# data[].attributes.body
Please click on the link to read the article. [Ignore the message above]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Green and Blue Spaces

On 16 June 1963, then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew planted a pink mempat tree at Holland Circus. It was the first step of a plan that would eventually see Singapore blossom into a 'Garden City'.

Transforming Singapore into a 'garden city' was important for many reasons. For one, trees and other greenery keep the country free of pollution. Moreover, it was part of Singapore's attempt to establish itself as a clean and green country to reflect our good governance and attract foreign investors. Greening efforts were thus accompanied by campaigns such as the 'Keep Singapore Clean' and 'Tree Planting Day'.

Today, green spaces continued to reduce air pollution and urban heat, and provide a respite for urban dwellers surrounded by concrete and glass buildings. Today, Singapore has the world's highest urban tree density, with two million trees lining the streets, and they benefit our living environments in countless ways.

Images: NParks See more at NParks' Tree Microsite

Apart from green spaces, we have also made concerted efforts to turn our waterways blue and clear. As the late-MM Lee Kuan Yew mentioned in his book, 'From Third World to First: The Singapore Story, 1965-2000', one of the key reasons for cleaning up Singapore was to allow us to collect as much of our rainfall (95 inches per year) as possible. Thus, in the 1960s and 1970s, the Government made sure that all sewage from homes and factories emptied into the sewers. Only clean rainwater run-off was allowed into open drains that led into the rivers, which could in turn be used as drinking water. This eventually enabled Singapore to provide 63 million gallons of water per day by 1980 - about half of our daily water needs.

Images: Singapore River before clean-up / first mass swim in the river / PSD

Between 1977 and 1987, the Government embarked on an ambitious clean-up of the then-heavily polluted Singapore River and Kallang Basin. On one hand, it was a massive engineering job that required laying underground sewers across the whole island. On the other, it also required relocating squatters which were a significant source of sewage discharge into the rivers, phasing out pig farms as pig waste were heavily pollutants, and moved people from around 3,000 backyard and cottage industries into industrial estates, where there was proper infrastructure to manage waste. Even with compensation, many were resistant to change.

Despite the discontent, the Government pressed on. The riverbeds were dredged to remove the toxic debris and sediment, while rubbish along the banks was removed. The efforts eventually paid off. By 1987, the Singapore River was transformed into a bustling waterfront area with shops and restaurants opening along the riverbanks.

It was one of the earliest examples of how waterways could enhance the urban landscape. In the past, Singapore's bare concrete canals only served to prevent floods. However, in the 1990s, the Government also began exploring ways they could be used to beautify Singapore.

Images: Singapore Drainage Planning / PUB

The Active, Beautiful, Clean Waters (ABC Waters) programme has been key to this ongoing effort. Through this programme, the Government looked to create scenic waterfront spaces for public recreational use. Unused spaces on the drainage reserves are transformed into attractive promenades, equipped with amenities.

Image: Before and After Aerial View of Kallang River / Wikipedia Commons

The Kallang River @ Bishan-Ang Mo Kio Park is the programme's flagship project. Before 2009, it was just a 2.7km-long and empty concrete canal adjacent to the park. Under the ABC Waters programme, however, this waterway has transformed into a river. This has created opportunities for new lifestyle activities, and migratory birds and aquatic animals are often spotted there. The river is also designed to prevent floods, the greenery around it acts as a filter to eliminate pollutants in rainwater.

As then-Minister of National Development Lawrence Wong said, "We started out to be a Garden City. Now we're making Singapore a City of Garden and Waters."

Yet, Singapore always has to negotiate the balance between greenery and preserving biodiversity, with urban development. For instance, we have overcome some land limitations by building vertical gardens. In 2009, the NParks launched its Skyrise Greenery Initiative, which saw roof gardens on buildings. This has since become an essential component of Singapore's greening strategy, and we aim to eventually have over 200ha of skyrise greenery across the island.

Image: Artist Impression of Tengah HDB Estate / HDB

This balancing act can also be seen in our management of nature reserves as well. Singapore has safeguarded 7,800ha of land as nature reserves, areas, and parks, as well as green spaces such as parks and park connectors. However, our limited land and physical constraints mean that we have had to develop some green areas into urban spaces.

For instance, the 30-hectare Lentor Forest was cleared for private housing in 2016. The construction of Tengah - Singapore's newest town - also required about 90 per cent of the original forest in the area to be removed. In light of these developments, the public increasingly called for the need to preserve the country's natural greenery.

Image: Lentor Forest / Nature Society Facebook Page

When it came to the 33-hectare Dover Forest, which had been slated to be cleared for housing projects, the government launched a public consultation exercise at the start of 2021. It asked for the public to share its feedback, and many spoke spoken out against the zoning of Dover Forest and asked for it to be preserved. The forest is home to at least 158 animal species, including critically endangered ones, and 120 plant species. Nature Society (Singapore), for instance, raised concerns about the loss of biodiversity and wildlife connectivity with other green spaces in the vicinity, such as Clementi Forest. MND and HDB said that it would take the feedback into account.

Images: Dover Forest / Dover Forest Resource Site

What is key is that the answers to our urban development questions and the outcomes we arrive at are never straightforward. Minister for National Development Desmond Lee said that Singapore will need to continue balancing the needs of development and conservation as part of the long-term planning process. Two ways of doing so are to minimise and mitigate environmental impacts, as well as incorporate nature into urban developments where possible. For example, housing developments in Tengah complement the natural environment by retaining as much of the existing topography as possible. This improves the balance between maintaining natural areas and meeting development needs.

Image: HDB

Singapore has also retained ecologically important green spaces that were initially set aside for other purposes. For instance, Mandai Mangrove and Mudflat was initially designated for industrial use. However, it was eventually retained after biodiversity surveys and ecological modelling were conducted, and will open as a nature park in 2022.

Image: Mandai Mangrove and Mudflat / NParks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Green and Blue Spaces On 16 June 1963, then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew planted a pink mempat tree at Holland Circus. It was the first step of a plan that would eventually see Singapore blossom into a 'Garden City'. Transforming Singapore into a 'garden city' was important for many reasons.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Beyond the tracks: The people who keep Singapore moving

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From table tennis games to a bold vision of inclusivity, here’s how Singapore’s MRT system has evolved, shaping lives and fostering connections

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SINGAPORE: Waiting for the bus can make Mr Mikail Wong feel anxious.

The 44-year-old became a wheelchair user due to a spinal injury two years ago, and sometimes thinks he's "a bit troublesome" to other commuters.

"When I'm going to take the bus, other commuters might look at me. I feel paiseh (embarrassed in Hokkien) ... Am I hindering others? Am I causing trouble to them? Luckily we wear masks. If no mask, even more paiseh," he shared with CNA.

Rainy days have been the greatest challenge thus far, as Mr Wong would have to map out another route to his destination.

"Those places that we go are quite regular, but for new places ... we don't know whether there's shelter along the way or whether there's a slope or ramp. I might need to go a longer distance to the next slope or ramp, and get wet in the rain," he said.

Then there was the time a bus captain accidentally dropped the wheelchair ramp while lowering it during a rainy day - splashing rainwater all over Mr Wong.

As Mr Wong recounted the incident during a public bus confidence course jointly conducted by SPD (a local charity that serves people with disabilities) and transport operator Tower Transit Singapore, he laughed it off. But his frustration was evident.

The course, which is free and open to the public, was launched last year to help people with mobility challenges regain their confidence in travelling on public buses.

With the recent push for Singapore's public transport to be more inclusive during the Ministry of Transport's Committee of Supply debate in March, such courses could play a more significant role.

Course participants learn how to board and alight from a bus safely. Importantly, the psychological impact of acquiring a disability and becoming a wheelchair user, especially as an adult, isn't glossed over.

FEAR AROUND USING A WHEELCHAIR RAMP

The unassuming wheelchair ramp presents a unique anxiety for new wheelchair users. The way that a bus captain handles the ramp, such as with Mr Wong, can sour a wheelchair user's mood for the rest of the day.

"When the bus captain just drops the ramp, it may trigger certain feelings in the wheelchair user, because you might feel like you're causing them extra trouble. You might wonder: 'Did I do anything wrong that you have to treat me like that?'" said the course's facilitator Kishon Chong.

The jarring bang of the ramp against gravel has a "psychological impact" on the wheelchair user, as "it communicates to the user that they're not welcome on the bus", he explained.

Mr Chong, 30, speaks from experience. Four years ago, he became a wheelchair user after he suffered a spinal stroke.

He felt "numbness" in his legs one morning before work. Within 15 minutes, the numbness spread. He lost control of his legs and collapsed, and had to be rushed to the hospital. After he was discharged, he spent the next two-and-a-half years unemployed to focus on intensive rehabilitation.

As the course facilitator, Mr Chong expresses empathy about the "fear" around the bus ramp. Navigating the ramp successfully is "a very, very large part of confidence" as it might seem daunting.

For instance, if the wheelchair's caster wheels (front wheels) get stuck at the edge of the ramp, the wheelchair user might feel like "they've been thrown off the wheelchair".

"That's something that has caused much anxiety in many wheelchair users. I even have friends that have stopped taking buses entirely because of that particular reason," he said.

"Asking for help is also something people might feel self-conscious about. They might think back (to before they had a disability) and wonder: 'I didn't even need to ask for help for anything. Why do I need to ask for help now?'"

While their concerns are "valid", wheelchair users have "equal rights to board the bus", Mr Chong reminded course participants during a session CNA attended.

"Please do not feel embarrassed. And if the wheelchair ramp is too steep, tell (the driver). It's part of their job. Don't feel like you're troubling them. It's better that they know what you need help with - better for both the commuter and bus captain," he said.

"We want to show (course participants) that our bus captains are trained to assist with boarding safely. On top of that, we allow participants to practise with the ramp itself, so that they get more used to what to expect when they go out on the ground."

ANXIETY AROUND HOLDING UP THE QUEUE

Due to needing assistance with the ramp, holding up the line is also a constant anxiety for new wheelchair users.

When Mr Chong started using a wheelchair, he would join the regular bus queue, unaware that there was a priority queue. He'd also worry that he was holding up the line - something he was never self-conscious about before becoming a wheelchair user.

"From queuing together in the line with everyone else, right now if you're a wheelchair user, you have to queue separately where there's higher visibility for you to flag the bus down," he said.

"And there's the realisation that because of the process of having to board the wheelchair user first, you might think: 'I'm holding up people's time because everyone has to wait for me to board first, and the bus captain has to do an additional job to deploy the ramp and help me with boarding.' ... It's something that pretty much everyone will experience if you have an acquired disability."

But these feelings are something Mr Chong hopes to help wheelchair users move on from.

"The only way to overcome (these anxieties) is to have more practice, to get on board (a bus) more often, and then you realise that people don't really care. They're actually fine with it. The self-consciousness will set in, but it can also be overcome," he said.

To build course participants' confidence, Mr Chong also gives them other tips for a smoother journey, such as planning ahead, from knowing which stop to alight to finding out whether the buses are wheelchair accessible.

If commuters are already boarding the bus when the wheelchair user has reached the bus stop, Mr Chong shared that they can press the wheelchair push button at the side of the rear door. This alerts the driver that there's a wheelchair user who wants to board the bus.

MORE CONFIDENCE, PEACE OF MIND

Participants told CNA that such information benefited them.

Even a more confident wheelchair user like 55-year-old Taufik Omar, who took public transport for the first time earlier this year, said the course helped him discover wheelchair-accessible features that he had not noticed before.

Ms Nooraini Manaf, who is Mr Wong's wife and full-time caregiver, also attended the course with her husband. She expressed her husband's concern that nobody would help him to board the bus.

"The course gives him the insight that the bus captains know how to help people with disabilities. He also gets the opportunity to try boarding a bus alone, whereas in real circumstances, he may have self-doubt. He doesn't have the confidence," she said.

But the course was also for Ms Nooraini, as it gave her "peace of mind" that someone would be looking out for her husband if he went out alone.

"(People with disabilities) are just like any other person. Despite what they have lost, they have a right to go and pursue whatever they want. With (courses) like this, it will give them a better quality of life," she said.

HARNESSING HIS DISABILITY

While he might seem knowledgeable about the needs of wheelchair users now, it wasn't too long ago that Mr Chong had an entirely different life as a chef.

"Unfortunately, wanting to go back to (being a chef) is difficult, because kitchens aren't really designed for accessibility or wheelchair users. So I had to look for a different option," he said, adding that he sought help from a job coach at SPD.

Several unsatisfactory offers later, he stumbled upon a job posting by Tower Transit. It was the company's first time hiring for such a role. The job wouldn't just accept his disability - it considered his disability an asset.

In 2020, Mr Chong became Tower Transit's first customer experience and inclusion officer. Facilitating the public bus confidence course is part of his job scope.

"Hiring a person with disabilities has meant transforming Tower Transit from inside out. It has meant changing our recruitment processes to accommodate our candidates' disabilities. It has made us consider things we otherwise take for granted like the height of our office desks and whether the arms of a wheelchair can fit under them," said Mr Glenn Lim, the company's communications and customer experience director.

"It is also catalysing a change in our company culture. As other employees work with our customer experience and inclusion officers daily and have gotten to know them on a personal level, their experience with and response to disabilities also becomes a lot more personal."

Even though the company could hire an able-bodied individual for Mr Chong's job, being a wheelchair user means "the understanding levels are a bit different" when he reaches out to those with disabilities.

"We don't know what we don't know. So it's always the case where only when someone has gone through a certain experience, or they live with the disability themselves, they see things in a different perspective," said Mr Chong.

"We cannot blame people who don't understand or don't know, because (the needs of wheelchair users) are not something they might regularly think about. But in building this awareness, I think it's very essential that you have people who actually have the disability to go on the ground, to share their experiences to make things easier to understand for everyone."

But Mr Chong clarified that being a wheelchair user didn't automatically make him good at his job. After all, he had "zero experience" with other people who had disabilities.

"Coming into this job, I told my bosses that what I'm bringing to the table are my experiences as a wheelchair user. That doesn't mean that I'm an expert in disabilities. So there are a lot of things that we need to learn."

TWO-WAY EMPATHY

And learn Mr Chong has. Not only from fellow wheelchair users, but from the bus captains who help them.

He tries to convey these lessons to participants of the public bus confidence course. A portion of the course is dedicated for participants to interact with bus captains, so both sides can empathise with each other.

For instance, Mr Chong said he's learnt that deploying the wheelchair ramp multiple times a day can be tiring for bus captains who are older or who have a smaller build, even though they are more than willing to help wheelchair users.

"Being a wheelchair user and having conversations with them like that is very real, because they tell me sometimes on their journey, they have like eight wheelchair users, and they have to keep deploying the ramp on and off. ... Even assisting wheelchair users to board is a very physical, very laborious thing to do," he said.

"It's actually a very, very strenuous job. Not only is it physical, it's also very mental because they have to try for multiple hours, and make sure that the journeys are safe."

As for improving the bus journey for wheelchair users, Mr Chong would regularly take a bus anonymously to "audit" the level of a bus captain's inclusivity.

He also reminds bus captains to "always ask first" before assisting a wheelchair user.

"I get that they are trained to help, but it's also important to respect the wheelchair user in terms of whether they want the help or not. Sometimes, there are wheelchair users who are very independent, so they will want to board and alight the bus themselves," he said.

Four years since he became a wheelchair user, life has taken on a different meaning.

Recalling a former participant who was initially "reserved" when he attended the course due to previous bad experiences on public buses, Mr Chong said the participant eventually became "more receptive".

"I think we met him a few months after the course. I heard that he went back to work and he was taking buses on his own already. So it was very nice to see that whole transition. You could tell that there was confidence behind his voice," he added.

"It meant something personal to me. I saw this change, which made me feel like my job has meaning."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Am I hindering others?': The fears and anxieties of taking the bus after becoming a wheelchair user

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The wheelchair ramp on buses can cause a great deal of anxiety for many new wheelchair users. But a public bus confidence course aims to eradicate these fears.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
This is an interactive website. Follow the instructions on the website to view Alister's journey. How accessible is Singapore? We travel with a wheelchair user to find out. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Before Alister makes his way to Suntec City, he has to do research in advance on four different apps to find the best route.

"The reason I do that is because I need to know which path is accessible for me," Alister explains, "and to minimise any inconveniences on the spot".

Despite all the research, he occasionally encounters challenges along the way - such as wide MRT platform gaps, a pull-to-open door and unexpected footpath detours.

We got Alister to put on a pair of Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses so we can see from his point of view what's good and what needs to be improved.

Google Maps suggests two different routes. Alister prefers alighting at City Hall station instead of Esplanade station for a more direct route, despite the longer distance to Suntec City. This is so that he "(doesn't) have to take multiple lifts" to change trains at Dhoby Ghaut interchange.

Route 1 Route 2 - Alister's route

As the information he requires is not usually compiled into a single resource, Alister uses a variety of online maps to help him determine if a route will be accessible.

If online maps of a place he wants to visit do not clearly show the obstacles along a path, he will call the location and ask for measurements or a photo.

Follow Alister as he starts his journey.

Alister's journey to Suntec City using public transport was made possible with infrastructural requirements set by the authorities.

However, not all journeys are as smooth as Alister's. While there have been many improvements over the years, more can be done. A committee was formed earlier in 2024 to conduct another review of the Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment, said BCA.

Alister says improvements that help make places more inclusive and accessible are part of universal design, as they benefit everybody, and not only people with disabilities.

He also notes that accessibility has to be seen holistically. Ramps can be built as an accessible feature, but they can be made inaccessible if people choose to park their bicycles along them. Doors can be made accessible if people choose to help pull them open.

"There are many ways where it's more than just infrastructure, it's more than just the hardware - it's the heartware, it's people's attitudes," Alister says.

Produced by:

Goh Yan Han

Haziq Baharudin

Jamie Koh

Jonas Ong

Source: Building and Construction Authority, Google Maps, Land Transport Authority, SMRT, Streetdirectory

He is a wheelchair user.

Here's how Alister travels from Novena to Suntec City on public transport.

This is Alister.

Enable sound

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How accessible is Singapore? We travel with a wheelchair user to find out.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here's how Alister travels from Novena to Suntec City on public transport via @straits_times https://str.sg/accessibility

# data[].attributes.body
Based on the defining moment (Transport, Housing, Green & Blue spaces or Hawker Centres) your group is assigned to, read the articles and watch the videos attached.

In your groups, discuss these two questions and post your discussion points below the respective column.

1) SEE: What were the challenges faced?

2) THINK: Which key values and qualities were demonstrated in overcoming the challenges? Why do you say so?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Lim Tin Seng traces the journey from the first botanical garden in 1822 to the "City in Nature" vision in 2020.

Singapore is justly known for its tree-lined streets, its colourful roadside flowers and the abundance of parks in the city centre and in housing estates. The current greening efforts can be traced to 1967 when then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew introduced the "Garden City" vision. Over time, that vision evolved from "Garden City" to "City in a Garden" and the current "City in Nature", which is part of the larger environmental sustainability Singapore Green Plan 2030.

While the "Garden City" vision only dates back five decades, the practice of creating gardens and parks as well as the planting of trees in the city is something that goes back some 200 years.

The First Garden on Government Hill

Just a few years after Stamford Raffles landed on Singapore's shores in 1819, the British took steps to set up a botanic garden. The garden was the brainchild of Raffles and the Danish surgeon and naturalist Nathaniel Wallich, who had previously been Superintendent of the Royal Gardens in Calcutta, India.

Raffles allocated a "most advantageous site", as he put it, on Government Hill (now Fort Canning Hill), for the new garden. According to Wallich, the garden was set up for the "experimental cultivation of the indigenous plants of Singapore". This effort followed the long-established British tradition of setting up botanic gardens in its colonies to experiment with growing commercially valuable crops and for the study of native plants.

Within a year of its establishment in 1822, the botanic garden in Singapore had grown to occupy the 19 hectares of land that Raffles had allocated, cultivating crops such as nutmeg, cocoa and cloves. However, the garden - under the supervision of Scottish surgeon William Montgomerie - was shut down in 1829 because of its high cost of upkeep, coupled with a lack of funding and government support, particularly after Raffles' permanent departure from Singapore in June 1823.

In 1836, another botanic garden was created on a much smaller plot on Fort Canning. Led by the Singapore Agricultural and Horticultural Society, where Montgomerie was vice-president, the 2.8-hectare garden was primarily used to grow nutmeg. A decade later, however, this garden was also abandoned after the price of nutmeg declined.

The Singapore Botanic Gardens

About two decades later, in 1859, the Agricultural and Horticultural Society set up a landscaped ornamental and leisure garden on a 23-hectare tract in Tanglin. This took root and eventually became the Singapore Botanic Gardens (SBG). In 2015, it was declared a UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) World Heritage Site.

Its first superintendent, Lawrence Niven, organised flower shows and horticultural fairs in the gardens to attract more visitors. He also added many features such as the Swan Lake, Bandstand Hill and the interconnecting curving pathways.

After the Straits Settlements government took over the management of the gardens in 1874, it continued to grow under the stewardship of directors such as Henry James Murton (1875-80), Nathaniel Cantley (1880-88) and Henry Nicholas Ridley (1888-1912).

Murton expanded the gardens with a 41-hectare northern extension in 1879. He also established the Economic Garden the same year for the research and conservation of plants with economic potential, such as coffee, sugarcane and pará rubber. In addition, Murton set up a zoo within the gardens' compound, which at its peak between 1875 and 1878, housed around 150 animals, including leopards and a tiger.

Cantley established nurseries and launched a tree-planting programme to reforest parts of the land that had previously been cleared by plantation owners (Cantley had authored an 1883 report on deforestation that led to the demarcation of Singapore's first forest reserves and the creation of a Forest Department). For the tree planting programme, he picked trees like teak, American rain tree and mahogany for their ability to produce quality timber to support construction work and other commercial activities such as furniture making. It should be mentioned that Cantley was more concerned about safeguarding Singapore's timber supply rather than environmental protection and conservation.

Ridley continued efforts to reforest the reserves. By the time the Forest Department was transferred to the Collector of Land Revenue in 1895, the amount of land designated as forest reserves (forest land set aside for timber reserves) had increased from 8,000 acres in 1884 to nearly 12,000 acres. Ridley also helped develop the botanical and horticultural research arm of the gardens by turning it into a centre for rubber distribution and enlarging its herbarium collection with plants that he had gathered from his expeditions around the island. One of his most important additions to the gardens was the orchid hybrid known as Vanda Miss Joaquim, later designated as Singapore's national flower in 1981. The orchid had been cultivated by Agnes Joaquim, who crossed the Vanda hookeriana with the Vanda teres to produce the orchid that Ridley subsequently named Vanda Miss Joaquim.

Another influential director of the Botanic Gardens was Richard Eric Holttum (1925-42, 1946-49). Holttum started the orchid-breeding programme and also managed to get the control of the forest reserves returned to the Botanic Gardens. However, after the handover in 1939, there were only three remaining reserves - Bukit Timah, Kranji and Pandan.

Roadside Trees, Parks and Recreational Spaces

The Botanic Gardens also worked with the Singapore Municipality (succeeded by the Singapore Municipal Commission in 1887) to plant roadside trees in the 1860s. Some of the trees planted include the cotton tree, angsana tree, flame of the forest and rain tree. These were planted along major thoroughfares such as Orchard Road, Scotts Road, Anderson Road, Jalan Besar and Balestier Road.

The Municipal Commission was also responsible for the upkeep and planning of recreational spaces for the public. Prior to the 1920s, there were only a handful of such spaces like the Padang, the sea-front garden at Connaught Drive (today's Esplanade Park), Dhoby Green (a grassy strip near Dhoby Ghaut), People's Park, Finlayson Green and the area around Dalhousie Obelisk.

Private individuals also created notable gardens. Whampoa Gardens, owned by prominent Chinese businessman and community leader Hoo Ah Kay (better known as Whampoa), was located on the grounds of his lavish mansion on Serangoon Road. The garden was described as beautifully landscaped and contained many exotic tropical flowers and plants. It was opened to the public during the Lunar New Year.

Another private garden was the Alkaff Lake Gardens off MacPherson Road, which was opened to the public in 1929. Owned by the wealthy Arab merchant Syed Shaik Alkaff, it was a Japanese-style garden that had a lake for rowing boats, neatly landscaped paths and tea houses.

Following the release of the 1918 Housing Commission report, which called for the creation of more recreational spaces for residents who were otherwise largely confined to their "dark airless houses", the Municipal Commission began to create more parks, starting with Katong Park, which was completed in 1927. In the 1930s, the commission also built Farrer Park and King George V Park in Fort Canning.

After the Japanese Occupation (1942-45), the Municipal Commission, which was renamed City Council in 1951, continued to increase green recreational spaces and enhance existing parks. Between 1955 and 1961, the City Council added more amenities and landscaping to King George V Park, Katong Park and Esplanade Park.

Creating a Garden City

Despite these efforts, the city area was mostly a concrete jungle. Singapore's first Master Plan, released in 1958, sought to address this problem by almost quadrupling the land set aside for recreation from 274 hectares in 1953 to 1,050 hectares by 1972. These were to be located along the coasts of Bedok, Changi and Pasir Ris as well as the fringes of the built-up central area.

In 1959, the newly elected government formed by the People's Action Party embarked on efforts to beautify Singapore. Between 1959 and 1966, several new green spaces such as the Duxton Plain Parkway, Crawford Park, Model Traffic Playground, Mount Faber Scenic Park and the garden above Raffles Square underground carpark were built. The government also launched a tree planting campaign in 1963. However, Singapore would not have an official greening policy until the "Garden City" vision articulated by then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew in 1967.

As Lee noted at the announcement of the "Garden City" vision, there were many advantages to adding more greenery to the country: "[A]part from making life more pleasant, you give Singapore a very good reputation, then people come, they stay. Wherever you want to go in the region, you can use this place as a base. Your hotel trade will boom and hotels create employment and you help solve your unemployment problem."

The plan was carried out in two phases. The first saw the large-scale planting of roadside trees and shrubs by the Parks and Trees Unit of the Public Works Department, which became the Parks and Recreation Department (PRD) in 1975. The trees included species that could grow fast and endowed with shady crowns, such as the angsana tree, rain tree, flame of the forest and the frangipani. Shrubs like the bougainvillea, the red Ixora, the bamboo orchid and the Cassandra were also grown. By 1970, over 55,000 new trees had been planted, increasing to some 158,600 in 1974 and 1.4 million by June 2014.

Today, tree planting efforts are headed by the National Parks Board (NParks), which was formed in 1990 to manage Singapore's national parks. It was expanded in 1996 to incorporate the roles of the PRD, including planting roadside trees and developing recreational spaces and parks.

Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew watering the jambu laut sapling that he had just planted in Tanjong Berlayar, 1975. Tree Planting Day was made an annual event in 1971. Ministry of Information and the Arts Collection, courtesy of National Archives of Singapore.

The second phase of the "Garden City" plan, from the mid-1970s onwards, involved the creation of parks throughout the island. These new parks were larger and equipped with a wide range of facilities to meet the diverse recreational needs of different population groups.

The largest of such parks are known as regional parks and they range from 10 hectares to 200 hectares. These parks include East Coast Park, Mount Faber Park, and MacRitchie Reservoir Park. Then there are the community parks like Toa Payoh Town Park, Bishan-Ang Mo Kio Park and Yishun Neighbourhood Park located near housing estates. Ranging from 1,000 sq m to 40 hectares, these parks are aimed at residents living in the vicinity. In the city area, there is another type of park ranging from 1,000 sq m to 30 hectares in size. Parks such as the Merlion Park and the Fort Canning Historic Park beautify the cityscape and function as "green lungs" for the built-up city environment.

The efforts to plant roadside trees and build parks were supplemented by laws to protect the greenery. In 1971, the Trees and Plants Act was enacted to protect existing and newly planted trees. The legislation was expanded in 1975 to mandate that developers had to set aside green spaces around buildings, roads and open-air car parks. Today, the laws that protect nature include the Parks and Trees Act (2005), the Animals and Birds Act (2002), and the Wildlife Act (2000). These are administered by NParks.

Up Close and Personal with Nature

From the 1990s, the "Garden City" vision went beyond planting trees and building parks to include ways to bring the community closer to nature. This shift was sketched out in the 1991 Concept Plan by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) which aimed to transform Singapore into an island city where nature, waterbodies and urban development are woven seamlessly together.

One of the first initiatives taken by NParks was the introduction of the Park Connector Network (PCN) in 1991. These are green corridors that allow park users to walk, skate, jog, or cycle from one park or nature site to another for leisure. The first park connector, completed in 1992, was the 7-kilometre stretch linking Bishan-Ang Mo Kio Park to Kallang Riverside Park. Today, there are around 70 park connectors in Singapore stretching over 340 km, and this is set to increase to 500 km by 2030.

Many of the existing park connectors also link to water canals, rivers and reservoirs that have been transformed under the Active, Beautiful and Clean (ABC) Waters Programme introduced by the Public Utilities Board in 2006. The programme aims to create beautiful and clean streams, rivers and lakes with picturesque community spaces for all to enjoy. As Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong noted when he launched the programme: "By linking up our water bodies and waterways, we will create new community spaces that are clean, pleasant, and bustling with life and activities."

A prime example is the transformation of a stretch of the Kallang River that was once a concrete canal by the edge of the Bishan-Ang Mo Kio Park into a naturalised and meandering river in 2012. The river is now home to different species of water birds and dragonflies.

The 1991 Concept Plan also pledged to safeguard Singapore's natural environment by conserving 3,000 hectares of nature sites. Comprising wooded areas, bird sanctuaries, mangrove swamps, waterbodies and nature reserves, these 19 nature sites were identified after the release of Singapore's first environmental blueprint - the Singapore Green Plan - in 1992.

Today, Singapore has 24 nature sites, including four nature reserves - Bukit Timah Nature Reserve, Central Catchment Nature Reserve, Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve and Labrador Nature Reserve - as well as 20 nature areas found throughout the main island and also on the offshore islands of Pulau Tekong, Pulau Ubin and Sisters' Islands. These nature sites are conserved under the Parks and Trees Act.

By 2030, Singapore aims to create more of such spaces, including a 40-hectare nature park in Khatib Bongsu, which is a rich mangrove and mudflat habitat on the north-eastern coast of Singapore, the 8.9-hectare Bukit Batok Hillside Nature Park and the 16-hectare Bukit Batok Central Nature Park.

In the city area, the URA has been promoting high-rise greenery through the Landscaping for Urban Spaces and High-Rises (LUSH) programme, which incentivises developers to introduce greenery into their projects. Some of these options include landscaping within the building and creating sky terraces. Today, over 550 commercial developments and more than two-thirds of all new residential projects have joined LUSH. These buildings include Oasia Hotel Downtown in the city-centre and JEM shopping mall in Jurong East.

Becoming a City in a Garden

Singapore's "Garden City" vision eventually evolved into the "City in a Garden" concept, which was introduced in 2011. This vision was about "connecting our communities and our places and spaces through parks, gardens, streetscapes and skyrise greenery... bring[ing] the green spaces and the biodiversity closer to our homes and workplaces," said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. "[W]e are determined that our people should be... in touch with nature, to be never far from green spaces and blue waters, where they can relax, recharge, where they can let their children and pets run around safely, and where they can take glamorous wedding pictures."

The commitment to green Singapore can be seen in the creation of Gardens by the Bay on a prime site in Marina Bay. Comprising three public gardens - Bay South, Bay East and Bay Central - and occupying 101 hectares in total, Gardens by the Bay was conceptualised in 2005 and completed in 2012 as a new public green space in the city area. With its two futuristic, cavernous glass domes and 18 gigantic concrete-and-steel vertical gardens called Supertrees, Gardens by the Bay represents the realisation of the "Garden City" vision and its transition into "City in a Garden".

The practice of integrating greenery into the built environment was applied to public housing estates via the Biophilic Town Framework. Developed in 2013 by the Housing & Development Board (HDB), the framework aims to create nature-centric public housing estates with ample greenery to reduce heat and noise, and to allow for community farming and the appreciation of nature. Previously, greenery was incorporated into the HDB living environment only through the provision of green spaces for mostly recreational activities. The biophilic framework was piloted in Punggol Northshore District in 2015 and then adopted in the planning and design of Bidadari's Woodleigh neighbourhood in 2016. In 2018, it was announced that the framework would be rolled out to all newly launched housing projects.

City in Nature and the Singapore Green Plan

In 2020, a new vision for greening Singapore was announced. "We want to transform Singapore into a City in Nature to provide Singaporeans with a better quality of life, while co-existing with flora and fauna on this island," said then Second Minister for National Development Desmond Lee.

This would be achieved by having even more nature parks, enhancing the natural environment in new and existing parks and gardens, integrating nature into the built environment and making green spaces even more accessible. By 2030, it is envisioned that Singapore would have another 200 hectares of nature parks, up to 200 hectares of skyrise greenery, one million more trees planted, up to 500 km of park connectors created, and all households would be a 10-minute walk from a park.

The "City in Nature" strategy is also one of the key pillars in the Singapore Green Plan 2030. Launched in February 2021, the Green Plan is the country's latest 10-year blueprint to advance the national agenda of sustainable development amid the challenges of climate change.

The evolution from "Garden City" to "City in a Garden" to "City in Nature" shows how greening the country has become a major priority over the decades. The government moved from just planting trees to setting up parks, expanding these green areas and thinking of nature in the larger context of both landscaped gardens and natural habitats.

The latest Singapore Green Plan takes it one step further by merging the trend towards more greenery with the need for sustainability in the face of the challenges arising from climate change. If the plan succeeds, residents in Singapore will be able to enjoy a considerably greener environment, and the country itself will be closer to realising its vision for sustainable development.

Lim Tin Seng is a Librarian with the National Library, Singapore. He is the co-editor of Roots: Tracing Family Histories - A Resource Guide (2013), Harmony and Development: ASEAN-China Relations (2009) and China's New Social Policy: Initiatives for a Harmonious Society (2010). He writes regularly for BiblioAsia.

NOTES

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Of Parks, Trees and Gardens: The Greening of Singapore

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lim Tin Seng traces the journey from the first botanical garden in 1822 to the "City in Nature" vision in 2020. Singapore is justly known for its tree-lined streets, its colourful roadside flowers and the abundance of parks in the city centre and in housing estates.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From the 1930s to now, see how Singapore has changed over the years with images from the Straits Times archives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Text by Choo Ruizhiof the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS)
Read the full +65 publication here

In bak chor mee, babi pongteh, and Korean barbecues. In restaurants, hawker centres, and kopitiams. In 2020 alone, Singapore consumed 123,625 tonnes of pork, making it the most popular red meat in the country. ¹ Yet none of this pork was raised locally, because there have been no pig farms in Singapore since 1989. ² The pork Singaporeans eat today comes either chilled, frozen, or fresh from over 20 different countries. ³ Today, the only pigs left in Singapore are wild boars which roam the forested fringes of the island. Occasionally, these animals drift closer to human habitats, surfacing on social media and newspaper articles.

Today, the only pigs left in Singapore are wild boars which roam the forested fringes of the island. Occasionally, these animals drift closer to human habitats, surfacing on social media and newspaper articles.

Yet until as recently as the mid-1980s, over a million pigs were raised annually in farms across Singapore, producing almost all the pork Singaporeans consumed. ⁴ Evolving government policies, however, eventually determined that such self-sufficiency was not sustainable. The local pork industry, though tremendously efficient, came at the expense of other aspects of the country's development, and was thus gradually phased out.

Over the decades, Singapore's policymakers have had to balance the varying, sometimes conflicting demands of multiple stakeholders, so as to ensure that different aspects of Singapore's socioeconomic growth could be managed. The local pork industry was one such area in which disparate concerns about economic viability and environmental impact intertwined, resulting in policy changes that markedly transformed how Singaporeans obtained and consumed this protein. This short essay thus surveys how changing sustainability considerations since the 1960s affected pig farming in Singapore, leading ultimately to the imported pork Singaporeans consume today.

As compared to the present, Singapore in 1965 resembled a different country. Sprawling expanses of farmland supported large rural communities, and pig farms dotted the banks of the Kranji and Kallang rivers.

To help meet Singapore's growing food needs, the then-Primary Production Department (PPD) set out to improve the efficiency of existing farms with better education and equipment. ⁵ Lectures and study trips were organised, while high-quality pig breeds and feedstock were provided to farmers. 6 In 1965, Singapore's first farm school was established in Sembawang. ⁷

Taken together, these efforts saved the country "millions of dollars in foreign exchange" by minimising the need to purchase imported pork. ⁸ But changes were on the horizon. Competing national priorities meant that even efficient, small-scale farming could not be sustained in the long run.

By the early 1970s, dramatic changes were occurring in Singapore's society, economy, and environment. In particular, Singapore's meteoric economic growth had begun generating tensions and trade-offs. Balanced against other national priorities, pig farming in Singapore had to be reorganised. Farmland shrank to make room for new factories, housing estates, and military training grounds.

"We had about 6000 pigs before moving over here from Ang Mo Kio. But with various facilities provided to us, we have an additional 4000 pigs now, after only about half a year of resettlement."

-Tan Hong Chuay, owner of 3.25 -hectare farm with about 10,000 pigs, in a 1977 interview with New Nation⁹

Meanwhile, to improve Singapore's water security, large waterways like the Kranji River were dammed to create reservoirs. Large farms in water catchment areas such as Lim Chu Kang, Jurong, and Seletar were relocated to newly-created farming estates in Tampines, Punggol, and Jalan Kayu to prevent pig waste from contaminating new freshwater sources. Small-scale pig farmers were encouraged to raise less pollutive livestock, or to give up farming entirely. ¹⁰ The era of intensive farming had arrived.

One of the government's most ambitious experiments in intensive farming during this period was its development of the Punggol pig-farming district. Over 1,000 hectares of land was allocated to this venture. Electric cables and water pipes were laid, new roads were built, and government flats constructed to house resettled farmers. ¹¹ The Punggol Pig Centre, a laboratory specialising in pig diseases and pig farm management, was also established in Jalan Serangoon Kechil. ¹²

By 1977, the newly resettled pig farms in Punggol had considerably exceeded production targets despite the decrease in available farmland. The PPD declared Singapore "self-sufficient in pigs". 13 Intensifying pig farming with modern technologies had allowed for more efficient, sustainable use of resources. By September 1980, Singaporean farms were producing over 1.25 million pigs annually. ¹⁴ Despite these improved efficiencies, however, changes were soon afoot again. The 1980s would bring new choices and challenges.

"Does it make sense to spend some $80 million on waste treatment plants to achieve poor environmental standards? If pig farms have eventually to go, why prolong the agony?"

-Dr Goh Keng Swee, in response to a question filed in Parliament in 1984¹⁵

Despite the local pork industry's high production output, policymakers by the early 1980s determined that pig farming was unsustainable when balanced against other aspects of national development.

In March 1984, Dr Goh Keng Swee, First Deputy Prime Minister, announced that all local pig farms would be progressively phased out. All of Singapore's pork would henceforth be imported. ¹⁶

"When they mentioned that they wanted to phase out the pig farming, everybody was furious ... it really hit the farmers who are about 40, 50 years old ... when they are at this stage, you know, to tell them to go out and do other business, it's not easy.

My farm? We had to accept it, unwillingly, unfortunately. But that was the government policy, so we had to stop."

-Hay Soo Kheng, a pig farmer, in a 1991 interview with the National Archives of Singapore¹⁷

After "a major review of pig policy", the state had concluded that the extreme toxicity of pig waste, expensive waste treatment plants, and the resource-intensive nature of pig farming in general made it economically and environmentally unsustainable in the long run. It would be efficient, the government argued, to "supply the whole of our pork requirements through imports, probably at a lower cost". ¹⁸

The decision had been made at the highest levels of government, who brooked no protest to this difficult decision. ¹⁹ Despite widespread disappointment from farmers and even some PPD officers, the reaction to this decision amongst most Singaporeans appeared to have been relatively muted.

The ambivalent response might have been a product of broader shifts in Singapore's economy. Many small farmers had already been transiting out of the pork industry for years, farming other crops, or exploring other livelihoods due to diminishing state support for pig farming.

For instance, stuck with excess pigs in his farms, Mr Lim Hock Chee turned to selling chilled pork from a rented booth in a Savewell Supermarket outlet at Ang Mo Kio in 1984, and was later able to take over the management of the entire store. The decision marked the beginning of the Sheng Siong supermarkets, which has today grown to an island wide chain of 61 outlets. ²⁰

"Now I'm 55. I have been farming since I was 18. What other work can I do ... The happiest thing in my life is that I have raised eight children and I don't owe anybody any money ... That's not bad, isn't it, considering I never learnt to read and write?"

-Poh Ah Leck, owner of a small family-run pig farm, in a 1985 interview with The Straits Times²¹

After phasing out pig farms, the Government was not idle either. In addition to the monumental task of closing down local farms, PPD officials fanned out throughout the region, seeking suppliers in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Australia. New infrastructures were built to transport and market fresh, chilled, and frozen pork locally. Publicity campaigns encouraged Singaporeans to consume more imported pork.

"Mr Lim Chye Joo, 82, said Primary Production Department (PPD) workers came to his farm on Tuesday and put away two of his male pigs with a lethal injection [...] Mr Lim has 18 females and 12 piglets left. He said PPD men will return on Monday to kill the rest.

'It is not economical to sell them off because transportation costs for such a small lot exceed any profits to be made,' he said.

'The female pigs are already old. There is no point trying to sell the piglets off because farms in Punggol, Tampines, Changi and Sembawang are being closed at the same time and the market will be flooded,' he added."

An excerpt from "No market for these swine", The New Paper, 26 Nov 1988²²

The era of Singaporean pork was over. Henceforth, Singaporeans (with initial reluctance) would begin consuming pork, grown in overseas farms, in increasing quantities.

The story of Singaporean pork illustrates how stark choices had to be made in Singapore's early nation-building years, as leaders and citizens alike strove to balance economic imperatives with growing concerns about environmental sustainability. Entwined with these grand narratives of national progress are hence also smaller stories of sacrifice, uncertainty, and loss.

Yet policymakers and pig farmers alike met these challenges with tireless determination and bold ingenuity, reinventing themselves to meet evolving contexts. History cannot predict the future, but perhaps this brief story of swine and sustainability shows us how we can likewise rise to meet the road ahead: with grit, daring, and imagination.

Choo Ruizhi is a Senior Analyst in the National Security Studies Programme (NSSP) at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS). He is interested in the histories of animals in colonial and early post-independence Singapore. In his free time, he likes to wander through Singapore's past and present landscapes on foot, by bus, and in the archives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As part of the Singapore Green Plan 2030, NParks will continue to transform Singapore into a City in Nature through 5 key strategies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The History and Evolution of Singapore’s Hawker Culture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The History and Evolution of Singapore’s Hawker Culture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From bane of the government to boon of tourism, hawkers in Singapore have come a long way from the time they were viewed by government officials as progenitors of disorder and disease.

Hawkers at the car park beside the former Specialists' Centre on Orchard Road, 1970. Known as Glutton's Square, this downtown icon lasted for over 12 years from 1966 until it was shut down in September 1978. Ministry of Information and the Arts Collection, courtesy of National Archives of Singapore.

For one of the smallest countries in the world, Singapore has an enormous appetite. According to the annual MasterCard survey on consumer dining habits, Singaporeans were the biggest spenders for eating out in the Asia-Pacific region in 2012, with an average expenditure of $323 each month. This was an increase of nearly 25 percent from 2011. In addition, the great lengths that Singaporeans go to in search of the best or most authentic local dishes are testament to the nation's obsession with food. They endure long queues, brave traffic jams and literally go the distance to satiate their taste buds. It is no wonder that the Singapore Tourism Board promotes the island as a food paradise, organising a series of annual food-related events, most notably the Singapore Food Festival, to boost tourist numbers.

Food and all matters culinary are an integral part of the Singaporean psyche. The city is a melting pot of multi-ethnic flavours and foods, with Malay, Indian and Chinese dishes making up the culinary landscape along with Peranakan and Eurasian cuisines. The island city is home to countless restaurants, but almost everyone agrees that the cheapest and most authentic fare is found in hawker centres.

Hawker centres, in Singapore parlance, are open-air complexes with stalls selling food at affordable prices. They are clean, accessible and are frequented by people from all walks of life. Most hawker stalls are family-run and serve one or two dishes that have been perfected over the years or prepared using family recipes passed down over the generations. As a result, hawker food is not only tasty but also rich in heritage.

However, the convenience of strolling into clean hawker centres for a delicious meal was unheard of in Singapore during the colonial period and early post-independence days. Instead, the norm was to eat by the roadside using dirty utensils and amid filthy conditions. How this was replaced by today's hawker experience marked by good food and a clean eating environment is the result of a decades-long struggle between the government and hawkers.

A Public Nuisance

Peddling food has been part of Singapore's heritage since the early colonial period. The hawker scene then was a vibrant one, marked by rows of stalls selling an endless selection of tasty and affordable local foods ranging from Malay kueh (cakes) to Chinese dishes. John Cameron in Our Tropical Possessions in Malayan India (1865) noted this scene after his visit to Singapore in the 1860s:

"There is probably no city in the world with such a motley crowd of itinerant vendors of wares, fruits, cakes, vegetables. There are Malays, generally with fruit, Chinamen with a mixture of all sorts, and Klings with cakes and different kinds of nuts. Malays and Chinamen always use the shoulder-stick, having equally-balanced loads suspended at either end; the Klings, on the contrary, carry their wares on the head on trays. The travelling cook shops of the Chinese are probably the most extraordinary of the things that are carried about this way. They are suspended on one of the common shoulder-sticks, and consist of a box on one side and a basket on the other, the former containing a fire and small copper cauldron for soup, the latter loaded with rice, vermicelli, cakes, jellies, and condiments."

A group of Chinese hawkers, 1915. Courtesy of National Archives of Singapore.

Hawkers balancing their cooking equipment on one end of a pole, with uncooked food on the other, were once a common sight. Courtesy of National Archives of Singapore.

To resolve these issues, the colonial government decided that hawkers should be registered and licensed. This would confine hawkers to selected areas in the city and prevent them from encroaching into public spaces, while making it easier for authorities to monitor their hygiene practices and deal with any public disorder caused by them. A proposal for the legislation was made in 1903 but only materialised in 1906 as by-laws of the Municipal Ordinance. Unfortunately, the legislation lacked teeth and health officials did not have the full authority to shut down hawkers who violated the rule of law. In addition, the by-laws were only applicable to stall hawkers who operated at night. The rest of the hawker community, both daytime stall hawkers and itinerant hawkers, were still allowed to ply their trade freely during the day. Despite the various problems caused by hawkers, the colonial government still viewed the hawker trade as an essential part of society as it provided unemployed and unskilled workers with a source of livelihood, and the urban population with easy access to cheap meals. As a result, the government was reluctant to adopt a hard-line approach in suppressing them. Thus, the problems persisted and became so unbearable that it led to calls for the total abolition of hawkers.

A Malay hawker with his portable satay stall, 1907. Courtesy of National Archives of Singapore.

These shelters reduced the total number of hawkers from 11,249 in 1919 to 5,513 in 1929. But in reality, little progress was made in tackling hawker issues relating to hygiene and licensing; the efforts during the prewar years were summed up by the municipality as "a vain hope". Indeed, as stated in the Report of the Hawker Question (1931), major roads in the town were still cluttered with some 4,000 unlicensed hawkers. By 1950, due to the lack of a decisive policy against unlicensed hawkers as well as the high unemployment rate during the postwar years, the number of such hawkers ballooned to 20,000. This magnified the various associated problems and once again led to calls for their complete eradication from the streets. Spearheading the condemnation was the Town Cleansing Department. It branded unlicensed hawkers as the "biggest single retarding factor" for their efforts in keeping the city clean. Shophouse owners, particularly coffee shops and food shops, were also unhappy with the unlicensed hawkers. The owners complained that they faced unfair competition from the unlicensed hawkers because the latter could operate at lower costs without paying rent or licence fees, and would deliberately set up stalls near the entrance or opposite their shops.

Wrestling with the Hawker Problem

Despite the policy framework, the colonial administration was still unable to resolve the hawker problem. The number of illegal hawkers continued to rise, reaching over 30,000 by 1959. Moreover, hawkers continued to maintain their unhygienic food practices and operate in filthy environments. The unsanitary condition of the hawker scenes on Boon Tat Street, Upper Chin Chew Street and Beach Road was reported in The Singapore Free Press in 1957:

"A satay hawker had a pot of gravy, into which practically every customer dipped two or three times with the same stick. The sticks had been in their mouths a number of times. A hawker selling a Cantonese meal of roast pork, duck, entrails and rice was squatting near a stinking drain, while cutting the food stuffs. Flies flew about him... In some shops, food was stale and others sold pieces of meat left over by customers. A mee seller wiped perspiration from his body with his hands and then handled food. Some hawkers were seen buying rotten vegetables from street urchins who had salvaged the foodstuffs from dustbins. Many hawkers spat and rubbed their hands on their mouths and then served customers."

Police patrolling the streets before the demolition of hawker stalls at Margaret Drive, 1962. Courtesy of National Archives of Singapore.

Demolition of hawker stalls at St Michael's estate in progress, 1962. Courtesy of National Archives of Singapore.

Building Hawker Centres

Leading the government effort to solve the hawker problem in the post-independence years was then Minister for Health Yong Nyuk Lin. He noted that the illegal hawker situation in Singapore had "gone on far too long and should be stopped".

Addressing Parliament in 1965, Yong acknowledged that while hawking was a legitimate livelihood, all hawkers should follow the rules and not threaten public health, traffic and law and order. He suggested that hawkers relocate to permanent premises. The first step was to register all the estimated 40,000 to 50,000 hawkers in Singapore so that the authorities could impose some control over them. In March 1966, the Ministry of Health (MOH) introduced the Hawkers' Code. Under the code, a licence could only be issued to Singaporeans; in addition, hawkers were prohibited from plying their trade along streets with high traffic volume, in car parks during the daytime, around bus stops, and near schools and other public buildings.

The Hawkers Department under the MOH carried out the registration exercise over a period of time. When it concluded in 1969, there were about 24,000 registered hawkers, much lower than the previously estimated figure.

The Hawkers Department then began relocating the licensed street hawkers to temporary areas that were less busy. Those who plied their trades along the main roads were told to move to the back lanes, side roads, vacant lands or car parks. One of the most well-known car parks that served as a site for hawkers was the Orchard Road car park, which became known as Glutton's Square. The relocation process required tact and sensitivity, with Members of Parliament and grassroots leaders stepping in to address the grievances of affected hawkers.

A special squad was also set up to deal with illegal hawkers. The squad would search and remove illegal hawkers from the streets by carrying out raids with auxiliary police officers. Offenders were fined before being referred to the Ministry of Labour for job replacement. Backed by a new confidence gained from economic progress and the creation of jobs, the Hawkers Department had by this time stopped issuing new hawker's licences to able-bodied citizens, particularly those under 40. This was to encourage them to take on other jobs.

Improving Hygiene Standards

The new purpose-built hawker centres were equipped with proper facilities for food preparation and cooking to improve hygiene standards. To complement this effort, the Environmental Public Health Act was introduced in January 1969. The legislation contained provisions to incorporate public health practices in the licensing and control of hawkers and food establishments. For instance, all stallholders were required to undergo medical examinations and immunisations. They had to seek permission to extend or make any alteration to their stalls. More importantly, they had to keep their stalls clean and ensure that their food was properly stored and safe for consumption. There was also an upward revision of penalties for offenders and stricter enforcement of public health regulations.

Despite these regulations, many hawkers still operated in filthy conditions. Many of them also continued unhygienic practices such as smoking, spitting and handling food without washing their hands. The Ministry of Environment undertook a series of public health education programmes in the 1970s and 1980s to promote good food hygiene. It also published a series of handbooks offering tips on food hygiene and food safety such as Clean Food for Better Health (1982) and Food for Thought (1989), and made it mandatory for food handlers to obtain a Food Hygiene Certificate before they could be registered.

In 1998, a grading system indicating the cleanliness of each stall replaced the demerit point system that had been implemented a decade earlier. An "A" grade implies excellence in cleanliness and food hygiene and "D" for below average standards. This is based on several criteria such as housekeeping standard, cleanliness level, food hygiene level and the hawker's hygiene habits. Stallholders have to display their grades prominently so that the public are aware of the cleanliness levels of their stall. This move incentivised hawkers to maintain or improve their grades.

The hawker centre at the top floor of Funan Shopping Centre, 1985. Ministry of Information and the Arts Collection, courtesy of National Archives of Singapore.

Hawker Fare as Heritage

Singapore's vast variety of food - besides being harnessed for constructing and cementing a national identity - has been used by the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) to promote Singapore as a food paradise to boost tourism. The two biggest events organised by the STB are the Singapore Food Festival and the World Gourmet Summit. Held annually since 1994, the Singapore Food Festival is a month-long culinary event that celebrates Singapore's food heritage and the local culinary scene, with the focus on the nation's favourite hawker dishes. The World Gourmet Summit, started in 1997, is more upmarket and Western-centric, mainly showcasing the culinary creations of the best master chefs from around the world.

New avenues are provided for aspiring hawkers. In 2013, Singapore's Work Development Agency launched its first official hawker training programme. The programme introduces the basics of the hawker trade such as cooking basic hawker staples like roti prata and chicken rice, maintaining good food hygiene and innovative ways to display dishes in stalls. Furthermore, the government is considering setting up a training institute for hawkers. If this materialises, the school will hire successful hawkers to teach and transfer their skills to new hawkers. While these actions have generated a great amount of interest among Singaporeans, it remains to be seen whether they can help preserve the unique hawker culture of Singapore.

GENESIS OF THE MODERN FOOD COURT

Food Republic at Wisma Atria boasts 23 food stations and three mini-restaurants in a 23,000-square-foot space. Image courtesy of Food Republic.

As the construction of new hawker centres came to a halt, private food operators began setting up food courts. To differentiate themselves from hawker centres, food courts were air-conditioned. The first of its kind was the well-known Picnic Food Court, set up in 1985 in the basement of Scotts Shopping Centre along Scotts Road. Since then, such air-conditioned food courts have sprouted in many shopping centres, business parks, tertiary institutions and hospitals.

Other than air-conditioning, there are some marked differences between hawker centres and food courts. In hawker centres, stallholders are individual tenants whereas a single operator manages the food court and rents out the stalls. Invariably, the food prices in food courts are higher. Unfortunately, in many cases, food court fare tends to be slightly characterless thanks to the mass-produced standard recipes that these vendors use compared to rough and tumble hawker centres where one might find older hawkers who have been honing their craft for several decades using carefully guarded recipes. To be fair, however, such hawkers are a dying breed, and their children are not eager to take over the long hours and sweaty work that the job demands.

Cutlery and uniforms used in food courts also tend to be standard issue, and many food court operators employ a common design theme to brand their food court chains. Major food court operators in Singapore include Food Republic, Food Junction, Kopitiam and Koufu. Food Republic at Wisma Atria, for instance, has a 1960s theme complete with old furniture and stalls operating from pushcarts; another outlet at Suntec City Convention Centre was designed around the concept of a White Garden.

Lim Tin Seng is a Librarian with the National Library of Singapore. He is the co-editor of Roots: Tracing Family Histories - A Resource Guide; Harmony and Development: ASEAN-China Relations (2009) and China's New Social Policy: Initiatives for a Harmonious Society (2010).

REFERENCES

20,000 hawkers defy the law. (1949, October 3). The Straits Times, p. 3. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.

7,000 unlicensed hawkers resited since 1968. (1975, August 12). The Straits Times, p. 11. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.

Bartley, W. (1932). Report of the Committee Appointed to Investigate the Hawker Question in Singapore. Singapore: Govt. Print. Off. Retrieved from BookSG.

Cameron, J. (1865). Our tropical possessions in Malayan India. London: Smith, Elder and Co. [Reprinted 1965, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.] Retrieved from BookSG.

Cheung, H. (2013, May 16) Can Singapore's hawker food heritage survive? BBC News. Retrieved from BBC News website.

City opens hawker war. (1953, October 13). The Straits Times, p. 7. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.

Commission on hawkers appointed. (1950, April 18). The Singapore Free Press, p. 6. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.

Feng, Z. (2013, January 9). 2 bodies to start training would-be hawkers. The Straits Times, p. 6. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.

Hawkers draw up 'charter' to guard rights of 30,000. (1958, September 21). The Straits Times, p. 7. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.

Health Ministry committee to plan hawker centres. (1971, August 23). The Straits Times, p. 11. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.

Health officers alarmed at dangers. (1957, January 7). The Singapore Free Press, p. 2. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.

Hedwig, A., & Perera, A. (1985, October 6). Hawker centres or shocker centres? The Straits Times, p. 2. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.

Hot debate expected on expansion of Markets Department. (1958, May 29). The Singapore Free Press, p. 7. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.

Kanagasingam, F., & Ho, E. (1998, April 17). Hawkers worried about grading. The Straits Times, p. 44. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.

Kong, L. (2007). Singapore hawker centres: People, places, food. Singapore: National Environment Agency. (Call no.: RSING 381.18095957 KON)

Kwek, M.L. (2004). Singapore: A skyline of pragmatism (p. 118). In R. Bishop., J. Philips., & W.W. Yeo (Eds.), Beyond description: Singapore space historicity. London: Routledge. (Call no.: RSING 307.1216095957 BEY)

Lim, J. (2013, May 8). Singapore are the biggest spenders in Asia-Pacific for dining: Survey. (2013, May 8). The Straits Times. Retrieved from The Straits Times website.

Minister suggests: Sell city as a food paradise. (1994, July 2). The Straits Times, p. 31. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.

Mr Leow wants 'big spaces'. (1953, December 19). The Straits Times, p. 5. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.

New ministry's $5m plan for hawker resettlement. (1972, September 25). The Straits Times, p. 19. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.

'No new licences for hawkers' policy won't be relaxed: Kim San. (1973, March 14). The Straits Times, p. 6. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.

Simpson, W.J. (1907). Report on the sanitary condition of Singapore. London: Waterlow & Sons. (Not available in NLB holdings)

Singapore. Hawkers Inquiry Commission. (1950). Report of the hawkers inquiry commission. Singapore: G.P.O. (Call no.: RCLOS 331.798095957 SIN)

Singapore. Markets and Hawkers Department. (1957). Annual report of the Markets and Hawkers department. Singapore: The Council. (Call no.: RCLOS 338.31 SIN)

Singapore. Town Cleansing Department. (1948). Annual report 1948. Singapore: G.P.O. Available via PublicationSG.

Singapore Municipality. (1896). Administration report of the Singapore Municipality for the year 1895. Singapore: Fraser & Neave Limited. (Call no.: RRARE 352.05951 SIN; Microfilm no.: NL3351)

Siong, O. (2013, April 7). Hawkers cautious about sharing 'trade secrets' at proposed training institute. Channel NewsAsia. Retrieved from Channel NewsAsia website.

Street hawking nuisance. (1905, October 12). Eastern Daily Mail and Straits Morning Advertiser, p. 2. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.

Tan, W.J. (1971, August 27). 2 super hawker centres for the city. The Straits Times, p. 26. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.

The last hawkers to be resited. (1986, April 29). The Straits Times, p. 21. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.

Wong, H.S. (2007). A taste of the past: Historically themed restaurants and social memory in Singapore (p. 124). In S.C.H. Cheung & C.B. Tan (Eds.), Food and foodways in Asia: Resource, tradition and cooking. London: Routledge. (Call no.: R 394.12095 FOO)

Yeoh, B.S.A. (2003). Contesting space in colonial Singapore: Power relations and the urban built environment. Singapore: Singapore University Press. (Call no.: RSING 307.76095957 YEO)

NOTES

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hawkers: From Public Nuisance to National Icons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From bane of the government to boon of tourism, hawkers in Singapore have come a long way from the time...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hawker Culture in Singapore – What it Means to Singaporeans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Does hawker culture have a future in Singapore? Yes, but perhaps not as we know it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With hawker culture set to be listed in UNESCO’s intangible cultural heritage list, CNA takes a look at the challenge of getting a new generation to embrace the trade - not just the food.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Singapore, 4 March 2025 – The Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) and the National Environment Agency (NEA) will invest up to $1 bill

# data[].attributes.body
1. Living conditions were very poor and some families had water supply while some relied on water from wells they dug out

2. Determination. They were determined to make living in Singapore safe while housing as many people as possible.

# data[].attributes.body
1. operational challenges, as engineers working on the north south and east west line generally have only about 3 hours nightly to perform heavy duty maintenance.

2. determination. they need to be determined in order to continuously maintain the train system as it is a heavy duty.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Beyond the tracks: The people who keep Singapore moving

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From table tennis games to a bold vision of inclusivity, here’s how Singapore’s MRT system has evolved, shaping lives and fostering connections

# data[].attributes.body
1 ) Allistar couldnt take the stairs and couldnt fit through normal gantry ways . He also struggles with openning of doors that require more force

2) He toke the lifts in the mrt and lrt as well as the handicap gantry ways created for people with disability. He ask people for help with the doors that requires more force :D

# data[].attributes.body
hoyan

1. hygienic issues as its very dirty and people from everywhere makes food

2. government decided that hawkers should be registered

# data[].attributes.body
1) Situations like passengers with dementia and helping a lost child could happen any day

2) willpower. 13-strong team undergoes annual training every year, monthly scenario-based sessions and refresher quizzes to ensure readiness

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Beyond the tracks: The people who keep Singapore moving

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From table tennis games to a bold vision of inclusivity, here’s how Singapore’s MRT system has evolved, shaping lives and fostering connections