A history of peranakan museum exhibitions in singapore 1985 2008

This thesis examines Baba exhibitions in post-independence Singapore as an appropriate lens through which to study the changing value of Peranakan heritage as perceived by the state; the

Chapter 1: Introduction

To a considerable extent, 2008 has marked a “Peranakan Renaissance” of sorts in Singapore Throughout the year, there were several large-scale initiatives, showcasing Peranakan cultural heritage, particularly through exhibitions In this “golden year” two institutions devoted to Peranakan heritage were opened: the Peranakan Museum (TPM), managed by the Asian Civilisations Museum (ACM), and the Baba House, operated by the National University of Singapore (NUS) Museum.1 Response to the two institutions has been very positive The Singapore interest for all things Peranakan hit fever pitch in December with the broadcasting of “The Little Nyonya”, a Mandarin-language period drama series centered on a Baba family, during the prime-time slot As a result, interest in Baba material culture noticeably increased There was a significant jump in the number of customers at Peranakan restaurants, antique shops and the Peranakan Museum

Yet barely half a century ago, when Singapore gained independence in 1965, the future of the Baba community seemed bleak Due to a combination of unfavourable government policies, pressures of modernization and community fragmentation, the community’s economic and political power and sense of identity were seriously compromised Consequently, the cultural heritage of the Baba community was deemed by many Babas and general Singaporeans alike to be largely irrelevant and worthless Many Baba cultural practices were modified and downscaled, and Babas were selling off cheaply or discarding traditional material objects in huge quantities Demand for these items was low and there was no museum which collected these objects An explanation of this disparity in national, public and community interest in related exhibitions, and valuation of culture and heritage of the Baba community cannot be divorced from the larger historical context

1

“Telling Baba Story Differently”, ST 4/9/2008

In his seminal study on the history of Babas in Singapore, Jurgen Rudolph has convincingly made the argument that the public identity of the Babas after the late 1970s changed slowly in emphasis from the political to cultural aspect However, there has been no comprehensive study on how this Peranakan cultural identity was conceived, the nature of this identity and how it has evolved over the years since then This thesis examines Baba exhibitions in post-independence Singapore as an appropriate lens through which to study the changing value of Peranakan heritage as perceived by the state; the evolving idea of Peranakan cultural identity by Babas and the general public, and how this in turn sheds light

on wider cultural policies in Singapore, larger market and global forces on the Singapore museum industry, and the relationship between the Baba community and the state

1.1 Who are the Babas?

As mentioned, Rudolph’s thesis that Baba identity before the war was political and gradually switched to cultural after independence, is illuminating By blood, the Babas are descendents of inter-marriages between indigenous women and Chinese traders who settled in Malacca and the Dutch East Indies since the seventeenth century.2 Singapore Babas trace their ancestral roots to Malacca However, a mixed-blood/genetic definition of the Babas is shunned by academics because many Baba descendents married Chinese immigrants thereafter, and these Chinese immigrants were assimilated into the Baba community through cultural practice Tan Chee Beng has argued convincingly that the emergence of a hybrid Baba culture occurred even before British colonialism;3 but he agrees with John Clammer that British colonialism and the creation of the political unit of the Straits Settlements (comprising Malacca, Penang and Singapore) in the nineteenth century saw the significant rise in political,

2 Jurgen Rudolph, Reconstructing Identities : A Social History of the Babas in Singapore, (Aldershot, Hants :

Ashgate, 1998), p 63.

3 Tan Chee Beng, The Baba of Melaka: Culture and Identity of a Chinese Peranakan Community in Malaysia

(Petaling Jaya, Selangor : Pelanduk Publications, 1988), p 42

economic and social status of the Babas.4 Many became influential and affluent business and political leaders from the nineteenth century up until the war, and the material culture of the Babas flourished in this period in the private realm, reaching its peak in the early decades of the twentieth century Another political characteristic to the Baba identity was that unlike the

immigrant Chinese from China (i.e., sinkehs), who recognized China as their homeland, the

Babas adopted Malaya as their homeland and pledged loyalty to both China and the British Crown To protect their privileges, the Babas actively distinguished themselves from the

sinkehs

The decline of the fortunes of the Babas can be traced to the Great Depression, the Japanese Occupation, the end of British colonialism and the victories of the Peoples’ Action Party in Singapore (PAP), when their political and economic advantages were eroded away.5

In the early decades of post-independence Singapore and Malaysia, the Babas receded dramatically from public consciousness With political and public pressures against being Baba, there was less emphasis in asserting a distinctive identity and a significant number has assimilated into the larger Chinese community Since the late 1970s, there have been attempts by the Babas to preserve their heritage, to remember their identity on cultural terms

in the public sphere and to reverse the perceived decline of the community Assessments of these attempts and the community’s future differ greatly

There are other terms that may refer to the Babas but I find the term “Baba” and

“Peranakan” more suitable for the purposes of this thesis Other terms include “Straits Chinese” and “Straits-born Chinese” “Straits Chinese” and “Straits-born Chinese” have become misnomers with the replacement of the political entity of the Straits Settlement with

4

John Clammer, Straits Chinese Society: Studies in the Sociology of the Baba Communities of Malaysia and

Singapore (Singapore : Singapore University Press, 1980), p 126

5

Jurgen Rudolph, Reconstructing Identities, p.3

the Federation of Malaya in 1948.6 It follows that these two terms are thus inherently inadequate for a study such as this, which examines exhibitions held in the post-independence period The term “Peranakan” is probably the broadest label, a Malay term meaning literally the “local-born” from the second half of the nineteenth century As an ethnic label, it refers specifically to the descendents of indigenous people who married foreigners Hence, the term

“Peranakan” also encompasses descendents of non-Chinese and indigenous people.7 The term

“Baba” thus refers more specifically to the Chinese Peranakans “Baba” also refers to the men

of the community, while “Nyonya” refer to the women All these terms were also used interchangeably by the Babas and non-Babas to refer to the community up to the Second World War The tendency to strongly differentiate them, particularly by academics and older Babas, only occurred afterwards.8 Indeed, post-independence exhibitions on the Babas have also been named “Peranakan” and “Straits Chinese” exhibitions, and they will also be included in this study

1.2 Museums and Heritage

In the recent decades, there has been a burgeoning of scholarship on museums, particularly about those in North America and Europe Much of this scholarship has focused

on the history of museums and their collections, asserting that museum representations are formative and reflective of the political, social and economic milieu of the time they were

created In the introduction to Theorizing Museums, Sharon Macdonald emphasizes an

important, common assumption shared among the collection of essays, which illustrates the evolving nature and contexts of Western museums: that of ‘context’ This common thread is

the view that “museums are socially and historically located…[and]inevitably bear the imprint of social relations beyond their walls and beyond the present”.9 Thus the analytical potential of the museum extends beyond its physical and immediate temporal confines and can give clues as to the historical context from which it sprang and vision of the future Likewise, this study rests on the premise that museum exhibitions can serve as useful lens through which to perceive wider social and historical issues

One of the most debated issues in museological studies remains that of the relationship between ideology, politics and museums Two definitive volumes on the issue emerged from two related conferences on the representation and reception of cultural diversity in museums, organized by the Smithsonian Institution and Rockefellar Foundation

in 1988 and 1990 respectively The first volume, Exhibiting Cultures, explores “how cultural

diversity is collected, exhibited and managed” in museums and how these representations point to underlying perceptions of power, authority and social relations .[particularly] of what a nation should be or how citizens relate to one another” 10 This volume concentrates on the power and production of representations by curators/museums and explores their motivations, assumptions and methods Paralleling the increasing recognition in museum studies of the agency of the visitor, contributors to the volume are also aware that museums cannot be hegemonic sites of determining group identity Museums are “contested terrain” and visitors are far from passive, being capable of interpreting museum representations in ways not always intended by museums This theme is emphasized in the second volume,

Museums and Communities The agency of visitors is stressed and a key assumption to some

extent is that a distinction can be made between institutions of civil society (e.g., museums) and government agencies of social control In this sense, the volume also believes that

9 Sharon Macdonald, “Introduction”, Theorizing Museums: Representing Identity and Diversity in a Changing

World, eds Sharon MacDonald and Gordon Fyfe (Cambridge, Mass : Blackwell, 1996), p 4

10 Ivan Karp and Steven Lavine, Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display, (Washington:

Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991), p.1-2

museums can play a role, as part of civil society, in resisting state narratives, definitions and assumptions.11

Scholars have slowly applied the aforementioned theories to museums from nations beyond the main areas of museum development (i.e., Western Europe and the USA) Fiona

Kerlogue’s edited volume, Performing Objects: Museums, Material Culture and Performance

in Southeast Asia, is among the first surveys on museums and material culture in the region

and is representative of growing interest in museums of this area The key question addressed

is how to reconcile the museum collections, whose creation was often influenced by colonial ideology and when cultures were defined in ethnic terms, with contemporary and urban audience in the post-colonial context

Recent scholarship has also identified several significant new forces that might affect the construction of identities in museums and impact the role of museums in modern societies John Urry highlights the growing concern of museums about their competitiveness

in an increasingly global and changing market-place and post-modern concerns and emphasis

on undermining “authoritative traditions”.12 Kevin Robins expounds on the influence of globalization on the imagining of identity in museums While it has driven some museums to embrace a transnational identity, others have chosen protectionist approaches and intensified their focus on exclusive tradition and a bounded identity.13 Jan Nederveen Pieterse argues that the impact of postcoloniality and multiculturalism on the redefinition of national identity cannot be underestimated Museums can no longer be testimonies of colonial achievement, and some are at the forefront in replacing static and hegemonic identities with fluid, cross-

Kevin Robins, “Tradition and Translation: National Culture in its Global Context”, in Representing the Nation:

A reader: Histories, Heritage and Museums, ed Jessica Evans and David Boswell, (New York : Routledge, 1999),

p 28

cultural and hybrid ones.14 Thus, optimism abounds in recent scholarship that these larger forces can increasingly influence museums in modern societies to redefine, blur and broaden traditional boundaries of ‘self’ and ‘others’, empower the previously marginalized and weaken grand narratives The present study will illustrate how some of these forces played a role in increasing the perceived value of Peranakan heritage in Singapore to the state, public and Peranakan community in the last decade

Another common issue in museum studies is what ought to be collected, and this parallels the question of “What is heritage” in heritage studies Both fields are gradually problematizing the popular understanding that collections/heritage are confined to the tangible and material, asserting that this focus usually reproduces consensual and unchallenging views of the past and present Other alternatives are proposed, particularly oral history and memory.15 LauraJane Smith further proposes other themes such as performance, dissonance and place; and a perception of heritage as “a social process concerned with the creation and maintenance of certain social and cultural values process”16 and experience, including that of the visitor visit and dialogue.17 Taken at its extremes, however, Smith’s definition of heritage might be too broad Yet, this study is convinced of the importance of intangible heritage and will include these elements of the exhibition for analysis

As Ashworth and Tunbridge aptly stated, “There is no such thing as heritage”; there

is nothing that intrinsically and naturally qualifies as heritage Rather, for things to become heritage, they must go through the deliberate human process of selection and interpretation that confers them with meaning and value This process must be motivated by and situated within the larger historical context; and it raises the relevant questions of what qualifies as

14

Jan Nederveen Pieterse, “Multiculturalism and Museums”, in Heritage, Museums and Galleries: An

Introductory Reader ed Gerard Corsane, (London ; New York : Routledge, 2005), p 164

15 Susan Crane, Museums and Memory, (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2000), p 12; Gaynor

Kavanagh, Dream Spaces: Memory and the Museum, (New York : Leicester University Press, 2000), p 3

16 Laurajane Smith, Uses of Heritage, (London ; New York : Routledge, 2006), p 11

17

Ibid p 53

heritage, who defines heritage, why define heritage, how is heritage defined and when does heritage come about.18 These are certainly important questions and every exhibition featured

in this study will be interrogated accordingly

In his influential book The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History, David

Lowenthal argues for the redemption of heritage against its many criticisms, especially that of

“real history” as opposed to “false heritage” He asserts that we must recognize that heritage and history have different aims and are meant to appeal to different audiences in different ways, and “dynamic heritage yield dubious history…[and this is] both natural and harmless.”19 This study heeds Lowenthal’s warning against the usual oversimplified dichotomy of good history and bad heritage, and simply faulting representations because they are factually inaccurate However, “bad history” sometimes does have political and social repercussions too, and such instances in the Baba exhibitions will be highlighted and discussed

1.3 The Baba Community in Singapore

There is a significant increase in scholarship on the Baba community of Singapore particularly from the late 1970s However, there are only three general works studying the social history and evolving identities of the community.20 Among these, Jurgen Rudolph has suggested the useful periodization of three phases in the history of the Baba community Apart from the Japanese Occupation as an important turning point signalling the decline of the economic, social and political powers of the community as agreed by other scholars,

18

J.E Tunbridge and G.J Ashworth, Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past as a Resource in Conflict ,

(Chichester ; New York : J Wiley, 1996), p 36.

19

David Lowenthal, The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History, (London : Viking, 1997), p 168

20 John Clammer, Straits Chinese Society; Tan Chee Beng, The Baba in Melaka; Jurgen Rudolph, Reconstructing

Identities

Rudolph argues for 1959 as a second crucial turning point The PAP rise to political power and dominance marked the beginning of concerted state efforts to openly marginalize the community and the sinification of the community.21 Baba identity was no longer a privileged one in this third phase, and John Clammer contends that the Babas suffered an “ambiguity of identity” as a result of the disappearance of the colonial environment that had sustained their culture.22 Paralleling the decline in the fortunes of the community and pride in their group identity, Baba (material) culture was not valued by the community, public and state in the early decades of independence

Academic studies of the (material) culture of the Babas have mushroomed since the 1980s.23 These studies usually focused on one dimension of Baba culture, attempting to link changes in this dimension (particularly food) to the larger question of the evolving identities

of the Baba community There has been no thorough study of Baba museum exhibitions, which arguably shaped the parameters of the post-independence/third phase of Peranakan cultural identity

Another common research issue of this third historical phase is the role the state and the Baba community itself played in the perceived decline and (cultural) revival of the community from the late 1970s Numerous studies have illustrated the various ways in which the state has marginalized the Babas through education and social policies, how the Baba

Ho Wing Meng, Straits Chinese Beadwork and Embroidery (Singapore : Times Books International, 1987),

Straits Chinese Porcelain (Singapore : Time Books International , 1983), Straits Chinese Silver (Singapore : Times

Books International, 1984), Straits Chinese Furniture (Singapore : Times Books International, 1994); Jean Yeow Oon Ling, Peranakan cuisine as a projection of the Peranakan Identity (Unpublished Academic Exercise

submitted to the Department of History, National University of Singapore, 1999), Shawna Tang Ser Wei,

Consuming Peranakan food, (Unpublished Academic Exercise submitted to the Department of Sociology,

National University of Singapore, 1998); Wendy Lim Li Ching, Retailing of Peranakan Culture in Singapore : A

Case-study of Peranakan Food Outlets, (Unpublished Academic Exercise submitted to the Department of

Geography, National University of Singapore, 1993), Ivy Lee Gek Kim, Literary Representations of Peranakan

culture, (Unpublished Academic Exercise submitted to the Department of English Language and Literature,

National University of Singapore, 1994); Khoo Joo Ee, The Straits Chinese: A Cultural History (Amsterdam :

Pepin Press, 1996)

associations have become ineffective in protecting the interests of the Babas, and how they have been choosing to assimilate into the larger Chinese community.24 Since the 1980s, studies have documented how, due to both internal reasons of nation-building and international and economic reasons of tourism and international relations, the Singapore state has been encouraging and constructing particular representations of Baba culture and identity They argue that the state is appropriating Baba heritage, and that the identities and stories projected in museum, press and media representations are reflective of wider state agenda These studies are of limited coverage, spanning only one or two museum exhibitions in the 1980s or 1990s.25 The present study will have a more extensive coverage, analysing all state exhibitions on Baba history and culture since independence Such coverage can allow for a more effective comparison of the motivations and constructions of Baba representations and Baba cultural identity through the decades

1.4 Cultural Policies and Museums in Singapore

There is an extensive literature on the practice of the Singapore government’s concept

of multiculturalism A key weakness highlighted is the neglect of hybrid and minority groups

To scholars, the state ideology of multiculturalism is very much a governmental instrument of social control and this idea of separate-but-equal races is very pervasive in Singaporean life The population is officially divided into four groups, or CMIO (Chinese-Malay-Indian-Others), and these strict racial boundaries are espoused in several policies As a result,

“hyphenated citizens” are created whereby each race is associated with a particular language,

religion and culture.26 This situation masks many complexities in reality These include the social inequalities resulting from the government practice of multiculturalism, the propagation

of racial stereotypes and the official neglect of alternative forms of cultures, such as hybrid and minority cultures like the Babas’ 27 In this bleak picture, discussion is rife as to the necessity and characteristics of a national culture, to form the basis of a common Singaporean identity above the separate groups The Baba culture has been cited as an example of a

“genuinely Singaporean culture” that could be a useful starting point to imagine a national culture.28

Paralleling this academic interest in a national culture and the state’s increasing

emphasis from the late 1980s on the importance of a historical awareness, the volume Our Place in Time marks the significant increase in interest and awareness of Singapore’s past

among lay people There was concern over the question of a national culture and identity and Singaporeans felt that they were “cultural orphans” despite their economic and material advancement Together, the essays represent a search for a viable national identity and history and a desire to rediscover heritage and memory.29 Common suggestions include the importance of allowing multiple voices in the construction of heritage and history, the inadequacy of the current model of multiculturalism to create a racially integrated and relevant national identity, and the advocation of embracing cultural hybridity as part of a genuine Singapore culture and identity The potential of the museum in imagining a national identity is recognized in the volume.30

Geoffrey Benjamin, “The Cultural Logic of Singapore’s ‘Multiculturalism’”, in Singapore: Society in Transition,

ed Riaz Hassan, (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1976); John Clammer, Race and State in Independent

Singapore; Chua Beng Huat, “Culture, Multiracialism and National Identity in Singapore”, in Trajectories: Asia Cultural Studies, eds Kuan-Hsing Chen et al., (New York: Routledge, 1998)

Inter-28

John Clammer, Race and State in Independent Singapore, p 68

29

Kwok Kian Woon et al., Our Place in Time: Exploring Heritage and Nemory in Singapore, (Singapore: Singapore

Heritage Society, 1999), p Ix

30

Kwok Kian Woon et al., Our Place in Time, p 314

Selvaraj Velayutham adds to the discussion of the state’s role shaping in Singapore culture by providing a grounded and historical analysis of strategies related to culture employed by the state in response to the changing demands of globalization He argues that there are three phases: in the first phase of nation-building, the state was preoccupied with imagining a nation out of disparate immigrant communities; in the second phase from the late 1980s, termed the “Asian Values” phase, when the Newly Industrialised Economies of Asia were on the rise, the key cultural concern was the seeming “Westernization” and loss of cultural traditions of the people and the need to forge a Singaporean national identity above racial divides; in the third phase from the 1990s and accelerating after the 1997 Asian economic crisis, Singapore official policy and discourse shifted to emphasizing globalization and in promoting Singapore as a global city 31 Additionally, Lily Kong and Koh Tai Ann have written illuminating essays on Singapore’s cultural policies in the 1990s and 1980s respectively.32

Literature on Singapore museums is scarce, and these works come to similar conclusions regarding the role, representations and narratives of the three national museums (ACM, National Museum of Singapore (NMS), and the Singapore Art Museum (SAM)) They argue that internally, the museums subscribe to the state ideology of multiculturalism in their representations of Singapore society and past, and tell important “identity stories” that defines who the Self and Others are in Singapore They also hold an economic function on the international level, operating as tourist attractions.33 The recent proliferation of Baba exhibitions in Singapore has also prompted some papers on Peranakan exhibitions, the issue

Can Seng Ooi, “Identities, Museums and Tourism in Singapore: Think Regionally, Act Locally”, Indonesia and

the Malay World, 31:89 (March 2003), p 80 , Joan Henderson,” Ethnic Heritage as a Tourist Attraction: the

Peranakans of Singapore”, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 9:1, (March 2003) , p 27 - 44; Fiona Koh,

Exhibiting History : A Study on the Singapore History Museum, (Unpublished Academic Exercise submitted to the

Department of History, National University of Singapore, 2000)

of national culture and the impact of globalization on these exhibitions34 All of them examine one or two exhibitions, none compares the Baba exhibitions systematically through the years

This thesis explores the extent to which Singapore’s cultural policies are reflected in exhibition representations of the Peranakans through the decades

1.5 Methodology

There is no existing scholarship on the production processes of the many state exhibitions on the Peranakans To facilitate understanding of the motivations, conceptualization and implementation processes behind the museums and their interpretations

of the past, interviews with exhibition curators and managers were conducted The exhibitions’ brochures, websites and publications also offer insights into the construction process, exhibition narratives and pictures of exhibitions that might not be around anymore For those that are still open today, fieldtrips were conducted for a first-hand experience and analysis of the representations and text panels on the Baba past Where it was possible to obtain the exhibition files – containing exhibition maps, minutes of exhibition meetings and notes on the rationale, difficulties and process of executing the exhibition – they have proven

to be extremely informative This study focuses primarily on the production aspect of the exhibitions but will extend the discussion further to the reception by the Baba community and public, when suitable sources such as newspapers, blog and the Peranakan Association (PA) newsletter responses, are available Indeed, the PA newsletter/magazine is a significant source

of information on community perception and activities Since 1993, it records all Peranakan public events and feature articles on the community written by the community

34 Emily Stokes-Rees, “‘We Need Something of Our Own”; Helena Bezzina, “Community, Government, and Museum”

The state exhibitions must also be understood within the wider cultural policy contexts that frame them Official museum press releases, annual reports by the National Heritage Board, cultural policies and relevant government speeches were analyzed Together, they provide some sense of government involvement and vision of the exhibitions and how Baba history and heritage are being appropriated for larger nation-building and international reasons

Chapter 2 From Forgetting to Remembering the Baba and Inventing the Peranakan Cultural Category:

1965-1980s

The 1980s marked the beginning of a new imagining of Peranakan identity in Singapore, chiefly in national museum exhibitions These exhibitions established the cornerstones of the postwar Peranakan identity that all future exhibitions had to address These exhibitions were strongly infused with nostalgia for the glorious past of the exclusive community, and discussed them in a celebratory tone This identity is cultural; and cultural stereotypes of the Peranakans as an elitist, domestic, material-based, predominantly-Chinese and having feminine leanings, stemmed from these exhibitions Before the war, there were no exhibitions on Peranakan material culture in the colonial museums Perhaps, this might be because the immediate century before the war is widely regarded as the “golden age” of the Peranakans The community then was a “thriving, evolving and influential” group as compared to the 1960s, when their identity was endangered and Singapore curators might have felt that it was time to remember a “threatened culture”.35

A reliable picture of the 1980s exhibitions can be pieced together from diverse sources Given that the exhibitions were closed by the time of this research, a visual idea of the exhibitions was gathered through museum brochures, catalogues, related art magazine articles and local newspaper articles For the Peranakan Place exhibition, the search was aided

by numerous, captioned pictures in the National Archives Analysis of the 1988 exhibition was greatly enhanced by museum meeting minutes and floorplan images, which provide a detailed behind-the-scenes account of that exhibition

35

Kenson Kwok, “Foreword”, Peranakan Museum: A-Z Guide”, (Singapore: National Heritage Board, 2008), p 9

2.1 Not a Single Exhibition: The Baba Disappears 1960s-1970s

The political mood and public atmosphere after the war until the 1970s worked against the appreciation of Baba (material) culture and the establishment of any Baba exhibition It follows that few saw value in Baba culture and there was no government or private interest in organizing Baba exhibitions

The war and the policies of the new ruling party, the People’s Action Party (PAP), severely impacted the prewar status of the Babas Economically, many of the Babas belonged

to the upper class of society and were forced to make huge ‘donations’ to the Japanese war effort Many of their properties were looted during the Japanese Occupation, while others had

to sell their possessions to survive.36 The community also declined in sheer numbers because many Babas fell victim to the Sook Ching/Chinese massacre, and many Nyonyas started marrying outside the community.37 After the war, the Baba community was divided with regards to the political future of the nation Baba politicians like Lee Kuan Yew, who became the PAP leader, believed that the new generation of leaders should represent the entire population, rather than safekeep the interests of the British and the community as the Straits Chinese British Association (SCBA) was doing.38 The PAP stand reflected that of the Chinese majority, who resented the prewar privileges and British connections of the English-educated.39 Consequently, the SCBA declined in political clout and slowly transformed into a cultural organization of open membership aiming to promote Baba culture.40 Baba identity and culture were no longer privileged and they were mocked by the Chinese majority as being

“neither fish nor fowl”, and some Babas henceforth denied that they were Babas.41 The four options were Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others (i.e., CMIO); Peranakan was not a legally recognized community Other postwar factors also had a direct and negative impact on Baba

CM Turnbull, A History of Singapore, 1819-1988, (Singapore : Oxford University Press, 1989), p 244

40 Jurgen Rudolph, Reconstructing Identities, p 191

41

Ibid p 189

material culture and heritage Postwar impoverishment led to further sales of things Baba Many young Babas were disinterested and sold their material inheritance due to changing modern tastes, and also because new flats could not accommodate all the furniture of their previous larger houses42

The government, public and Baba community attached little value to things Baba, and collectors, museums and Babas alike recall how these flooded the market and were transacted cheaply Peter Wee, prominent member of the Baba community and collector of Baba material culture, recollects how many Babas gave away or sold cheaply many items to him in this period.43 Ho Wing Meng, collector and author of an influential series of collectors’ guides to Baba material culture, remembers how furniture and porcelain were stacked up in junk stores “going for a song”, and that there was no museum in Singapore and Malaysia actively collecting them.44 In fact, the National Museum of Singapore started collecting Baba artefacts specifically for a dedicated display only in the early 1980s.45

The priorities of the government were economic development, the strengthening of its political position and social welfare The new nation was described as a “developmental state”, one which focused on economic indicators to measure the nation’s performance.46Cultural activity was deemed a “luxury we cannot afford” and one that did not translate into immediate economic benefits.47 Cultural policies of this period reflect more socio-political motivations of nation-building than monetary agendas A “national culture” was desirable above all to combat the negatively perceived triple forces of Communism, Colonialism and Communalism 48

Koh Tai Ann, “Culture and the Arts”, in Management of Success : The Moulding of Modern Singapore , edited

by Kernial Singh Sandhu, Paul Wheatley, (Singapore : Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1989), p.717

48

Quoted from Ibid p 718

Central to an understanding of the cultural policy of Singapore is the comprehension

of the several meanings of the official usage of “culture” In an early article on the issue, Geoffrey Benjamin argued that national culture in Singapore referred to an amalgation of the four separate cultures of the three large ethnic groups of Chinese, Malay, Indian, “Others”, or the popularized CMIO model No fusion was envisaged among these cultures, each culture was perceived as being static, pure and linked to traditions of a golden age.49 There was also the state tendency to equate culture with “high culture”, ignoring Singapore’s hybrid everyday culture “National culture” was believed to be a goal that had yet to be achieved.50

2.2 The Straits Chinese Gallery

The first museum exhibition by a government organization in Singapore specifically featuring the history and heritage of the Baba community was organized by the NM in a gallery correspondingly named “The Straits Chinese Gallery” in 1985 Since 1972, the Museum’s mission had been to focus on the art, history and ethnography of Singapore and Southeast Asia,51 and this exhibition aimed “to show the artefacts of the era as they were once lived with” by the “Straits Chinese”.52 The gallery recreated the “interiors of a Straits Chinese

or Peranakan bungalow in the early years of the [twentieth] century” and comprised three main sections: a bridal chamber, an Anglo-Chinese parlour and an ancestral altar set accompanied by blackwood furniture with mother-of-pearl inlay.53 The exhibition was curated by a non-Baba Chinese, Mrs Eng-Lee Seok Chee; and it established many of the cornerstones of the Peranakan cultural category through the representation of a particular kind

of Baba identity to Singaporeans and tourists for years to come.54

Gretchen Liu, One Hundred Years of the National Museum, (Singapore : The Museum, 1987), p 63

52 Lee Wai Kok, “National Museum, Singapore: A Review”, Arts of Asia, (v.17,n.3) p 3

53

Gretchen Liu, One Hundred Years of the National Museum, p 68

54 Except when the NM was closed for renovations in 1990 However the contents of the gallery was kept intact

upon its reopening, as evident from the museum publication A New Era for our Museums (Singapore: National

One of the most lasting conception of the Peranakan cultural category that this exhibition created is that Baba identity was domestic and material-based; the absence of the community’s public life and much of their intangible heritage was glaring The strength of the museum collection then was in home furniture,55 and it can be argued that this resulted in the strong domestic and material focus of the gallery Museum publications clearly emphasized the furniture collection, stating that “the highly syncretic character of the [Babas] is

discernable through furniture large and small”.56 The museum brochure highlighted the furniture collection first; while the centenary celebration publication explained that the bridal chamber was remarkable for its “red-and-gold bridal furniture”and pointed out that the altar set was “surrounded by blackwood-chairs with mother-of-pearl inlay”57 The bridal chamber was allegedly the gallery’s “focal point” and in this space, the “bridal bed inevitably takes centre stage”, given its size and elaborate decorations, which were “further enhanced by the seductive play of light”.58 Intangible heritage was seldom alluded to; except that the ancestral altar was a space intended to discuss the practice of ancestor worship by the Babas and the bedroom decorated with wedding furnishings became the “bridal chamber” to discuss Baba wedding practices There was also no mention of the public activities of the Babas, despite the strong presence of Babas in the public sphere as political and business leaders.59

Another stereotype of the Peranakan cultural category created was a gender bias whereby Nyonyas were emphasized while Babas were seldom featured The museum director opined that this bias was because the Nyonyas were, much more than the Babas, “active purveyors” of Peranakan material culture Another possible reason might be that the museum had a strong collection of Nyonya beadwork and embroidery, as evident from the publication

of a dedicated museum book on the subject, and the deliberate display of rich textiles in the

Museum of Singapore, 1989, p 23) to commemorate its reopening in 1990 As indicated in NM file records (Vol 4), the gallery was subsequently removed in 1995 due to a lack of exhibition space

55

David Henkel, Interview, 16/12/2008

56 Gretchen Liu, One Hundred Years of the National Museum, p 63

bridal chamber;60 and beadwork and embroidery were the only articles made by Nyonyas themselves.61 The female bias was accentuated in the “bridal chamber”, the naming

demarcating female territory and physically manifested in the form of an imposing mannequin of a Nyonya bride by the bed “Traditional” Nyonyas were described to be “highly domesticated creatures”, having child-bearing as their key function and mostly uneducated but “superb cooks and needle-women” In their later years, they supposedly will become the formidable mother-in-law and matriarch of the family In relation to the ancestral altar, Nyonyas were “responsibl[e]” in ensuring the rules and regulations of ancestor worship were strictly observed.62 In contrast, the Baba presence was minimally felt, possibly except for a group photo of Babas in a social gathering outside the house In a related catalogue, the curator contrasted them negatively with Nyonyas, asserting that the varied cultural forces had resulted in the Babas’ ambiguous physical appearance, and left them looking ”awkward” in old photographs due to an “absence of conviction in their cultural [and] sartorial identity”.63

The emerging Peranakan cultural category was infused with a strong sense of nostalgia and elitism in the displays The exhibition focused on the early decades of the twentieth century,64 widely conceived as the Babas’ “golden age” by Babas and academics alike The curatorial choice of “Straits Chinese” in naming the gallery also anchored the exhibition scope in this period Less glorious days were forgotten and an ahistorical approach adopted; there were hardly any connections made to their present circumstances nor mention

of the factors that brought about the decline in their fortunes, such as the Great Depression, rise of the PAP, and nationalism and World War Two The curator acknowledged that contrary to popular conception, not all Babas were wealthy;65 but judging from the pictures of the exhibition, displays featured artefacts probably owned by the upper classes, making it

60

Eng-Lee Seok Chee, Festive Expressions, Preface and p.18

61

Ho Wing Meng, Straits Chinese Beadwork and Embroidery, p 13

62 Eng-Lee Seok Chee, Festive Expressions, ,p 9-10

hard to imagine how poorer Babas might have “lived much more modestly”.66 The twelve-day wedding focus of the bridal chamber epitomised this elitist, nostalgic approach: not all Babas could have afforded such extensive weddings, and certainly this practice had been compromised by post-independence Babas for reasons as described earlier The ancestral altar set emphasized the “major place of ancestor worship in the [Babas’] lives”,67 without mentioning that a significant number of the Babas converted to Christianity in the 1920s or the mass conversion after the Japanese Occupation.68 Baba advisors and interviewees consulted for the exhibition included prominent Baba elders Felix Chia and Kenneth Cheo Kim Ban, who experienced and remembered the glorious pre-war days fondly

The Baba “self” portrayed aimed to be representative of the Peranakan Chinese community This identity is defined by material and cultural markers, exotically, being largely influenced by the Chinese, and in decline The curator opined that principle markers included South Chinese customs, dress, food habits, language, permanent residence and notions of blood/descent This cultural and material definition of identity effectively masked essential political and economic aspects which were also integral to the “golden-age” Baba identity,69making the culture a museumfied one, i.e., cleansed of contentious politics The Chinese influences on Baba culture were most visible; most furniture was Chinese in style and origin English influence was vaguely detectable in the Anglo-Chinese parlour from the photo of Babas in Western clothes and clothes stand.70 Malay influence in Baba culture was mainly visible in dress and food, but this exhibition glossed over such areas The Baba community was also akin to something of a dying, exclusive, curiosity: they were exalted as a

“remarkable” people with a “distinctive culture of their own”, which was “sociologically

exotic” and “unique” and continued to “tantalize and beguile” other communities; simultaneously, this culture was “unlikely” to be “revived to any great extent”.71

In summary, the Baba identity and Peranakan cultural category projected in the first official exhibition on the community was one that was domesticated, feminine, elitist, and represented the Peranakan Chinese community exclusively This was done through focusing

on tangible/material culture, the house and interior spaces, the Nyonya and the twelve-day wedding The exhibition showed that the tangible Baba heritage displayed had primarily social value: to document and remember disappearing Baba traditions and material items Concurrently, this scrutiny of the community occurred outside the Singapore History Gallery featuring the ancestral fathers of the three distinct groups of Chinese, Malays and Indians,72portraying the idea that the Babas were a separate community Despite the stereotypes created and problematic nature of the Baba “self” communicated through this exhibition, according to the museum, the Baba community generally was pleased with the inclusion of their culture within the official walls of the museum, and were “unhappy” when the gallery was closed in

1995 Postwar public dissatisfaction with the Babas had seemingly dissipated, as museum files also indicate that the exhibition had a broad appeal, being popular with “school teachers, tour agents, academics, and collectors.”73

2.3 Peranakan Place

Also in 1985, The Peranakan Place at Emerald Hill was opened by a private company with strong government support The Emerald Hill Conservation Area, aiming to be a “Baba cultural centre”, was set up by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) in the late 1970s Six shophouses (circa 1902) were leased to Peranakan Complex Pte Ltd to form The

Peranakan Place, as Emerald Hill was popularly regarded as a Baba residential stronghold.74Initial appraisal of the project was heartening; a broad spectrum of the public from commercial sectors believed that it had vast potential and that “success will surely follow”.75This project consisted of two exhibitions Firstly, the shophouse which became the Show Place Museum (SPM) can be viewed as a single exhibition by itself, aiming to “recreate a typical [Peranakan house]” The second exhibition, running through the remaining five shophouses, was designed to represent “A Day in the Life of a Baba”.76 Both exhibitions strove to be “authentic” in furnishings, interior design and products sold.77However, it became a failed venture in many ways and its new owners subsequently broadened the cultural scope to “Singaporean culture” Peranakan Place remained thus only in name.78

Academics, Babas and the public heaped criticism on the “Day in the Life of a Baba” exhibition on charges of inauthenticity, commercialism tourist-orientation Architecturally, the buildings were “total[ly] rebuil[t]”, not “restored”.79 The Place was envisioned along the lines of tourist attractions like Disneyland, and Baba identity and culture were celebrated, exoticized and reinvented for foreign tourists.80 In tourist brochures, the Place was marketed

as “a must for shutterbugs”, their food was “one of the Orient’s least known and most delicious”, their culture “spectacularly surprising” and they themselves “one of the best-kept secrets of the Orient”.81 To Baba elders, the Place had in “many ways deviated from being properly Peranakan” under the impact of commercialism.82 For example, the restaurant’s food was “not up to [Baba] standard” and there were few Baba activities, the dress-up and sepia

Joan Henderson,” Ethnic heritage as a Tourist Attraction”, p 43

81 Jurgen Rudolph, Reconstructing Identities, p 283

82

Peter Wee, Interview, 11/12/2008

photos of the salon were “gimmicky” and “touristy”, the shop sold “non-Peranakan” things, the ice-cream shop’s interiors of a Chinese medicine shop were transplanted from Chinatown and the flavours were not unique to the Babas The Place was something that Babas could not

be “proud” of and some argued that it was doing the community “harm”.83 The four unhappy Baba advisors to the project - William Gwee, Pheng Tan, Peter Wee and Kenneth Cheo - resigned less than half a year after its opening, and the Place soon became frequented by socially undesirable people such as drug addicts, transvestites and prostitutes.84

There has been little coverage or criticism of the SPM itself, which supported the type

of Baba identity as portrayed by the NM exhibition to some extent The SPM was curated by Robyn Goh, a non-Baba antique dealer.85 Interviews with the Baba advisors revealed that in contrast to the other exhibition, they approved of “Baba culture” as depicted in the SPM.86Another Baba consultant, Lee Liang Hye, opined that one could not find fault with the “very genuine Peranakan artefacts” in the SPM brought in from Malacca and Mrs Goh’s antique shop As compared to the high prices of taking photographs at the Salon or dining at the Restaurant, SPM admission tickets were reasonably priced.87 Like the NM exhibition, the SPM used the domestic setting of a “traditional Baba house” to explore Baba culture and identity The building was a former residence and the layout of the museum and function of the interior spaces were supposed to correspond to its original usage Compared to the NM exhibition, the SPM could display the entire main hall, inner hall and bedroom; and hence display most artefacts in context Rather than relying on labels for explanations, guides were trained Lee Liang Hye attended SPM’s guided tours and found their commentaries

83

Lee Liang Hye Oral History Interview April 1986

84

Jurgen Rudolph, Reconstructing Identities, p 284

85 “Friends who brought Culture to Life”, ST 1/6/1985

86

Peter Wee, Interview, 11/12/2008; William Gwee, Interview, 5/12/2008.

87 “Peranakan Place: Turning the Place on a Minority Culture”, p.11; Prices were at four dollars for adults and two dollars for children

satisfactory.88 Domesticity and material-empahsis in Peranakan cultural identity were reinforced

The SPM also established Peranakan cultural identity to be strongly domestic and focused on the feminine realm Pictures of the museum show that the focus was on the three spaces of the house as mentioned and there were some cupboards showcasing silverware and porcelain ware used in a domestic setting In the three settings, furniture was again the dominant category of artefacts displayed The Nyonya prescence was also felt through the creation of a needlework corner in the master bedroom, a betel nut set (mostly used by Nyonyas)in the main hall, photographs of Nyonyas in the inner room and guides dressed up

as Nyonyas.89 They were portrayed as “women of past eras with Victorian upbringing” who were cooped up at home.90 There was hardly any artefact that could remind visitors of the Babas specifically and their active life outside the house, except for some framed photographs

of them outside the house in the main hall.91

The NM exhibition ideas of Peranakan cultural identity as elitist and nostalgic was also supported by the SPM The SPM chose to focus on the “golden age” of the Babas, i.e the early twentieth century Many artefacts on display were signs of high-end consumerism that only wealthy Babas of those days could afford There was no mention of how poor Babas lived and what the lifestyle of contemporary Babas living was The “traditional” wedding theme was also chosen, possibly as an excuse to display fineries in the “bridal chamber” and

to decorate the household deity altar in the main hall lavishly.92 Such a projected identity might be explained by the fact that elderly Baba advisors were engaged, who clearly nostalgically remembered the “traditional” good old days

88

Lee Liang Hye Oral History Interview Reel Id 35/43, 15th April 1986

89 Pictures from PICAS website, see appendix for examples

90

“ Peranakan Place: Turning the Place on a Minority Culture”, p 11

91 Pictures from PICAS website, see appendix for examples

92

Ibid

Nostalgia for a dying culture motivated SPM and the projected Peranakan cultural identity was supposed to be exclusive to this community The URA was alarmed that this culture which “was unique to Singapore …and Malaysia” was “vanishing” and wanted to

“bring to life again the [Babas’] charming old world”;93 while the company wanted to bring a

“culture [back] to life” via rekindle[ing] loving memories among Babas” and introducing Baba culture and history to the non-Babas.94

In sum, the Baba “self” as represented in the SPM was domesticated, feminine, elitist and grounded in a time past This Baba identity and culture was exotic and exclusive to the community It is safe to assume that the massive failure of the “Day in the Life of a Baba” exhibition overshadowed the generally positive responses towards the SPM Even though the SPM experience was comparatively affordable, was well-received and projected similar ideas

of Baba identity and culture to NM exhibition, it closed down in a few years and subsequent articles on the Peranakan Place focused on bashing the “Day in the Life of a Baba” exhibition Meanwhile, the NM exhibition was so popular that the museum expanded the show in the next decade The incident probably convinced Baba elders like William Gwee, to recommend

in the 1988 Committee on Heritage Report, a future Baba museum that must “not be compromised by commercial consideration” and should instead “be government-managed to ensure authenticity and the correct image of the Baba culture”.95

2.4 Peranakan Heritage

The next Baba exhibition was jointly organised by the NM and Friends of the Museum (FOM), a voluntary organization formed in 1978 with the aim of supporting the activities of the NM and the National Heritage Board (NHB).96 FOM members took charge of

93 Ibid

94

“Friends who brought Culture to Life”, ST 1/6/1985

95 The Committee on Heritage Report, November 1988, p 118

96

Friends of the Museum website, www.fom.sg , accessed 19th March 2009

most aspects of the exhibition.97 Eng-Lee Seok Chee, curator of the Straits Chinese Gallery, was the official museum consultant for the exhibition The four Baba advisors for the SPM also participated as advisors The stated objective of the exhibition was “To enhance the awareness of [the Babas’] unique, fascinating culture and simultaneously to record the disappearing aspects of the Peranakan way of life with special reference to Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia.”98 It was of a small scale and held only for ten days

This exhibition added the aspect of intangible heritage to the Peranakan cultural identity NM director explained that this was because “we felt that it was time to chronicle Peranakan heritage in a more comprehensive manner” Perhaps, this was why the exhibition moved away from the monumental “house” as the organizing theme to focus specifically on the three life events of birth, marriage and funeral There was stronger emphasis on intangible heritage, on customs and beliefs associated with the three events In the Birth section, there

was explanation on the pantangs (dos and don’ts) during pregnancy and after birth; in the Marriage section, details were given as to beliefs behind the Cheo Thau ceremony (literally

hair-combing ceremony to initiate the young into adulthood); in the Funeral section, there was detailed discussion on the spiritual and religious beliefs behind the funerary rites.99Conversely, less importance was placed on large material items such as furniture For instance, the exhibition consciously moved away from previous exhibitions’ fixation on the wedding bed Initially, the curatorial team intended to display a wedding bed and mannequins

of a wedding couple in the marriage section, and consequently, there was “intense searching”

for a wedding bed By focusing on the Cheo Tau ceremony, considered to be of utmost

importance by Babas but one that takes place in the house’s main hall, Baba advisor Kenneth Cheo advised FOM that there was no need for one.100 This shift of focus to intangible heritage

97

These including curatorial, publicity, publications, video, transportation, hospitality and programming work

NM provided the Lungyamen and Temasek room within the museum as venue free-of-charge and personnel for mounting exhibitions

98 Peranakan Heritage exhibition file for Peranakan Heritage Exhibition William Gwee kindly showed his copy

of this NM exhibition file to the writer

99 Peranakan Heritage, (Singapore : Friends of the National Museum, 1988)

100

Peranakan Heritage exhibition file

might have been possible because four Baba advisors worked actively with the curatorial team and their advice was mostly accepted.101

However, this exhibition shared several similar ideas of Peranakan culture and identity as represented by the two previous exhibitions Although the exhibition did not revolve around the “House”, all three events were contextualized within domestic settings

The Birth section featured a bedroom and kitchen, while the Cheo Tau ceremony was set in a

recreated main hall Visitors were greeted by a huge painting of a “Straits Chinese house” at

the gallery entrance and a pintu pagar (house gate) welcomed visitors into the Funeral

section 102 The gallery also displayed the familiar female bias For example, the Cheo Tau

ceremony takes place for both bride and groom separately in their respective homes a day before the wedding,103 but the exhibition chose to feature the bride version.104 These three life events are equally important to a Baba’s life, but the video made for the exhibition was entitled “A Day in the Life of the Nonyas”

The idea of Peranakan cultural identity as elitist and infused with nostalgia was also reinforced It recognized the “resurgence” of interest in Peranakan culture in the 1980s and saw the “importance of [this exhibition to be in] preserving and documenting … older cultural forms”.105 Hence, the focus was on the Baba “golden age”; the practices and beliefs described

in the Birth section were subscribed to by “the nyonya of old”,106 it was acknowledged that the “traditional Peranakan funeral” described in the exhibition was simplified in contemporary times,107 and the video was set in the 1930s and the script specified that a silver-haired lady took the leading role.108 It must be remembered that the Baba advisory committee members were all old enough to recall the comfortable pre-war lifestyle Concern

101

This is evident from the multiple suggestions made by Baba advisors that were accepted and reflected in the

minutes of the meetings Peranakan Heritage Exhibition file

Exhibition layout plan, Peranakan Heritage Exhibition file.

105 Peranakan Heritage, Preface

106

William Gwee, “Taboos and Rituals surrounding a birth in the Perankan family”, Peranakan Heritage, p 3

107 Kenneth Cheo, “The traditional Peranakan funeral”, Perankana Heritage

108

Peranakan Heritage Exhibition file

was voiced by a member of the curatorial team that “we are only showing the traditional side

of the Peranakan culture”, who suggested that the “modern side” be shown, too.109 The final exhibition layout plan shows clearly that her recommendation was not taken up, and a key objective of the exhibition remained to “provide glimpses of an era gone by”.110 The curatorial team believed that “the Peranakans were generally wealthy”, and accordingly

“many of the more colourful and lavish items on display” were meant to reflect their social status.111

Peranakan identity was also represented as being exclusive to the Peranakan Chinese community, and Chinese influences predominate in the exhibition Although Baba culture was portrayed in a celebratory tone as “unique”, “fascinating”, and a “rich and successful mix” of “Chinese, Malay and Western” influences; all three events revolved primarily around Chinese customs, practices and belief There were few material signs of Malay influence Western influence was practically undetectable in the range of artefacts displayed.112

In sum, the portrayal of Baba identity and culture by the 1988 exhibition broke away from the domestic and material stereotypes to some extent but shared many other crucial similarities with the previous exhibitions of the 1980s

2.5 Analysis and Contextualization of the Exhibitions

2.5.1 Establishing the (problematic) stereotypes of the Peranakan cultural identity

A comparison of the 1980s Baba exhibitions and the way they established fundamental ideas of Peranakan cultural identity, indicate that they can be charged with many

of the typical abuses of history and heritage as raised by museum and heritage studies One of

the most commonly cited vices that the exhibitions showed was that of a seeming obsession with material culture and neglect of intangible heritage Laurajane Smith aptly defines heritage as a “social process concerned with creation and maintenance of certain social and cultural value” and questions the usual museum treatment of heritage as being restricted to the tangible and material.113 While it might be argued that the raison d’être of museums is to display material objects, effort must be made to draw attention to the intangible beliefs and practices associated with them In this sense, only the 1988 exhibition appears to have achieved this more comprehensive definition of heritage through its exploration of beliefs and customs of three life events In the case of the Babas, intangible heritage such as their activities beyond the domestic sphere is especially important, given that a large part of their historic identity was defined by their political involvement and work as prominent members

of society

The exhibitions undoubtedly created the stereotype that Baba identity was closely tied

to that of the monumental “Baba House” An attachment to such houses in these exhibitions might be because the first two exhibitions displayed large collections of furniture, and the exhibitions engaged Baba advisors who all had memories of living in such houses Kristin Hestflatt also argues that this association gained popularity because the postwar environment was hostile towards the Babas and they might have had no choice but to retreat from public life into the private zone of the home; and even Babas who did not grow up in such houses saw them as a “symbol” of Baba identity.114 However, this association is problematic in two regards Firstly, as mentioned earlier, many Baba families moved into public housing after the war and the younger generations have no recollections or attachment to such houses; indeed

by the 2000s are reacting against such association Secondly, the “Baba House”, as featured in the exhibitions and much of the literature on Babas, is not clearly defined or they were naturally assumed to be so The Baba architect Lee Kip Lin, using the example of the houses

113

Laurajane Smith, Uses of Heritage, p 11

114 Kristin Hestflatt, “The House as a Symbol of Identity among the Baba of Melaka”, in The House in Southeast

Asia, p 81

in the Emerald Hill Conservation Area, has convincingly argued that there is no such thing as

a “Baba House” He wrote that most of the architects for the Emerald Hill houses were Babas, that at no time Babas formed the majority of residents there and that the houses’ architecture simply reflected an eclectic mix of cultural influences.115

non-In contrast to the marginality of the Nyonyas in academic studies,116 these exhibitions show that they are the favoured gender in museum representations Nyonyas are preferred probably because they were more directly associated with the domestic setting prior to the war As such, they were arguably a less politically sensitive topic for museum and public discussion Museums are long been recognized for being instruments of social control for the government, and the 1980s exhibitions could have wanted to avoid government censure by foraying into the subject of the politically active lives of many Babas before the war

The exhibitions can also be charged with perpetuating the stereotype that all Babas were wealthy Certainly, the Babas like other communities, were not a homogenous lot, and there were Babas who were not well-to-do However, as is typical of museum exhibitions,117the artefacts displayed, especially for the 1985 exhibitions, belonged to the rich Babas Indeed, this museum stereotype is very much aided by a historiographical blindspot in this area.118 Academic studies of the Peranakan community have yet to ascertain any concrete numbers of just how many wealthy/poor Peranakans there were historically and contemporarily Consequently, the voices of the poor Peranakans were silenced in both academic literature and museum exhibitions The common charge of museums as unequal sites of power favouring experiences of the wealthy is thus evident in exhibitions of these two decades

115

Lee Kip Lin, Emerald Hill: The Story of a Street in Words and Pictures, (Singapore: National Museum

Singapore, 1984.), p 5-6, 11-12

116 Seah Bee Leng, Phoenix without Wings: The Negotiation of Modernity among Straits Chinese Women in Early

Twentieth Century Singapore, (M.A thesis, National University of Singapore, 2005), p 5-6

117 David Lowenthal, The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History, p 93

118

I owe this idea to Prof Maurizio Peleggi.

Contrary to the abundant academic literature elaborating on how the government ignored the hybrid realities of everyday Singapore life and promoted the simplistic and divisive categories of CMIO, these 1980s exhibitions show that the government had began to pay lip service to the legitimate recognition of the community However, museums arguably

“give citizenship and civic virtue a content without … redistribut[ing] real power”,119 and this

is definitely so in the case of the Babas, who continued to be denied legal recognition as a community despite these commemorative exhibitions As late as 1981, Babas were forced to study Chinese language as a second language No official government explanation was provided for this coercion, 120 even though Baba Malay was more widely spoken among the community prior to the war and was considered by many Baba purists as an integral part of their identity.121 Concurrently, the government pushed since 1979 for a “Speak Mandarin Campaign” which expounded Chinese culture, ethnicity, traditions and values.122 This perhaps explained why the Chinese ”aspects” of Peranakan identity were thus more pronounced in the exhibitions

2.5.2 From Obscurity to Community Heritage

Changes in the government attitude towards culture and cultural policies and the Baba and public attitudes towards the past and local heritage by the 1980s, ushered in an environment favourable to the organization of three significant Baba exhibitions

The social benefits of forging unity among citizens through a “national” culture were increasingly desired, and the government began to pay attention to the economic benefits of promoting culture.”123 To overcome the societal divisions that such practice of

119

Ibid p 94

120

Jurgen Rudolph “Reconstructing Identities” P.344-234

121 Baba Malay is a dialect with Malay and Hokkien components, and was the lingua franca in Singapore from 1920s till the war Jurgen Rudolph “Reconstructing Identities” P.342

122 Ibid

123

The Committee on Heritage Report, November 1988, p 6, 7, 21

multiculturalism might potentially create, “Asian Values” were championed till the 1980s as the superstratum of the separate cultures, upon which a national identity/culture could be built.124 This was because the state loathed the “inflow of immorality and of narcissistic individualism” of the West.125 Cultural policy deplored Western values and influences which were positioned as “other”, while advocating traditional “Asian values” as the honourable

“self”, in its bid to foster national solidarity.126Against this background, it is noteworthy that Peranakan culture has been cited as a model of what a truly “Singapore”/local culture might

be like in the related literature of the decade.127

Substantial development in Singapore’s arts and cultural policy was undertaken only after the 1988 Report of the Advisory Council on Culture and the Arts, regarded as “the blueprint for cultural policy in Singapore”.128 It suggested that it was now expedient to consider that Singapore had a “unique heritage” that could “play a vital part in nation-building”, particularly through helping “younger Singaporeans to understand their roots so that they can balance Asian values and western values” and “what binds [Singaporeans] together The economic benefits of heritage were also highlighted; heritage was said to have

“monetary value as antiques and works of art” and qualified as a “tourism asset”.129 The Report also argued that while Singapore is proud of its distinct cultures inherited “from the great Asian traditions”, the emphasis should henceforth be on what was developed in Singapore, in order to develop a “supra-communal identity”.130 Cultural politics is also detectable in the stress placed on Southeast Asian heritage, as a means of “improving appreciation and understanding of [Singapore’s] neighbours”.131 From being “woefully neglected” institutions, museums became central to strengthening the national identity They

John Clammer, Race and State in Independent Singapore, 1965-1990, p 68; and Tan Chee Beng, Chinese

Peranakan Heritage in Singapore and Malaysia, (Kuala Lumpur : Fajar Bakti, 1993), p 73

128 Lily Kong, "Cultural Policy in Singapore", p 414

were to “become a reference point for Singaporeans to contextualise their search for answers

to who they are, what they are and where they are going”.132 The government commitment to this Report is demonstrated by the subsequent establishment of the NHB in 1993 to oversee the running and coordination of museums, and the creation of new museums such as the Asian Civilisations Museum

Concurrently, there was an increasing nostalgia and “activism” on the part of the Peranakan community Indeed, the 1980s also witnessed a corresponding growth in interest in Baba culture and Baba things within the community and the public There were several private fairs displaying Baba things organized by Baba-owned institutions, the successful revival of Baba plays with nostalgic themes, a series of television broadcasts on Baba culture, and an explosion of books and theses about Baba (material) culture.133 This increased appreciation of Baba material culture parallels the Peranakan Association’s (the SCBA changed its name to the Peranakan Association (PA) because the old name became a misnomer with the dissolution of the Straits Settlements) declaration in this decade to “revive Peranakan culture and heritage to its full glory again” and nostalgia for the past Of particular interest to this thesis is the detailed proposal by Mr William Gwee Thian Hock of a Peranakan Museum in the appendix of the 1988 Report Mr Gwee is well-known in the Baba community

as an active insider and campaigner for the promotion of Baba culture In his proposal, he

contends that Baba heritage be officially preserved because of its evolvement particular to

Singapore and because it offered a possible model of an “integrated culture of multi-racial origin” befitting the nation’s multi-racial image.134

These exhibitions’ perceptions of Peranakan Chinese heritage as exclusive to the community are problematic in two regards Firstly, although all three exhibitions wanted to portray Baba culture and material culture as a “unique blend” of Chinese, Malay and Western

influences, the Malay and Western elements of the culture appeared to be downplayed most

of the time Secondly, some of that classified as “Baba” material culture was borrowed from other cultures wholesale Indeed, community “ownership” of other featured pieces of the exhibition was contentious, not fully explained and simply designated as “typically” Baba by Baba usage For example, blackwood opium chairs were of Chinese workmanship and style and indeed a class of late Qing furniture.135 Such an elastic notion of what constituted “Baba heritage” was problematic, chipping away the supposed exclusivity of the culture

2.5.3 From Junk to Craft

Baba things started to slowly gain collector’s status in this decade Ho Wing Meng’s pioneering series of collector’s guides to Baba silverware, furniture, porcelain and beadwork and embroidery were published in this decade These books mark the first published works on Peranakan material culture which attempt to methodically set criteria to ascertain what makes

an object “Baba” and raise the status of Baba things from its 1960s-70s as junk to valuable collectibles Because of community nostalgia for the past and possibly due to the increasing scarcity of Baba things, given that much of the best was shipped out by the colonial administrators leaving Singapore after the war,136 market prices for old Baba things skyrocketed and cases of forgery occurred.137

The 1980s also marked the awakening of many collectors to the commercial value of old Baba things, but it was evident that the 1980s museum exhibitions utilized them mainly for the social purposes of “reviving” the “dying” culture, and this corresponded with the heightened cultural interest in things Baba then

Chapter 3 Elevation to Art and Peranakan Material Culture as

National Heritage: 1990s

While the 1990s Baba exhibitions perpetuated some of the nostalgic stereotypes about Baba culture and identity that were created by the 1980s exhibitions, they were also notable for the elevation of Peranakan material culture to the category of an “art” From the 1990s, the discourse of a glorious, distinctive “style” emerged and the status of old Baba things was elevated to that of “official” collectibles Babas were portrayed as discerning art patrons with

a keen sense of hybrid aesthetics influenced by global forces Baba exhibitions undoubtedly spearheaded these changes in the discourse of a Peranakan culture as a distinctive category This elevation was made possible by a combination of commercial, community and government interests

The 1990s exhibitions were also closed by the time of this research and hence a reliable idea of these exhibitions had to be pieced from various sources, such as official museum catalogues and curator articles in art magazines Of special mention are the nine NM

files with detailed minutes of every meeting and curatorial notes for the Rumah Baba

exhibition

3.1 Gilding the Phoenix: The Straits Chinese and their Jewellery

Although a temporary exhibition lasting less than half a year, Gilding the Phoenix: The Straits Chinese and their Jewellery can be regarded as a turning point in the

conceptualization of the Peranakan cultural identity After this exhibition, the status of Peranakan material culture was elevated from “craft” to that of valuable and distinctive works

of art Subsequent museum exhibitions and discourses on Peranakan material culture were to reflect this transformation in attitude, first conceived in this exhibition by the guest curator Edmond Chin, a tenth-generation Baba.138

The exhibition intended to show that the Babas possessed a “distinctive and developed aesthetic” and that Baba objects were works of art.139 Edmond Chin opined that Ho Wing Meng’s pioneering series of books on Peranakan material culture had identified and classified key objects of metalwork, embroidery, porcelain, beadwork and furniture,140 but did not attempt nor succeed in convincing the public that Peranakan objects were anything more than “mere historical curiosities of low aesthetic merit”.141 The exhibition featured 300 jewellery pieces, with approximately 100 supporting objects of clothing, accessories and wedding furniture.142

well-Thus, the “Peranakan Aesthetic” was born with this exhibition In this concept, Edmond Chin argues that the Babas possessed a “distinctive aesthetic which is consistent across a wide range of objects no matter what their origin”, rather than being a style derived from the parent cultures.143 He believed that the Babas did not copy Chinese, Indian, Malay or Western styles slavishly or randomly, but selectively chose and mixed elements from each that matched their own aesthetics into a distinctly Baba style As such, inherited techniques and designs of parent cultures were “reinterpret[ed] with an entirely new spirit” This aesthetic was informed by “particular ideals in mind”, and can be defined by the appreciation

of extravagant and excessive details, rich material, a contrastive colour palette and a disdain for sharp, angled surfaces In comparison, Ho Wing Meng’s books approached each class of

Ho Wing Meng, Straits Chinese Beadwork and Embroidery, Straits Chinese Porcelain, Straits Chinese Silver,

Straits Chinese Furniture

141 Edmond Chin, Gilding the Phoenix: The Straits Chinese and their Jewellery, (Singapore: National Museum of

Peranakan material culture separately, without establishing a similar, overarching theory of Peranakan style; and compared the Baba objects primarily to Chinese aesthetic ideal/standards Conversely, Edmond Chin contended that the jewellery on exhibition,

informed by this aesthetic, were a representative and recognisable art form by all Babas

because “all strata of the Straits-Chinese were interested in [these] jewellery” due to its social purposes and claimed that poor Babas would borrow from the richer ones.144

Edmond Chin further refined this theory of a “Baba style”, by historicizing it and delineating regional varieties Rather than being a flat and static style, the Baba style evolved from its initial inclination towards “pure” Chinese and Malay art, to become increasingly hybridised between the late nineteenth century and 1920, and Westernised thereafter There were three regional varieties: the northern zone (comprising northern Sumatra, Penang and the northern Malay states), Singapore and Malacca, and Indonesia Finally, he placed this

‘newly-minted’ style on the scale of the established art styles by likening the Peranakan aesthetic to “an anti-Bauhaus, anti-purist style”.145

The Babas were portrayed as arts patron and designers In this art market, they were

“undoubtedly the leading artistic patrons of the day”, given their relative wealth and consumerist tendencies Although they did not materially make most of the things, the exhibition stressed their seemingly comprehensive creative control over the production of the objects They allegedly had a “designing attitude” and provided firm guidance over the craftsmen, sometimes up to the point of supplying working drawings.146 In contrast to the nostalgic and conservative image of the Babas projected by the 1980s exhibitions, this exhibition depicted their taste as pioneering, fashionable and cosmopolitan Nyonyas

preferred “the excitement of changing styles to conservatism”,147 such as initialising their jewellery way before the 1990s fad of doing so.148 Much as contemporary Western designers were seemingly touting see-through dressing as an invention of the 1990s, this exhibition suggested that old Nonyas possessed “sheer nerve” and had worn transparent clothing made

of “sheer Swiss voile” since ninety years ago.149 By incorporating and modifying techniques and designs selectively from various cultures, the Babas had supposedly demonstrated that they “were remarkably open to foreign influence”.150

This art market was further delineated by the identification of the key jewellers by name and the establishment of significant pieces and their provenance Previous exhibitions paid no attention to the identity of these non-Baba craftsmen, since this information would not

be necessary to paint a socio-historical account of the Babas Such information was crucial to

Gilding the Phoenix, since the crux of the story was telling the tale of an undocumented art

form In line with the curator’s emphasis on the Babas as “designers”/”artists” rather than the craftsmens’ personal handiwork as the main determinant of the final design, stunning pieces

on display were labelled via family/patron name rather than the usual artist/craftsmen name This accounts for the branding of some striking pieces into the “The Chia Eng Say Kerosang”, “The Tan Jiak Kim Brooch” and “The Ong Family Mourning Kerosang”

To tell an art tale, Gilding the Phoenix was correspondingly structured like an art

exhibition Artefacts were classified and displayed by type and mainly in showcases, rather than in the staged contextual setting of a home as in previous exhibitions General lighting was dim and spotlights cast on the jewellery This art could be historicized and supported by signature pieces: the final section of the exhibition chronicled the development of “essential”

jewels.151 The same Baba artefact was given an “art” spin; the wedding bed with the accompanying decorations which was the star piece of the Straits Chinese Gallery because it played the socio-cultural role of symbolically uniting the hopes of two families,152 was now

important in Gilding the Phoenix as an art piece itself.153

The storyline was scripted as a celebratory art history; complete with the familiar elitist and feminine bias The jewellery and objects on display unquestionably belonged to elite Babas, and were used chiefly by the Nyonyas

3.2 Rumah Baba - Life in a Straits Chinese House

The significance of the Rumah Baba exhibition probably lies not in the creation of

new ways of display or thinking about Baba culture and history, but in combining the main cultural ideas of the previous four exhibitions Additionally, it signalled the start of a

“nationalistic” appropriation of Baba culture The exhibition was an expanded restoration of the Straits Chinese Gallery in view of its popularity with visitors Due to positive visitor response, this semi-permanent exhibition was subsequently extended on display from the opening in 1998 to 2003, when the museum closed for renovations.154 This exhibition aimed

to “bring alive the rich traditional customs of the Peranakans and their unique way of life”.155The non-Baba curator of the exhibition, Jennifer Chen, worked closely with members of the

PA and Gunong Sayang Association (GSA), including Peter Wee (chief consultant)and Peter Lee

Edmond Chin, “The Straits Chinese and their Jewellery”, p 106

154 Rumah Baba exhibition file

155

Ibid