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.
Ini Indexs
In the early 19th century, various dialect groups within the Chinese community in Singapore established clan cemeteries to address the important issue of burials for their brethren who had died in a foreign land. Among the five major Chinese dialect groups in Singapore, the Hokkien-speaking community was the largest in terms of population and economic influence. According to records from the “Fu Mi Chun Qiu”(May Good Fortune spread through Spring and Autumn) plaque (1828) in Heng San Teng temple and the Heng San Teng Stele (1830), it can be inferred that the prominent See family from Malacca, led by See Hoot Kee (1793–1847),1had already worked together with several Hokkien clan leaders to establish the Heng San Ting in the Silat Road and Jalan Bukit Merah area. Heng San Teng, established by 1828, was the earliest Fujian clan cemetery in Singapore, and served as the main authority for the Hokkien community.
The existence of grave sites around Silat Road likely predates the official establishment of the Heng San Teng. In recent years, a research team led by Professor Kenneth Dean from the Department of Chinese Studies at the National University of Singapore discovered over 400 relocated graves in Bukit Brown Cemetery with inscriptions dating from the Qing dynasty. The earliest of these graves, the tomb of a man named Xie Guangze from Fujian, can be traced back to 1826 (or the 6th year of the Daoguang reign). This confirms that there were already a significant number of Fujian immigrants in Singapore during the early years of its founding, specifically during the Daoguang era (1821–1850).
Among these newly discovered Qing dynasty graves, the research team also found that some of the deceased individuals hailed from areas outside of Minnan (South Fujian) such as Putian and Fuzhou — in addition to inland areas of Minnan such as Anxi and Yongchun. The academic community had traditionally believed that the earliest Fujianese immigrants to Singapore mainly came from Zhangzhou and Quanzhou in Minnan, and that the Heng San Teng was established by individuals from these two prefectures, serving as the burial ground primarily for migrants from the area. However, these recent findings challenge this traditional understanding, and reflect that early immigrants came not only from Southern Fujian to Singapore, but also from other regions of Fujian. It appears that Heng San Teng served as the final resting place for a majority of immigrants from Fujian, as indicated by See Hoot Kee’s announcement in the Heng San Teng Reopening and Tomb Announcement Stele (1846): “In the future, all Fujian people who encounter unforeseen circumstances may be buried here.”
During the later decades of the 19th century, the Hokkien community’s population surged from 10,000 in 1848 to 30,000 in 1881, and even the combined new and old public cemeteries at the Heng San Teng were unable to meet the growing demand. As a result, Hokkien clan leaders started to acquire additional burial grounds. In 1885, they purchased Leng Kee Suah, and in 1895, they established Hokkien Lao Suah (the New Heng San Teng) as another burial ground for their clansmen. At the same time, various lineage organisations within the Hokkien community invested in separate surname cemeteries, such as Seh Ong Suah at Bukit Brown, Khoo Chan Cemetery in Silat Road, and Seh Wee Cemetery off Tiong Bahru Road. At this point, the expansion and development of Fujian clan public cemeteries in Singapore had reached its peak.
In the 20th century, the British colonial government and the post-independence government of Singapore gradually strengthened regulations on Chinese cemeteries and began to acquire cemetery land for urban redevelopment purposes. 2Hokkien clan leaders actively negotiated with the government, relocating ancient graves affected by land acquisition to other cemeteries like Lao Suah, Kopi Suah, and others. At the same time, leaders within the Hokkien community, including Lim Boon Keng (1869–1957) and Tan Kah Kee (1874–1961), vigorously advocated for changing the traditional funeral customs of elaborate burials and encouraged the public to abandon their old insular clan consciousness. They promoted the idea of burying the deceased in Bukit Brown Cemetery, a cemetery established by the Municipal Council in 1922 for Chinese people of all dialect groups. To some extent, these initiatives alleviated the predicaments of both unauthorised establishment of private cemeteries and the scarcity of burial sites.
From the 1970s, all Hokkien clan cemeteries were closed, with only portions of Lao Suah, Kopi Suah, and Bukit Brown Cemetery preserved today. Modern-day Singaporeans have transitioned from a clan-based identity to a national identity, and thus no longer insist on being buried in cemeteries specific to their dialect groups. As a result, Hokkien clan cemeteries have become historical relics.
Ini Indexs
The leaders of the Hokkien community in Singapore have had a long history of involvement in local charitable activities. Among them, the contributions of Tan Tock Seng (1798–1850) and his family, as well as Tan Kim Seng (1805–1864) have been particularly significant.
Tan Tock Seng Hospital, the second-largest acute care general hospital in Singapore today, was founded in 1844 by wealthy businessman Tan Tock Seng, the hospital’s sole proprietor.[1]
In the early 19th century, medical facilities in Singapore were not yet well-developed, and diseases plagued the impoverished population. According to a report in The Straits Times on 23 September 1845, there were 36,000 Chinese in Singapore at that time, and one-third of them lived in poverty. About 6,000 people went hungry every year, and over 100 died of starvation or illnesses on the streets.
Between 1843 and 1850, Tan Tock Seng, as a leader of the Hokkien community, provided 1,032 coffins at the cost of 1,073.03 Spanish dollars for those who had starved to death on the streets and had not had a proper burial. It was against this backdrop that Tan Tock Seng Hospital was established in Pearl Hill, beginning first as the Chinese Pauper Hospital. Tan Tock Seng took the lead in donating 7,000 Spanish dollars for its construction in 1844.
The hospital then relocated to Serangoon Road (now the site of Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital) in 1861, before moving on 21 April 1909 to its present location near Moulmein Road. In 2001, John Tan Jiew Hoe, the son of Robert Tan Hoon Siang (1909–1991) and fifth-generation descendant of Tan Tock Seng, donated S$100,000 to establish the Tan Tock Seng Hospital Heritage Museum in the hospital to showcase its history. Today, the hospital is a major general hospital. From poor and sick beggars in the 19th century, to present-day patients infected with HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) or other infectious diseases, Tan Tock Seng Hospital has long served groups that have been discriminated by society.
Born in Malacca, Tan Tock Seng had ancestral roots in Zhangzhou, Fujian. He was already financially stable when he came to Singapore in his early years. By the 1840s, he had become a major import and export merchant with commercial ships under his name, and business networks across Southeast Asia, Europe, India, and China.
His eldest son, Tan Kim Ching (1829–1892), expanded the scope of his father’s business — notably introducing Thai rice to the local market and reselling it abroad. He wielded significant social and political influence, and also inherited his father’s philanthropic spirit. He continued to provide money to renovate the pauper hospital, donating 3,000 Strait dollars for new medical equipment and wards. Following in his father’s footsteps, he became a prominent leader in the overseas Chinese community, and was invited to participate in the Legislative Council and the Municipal Commission to assist the British colonial government in planning and managing the development of Singapore.
In the early days of modern Singapore, people relied on wells for their daily water consumption, and water shortages were common. In November 1845, Tan Tock Seng proposed to the colonial government to build two water tanks for the convenience of the public. On 19 March 1846, the Singapore Free Press reported that he had made a joint donation with James Stephens (birth and death years unknown), a European merchant, to set up two water tanks at the Assembly Rooms (now Old Hill Street Police Station).
Ten years later, in 1857, Tan Kim Seng donated 13,000 Straits dollars to the government to develop Singapore’s first reservoir and public waterworks. Tan, a trader and property owner, was another eminent leader of the overseas Chinese community. He came from Malacca, had ancestral roots in Yongchun, Fujian. As a result of Tan Kim Seng’s donation, the people of Singapore enjoyed convenient access to clean water. To recognise his generous contribution, the government built the Tan Kim Seng Fountain in Fullerton Square in 1882. The fountain, which was later moved to Queen Elizabeth Walk, still stands at what is now the Esplanade Park today, bearing witness to the city’s development.
Tan Kim Seng was also passionate about education. He founded two important Hokkien free schools in Singapore, namely Chong Wen Ge (1849–) and Chui Eng Free School (Chui Eng Si E, 1854–1954).
Rising to prominence after him was businessman Tan Kah Kee (1874–1961), who was equally dedicated to education and charity work. The early Tao Nan School (1906–present), Ai Tong School (1912–present), and Chong Fook Girls’ School (now Chongfu School, 1915–present) were all testaments to his commitment to education. Furthermore, he personally led five disaster relief efforts, including raising funds for the 1961 Bukit Ho Swee fire in Singapore, and for flood relief in Tianjin, China as well as the Guangdong and Fujian provinces.
All in all, the philanthropic endeavours of these pioneers of the Hokkien community have been an indispensable part of Singapore’s development.
Ini Indexs
The first Chinese movie produced in Singapore was Xin Ke (The New Immigrant),1 a silent film.2 It was a collaborative effort involving Chinese people from different regions — financed and written by Liu Beijin (Low Poey Kim; 1902–1959), the son of Liu Zhuhou (1866–1922), a wealthy businessman from Muar, Malaysia; directed and shot by Guo Chao-Wen from Xiangshan, Guangdong, China; and starring Zheng Chao-Ren (1905–1983) from Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Production of Xin Ke began in 1926, and it premiered on 4 March 1927 at the Victoria Theatre. After a review by the colonial government, only six of the original nine reels were approved for release. Due to poor box office reception and a lack of funds, Singapore’s first film-making dream came to a halt.
Local film production did not resume until 1934. On March 27 that year, Indian director B. S. Rajhans’s (1903–1955) Malay sound film Leila Majnun premiered at the Marlborough Theatre on Beach Road. The film, starring famous bangsawan (Malay traditional opera) actors, was very popular in Malaya and India. Spotting a business opportunity, brothers Runme Shaw (1901–1985) and Run Run Shaw (1907–2014), who were operating movie theatres in many Southeast Asian locations at the time, decided to set up a studio in Jalan Ampas in 1937 to exclusively produce Malay sound films. From 1938 to 1941, the studio recruited the first generation of Chinese directors Hou Yao (1903–1942) and his female student Wan Hoi Ling (birth and death years unknown) to Singapore, where they co-directed eight Malay films from Chinese scripts translated into Malay. With the outbreak of World War II in 1942, local production stopped again.
Film production recovered rapidly after the war. In keeping with the zeitgeist, a slew of anti-Japanese works was released. New films in the Chinese language included the news-based feature Malayan Newsreel Collection (1945), the documentary film Glory of Malaya (1946),3 as well as drama films Blood and Tears of the Overseas Chinese (1946), Spirit of Overseas Chinese (1946), and Honour and Sin, also known as Miss Nanyang (1947), which were released by China Motion Film Picture Studio. Not wanting to be left behind, Shaw Brothers released Song of Singapore in 1946, a film about years of hardship in Singapore during the Japanese Occupation directed by Chinese director Wu Cun (1904–1972). Wu Cun went on to direct the Shaw Brothers’ Second Motherland (1947) and Hard Times (1947), two locally-themed Chinese films, before leaving Singapore. It was around this time that the post-war wave of local Chinese-language films came to an end.
The 25-year period from 1947 to 1972 is regarded as the golden age of Malay films in Singapore. The Shaw Brothers’ Malay Film Productions (MFP), and Cathay-Keris Films, which was jointly established by Loke Wan Tho (1915–1964) and Ho Ah Loke (1901–1982), produced nearly 300 films in total. Although films were in Malay, they involved collaboration between people from the three major local ethnic groups — Chinese producers, Indian directors,4 and Malay actors.
While Malay films were widespread, there were also many locally-produced Chinese-language movies, such as the Hokkien film Love Deep as The Sea (1954) and Lovesickness Sent from Afar (1955); the gezai film Taming of the Princess (1958), the Chinese-Malay bilingual film Sri Menanti (1958), and also the Chinese films Door of Prosperity (1959), My Love in Malaya (1963). The most high-profile of these was The Lion City (1960) written and directed by Yi Shui, who advocated the “Malayanisation of Chinese-language cinema”. Although the film was mainly in Chinese, it was interspersed with Cantonese, Malay, English and other languages. Doing so, Yi Shui put into practice the idea of “Malayanised Chinese-language cinema”, and received a warm response from the local box office.
After the separation of Singapore and Malaysia in the 1960s, the centre of Malay film production shifted north to Kuala Lumpur. The golden age of Malay films came to an end when Malay Film Productions and Cathay-Keris Films ceased operations in 1967 and 1972 respectively. However, Chinese-language filmmakers in Singapore continued to strive, producing six films in four years from 1974 to 1977: action film Ring of Fury (1974); Cantonese film The Two Nuts (1975); three Chinese films produced by the Zongyi Group: Crime Does Not Pay (1975), Hypocrite (1976), Two Sides of the Bridge (1976), and also Dream of the Red Chamber ’77 (1977) directed by Hong Kong director Yau Kong-Kin (1940–2013). Ring of Fury was banned due to content involving secret societies. Although it was re-edited, the two appeals were unsuccessful. It was not until 2005, when censorship standards became more lenient, that the ban was lifted.
In 1978, the Singapore-Philippines co-production They Call Her Cleopatra Wong was released. Afterwards, the loss of support from two big studios, coupled with factors such as the national economy, poor local box office performance, and the rise of television as the go-to form of entertainment, meant that film production ground to a halt yet again. It remained dormant for over a decade, and it wasn’t until 1991 that local film production resumed, this time with a radically different look.
Ini Indexs
Early Teochew immigrants who settled in Singapore had, over time, established many clan associations that were based on kinship or geographical location. These associations served various purposes, including fostering strong relationships, looking after the welfare of fellow clansmen, setting up schools, and promoting cultural heritage. This culture of forming clan associations stemmed from a strong affiliation with one’s clan identity and geographical origins, a sentiment prevalent in traditional Chinese societies.
Apart from Ngee Ann Kongsi, Teochew Poit Ip Huay Kuan, and the Teochew Federation, other geographical Teochew clan associations in Singapore today include the Teo Yeonh Huai Kuan (1925), Nanyang Pho Leng Hui Kuan (1940), Kityang Huay Kwan (1941), Huilai Countrymen Association (1948), Teo Ann Huay Kuan (1964), Theng Hai Huay Kuan (1965), and Rao Ping Association (1993). There are also numerous kinship-based clan organisations under the framework of these associations.
Ban See Soon Kongsi, the earliest locality-based organisation of Singapore’s Teochew community, set up to worship the sea goddess Mazu and support education. The exact year of its establishment is unknown, but it would have existed since at least 1826, because Yueh Hai Ching temple, the temple it manages, had already been built then. Prior to the 1980s, Ban See Soon Kongsi had been supporting the operation of Teochew schools in various ways, and had also awarded bursaries to students from poor Teochew families.
In 1845, prominent merchant Seah Eu Chin (1805–1883) rallied the representatives of Teochew immigrants from Haiyang and Chenghai counties to set up Ngee Ann Kun (as Ngee Ann Kongsi was then known). Besides religious activities and community-building work, the organisation raised funds to acquire land for communal cemeteries. Under the leadership of the Teochew elite, Ngee Ann Kun gradually became the power centre of the Teochew community.
Chui Huay Lim Club, the first Teochew social club founded in Southeast Asia, was also established in 1845. Although it was not a clan association, it functioned like an overarching Teochew community organisation. Former presidents and directors of the club were all leaders of various Teochew clan associations. As such, major agendas were often discussed and agreed upon within the club before formal meetings were held in the respective clan associations. In that sense, Chui Huay Lim Club had transcended its role as a social club to become a core organisation of symbolic significance to the Teochew community.
After the mid-19th century, four clan organisations — namely Hong Kuak Foon Yang Kongsi (1865, now Feng Guo Fen Yang Association), Teo Chew Kang Hay T’ng (1867), Teochew Sai Ho Association (1880), and Lee Clan Kongsi (1890) — were set up, independent of Ngee Ann Kun. In the early 20th century, newly-emerged Teochew elites, including Chua Tze Yong (1847–unknown), Tan Hoon Chew (birth and death years unknown), and Leow Chia Heng (1874–1931), founded Tuan Mong School and the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce (now the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry) in an attempt to create a new power centre. Soon after that, political differences led the Teochew community to split into two factions, one supporting the royalist camp and the other the revolutionaries in China.
In 1929, wealthy merchant Lim Nee Soon (1879–1936) took the lead in establishing the Teochew Poit Ip Huay Kuan. upon which Ngee Ann Kun agreed to revise its constitution to reorganise itself into a charitable institution and a trustee organisation for the Teochew community. The latter was then renamed Ngee Ann Kongsi and continued to manage the Teochew community’s work in education and charity. This restructuring was to have a profound and positive impact on the subsequent development of the community.
In 2012, the Teochew Federation was founded, which led to disagreements between Teochew Poit Ip Huay Kuan and Ngee Ann Kongsi, and it took some time before both parties reached a consensus. In 2017, the Kongsi requested the Huay Kuan to move out of Teochew Building in Tank Road, the property they had shared since 1963, so that it could be upgraded. The Huay Kuan insisted that it held the building’s property rights and declined to relocate. The renovation was repeatedly delayed as a result, and the dispute was resolved only in December 2023.
In the long history of their development, Teochew clan associations have had to go through phases of conflicts and adjustments, followed by reorganisation and consolidation, just like other local clan associations. Currently, most existing Teochew clan associations have undergone transformations that have transcended their traditional roles. They not only play a part in passing on Chinese values and promoting our unique local Chinese culture, but also contribute significantly to Singapore’s multiracial harmony, social welfare, and nation building. The tide of globalisation has also propelled major Teochew clan associations to expand their international presence and network by participating in and organising various cultural, academic, and commercial activities.
Ini Indexs
In Singapore, “Chinese-language films” or “Chinese films” are generally films in which Mandarin and Chinese dialects are the primary language. Due to the tendency for local films during the post-1990 period to feature a mix of several languages, parts spoken in English or Malay are also common in Chinese films.
In the 1990s, the Economic Development Board’s push to promote creative industries, including film, was an opportunity for local feature film production to get started again.1 Between 1991 and 1996, four films were released in Singapore: Medium Rare (1991), a Singapore-Australian co-produced English-language film adapted from the Toa Payoh ritual murders; Bugis Street (1995), a Singapore-Hong Kong co-produced transgender-themed multilingual film (mainly in English, with Cantonese and Mandarin) against the backdrop of Bugis Street before the area was redeveloped; Mee Pok Man (1995), a multilingual film (with Mandarin, English, Hokkien and Cantonese) that was entirely funded, written and directed by Eric Khoo, featuring prostitutes, pimps and noodle vendors against the backdrop of Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates; and Army Daze (1996) directed by Ong Keng Sen, a multilingual (mainly English with a mix of Malay, Mandarin and Hokkien) adaptation of the English-language stage play based on military life serving National Service in Singapore.
Of the four films, two were co-productions with foreign filmmakers, and two were truly local productions. These four films also broke away from the tradition of the previous era where Malay was the primary language in local films, switching instead to English, Mandarin, Chinese dialects, and a mix of Malay with other languages. This marked the start of an era of co-produced and multilingual local films. When we speak of the multilingual film era, “multilingual” has two meanings: first, it refers to films with a variety of spoken Singaporean languages; second, it refers to the period where Singapore produced films in different languages, including English, Malay, Chinese and Tamil. The bulk of those movies were Chinese-language films in which Chinese dialects, English or Malay were also spoken.
Eric Khoo’s Mee Pok Man was selected for the main competition category of the 19th Moscow International Film Festival in 1995, and his second feature film 12 Storeys competed in the Un Certain Regard section of the 50th Cannes Film Festival in 1997. He thus paved the way for non-mainstream local films to get their big break at international film festivals and target viewers of arthouse films around the world. In 1998, Money No Enough, directed by Tay Teck Lock and written by Jack Neo (who also starred in the film), portrayed Singaporeans’ pursuit of material life in a humorous way. It featured mainly Hokkien with a mix of Mandarin and English. Produced on a budget of S$850,000, it grossed S$5.8 million at the local box office, showing filmmakers the viability of producing films for the local market. Eric Khoo and Jack Neo, two filmmakers who started out in the 1990s, shone a light for the two major paths that would be taken by local productions: getting recognised at international film festivals for their artistic flair, or making it big in the local box office for their entertainment value.
Compared to films from other regions, Singapore films have had to contend with a small local market and relatively limited production budget. With these limitations, directors taking the film festival route create low-budget arthouse films that encourage the audience to engage more deeply with various issues in Singapore society. Directors taking the box office route opt for comedy and horror movies, which have obvious entertainment value, relatively low production costs, and can resonate easily with local audiences. Aside from Eric Khoo, auteurs who have gone down the film festival route include Royston Tan, Boo Junfeng, Anthony Chen and Chris Yeo Siew Hua. At these festivals, members of the overseas film industry, including those from China, Hong Kong and Taiwan, get to see non-mainstream Singaporean Chinese-language films. However, with the exception of Royston Tan’s 881 (2007) and Anthony Chen’s Ilo Ilo (2013), which were both critically and commercially successful, most of these films failed at the box office due to limited appreciation for arthouse films in Singapore. Besides Jack Neo, other directors with films known for their entertainment factor are Kelvin Tong, Kelvin Sng, Michelle Chong and Gilbert Chan, whose genre films have crossed the $1 million mark at the Singapore box office.
International co-production is another route. Since Medium Rare and Bugis Street, with the encouragement and support of the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) and its predecessor, local filmmakers have been co-producing films with foreign filmmakers. 2000AD (2000), The Eye (2002), Turn Left, Turn Right (2003), Infernal Affairs II (2003) and Painted Skin (2008) were all Chinese-language co-productions with Hong Kong or China filmmakers with budgets exceeding $1 million. Led by foreign teams, these co-productions might not have had a strong Singaporean flavour. Nonetheless, they gave local filmmakers the opportunity to work on Hong Kong or China genre productions that were more expensive to make, and network with experienced filmmakers.
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, Singapore has released a number of Chinese-language co-productions led by local directors and supported by the IMDA: Ajoomma (2022) directed by He Shuming, a co-production between Singapore and South Korea; Tomorrow Is a Long Time (2023) directed by Jow Zhi Wei, a co-production between Singapore, Taiwan, France and Portugal; Dreaming & Dying (2023) directed by Nelson Yeo, a co-production between Singapore and Indonesia; and The Breaking Ice (2023) directed by Anthony Chen, a co-production between Singapore and China. These co-productions not only allow local and foreign filmmakers to collaborate, but also allow these artistic works to enter another country’s film market directly.
After producing no fewer than 10 films in 2005, local full-length feature film production has been able to maintain its annual output of 10 to 30 films, except for a drop to eight in 2020 due to the impact of COVID-19.2 This is in sharp contrast to the intermittent production situation of the previous era.
Singapore’s arthouse films, genre films and co-productions present multi-layered, multifaceted perspectives of Singapore to local and overseas audiences with varying tastes. The films’ production budgets may be limited, but the mix of languages, presentation of Chinese culture in a multi-racial environment, and focus on particular social issues make them distinct from films produced elsewhere. For an industry that relaunched itself less than 30 years ago, this can be considered a good start.
Ini Indexs
In the Chinese community, the seventh month of the lunar calendar is known by various names, such as zhongyuan (the birthday of the Earth Official, who absolves all sins), yulan (Ullambana Festival), pudu (seeking salvation for the dead), guijie (Ghost Festival), and qiyueban (middle of the seventh month). Beyond the Chinese-speaking world, it is also known as Hungry Ghost Festival, Feast of the Dead, or Feast of the Evil Spirits in English; Obon in Japanese; and Sembayang Hantu in Malay. Community-based ceremonies for the Zhong Yuan Festival span the entire lunar month, while families generally carry out rituals on the 15th or 16th day.
From an institutional perspective (i.e. imperial state, family clans, religious groups), the Zhong Yuan Festival has four different traditions:
Both Buddhist and Taoist traditions use the collective power of religion to help commoners with reincarnating souls that otherwise cannot be salvaged. Whether from the perspective of the imperial state, family clans, or religious groups, the core of the Zhong Yuan Festival is the worship of neglected ghosts, gods, and ancestors, or wandering spirits of those who had died a tragic death and have nowhere to go.
From a cultural perspective, the Zhong Yuan Festival during the Ming and Qing dynasties had three distinctive features:
In other words, the Zhong Yuan Festival was made up of three components: honouring ancestors as an act of filial piety, holding religious ceremonies to redeem wandering souls, and partaking in festive activities like performances.
To the overseas Chinese community, the Zhong Yuan Festival has a greater significance than the Qing Ming (Tomb-Sweeping Day) and Chong Yang (Double Ninth Festival) festivals. While the latter two are observed purely for ancestral worship, the Zhong Yuan festival as observed in Singapore since the late-19th century is not only an important religious event, but has assumed its own cultural characteristics as well. As Chinese immigrants settled in Singapore, they began to perform rites during Zhong Yuan to salvage and appease wandering spirits in order to maintain peace in society. In this way, the observation of Zhong Yuan was simultaneously a service to the living.
Today, Chinese across Singapore have a tradition of observing Zhong Yuan as immigrant societies share a common fear of the dead and thus place emphasis on the salvaging of souls and blessing of the living. Even their religious ceremonies include the performance of various rituals to bless the living.
From the mid-20th century onwards, the Zhong Yuan Festival in Singapore gradually transformed from a ritualised festival of worship into a more secularised event with an element of entertainment.3Activities like modern getai performances and entertainment feasts were introduced, and have arguably become more important than salvation rituals.4
The Singapore Zhong Yuan is commonly known as “Qingzhan Zhong Yuan” (Celebrating Zhong Yuan Festival). The organisation and scale of Zhong Yuan activities have varied across different time periods due to changes in Singapore’s macro environment. From the burning of paper offerings at the roadsides to rituals held in housing estates, shopping streets, and hawker centres, some events involve only members of specific organisations, while others include religious ceremonies accompanied by Chinese operas or getai performances. But regardless of whether the festival is being observed for religious or entertainment purposes, and whether it is targeted towards honouring ancestral or wandering spirits, enjoyment and salvation are the two fundamental elements of Zhong Yuan Festival activities.
In his study of Zhong Yuan activities in Singapore, Japanese historian Kani Hiroaki pointed out that a typical Zhong Yuan ceremony consists of:
He also noted that the banquets and auctions, in particular, were very important to the Chinese community. As he explained, “Even though the Zhong Yuan Festival is an event dedicated to the departed, it holds a strong meaning for the living. This is in line with the traditional Chinese belief of praying for benefits to one’s present life.”6
Whether the rituals are carried out by families, communities, or temples, the Zhong Yuan Festival does not merely serve wandering spirits. Its feasts and festivities are a reflection of the Chinese community’s filial piety towards its ancestors, compassion for wandering souls, and sense of camaraderie with its people.7