Ini Indexs
Lat Pau was the earliest Chinese-language daily newspaper in Singapore, and had the longest publication history among pre-war Chinese-language newspapers. It was founded in 1881 and continued publication until 1932. Though it was temporarily suspended in the latter half of 1916, it spanned a total of 52 years.
The newspaper was founded by See Ewe Lay (1851–1906), a fifth-generation Straits Chinese. The name Lat Pau is derived from the Malay word selat (transliterated as “seh laht”), which means “strait” or “channel” and was a colloquial term for Singapore.
Lat Pau went through three distinct stages of development:
Inauguration and foundation (1881–1907): From its founding on 10 December 1881,1 to the eve of the publication of Lat Pau Supplement on 15 January 1907. A total of 25 years and one-and-a-half months.
During this period, Lat Pau published news and commentaries rather than lifestyle content. Its layout was not too different from that of Shanghai’s Shen Bao, and had no resemblance to local English newspapers. The typesetting and editorial staff of Lat Pau in its early days came from China, which meant there was a significant influence from China’s press. The newspaper’s style was modelled after that of newspapers in China.
Lat Pau was a daily newspaper, with a break in publication on Sundays and holidays. It published around 300 issues annually. The number of non-publishing days was higher than that of English newspapers that existed at the same time. Lat Pau did not print on occasions such as Chinese festivals, Qing dynasty court celebrations, British celebrations, Western holidays, or special incidents affecting the newspaper. Starting from 5 September 1899, Lat Pau switched from being a morning daily to an evening daily that published at 4pm.
Growth and innovation (1907–1921): From 16 January 1907, when Lat Pau Supplement was published, until the death of its chief editor Yeh Chih Yun (1859–1921) on 9 September 1921. A total of 14 years and eight months.
In 1907, Lat Pau added the Lat Pau Supplement, which included leisure articles, humorous stories, ghost stories, fables, classical Chinese writings, poems, popular music and folk songs. From then on, it took on the triple function of news reporting, commentary, and lifestyle content, marking a clear distinction from the earlier Lat Pau.
The Lat Pau Supplement was founded by the newspaper’s then-editor and chief writer Yeh Chih Yun. Yeh, whose pseudonym was Xing E Sheng, served as the principal writer for Lat Pau for 41 years, making him the longest-serving staff member in the newspaper’s history. In addition to his role in journalism, Yeh was proficient in medicine and had expertise in Chinese seal carving, poems, calligraphy and painting. He ran a medical store named Eng Eun Tong on Upper Nankin Street and established the first Chinese medical newspaper in Singapore, Yixue bao [Chinese Medical Journal] in 1901. He was also one of the founders of Yeung Ching School (now Yangzheng Primary School) and the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce (now Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry).
In 1916, Lat Pau suspended publication for half a year. When the newspaper resumed in 1917, it was taken over by See Tiong Wah (1886–1940). It transitioned from individual ownership to a corporate business model, and was published under the company name The Lat Pau Press Limited.
Development and decline (1921–1932): From after the death of Yeh Chih Yun on 10 September 1921 until the cessation of Lat Pau on 31 March 1932. A total of 10 years and six-and-a-half months.
After the death of Yeh Chih Yun in 1921, the position of chief editor was temporarily vacant. It was later assumed by Chow Kue Nam (circa 1892–1959), who concurrently served as the chief editor of the monthly magazine of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce (now Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry). After taking office, Chow Kue Nam implemented a series of reforms for Lat Pau, establishing industry development and education as the new mission of the newspaper, and replacing Lat Pau Supplement with sections titled Industrial Column and Literary and Artistic Column.2 In 1932, due to frequent changes in its editorial personnel, organisational laxity, dwindling content, and economic challenges, Lat Pau entered a period of decline and eventually ceased publication.
Lat Pau’s editorial stance was significantly influenced by Yeh Chih Yun, who believed that a newspaper was a public tool and should not allow any trace of personal opinion. The selection and presentation of news was to be done with impartiality.
The historian Feng Tzu-yu (1882–1958), who had participated in the 1911 Xinhai Revolution, analysed early Chinese newspapers in Singapore and considered Lat Pau to be part of the conservative faction. This alignment was likely related to Yeh Chih Yun’s background as a typical old school intellectual.
In its editorial stance, Lat Pau was traditionally conservative. In the initial stages of its establishment, Yeh continuously conveyed traditional moral values to the overseas Chinese community. He criticised social vices at that time and strongly condemned illegal activities such as gambling, fights, and criminal gangs, calling for strict government action against them. For example, in 1898, when Lim Boon Keng (1869–1957) led the Straits Chinese to promote the Braid Cutting Movement, Lat Pau immediately opposed it, considering cutting the braid a highly inappropriate and rebellious act. This highlighted the newspaper’s conservative stance.
Before 1894, Lat Pau focused more on local affairs. However, after the Sino-Japanese War of 1895, with the political turmoil in China, the editorial emphasis of Lat Pau shifted, and it began to pay attention to developments in China. There was a noticeable increase in discussions related to China, and the previous didactic articles gradually decreased. Lat Pau consistently took a pro-government stance on China’s political issues. For instance, its opposition to the Braid Cutting Movement was aimed to uphold the rule of the Qing dynasty. During the 1911 Xinhai Revolution, Lat Pau remained silent at first and only began to report on happenings related to the revolution until about a week after the event occurred.
With the establishment of the Republic of China being a fait accompli, Lat Pau had to change its pro-Qing stance and leaned towards the emerging Nationalist government. On 8 November 1911, Lat Pau was the first to change the words “Qing dynasty, 3rd year of Xuantong’s Reign” on the right side of its masthead to “In the Year of Xinhai”, signalling a shift in its editorial position.
On local issues, Lat Pau took the position of safeguarding the interests of the Chinese community. It supported all measures favourable to the local Chinese community and opposed and refuted any measures deemed unfavourable to it. For instance, the newspaper opposed the high taxation imposed by the government under the opium contract system, considering it the main cause of the increase in banditry. It also opposed the increase in the licence fees for rickshaws, believing it would burden the rickshaw carriers.
Overall, in terms of its editorial stance, Lat Pau consistently prioritised the interests of the local Chinese community in its coverage of local affairs. This was a significant factor that allowed the newspaper to survive for an extended period within Singapore’s Chinese community. On the other hand, the newspaper’s conservative stance and pro-authority position regarding political changes in China indicate that early Singapore Chinese identification with China was not limited to either the royalist or revolutionary factions. Instead, it was subject to the influence of political developments and underwent changes accordingly.
From the founding, development, and editorial stance of Lat Pau, it is evident that the newspaper became the longest-running Chinese-language daily in pre-war Singapore’s newspaper history due to a combination of factors, and not by chance.
Ini Indexs
The Theatre Practice is an important bilingual theatre group in Singapore. Its predecessor, the Singapore Performing Arts School, was founded by the playwright Kuo Pao Kun (1939–2002) and dancer Goh Lay Kuan, both recipients of the Singapore Cultural Medallion Award.
In 1965, with the experience they had gained from their training in Australia, Kuo and Goh returned to Singapore to establish the Singapore Performing Arts School. From the outset, the school emphasised the importance of both training and practice. As part of training, it offered systematic professional drama and humanities courses, while it continuously experimented with new playwriting and theatrical forms in its practice.
The Performing Arts School’s first theatrical performance was The Test in 1966, which commentators believe marked a significant change in stage design and lighting in theatre. Departing from the traditional method of changing props for each scene, the play introduced the use of lighting to depict space and highlight characterisation, providing audiences with a novel theatre experience. Subsequent performances such as Life Breaks, Dark Souls, and Brecht’s Caucasian Chalk Circle continued to explore forms distinct from traditional realism by combining realistic and impressionistic stage sets and lighting designs.
In 1967, the Performing Arts School started its first drama training course. It ran for over 20 sessions until its discontinuation in 1984, and nurtured numerous talents in the field of theatre. In 1968, the Performing Arts School presented its collective work Hey! Wake Up, which incorporated the theatrical techniques of German playwright Bertolt Brecht (1898–1956) into its portrayal of local social issues and characters. This production once again showcased the school’s ongoing experimentation with theatrical forms.
Later, in 1972, students from the drama class established the independent Southern Arts Society (renamed Southern Arts Research Association in 1976), which became one of the most active theatre groups in the first half of the 1970s.
From the latter half of the 1960s, many individual theatre groups began exhibiting a strong leftist orientation, shining light on the concept of class struggle and articulating their ideals for society. The Performing Arts School was no exception, and became one of the groups most frequently subjected to performance bans during this period. The school’s collective creations, Struggle in 1969 and Sparks of Youth in 1971, were both denied performance permits and could not be staged.
In order to avoid the situation in which multi-act plays could not be performed once they were banned, the Performing Arts School adopted an integrated performance approach since 1969. For instance, they introduced “Arts Night”, which featured a combination of short plays, poetry, dance, singing, and other programmes. In addition to public performances, the school also organised various internal “learning and observation nights” to maintain its vitality.
Early Singapore theatre productions featured scripts not only from Chinese works of the May Fourth period but also from European realist classics (particularly those of Russian origin). Theatre groups typically used translations from China for the latter.
Kuo took a different approach. Instead of using Chinese translations wholesale, he either further adapted them or personally translated the English originals. Three plays from the 1940s and 1950s, The Test, Dark Souls, and Brecht’s Caucasian Chalk Circle, were all translated by Kuo and imbued with a strong modern consciousness and the spirit of class struggle.
In 1973, the Singapore Performing Arts School was renamed Practice Theatre School and then Practice Performing Arts School in 1984. In 1986, Practice Theatre Ensemble was established. In 1988, the Practice Performing Arts Centre. was officially registered, relocating to Stamford Arts Centre and operating in parallel with two core entities, Practice Performing Arts School and Practice Theatre Ensemble.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Singapore’s society and economy entered a period of stable development, spurring initiatives to actively kickstart cultural and artistic planning. Coupled with the gradual easing of global Cold War tensions, this provided favourable conditions for cross-national and cross-regional cultural and artistic exchanges. During this period, while serving as a key intermediary and promoter in the local Chinese theatre scene, Kuo also played a crucial role in the realm of theatrical arts and the broader cultural and intellectual spheres. Scholars have even dubbed this 20-year period the “Kuo Pao Kun Era”.
In 1976, Kuo was arrested under Internal Security Act for alleged communist activities and detained for four years and seven months. During this period, Practice Performing Arts School was led by Goh. In 1982, following his release, Kuo participated in the direction and production of his first original work Little White Boat, which premiered at the arts festival sponsored by the Ministry of Culture. Little White Boat was jointly performed by 14 Chinese theatre groups, leading to the resurgence of local Chinese-language theatre, which had largely been dormant in the late 1970s.
In 1984, Kuo began directing bilingual plays with his work The Coffin is Too Big for the Hole. In 1988, he led a group of actors with diverse linguistic backgrounds to create the multilingual theatre production Mama Looking for Her Cat, which featured languages familiar to Singaporeans such as English, Malay, Mandarin, Tamil, Hokkien, Cantonese, and Teochew. Kuo was widely regarded as a representative figure in cross-cultural communication and exchange. While Mama Looking for Her Cat may not have been the first instance of multiple languages being showcased simultaneously in Singapore theatre, it was the first collaborative effort among theatre practitioners from different linguistic backgrounds to create a uniquely Singaporean style of drama.
Besides the Performing Arts School and Practice Theatre Ensemble, other artistic groups and institutions founded by Kuo include The Substation (1990) and the Theatre Training & Research Programme (2000, co-founded with Thirunalan Sasitharan, now known as Intercultural Theatre Institute). He received numerous awards as well, such as the Singapore Cultural Medallion (1989), the ASEAN Cultural Award (1993), the Knight of the Order of Arts and Letters of France (1996), and the Singapore Excellence Award (2002). Goh also received the Singapore Cultural Medallion Award in 1995.
In 1996, with the aim of promoting traditional puppet theatre to the younger generation, Practice Performing Arts Centre established The Finger Players, which became an independent theatre company in 1999.
More significantly, in 1997, Practice Theatre Ensemble changed its name to The Theatre Practice. Following Kuo Pao Kun’s death in 2002, Wu Xi and Kuo Jian Hong assumed the roles of Co-Artistic Directors. In 2006, Kuo Jian Hong became the sole Artistic Director. Upholding the spirit of “playfulness” while still rooting its productions in original texts, The Theatre Practice continues to explore more experimental artistic forms today.
In 2005, The Theatre Practice presented the musical adaptation of Kuo Pao Kun’s original script Lao Jiu, marking a significant milestone in the production of Chinese-language musicals by The Theatre Practice. It continues to deepen the connections between local theatre and the world and actively nurture artistic talents in Singapore through various programmes such as the Chinese Theatre Festival (2011–2017), Singapore Theatre Festival (2018–2021), Practice Laboratory (2013), Artist Farm (2017–2020), and the Practice Artists Scheme (2018–present).
In 2016, The Theatre Practice relocated to a double-storey building consisting of three connected units in Waterloo Street, with a multi-purpose black box theatre attached to its clubhouse. The following year, it established a café and art space called Practice Tuckshop on the ground floor of its clubhouse to strengthen its connection with the local community. This was also in line with The Theatre Practice’s focus on sustainable development, which directly influenced its production model. Combining dining experiences with storytelling exchanges, Recess Time (2017–present) is one of the most well-known works by Practice Tuckshop.
To emphasise the importance of arts education, The Theatre Practice continues to offer children’s courses through the Practice Education Project and develop youth theatre productions suitable for different age groups, including the Nursery Rhymes Project (2017–present). These initiatives aim to bring the arts into homes, schools, and communities, making it an integral part of everyday life for Singaporeans.
In 2020, the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted live performances. As a result, The Theatre Practice set up an online platform that combined video screenings, live streaming performances, and interactive activities to provide audiences with a unique digital theatre experience. It also collaborated with digital technology companies to jointly develop a live streaming system called XIMI.
Today, The Theatre Practice remains one of the most prominent groups in the local theatre scene.
Ini Indexs
The term “Peranakan” (from “anak”, the Malay word for “child”) generally refers to the descendants of immigrants who married indigenous women in the Malay Archipelago.
While “Peranakan” is often used interchangeably with “Straits Chinese” in Singapore, not all Straits-born Chinese were Peranakan. Not all Peranakans had Chinese ancestors, either. Besides the Chinese Peranakans, there were also smaller communities such as the Bugis Peranakans, Arab Peranakans, Java Peranakans, Chitty Melaka, and Jawi Peranakans.
This article focuses on the Peranakan Chinese. For brevity’s sake, all subsequent mentions of “Peranakan” will refer specifically to this group.
Most of the Peranakans in Singapore are descended from the Peranakans of Malacca, who typically spoke Baba Malay (creolised Malay) and English (for those who were English-educated). This was unlike the Peranakans in Penang, who conversed in Malayanised Hokkien and English. Male and female members of the community are known as Babas and Nonyas (or Nyonyas) respectively, although “Baba” can also refer to the Peranakan community as a whole.
Their Chinese ancestors were mostly immigrant men from Fujian and Guangdong who settled in Malacca in the 15th to 17th centuries, where they married local Malay women. Their descendants then married fellow Peranakans, or the new Chinese immigrants who arrived in Southeast Asia in the 19th century.1
In 1848, Singapore had about 1,000 “Malacca Chinese” — according to one estimate by Seah Eu Chin (1805–1883), a prominent merchant who became part of the Peranakan community through marriage. In comparison, there were 9,000 other Hokkiens, 19,000 Teochews, 6,000 Cantonese, 4,000 Hakkas and 700 Hainanese on the island. The 1,000 Malacca Chinese comprised 300 “merchants and shopkeepers and their people”, 100 “cash keepers and others employed by Europeans”, 300 “householders employed variously”, 200 “petty traders”, and 100 “agriculturalists”, Seah noted.2
Besides being traders and shopkeepers, many Peranakans were involved in shipping, banking, and real estate. One of Singapore’s most famous Peranakans was the merchant and philanthropist Tan Tock Seng (1798–1850), who had arrived from Malacca as a vegetable seller in 1819, the year the British set up a trading post in Singapore.
The “Golden Age” of the Peranakans spanned from the 1830s to 1930s, when they enjoyed the most economic and political power. Mostly English-educated, they enjoyed a symbiotic relationship with the British colonial administrators and traders in Singapore, playing the role of middlemen between them and the rest of the population. They identified as British subjects. In 1900, a group of prominent Peranakan Chinese set up the pro-British Straits Chinese British Association (SCBA). By aligning themselves with the British, the Peranakans distinguished themselves from the sinkeh, or new immigrants from China.
At the time, many of Singapore’s wealthy people were Peranakan. Besides Tan Tock Seng, there were prominent figures such as Tan Kim Seng (1805–1864), See Hoot Kee (1793–1847), Gan Eng Seng (1844–1899), Song Ong Siang (1871–1941) and Cheang Hong Lim (1825–1893). Many Peranakans gave generously to the community, donating funds for public welfare and the construction of institutions such as Thian Hock Keng Temple (1839), Tan Tock Seng Hospital (1844) and the Singapore Chinese Girls’ School (1899). Even as they aligned themselves with the British, some of them retained ties with their ancestral homeland. Tan Beng Swee (1828–1884), for example, contributed to famine relief in China. See Ewe Lay started Lat Pau (1881–1932), one of Singapore’s earliest Chinese daily newspapers in Singapore, despite having been English-educated.
The Peranakans in Singapore lived mainly in Neil Road and Tanjong Pagar, later extending their reach to Katong, Joo Chiat, and Emerald Hill. They inhabited terraced shophouses fronted by a continuous sheltered walkway known as a “five-foot way”. Enter through the pintu pagar (a half-height, ornamented “fence door”) and front door, and you might find yourself in a front hall with an ancestral altar. Venturing further down the long and narrow interior would lead you to the living room, air-well and kitchen. Teak and rosewood furniture, statuettes of fu lu shou deities, and porcelain — blue and white “kitchen porcelain” from China or Japan; or pastel porcelain (nonyaware) imported from Jingdezhen in Jiangxi, China, often sporting phoenix motifs — were a common sight within the Peranakan home. Popular parlour games ranged from cherki, involving cards; to congkak, played with 98 cowrie shells, and a long wooden board with two large cavities or rumah (houses) at either end, and another 14 smaller cavities in two parallel rows in between.
Peranakan families were not as strictly patriarchal as many Chinese households, although they subscribed to the traditional idea of nan zhu wai, nü zhu nei (“men manage outside, women manage inside”). The house was the domain of the women, who was appraised for her cooking, embroidery, and beadwork skills. However, it was not uncommon for new immigrant men to marry into his bride’s Peranakan household, a practice known as chin choay. And after the death of the patriarch, it was his wife, rather than the son, who became the new head of the family. In Singapore, Nonyas were among the first females to receive formal education at institutions such as the Singapore Chinese Girls’ School.
Many early Peranakans dressed in traditional Chinese clothing, although Babas started wearing Western-style coats and trousers starting in the late 19th century. Nonyas, meanwhile, wore a distinctive garment known as the nonya kebaya — which outstripped the baju panjang (“long dress”) in popularity from the 1920s onwards. The nonya kebaya top, which was more tight-fitting and less opaque than the Malay kebaya, often featured lace, embroidered motifs such as peonies, butterflies and roses. The nonya kebaya, which had no buttons, was fastened by a set of (usually three) interlinked brooches known as a kerosang and worn with a batik sarong skirt and beaded slippers.
Peranakan food is known for its long preparation time. Besides ingredients such as garlic, ginger and soy sauce which feature heavily in Chinese cuisine, it often incorporates coconut milk, spices (rempah), seeds of the buah keluak fruit, shrimp paste (belacan), candlenut (buah keras), lemongrass (serai), and kaffir lime leaves. Out of the Nonya kitchen might come delicacies such as babi pongteh (braised pork in salted bean paste), ayam buah keluak (chicken in spicy tamarind gravy with buah keluak nuts), and an assortment of kueh (cakes) whipped together from coconut, palm sugar (gula melaka) and other ingredients. In the early days, many Nonyas also liked to chew on betel leaves. The early Peranakans in Singapore ate rice using their hands rather than chopsticks. However, chopsticks were used at ancestral offering tables, and by newlyweds during a ceremony known as chim pang.
Peranakan weddings were known for their elaborate rituals, which traditionally lasted for 12 days (a practice that fell out of popularity after World War II). Many of the customs were similar to those in China — such as the choice of an auspicious hour, a gift-giving ceremony, and a tea ceremony. However, there would also be a Malay master-of-ceremony known as a pak chindek, and a performance of dondang sayang (“love ballad”), where the bride and groom sang pantun (Malay poetic verses) to each other while a small band of musicians played the violin, rebana drums and gong in the background. A joget dance, featuring dancing girls, might then follow.
When a Peranakan person died, the funeral would involve Chinese traditions — with a wake, night vigils, offerings, burning paper money for the deceased, as well as the wearing of sack cloth by their children, spouses of the children, and paternal grandchildren.
Some commentators have described Peranakan culture as “dying”, suggesting that it is becoming the stuff of museums. Most of the traditions, for instance, are no longer a part of daily life for contemporary Peranakans. The Baba Malay language is critically endangered in Singapore, where most of the younger Chinese population only speak English and Mandarin. Furthermore, religious practices of early Peranakans (who practised ancestral worship, and prayed to deities such as Guanyin, Mazu, and Tua Pek Kong), have also been on the decline since the early 20th century, giving way to Catholicism, Christianity and atheism.
There are several organisations in Singapore dedicated to promoting Peranakan culture. Among them are Peranakan Museum, which opened in 2008 in the former Tao Nan School building; The Peranakan Association (formerly the SCBA, established in 1900); and the Gunong Sayang Association (established in 1910), which promotes performing arts such as dondang sayang and wayang peranakan. The NUS Baba House in Neil Road, and private museum The Intan in Joo Chiat, also offer a glimpse into the Peranakans’ rich material culture. In recent decades, there has been some resurgence of public interest in Peranakan culture, thanks in part to the popular television drama The Little Nyonya (2008), as well as efforts spotlighting Peranakan culture as a distinctive part of Singapore’s multicultural fabric.
Ini Indexs
Established in 1881, Lat Pau has long been regarded as the earliest Chinese newspaper in Singapore, Malaya, and even the Nanyang region. However, based on some earlier records, there were already two Chinese newspapers in Singapore before Lat Pau — the Tifang Jih Pao in 1845, and Jit Sheng in 1858. American author Cecil K. Byrd (1913–1997) notes in Early Printings in the Straits Settlements, 1806–1858 that both the Tifang Jih Pao and Jit Sheng were printed and published by The Mission Press. Unlike Lat Pau, which was started and published by the Chinese, both newspapers were weeklies operated by Europeans.
There is limited historical material on the Tifang Jih Pao, so its existence currently remains unconfirmed. However, two pieces of evidence support the existence of Jit Sheng. The first is an advertisement about Jit Sheng published in the Straits Government Gazette on 14 May 1858. The advertisement, signed off by Thompson William Smith, states that Jit Sheng was published every Monday by The Mission Press, with a deadline set for Saturday evenings.
The second is a letter from Thomas Dunman (1814–1887), Commissioner of Police in Singapore at that time, to the Straits Settlements Governor’s Secretary. Dated 31 August 1858, the original text reads, “The Chinese (in Singapore) are well-acquainted with what is taking place in other parts of the world. They learn their news from mixing with Europeans, and they now have a paper printed in Chinese, in which important news is reprinted…”
While Dunman did not explicitly state that the newspaper in question was Jit Sheng, the dates in the two pieces of evidence corroborate its existence and are almost certainly a reference to Jit Sheng. They strongly confirm that the newspaper was indeed published in Singapore in 1858, or possibly even earlier, predating Lat Pau by at least 23 years.
The Mission Press, the printing press that produced Jit Sheng, was located at No. 46 Raffles Place and operated by British owner Reverend Benjamin Peach Keasberry (1811–1875). Keasberry was born in Hyderabad, India, and grew up in Surabaya, Indonesia. From 1830 to 1834, he went to Batavia (now Jakarta) to study Bible translation, preaching methods, and lithography techniques under London Missionary Society missionary Walter Henry Medhurst (1796–1857). In 1835, he entered the New Brunswick Theological Seminary in New Jersey for training.
After completing his theological education in 1839, he initially planned to go to China for missionary work, only to be denied entry upon arriving in Macau. He then proceeded southward and, while passing through Singapore, was employed as a missionary by the London Missionary Society there.
In 1843, Keasberry founded what is known today as the Prinsep Street Presbyterian Church. After the London Missionary Society had concluded its missionary activities in Singapore in 1849, he severed ties with the organisation but continued with his own missionary work. To secure funding for this, he established a printing and bookbinding facility in the former church of the Missionary Society, printing various language books and periodicals for non-religious individuals and organisations.
It was under these circumstances that The Mission Press took on Smith’s business and printed Jit Sheng. Keasberry died on 6 September 1875 at the age of 64, and was buried at Bukit Timah Cemetery.
An analysis of existing historical materials allows us to establish the following understanding of Jit Sheng:
As for the content, nature, and price of Jit Sheng, more research is needed for a definitive understanding.
It has traditionally been believed that English newspapers (beginning with The Singapore Chronicle in early 1824) were the earliest in the development of ethnic newspapers in Singapore, followed by Tamil newspapers (starting with Singai-Warta-Mahni in early 1876), then Malay-language newspapers (Jawi Peranakan at the end of 1876), and finally, Chinese-language newspapers (Lat Pau in late 1881). The discovery of Jit Sheng challenges this chronology, revealing that Chinese-language newspapers followed closely after English newspapers and predated Tamil and Malay-language newspapers by eight years.
In the context of the global Chinese press, the daily newspaper Chinese and Foreign Gazette, published by the Hong Kong English newspaper Daily Press in 1858, is widely considered the earliest modern Chinese newspaper. As for the first modern Chinese newspaper published in China and funded by the Chinese themselves, the title is often given to the Zhaowen New Daily, first issued in 1873.
The discovery of historical materials related to the 1858 Jit Sheng suggests that the newspaper, like Chinese and Foreign Gazette in Hong Kong, is among the earliest modern Chinese newspapers in the world. It is an important contribution to the history of newspaper development and the advancement of the field.1
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.