Unmasking the city hall facade a study of its visuality in images 23

2.2 Stageset 2.2.1 The Façade Without Body Figure 12 Scene from the national day parade in 1998. 84 Figure 13 Closing scene of the national day parade 1998. 85 Fireworks rupture the darkness surrounding the City Hall façade, eliciting delighted cheers from the spectators.1 The City Hall façade stands against the burst of fiery, ornate designs, the protagonist to the most anticipated moment of the national day parade (Figure 12). At the instruction of the emcee, the spectators quieten down. They stand at full alert, while the Singapore pledge is recited. As the national anthem, Majulah Singapura, is played, a gigantic Singapore flag is raised from the podium of the City Hall façade (Figure 13). The anthem marks the close of the parade, and the president makes his departure, followed by the ministers. The image of the City Hall façade, embellished by a gigantic Singapore flag across its center, becomes the final, lasting motif in the minds of the spectators. Following the transition of Singapore into a self-governing state in 1959, the Municipal Building was renamed “City Hall” in order to reflect the country’s new political status.2 Significantly, the building played a crucial role in the events that led to the country’s independence. It was from the prime minister’s office situated in City Hall that Lee Kuan Yew made the declaration of independence in 1965.3 And in 1959 and 1963, it was on the City Hall steps that Lee made the declaration of selfgovernment and the Malaysian proclamation.4 After independence in 1965, the façade inherited its function as a parade setting from colonial times, except that it was not imperial ceremonies, but the country’s national day parades, that were now held at the 1 The following description is based on video documentation of the 1998 national day parade. National Day Parade 1998, dir. Samantha Loh, DVD, Singapore: Mediacorp Studios, 2000. 2 Liu, Gretchen. In Granite and Chunam: The National Monuments of Singapore (Singapore: Landmarks Books and Preservation of Monuments Board, c1996), p.63. 3 Felix Abisheganaden. “Singapore is out” in The Straits Times, 10 August 1965, p.1. 4 “The big moment…scene in City Hal as Inche Yusof takes the oath”, in The Straits Times, 4 December 1959, p.9; “Lee’s proud moment”, in The Straits Times, 17 September 1963, p.4. 86 Padang.5 Visuality remained of utmost importance, with the neo-classical architectural forms of the façade functioning as the backdrop to parade performances. The opening scene described above seemed typical of any national day parade held at the Padang with the City Hall façade as a setting, except that the parade took place at the National Stadium. Completed in 1976 and demolished in 2010, the National Stadium was a venue for sporting, entertainment, cultural, and national events.6 Configured around a football field and an eight-lane running track, the surrounding spectator stand provided panoramic views of the occurring events. On the year of its completion, the stadium hosted its first national day parade. By 1985, it was designated as a fixed parade venue that was to be alternated with the Padang.7 Crucially, as part of the national day parade celebrations in 1998, the City Hall façade was ‘transported’ into the National Stadium as a stageset through the construction of a replica (Figure 14). Two-thirds the size of the original, the replica of the façade was meticulously crafted, right down to the elaborate Corinthian capitals (Figure 15). Defined as the front of a building, the presence of a façade naturally assumes an architectural body and a rear.8 In fact, the façade only comes into existence with the presence of an architectural body. As Beatriz Colomina posits: 5 The national day parades were held yearly at the Padang from 1966 to 1974. Following that, it was alternated with the National Stadium , and more recently, Marina Bay. For a comprehensive record of the venues of the parades, please refer to Appendix B. 6 Jason Tan and Seet Sok Hwee. “National Stadium demolition nearly complete.” Available from: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1096610/1/.html, accessed 16 December 2011. 7 Appendix B provides the venues at which the parades are held since 1966. 8 Definition taken from Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Available from: http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/façade, accessed on 16 December 2011. 87 Figure 14 The City Hall façade as stageset in the National Stadium, 1998. 88 Figure 15 Corinthian capitals of the replicated City Hall façade. 89 The outside is only the “cover” of the book… The “value” is “contained within.” But, once more, this inside cannot exist without the outside. The cover of an encyclopedia, no matter how anonymous or unmarked, constructs it as an interior. But what is the interior of an encyclopedia but a continuous outside-inside-outside?9 Colomina draws an analogy between buildings and books to illustrate the relationship between exterior and interior, or between building elevations and the architectural body. For Colomina, “this inside cannot exist without the outside.” The interior only comes into being with the presence of an exterior shell. The concepts of interior and exterior are intertwined with, and defined in opposition to each other. Similarly, the façade, which, in Le Corbusier’s conception, functions as a projection of identity for the building, cannot exist without an interior, or an architectural body for which it is representative of.10 The façade is defined by the architectural body, and vice versa. A building is “a continuous outside-inside-outside.” However, the replication of the City Hall façade for the national day parade is a continuous exterior. In its reproduction as a stageset, it is a façade without body. Crucially, after the country’s independence, the façade no longer functioned as a mere architectural setting for the parades, or a passive spectator overlooking the celebrations on the Padang. Parade performances took place on the monumental steps of the façade, rendering it an active participant in the parades. Transcending its role as an architectural setting, the façade takes on the function of a stageset. The City Hall façade thus operates as a proscenium stage on which the nation as actor is put on display for the nation as spectator. 9 Beatriz Colomina. Privacy and Publicity: Mass Media as Modern Architecture (Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1994), p.32. 10 For an elaboration of Le Corbusier’s conception of the façade as a projection of identity for the architectural body, please refer to Chapter 2.1.2. 90 And it is the representation of the City Hall façade as stageset for the country’s national day parades that has dominated the reproduction of its image in postcolonial times. As seen in the last chapter, the British had produced the image of the façade on postcards. The reproduction of the image of the City Hall façade is thus not unprecedented. However, after independence, the imaging of the façade took on a new vigor. It has been reproduced in three consequent series of monetary notes (1972,1976,1989), a short video titled 9th August (2008) by local filmmaker Tan Pin Pin, and as a prop for the national day parade in 1998 (Figures 3,4&5) . The majority of these images feature the City Hall façade as a stageset to the national day parade. And in the imaging of the façade as stageset, it is represented without its architectural body. In Colomina’s conception, “the outside is only the “cover” of the book.” What is important is the interior, or “the “value” [that] is “contained within”” the architectural body. In the reproduction of the City Hall façade as a continuous exterior without an architectural body, what happens to its interior? 91 2.2.2 Subsuming the Architectural Body The 1998 parade was unique as it marked the first instance that the image of the façade had been rooted up from its physical site to be replicated at another location. Prior to this, while the façade as image had always been reducible, it had never been replicated as a physical object, with its reproduction confined to media sites such as postcards and monetary notes. And in these instances when the façade was not imaged together with its architectural body, it was always depicted within its physical context, or its surrounding environment. As such, the façade was always perceived as part of a larger architectural whole, even if its body was not explicitly represented. Its replication in the National Stadium for the 1998 parade was the first instance in which the façade was perceived to be detached from its architectural body. In a similar trajectory as Colomina, Le Corbusier posits that the mass, or the architectural body, is what defines the architectural forms of the surface, or the façade.11 The façade only comes into existence with the presence of the architectural body, and serves as its representation. However, Le Corbusier recognises that there are instances when …the surfaces… become parasitical, eating up the mass and absorbing it into their own advantage.12 For Le Corbusier, surfaces become parasitical when there is an excessive preoccupation with visuality, or the architectural styles of facades at the cost of user experience. The façade, which serves as a representation of the interior, ends up feeding on the mass, subsuming the latter within its image, due to the privileging of the visual over the experiential realm. While the surface of City Hall had always taken precedence over its mass, or interiors since its conception in 1926, it was always 11 12 Le Corbusier. Towards a New Architecture (London: Architectural Press, 1946), p.36. ibid, p.37. depicted together with its architectural body in images produced by the British colonials.13 It was only in 1976, that the façade was first represented on its own, without its architectural body (Figure 4). More accurately, it coincided with the depiction of the façade as a stageset to the country’s national day parades. The subsumption of the architectural body by the façade in the national day parade 1998 was thus not unprecedented. It had been in the works for some time, and could be discerned from its imaging in monetary notes. The state issued its first series of monetary notes in 1972, seven years after the country gained independence. Titled the ‘Orchid’ series, it depicted different breeds of the flower on the front surface of the monetary note (Figure 16). Illustrated on the back surfaces were selective representations of the country’s buildings and landscapes (Figure 17).14 And it was on the back design of the $500 orchid series monetary note that the City Hall façade was first featured. In the examination of the façade’s representation on monetary notes, its symbolism is outlined along with the changes in its stylistics of illustrations, in order to highlight the differences in meaning and use after independence, or in postcolonial times. With two surfaces to every piece of monetary note, each side illustrates a different type of image. Depicted on the front designs of the monetary notes are images that described an aspect of the nation when the respective series were issued. The front 13 For an elaboration on the privileging of the City Hall façade’s visuality over its interiors, please refer to Chapter 2.2.1. 14 For a list of buildings and landscapes that have been illustrated on the back designs of monetary notes, refer to Appendix C. It should also be noted that the City Hall façade is the only architectural object that has been depicted on three consecutive series of monetary notes, demonstrating its importance in the national imagination. 94 Figure 16 Front design, $500 monetary note, orchid series, issued in 1972. Figure 17 Back design, $500 monetary note, orchid series, issued in 1972. 95 design also features the denomination and serial number of the currency note, as well as the watermark, insignia, signature and seal of the Minister for Finance and the described an aspect of the nation when the respective series were issued. The front design also features the denomination and serial number of the currency note, as well as the watermark, insignia, signature and seal of the Minister for Finance and the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of Currency to certify it as legal tender. Thus, the front design is the signifier of the note’s primary information. On the other hand, the back designs of the monetary notes feature images that define the nation socially and culturally (Appendix C). These range from historic buildings to modern infrastructures. As two surfaces of the same currency note, the symbols utilised on the front and back design are conceptually related, capitalizing on each other to strengthen their significance. The medium on which the City Hall façade is featured is crucial, for it determines the mode of dissemination of the image. It is thus significant that the British chose to produce the façade as a postcard image, while the independent state employed the same motif on monetary notes. As mentioned in the previous chapter, postcard images were circulated back home to facilitate the imagination of the colony. In a similar trajectory, the images on the monetary notes issued by the state are used to facilitate a common national imagination through their circulation as a medium of exchange amongst the population. Following Benedict Anderson, it is through these images that the abstract notion of the nation becomes embodied in ways that make it tangible and imaginable.15 The creation of a common national imagination is compounded by the necessity of monetary notes to the conducts of everyday life. Ubiquitous and 15 For an elaboration of the use of images to facilitate a common national imagination in this study, please refer to Chapter 2.1.1. 96 quotidian in nature, monetary notes are in the possession of each and every person. The portability of the monetary note ensures that the images depicted are circulated around the population, thus capturing popular imagination. Despite the potential of monetary notes to be circulated amongst a wide audience, the $500 denomination monetary note on which the City Hall building was featured is more symbolic than functional. Due to its large denomination, it is hardly used in everyday transactions. In most instances, it is likely to be circulated only within an exclusive community of numismatists. The City Hall’s representation on the $500 monetary note is unique, however, as it is the only instance in which the building is the primary subject of the composition. It is depicted in its entirety, standing proudly in the centre ground against a backdrop of swirling clouds. In contrast to its title, “Government Offices at Saint Andrew’s Road,” the building is removed from its environmental surrounds. It is depicted as an object removed from everyday life. Without a temporal and physical context, the only element that situates the image of the British colonial building in the postcolonial era is the Singapore flag posited at the top of the pediment. Small but unmistakable, the flag occupies the symmetrical centre of the composition. Compared to the gigantic Singapore flag draped over the centre of the City Hall façade at the closing of the 1998 parade, the assertion of the nation as a sovereign entity in this image is subtle and cautious. Pristine and solitary, the City Hall building is treated with utmost respect and reverence, in a reflection of the attitude adopted by the state towards the nation’s 97 colonial legacy right after independence. With no common history or culture to revive after gaining independence, the colonial past was projected as a collective experience. In official historiography, the historical origin of the nation was traced to Stamford Raffles’ founding of the island in 1819. Incorporated unconditionally into Singapore’s national history, the colonial past was cast in a favorable light, with the British credited for initiating the development of the island as an entrepot through the establishment of a trading station, and the creation of rubber and tin industries. British colonisation was depicted as a historical legacy that was beneficial to the nation, engendering the beginning of Singapore’s commercial and industrial development. In the $1 and $10000 monetary notes of the ‘bird’ and ‘ship’ series issued in 1976 and 1989, the City Hall is similarly used to evoke the nation’s colonial past. However, two major shifts occurred in the representations of the façade. Firstly, the City Hall building is no longer depicted in its entirety. Instead, only the façade is illustrated. Secondly, the two monetary notes, titled “National Day Parade” and “National Day Parade 1987” respectively, situates the façade as part of a larger composition that depicted a scene from the country’s national day parade. A yearly event held on the ninth of August, the national day parade commemorates the day on which Singapore attained its independence. Over a duration of four hours at night, the parade stages a series of performances that surround the theme of national unity. Repeated yearly, the performances have acquired a ritualistic nature. While the performances purport to celebrate the nation’s independence, they are adopted from their British imperial predecessors.16 This is especially evident in the 16 Videos of the national day parades from 1966-1968 are read against newspaper reports from colonial times. The similarities boiled down to the rites and rituals of the parades’ and their order of procedure. 98 immediate years after independence.17 In this, Eric Hobsbawn has forwarded that “invented traditions,” or factitious rituals used to construct continuity with the past, are fundamental to the construction of national identity.18 Besides inculcating common beliefs and values, these invented traditions serve to establish a common imagination of the nation.19 In the early years, the adoption of the procedures and performances from the imperial parades were used to establish continuity with the country’s colonial past.20 It was also utilised to subvert the traditional display of imperial domination in an assertion of the country’s sovereignty. It was not until 1968 that the parade procedures and performances form the colonial era were appropriated.21 And this marked the use of the façade not just as architectural setting, but also as a stageset in the parades. From 1968 onwards, the arrival of the ministers at the parades was announced in a processional manner. The ministers descend on the City Hall steps in two neatly aligned rows not unlike a rehearsed performance, before filing to their seats in orchestrated moves. As the spectator stand of the ministers, the City Hall façade is where authority is made visible. In addition, the acting president and prime minister ascend the steps of the City Hall façade each year to acknowledge the audience from a podium erected in the symmetrical centre of the façade.22 Repeated over time, these procedures have acquired a ritualistic nature, and constitute as much a part of the parade as the performances put up by the military and civilian contingents. 17 See National Day Parade 1966, videocassette, Singapore: Radio and Television of Singapore, 1966; National Day Parade 1967, videocassette, Singapore: Radio and Television of Singapore, 1967; and National Day Parade 1968, videocassette, Singapore: Radio and Television of Singapore, 1968. 18 Eric Hobsbawn and Terance Ranger (eds.). The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), p.1. 19 ibid, p.9. 20 The observation is made based on video documentation of the national day parades from 1966-8, and newspaper reports of the procedures of imperial parades. 21 National Day Parade 1968, videocassette, Singapore: Radio and Television of Singapore, 1968. The following observations on the parade are made based on this source unless footnoted otherwise. 22 The observation is made from video documentation of national day parades over the years. 99 Titled “National Day Parade,” the back design of the $1 note from the bird series depicts uniformed contingents marching past the City Hall façade in the foreground (Figure 4). In the middle ground, ministers review the parade from the City Hall steps.23 Juxtaposed against the scene on the front design of the note is a bird named the black-naped tern (Figure 18). Issued in 1976, the depiction of birds on the front design of the series reflected increasing confidence in the country. High rates of economic growths marked the 1970s, as Singapore began to reap the benefits of its industrialisation program.24 Leaving behind the economic uncertainty of the 1960s, birds were used to signify the potential of the nation to soar to greater heights. And part of the change in the visuality of the City Hall façade depicted on the $1 note can be attributed to the transformation in the country’s economic and political conditions. In the $500 note, the neo-classical architectural forms of the façade were treated with the utmost respect and reverence, with only the subtlest hint of the nation as a sovereign entity. On the $1 note, however, the façade was embellished with nationalistic paraphernalia. Flags and banderoles adorned the Corinthian columns of the façade. For the first time, ministers were also depicted sitting on the City Hall steps. With the development of a successful manufacturing sector and the economy registering double-digit growths each year, emphasis was given to construct the 23 While the faces of the people sitting on the City Halls steps cannot be discerned from the illustrations, only the ministers have occupied the City Hall steps over the years. 24 Singapore Economic Development Board. “The 1970s: the move into skills-intensive industries” Available from: http://www.sedb.com/edb/sg/en_uk/index/about_edb/our_history/the_1970s.html, accessed on 4 June 2010. All subsequent information on Singapore’s economy in the 1970s is referenced from this source. 100 Figure 18 Front design, $1 monetary note, bird series, issued in 1976. Figure 19 Front design, $10000 monetary note, ship series, issued in 1989. 101 nation as a sovereign and independent entity, as the country moved away from its colonial past. Thus, on the $1 note, the façade, or the symbol of the country’s colonial past, was no longer the sole subject of the composition, but relegated to the background of the composition. Even though the façade is no longer the main subject of the composition, its importance as the symbol of the country’s colonial past remains undiminished. This is demonstrated by its continued role as the setting to the national day parades up to the present (Appendix B). By crediting the founding of the island to the British, the façade is the visual manifestation of a significant part of Singapore’s history. And the illustration of the black-naped tern on the front design of the note serves to reinforce this (Figure 18). Also known as the sterna sumatrana to acknowledge the location of its initial sighting, it is one of the thirty-four bird species identified and named by Raffles off the coast of Sumatra in 1822. Through its allusion to Raffles, the blacknaped tern, like the City Hall façade, functions as a reminder of the country’s colonial beginnings even as the nation takes off economically. Significantly, the illustrations on the $1 note have a greater impact on the popular imagination than those on the $500 orchid series monetary notes. As a smaller denomination that is commonly used, the $1 note has a much wider circulation than the $500 orchid series monetary note. However, one may argue that the symbolism of the black-naped tern or the City Hall façade may not be obvious to the general public. In this case, the City Hall façade functions as the image of authority, through its strict and formal classical architectural forms, and its utilisation as a stageset by ministers during the country’s yearly national day parade. 102 Titled “National Day Parade 1987”, the back design of the $10000 monetary note purports to document a scene from the national day parade held in that year (Figure 5). As the monetary note with the highest denomination in the series, the $10000 is even more exclusive than the $500 note, catering to a privileged group of collectors, and is hardly seen, and never circulated in everyday transactions. It representation of the City Hall façade, however, is worth studying for it adds to the understanding of the symbolism which its image has been endowed with. On the front design of the $10000 note is a modern bulk carrier, marking the culmination of the series, which traces the maritime vessels that have plied the waters of Singapore (Figure 19). The ship series also depicts the evolution of the city’s skyline in tandem with the transformation in maritime vessels. As the highest denomination in the series, the front design of the $10000 note features the most modern skyline. Showcasing the central business district, it depicts a conglomeration of high-rise office towers. The impressive skyline displays the capitalist modernity of the nation, while the modern bulk carrier alludes to the economic and technological success of Singapore as the world’s busiest port at the time when the series was issued.25 Juxtaposed against the capitalist modernity illustrated on the front design of the note is the City Hall façade on its back design. While the composition and subject matter of the $1 and $10000 notes are similar, one significant difference distinguishes the visuality of one façade from the other. Stretched across the parapet of the façade on the $10000 is a banner that reads: “Together Excellence for Singapore”. While the 25 Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore. “Port operational statistics” Available from: http://www.mpa.gov.sg/infocentre/portstatistics/portstats.htm, accessed 13 July 2011. Singapore was the world’s busiest port until 2005, when it was surpassed by the Port of Shanghai. 103 title of the back design, “National Day Parade 1987”, suggests that it is a scene drawn from the event in 1987, no such banner was draped across the façade in actuality.26 Like the flags and banderoles that embellished the Corinthian columns in the $1 note, the mediation of the façade’s visuality on the $10000 note is again an assertion of the nation as a sovereign entity. Underlying the juxtaposition of the colonial and the national within a single image on the notes is the recognition of the nation’s colonial beginnings even as the state strives to establish the country as a sovereign entity. On the other hand, the placement of the City Hall façade with the modern skyline and bulk carrier in the $10000 note encapsulates within two images the entire foundational narrative of the nation: a country that has achieved capitalist modernity by adopting the modernising practices of its colonial predecessors. Crucially, besides the shift in the symbolism of the façade over the years, its stylistics of illustration also underwent several changes. The visual treatment of the façade has gradually acquired a flatter quality over the years. In the stylistics of illustration employed in the $1 and $10000 monetary notes, there is a progressive diminishing of depth in the representations of the façade. While the $500 note employed high contrast, sharp edges, and stiff shadows to delineate every entity of the façade as part of a spatial whole, no perceptible play of light and shadow is used to create the illusion of depth in the $10000 note. Instead, the façade is illustrated as a graphic motif to the parade depicted in the foreground. Instead of space, it is registered as a flat, two-dimensional image without an architectural body. 26 National Day Parade 1997, videocassette, Singapore: Television Corporation of Singapore, 1996. 104 Figure 20 Liu Kang. National Day, 1967. 105 Likewise, in a 1967 painting by local artist Liu Kang titled National Day (Figure 20), the façade is similarly depicted as a flat, two-dimensional backdrop. With a lack of detail, except for an emphasis on the verticality of the Corinthian columns, the City Hall façade is not recognisable on its own, but only when seen in its surrounding context of the Padang, and the Supreme Court. In doing so, the image of authority projected by the façade’s strict geometrical forms is subverted. Instead of the face of an institutional building in the solemn representations of the national day parade on monetary notes, the façade becomes the backdrop of a joyous and lively scene. Through the generous use of bright colors, Liu depicts the national day parade as a festive event. Notably, while the only persons illustrated in the representations of the City Hall façade on the monetary notes are ministers, Liu’s painting depicts the citizenry. People of all races are depicted in the foreground, mingling and going about their activities in a celebratory mood. The City Hall façade is depicted here not as an exclusive realm of authority, but as part of the Padang, a public space enjoyed by the citizens. However, one detail that remains constant is the representation of the façade is as a flat, two-dimensional background without its architectural body. The visuality of the façade comes to stand in for, or subsume, the entire building. 106 2.2.3 The Mask of Continuity 107 The announcement that the City Hall façade was to be reproduced as a stageset in the National Stadium for the national day parade 1998 was greeted with enthusiasm and anticipation.27 It did not seem odd that the façade was the only element of the City Hall to be reproduced, or that there was a need to replicate the front elevation of an existing building at another location. In short, there was nothing unusual about the façade’s subsumption of its architectural body. For Le Corbusier, however, the act of subsumption is “parasitical.”28 Such façades are regarded as organisms that feed on their architectural bodies, “absorbing it into their own advantage.”29 By using the parasite as a metaphor, the process of subsumption is posited as an exploitative maneuver that is beneficial to the façade and damaging to the architectural body. The use of the City Hall façade as stageset over the years has been documented in a video titled 9th August (Figure 6). Conceived by local filmmaker Tan Pin Pin, the seven-minute video is a montage of scenes assembled from forty years of national day parade documentation. Commissioned by the National Museum of Singapore, it is the last exhibit of the Singapore History Gallery. The video marks the end of the visitor’s journey, which traces the country’s beginnings as an island called Temasek in the 1300s to the present developments. On the other hand, the video is also available online, making it accessible not just to visitors of the museum in Singapore, but also to a global audience.30 Primarily targeted at students, the video is used to acquaint the younger generations with the history of the nation by tracing its development materially, militarily, and politically 27 Koh Boon Pin. “Two-in-one treat for National Day”, in The Straits Times, 31st July 1998, p. 49. Le Corbusier. Towards a New Architecture, p.36. 29 ibid. 30 The video is available on youtube at the following weblink: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSZ7A4M_TXY; accessed on 27th October 2011. 28 108 through the rites and rituals of the parade.31 As the final exhibit of the gallery, it is an encapsulation of the achievements and progress that the nation has made since independence in 1965, serving to evoke patriotic sentiments in the departing visitor. The condensation of forty years of national day parade into a seven-minute video is only made possible through the filmic technique of montage. Rudolf Arnheim has posited that the medium of film is unique in it ability to take liberties with space and time.32 In 9th August, the use of montage disintegrates the space-time continuum and narrative of the national day parades. Selective scenes are extracted from video documentation over the forty-year period and juxtaposed next to each other. By placing objects and events that have no connection in real time and space next to each other, relations that never existed are constructed. By permitting jumps in space and time, situations occurring at different moments and in disparate places are associated. More notably, Christian Metz has posited that montage is constructed through the juxtaposition of one image against another.33 An analysis of 9th August is thus a study in the construction of images. For Metz, the filmic image is constituted by both cinematic and non-cinematic elements.34 An analysis of the filmic image needs to take into account cinematic techniques such as camera angles and movements, sound effects etc.35 Non-cinematic elements such as the connotations associated with the objects depicted, or relations between objects outside of the film, also need to be 31 Students are also given free admission to the gallery all year round, as opposed to the general public, which has to pay a fee to gain entry. Educational tours as part of the school curriculum are also frequently held at the gallery. 32 Rudolf Arnheim. Film as Art (London: Faber, 1958), p.78. 33 Christian Metz. Michael Taylor (trans.). Film Language: A Semiotics of the Cinema (New York: Oxford University Press, 1974), p.47. 34 Christian Metz. Donna Jean Umiker-Sebeok (trans.). Language and Cinema (The Hague: Mouton, 1974), p.34. 35 Christian Metz. Language and Cinema, p.16. 109 considered.36 For, in Metz’s conception, “A film… is not only an example of cinema, but also of culture.”37 His definition of film parallels Panofsky’s conception of the image. Both are conceived as cultural forms symptomatic of the attitudes underlying a nation, period, or class. By taking into consideration non-cinematic elements in the analysis of the filmic image, Metz’s approach is comparable to that of Panofsky’s iconology, which studies the forms of an image in relation to social and cultural histories.38 As a montage, 9th August is composed of a succession of images. The City Hall façade is thus studied as a filmic image. In order to decipher its use as a stageset, the analysis takes into account the juxtaposition of the façade with other images and the mediation of its visuality, whilst reading it in relation to the social and political histories of Singapore. In 9th August, space, time, and the narrative structure of the parade are broken down through the juxtaposition of similar images from its programme, such as the songand-dance item or the arrival of the ministers. The ritualised nature of the parade performances is emphasised through the repetition of these images. The use of the façade as a stageset is made most prominent in one segment of the video that depict the rite of arrival of the ministers at the parade. Images from three different scenes are juxtaposed next to each other in the following order: 1. The arrival of cabinet ministers and ministers of parliament as they descend the City Hall steps to take their seats. 36 ibid, p.71. ibid, p.72. 38 Even though Panofsky has written on the application of iconology to the filmic medium in an essay titled “Style and Medium at the Motion Pictures,” in Angela Dalle Vache (ed.), The Visual Turn: Classical Film Theory and Art History (N.J.: Rutgers University Press, c2003), pp.69-84, he fails to comment on how the iconological method can accommodate, or be used to analyze, the unique characteristics of film, or, filmic elements such as camera angles, sound effects, montage etc. Due to this, Metz’ conception of the filmic image is needed as a complement to Panofsky’s iconology. 37 110 2. The arrival of the prime minister who ascends the City Hall steps to take his stand at the central podium in acknowledgement of the spectators. 3. A scene from the float parade. By selecting these three specific scenes and repeating them over and over again, minor details acquire a heightened quality. The theatrics of previously insignificant movements and details become glaringly obvious. For instance, the simple arrival of the ministers and prime minister to the parade constitutes a spectacle in itself. With the announcement of the arrival of the ministers, they descend on the City Hall in an orderly and systematic manner, not unlike that of a rehearsed performance (Figure 21). Emerging from the main doors of the City Hall, the ministers position themselves neatly on the steps, flanking each side of a central aisle that accentuates the symmetry of the façade. They file down the steps and proceed to their seats in order of rank, from the ministers of parliament, to the cabinet ministers. As they descend the City Hall steps, a cascade of white is seen against the dull grey concrete of the façade. The purity and radiance of the white uniforms worn by the People’s Action Party (PAP) ministers form a visually arresting sight against the backdrop of the City Hall façade, signifying their party affiliation (Figure 6). The façade is also utilised as a stageset for the rite of arrival of prime ministers. Tracing three generations of political leaders, from Lee Kuan Yew to Goh Chok Tong and Lee Hsien Loong, the video depict their ascend up the City Hall steps to take their stand at a podium situated at the symmetrical centre of the façade (Figures 22, 23&24). The footages of the prime ministers are divided according to the length of 111 Figure 21 Tan Pin Pin, 9th August, featuring ministers descending the steps of the City Hall steps during national day parades. 112 Figure 22 Tan Pin Pin, 9th August, featuring Lee Kuan Yew taking his stand at the saluting desk. 113 Figure 23 Tan Pin Pin, 9th August, featuring Goh Chok Tong taking his stand at the saluting desk. 114 Figure 24 Tan Pin Pin, 9th August, featuring Lee Hsien Loong taking his stand at the saluting desk. 115 their tenure. The majority of the scenes are thus dedicated to Lee Kuan Yew, in recognition of the thirty-five years he has served as prime minister. Juxtaposing black-and-white images of Lee Kuan Yew from the 1960s with colored images featuring Goh Chok Tong and Lee Hsien Loong in the present day, the time-honoured nature of the ritual is highlighted. For the audience, the prime minister’s passage of arrival is a performance that culminates in his acknowledgement of the audience as he takes his stand at the podium. The audience, in turn, acknowledges his stature as the prime minister of the country by erupting into cheers.39 Except for Lee Hsien Loong, who ascends the steps briskly, both Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong take their time to saunter up the steps, prolonging the crowd’s anticipation, and intensifying the climatic moment of arrival when cheers erupt. Made obvious through the juxtaposition of these two sets of images are the party affiliations of the ministers and prime ministers. Each and every one of them is decked out in the all-white uniform of the PAP. The City Hall façade is the platform on which the party is made visible and conspicuous to the citizenry. By repetitively featuring these images in succession, the PAP becomes inextricably associated with the façade. The City Hall façade does not just function as a stageset to the performances of the national day parades. Through the selective representation of images, the City Hall façade is presented as the exclusive stageset of the PAP. Reinforcing this interpretation are scenes from the float parade that form the last in the tripartite of images that make up the segment. The float parades, which took place during the years 1971-1984, are depicted as a permanent event in the commemoration 39 While this cannot be discerned from 9th August, it is evident in document footages of the parades. 116 of the nation due to the breakdown of temporal structure in 9th August.40 Through the utilisation of montage, time operates in a continuous vacuum with no beginning or end. The float parades seem, at first glance, to be included due to the gaiety of forms and the festivity of the accompanying performances. A closer examination, however, reveals them to be promotional vehicles advocating PAP values and ideals. For example, Singa the Lion, the mascot of the national courtesy campaign established by Lee Kuan Yew in 1982, is reconstructed as a float (Figure 25).41 Traveling down Saint Andrew’s Road, Singa is accompanied by Miss Mandarin, the epitome of the “Speak Mandarin Campaign.” Initiated in 1979 by Lee, the campaign was set up to promote the use of Mandarin.42 The floats also highlight, celebrate, and publicise the achievements of PAP policies and governance. A float overwhelmed by vegetation is paraded down Saint Andrew’s Road, showcasing the PAP’s successful policy of turning Singapore into a “Garden City” (Figure 26). The party’s public housing programme, which has endowed Singapore with the highest home ownership rate in the world, is also made the theme of a float featuring replicas of high-rise flats (Figure 27).43 By juxtaposing scenes of PAP ministers on the City Hall steps with floats that function as vehicles of their ideology, 9th August highlights the use of the façade as a stageset from which the PAP propagates its policies and ideals. 40 The duration of the float parades are referenced from an examination of video documentation of the national day parades during those years. 41 Lim Siew Yean. “Courtesy Campaign”. Available from: http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_162_2004-1230.html, accessed 20 June 2011. 42 Promote Mandarin Council. “History and Background”. Available from: http://www.mandarin.org.sg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50&Itemid=62&lang=en, accessed 20 June 2011. 43 Fiona Chan. “Who really gains from runaway property prices?” in The Straits Times, 8th May 2010. Available from: http://www.asiaone.com/Business/My+Money/Property/Story/A1Story20100507-214798.html, accessed on 9th March 2011. 117 Figure 25 Tan Pin Pin, 9th August, featuring Singa the Lion with Miss Mandarin on a float. 118 Figure 26 Tan Pin Pin, 9th August, featuring a float overwhelmed with vegetation. 119 Figure 27 Tan Pin Pin, 9th August, featuring replicas of HDB flats on a float. 120 Significantly, it was Lee who first initiated the use of the City Hall façade as a stageset in 1959. From the steps of the City Hall, he made the declaration of selfgovernance after the first chief of state, Yusof Ishak, took his oath in the City Hall chambers (Figure 28).44 The use of the façade, or the symbol of imperial power as a stageset was necessary, for its visuality helped to endow political affirmation to the PAP. The use of the façade as a stageset to endow political legitimacy from the colonial to postcolonial leadership was essential, as the PAP was openly antiimperialist in the years between 1954 and 1965.45 During this period, the PAP capitalised on the anti-imperialist nationalism brewing in the country to win popular support.46 When the PAP emerged as the winner of the election held in 1959, the British and the expatriate community were dismayed due to its anti-imperialist sentiments. On the contrary, the British had never used the façade to transfer political ownership to the postcolonial leadership. The use of the City Hall façade as stageset was thus necessary to create the impression of a transfer of political legitimacy from the colonial to the independent administration. Reinforced by its austere classical architectural forms, the façade was the image of authority. More crucially, the use of the City Hall façade as the image of authority has continued in the postcolonial period. However, differing from the instance in 1959, it is now used to transfer political affirmation from one generation of PAP leader to another. This is depicted in the juxtaposition of scenes in 9th August, which highlights the ritual of successive prime ministers ascending the City Hall steps to the central 44 “The Big Moment... scene in City Hall as Inche Yusof takes the oath”, in The Straits Times, 4 December 1959, p.9. 45 C.M. Turnbull. A History of Modern Singapore, 1819-2005, p.272. Subsequent information on the PAP’s antiimperialist attitudes and measures are referenced from this source unless footnoted otherwise. 46 S. Rajaratnam. “Adaptive Re-use”, p.150. 121 Figure 28 Lee Kuan Yew addressing the crowd from the City Hall steps with Yusof Ishak on the left in 1959. 122 podium from which they acknowledge, and are in turn acknowledged by, the citizenry. The transfer of political capital takes place between the successive prime ministers of the country, from Lee Kuan Yew, to Goh Chok Tong, and lastly, Lee Hsien Loong. The visuality of the façade thus acts as an image of authority that transfers political legitimacy from the colonials to Lee Kuan Yew, and by extension the PAP and its successive leaders, Goh and Lee Hsien Loong. By enacting this transfer of political legitimacy between its leaders during a national event, the PAP conflates party with state and nation. Tan herself has commented that the scenes featuring the ministers descending the steps of City Hall to take their seats is “The most unusual ritual…Since this is a national event, an assertion by a political party seems very out of place. In Singapore [the relationships between the] PAP-stategovernment are synonymous…”47 This interchangeability between the party, government, and state is a view which has been forwarded by Lee Kuan Yew himself, who has declared that “I make no apologies that the PAP is the government and the government is the PAP.” 48 In the party’s official publication, it has been asserted: “Without the PAP, there would be no Singapore as we know it today.”49 In fact, rather than a political movement, the PAP is posited as “a national movement…the vital nerve centre of the entire nation”.50 In light of this, the City Hall façade is the exclusive stageset of the PAP, on which the party’s political hegemony over the nation is made distinct, explicit, and visible. 47 Lee Ling Wei. Email Interview with Tan Pin Pin. 2nd June 2010. ibid. 49 Petir, (Official publication of the governing People’s Action Party), Editorial, December 1982, p.1. 50 ibid, p.22. 48 123 It is worth noting that whilst 9th August depicts the City Hall façade as the exclusive stageset of the PAP, it was, in reality, not limited to their use, and within the temporal space of the national day parades. Private individuals also engage the City Hall façade as a stageset. Most often, the façade is used as a photographic stageset to commemorate an important occasion in their lives such as marriage or graduation (Figures 29&30). In these instances, as one of the most iconic and monumental colonial buildings in Singapore, the City Hall façade is a stageset that provides an aesthetically pleasing background. More importantly, with the strict geometry of its classical architectural forms and its use as a political stageset, the façade is an image of authority, one that seemingly provides legitimation for the occasion at hand. On the other hand, while the façade was also used as a stageset to the national day parade 1998, its symbolism was conceived differently. In an official statement released by the planning committee of the national day parade 1998, the reason behind the replication of the City Hall façade in the National Stadium was posited as such: It was a building of monumental heritage, having witnessed many significant milestones in Singapore’s history. It was here that the Declaration of Independence was signed, as well as the venue for Singapore’s first NDP. To bridge our past with the present, we would “invite” the City Hall into the National Stadium.51 The replication of the façade conflates it with the building. Even though it was the building that was posited to be of “monumental heritage, having witnessed many significant milestones in Singapore’s history,” only the façade was replicated. The construction of the building’s façade in the National Stadium was equivalent to 51 NDP ’98: Celebrating 33 Years of Independence: Stories Behind the Story (Singapore: NDP ’98 EXCO, 1998), p.3. Emphasis is mine. 124 Figure 29 Graduates taking photographs with the City Hall façade as stageset. 125 Figure 30 Wedding photographs taken with the City Hall façade as backdrop. 126 transporting or “inviting” the entire City Hall into the venue. In the statement, the façade was posited as a symbol of the nation’s past, in a similar trajectory as its representation as a stageset on monetary notes. However, differing from the use of the façade’s neo-classical visuality to image the nation’s colonial past on the monetary notes, emphasis was placed on the events that led to the nation’s independence. This included the declaration of independence, and “Singapore’s first NDP”. But it was from the prime minister’s office situated within City Hall that Lee made the declaration of independence in 1965. By using the façade to represent the occasion, it came to stand in for the events that had occurred within the building’s interior. Furthermore, City Hall was posited as “the venue of Singapore’s first NDP” in 1966. More accurately, the Padang was the venue of the parade, while the City Hall façade functioned as the setting to the performances. However, by using the façade to denote the venue of the country’s first national day parade, the façade’s subsumption transcended the boundaries of its architectural body. The visuality of the façade also came to stand in for, or subsume, the Padang. This interpretation is reinforced by remarks made by journalist Koh Boon Pin upon the news that the City Hall façade would be replicated in the National Stadium. Koh commented that the decision constituted a “two-in-one treat,” for, “…while the Stadium has atmosphere, the Padang has ambience, while the Stadium encourages the histrionics, the Padang has history.”52 The history imaged by the City Hall façade was 52 ibid. 127 not confined to its neo-classical visuality. Subsumed within its visuality was also the history of the Padang. To Koh, a combination of history and histrionics is achieved with the replication of the City Hall façade in the National Stadium. This is due to symbolism afforded by the façade and the design of the National Stadium. Demolished in 2010, the National Stadium was designed by the now-defunct Public Works Department in collaboration with distinguished Japanese engineers Yoshikatsu Tsuboi and Shigeya Kawamato of Tokyo University.53 Renowned Japanese architect Kenzo Tange was also endowed with the task of landscaping the stadium.54 A symbol of modernity when it was conceived in 1976, the National Stadium was described as “a grand vision…on par with the very best in the world, such as the 1958 Tokyo National Stadium and 1972 Munich Olympiastadion…”55 Built to facilitate spectatorship, rows of tiered seats were arranged around a central field in a circular configuration in the design of the stadium. The enclosed layout of the architecture emphasised the sheer immensity of people converged within one space, reinforcing feelings of unity and solidarity during the parades. With its special lighting and sound system, the National Stadium provided a total visual and auditory experience.56 60000 spectators could be seated within the stadium at any one time, which enabled the venue to involve up to three times the number of people in the collective celebration of the nation than the parades held at the Padang.57 53 W.H. Ho. “Is the National Stadium’s Demolition Inevitable? Reclaiming Singapore’s Modern Architectural Heritage,” in Singapore Architect, No.240 (2007), p.236. 54 ibid. 55 W.H. Ho. “Is the National Stadium’s Demolition Inevitable? Reclaiming Singapore’s Modern Architectural Heritage,” pp.237-239. 56 Janice Seah. “A special homecoming at the Padang” in The Straits Times, 10 August 1987, p.3. 57 “Parade a grand show of strength, patriotism”, in The Straits Times, 11 August 1976, p.6. Subsequent information on the 1976 parade is drawn from this source. In addition, past tense is used in the description of the National Stadium as it was demolished in 2010. 128 The National Stadium, designed and planned for spectatorship, is a study in contrast to the makeshift nature of the parades held at the Padang. Flanked by the City Hall façade on one side, the Padang and its surrounds are transformed into an open-air stadium during the national day parades. The flat, open field of the Padang functions as the central space where the events of the parades take place, with the City Hall façade as a setting and stageset. Temporary spectator stands are constructed on the three remaining sides of the field, completing the rectangular configuration. As the space was not originally conceived to accommodate large-scale parades, “many people had to stand up and crane their necks white while those who remained seated missed seeing the contingents when they marched around…”58 For Koh, although the National Stadium facilitates histrionics, the Padang has history. First conceived as a space to mark the centre of the colonial town, the Padang was later used as the venue of imperial parades following the completion of the Municipal Building.59 In particular, sociologist Chua Beng Huat has posited that the Padang is a space of subordination where the colonised were made to pay their respect to the British colonials in the King’s Birthday parades.60 However, the history that Koh refers to is unlikely to be the use of the Padang as a parade space where British imperialism was put on display, in order to remind the colonised that they were the subjects of colonial rule. In a feature article written on the Padang in 1993, architecture journalist Tan Hsueh Yun called the flat green field “The People’s Padang”.61 In a re-writing of the Padang’s colonial history, it was depicted as a “public open space” which was accessible to all, instead of an exclusive space that 58 ibid. “Singapore See Biggest Parade,” in The Straits Times, 14 June 1946, p.3. 60 Chua Beng Huat. “Decoding the Political in Civic Space: An Interpretative Essay”, in Chua Beng Huat and Norman Edwards (eds.), Public Space: Design, Use and Management (Singapore: Singapore University Press for Centre for Advanced Studies, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, c1992), p.58. 61 Tan Hsueh Yun. “The People’s Padang” in The Straits Times, 9 August 1993, p.3. 59 129 was catered to the European community. Tan portrayed the Padang as a leisurely space, one used as a sports field where cricket, tennis and hockey matches were held. Included within the article were also interviews with various individuals who took part in the King’s Birthday parades. The individuals spoke of the parades as jolly and memorable events that they prided themselves in participating, rather than an event in which they were made to acknowledge their subjection to the Crown. The history of the Padang was thus reconceived in tandem with the state’s depiction of British colonialism as a benign and progressive endeavor. By subsuming the history of the Padang within its visual form, the replication of the façade within the National Stadium combines history with histrionics. It integrates the spectacularity of performances facilitated by the stadium’s lighting, sound and seating configuration with the historical significance of parades held at the Padang. And it is the façade’s subsumption of the historical significance embodied by its architectural body and site that has allowed it to retain its aura, or its unique existence in a particular place that bears the mark of history, despite its reproduction. Walter Benjamin forwards that: The aura of a thing is the quintessence of all that is transmissible in it from its origin on, ranging from its physical duration to the historical testimony relating to it. Since the historical testimony is founded on the physical duration, the former, too, is jeopardised by reproduction, in which the physical duration plays no part. And what is really jeopardised when the historical testimony is affected is the authority of the object, the weight it derives from tradition.62 62 Michael W. Jennings, Brigid Doherty, and Thomas Y. Levin (eds.). Walter Benjamin. The Work of Art in the Age of its Technical Reproducibility, and Other Writings on Media (Massachusetts: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2008), p.22. 130 The concept of “aura,” first conceived in relation to the work of art in response to the advent of technical mass production, is equally pertinent when applied to the reproduction of the City Hall façade. Benjamin argues that reproduced objects, separated from their context, lack the physical duration and historical testimony unique to the original. However, this does not apply to the various reproductions of the City Hall façade. By subsuming its architectural body and the Padang, the façade encompassed the historical testimony and physicality of both the building and its site. Symbolically, there is no difference between the replicated façade at the National Stadium and the original located at the Padang. Each commands as much authority as the other. This explains the public’s reception towards the decision to replicate the façade as a stageset in the National Stadium. Viewed as a natural move, it did not seem odd that the façade was to be reproduced. Due to the process of subsumption, there was no conceivable difference between the replica of the façade and the original. The replication of the façade in the National Stadium was used to reinforce the parade’s theme of “Drawing from the Past, Preparing for the Future.”63 However, history, or the “past” that was referred to in the 1998 parade was defined in very specific terms. In line with the parade committee’s emphasis on the use of the City Hall façade to represent the declaration of independence and the nation’s first national day parade, there was little mention of the nation’s colonial past. This was despite the façade’s classical visuality, which was a clear reminder of the island’s history as a British colony. Similarly, the colonial past was also left out in the song-and-dance 63 NDP ’98: Celebrating 33 Years of Independence, p.1. 131 segment of the parade, which strived to present historical events, current ideals, and future aspirations of the nation through the enactment of narratives.64 While the nation’s history was purported to be one of the central subjects of the parade, it was depicted in the most nebulous manner. Nearly 150 years of history from 1819 to 1950s was condensed into the simplistic narrative that life on the island began with the arrival of immigrants seeking a better life. Historical omissions were more frequent than inclusions, with no mention of British colonialism, or the Japanese Occupation. In contrast, the previous parade held at the National Stadium in 1996 clearly delineated the nation’s founding by Raffles, and its subsequent history as a British and Japanese colony.65 Writing on the nature of nationalism in postcolonial societies, political scientist John Plamenatz posits it as a deeply contradictory phenomenon.66 In the conception of a national identity, the country’s colonial legacy is simultaneously rejected and integrated. At the same time that the colonial past is perceived as an obstacle to the formation of a postcolonial identity, it is also recognized as an essential part of the nation’s ancestry. Thus, the omission of Singapore’s colonial history despite the use of the City Hall façade to evoke the nation’s past is symptomatic of the ambivalence that exists towards the symbolism embodied by the building’s visual image. While it was used as the central prop in the parade as a symbol of the past, attention was deliberately drawn to the events that led to the nation’s independence, for fear that 64 National Day Parade 1998, dir. Samantha Loh, DVD, Singapore: Mediacorp Studios, 2000. All subsequent information on the national day parade 1998 is referenced from this source unless footnoted otherwise. 65 National Day Parade 1996, videocassette, Singapore: Television Corporation of Singapore, 1996. 66 John Plamenatz. “Two Types of Nationalism” in Eugene Kamenka (ed.). Nationalism: The Nature and Evolution of an Idea (London: Edward Arnold, 1976), pp.23-36. 132 such a visual reminder of the colonial past would hinder the formation of a national identity. The ambivalence towards the nation’s colonial legacy also explains the nationalistic embellishments on the neoclassical architectural forms of the City Hall façade depicted on the monetary notes. Comparatively subtle in the $1 note, the visibility of the nationalistic embellishments are made more obvious on the façade depicted on the $10000 note, which is to culminate in the final image that marks the closing of the 1998 parade. The placement of a gigantic national flag over the City Hall façade is an effort to integrate the colonial past into the present national narrative (Figure 13). Like the image in which the façade and the flag coexist but remain distinct from one another, the colonial past and postcolonial present of the nation are inseparably related, but do not merge to form a seamless historical continuum. The motif of the façade and the flag represent two distinct parts of the nation’s history, divided neatly into the colonial and the national. Studied in terms of visuality, the humongous flag that obscures a huge part of the façade can be seen as an attempt to reduce the latter’s symbolic potency. It is an effort to assert control over the significance of the City Hall façade, such that it becomes a modest component inscribed within the larger narrative of the nation. The effort to inscribe the City Hall façade as a crucial part of the country’s postcolonial history can also be discerned from the statement released by the planning committee of the 1998 parade. The replication of the façade within the National Stadium was attributed to two events: the City Hall was the venue of the declaration of independence in 1965, and Singapore’s first national day parade in 1966. Both 133 served to emphasise the role played by City Hall, or the façade, in crucial events that affirmed the sovereignty of the nation.67 However, the declaration of independence in 1965 was proclaimed not from the City Hall steps with the façade as setting, but from the prime minister’s office situated in the building. The façade functioned as the stageset not for the declaration of independence, but for the announcement of selfgovernance in 1959, and the Malaysian proclamation in 1963.68 Instead, these two events, which utilised the façade as stageset, were omitted in the statement released by parade committee. On the one hand, the parade committee strived to associate the façade with the declaration of independence made inside the City Hall building. By omitting the events, the façade was used to posit a seamless transition from colonial to PAP leadership. An inextricable relation was established between the neoclassicial façade, or the symbol of imperial power, with the declaration of independence. As mentioned earlier, a distinct division marked the historiography of the nation. Located in the year of 1965, it divided the past of the nation into colonial and national history. While the transition from colonial to independent state was not depicted as a seamless continuum, it was portrayed as a linear continuation of power. However, Singapore was already relinquished from British rule in 1963 through merger with the Federation of Malaysia.69 Independence was achieved two years later in 1965. By subsuming its architectural body, the façade was used as a mask. It was utilised not just to posit a continuity of power between the British and the PAP, but also to erase the two years between 1963 and 1965, when Singapore was a part of Malaysia. 67 It should be noted that the same purpose also underlie images depicting the City Hall façade as the setting of the national day parades on the $1 and $10000 monetary notes. 68 Felix Abisheganaden. “Singapore is out” in The Straits Times, 10 August 1965, p.1. 69 “Lee: We are free!” in The Straits Times, 1 September 1963, p.1. 134 Despite the decades that have passed, the separation is still an open wound, a sensitive issue that remains open to controversy. On 7 June 1996, in response to the possibility of a re-merger with Malaysia, Lee commented that it would only be considered if Malaysia adopted Singapore’s policy of meritocracy, and became as committed as the country in maximizing economic benefits for its citizens.70 Lee’s remarks provoked heated responses from Malaysian leaders. They accused Lee of opening old wounds, and were displeased with his comment, which implied that the country employed unequal racial practices, and downplayed Malaysia’s economic achievements.71 Due to the trauma of separation, and the bitter sentiments that still plague the political leaders of both countries, memories of the split have been obliterated from official accounts of Singapore’s history.72 Its erasure can also be attributed to the need to ensure Singapore’s socio-political stability. The split in 1965 boiled down to the difference between the countries’ racial policies. After independence, Singapore advocated meritocracy and equality amongst the races, in a contrast to Malaysian racial politics that privileged the Malay race.73 Significantly, the use of the façade to represent the entire building was used to construct a seamless continuity of power between the British colonial government and the PAP also erased the nationalist struggle in the years between 1959 and 1963.74 Intense political battles took place between different factions of the nationalists in the 70 Jerome Ming. “SM spells out conditions under which S’pore might rejoin Malaysia”, in The Straits Times, 8 June 1996, p.28. 71 “SM Lee’s comments sparks debate at PAS assembly”, in The Straits Times, 17 June 1996, p.27. 72 “Study on ways to improve knowledge of S’pore’s past”, in The Straits Times, 24 July 1996, p.17. 73 A.B. Shamsul. “A History of an Identity, an Identity of a History: The Idea and Practice of ‘Malayness’ in Malaysia Reconsidered”, in Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 32 (3), pp.361. 74 Hussin Mutalib. Parties and Politics: A Study of Opposition Parties and the PAP in Singapore (Singapore: Eastern University Press, 2004), pp.44-64. 135 transition of Singapore from self-government to independent nation through merger.75 This included the PAP, Labour Front, Socialist Front, and Malayan Communist Party.76 Essentially, the PAP was only one of the numerous nationalist parties striving to succeed the colonial government. Historians Hong Lysa and Huang Jianli have posited that Singapore’s transition from colony to nation differed from the typical process experienced by other postcolonial nations. Independence was not achieved through revolutionary struggles against the colonial masters, but in phases through which political power was transferred progressively to the postcolonial leadership. From Hong’s perspective, “The most critical battles were between factions of the nationalists, rather than with the British…”77 For the British, their main concern was to disengage from the country by entrusting the leadership to the party that was least likely to adopt policies that was disadvantageous to their economic and strategic interests.78 The conflation of the façade with its architectural body was thus also employed to obliterate the nationalist struggle, in order to portray the PAP only one and legitimate political party in Singapore.79 In line with its parasitic nature, the façade’s subsumption of its interiors is beneficial to the PAP, while damaging to the historical accuracy of the events that occurred within. The parasitic façade is thus used to construct a mask of continuity between the British colonials and the PAP. This explains the PAP’s continuous and repeated use 75 ibid. ibid. 77 Hong Lysa and Huang Jianli. The Scripting of a National History (Hong Kong : Hong Kong University Press, c2008), p.4. 78 ibid. 79 Commenting on Singapore’s historiography, an anonymous history researcher forwards that “‘a Martian with only the official script would think that there is only one political movement – the PAP [People’s Action Party]; worth remembering.” Quoted from Desmond Wee. “Telling the Singapore stories”, in The Straits Times, 18 February 2006, p.8. 76 136 of the façade as a stageset, on which its presence is made visible during the country’s national day parades. However, the use of architectural facades as a mask to construct continuity is not unique to the City Hall façade. Colonial architecture is used for the same purpose in Hong Kong, a country with a similar historiography to Singapore’s. While Hong Kong does have a pre-colonial past, the official inception of the country is traced back to the beginning of British colonialism, a pattern which finds its parallels in Singapore.80 Similarly, British colonial legacy is also looked upon as a benign and beneficial enterprise.81 Ackbar Abbas posits that the preserved colonial buildings in Hong Kong serves serve the dual purposes of constructing historical linearity, and erasing conflictual historical events. In a similar trajectory to the function of the City Hall façade: Space is homogenised in the colonial gaze, as “old” and “new” are placed together in contiguity and continuity… it consists of making us accept, without shock or protest, the most blatant discontinuities as continuities.82 In the case study forwarded by Abbas, historical continuity between the colonial and postcolonial era is achieved by literally placing the “old” buildings constructed by the British next to “new” modernist architecture. In this configuration, historical continuity is achieved through visual contiguity. Such strategy is similarly employed in the use of the City Hall façade, or the symbol of imperial power, as a political stageset. By repetitively utilizing the neo-classical visuality of the façade as the 80 Ackbar Abbas. Hong Kong: Culture and the Space of Disappearance (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press), p.2. 81 ibid, p.72. The British initiated Hong Kong’s economy through its development as a port city, and there are few records of exploitation in its official history. 82 ibid, p.67. 137 exclusive stageset of the PAP during national day parades, political continuity is established between the colonial and postcolonial eras through visual contiguity. By coming to stand in for the events that occurred within its exterior, the neoclassical façade becomes inextricable from the declaration of independence. A seamless historical continuity is constructed between British colonialism and the country’s independence. Historical events that are detrimental to the PAP, such as the Malaysian years, and the nationalist struggles are erased. In Abbas’s words, “the most blatant discontinuities [are accepted] as continuities.” While the use of colonial buildings to mask discontinuities in the histories of the two countries is similar, historical continuity is achieved in a subtler, and hence more potent manner, through the City Hall façade’s subsumption of its architectural body. 138 [...]... use of the façade not just as architectural setting, but also as a stageset in the parades From 1968 onwards, the arrival of the ministers at the parades was announced in a processional manner The ministers descend on the City Hall steps in two neatly aligned rows not unlike a rehearsed performance, before filing to their seats in orchestrated moves As the spectator stand of the ministers, the City Hall. .. function as a stageset to the performances of the national day parades Through the selective representation of images, the City Hall façade is presented as the exclusive stageset of the PAP Reinforcing this interpretation are scenes from the float parade that form the last in the tripartite of images that make up the segment The float parades, which took place during the years 1971-1984, are depicted as a. .. however, the act of subsumption is “parasitical.”28 Such façades are regarded as organisms that feed on their architectural bodies, “absorbing it into their own advantage.”29 By using the parasite as a metaphor, the process of subsumption is posited as an exploitative maneuver that is beneficial to the façade and damaging to the architectural body The use of the City Hall façade as stageset over the years... banner was draped across the façade in actuality.26 Like the flags and banderoles that embellished the Corinthian columns in the $1 note, the mediation of the façade’s visuality on the $10000 note is again an assertion of the nation as a sovereign entity Underlying the juxtaposition of the colonial and the national within a single image on the notes is the recognition of the nation’s colonial beginnings... seen against the dull grey concrete of the façade The purity and radiance of the white uniforms worn by the People’s Action Party (PAP) ministers form a visually arresting sight against the backdrop of the City Hall façade, signifying their party affiliation (Figure 6) The façade is also utilised as a stageset for the rite of arrival of prime ministers Tracing three generations of political leaders,... reproduced as a stageset in the National Stadium for the national day parade 1998 was greeted with enthusiasm and anticipation.27 It did not seem odd that the façade was the only element of the City Hall to be reproduced, or that there was a need to replicate the front elevation of an existing building at another location In short, there was nothing unusual about the façade’s subsumption of its architectural... number of the currency note, as well as the watermark, insignia, signature and seal of the Minister for Finance and the described an aspect of the nation when the respective series were issued The front design also features the denomination and serial number of the currency note, as well as the watermark, insignia, signature and seal of the Minister for Finance and the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners... Metz’s approach is comparable to that of Panofsky’s iconology, which studies the forms of an image in relation to social and cultural histories.38 As a montage, 9th August is composed of a succession of images The City Hall façade is thus studied as a filmic image In order to decipher its use as a stageset, the analysis takes into account the juxtaposition of the façade with other images and the mediation... the repetition of these images The use of the façade as a stageset is made most prominent in one segment of the video that depict the rite of arrival of the ministers at the parade Images from three different scenes are juxtaposed next to each other in the following order: 1 The arrival of cabinet ministers and ministers of parliament as they descend the City Hall steps to take their seats 36 ibid, p.71... a rehearsed performance (Figure 21) Emerging from the main doors of the City Hall, the ministers position themselves neatly on the steps, flanking each side of a central aisle that accentuates the symmetry of the façade They file down the steps and proceed to their seats in order of rank, from the ministers of parliament, to the cabinet ministers As they descend the City Hall steps, a cascade of white ... local filmmaker Tan Pin Pin, and as a prop for the national day parade in 1998 (Figures 3,4&5) The majority of these images feature the City Hall façade as a stageset to the national day parade... the City Hall façade as backdrop 126 transporting or “inviting” the entire City Hall into the venue In the statement, the façade was posited as a symbol of the nation’s past, in a similar trajectory... it was, in reality, not limited to their use, and within the temporal space of the national day parades Private individuals also engage the City Hall façade as a stageset Most often, the façade