Ini Indexs
The earliest Hokkien immigrants in Singapore were descendants of Hokkiens from Minnan, or China’s Southern Fujian province, who had lived in Malacca for decades. These Malaccan Hokkiens arrived in Singapore even before the Hokkien immigrants from Zhangzhou and Quanzhou. The Malaccan Hokkiens had a competitive edge as they were among the first to learn about Raffles’ intention to transform Singapore into a free port (which came to pass in 1819). Recognising the immense opportunity at hand, the Malaccan Hokkien community moved swiftly to Singapore under the leadership of pioneer See Hoot Kee (1793–1847), bringing in capital to exploit these new market prospects.
By 1828, they had already founded the Heng San Teng (also known as Heng San Ting or Heng Suah Teng) cemetery temple in Singapore. Modelled after the Cheng Hoon Teng and Poh San Teng cemetery temples in Malacca, the Heng San Teng cemetery temple was more than a place of worship — it was a vital and earliest-established institution that catered to the Hokkien community’s livelihood and welfare. It also led and represented the Hokkien community in Singapore. While Heng San Teng did not officially promote itself as a clan association (also known as huiguan or huay kuan), it fulfilled roles reminiscent of the early clan associations.
In 1839, See Hoot Kee stepped down from his leadership position and returned to Malacca, where he later took charge of the Cheng Hoon Teng cemetery temple. That same year, another figure from Malacca, Tan Tock Seng (1798–1850), rose to prominence as the new leader of the Hokkien community in Singapore. Under his leadership, Hokkien merchants came together to build Thian Hock Keng temple on Telok Ayer Street. Completed in 1842, this temple complex was dedicated to Mazu — the Mother of Heavenly Sage and the Goddess of the Seas. Community leaders aspired to use the worship of Mazu as a unifying force for the diverse Chinese communities in Singapore, and stone steles installed in the temple in 1850 carry inscriptions that document this vision. Tan Tock Seng and other temple directors referred to themselves as “Tang people” (tangren) — a term that applies to the broader Chinese community, transcending individual dialect groups or places of origin. The inscription also suggests that Thian Hock Keng, in addition to being a temple, functioned as a clan association that represented the community and cared for its well-being.
In time, the Hokkien Huay Kuan relocated from Thian Hock Keng temple and established its own building just across the street, where a street opera stage used to be. Until 1929, the Hokkien Huay Kuan was helmed by See Tiong Wah (1886–1940) — a direct descendant of See Hoot Kee — and managed by a handful of Hokkien community leaders. The period from 1929 to 1949 was a transformative time for the Hokkien Huay Kuan. Under the stewardship of Tan Kah Kee (1874–1961), the association enhanced the educational standards and opportunities for the Chinese community in Singapore. There were also significant reforms to the association’s structural organisation. Furthermore, the association expanded the business prospects for the Chinese community, and initiated reforms in funeral rites and traditions. It was also under Tan Kah Kee’s leadership that the association made significant contributions to China’s disaster relief initiatives as well as resistance efforts against Japanese aggression during World War II. This era thus marked the transformation of the Hokkien Huay Kuan from a parochial, clan-based organisation to one with broader objectives. It not only represented and unified the Hokkiens in Singapore, but extended its influence over the various Chinese communities in the Malaya and across Southeast Asia. Through these endeavours, Tan Kah Kee was acknowledged as the preeminent leader of the Chinese communities in Singapore and Malaya.
In the meantime, Hokkien immigrants from different Fujianese counties in China also ventured to Singapore in large numbers. They founded their guilds or clan associations grouped around local or regional identities.
Most of these locality and kinship-based associations were established in Singapore during the British colonial era. They saw close collaboration between regular Hokkien immigrants, as well as their community leaders who shouldered the responsibility of creating jobs, supporting livelihoods, and managing funeral rites. These associations thus came to be the highest body for Hokkien communities in Singapore away from their ancestral homes. They also played the important role of preserving Chinese culture, making Singapore a home with familiar traditions from immigrants’ homelands.
After Singapore gained independence, the new government took over many of the roles once fulfilled by clan associations. The clan associations thus shifted their focus to local concerns, including education and the promotion of Chinese cultural heritage.
Ini Indexs
The term “Hokkien” is commonly used by the Chinese communities in Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, and other Southeast Asian regions to refer to the Minnan language. From an academic and linguistic perspective, this term is conceptually inaccurate. It would be more precise to call it the Minnan language or Minnan dialect.
This is because “Hokkien” is the name for Fujian province, which is divided into southern, northern, eastern, and western regions. A multitude of dialects are spoken within its borders. For example, other than the Minnan dialect used in southern Fujian, there are the Minbei and Putian dialects spoken in northern and southeast Fujian respectively, there are also Hakka dialects in western Fujian. To use the name of the province to refer to a dialect only spoken in southern Fujian would be to ignore the existence of those other dialects, creating the misperception that Hokkien refers to all dialects spoken in Fujian. Nevertheless, even though Hokkien is, strictly speaking, not equivalent to Minnan dialect, it has become customary in Singapore to use “Hokkien” to refer to the Minnan dialect.
The Minnan dialect spoken by Chinese Singaporeans came mainly from immigrants who arrived from the southern Fujian regions of Zhangzhou, Quanzhou and Xiamen from the second half of the 19th century to the early 20th century. It is notable for its inclusion — and integration — of phonetic components from the Xiamen version (the representative accent of Minnan dialect), as well as the Zhangzhou and Quanzhou versions of Minnan dialect, showcasing a degree of variation and flexibility rarely seen in the respective Minnan dialect-speaking regions of Fujian1.
According to academic research, the phonetic system of the Minnan dialect spoken in Singapore is close to that of the Tong’an dialect, and is primarily a synthesis of Quanzhou, Zhangzhou, and Xiamen accents, with 18 initial consonants, 88 vowels, and eight tones. This is very similar to Quanzhou and Xiamen dialects.
In addition, the Minnan dialect spoken locally also retains some ancient phonetic characteristics. For example, Chinese characters that are pronounced in Mandarin with a labiodental initial consonant “f” — such as 分 (pronounced as fen in Mandarin, [pun] in Minnan dialect), 飞 (fei/[pue]), 蜂 (feng/[phaŋ]), and 房 (fang/[paŋ]) — are pronounced with either the bilabial consonants “b” or “p” in Minnan dialect. This is a pre-Tang dynasty phonetic feature and is part of the evolutionary pattern of labial sounds in the history of Chinese phonology.
In another example, Chinese characters pronounced in Mandarin with retroflex initial consonants — such as 直 (zhi/[tit]), 中 (zhong/[tioŋ]), 抽 (chou/[thiu]), and 茶 (cha/[te]) — are pronounced with either the blade-alveolar consonants “d” and “t” in Minnan dialect, which is another phonetic feature preserved from pre-Tang dynasty times2 and is part of the evolutionary pattern of lingual sounds in the history of Chinese phonology.
In terms of vocabulary, the local Minnan dialect shares 85% of its words with the Minnan dialect spoken in Fujian. Some of these have been expressed the same way they had been since ancient times, such as using 沃 [ak] for watering, 囥 [khŋ] for hiding, 晏 [ũã] for night, 行 [kiã] for walking, and 走 [tsau] for running.
At the same time, Minnan dialect in Singapore has absorbed words from other languages, including Malay, English, and Cantonese. For instance, 镭 [lui] is borrowed from the Malay word “duit,” which means money, while 罗弄 [lo lɔŋ] came from the Malay word “lorong,” which means alley.3
In terms of grammar, the personal pronouns 我 [gua], 阮 [gun], 汝 [li], and 伊 [i] in Minnan dialect correspond respectively to 我 (wo, meaning “I” or “me”), 你 (ni, meaning “you”), and 他 (ta, meaning “he” or “him”) in Mandarin. Common negation words include 无 [bo], 袂 [be], 未 [bue], 毋 [m], 免 [biɛn], and 莫 [mai]. In Mandarin, 已经 (yijing), 过 (guo), and 了 (le) — meaning “already”, “past”, and “had”, respectively — are used to express past and perfect tenses, while Minnan dialect mostly adopts 有 [u/iu] (meaning to have or to exist) for the same purposes. For example, 我有吃 [gua u/iu tsiak] means “I had eaten,” and 我有做 [gua u/iu tsou] means “I had done”.
In Singapore, the Minnan dialect has also influenced Mandarin. While Minnan dialect has borrowed words from Malay and English, certain Minnan expressions have also entered the Mandarin system, enriching the Chinese language of this region. For example, terms like 怕输 [khia su], referring to the fear of losing out, 苦力工 [khɔ lɪk kɔŋ], meaning labourers or coolies, are commonly seen in local Chinese publications. Some grammatical structures of Minnan dialect have also infiltrated the Mandarin syntax, such as the common use of 有 (you) in place of 过 (guo) or 了 (le) to express the completion of an action. To give an example, the phrase “I have watched this movie” might be expressed in Singapore Mandarin as 这部电影我有看 (zhe bu dianying wo you kan) rather than the Standard Mandarin version, 这部电影我看过 (zhe bu dianying wo kan guo).
The Hokkien community is the largest Chinese dialect group in Singapore. According to census data, the total local population of Chinese in 1881 was only 86,000, out of which 28.8% spoke Minnan dialect. By 1970, the total number of Chinese people had reached 1.579 million — of which 42.2%, or approximately 666,000 people, spoke the Minnan dialect.4 Survey data from the 1980s even showed that 17% of the Malay community could understand Minnan dialect.5
Many places in Singapore have also been named using Minnan pronunciation and words. For example, 厝 [tshu] — which means home or house — is found in names such as Lim Chu Kang, Yio Chu Kang, and Choa Chu Kang.6
Historically, several regional rhyme books for the Minnan dialect have had considerable influence. These include Hui yin miao wu (Understanding of the Collected Sounds, written and compiled by Huang Qian from Quanzhou, and published in 1796) and Huiji ya su tong shiwu yin (Compilation of the Fifteen Sounds of Refined and Popular Speech, written and compiled by Xie Xiulan from Zhangzhou, and published in 1869).
In short, Singapore’s Minnan dialect is an extension of the Minnan dialect of China’s Fujian province, and they share the same phonetical, lexical, and grammatical system.
Ini Indexs
The Teochews are the second-largest Chinese community in Singapore. They originated mainly from the Chaoshan region in Guangdong province, including Chaozhou, Chao’an, Shantou, Jieyang, and other areas. According to 2020 census data, the local Teochew population makes up approximately 19.4% of the total Chinese population.1 The proportion has remained relatively stable since the census of 1931.
The Teochew dialect is a branch of the Minnan dialect family, and has similarities with the widely-spoken Hokkien (Minnan) dialect. Yet, it has some distinctive features.
According to Chinese linguist Li Yongming’s research, the Teochew phonetic system in Singapore includes 18 initial consonants, 69 vowels, and eight tones.2 These are some of its phonetic characteristics:
Similar to other Minnan family dialects, Teochew retains some single-syllable words from ancient Chinese. Some examples are fù (stomach), suǒ (rope), qǐ (stand), zhuǎn (return).
As with other local dialects, some Teochew words are borrowed from languages such as Malay and English, with the pronunciations modified to align with the Teochew phonetic system. The following are examples of loan words in Teochew:
Teochew grammar, according to the research of linguists such as Lee Cher Ling, contains some distinctive features. There are two basic negative-affirmative formats used in Singapore.3
One format is VP—NEG—VP (VP represents verb phrase; NEG represents negative word):
Another format is ke 可—VP:
Other methods of expression are extensions of these two formats.
There has been much research into local Teochew dialect and culture. Examples of publications include Chaozhou ziyun (Teochew Opera Rhymes, 1990) by Hong Chao, Chaozhou huayu, Chaohua shuangxiang pinyin zihui(Teochew-Mandarin, Mandarin-Teochew Bilingual Pinyin Dictionary, 1990) compiled by Zhang Liangcai, and Chaozhou geyao suan (Selection of Teochew Folk Songs, 1988) by Ma Feng and Hong Chao.
In recent years, enthusiastic educators have developed Teochew dialect textbooks, such as Xueda Chaozhou hua 60 ke (Learning Teochew in 60 Lessons, 2021) by Goh Eng Choon. This textbook contains explanations of commonly used words and idioms, and introduces readers to proverbs and sayings — making it a useful resource for members of the younger generation who are interested in learning Teochew.
Amid the declining usage of Teochew in Singapore, local Teochew community organisations have initiated Teochew dialect classes in an effort to preserve the dialect. The Chui Huay Lim Club and Teochew Heritage Society have organised four consecutive Teochew dialect competitions, attracting Teochew participants across different generations. Similar activities include Teochew conversational classes by Nam Hwa Opera, and the Teochew nursery rhyme classes for parents and children by the Teochew Poit Ip Huay Kuan.
Ini Indexs
Guangdong hua (Cantonese) is the term commonly used by overseas Chinese for the dialect also known as yueyu or baihua. According to surveys conducted by linguists, Cantonese is mainly spoken in the Pearl River Delta region of Guangdong, which includes areas such as Guangzhou, Hong Kong and Macau. Overseas, one can find it spoken in parts of Southeast Asia and North America.
Cantonese is the third most commonly-spoken dialect among the Chinese community in Singapore. As early as 1881, Cantonese-speaking people accounted for 17.1% of the total Chinese population. In 1931, this figure stood at 22.5%, and in 1980, at 16.5%. Cantonese people were not the only ones who spoke Cantonese. Many from other dialect groups, and even Malay and Indian compatriots, could also often understand and speak Cantonese. Thus, the percentage of the population who could speak Cantonese was in reality far higher than the figures mentioned above. The linguistic status of Cantonese has been elevated, not just because Cantonese is one of the dialects used in everyday life, but also because it is one of the official languages of Hong Kong and Macau. In addition, Cantonese popular culture has a wide influence. For instance, Cantonese films, dramas, and pop songs have spread across Southeast Asia. It is therefore natural and inevitable that the Cantonese dialect would have a large influence among the masses and in business circles.
The characteristics of the local Cantonese dialect in Singapore are as follows:
Cantonese is also distinctive for its unique Chinese characters, which are unmatched by other dialects. For example, 哋 (pronounced [tei], is a plural personal suffix, the equivalent of the character “们” or “us”), 嘅 (pronounced [ke], indicating possession, is equivalent to the Chinese character “的”), 冚 (pronounced [kam/ham], meaning “all”), 冇 (pronounced [mou], the equivalent of the Chinese “无” or “没有”, meaning “none”), 睇 (pronounced [tai], meaning “看” or “look”), 瞓 (pronounced [fan], meaning “睡” or “sleep”), 攞 (pronounced [lo], meaning “拿取” or “take”), 揸 (pronounced [tsa], meaning “手持” or “hold”), 曱甴 (pronounced [ka tsa], meaning “蟑螂” or “cockroach”) and so on.
There has been a lot of research on Cantonese pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar and related Cantonese culture. This is partly due to the presence of many cities in the Pearl River Delta, such as Guangzhou, Hong Kong and Macau, which have many universities and research institutions with strong research capabilities. Sun Yat-Sen University, Jinan University, the University of Hong Kong, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and the University of Macau all have researchers researching Cantonese, and regularly hold international academic conferences on Cantonese. Additionally, there is a wide distribution of Cantonese speakers overseas. There are Cantonese-speaking communities in Southeast Asia, North America, Western Europe, as well as other regions. Therefore, Cantonese is particularly valued by researchers. Although there are not many scholars studying Cantonese in Singapore, it is still valued by people, especially in local community groups, where it shows few signs of dying out. Many local Cantonese associations often conduct Cantonese conversation classes, singing competitions and other activities, which help to keep the Cantonese dialect alive.
Ini Indexs
The Singapore Chinese Orchestra (SCO) was founded in 1996 but only started promoting Nanyang-style music in 2002. Although there were some compositions such as the Legend of the Merlion, which SCO commissioned several years prior, the term “Nanyang style music” was created by then music director and conductor Tsung Yeh in 2002. “Nanyang” (literally “southern seas”) refers to the region south of China. This covers the Malay Archipelago, the Philippines, the Indonesian archipelago, coastal areas of the Indochinese peninsula, and other land areas. Early Chinese immigrants in the 19th century who worked and settled in the region used the term to refer to Southeast Asia. The home culture they brought with them had integrated with the culture of Nanyang to form a distinctive historical and cultural thread.
Chinese orchestral music pieces composed in the Nanyang style have fused traditional Chinese orchestral music with elements from the Nanyang region. They come in a wide range of colourful, melodious tunes, and fluid, rhythmic melodies. Before SCO mooted the idea of Nanyang style Chinese orchestral music, this concept had already been spreading among the community. Many groups such as Siong Leng Musical Association, Nam Hwa Teochew Music Ensemble, City Chinese Orchestra, and Keat Hong Chinese Orchestra had been pondering a “Nanyang style” of music anchored in the local community.
Inspired by the Nanyang style of painting, SCO’s former music director Tsung Yeh developed Nanyang music in phases during his tenure. He learnt about the styles of tunes found in the Nanyang region and the positioning of the Nanyang repertoire, and invited local composers to try their hands at creating Nanyang-style works. Law Wai Lun’s Prince Sang Nila Utama and Singa and Zheng He – Admiral of the Seven Seas, and Wang Chenwei’s The Sisters’ Islands are representative of this style.
The Singapore International Competition for Chinese Orchestral Compositions held by the SCO in 2006, 2011, and 2015 paved the way for “Chinese orchestral works with a strong Nanyang flavour”. From compositions that won these competitions to commissioned creations, the orchestra has accumulated a repertoire of more than 60 pieces of Nanyang-style Chinese orchestral music. In addition to promoting the creation of Nanyang-style music, it has also nurtured a group of composers and provided a platform for young local composers.
The orchestra appointed composers-in-residence, including Law Wai Lun, Phoon Yew Tien, Eric Watson, and Wang Chenwei. They organised workshops and lectures on music composition, conducted in-depth field research, and experienced the culture of Nanyang music for themselves. This laid a good foundation for the development of Nanyang-style Chinese orchestral music.
The SCO’s Nanyang-style Chinese orchestral music strives to break free from constraints. It aims to create a completely new style of music that integrates local elements with lessons from Chinese music culture.
Chinese orchestral music has been passed down and developed by many generations since it came to Singapore’s shores. On one hand, it has retained the cultural aspects of traditional Chinese orchestral music. On the other, it has evolved a Nanyang style with a Singaporean flavour that takes into account the island’s geography, climate, and culture.
Nanyang-style Chinese orchestral music is now a mature genre. With its roots firmly planted in the soil of Southeast Asian music culture, it will continue to thrive if efforts to cultivate it continue — giving Singapore’s Chinese orchestral music a uniqueness on the international stage.
Ini Indexs
Hakka is one of the five major Chinese dialects in Singapore. The local Hakka community comes mainly from Meizhou, Dabu, and Fengshun in Guangdong province, as well as Longyan and Yongding in Fujian. According to the Singapore Population Census in 1881, local Hakkas accounted for 7.1% of the total Chinese population. In 1931, they made up 4.6% of the total Chinese population, and as of 2020, they constituted 8.6%, or approximately 259,000 people. The Hakka population in Singapore is smaller than the Hokkien dialect group, Teochew dialect group and Cantonese dialect group, but larger than the Hainan dialect group.1
The Hakka dialect exhibits distinctive features in terms of phonetics, vocabulary, and syntax. These are closely linked to the development, settlement, and interactions of the local Hakka community in Singapore.
The Hakka dialect has some unique phonetic features:
There are notable differences between Hakka and Mandarin vocabulary:
In terms of syntax, there are some differences between Hakka and Mandarin, especially in the use of 过guò in comparative sentences:
Within the Hakka community, there are several differences in how the dialect is spoken. For example, the pronunciation of the character 客ke varies. Hakka speakers from Fengshun, Yongding, and Dabu pronounce it with an aspirated initial [ khak], while those from Meizhou pronounce it with an affricate initial [hak]. Despite these differences, Hakka speakers from various regions can still communicate and understand each other. This can be attributed to the strong sense of unity among Hakka people, who adhere to the ancient principle of “Better to sell ancestral land than to sell ancestral language”, steadfastly preserving Hakka dialect and culture.2
The development of the Hakka dialect is closely tied to the migration history of the Hakka people. According to scholars such as Lo Hsiang-lin (1906–1978), from the turmoil of the Yongjia Rebellion (311) in the Jin dynasty to the end of the Qing dynasty (1644–1911), there were five significant migration waves of Central Plains Han Chinese. This led to the concentration of Hakka people in the border areas of Guangdong, Fujian, and Jiangxi provinces, and their dispersal to regions like Guangxi, Sichuan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and parts of Southeast Asia such as Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia.
Hakka people who settled in Singapore formed communities based on dialects, locality, and occupational ties. For example, there was a significant Hakka population living in places such as Beach Road, Bukit Panjang Ten Miles (shi yingli), West Hill Estate in Sembawang, the foot of Bukit Timah Hill, Shuang Long Shan, Lorong 3 Geylang, and Pulau Tekong. Internally, these Hakka community organisations commonly use Hakka dialect as a communication tool.3
In the 1970s, most of the Chinese people who lived on Pulau Tekong were Hakka. Later on, however, several factors contributed to a decline in the use of the Hakka dialect: urban policies which resulted in the Hakkas living alongside people from other ethnic and Chinese dialect groups, bilingual education in English and Mandarin Chinese, and the conversion of Pulau Tekong for military use. As a result, the use of Hakka dialect was restricted to smaller circles, such as families and clans.
In order to preserve the endangered Hakka dialect in Singapore, local Hakka organisations such as the Nanyang Hakka Federation, Ying Fo Fui Kun, Char Yong (Dabu) Association, Char Yong (Dabu) Lee Chee Association, and Foong Shoon Fui Kuan regularly organise events such as Hakka folk song singing sessions and competitions, aiming to retain the Hakka dialect and pass down Hakka culture.
Ini Indexs
The Hainan dialect, or Hainanese, is one of the five major Chinese dialects in Singapore.
Singapore’s Hainanese people originate mainly from areas such as Qiongshan, Wenchang, Qiongdong, Wanning, and Lehui in Hainan Island (formerly known as Qiongzhou) in China. According to official census data, and linguistic studies by scholars such as Woon Wee Lee, the proportion of Hainanese in the population decreased, from 9.6% in 1881 to 6.1% in 2020. As of 2020, there are approximately 183,000 Hainanese people in Singapore.1
Hainanese is a variety of the Minnan dialect group. Due to its origins in diverse places, there are variations in how Hainanese is spoken. It can be further divided based on accent differences into varieties such as the Wenchang, Qionghai, Haikou, and Wanning dialects. The Wenchang dialect is the most representative of Hainanese, and is the primary dialect used for news broadcasting in Hainanese on local Chinese radio stations.
The phonological system of the Hainanese dialect in Singapore includes 18 initial consonants, 47 vowels, and eight tones.
Among them, the pronunciation of initial consonants exhibits distinctive features. For instance, there is the presence of the bilabial fricative initial [Փ]. Some bilabial sounds in Minnan and Teochew dialects are pronounced as bilabial fricatives [Փ] in Hainanese, as seen in words like 拍 pai and 品 pin.
There are also voiced glottal fricative initials [Ɂb, Ɂd], where words like 布 bu and 饭 fan are pronounced with [Ɂb], while words like 刀 dao and 豆 dou are pronounced with [Ɂd]. These two phonetic characteristics are quite different from Hokkien and Teochew. In terms of pronunciation, there are two systems — the colloquial pronunciation and literary reading pronunciation. This characteristic is consistent with Hokkien and Teochew. Take some common surnames in the local context as examples:
Among these, colloquial pronunciation is more commonly used in everyday conversation, while the literary reading pronunciation is mainly employed when mentioning names, idioms, poems, or classical texts and in similar contexts.
In addition, Hainanese has a significant number of “borrowed characters” (xundu zi). This refers to a phenomenon where the pronunciation of a term is borrowed from synonymous characters. Over time, this borrowed pronunciation becomes relatively fixed. Strictly speaking, the borrowed pronunciation is actually a kind of misreading. When local people use Chinese characters to record or mark words, the characters they use borrowed the meaning of the synonymous characters temporarily, without borrowing their pronunciation. These characters are then referred to as borrowed characters. In the entire Minnan dialect system, there are a number of borrowed characters. Some common examples in Hainanese include:
Hainanese has its own characteristics in terms of vocabulary and grammar. In the early days, many Hainanese people in Singapore worked for Europeans (commonly referred to as “da yanggong”, working for foreigners), and a significant number were employed in the food and beverage industry. As a result, vocabulary related to food in Hainanese often consisted of transliterations from English. For example, an apple is 阿布 a bu and a chef is referred to as 库克 “cooker”.
Grammatically speaking, Hainanese shares many basic similarities with Hokkien and Teochew, though one key difference is the position of the adverb 先 (first). For instance, to say, “You go first”, Hainanese would use the structure, 你先去 (“You first go”) instead of 你去先 (“You go first”), as is the case with those other dialects. However, in recent years, due to the influence of other dialects, there has been an adoption of the 你去过先 (“You go first”) in Hainanese.
According to oral accounts of Hainanese individuals, the majority of Hainanese people on Hainan Island had migrated from the Chaozhou region. Discussing the relationship between the Hainanese, Hokkien, and Teochew dialects, linguist Woon Wee Lee remarks: “In the three regions of Minnan, Chaoshan, and Hainan, each dialect has its own characteristics, yet they are interconnected. Among them, the Chaoshan dialect serves as a middle ground, sharing similarities with both Minnan and Hainan dialects, while the differences between Minnan and Hainan dialects are naturally somewhat larger.”2 Therefore, Hainanese is not mutually intelligible with Hokkien or Teochew. Fortunately, Hokkien and Teochew are the main local dialects, and many Hainanese individuals can understand and speak Hokkien and Teochew, bridging the gap between dialects.”
Currently, the older generation of Hainanese individuals in Singapore can still speak the Hainanese dialect, while most of the younger generation cannot. Cultural and historical researchers such as Tan Swee Liang have noted that the Hainanese dialect is disappearing at a faster rate in Singapore compared to Hokkien and Teochew. On one hand, this is closely related to national language policies and bilingual education in English and Mandarin. On the other hand, it is also directly related to factors such as the smaller population of the Hainanese community, and a weaker sense of native language identity.
In earlier years, the Hainanese people referred to themselves as the Qiongzhou people. The character 琼qiong served as a distinctive marker for the Hainanese, for example in Qiong descent (qiongji), Qiong hometown (qiongxiang), Qiong dialect (qiongyu), our Qiong community (woqiong), and Qiong association (qionglianhui). After China revoked the administrative status of Hainan as part of Guangdong province in April 1988, and upgraded it to Hainan province, local community organisations replaced the term Qiongzhou with Hainan. In some names, the character qiong came to be replaced with hainan 海南.
In order to preserve Hainanese and Qiongzhou culture, various grassroots organisations formed by Hainanese people in Singapore — such as the Hainan Hwee Kuan, Kiung Chow Tin Hou Kong Temple, and Hainan Chen Clan Association — often organise Hainanese conversation classes, singing classes, and performances of Hainanese folk songs. Over the years, some parents of newborns with Hainanese ancestry have also inquired into the Hainanese pronunciation of children’s names, as they aim to pass on their heritage to the next generation.
Ini Indexs
Today, the “traditional” Chinese orchestra is no longer the sole purveyor of Chinese music in Singapore. With their portability, strong creative impulses and distinct Singaporean identity, the musicians of Chinese music ensembles also have a sense of ownership over Chinese music, but the term is much expanded. Their music can be considered “for the people, by the people”, a phrase commonly used in Singapore to describe an event or initiative that is meant to be inclusive, resulting in a more organic development process for Chinese music in Singapore.
The dawn of the 21st century saw musicians moving away from the typical Chinese orchestra to form smaller ensembles made up of like-minded peers, who sought a new mode of expression that stretches the boundaries of traditional Chinese orchestral music and performance. Ensembles that were part of this movement in Singapore include The TENG Ensemble, SAtheCollective, The Pipa Quartet, Resonance, Stringanza, Reverberance, and MUSA. Around the mid-2010s, some of them were described as having contemporised traditional Chinese music.1
These groups are made up of three to eight members — the Chinese orchestra typically comprises 60 to 100 members — and often compose their own pieces or create arrangements from a repertoire beyond that of the traditional Chinese orchestra. For example, SAtheCollective started as a trio and experimented with electronic modulation and looping of traditional Chinese instruments. The Pipa Quartet used an electro-acoustic version of the pipa (a four-stringed lute that is played upright) to experiment with its own versions of house, electronica, and metal music. Resonance featured different versions of the sheng (a wind instrument made of vertical bamboo pipes) and its repertoire consisted of a mix of traditional Chinese pieces as well as contemporary pieces such as songs from Disney movies and modern jazz classics. Stringanza mixed Chinese and Western bowed string instruments and played music from contemporary movies and Chinese oldies. Similarly, The TENG Ensemble brought together sounds and instruments from the east, west, past and present, reimagining popular and folk music alike.
While considered innovative by audiences at the time, the idea of reinventing Chinese music was not new or unique to Singapore. China had also been redeveloping its own Chinese music landscape. For example, programming on the China Central Television (CCTV) music channel shifted to featuring fewer Chinese orchestra works and more xin minyue (“New Folk” music), a new form of Chinese music. Another new development was the emergence of zhongguo feng (Chinese-style music), a genre invented by Mandopop singers that integrates the textures and timbres of Chinese instruments with popular music. Collaborations by Chinese orchestra ensembles with groups that play other genres also became a notable development. In June 2014, the Hong Kong Chinese Orchestra’s youth arm, HKCO4U, collaborated with the jazz-inspired fusion group SIU2 in a concert at the Sunbeam Theatre.2
In August that same year, the Singapore Chinese Orchestra (SCO) presented a concert in collaboration with the renowned American jazz quartet, Brubeck Brothers.3 In 2015, the Huayi – Chinese Festival of Arts by Esplanade, presented acclaimed China-born erhu player and composer George Gao’s Shaoqin Bang, an ensemble of shaoqin (a reinvention of the traditional erhu) performers, who played western-classical, Chinese-classical, and pop-music pieces all in the same concert.
This evolving landscape of contemporary Chinese music in Singapore necessitates an examination of its distinctive local characteristics to discover a discernible Singaporean sound within these musical expressions. It may be argued that Singaporean music can be defined as compositions or concepts originating from and performed by those who have resided in Singapore long enough to acquire a deep understanding of its culture and derive a sense of identity from it. However, this method of categorising a sound within a geographically defined framework raises considerations about its application. Given Singapore’s multiculturalism and its global positioning, defining a singular Singaporean sound requires a balanced, ongoing discussion. It is, nonetheless, still possible to suggest that Chinese music ensembles in Singapore contribute to a distinctive local aesthetic that is characterised by the distinct touch of Singaporean musicians. This collective shaping of a Singaporean sound can be recognised as a unique imprint within the broader landscape of contemporary Chinese music.
In totality, the ensembles add diversity to the Chinese music scene, which used to be dominated solely by the Chinese orchestra, and give voice to individual musicians who aspire beyond their music playing to art making. The rise of these Chinese music ensembles does not necessarily signal the downfall of the Chinese orchestra. Rather, it opens up more possibilities for young Chinese musicians and managers alike who may be considering a career in Chinese music or Chinese-based Singaporean music. These ensembles fit into gaps that the Chinese orchestra cannot fill due to its size, make-up and internal forces that control its development. If they persist and continue to grow, as some of them have, and more new Chinese music ensembles emerge, it would certainly give the Chinese music scene in Singapore a significant boost in terms of creative growth, recognition, and developing an identity that is unique to its history.
Ini Indexs
Before Thian Hock Keng — the most important Hokkien temple in Singapore — was founded, the Heng San Teng cemetery and temple established by prominent businessman See Hoot Kee (1793–1847) was the leading institution of the Hokkien community.
When See returned to Malacca in 1839 to take over the running of Cheng Hoon Teng Temple, well-known philanthropist Tan Tock Seng (1798–1850), who was also from Malacca, became the new leader of the Hokkien community. It was also in 1839 that Tan led a group of prominent merchants to build Thian Hock Keng in Telok Ayer Street. The temple was officially completed in 1842.
From the start, the leaders of Thian Hock Keng demonstrated that their vision for the temple transcended dialect groups. Through the worship of sea goddess Mazu, the temple aimed to connect and unite the entire Chinese community in Singapore. In the stone stele record of the temple’s construction dating back to 1850, Tan and other directors referred to themselves as “tang ren” — that is, Chinese people — rather than Hokkiens. This approach gradually led Thian Hock Keng to become a leading institution in the local Chinese community, unlike the limited social role of the preceding Heng San Teng, which served only the Hokkien community.
While Thian Hock Keng had been established as a place of worship, the temple was not merely used for religious activities. The inscription on the 1850 stone stele also stated that where Guanyin (the Goddess of Mercy) was worshipped, the temple would serve as a meeting place for “tang ren” to discuss official business – signalling its ambition to become a centre of power in the Chinese community. A plaque displayed in the temple, which features the calligraphy of Qing emperor Guangxu with the phrase that translates into “Gentle Waves Over the South Seas”, also indirectly affirmed the temple’s standing.
Prior to Thian Hock Keng, earlier leaders of the Hokkien community in Singapore had founded other temples too. The Kim Lan Beo temple was built in the 1830. According to the inscription on a stone stele of Kim Lan Beo, dating back to 1839, the temple had been initiated by Tan Che Sang, Yang Qinghai, and Xu Ronghai. Construction costs amounted to nearly 1,000 dollars, and the three had donated a total of 640 dollars, making up more than half of the building funds; Tan alone had contributed 360 dollars.
It was speculated that Tan Che Sang might have been an alias of Tan Sang, a gang leader in Singapore in the early 19th century. In One Hundred Years’ History of the Chinese in Singapore, Song Ong Siang documented in English that Tan Sang (1763–1835) had been known by several aliases, namely Tan Che Sang, Tan Chi Sang, Tan Cheh Sang, and Tan Chee Sang, thus supporting the possibility.
Kim Lan Beo began as a secret society within the Hokkien community, a fraternity with 75 founding members. In the early years of modern Singapore, forming and joining gangs were crucial survival strategies. When the British colonial government declared secret societies to be illegal in 1890, Kim Lan Beo transitioned from an underground organisation to a temple that was opened to the public purely for religious purposes.
Another temple built in the earlier years was Hong San See, an important institution for immigrants from the Nan’an county in Fujian. Established in 1836 under the leadership of Neo Jin Quee (unknown–1843), it played a vital role in maintaining relationships and connections within the community.
In those days, the Hokkien community would organise street processions during religious festivals devoted to Chinese deities. During such processions, the respective patron deities of the Hong San See, Heng San Teng, and Kim Lan Beo temples — that is, Kong Teik Chun Ong, Fu De Zheng Shen (more popularly known as Tua Pek Kong), and Qing Shui Zu Shi respectively — would be taken to Thian Hock Keng, where offerings were made to them. This demonstrated that the three temples and their patron deities were highly recognised and respected.
Early Hokkien merchants also set up the Keng Teck Whay— a self-help organisation founded in 1831 — and temples such as Qing Yuan Zhen Jun Temple (1849) and Hoo Chay Beoh (1876), which housed the local deities of Changtai and Kinmen counties to watch over fellow countrymen living in Singapore.
The Keng Teck Whay association (also known as the Keng Teck Association Hall), is an exclusive mutual-aid society founded in 1831. Its former building is located to the left of Thian Hock Keng, and across the tower of Chongwen Ge. Its founders were 36 Straits Chinese middlemen who had pledged brotherhood before the Three Officials of Heaven, Earth, and Water (the Heavenly Venerable of Purple Tenebrity, the Heaven Official who dispense fortune; the Great Emperor of the Pure Void, Official of the Earth who absolves sins; and the Great Emperor of the Cavernous Obscurity, Official of Water who dispels obstructions). Each of them contributed 100 Spanish dollars to the credit foundation of Keng Teck Whay. If a member passed away or failed in his business, the association would provide financial support to his family members until they could stand on their own.
It can be gleaned from the names inscribed on the collective spirit tablet of the founding members that they were closely related to the networks of the Zhangzhou and Quanzhou communities in Malacca. Some were related to See, a Chinese community leader in Singapore and Malacca; others were descendants of Chinese Kapitans in Malacca, or heirs of leaders of Cheng Hoon Teng Temple. Despite a decrease in number of members over the years, the descendants of the Kheng Teck Whay’s members maintained a kinship that lasted a century and a half.
According to the stone stele record of Teang Thye Temple’s reconstruction, the Teang Thye Clan Association was founded by Cheang Sam Teo (circa 1805–1862) for the people from the prefecture of Zhangzhou in 1849. His son Cheang Hong Lim (1825–1893) renovated the association building in 1887 and converted it into a temple, where the local residents worshipped Qing Yuan Zhen Jun, the deity enshrined in the building since its establishment.
The temple originally had three entrances and was of considerable scale. By the 1970s, only the main hall remained. That eventually disappeared too as the temple’s popularity waned and urban redevelopment gathered pace. Its transformation from a clan association to a temple might have been inevitable as activities in the clan association dwindled. Its proximity to Chinatown, where the Cantonese community was concentrated, could also have made it challenging for the association to engage the population in that area.
Gnoh Kung Hoo Chay Beoh, the predecessor of Kim Mui Hoey Kuan, was founded on Smith Street in Chinatown in 1876 by immigrants from Kinmen. It served to worship Chen Yuan, the Tang Dynasty commander-in-chief credited with opening up Kinmen, and his wife. Leaders of the Kinmen community set up an office within its premises soon after the temple was established. The temple was known initially as Kim Mui Kongsi and renamed Kim Mui Hoey Kuan in later years – the name “Kim Mui Hoey Kuan” first appeared in the stone stele record of the temple’s reconstruction and the stele that lists the names of donors who contributed to the temple’s reconstruction dating back to 1931. The name was not seen in the early stone stele of the temple, which is the earliest stele record of the Gnoh Kung Hoo Chay Beoh dating back to the second year of Emperor Guangxu’s reign (1876).
In 1974, the land which the temple occupied was acquired by the government, and it relocated to 72 Keng Lee Road in 1986. Kim Mui Hoey Kuan Building was officially completed in 1986, and the shrine of Chen Yuan and his wife was moved to the top floor of the building, where it continues to be worshipped today.
Whether it was Thian Hock Keng or Hong San See, the early leaders of the Hokkien temples and community all had inseparable ties with Malacca. Almost all of the founding directors of Thian Hock Keng were prominent, wealthy businessmen from Malacca, while Neo Bee Kiat, the first head of Cheng Hoon Teng in Malacca, was the elder brother of Hong San See’s founder Neo Jin Quee. This indicated that both the leadership structure and culture of Hokkien temples in early Singapore were influenced by the Hokkien community in Malacca.
Other Hokkien temples have continued to serve immigrants from their respective hometowns till today. Just as in the early years, the temples have taken on the roles of clan associations and performed social duties that go beyond being places of worship.
Ini Indexs
“Singapore Chinese culture” encompasses three major elements: nation, ethnicity, and culture. Examining the transformation of the Chinese ethnic identity within the context of Singapore’s national history will help us understand the evolution and characteristics of Chinese culture in Singapore.
Modern Singapore was founded more than 200 years ago. In its history, two crucial years stand out: 1819 and 1965. The former was the year the British established a trading post on the island, while the latter marked the start of the nation’s independence. Singapore is an immigrant society, with the majority of early immigrants being Chinese. Among them, a small portion were local-born Chinese from Malaya (Melaka and Penang), commonly referred to as Baba or Nyonya (the terms “Straits Chinese” and “Peranakan” emerged later). The majority were immigrants, from the southern coastal regions of China, who were commonly known as xinke (“sinkeh”).
Due to differences in when they migrated, the two groups exhibited significant differences in their China consciousness. The Babas had a stronger sense of local identity, while most of the Chinese immigrants from southern China harboured a desire to return to their roots.
In the 19th century, China and Britain squared off again in Singapore. Both recognised the value and contributions of the local Chinese community. In 1877, the Qing government and the colonial government separately established the Chinese Consulate and the Chinese Protectorate in Singapore, initiating a long-term contest (which lasted until the eve of World War II) to win over the Chinese community. Effective measures included promoting culture and education, organising important state celebrations, implementing the sale of official titles and honours, issuing medals, hosting visits by political figures, and calling for war efforts against the enemies.
Their efforts drew the attention and response of the local Chinese community to the political affairs of both countries. As a result, factions that identified with either China or pledged allegiance to Britain were formed, sowing the seeds of cultural divisions between Chinese-educated/Chinese-speaking groups and English-educated/English-speaking groups.
After World War II, the British Empire dissolved, and the People’s Republic of China was established, followed by the birth of Singapore as an independent nation. Singapore’s history entered a brand-new era, with local Chinese facing unprecedented changes. On one hand, both British and Chinese influences gradually receded and emerging nations demanded the loyalty of their people. On the other hand, the Cold War between superpowers intensified ideological conflicts and exacerbated ethnic tensions, leading to further divisions between ethnic groups and linguistic communities. This also affected the development of Chinese-language education.
By the late 1970s, as political uncertainties gradually dissipated, tensions over Chinese ethnic identity and cultural identification began to ease. However, this period also marked the start of anxiety over cultural disconnection.
As Singapore transformed from a British colony into an emerging nation-state, the nomenclature used to describe Chinese Singaporeans also underwent changes. During the colonial era, various terms such as tangren (people of the Tang dynasty), zhongguoren (people from China), huaren (Chinese, including Baba or Straits Chinese), and xinke (immigrants from China) were used interchangeably to refer to the Chinese community. The term huaqiao (overseas Chinese) emerged much later, in the 1880s and 1890s, and gained popularity after the 1911 Revolution. Subsequently, it became common to refer to early Chinese immigrants and their descendants as huaqiao.
The majority of Chinese in Singapore also embraced the term huaqiao. This is evident in the naming of institutions such as OCBC Bank (Huaqiao yinhang) and the Chinese High School (Huaqiao zhongxue), now known as Hwa Chong Institution, both founded in 1919.
World War II altered the relationship the Chinese in Singapore had with China and Britain. In 1955, China abolished dual nationality, defining huaqiao as overseas Chinese who held China passports. After the founding of Singapore, the politically-charged term, huaqiao, was seen as inappropriate, and was replaced by huaren.
Since the 1960s, the term huaren has been commonly used in Southeast Asia, while in China, the term waiji huaren (Chinese of foreign nationality) is more prevalent. The shift from huaqiao to huaren represents a transition in national identity. Furthermore, huaren encompasses huaqiao, much like how huarenshi (the history of the ethnic Chinese) includes huaqiaoshi (the history of the overseas Chinese). However, not all huaren can be referred to as huaqiao or wish to be labelled as such.
Outside of mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan, the terms huaren, huayi (Chinese descent), and huazu (Chinese ethnic group) can be used interchangeably. Chinese communities in different countries have their own preferences and customs when it comes to such terminology. The proportion of Chinese populations in various regions often influences national policies, which in turn affects the sense of identity and cultural identification of the Chinese.
For example, among Chinese communities in Singapore and Malaysia, even young people are not accustomed to referring to themselves as huayi xinjiaporen (Singaporeans of Chinese descent) or huayi malaixiyaren (Malaysians of Chinese descent). Instead, they prefer the terms xinjiapo huaren (Chinese Singaporean) and malaixiya huaren (Chinese Malaysian). However, in the United States and Canada, immigrant descendants generally prefer to be called huayi meiguoren (Americans of Chinese descent) or huayi jianandaren (Canadians of Chinese descent). Huayi refers to the descendants of huaqiao and huaren. The term huayi carries a subtle sense of distance or detachment from China.
In academic circles, there is no difference between huazushi (history of the Chinese ethnic group) and huarenshi (history of the ethnic Chinese), but the latter seems to be more common. In the first decade or so after Singapore’s independence, there was a shift in the political climate, and the sensitivity around ethnicity gradually diminished. However, careful handling of inter-ethnic relations remained necessary. Whether it is the national pledge to “pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language, or religion”, or the CMIO (Chinese, Malay, Indian, Others) framework for multiethnic governance, ethnic relations have always been a focal point of national policy. After the easing of regional tensions following its independence, Singapore’s leaders implemented policies that appreciated the differences between the diverse ethnic groups, and moved from a de-emphasis to an emphasis on ethnic Chinese culture. Within such a multicultural context, the term zu (ethnic group) might be more suitable than ren (people) to refer to the Chinese in Singapore.
When exploring overseas Chinese society and culture, one cannot overlook its three main pillars: associations, schools, and newspapers. Besides serving social, economic, and educational functions, these pillars also bear the heavy responsibility of cultural transmission.
During the colonial era, clan associations representing different places of origin established Chinese schools and even founded secondary schools and a university that transcended hometown boundaries, building bastions of Chinese culture.
In the 1980s, Chinese-medium schools experienced a decline. Although Chinese community organisations and Chinese-language newspapers also faced setbacks, they subsequently shared the responsibility of safeguarding and promoting traditional Chinese culture.
With the growing sense of national identity and the transformation of ethnic belonging, Singapore Chinese culture continues to evolve. Examining the evolution of cultural development provides insights into its diversification (using Baba/Straits Chinese culture as an example) and the development and characteristics of indigenisation. It also sheds light on the setbacks to its growth and the subsequent revitalisation of Singapore Chinese culture.
Away from its culture of origin, Chinese culture in Singapore faced major challenges from two sources: indigenous cultures and Western culture. Consequently, this led to a cultural hybridisation which facilitated the development of local Chinese culture.
The culture of Baba/Straits Chinese in Singapore is a product of the fusion of Eastern and Western cultures. However, comparatively, the Singapore Babas lack the “Chinese colour” of the Penang Babas, and the “Malay flavour” of the Malacca Babas. Instead, they demonstrate a more pronounced Westernisation.
Straits Chinese educated in English often have a preference for Western theatre, literature, music, and sports. They participated in church activities, organised amateur Western-style clubs, and published English magazines. However, the cultural fabric of Straits Chinese is not purely Westernised. In their households, they conversed in Baba Malay (a mixed language of Hokkien dialect and Malay language). Their intellectuals founded English-medium schools for girls where Chinese was taught. They enjoyed blending Western and Malay popular music in their daily lives. During weddings, funerals, and festive occasions, they might incorporate Hokkien music and Malay instruments. They might adhere even more closely to traditional Chinese customs than typical immigrant families from China.
It is worth mentioning that in the late 19th century, a group of English-educated Straits Chinese intellectuals initiated a far-reaching movement for the revival of Chinese culture. This movement, known as the Mandarin (Chinese) Movement or Confucian Revival Movement, led the community to “revert from uncultured to cultured”. A century later, as the Chinese school system fell apart and the crisis of losing one’s roots loomed, Singapore political leaders with a pure English education and a Peranakan family background stepped forward to stem the tide. They initiated another wave of Mandarin and Confucianism movements to prevent further cultural erosion. It can be said that under the impact of Western culture, the repeated de-emphasising and emphasising of ethnic Chinese culture and heritage has become a major characteristic of the development of Singapore Chinese culture.
The localised development of Chinese culture in Singapore presents another picture. Chinese immigrants brought with them their native culture, including dialects, customs, nursery rhymes, private schools, temples, and deities. Among them, the intellectuals observed the trend of indigenisation and Westernisation among the descendants of the Chinese, or they worried about the Babas “shifting away from being a Chinese to an indigenised identity and completely changing their essence”, or they feared that students attending English schools would “forget Mandarin… and become uncultured”, so they established Chinese-medium schools to educate their Chinese offspring.
With the efforts of the Chinese Consulate, the constant arrival of intellectuals from China, and the establishment of modern schools, Chinese culture was elevated (refined culture also emerged within small circles, such as Huixianshe [a society for literati], that brought together thousands of poets and scholars), and slowly gained popularity. Subsequently, with the increasing influence of China, Singapore Chinese culture became a offshoot of the culture of China.
As a result, during the colonial era, Chinese culture in Singapore was infused with elements of China. Examples abound, such as the worship of Mazu and Guanyin in temples, Chinese teachers and textbooks in Chinese schools, music and street operas of dialect groups, the Confucian Revival Movement in response to the Reform Movement led by Kang Youwei in China, newspaper formats and literary trends influenced by the May Fourth Movement, as well as Chinese literary and artistic works supporting China’s resistance against Japan, and so on. However, as Chinese culture was transplanted to the Nanyang region and took root, it gradually adapted to the local environment and developed its own unique characteristics. Even as it later became somewhat distant from its land of origin, it continued to grow and demonstrate resilience.
Over a century and a half after its founding, the colonial era in Singapore came to an end and a new nation emerged. During this time, the identity of the Chinese transitioned from huaqiao to huaren, and Chinese culture underwent changes. This transformation occurred gradually before accelerating rapidly. Over the past century, Chinese culture has experienced friction, coexistence, and an oscillation between the consciousness of overseas Chinese and a sense of local identity.
For instance, Chinese school textbooks had traditionally been modelled after those in China. Even those published locally later merely added some Nanyang characteristics. It was not until the 1950s, following the fading of China influence in the overseas Chinese school here, that textbooks shifted from being China-centric to being Malayanised. After independence, they rapidly became Singaporeanised.
Chinese literature is another example. For a long time, China literature dominated the scene, but some scholars argue that from the 1920s to the post-World War II era, it underwent phases of advocating for Nanyang elements and Malayan literature, the rise and fall of local and overseas Chinese consciousness, the ascension of local consciousness and the development of mahua wenxue (Malayan Chinese literature), and the birth of xinhua wenxue (Singapore Chinese literature). In summary, over the past 150 years, the evolution of Singapore Chinese culture has presented a historical trajectory of China-centricity progressing towards localisation, followed by nationalisation.
However, the development of Singapore Chinese culture was not all smooth-sailing after the nation’s founding. In a very short time, Singapore saw a de-emphasis and then emphasis on Chinese culture. Within the framework of national unity, various activities and organisations related to the Chinese language rapidly declined. The number of students in Chinese schools plummeted, newspaper operations faced setbacks, and the functions of clan associations weakened, leading to the trend of “mergers” between Chinese organisations in the 1980s. This change had far-reaching implications for Chinese culture. But just when it seemed beset by crises, opportunities were also emerging.
In the 1970s, there was widespread talk in Confucian economic circles about the economic miracles of Japan and the Four Asian Dragons. In the 1980s, there was an global trend of going back to one’s roots, and Singapore’s national leaders expressed concerns about “decadent” influences from the West. These and other factors provided a favourable environment for the ethnic Chinese in Singapore to reaffirm their Chinese identity and revive traditional culture. Even so, a cultural fracture had already formed, and numerous challenges lay ahead.
Over the years, Chinese culture in Singapore has gone through phases of China-centricity, localisation, and nationalisation, and has been de-emphasised and re-emphasised in turn. We can see these changes in the transformation of clan associations, Chinese schools, and Chinese newspapers, as well as in the evolution of Chinese language, literature, visual arts, music and so on through the decades.