Update of news and articles on Bukit Brown

2011

ST Editorial
Dec 18, 2011

Earnest engagement


The Government has pulled out all stops to work with heritage groups on the Bukit Brown project. Some 5,000 graves in the cemetery will have to be documented before they make way for the development of a road. As work to record the graves started a fortnight ago, an advisory panel comprising representatives from government agencies and heritage groups has been formed to help the documentation team gain access to the various interest groups when needed.

The Government has also made Minister of State for National Development and Manpower Tan Chuan-Jin the point man in the exercise. He, in turn, has roped in the top brass of various government agencies to attend to interest groups and the media on all matters regarding the area's redevelopment plans. A recent meeting between his team and five members of the Singapore Heritage Society (SHS) lasted more than two hours. As an SHS committee member reported afterwards: 'We asked them so many questions... Nothing like this has ever happened before.'

Both civil servants and civic society acknowledge that such efforts to balance preservation and redevelopment are unprecedented. There have been scant records of Kwong Hou Sua and Bidadari cemeteries, which were dug up in the last decade. Such public-private partnership should become the norm when it comes to sensitive redevelopment projects. It is a clear demonstration of the kind of approach Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong outlined at the recent PAP convention, where he spoke about changing the outreach strategy, and consulting Singaporeans more actively. There are, of course, the critics who will carp that the ongoing engagement over Bukit Brown is but a public relations exercise, since the Government did not think to consult civic groups before it decided to build the road across the cemetery. That would have been much better, but it is not too late for the Government to learn from this episode.

ST Forum

Dec 13, 2011

Create small memorial park at Bukit Brown Cemetery

A SINGAPORE Heritage Society book, Spaces Of The Dead: A Case From The Living, describes how Japanese soldiers, including convicted war criminals who committed atrocities in Singapore during World War II, are remembered at the Japanese Cemetery Park here through memorials that describe them as 'martyrs' or 'patriots', and which continue to be visited by people from Japan.

It thus seems ironic that Bukit Brown Cemetery, with its graves of the pioneers of the Chinese community here, now faces an uncertain future. While Singapore's urban redevelopment needs are understandable, some 'heart' can be applied to the deliberations on the future of Bukit Brown.

It is not merely another old cemetery but one of Singapore's last surviving historically significant ones. Once demolished, the graves of our forefathers will be lost forever. No amount of documentation or virtual rendering can replace the intrinsic value of Singaporeans being moved or even inspired by the sense of connectedness to this place we call home, that we get by being there physically.

I hope that, at least, the more historically and aesthetically significant graves or headstones can be relocated and preserved in a smaller memorial park to be created out of the current Bukit Brown Cemetery. The fine line balancing the case for the dead and the needs of the living can be drawn.

As a nature park, Bukit Brown can continue to have its place. Singaporeans can enjoy their relaxing strolls, exercise or nature romps in an area whose rolling hillocks are well noted for their rich flora and fauna.

Granting a new lease of life to Bukit Brown by 'refreshing' it as a memorial park will also enable Singaporeans and their children to be educated, reminded or inspired by the contributions of our nation's forefathers.

The sensitive redevelopment and preservation of Bukit Brown to ensure its continued relevance to Singapore and Singaporeans will be a fitting tribute to the pioneers who paved the way for us to be where we are today.

Edwin Pang

ST News

Dec 11, 2011
More hands on deck for Bukit Brown
290 people join effort; new advisory panel to include representatives from heritage groups

By Yen Feng

The effort will now include collecting the global positioning system points of the affected graves, to allow a three-dimensional mapping of the cemetery. The authorities are looking beyond heritage experts to cemetery and Chinese cultural advisers, concerning the graves that a new road might cut into. -- ST PHOTOS: TED CHEN

Work to record some 5,000 graves at Bukit Brown may have started more than a week ago, but the exercise has now grown from an initial 10 to 290 field workers, and with new technological tools to boot.

A new historian has also come on board to record the oral histories of the area's former residents. These, when compiled, will be available at the National Library from 2013.

The Government yesterday also unveiled a new advisory committee for the project. The 11-member panel comprises representatives from government agencies and heritage groups. Its chairman is Mr Ng Lang, chief executive of the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA).

The committee is there to help the documentation team gain access to the various interest groups when needed.

The authorities, meanwhile, are looking beyond heritage experts to cemetery and Chinese cultural advisers, concerning the graves that a new road might cut into. It is understood this would enable the Government to find a path that would leave the least impact on the graves.

Such efforts to balance preservation and redevelopment in this new consultative climate are unprecedented - something civil servants and civic society both acknowledge. When Kwong Hou Sua and Bidadari cemeteries were dug up between 2001 and 2009, precious little of their records was stored.

In Bukit Brown's case, however, the body of knowledge about its graves has grown with time.

Yesterday, the cemetery's appointed documentarian, Dr Hui Yew-Foong, announced that the exercise would now include collecting the global positioning system points of the affected graves, to allow a three-dimensional mapping of the cemetery.

He was also given $250,000 by the URA to do the job, and work began on Dec 1.

For the two former cemeteries, there was no budget, and attempts to record its graves - if any - were done on a smaller scale, said Dr Hui, 39, who worked on documenting Kwong Hou Sua for a year in 2008.

The anthropologist said of his efforts back then: 'It was amateurish. I was still trying things out.'

Over the last three months, the Government has also helped to open doors for him at its various ministries for the documentation work.

'If I want maps, I get it. Information is available,' Dr Hui said.

Significantly, the state has put forward Minister of State for National Development, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin, who led the rail corridor talks, to clarify the Government's position on Bukit Brown.

He has, in turn, drawn the top brass from various government agencies - including the URA and Land Transport Agency (LTA) - to meet and field questions from both interest groups and the media about the area's redevelopment plans.

Dr Chua Ai Lin, a historian and committee member of the Singapore Heritage Society (SHS), recalled one such meeting last month where five SHS members, including herself, met more than 20 ministry officials to talk about Bukit Brown's future.

The meeting lasted over two hours. 'We asked them so many questions... Nothing like this has ever happened before,' she said.

Officials said they also monitor closely online exchanges about Bukit Brown.

Mr Tan himself often posts comments, and replies to questions from heritage activists, on Facebook.

Responding to The Sunday Times' queries about these new channels of dialogue, the minister said that while it is true that such efforts were carried out to a lesser degree for other cemeteries, he hopes the Bukit Brown issue can 'refresh' the perspectives of both the Government, and cemetery and heritage conservationists.

'My colleagues in URA and MND (Ministry of National Development) share a similar belief in the importance of preserving our heritage and history... This effort with Bukit Brown Cemetery is important,' he said.

According to survey data from LTA, the proposed road may cut into the cemetery's hilly areas, where the remains of many of the country's pioneers lie.

Many who oppose the road works have argued that these should be kept for their historical and educational value.

Mr Charles Goh, 43, a cemetery guide, said it would be impossible if one had to choose one pioneer over another to be moved.

'If you curve (the road) left, you affect Nee Soon and Chong Pang. Curve right, and it is Kheam Hock and maybe Eng Neo.

'So, how do you decide who to dig up?'

LTA said it is unable confirm the road layout as its engineers are still investigating the area.

While it looks like the Government is making major concessions this time to make sure it meets the expectations of the various interest groups, some political observers and heritage leaders put all the effort down to a matter of public relations.

Law professor Eugene Tan said because the decision to develop Bukit Brown seemed to be 'firmly made' when it was announced, consultations have struck many as a case of 'damage control'.

And while its public relations may have improved, the fact is that the Government continues to 'arrogate to itself decisions on key policies', said Mr Derek da Cunha, a political commentator.

Striking a more sympathetic tone, Dr Shawn Lum, president of the Nature Society (Singapore), said he found the Government to be sincere in balancing development and heritage pressures.

'To be fair to the planners, they have really agonised over this.'

Bukit Brown will be a 'test case of sorts' for state and civil society relations, said sociologist Tan Ern Ser.

In the end, he said, the issue has to be decided 'by the people, in partnership with the Government, and for the people'.

-----------------------------------------


Historian joins project team


Dr Loh Kah Seng, an independent historian, will record the oral histories of the area's caretakers and former residents to reconstruct a sociocultural map.

The committee for the Bukit Brown documentation project has added a new member, Dr Loh Kah Seng, to its team of heritage experts.

Dr Loh, 39, an independent historian, was recruited by the group's team leader, Dr Hui Yew-Foong, last month.

Dr Loh said his job in the committee was to record the oral histories of Bukit Brown's caretakers and former residents, in order to reconstruct a 'sociocultural' map of the cemetery that detailed where its kampungs, or villages, and religious spaces used to be.

He said that while some people might think it was unusual to include real-life interviews for a cemetery project, that only showed the need to encourage the viewpoint that the living and dead were not 'separate'. Bukit Brown Cemetery, he said, was a case in point.

'The cemetery encouraged the settlement of villages to provide services, such as tombstone engraving, for visitors, and jobs such as grass cutting and tending to the graves,' said Dr Loh. 'In turn, these services provided by the village played a role in reinforcing family and cultural relationships.'

Dr Loh, who is married, received his PhD in history from Murdoch University in 2009. He has lectured in various universities and is a former junior college teacher.

His research interests are in social history and memory.

Dr Loh said he hoped his work at Bukit Brown would inspire people to see that efforts to document a cemetery are not an 'alien' idea.

'It's not just a burial ground that we are documenting. Cemeteries are part of the history of living.'

Anyone who has information about Bukit Brown's former residents can call Dr Loh on 8198-1172.

Yen Feng

--------------------------------------------------

561 graves documented so far


A volunteer documenting the graves at Bukit Brown. It is back-breaking work - field workers have to first clear tombs of leaves and scrub their facades. -- ST PHOTO: TED CHEN

Over seven days, 561 out of some 5,000 graves said to be affected by a new road into Bukit Brown have been successfully documented.

The graves are in the Seh Ong cemeteries located at the gates of Bukit Brown, between Sime Road and Kheam Hock Road.

Dr Hui Yew-Foong, the anthropologist tasked by the Government to do the job, gave this update at a media tour of the site yesterday.

He said that the documentation work began on Dec 1. On average, field workers clocked in about 100 graves a day. But the first two days yielded considerably fewer graves due to rain. They work from Tuesdays to Saturdays.

Dr Hui has until March next year to complete all 5,000 graves. He said the team was maintaining a 'reasonable pace'. As long as the weather holds up, the project would be on schedule, he added.

But it is back-breaking work. To document the graves, field workers set out in pairs, in the morning. First, they clear the tomb of brush and fallen leaves, then proceed to scrub its facade with water.

After it is cleaned, one person records the tomb's inscriptions; the other takes photographs from various angles.

A regular-sized grave can take up to 30 minutes to document.

Graves that are typical of a certain style - Teochew, Hokkien, for example - or of exceptional design will also be copied and archived.

In the afternoon, field workers return to review their data and check for errors.

Some 300 people have signed up to help. Most are volunteers.

Mr L.N. Chua, 35, said he decided to pitch in since he was between jobs. 'I'm just doing something I think is useful,' he added.

For university student Goh Chye Kim, 24, it was an opportunity to learn more about Chinese heritage, said the Chinese studies student from the Nanyang Technological University.

Meanwhile, a new bilingual petition, SOS Bukit Brown, to halt construction works in the cemetery was launched online last Monday by a group who said they are artists, educators and writers.

Signatures have to be submitted by post, or e-mail. Its aim, said its creators, was to collect 100,000 signatures - 'one for each grave', by the end of the month.

Yen Feng


This is a tribute to the matriarch of the Peranakan household, who always managed the household.

Here you can see the matriarch of the Lim Nee Soon household

Here is the matriarch of the Tan Kheam Hock household

Here is the matriarch of Ong Sam Leong's family.  She was buried together with Ong Sam Leong in Bukit Brown.

I once saw another matriarch, that of Yeo Bee Neo, of the Cheang Hong Lim family.  Somehow I was drawn to her haughty looks, and I was determined to find her tomb,
ever since I found out that Cheang Hong Lim family cluster was moved from Alexandra Road burial ground to Bukit Brown.
Finally I found her grave in Bukit Brown.   She has the title of a First Ranking Official Wife as well.  She was buried in Hill 3, whereas her husband Hong Lim was buried in Hill 4.
Her children were scattered all over in Bukit Brown.

I put upright her tombstone, which have fallen down, to make sure everyone can now see clearly and identify her grave.
I once recalled I have to crawl under one tree to see a big tomb somewhere further up on the hill where Yeo Bee Neo's grave is.

At that time,  I have no idea who she was.  
But I certainly knew the graves next to her.  It was Cheang Jim Chuan and Chan Kim Hong Neo.
Chan Kim Hong Neo died in 1934 while Cheang Jim Chuan died in 1940.
Before both died,  their sons Theam Chu and Theam Kee were very filial, and used to host annual parties to celebrate their birthdays.

Above was one example whereby the two children host the celebration with Cantonese wayang, ronggeng and other entertainment and whereby they invited about 500 persons !

Their house at 112 Pasir Panjang Road "Riviera" must be a big grand house, and I have no doubt that Chan Kim Hong Neo
would be a matriarch of the house as well.
-----------
Recently I was given a task to find a grand old lady.  I was given a picture by her descendant to aid in the search and the BBC burial plot no as follows:
CHIA GIN TEE
Died on 7 February 1937;
Buried at Bukit Brown on 13 February 1937
Burial Plot No.741
Block 4 Section A
I went to Blk 4 Section A to search.  I could not find tomb 741, although tomb numbers 730 series were close by and the dates of death match.
Where would tomb 741 be?  Somehow the grand old lady intrigue me,  and deep inside my mind, she seem familiar,   I have seen her somewhere.
I decided to go down to the archives to take a look again at the entry.
My heart skipped a beat when I saw the BBC entry,  It was in Blk 3, she was not buried in Blk 4 as originally planned with other similar death dates, but because there was a family plot,
she was buried in Hill 3.  I noted that her tomb no was closeby to Cheang Jim Chuan and Chan Kim Hong Neo!
Furthermore the descendant has informed me that Chia Gin Tee was the mother of Chan Kim Hong Neo.
It couldn't be ?!  I rushed to Bukit Brown Cemetery as quickly as possible.

Yes, it is still like a jungle there, and worse, a tree has fallen across the tomb and blocked the access.
I crawled under this time, and remembered the old lady who have looked at me before last time I saw her but don't recognise her.
This time I fully knew who she was, for I have found the matriarch of the Chan family.

It is indeed Mrs Chan, nee Chia Gin Tee.
The photo I have been given has matched her tomb picture.
I have found the matriarch, mother in law of Jim Chuan after so many years.  She had died sometime in Feb 1937,   the family has bought a family plot for 3 graves then.
And coincidentally,  another matriarch, that of Jim Chuan mother, Yeo Bee Neo was reburied just 50 metres below them, when Hong Lim burial ground was cleared for redevelopment.

CNA Dec 6, 2011

Work begins to identify, document graves at Bukit Brown

By Hoe Yeen Nie

SINGAPORE: Work has begun to prepare Bukit Brown cemetery for a future road.

Contractors hired by the Land Transport Authority have been identifying affected graves while volunteers have also started to document the site.

In the last few weeks, a forest of wooden pegs has sprung up at Bukit Brown.

These pegs are in fact serving notice to the public that the affected graves will be cleared within a year.

Volunteers led by Dr Hui Yew-Foong, Fellow and Coordinator of the Regional Social and Cultural Studies Programme at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, have also moved in to document the site. The information is expected to be made available online.

Dr Hui said: "Every grave here is important. Every grave tells a story and every story is worth recording and taking down. We want to reconstruct what life was like in this place in the past; what the social life was like and what was the cultural life."

The volunteers work in pairs - one will jot down the inscriptions on tombstones while the other takes photographs.

The images are captured from right to left and every 45 degrees around the grave so that a 3D image can be created if needed.

It is not an easy task as some graves are overgrown and some tombstones have collapsed.

Time and weather have also worn away the inscriptions but the volunteers pressed on.

Some volunteers, like Michelle Teoh, have family members buried there.

Ms Teoh said: "For me it's very important that my children know about where they come from. By being involved (in the project), hopefully they'll get interested in their great-great-great grandfather."

Some members of the public said that a cemetery needs to be appreciated in its context and want Bukit Brown to be gazetted as a heritage park.

The Singapore Heritage Society, for instance, is working on a policy paper on how this can be done with input from stakeholders.

Ideas that have been proposed include erecting signs to help visitors navigate the site with information boards that explain the history and significance of certain graves.

Dr Terence Chong, an executive committee member of the Singapore Heritage Society, said the society is open to having something similar to Bidadari Memorial Garden.

At the Bidadari Memorial Garden at Mount Vernon Road, the tombstones of 21 prominent Christians, Hindus and Muslims - like Dr Lim Boon Keng, Sir David James Galloway and Haji Abdul Rahim Kajai - can be found there.

While their remains have been cremated, the tombstones serve to remind visitors that the site was once a cemetery.

But Dr Chong noted that "if you were to remove tombs, then the significance of this place would be reduced. And the greenery, as well, is quite important in contextualising the cemetery."

Time is also pressing on Dr Hui and his team of about 300 volunteers.

They have to document several thousand plots before the list of affected graves are made public in March.

The team also plans to record the rituals of ancestor worship, the process of exhumation, as well as the history of the old cemetery village.

With so much to do, volunteers have to work as fast as they can before the bulldozers roll in in 2013.

Members of the public who are looking for someone buried in Bukit Brown can now do so on the website of the National Archives.

The records are in English and the names are listed according to the date of burial.

Members of the public who wish to locate the burial records of their ancestors buried at the Bukit Brown cemetery will need to first determine their ancestors' names and dates of death before searching the uploaded records.

Those who need more information will still have to make a trip to the National Archives near Fort Canning Park.

- CNA/fa 

ST Forum
Dec 4, 2011

Don't forget Bukit Brown's vital green role


I would like to thank the Land Transport Authority and Urban Redevelopment Authority for making the effort to explain their rationale for the carriageway through Bukit Brown cemetery ('Bukit Brown road project 'can't wait''; Nov 20).

It appears that the designated route cutting through the grave site is a result of a Master Plan target to develop a residential estate in that location in three decades' time.

My question: Why do the planners think that in 30 years' time, they will have no alternative sites to plant the estate other than at Bukit Brown?

After all, already-concretised plots like Turf City are left untouched for years, golf courses are not acquired, and much of western Singapore is still available for development.

I would also like to know if an environmental impact analysis (EIA) had been conducted prior to the decision to undermine the invaluable roles that Bukit Brown cemetery plays - most importantly as an ecological sponge for rainfall, carbon dioxide and heat.

What were the EIA's findings, and what steps are planned to mitigate the foreseen risks?

Bearing in mind that flash floods already plague us now and global sea levels are predicted to rise substantially, how much more risk are planners taking in eliminating priceless, natural catchment areas?

Should my generation pass on the legacy of a Singapore full of housing, but held captive by incessant floods?

Marian Tay (Madam)

ST Forum
Dec 1, 2011

MAKING WAY FOR FUTURE
Physical spaces to create shared memories crucial


IN MONDAY'S letter ('Let's be practical on land use'), Mr Ang Chin Guan praised the Government for good urban planning, and said Bukit Brown Cemetery and Rochor Centre should make way for the infrastructural needs of future generations.

However, the interests of future generations may not solely have to do with economic development.

Granted, new roads will ease traffic congestion now, but 50 years on, there will be more vehicles utilising the roads, and our grandchildren will take the 'shorter travelling time' for granted. Is this the kind of legacy we should bequeath to them?

We do not know for certain what our future generations want, but with the current sense of confusion on what being a Singaporean means, we need to provide physical spaces to create shared memories for them.

If we base our demolition of landmarks solely on economic development, we would be failing to give them a proper sense of identity, since shared memories shape who they are.

Our future generations will have no first-hand memories of first-generation nation-builders, other than from the annual National Day Parade and their textbooks. We need to give them physical landmarks, to tell them that their industrious forefathers lived, worked and died in Singapore.

This kind of experience can be gained only if we conserve Bukit Brown Cemetery and avoid knocking down old urban landmarks unless they are near collapse.

The assumption that our future generations only want more cars and condos reflects on our short-sightedness. We must also tell them that being a Singaporean does not mean just aspiring to material needs.

Aloysius Foo

ST Forum
Dec 1, 2011

The concern is about the trade-offs


WHILE Mr Ang Chin Guan's intentions are well-received ('Let's be practical on land use'; Monday), he may have missed the essence of conservationists' arguments.

The issue is not about the utility of road expansions and new roads - of course, that is something everyone appreciates. Rather, the concern is about the trade-offs and cost that we as a nation will incur.

At the same time, citizens are also concerned about the coherence of the developmental plans, bearing in mind the Government's repeated exhortations to residents to drive less and utilise public transport.

Can the funds earmarked for Bukit Brown and the North-South Expressway be utilised for other projects which are in line with a more sustainable and civic-minded land-transport vision?

Proper understanding and management of trade-offs lie at the heart of civic discourse and, ultimately, effective governance. The genuine interests of citizens and residents should not be ignored in the name of pragmatism.

Kenny Ching

Massachusetts, United States

ST Forum
Dec 1, 2011

Making way for the Future
Physical spaces to create shared memories crucial


IN MONDAY'S letter ('Let's be practical on land use'), Mr Ang Chin Guan praised the Government for good urban planning, and said Bukit Brown Cemetery and Rochor Centre should make way for the infrastructural needs of future generations.

However, the interests of future generations may not solely have to do with economic development.

Granted, new roads will ease traffic congestion now, but 50 years on, there will be more vehicles utilising the roads, and our grandchildren will take the 'shorter travelling time' for granted. Is this the kind of legacy we should bequeath to them?

We do not know for certain what our future generations want, but with the current sense of confusion on what being a Singaporean means, we need to provide physical spaces to create shared memories for them.

If we base our demolition of landmarks solely on economic development, we would be failing to give them a proper sense of identity, since shared memories shape who they are.

Our future generations will have no first-hand memories of first-generation nation-builders, other than from the annual National Day Parade and their textbooks. We need to give them physical landmarks, to tell them that their industrious forefathers lived, worked and died in Singapore.

This kind of experience can be gained only if we conserve Bukit Brown Cemetery and avoid knocking down old urban landmarks unless they are near collapse.

The assumption that our future generations only want more cars and condos reflects on our short-sightedness. We must also tell them that being a Singaporean does not mean just aspiring to material needs.

Aloysius Foo

ST News
Dec 1, 2011

Making room for the past in our future

By Clarissa Oon

WITH some creativity, a compromise solution can be found to the debate raging over the fate of the historically significant and wildlife-rich Bukit Brown Cemetery.

The controversy began in September when the Land Transport Authority and Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) announced plans to build a road cutting through the cemetery to ease traffic congestion on nearby Lornie Road.

It sparked calls from historians, nature conservationists, descendants of those buried there and many heritage lovers to preserve the cemetery containing about 100,000 graves, including those of distinguished local pioneers and their families.

About 5,000 of the graves will have to make way for roadworks due to start in 2013, while the rest will be untouched for 30 to 40 years until the future Bukit Brown housing estate is developed. The URA revealed for the first time recently that the area marked for long-term residential use will have a mix of private and public housing.

But if you think about it, pockets of the verdant cemetery can actually be kept as parks and memorials embedded in the future housing estate.

This hint of a compromise can be found in a 'personal reflection' on the cemetery penned by the Minister of State for National Development Tan Chuan-Jin on his Facebook page, which reveals a little more than his official remarks. He has promised to find alternative ways in land-scarce Singapore to keep Bukit Brown's heritage alive.

'If we are not pantang (Malay for superstitious), I can see small clusters of cemetery parks amidst development. Some prominent tombs can be relocated to other places,' he wrote earlier this month.

But compromise in itself is woefully incomplete if the documentation of the affected graves becomes a rushed job. It will be done by a team of volunteers, led by a specialist who was appointed by the government only last month.

The example that comes to mind is the bulldozing of the sprawling Bidadari Cemetery in the Upper Serangoon area between 2001 and 2006, after which a memorial park was created to honour 20 of the famous dead. However, there was no systematic documentation or photography of the multi-religious cemetery, which held more than 130,000 tombstones, each a repository of valuable information on the dead, their families and diverse cultural and religious belief systems.

Aside from being a pressing and complex conservation issue, Bukit Brown offers two lessons for state-society relations - the need for the authorities to be more transparent about redevelopment plans, sooner rather than later; and the need for both sides to accommodate each other's concerns.

The URA can make available, in a timely fashion, more information than is currently contained in its Concept Plans and Master Plans. Members of the public can give feedback on these plans, which are regularly updated, and are the main source of information on how different parts of Singapore will evolve physically in the medium to long term.

While Bukit Brown was zoned for residential use in the 1991 and 2001 Concept Plans, there is no way of knowing from that piece of information alone the time frame for the cemetery's redevelopment, much less when roads or MRT lines will intrude into the cemetery.

Each Concept Plan sets out very broad guidelines for land use and transport over the next 40 to 50 years, based on population projections.

It is the Master Plan which translates these guidelines into a statutory land-use blueprint for the next 10 to 15 years. As of the last Master Plan in 2008, Bukit Brown remains zoned as a cemetery.

While the sharing of more detailed information on redevelopment is not always possible as it could lead to profiteering on the housing market, that argument does not hold for cemeteries.

Instead, such advance notice would help resource-strapped heritage groups like the Singapore Heritage Society to focus their attention and work with the Government on alternative proposals for conservation.

When it comes to engaging experts and the public on specific areas rich in history and culture, the Rail Corridor is a good act to follow. That is the long strip of former Keretapi Tanah Melayu (KTM) railway land which reverted to Singapore on July 1. Right off the bat, the National Development Ministry has been engaging the public and interest groups on what to do with the land, and their input will go into the 2013 Master Plan. That is a fine example of engagement that allows accommodation.

Old places and spaces are never just about the past; they strengthen our rootedness to the land.

I can think of no better way for the Ministry of Education to be teaching values, such as filial piety and social responsibility, than for our children to see that we have kept the graves of forefathers who contributed so much to this land.

Currently, no grave has made it to the list of gazetted national monuments, as the upkeep of a grave is seen to be the responsibility of a family rather than the state. But if parts of Bukit Brown Cemetery are to be preserved, Singaporeans must ask themselves if the graves of important pioneers could be considered national monuments.

In more ways than one, Bukit Brown is the start of a national conversation.

clare@sph.com.sg

Straits Times Forum
Nov 28, 11

Let's be practical on land use

 TWO road projects to ease traffic congestion have raised the hackles of conservationists because they involve using part of the Bukit Brown Cemetery ('New road to ease Lornie Road jams'; Sept 13) and the relocation of all residents living in an old urban landmark, Rochor Centre ('More than 500 homes to make way for highway'; Nov 16).

 I am glad that long-term practicality has triumphed over other issues. While the governments of other countries are striving to fulfil their citizens' short- term needs, the Singapore Government is planning for 30 to 40 years ahead, keeping in mind the needs of our children and grandchildren, when many of our current leaders will no longer be around.

 Conservation and filial piety are cited for arguing against clearing Bukit Brown Cemetery, which is largely for future housing needs and partly for road building. The very critics who push hard for government flexibility are themselves being inflexible.

 If the Government is not prudent, there is no guarantee that our grandchildren will have proper housing.

 Show filial piety to parents when they are around, and care for the future needs of our children and grandchildren.

 Let us be practical - Bukit Brown should be developed and Rochor Centre should make way for the North-South Expressway.

 Ang Chin Guan

ST Forum
Nov 27, 2011

Nothing concrete in earlier plans for Bukit Brown


Last Sunday's article, 'Bukit Brown road project 'can't wait'', reported that 'strangely, the URA said, no one raised a ruckus when plans highlighting the area's intended future use were displayed for feedback' in 1991 and 2001, when the Concept Plans were released.

This argument is being used to refute current public opinion against the transport and housing developments in Bukit Brown cemetery.

In 1991 and 2001, there were no concrete announcements on the intrusion of physical infrastructure like the road. If there had been a public outcry then, the Government would have replied, understandably, that such an outcry was premature as nothing concrete had yet been planned.

More importantly, we were a different country two decades ago. Thanks to nation-building efforts by the Government, Singaporeans today are more conscious of their national identity and are thus sensitive to any loss of heritage.

With a bigger population now, Singaporeans are hungry for more open spaces and recreational areas, of which Bukit Brown is one.

We also now have new know-ledge of just how rich a historical and ecological resource Bukit Brown is.

Arguments for the conservation of the area were put forth by the Nature Society (Singapore) in its Feedback for the Inter-Ministerial Committee Project on Sustainable Singapore: Lively and Liveable City in 2009, and by the Singapore Heritage Society in the book, Spaces Of The Dead: A Case For The Living, published in May this year.

The Urban Redevelopment Authority Concept Plan is intended for long-term planning and its zones are broad and flexible.

For example, Pulau Ubin was also zoned for residential use in 1991 but it was later re-zoned as 'open space and reserve land' in the 2001 Concept Plan.

To imply that present-day concerns are invalidated by not having been raised 10 or 20 years ago is a flawed premise that leads to sub-optimal decision-making based on outdated information and analysis.

It also denies the possibility for any generation to determine its own immediate future and those of its children.

Chua Ai Lin

Terence Chong

Executive Committee Members

Singapore Heritage Society

TODAY VOICES
Nov 24 2011

Why conservation is pragmatic
by Philip Holden

Having taught and researched Singapore literature for years, I often find myself inadvertently drawn into discussing it. Last Sunday, my doctor told me that he'd been reading Robert Yeo's classic The Adventures of Holden Heng, written twenty-five years ago but just republished. I asked him what he liked about the book. The central character, perhaps, or the plot? Not really, he told me. What he liked was that the novel brought back to life places he'd known so well that have now disappeared.

In the last month, we have heard of two more parts of our contemporary landscape that are in danger of disappearing. The Rochor Centre flats and Bukit Brown Cemetery at first sight have little in common: A modern space for the living, and a much older space for the dead. Yet both are important parts of the lifeworlds of a significant group of Singaporeans, and both are making way for the demands of development, for more roads to cater for Singapore's ever-growing car population.

In both cases, planning decisions seem to have been made before a full process of consultation has started: Consultation has thus largely been an exercise in minimising the negative effects of a course of action already decided upon, rather than exploring alternatives through genuine dialogue.

The reasons advanced in favour of the removal of graves from a section of Bukit Brown and the demolition of the Rochor Centre flats at first seem compelling. Singapore faces constraints on land that few other cities do, and it seems inevitable that heritage sites that make less intensive use of space will make way for contemporary, more space-efficient structures. The old makes way for the new, and administrative expediency trumps consultation.

On reflection, though, this seems very much part of an outdated paradigm. One of the key issues of contention in the general and presidential elections in this year was the desire of Singaporeans for greater participation in the processes of governance.

And Singapore, in the last decade, has made its physical constraints a virtue. Faced with the prospect of water shortage, the Government did not take the easy route of negotiating an extension of the water agreements with Malaysia, or making new water supply treaties with Indonesia. Rather, it encouraged the development of technologies for recycling and desalinating water, providing the basis for the growth of companies such as Hyflux which are now major players internationally.

We could also show similar vision in dealing with conservation issues. Singapore's restricted size and the pace of its development means that we are now working through debates concerning the preservation of heritage that will later be confronted in the rest of developing Asia. If we develop best practices in consultation mechanisms that bring in all members of the community, in sustainable development, and in engineering solutions that preserve heritage landscapes and structures, such expertise will surely be invaluable in the future.

Arguments for heritage frequently stress the intangible: The disorientation we feel at the loss of familiar landscapes, and the erosion of a sense of community that accompanies this. This sense of a connection to the past is certainly important.

My own experience of removal from Hillview Avenue estate under the Selective Enbloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) has taught me that communities take many years to grow, and cannot simply be transplanted from one built environment to another. Yet for Singapore in the present, developing a cutting-edge expertise in the conservation of heritage would also make sound pragmatic economic sense.

Imagine a Singapore in thirty years time where my doctor and I, now both retired, would not have to rely on literature alone to bring the past to life, or to jog our now failing memories. Rather, we would live in a Singapore that had developed as a thriving heritage management hub, where places such as Bukit Brown and the Rochor Centre flats would not have vanished, but rather have become further enriched as spaces of community through the lived experiences of a new generation of Singaporeans.

Philip Holden is a Singapore Permanent Resident with a long history of involvement in heritage-related issues. He teaches at the University Scholars Programme at the National University of Singapore. A shorter version of this appeared in the print paper.

http://www.todayonline.com/Voices/EDC111124-0000001/Why-conservation-is-pragmatic

This story was first published on 22 Nov 2011

It was an overgrown sector of Blk 1.   Therefore it was a pleasant surprise when I came across a triad of tombs, one with a cross, a Hokkien style tomb and a memorial plaque
Nearby a lamp was lit.  I have seen the lamp lit before the last time I was there.
I walked around and saw an old man cutting grass nearby some tombs.  I talked to him and asked if he was tendering to his ancestors' grave.
No,  I was looking after my ancestors' neighbors.  I was surprised.  He led me to some nearby tombs of this triad, and point one by one each of these tombs.
"I always come to say hello to this little boy.  And this gentleman here"  The old man pointed to several neighboring graves.   "They are all my grandfather neighbors."
I was curious about the cross, the lamp, the memorial plaque and the tomb. 
He was in talking mode that day,  perhaps he was surprised that I knew about this tomb with the light also.
This is his story....
My grandfather Lo Kim Hak used to be a letter writer for the Sinkehs (immigrants)  in the past during the 1910 – 20s, just after the Chinese Republic was formed.
He was a very helpful person, and was well liked by the Sinkehs
A letter writer (pic from PICAS)
Lo was well respected by the people, but he earned a honest living, he was very poor when he died young at the age of 37 in 1925, but the sinkehs and
neighbors put together $300 for him to have a nice marble tombstone
My grandfather then had married Gan Kwee Geok, who lived till a ripe old age.  Before she died, she became a Catholic.
Margaret Gan Kwee Geok
I used to light a lamp for her whenever I came here. Although I am a Taoist,  I know she would be comforted by the light of the lamp.  The lamp can burn for 4 days.   Sometimes I read besides the tomb and the light, and enjoy the bliss and serenity of the quietness of the cemetery and the sweet nature sounds.
Lo and Margaret has 2 daughters,  one of them was Mary Low.
Mary Low was married to K H Tann, better known as Tann Kim Hock,  he was a cinema pioneer of the early days of Singapore, and worked for Universal Pictures
Tann is an unusual surname,  but Kim Hock preferred to add an additional N as he thinks the correct pronunciation of Tan should be Tann.
K H Tann, 2 Jun 1932
K H Tann was a well know cinema pioneer and film distributor, managing the Operation of Universal Pictures in Singapore.
On 9 Jul 1925, he even went to Bangkok, taking with him the picture "The Hunchback of Notre-Dame," which he was arranging to screen before the Siamese Royal Household
Kim Hock was the son of Tan Pong Guan, who was at one time secretary to the Consul General of China based in Singapore.
The old man continued his story ..
I was an adopted son of Tan Kim Hock and Mary Low,  my actual surname was a Ong. 
But since they have adopted me and taken care of me, it is time I take care of them back.
This is a memorial plaque for my mother Mary Low, her ash is in a columbarium,  but I thought I would like to put the memorial plaque next to her father.
I don't understand why the Government is going to redevelop this place.   There is so much history and shared memories of our forefathers here.
Anyway,  I will always come and light up the lamp, and let the light continue to shine in Bukit Brown

Zaobao 2011-11-21
谢燕燕

  目前被人们误称为咖啡山的武吉布朗坟场原非咖啡山,其历史也并非始于1922年,而是比那早上半个世纪,即1872年左右。算起来,武吉布朗坟场的历史应该有139年。
  武吉布朗坟场之所以会变成人们俗称的咖啡山,是因为人们不习惯用洋人的名字为华人坟场命名,坟场在40年前封山后,人们逐渐忘了它的历史和原有的华文名称,因此出现上述误解。
  今天恐怕没多少人记得姓王山(后称太原山)、二关塚山新恒山亭老山颜永成山等,幸存下来的,似乎就只有咖啡山,于是咖啡山就成了上述坟山的总称。
  本报最近四处寻访本地文史工作者及曾在坟山聚落生活的旧居民,走访会馆,翻查旧刊物和档案资料等,尝试拼凑武吉布朗坟场已被遗忘的历史。
  原来的武吉布朗坟场,是由王氏太原山(最早称姓王山)和福建会馆的大巴窑新恒山亭所组成。
  不过这两座毗邻坟山,在上世纪20年代前后被英殖民地政府征去一部分土地,用来设立1922年启用的华人公塚二关塚山
  今日的武吉布朗坟场,便是由二关塚山、太原山和新恒山亭剩余坟山所组成。它指的是从罗尼路(Lornie Road)转进森路(Sime Road)的那一大片坟场。谦福路(Kheam Hock Road)穿插其中,附近还有一条罗弄哈娃(Lorong Halwa)。
  至于咖啡山,指的是靠近泛岛高速路的快乐山路(Mount Pleasant Road)和安莱盖路(Onraet Road)那片坟山,扫墓者一般是从安莱盖路或王振毓路(Wong Chin Yoke Road)进山。

咖啡山与武吉布朗因发展而分隔
  新加坡福建会馆名誉理事苏晋兴(84岁)证实咖啡山过去是福建会馆产业,但已被政府征用。由此看来,咖啡山有可能是大巴窑新恒山亭的一部分,但因后来的发展,已和武吉布朗坟场分隔开来。
  在陆路交通管理局决定建穿山新公路,一些坟墓得为道路让位时,很多国人忽然意识到坟山原来也是一种历史文化遗产,蕴含了很多先人的珍贵史料。
  于是,保护历史文化的声音四起,如何抢救坟墓上的史料,包括墓碑、墓志铭、雕塑、装饰物等成了当务之急。
  不过在抢救坟墓史料的当儿,大家却说不清坟山本身的历史,它究竟如何形成,有过什么样的历史演变,就连坟山旧主人之一的新加坡福建会馆,目前已没有二战以前的史料可参考。
  国家图书馆曾编写过武吉布朗坟场的简史,根据其说法,武吉布朗名称之由来,是因为那片地的第一名主人是来自印度加尔各答的英国船主亨利·布朗(Henry Brown)。
  亨利·布朗1840年来到新加坡后,买下了那一大片地,将之命名为快乐山(Mount Pleasant)。这片地后来被开闽王氏三名先贤王有海、王九河与王沧周,以及福建会馆分别买下并辟为塚山。
  要厘清武吉布朗坟场的历史,首先就必须了解王氏太原山和新恒山亭的历史。

三名开闽王氏族人 500叻元买下太原山
  有关王氏太原山的历史,至今能找到有较详细纪录的是新加坡开闽王氏总会出版、王秀南主撰的《王氏开宗百世录》和王氏慈善(开闽公司)三庆特刊等。

  百世录中的先贤置山建祠设会一文,便谈到太原山的购置缘起。

  据记载,早在1872年,侨居星洲的开闽王氏族人王有海(王秀南译成王友海)、王九河(王求和)与王沧周(王宗周)便商议集资购地供族人建屋栖息、从事种植,购买的土地还可以作为葬地,让族人养生送死。

  三人的祖籍都是福建同安白礁乡。王有海1830年生于新加坡,靠经营砂劳越土产发迹。王九河来自马六甲,1871年在新加坡创立丹戎巴葛船坞公司,曾是英华学校和萃英书院赞助人。年少时从中国南来的王沧周曾创立德昌号,并以经营船务起家。王沧周1888年去世时就葬在太原山之麓。

  他们有意效仿潮州义安公司的做法后,刚好有一名叫  Mootapa Chitty 遮地人(来自南印度的ChettiarChitty)与华人林祖义拥有大巴窑区上段的一大片地皮要出售。这片被列为五号永久地契,共221余英亩的地,当时的交易价是叻银1500元。

  三人各出500叻元,于1872518日买下有关地段,作为开闽公司福建王氏慈善所公有。当时契约规定,凡是福建王氏族人可申请作为建屋、耕种及安葬用途,这便是从武吉知马路四英里转入谦福路的姓王山之由来。姓王山后来易名为太原山
  当时的地契正约原本有权委任信托人,却不知何故没有执行,时间一久,人们只知有姓王山,却不知献山者为何人。

征地赔款与利息 用来设开闽公司

  根据《王氏开宗百世录》,殖民地政府后来决定建华人公塚,于1919年征用姓王山97余英亩地,作为二关塚山的部分用地。

  政府在开设二关塚山时也开辟谦福路,后又增辟亚当路,姓王山所剩下的113余英亩地,分开在亚当路和谦福路两边。殖民地政府在征地时赔了24476余元,却因为找不到山主,最后把该款项寄存在高等法院等候认领。 

  1922320日,高院裁决,依照买地契约能产生有效的慈善信托。
  19231228日,法院批准王长顺(王有海之子)之申请,委任三信托人,除了王长顺,另两人是王瑞洲(王九河之孙)和王金鍊。此案在1924年完结,所领出来的赔款和利息用来设立王氏慈善(开闽公司)。

  据了解,1982年至1990年间,政府把太原山剩余土地全部征用,经信托人和管理委员会极力争取,获得900万元赔偿,再以这笔钱购买武吉巴督23街的地皮,兴建办公楼、闽王氏宗祠和骨灰瓮安置所。这一工程于1997年竣工,是由已故王鼎昌夫人林秀梅所设计。

  本地文史研究者吕世聪在翻阅旧报章时,曾看到一则刊登于1894316日《星报》的趣闻。百多年前住在牛车水的王金福,在父亲去世时买了副很大的棺材,为把棺木抬进家还得拆掉大门。

  他选好日子要把父亲葬在太原山,但天下大雨,跑马场、牛车水积水成河,可泛舟街上,他只好改期为父举殡。

村民话当年这里曾有个陈牛廊村

  熟悉武吉布朗的吴安全,曾听一些看山人说武吉布朗叫二关,另外还有姓王山老山,等,只是后来大家把这一切混淆了,误以为武吉布朗便是咖啡山
  最清楚这一切的应该是昔日在陈牛廊生活的陈亚峇(60岁)。陈牛廊是谦福路坟场聚落的俗称,陈亚峇1951年在那里出世,一直住到1982年才搬走。
  据他回忆,罗弄哈哇的两头接到谦福路,北端那一头靠近太原山,是以打石碑而闻名的陈牛廊村,居民清一色是福建人。
  他本身住在第二个村子,即罗弄哈哇中间、靠近快乐山。这部分原来属于福建会馆。政府未征地前,他家每月还租金给会馆。这个村子以种植果树,帮人照顾坟墓为主,当时还有人在亚当路摆摊卖水果。
  至于最南端、靠近杜尼安路的聚落,除了福建人,还住了潮州人、海南人和马来人。居民以务农、当小贩、看守坟墓为主。
  他记得村子里当时还有一所振中学校,上世纪70年代出过一本校刊,但几年后便关闭。
  陈亚峇说,二关山指的是快乐山延伸到罗尼路的部分,基本上由快乐山和谦福山组成,他所住的村子,就在这两座山的山谷。简单来说,太原山是靠近麦里芝蓄水池、罗尼路、亚当路那一边,福建会馆的塚山,则是靠近快乐山、咖啡山的另一边。


新恒山亭 1891年前已存在

  王氏太原山隔邻的一大片坟山,是福建会馆的塚山新恒山亭。目前无法找到新恒山亭的完整记载,但能从本地文史工作者的研究中,理出一些头绪。

  研究恒山亭的知名文史工作者叶钟铃曾在《恒山亭:新加坡福建帮最早的总机构》一文中指出:自从恒山亭辖下施排埔(今日中央医院)新塚四脚亭于1894年前止葬后,闽人塚地便迁往麟记山和大巴窑。

  叶钟铃从闽籍富商王三龙为首的倡修路董1910523日所颁布的《募修新恒山亭路序》中,确定与太原山毗连的大巴窑新恒山亭是福建会馆塚地。当时因为新恒山亭的山径崎岖,牛车络绎,崩塌益甚,闽帮领导人决定雇工修造道路,并号召闽人共襄善举。

  福建会馆究竟是在何时购买新恒山亭塚地,原本的范围多大,目前还查不出相关史料,但是吕世聪在1891826日的《星报》上看到一则新恒山亭诸董事人告白,可以确定新恒山亭在1891年之前便已存在。

  当时有人在新恒山亭预筑山基为异日瘗棺之地(即预先霸占好墓地作为日后埋葬棺木之用),新恒山亭董事认为有必要整顿纲纪,去除陋习,于是刊登启事,限违例者在三个月内到恒春号(邱菽园的店)通报,每穴四方尺罚充公银12大元,没有据实通报者,坟堆将被毁平,日后再葬时罚款加倍。

  通告还指出,董事会拟举颜永成为督理,负责安顿坟墓诸事。颜永成似乎在恒山亭的管理上很活跃,据叶钟铃的研究,他曾于1894年慷慨解囊,独捐巨金负起修复恒山亭旧塚山的善举,也可能因这缘故,新恒山亭曾有一处叫颜永成山。

  吕世聪也在找史料时,发现福建会馆曾在1921114日,在《叻报》上刊登一则关于福建塚要事之传议,内容说福建会馆收到地税公司于同年110日所发出的信函,表明殖民地政府准备把大巴窑福建塚的112英亩土地收归公有,福建会馆领导人决定在122日开会商讨征地一事。

  上述通告所说的大巴窑福建塚,指的正是新恒山亭。通告说征地是为改造住屋之用,就不知被征土地是否有一部分曾被纳入1922年开设的华人公塚二关塚山内,但不排斥这一可能性。

太原山葬王姓福建人 新恒山亭只葬福建人

  原来的太原山只葬王姓福建人,新恒山亭只葬福建人,但二关山公塚则是开放给各籍贯华人。

  吕世聪也在19211220日的《石叻总汇新报》上看到一则挖迁旧坟墓之报闻,那是恒山亭董事告知恒山亭旧塚有166个墓穴受政府兴建公共医院(中央医院)影响,将迁葬到工部局设在武吉物老隐(武吉布朗旧译法)的新塚。

  去年初,亚洲超自然侦探协会(API)创办人吴安龙和吴安全曾在武吉布朗坟场的罗弄哈哇发现一座隐藏在树林中的古庙,墙上匾额刻着新恒山亭福德正神民国丁丑年1937年),香炉刻着福德堂光绪十九年1893年),算是为新恒山亭找到实证。

  福建会馆秘书长沈美霞在翻阅了会馆的旧会议记录后说,会馆的坟山于1973年封山,政府从1976年中开始陆续征用会馆的坟山,目前已全部被征用。一小部分受扩路工程影响的墓穴则已被挖掘。

    福建会馆究竟是在何时购买新恒山亭塚地,原本的范围多大,目前还查不出相关史料,但吕世聪在1891826日的《星报》上看到一则新恒山亭诸董事人告白,可以确定新恒山亭在1891年之前便已存在

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Powered by Blogger.
Javascript DisablePlease Enable Javascript To See All Widget