engaged in Buddhist socio-cultural, educational, and welfare activities. One of the most sought-after services is the traditional Chinese medical treatment offered by the Singapore Buddhist Free Clinic, which opened its first clinic in 1969. In the 1980s and 1990s, the rise of a group of younger, forward-looking charismatic monks and nuns reshaped the Buddhist landscape in Singapore. During this period, many of these younger monks and nuns took over leadership roles from the older generation of monks and nuns. The passing of this religious baton has also resulted in a new approach to Buddhism. While the younger leaders respect the importance of Buddhist prayers and rituals to the Chinese and Buddhist community in Singapore, they also gradually shifted and expanded their focus on socio-cultural activities, education, and welfare work.
Buddhist organisations and temples that are involved in socio-cultural, educational, and welfare works include the Metta Welfare Association, which was started by Venerable Chao Khun Fa Zhao of the Golden Pagoda Temple; Tai Pei Buddhist Centre started by the Tai Pei Buddhist Temple under a charismatic nun named Venerable Fatt Kuan; Singapore Buddhist Welfare Services (SBWS), which was founded by the late Venerable Yen Pei and later expanded and helmed by his disciple, Venerable Kuan Yan; Foo Hai Chan Monastery under the present abbot Venerable Ming Yi, who has expanded the socio-religious and welfare arm of the temple. Under its Foo Hai Buddhist Culture and Welfare Association, it established the Ren Ci Community Hospital and nursing homes which serve the general population.
Other Buddhist temples and organisations focus on social and community activities. For example, the Singapore Buddhist Lodge is a lay Buddhist organisation providing free vegetarian meals daily and also educational scholarships and welfare funds for the Singapore community. Likewise, Kong Meng San Phor Kark See Monastery has directed its attention towards dharma education. Under its present abbot Venerable Sik Kwang Sheng, it also offers an array of family, community, and counselling services.
During the 21st century, there has been a heightened development of Compassionate Buddhism that has attracted modern Buddhists who see the relevance of socially-engaged Buddhism.4The understanding of karma, merit-making, the expansion of the karmic field, and the idea of a living bodhisattva contribute to their commitment in upholding social engagement in Buddhism. This includes contributing their efforts, time, and resources to various compassionate fields.
Within the Singapore Buddhist landscape, it has led to the rise of the Buddhist moral self and the development of Buddhist compassion, Buddhist philanthropy, and the expansion of Buddhist compassionate fields and localised compassionate microfields. Here, we witnessed the development of various types of social and welfare services and activities targeting specific needs of different social groups as well as the wider population. These services provided by different Buddhist organisations serve the needs of the local compassionate fields, while small formal and informal Buddhist groups serve the localised compassionate microfields. As a result, there has been a rapid rise in a wide range of Buddhist care services. These include six main types of care services: (1) homes and care centres for the elderly population; (2) medical services; (3) schools and centres for children for special needs and disabilities; (4) kindergartens and childcare centres; (5) local and transnational disaster and emergency relief; and (6) rehabilitation programmes and halfway houses for former drug addicts.5Apart from these, there are many other social and cultural as well as recreational and leisure services for Buddhists and the general public.
The Buddhist compassionate and philanthropic field is highly organised and managed through partnership with the Singapore government to ensure accountability and high-quality services. Most of the eldercare welfare services are provided in partnership with the National Council of Social Service, Ministry of Social and Family Development, and Ministry of Health,6 while those involved in education services work with the Ministry of Education. At the same time, these Reformist Buddhist organisations are also reaching out to the corporate sector to forge partnerships in delivering welfare services to the communities in need. Further, Buddhist compassion goes beyond Singapore. Many of these Buddhist organisations are also actively involved in raising funds for regional and transnational disaster and relief efforts. In some cases, Buddhist volunteers have provided aid at disaster sites.
One key challenge faced by Compassionate Buddhism today is that of sustainability. It needs to attract, retain, and expand a large group of highly-disciplined, socially-engaged Buddhists who are committed and capable of forging ahead with the different types of socio-religious and welfare services. They should also be creative in developing new services in the face of new societal challenges.
A second challenge is its holistic integration into the society as an important third force — a religious non-governmental organisation — to cater to the needy and the marginalised, both within and beyond Singapore. In this aspect, partnerships with the state, the corporate, and the civil society sectors will enable Compassionate Buddhism to fulfil its mission.
Finally, it needs to adapt to new challenges and growing social expectations as new needs emerge as a result of changing local demographics, polarity of wealth, and the arrival of new migrants amidst a rapidly-changing environment.
Ini Indexs
Taoism and local religious traditions in Singapore are tapestries of ancient philosophies, cultural practices, and spiritual beliefs. Rooted in Chinese society, history, and culture, they have adapted to Singapore’s multicultural landscape. In 2023, the Singapore Taoist Federation (est. 1990) had 569 member organisations — a testament to the diversity of groups associated with Taoism and Chinese religion in Singapore.1 These religious organisations exhibit varying beliefs. Some centre their activities around the service of spirit mediums, while others engage in scripture recitation and charity.
Despite the independent existence of Taoism and local religious traditions, their pantheons, ethical systems, and ritual practices intersect significantly. For instance, events marking the birthdays of local gods often involve the presence of Taoist priests and key Taoist rituals, such as grand renewal ceremonies known as jiao to bless and protect the community.2
It is not clear when exactly Taoism and Chinese religious traditions emerged in Singapore, although it happened sometime during the 19th century mass migration of predominantly South Chinese migrants to Singapore. Among them were the Hokkiens, who hailed from southern Fujian, and the Teochews, from the Chaoshan region in Guangdong province. Seeking spiritual protection in a foreign land, these migrants carried their worshipped deities with them in the form of consecrated images or other sacred objects, including incense ashes from the censers of these divinities. Common worship of some of these deities extended beyond conventional boundary lines — such as place of origin, occupation, and dialect — that existed between different groups of overseas Chinese.
Some of the earliest Chinese temples built in Singapore by the Hokkien and Teochew communities were dedicated to the goddess Mazu, revered for ensuring safe passage at sea. Notable examples are Thian Hock Keng in Telok Ayer Street, and Yueh Hai Ching Temple in Phillip Street, which were founded in the 1820s and catered predominantly to Hokkien and Teochew migrants. A similar pattern of organisation along the lines of place of origin and dialect can be observed in the case of the deity Tua Pek Kong, also known as Fude Zhengshen. Temples dedicated to Tua Pek Kong in Fuk Tak Chi temple and Hock Teck See temple (also known as Fook Tet Soo Khek temple) were mainly supported by Hakka and Cantonese donors, as evidenced by the stelae and plaques found in these temples.3
In the suburbs of Singapore, smaller temples dedicated to specific deities, such as Tua Pek Gong, also emerged. Examples are Soon Thian Keing (1820 –1821), Goh Chor Tua Pek Kong (1847), and Sar Kong Mun San Fook Tuck Chee (1862). Supported by local labourers and kampong communities, these temples were complemented by numerous spirit-medium temples in the suburbs. These community-centric temples, often led by charismatic spirit mediums, mobilised entire neighbourhoods during significant events such as the birthdays of their respective patron deities. Festivities involve rituals such as Crossing the Bridge of Peace and Safety, as well as self-mortification ceremonies by spirit mediums culminating in a procession through the neighbourhood (known as “yew keng”) to ward off malevolent forces. Many of these ceremonies have survived to this day.4
Diasporic communities in Singapore historically formed groups based on shared lineages and surnames, leading to the emergence of various deity followings across these different immigrant communities. Up till the present day, historical ties related to origin, occupation, dialect, and surname continue to shape allegiances to religious institutions. Examples include the worship of Guangze Zunwang among the Nan’an Hokkien community, whose temples share the name Fengshansi. Benevolence Halls, organised under the Blue Cross in Singapore, are predominantly led by the Teochew community.5 Despite this leadership, these organisations provide services for individuals of diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds. Additionally, the traditions of the Cantonese community endure in the Kwong Wai Siew Peck San Theng, established in the 1870s by Cantonese and Hakka migrants.6
Numerous temples established in pre-independence Singapore have undergone relocations, frequently merging into Combined/United Temples, in alignment with the state’s land management initiatives. In this process, multiple smaller temples pool their resources to acquire the lease for a parcel of land and construct a shared facility for the worship of their respective deities.7 The allocation of land for religious use is governed by state and market forces, with temples frequently engaging in competitive bidding for 30-year leases. Smaller organisations, unable to bear the costs, have relocated to Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats or flatted factories.8 Post-independence Singapore also witnessed the growing formalisation of temple governance, with a focus on leadership, registration, and adherence to auditing cycles. This reflects an increasing trend toward bureaucratisation, where accountability and managerial expertise are emphasised. Temples typically consist of a committee of leaders, including chairpersons, vice chairpersons, secretaries, treasurers, and auditors.9
The final decade of the 20th century marked the rise of organisations dedicated to advancing research and outreach initiatives within and across Taoist and Chinese religious institutions. The establishment of the Singapore Taoist Federation in 1990 exemplifies this trend, with its goals encompassing the promotion of public awareness and understanding of Taoist culture, research support, and involvement in community and welfare services.10 The Sanqing Taoist Library opened in 2008, and the Singapore Taoist College organised expert seminars, reflecting a growing emphasis on education and outreach for the promotion of Taoist knowledge.11 The Singapore Taoist Mission, founded in 1996, shares similar objectives of propagating Taoism, promoting Chinese culture, supporting community welfare, and fostering inter-religious harmony.12
In addition to organisations with permanent locations, Chinese religious institutions referred to as hui (association) are only active at certain times of the year. These institutions are characterised by their worship of a deity through an incense censer, and might fit within larger organisations, such as temples, clan, trade, or surname organisations, where devotees contribute funds to celebrate the patron deity’s birthday.
The term “Nine Emperor Gods Sacred Associations”, for example, is employed to denote the event, organisers, and devotees of the Nine Emperor Gods Festival, again testimony to their interchangeable and interconnected nature in religious life. Before the festival commences on the last week of the eighth lunar month, devotees gather at an incense censer to receive the deities, who are believed to arrive from a water body such as the sea. Conversely, to mark the event’s conclusion on the ninth day, the deities are sent off in a similar manner, which mirrors the dispersal of the association responsible for organising the event until the coming year. Another example of hui is the Milky Way associations, which were once highly popular among the Cantonese in Singapore. Sponsors and organisers of these associations would assemble to celebrate the Double Seventh Festival with a range of offerings, including cosmetics, food, and intricate incense paper.13
Also prevalent in Singapore are Zhongyuan hui — groups of people who organise events for the Hungry Ghost Festival in the seventh lunar month. These organisations can be found in many places, including hawker centres, markets, merchant associations and among wholesalers.14 Each Zhongyuan hui is centred around an incense censer, serving not only as a piece of communal property but also providing a focal point for devotees to worship wandering spirits during the seventh lunar month. A censer master, chosen with the help of divination blocks, is responsible for upkeeping the property and censer. The master also typically leads the establishment of a temporary altar during the seventh lunar month festivities. This tradition is particularly strong in older HDB estates.15
Singapore’s multicultural society, and the acceptance of other deities and belief systems by practitioners of Chinese religion, have contributed to the emergence of syncretic beliefs unique to Singapore. For example, Habib Noh (1788–1866), whose tomb is located on Palmer Road, had a penchant for enjoying operas held at the nearby Hock Teck See temple during his lifetime.16 To this day, Chinese devotees continue to visit the keramat, making donations in the present era. Similarly, Chinese devotees on Kusu Island refrain from pork and adopt vegetarian diets before visiting its Chinese temple and three keramat-turned-Datuks.17 Among practitioners of Chinese religion, Datuk Gong is a title given to Malay-Muslim spirits, serving as guardians indigenous to the local area.
In various shrines across Singapore and Malaysia, local deities anthropomorphised as Datuk Gong represent a fusion of Chinese religious ideas with Malay/Muslim symbolism. These Datuk Gong, sometimes revered alongside Ganesha, are venerated with offerings of incense sticks. Notable examples include the Jiutiaoqiao Xinba Nadugong Temple and Loyang Tua Pek Kong, where the worship of Datuk Gong and Ganesha coexist within the same ritual spaces, albeit with separate altars and incense censers.
Instances of inter-religious exchanges between Taoist and Hindu groups further illustrate Singapore’s multi-ethnic nature.18 These involve the sharing of ritual spaces, as well as an openness among devotees to participate in each other’s ceremonies.
Ini Indexs
In Singapore, schools founded by Hainanese people experienced a golden age in the 1950s. In the past, principals of Hainanese schools were all Hainanese. It was not until the 1980s and 1990s that non-Hainanese principals were appointed, after schools like Yock Eng High School (renamed Yuying Secondary School in 1987) and Pei Chun Public School broke the tradition.
During the 1950s and 1960s, a Chinese School Sports Meet was held every year. Prior to that annual event, Hainanese-founded schools would hold a Hainanese School Sports Meet (quanxing qiongxiao yundong hui) at Jalan Besar Stadium, which allowed teachers and students from various Hainanese schools to build relationships with one another. Newspapers also featured special sections that showcased the spirit of unity among Hainanese schools.
Hainanese people placed great emphasis on their children’s education, and have made significant contributions to the fields of public service, education and culture. Many notable Singaporeans are all of Hainanese descent, including Prime Minister Lawrence Wong and scholars such as Wu Teh Yao (1915–1994) and Lim Chong Yah (1932–2023). There are also numerous Hainanese individuals working in Chinese and English media as journalists and reporters.
Many Hainanese forefathers emigrated from their hometowns with limited education and a modest income. However, they aspired to provide their children with ample opportunities for education, hoping to secure a better life for them. As a result, they invested money and effort to establish schools such as Eng Hung School, which was founded with contributions from a group of Hainanese who worked for foreigners living near Tanglin, an affluent district in Singapore.
In the past, schools established by Hainanese people were distributed across the island. These included Yock Eng School (Yuying Secondary School), Pei Chun Public School, Eng Hung School, Sheng Hwa Public School, Sheng Wah Public School, Wa Mong School, Zhen Qun School, Pen Min School, Pui Tak School, and Han Guang School. These Hainanese schools were typically located in urban areas and would often rent pre-war shophouses as school buildings. Meanwhile, those in rural areas used temples or makeshift stages as classrooms. School facilities were usually quite basic.
As public housing estates emerged rapidly in the 1970s, people started to move into flats. Consequently, the population in rural areas began to decline, leading to low enrolment. Urban and rural Hainanese schools gradually closed down, leaving only Yuying Secondary School (located in Hougang) and Pei Chun Public School (in Toa Payoh).
Yock Eng School (renamed Yock Eng High School in 1949 and Yuying Secondary School in 1987) was founded in the 20th century by seven Hainanese leaders, namely Wee Cheow Keng (1860–1939), Huang Kehui, Yun Changlang, He Yulin, Lu Xiyao, Chen Kaiguo, and Fu Changbin.1 They raised funds tirelessly, eventually establishing Yock Eng School in 1910. It started out as a primary school with just twenty students. By 1925, the number of students had increased to 400. During the Japanese occupation, the school had to close. Operations resumed in 1946, when a secondary school was added. Following that, a high school was established in 1956.
Yock Eng School relocated several times. It was initially located at Prinsep Street, but moved to Tanjong Katong Road and later to Hougang. In 1957, it officially became a government-aided school.
Pei Chun Public School is a Special Assistance School. It was selected as the South Zone Centre of Excellence for Chinese Studies and the South Zone Centre of Excellence for Sports. Since its establishment in 1933, it went through several relocations, moving from its initial location at 83 Tanglin Road to Orchard Road, then Anderson Road and Balmoral Road. After that, it shifted to its current location in Toa Payoh.
Ini Indexs
The worship of heaven, earth, and natural elements was of significant importance in ancient Chinese beliefs. This was because man’s survival was dependent on the natural environment in the early days, when productivity was relatively low. As a result, people developed complex feelings of fear, awe, and dependency towards natural phenomena. The earth, which is the wellspring of life, naturally became an object of worship for ancient Chinese. As land and agriculture were closely intertwined, earth deity Tua Pek Kong became a deity widely worshipped by the Chinese across different dialect groups. For instance, one can see numerous Tua Pek Kong temples across Singapore, Malaysia, and Taiwan. These temples are not owned by individuals of a specific origin, but have become places of worship for people from different backgrounds.
What is the relationship between Tua Pek Kong and the Hakka people? This topic has been extensively explored by many experts on Southeast Asia, with notable works including Han Wai Toon’s (1891–1970) “Dabo gong kao” (A Study on Tua Pek Kong, 1940); Hsu Yun Tsiao’s (1905–1981) “Dabo gong, erbo gong yu bentou gong” (Tua Pek Kong, Er Pek Kong, and Pun Tao Kong, 1951); and Tan Yeok Seong’s (1903–1984) “Tokong kao” (On the Local God Tokong, 1951).
These discussions present two major interpretations of the attributes and significance of Tua Pek Kong worship. One perspective regards him as a regional guardian deity associated with the worship of land, while the other views him as the ancestral spirit of forebears and his worship as the veneration of early ancestors. Hakka people who live in mountainous and inland regions hold a deep reverence for the Earth Deity, seeking from him divine protection and bountiful harvests. As Hakkas commonly address their male elders as “Tua Pek Kong” or granduncle, they used the same term for the Earth Deity to establish a closer connection with him. Unlike figures such as Mazu or Guan Yu, who are historical figures, Tua Pek Kong is a local land deity associated with a specific place, and holds a position bestowed upon him by a divine entity or deified individual.
In Chinese religious beliefs, renowned historical figures such as Han Changli (Han Yu), a literary figure from the Tang dynasty, are also considered land deities.1 Such a role combines elements of ancestors or revered spirits. Tua Pek Kong is thus a composite of a land deity and an esteemed spirit, making him one of the key deities worshipped by the Hakka community. When the Hakka people migrated to various regions in Southeast Asia, including Singapore, they brought the worship of Tua Pek Kong with them. Tua Pek Kong not only fulfils the role of a land deity but also serves as a protector, blessing and safeguarding the Hakka pioneers who ventured southwards to make a living overseas.
Along Shenton Way in the bustling Central Business District of Singapore stands a historic temple that has borne witness to the city-state’s rapid development. Hock Teck See temple (also known as Fook Tet Soo Khek temple) is said to have been established by Hakka individuals in 1844. It was originally known as Tanjong Pagar Fook Tet Soo, and was founded by representatives from the eight districts of Kar Yeng (Meixian, Pingyuan, Xingning, Wuhua, and Jiaoling) and Fong Yun Thai (Fengshun, Yongding, and Dabu).
As the temple was first built by the sea, it is also commonly referred to as the Wang Hai Da Bo Gong Miao (Sea-facing Tua Pek Kong Temple). At its inception, Hakka clan associations Ying Fo Fui Kun and Fong Yun Thai Associations each sent 20 directors as representatives. These representatives then designated someone from among themselves as temple president on a rotational basis every two years. The position of manager was appointed by the team of each term, and the treasurer was appointed by the other group, forming a board of directors to jointly manage the temple’s affairs.
When the temple was established is less clear. Older Hakka generations have pointed out that Hakka immigrants had already been venerating Tua Pek Kong at the CBD location when Stamford Raffles (1781–1826) landed in Singapore. But it was only later, as the number of worshippers increased, that the temple was built. By this account, the temple boasts a history spanning close to two centuries.
Another Hakka temple, established in 1824 at Telok Ayer Street, was Fuk Tak Chi temple, known as Hai Chun Fu De Ci (Tua Pek Kong Temple by the seaside).2 In 1854, it was reconstructed with donations from both the Hakka and Cantonese communities. The contributors included leaders from Kwong Wai Shiu (Guangzhou, Huizhou, and Zhaoqing), Kar Yeng Five Districts, and Fong Yun Thai. In 1869, additional donations from the Cantonese and Hakka communities facilitated the temple’s expansion. At the same time, Hokkien businessman Cheang Hong Lim (1825–1893) donated additional land, which ensured the temple’s stable development. Fuk Tak Chi temple is an example of early collaboration between the Hakka and Cantonese communities in establishing temples to safeguard their interests in Singapore.
But Fuk Tak Chi temple had to give up its central location as Singapore’s development gained pace. After extensive negotiations and discussions, the government acquired its land in March 1985. Today, what remains of Fuk Tak Chi temple is only the exterior structure and inscriptions on the interior walls.
Hakka pioneers in Singapore came from the mountainous regions of Guangdong and Fujian. They ventured overseas to seek a livelihood and went on to establish ethnic temples for their community in Singapore. The establishment of Hock Teck See temple and Fuk Tak Chi temple reflects not only their struggles and achievements, but also their collaborative efforts with other dialect groups, constituting a key chapter in the history of Singapore’s Chinese community.
Ini Indexs
Chinese burial grounds, which served the needs of Singapore’s immigrant society, were based on the traditional Chinese culture of ancestral worship. The administration of these burial grounds was closely linked to dialect group politics of the time. In the 19th century, a dual political structure formed within Singaporean Chinese society. On one side was the powerful Hokkien dialect group, and on the other was a united front made up of the Cantonese, Hakkas, Teochews and Hainanese, headed by Cantonese and Hakka factions.1 The alliance between the Cantonese and Hakkas was a result of the Hakkas from Huizhou leaving the Hakka clan association to join forces with the Cantonese from the Guang and Zhao prefectures. This led to the formation of Kwong Wai Siew association, which later formed a united front with Kar Yeng Five Districts and Fong Yun Thai, two major Hakka groups from the Hakka bang. This alliance between the Cantonese and Hakkas eventually extended to the management of burial grounds.
The three Cantonese-Hakka clan associations, Kwong Wai Siew, Kar Yeng and Fong Yun Thai in the 1820s and 1830s jointly built the first burial ground, Cheng San Teng.2 It was located in the coastal area east of Ann Siang Hill, which is now the area west of Peck Seah Street. Until 1838, “the graves of Cheng San Teng line up like fish scales, not only do the headstones touch each other, but coffins often pile up upon coffins, indeed a miserable sight to witness”.3 So the Cantonese and Hakka clan associations began to look for a new burial ground to replace Cheng San Teng.
In 1840, three Cantonese and Hakka clan associations applied for a section of a hilly area in the suburbs to be used as a new public graveyard. On 20 January 1840, the British colonial government issued Land Deed No. 1525 with a term of 999 years, which stipulated that the land was not allowed to be used for other purposes, and once the lot was no longer used as a burial ground, it should be returned to the government. The new burial ground was named Loke Yah Teng, after the green hills and green fields in the area.4
In the second half of the 19th century, the population of Cantonese and Hakkas increased, with a huge wave of immigrants from southern China entering Singapore to make a living. As a result, Loke Yah Teng, a public graveyard, could no longer meet the burial needs of the Cantonese and Hakka ethnic groups. As a result, Kwong Wai Siew, Kar Yeng and Fong Yun Thai separately found sites to set up their own burial ground.
Kwong Wai Siew Peck San Theng (hereinafter “Peck San Theng”) was a cemetery management organisation started by immigrants from the Guangzhou, Huizhou and Zhaoqing prefectures in Guangdong province. It was jointly established by nine clan associations of the Kwong Wai Siew community in 1870.5 Later on, four clan associations under the Guangzhou prefecture – Ching Yoon, Fa Yun, Shun Tak and Chen Loong – and three guilds under the Zhaoqing prefecture, Koh Yiu, Hok San, and Yen Peng, joined too. Peck San Theng thus became a joint administration under 16 Kwong Wai Siew clan associations.
In the 20th century, Peck San Theng, in its efforts to develop, purchased 107.5 acres of land in 1948 for S$54,000, increasing the size of the burial ground to 253 acres. After that, it continued to purchase more land, and by 1973, Peck San Theng spanned 324 acres. On 28 August 1973, the Ministry of National Development issued a closure order, and in 1979, the government officially requisitioned Peck San Theng.
Peck San Theng representatives held numerous negotiations with the Ministry of National Development, and eventually obtained an eight-acre site for future development. In the 1980s, Peck San Theng transformed from a burial grounds administration to an operator of columbarium services, cultural heritage activities and welfare services. It also turned the only remaining eight acres into a tourist attraction.
In 1882, the Hakkas originating from Guangdong’s Fengshun and Dabu counties, and Fujian’s Yongding county, bought a piece of land over 150 acres on Holland Road and established the burial grounds of the Fong Yun Thai Kongsi, which were known as Yu Shan Teng. The Fong Yun Thai Ancestral Hall was also built on the site to house and honour ancestral tablets. That same year, Fong Yun Thai Kongsi had been established by members of the three clans (approval was obtained in 1909).6 It was renamed the Fong Yun Thai Association before the turn of the 20th century. In December 1970, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore announced in the Republic of Singapore Government Gazette that the majority of the Yu Shan Teng burial site would be requisitioned as an inland container warehouse. After it was requisitioned in 1975, the Fong Yun Thai Association set up a burial hill development management committee, a 10-member committee responsible for planning, developing and making full use of the 6.38 acres of land that was preserved.
In the second half of the 19th century, Ying Fo Fui Kun purchased a site on Holland Road in 1887 and turned it into a burial ground. The two hills in the front and back of the site looked like a crouching dragon, so a fengshui master suggested naming it Shuang Long Shan. The two burial hills, commonly called the xinshan (new hill) and laoshan (old hill) burial sites, had a total area of 90 acres, and were together known as the Kar Yeng Five Districts Shuang Long Yishan (hereinafter Shuang Long Shan).
In the early days of Singapore’s independence, Shuang Long Shan met the same fate as the two aforementioned Cantonese and Hakka burial grounds. Shuang Long Shan, located in a site earmarked for development, received official notice of partial land requisition from the government in 1963. On 21 April 1963, the association executives resolved to send representatives to negotiate on 24 April of the same year. The Ministry of National Development later approved the return of about five acres of lower-lying land for use by Ying Fo Fui Kun to build a burial site and memorial hall. Since Shuang Long Shan was requisitioned, the association placed urns on both sides of the existing Shuang Long Shan Wu Shu Ancestral Hall containing the ashes of the ancestors of the five districts.
Ancestor worship is an important belief integral to the Hakka community, and brings the entire ethnic group together. Cheng San Teng, Loke Yah Teng, Peck San Theng, Fong Yun Thai Ancestral Hall and Shuang Long Shan are all important places of ancestor worship for local Hakkas. The period from the 1960s to the 1980s was an important one for Singapore’s development. Hakka burial hills were requisitioned by the government for construction and development. Consequently, cemetery management organisations transformed into associations promoting culture and welfare.
Ini Indexs
The development of art in Singapore, from its formative stage up till the mid-20th century, was inextricably linked to the Chinese community’s collective efforts to build up the foundation of education on the island. Although Sir Stamford Raffles (1781–1826), the founder of modern Singapore, had expressed the wish to “render our stations not only the seats of commerce but of literature and arts”, the first art instructor from England did not arrive till 1923 — more than a century later. While the British established an art academy in India (as the French did in Vietnam, and the Dutch did in Indonesia), they did not do so in Singapore.
Singapore’s earliest school was Raffles Institution, which was founded in 1823 to provide education for the children in the local community. According to an 1829 account by Reverend Claudius Henry Thomsen (1782–1835) of the London Missionary Society in Singapore, Rev. Thomsen had started three privately-run schools that taught in Cantonese and Hokkien in Kampong Glam and Pekin Street. These private schools preceded the establishment of free schools such as Chongwen Ge and Chui Eng Si E by the Hokkiens in 1849 and 1854 respectively. After the failed Hundred Days’ Reform in 1898, the Chinese in Singapore began forming “modern” schools such as Chong Cheng School, Yeung Ching School and Yin Sin School in 1905; Khee Fatt School and Tuan Mong School in 1906; and Tao Nan School in 1907. The Chinese High School and Chung Cheng High School were subsequently established in 1919 and 1939 respectively. Many of the teachers in these “modern” Chinese schools were artists and calligraphers who were also actively engaged in art education. The development of Chinese art in Singapore was therefore inextricably related to the Chinese school system.
By comparison, Malay education received little support from the colonial government until 1856, when two Malay day schools were set up in Telok Blangah and Kampong Glam. Tamil schools struggled to survive due to various challenges such as a small Tamil-speaking population and the lack of teachers. Other schools whose medium of instruction was English were also increasing in number as the island’s population grew. Among them were St Margaret’s School (1842), St Joseph’s Institution (1852), Convent of the Holy Infant Jesus (1854), St Andrew’s School (1862), Gan Eng Seng School (1885), Anglo Chinese School (1886), Methodist Girls’ School (1887) and Outram Secondary School (1906).
The emphasis on calligraphy, which predisposed students to aesthetic education, was a common feature of Chinese schools. Calligraphy remained very much in practice during the first two decades of the 20th century. During that period, the intelligentsia in China pushed for modernisation through dramatic social and cultural reforms, leading to the May Fourth Movement in China in 1919. Such events had a direct impact on art education in Singapore as almost all the art teachers in Chinese schools were from China.
Cai Yuanpei (1868–1940), China’s most influential educator and reformer, who served as the first education minister of the Republican government and head of Peking University, came to Singapore while en route to Europe on a study tour on 5 December 1920. During his brief stopover, he visited the newly-established Chinese High School and Tao Nan School and spoke at both venues. He spoke at some length at Tao Nan School, where students and staff were joined by those from Chinese High School, Tuan Mong School and Khee Fatt School. In his address, he reiterated that an equal emphasis on physical education, knowledge education, moral education and aesthetic education was integral to character building. He had first advanced a similar idea in a 1912 essay, where he expressed views on modern education in China and traced aesthetic education and moral education to the Confucian emphasis on rituals and music in ancient times.
Later, in a speech in 1917, he argued for aesthetic education to become a substitute for religion in China — a position he would return to time and again.1 Like his contemporaries Chen Duxiu (1879–1942) and Lu Xun (1881–1936) — considered among China’s greatest 20th century intellectuals — Cai was a cosmopolitan thinker of the May Fourth generation, and deeply concerned about China finding a path towards modernity. The May Fourth Movement began in 1919, and marked a decisive break from outdated traditions with the introduction of new ideas into the cultural life of the Chinese. It had tremendous influence on the Chinese in China and those overseas. As a result of Cai’s influence, the status of aesthetic education in China was for the first time elevated to being as important as other types of education. It was Cai who appointed Lin Fengmian (1900–1991) to head the new National Academy of Art in Hangzhou in 1928. This premier academy, which emphasised modern art, later produced outstanding artists of international renown such as Li Keran (1907–1989), Zao Wou-ki (1920–2013), Wu Guanzhong (1919–2010), Zhu Dequn (1920–2014) and Shui Tit Sing (1914–1997). Shui, a classmate of Zao’s, settled in Singapore in 1940 and was active as an artist besides working as a schoolteacher.
This could well be the reason why the early Chinese schools always had artists on their teaching staff, and continued to produce a good number of important artists who became active in Singapore throughout the century.
Ini Indexs
The Hainanese community used to have a cemetery known as “Hai Lam Sua” or “Kongsi Sua”. Every Hainanese person knew where it was located, and the name would come up repeatedly among the community during Qing Ming Festival. Dating back over 100 years, Kongsi Sua — along with all matters relating to it — was managed by Hainanese organisation and temple Kheng Chiu Tin Hou Kong.
Families would flock to the cemetery during the Qing Ming Festival each year, leading to traffic congestion. Kheng Chiu Tin Hou Kong had to request police assistance for three days before and after the festival to manage the traffic. When cars arrived at the junction of the cemetery, workers would follow the visitors to the respective plots to mow the grass, a service for which they were paid a few dollars. The Hainanese usually brought chicken and rice balls as offerings, which they would then eat on site after paying their respects.
There used to be two Kongsi Sua, and both were located along Upper Thomson Road. The old Kongsi Sua sat right next to MacRitchie Reservoir, near where Lakeview Shopping Centre used to be. Most of the buildings there have since been demolished, leaving only three blocks of Housing and Urban Development Company (HUDC) flats.
The new cemetery, also known as the new Hai Lam Sua, was at the fifth milestone along Thomson Road, near Sin Ming Road. The entire piece of land used to be filled with graves of varying sizes: those belonging to wealthy families were several times larger than regular tombs, and were often surrounded by flowers and plants.
In the past, most Hainanese kept ancestral tablets in their homes. But with many surname-based community organisations now providing designated spaces to house ancestral tablets, some households have moved theirs to these places, which they would visit during special occasions to pay respects to their ancestors.
During the Japanese Occupation (1942–1945), activities at Kongsi Sua came to a standstill. For three years and eight months, it saw no visitors. Things returned to normal only after the Japanese had surrendered. By 1948, both the new and old cemeteries had fallen into disrepair — roads were severely damaged and graves were overgrown with weeds. Kheng Chiu Tin Hou Kong began repairing the roads, and Kong Meng San Phor Kark See Monastery was invited to join the project and share its cost.
As many attap houses had sprung up illegally around the cemeteries, Kheng Chiu Tin Hou Kong duly reported the situation to the authorities. It also hired surveyors to map out boundaries and set land area limits. With the updated measurements, Kheng Chiu Tin Hou Kong was able to manage the cemetery more effectively.
Kongsi Sua, also known as Yu Shan Ting or Yushan Pavilion, had been known to exist since 1862. An old stone inscription, which is still kept at Kheng Chiu Tin Hou Kong and Hainan Hwee Kuan, details the cemetery’s history: “According to this stone inscription erected jointly by Kheng Chiu Tin Hou Kong and the clan association on 22 December 1972 to record the relocation of Yu Shan Ting, the original Yu Shan Ting was located at the fifth milestone along Thomson Road where the old Hai Lam Sua was. The cemetery was collectively purchased in 1862 by our forebears, including Liang Yaguang, Chen Yachun, Chen Yawen, Huang Yaxin, and Huang Yafeng, as a resting place for those who had passed away on this land. In 1890, an additional 20-odd mu (more than 1.3 hectares) of land adjacent to the cemetery was bought by Zheng Zhibing, Chen Ruzhen, Zhou Jifeng, Lin Shudong, and others as the property of Kheng Chiu Tin Hou Kong, for the use of offering sacrifices to our ancestors. The cemeteries had to be relocated as the land was to be requisitioned by the government for housing development and road expansion. After several negotiations, an agreement was reached in the fall of 1970 to transfer all 5,828 graves to Choa Chu Kang Cemetery. In accordance with social customs, a commemorative pavilion, named Yu Shan Ting, was built after the move was completed.”
More than 5,000 sets of cremated remains were later relocated to the fourth floor of Block 1, Choa Chu Kang Columbarium. Today, council members of Kheng Chiu Tin Hou Kong pay their respects at the columbarium every year during the Qing Ming Festival.
