《联合早报》- 柯木林：新加坡的“紫禁城” (2015-06-23)
http://www.zaobao.com.sg/forum/views/talk/story20150623-494911
过去50年，新加坡社会也起了翻天覆地的变化。在 经济挂帅，城市发展的大前题下，古建筑物首当其冲。成功的背后，有历史文化的代价，这是无法以金钱成本来衡量的。的确, 经济发展与文物保护是一对很难协调的矛盾，两者要取得平衡，很不容易。其中一个最大的原因，就是没有保护古迹的概念，更何况这种概念须要长时间培养，并非 一蹴而就。
古迹保存局（The Preservation of Monuments Board，时称古迹保存委员会）在新加坡共和国建国五年后的1971年1月成立，虽然也挽回与援救了一些古建筑文物，但整体而言，国人对古迹保护的意识 并不强烈，于是有了古迹负责人与古迹保存局因修复问题而对簿公堂的案例。
目前已注册成为国家古迹的有69处。令人惋惜的是，建国初期几处地标 性建筑如：守护独立桥（Merdeka Bridge，即今Nicoll Highway，1956年）的雄狮、旧国家剧场（1959年）、旧国家图书馆（1960年）、新加坡大会堂（Singapore Conference Hall，1965年）、旧国家体育馆（1973年）等等，如今硕果仅存的只有新加坡大会堂了。
曾任建屋发展局局长的刘太格有句名言：“每 个城市都有他的紫禁城。”这与当年折除北京旧建筑及城墙时，古建筑学家梁思成（梁启超的儿子）抱着北京的牌楼痛哭，认为这是摧毁千年古董，实乃异曲同工。 这些形象的比喻，都在说明一个道理：古迹的价值所在。旅游者来新加坡，不是看现代高楼大厦，而是看具有本地特色的建筑。因此，保护与修复古迹，是尊重自身 的历史，是一种责任，更是智慧的表征。从这个意义上说，新加坡国家古迹研究中心的成立，适逢其时。
保护与修复古迹的概念，需要整体国民意识的 支持，当然更需要有关当局制定政策予以启导。近年来，人们对所处周遭环境的演变，兴趣越来越浓烈，掀起了一股缅怀本地历史风物的热潮。6月15日的《联合 早报》报道了本地文史爱好者，自发推出“步行导览”项目，寻找先人足迹，让人们了解社区文化遗产、认识本地历史建筑，值得一书。
培养国人认识、保护与修复古迹实具前瞻性，在官方与民间携手合作下，更有成事之可冀！
作者是本地历史学者
站长的话
如何在城市发展和古迹保存之间求取平衡，对许多国家来说，都是一个难题，尤其是那些历史悠久的国家，更是如此。
别说与中国、印度等文明古国相比，即使是以美国等只有几百年历史的国家作为参照系，新加坡无疑是“年轻”得多，历史包袱也不算太重。因此，当政府在建国初期为了国家发展的需要，拆除许多老街道，旧楼房，以便让路给方兴未艾的城市重建工程时，民间并没有太大的反对声音。
可是，在我们的国家步入知天命之年的今天，国人渐渐发现那些能让我们停下脚步，抚今追昔，忆起狮城往昔峥嵘岁月的标志性建筑物，已经所剩无几。全岛各地的老街道，老房子，很多是新加坡历史进程的见证者，能不拆就不拆，能保留就保留吧。
新加坡的 “紫禁城”
• 柯木林
此前几天（5月30日），刚成立的新加坡国家古迹研究中心 （Research Centre for National Monuments）假URA Centre 主办专题讲座，主讲者是来自北京故宫博物院的古建筑家王时伟。王时伟曾与本地古建修复专家杨茳善博士联手主持新加坡凤山寺的修缮工作。因此, 〈从北京故宫倦勤斋到新加坡凤山寺：看跨国合作修复古建筑〉也就成了这场专题讲座的题目。
出席当天讲座者约有200人，算得上是一场成功的讲座。几天后的6月5日，《联合早报》 发表〈及时认定独立后的建筑遗产价值〉 的社论，对此事做了点评。这样一来，古迹的保存与修复课题，就短短几天，在本地掀起了一点涟漪。这课题也引发我个人的思考。
这里先对倦勤斋与凤山寺稍作解释，并谈谈个人感想。
倦勤斋是清朝乾隆皇帝为自己“退休”后安渡晚年生活而预建的，修复工程由王时伟主持，前后历时八年之久。而位于新加坡摩哈末苏丹路（Mohamed Sultan Road,俗称后芭窑）的凤山寺则于1907年始建。林路（ ？-1929年，一作林露，又名林志义，新加坡抗日英雄林谋盛烈士的父亲）是建寺的主要负责人。此寺庙现为新加坡南安会馆管理，2010年修复工程完毕 后，获得联合国教科文组织“保护文化遗产计划”卓越奖 （Award of Excellence for the UNNESCO Asia-Pacific Heritage Award for Cultural Heritage Conservation），这是新加坡第一个也是唯一一个获此荣衔者。
记得1973年，我与数位同道友好勘察了25处的新加坡华人历史古 迹，之后出版《石叻古迹》一书（1975年4月，由南洋学会出版）。13年后（1986年），当我们再次回到古迹现场时，一切都变了： 清元真君古庙、广福古庙、绿野亭公所、曹家馆、豆腐街（Upper Chin Chew Street）消失了；“天福宫”的旧名匾不知所踪；粤海清庙庭园变小，气 派大不如前；双林寺虽在，寺内古老的法堂已被拆除重建。而如今：恒山亭毁于火、社公庙中“反清复明义士”之牌位下落不明、萃英书院改为餐馆、 武吉布朗（Bukit Brown）部分坟场受道路工程影响而“让路”… 岁月不仅使人事翻新，连古迹也历尽沧桑!
过去 50年，新加坡社会亦起了翻天覆地的变化。在经济挂帅，城市发展的大前题下，古建筑物首当其冲。成功的背后，有历史文化的代价，这是无法以金钱成本来衡量 的。的确, 经济发展与文物保护是一项很难协调的矛盾，两者要取得平衡，很不容易。其中一个最大的原因，就是没有保护古迹的概念，更何况这种概念须要长时间培养，并非 一蹴而就。
古迹保存局（The Preservation of Monuments Board，时称古迹保存委员会）在新加坡共和国建国五年后成立 （1971年1月），虽然也挽回与援救了一些古建筑文物，但整体而言，国人对古迹保护的意识并不强烈，于是有了古迹负责人与古迹保存局因修复问题而对薄公 堂的案例。
目前已注册成为国家古迹的有69处。令人惋惜的是，建国初期几处地标性建筑如：守护独立桥（Merdeka Bridge，即今Nicoll Highway ，1956年）的雄狮、旧国家剧场（1959年）、旧国家图书馆（1960年）、新加坡大会堂（Singapore Conference Hall， 1965年）、旧国家体育馆（1973年）等等，如今硕果仅存的只有新加坡大会堂了。
曾任建屋发展局局长，著名建筑规划师刘太格有句名言： “每个城市都有他的紫禁城”。这与当年折除北京旧建筑及城墙时，古建筑学家梁思成（梁启超的儿子）抱着北京的牌楼痛哭，认为这是摧毁千年古 董，实乃异曲同工。这些形象的比喻，都在说明一个道理：古迹的价值所在。旅游者到本国，不是看现代高楼大厦，而是看具有本地特色的建筑。因此，保护与修复 古迹，是尊重自身的历史，是一种责任，更是智慧的表徵。从这意义上说，新加坡国家古迹研究中心的成立，适逢其时。
保护与修复古迹的概念，需 要整体国民意识的支持，当然更需要有关当局制定政策予以启导。近年来，人们对所处周遭环境的演变，兴趣越来越浓烈，掀起了一股缅怀本地历史风物的热潮。6 月15日的《联合早报》报导了本地文史爱好者，自发推出“步行导览”项目，寻找先人足迹，让人们了解社区文化遗产、认识本地历史建筑，值得一书。培养国人 认识、保护与修复古迹实具前瞻性，在官方与民间携手合作下，更有成事之可冀！
（作者是本地历史学者）
完稿于16-06-2015 @ 07:51
守护独立桥的雄狮
新国志 - 新加坡的“紫禁城”
https://xinguozhi.wordpress.com/2015/06/24/%E6%96%B0%E5%8A%A0%E5%9D%A1%E7%9A%84%E7%B4%AB%E7%A6%81%E5%9F%8E/#more-16704
Straits Times - What makes a national monuments? (2015-06-17)
The Sunday Times - What makes a national monument?
http://www.straitstimes.com/news/opinion/more-opinion-stories/story/what-makes-national-monument-20150617
THE recent announcement that the Jurong Town Hall building will be accorded "national monument" status comes as a pleasant surprise.
Jurong Town Hall is a prime example of modern architecture in post-independence Singapore and was designed by Architects Team 3 in 1974. Buildings from this period are generally considered not "old" or "historic" enough to be deemed important by many and, as with much of modern architecture, you either hate it or love it.
In the light of this, the decision to grant Jurong Town Hall national monument status should be applauded as a sign of increased recognition of the importance of modern architecture. Nevertheless, this decision also raises a few questions as to how we decide what buildings to recognise and protect, and the rationale behind the decision-making processes. Discussing these questions will not only raise architectural awareness in Singapore, but also help inform ongoing debates over heritage-significant buildings.
First, can the National Heritage Board (NHB) share with the public its reasons for upgrading Jurong Town Hall to national monument status, bearing in mind that it is already a "conserved" building?
In November 2002, the need to protect modern architecture that captured Singapore's path towards independence, as well as our nation-building efforts, was raised in the Subject Group Report on Old World Charm as part of the Parks & Waterbodies Plan and Identity Plan.
In response, Jurong Town Hall was given conservation status in 2005 by the Urban Redevelopment Authority.
What significant information did the Preservation of Sites and Monuments of NHB and its advisory board uncover between 2005 and 2015 to warrant the upgrading of Jurong Town Hall from conserved to national monument status? Are there any developments or threats that require this status upgrade to better protect it?
This is not a pedantic question. It has implications for other conserved modern buildings.
Are conserved modern buildings such as the former Sembawang Fire Station, former Victoria School, Asia Insurance Building and Princess House, former Kallang Airport, former Subordinate Courts of Singapore (State Courts) or the Singapore Improvement Trust's Kampong Silat flats not worthy of national monument status? In other words, by sharing the selection rationale for awarding Jurong Town Hall national monument status, the Preservation of Sites and Monuments and its advisory board would educate the public on the difference between a conserved building and a national monument.
The second question is related to the first. Why upgrade Jurong Town Hall and leave the Singapore Science Centre vulnerable to demolition or major alteration?
Not many people know of the architectural relationship between the two buildings. The Singapore Science Centre was designed to be an inward leaning companion to the outward slanting cantilever of the Jurong Town Hall. The former was completed in 1977 by Mr Raymond Woo, a member of Architects Team 3 that designed the Jurong Town Hall. It is also a prime example of modern architecture in its own right.
Last year, plans were announced to redevelop the Singapore Science Centre. Why not protect the Singapore Science Centre instead of upgrading the already conserved Jurong Town Hall? The Singapore Science Centre also qualifies as a building of national importance because it symbolises a young nation's reliance on science and technology in its journey towards First World status. Many generations of Singaporeans have filed through its doors as students to be enthralled by the wonders of science. The last building of such social importance to our childhood memories that was demolished was the National Library.
The final question is what this change of status entails.
A set of preservation guidelines is issued for every national monument. Each set of guidelines comprises a historical record of the building in question and a set of technical guidelines to provide a framework for future restoration and/or renovation works that may be carried out on the building. The preservation guidelines are made onerous and stringent for good reason. National monument status comes with higher preservation standards than a conserved building.
Has such a set of guidelines been issued for Jurong Town Hall? Or will it suffer the fate of another national monument - the Cathay Building, which has been criticised as an example of facadism, that is, the preservation of a building's mere facade and the hollowing out of its interior and social meaning?
The recognition of Jurong Town Hall as a national monument is undoubtedly a positive decision. However, we have to go beyond plucking the low-hanging fruit when it comes to building conservation.
What's the point of endowing only buildings and sites that are in absolutely no danger of being demolished with legal protection? Do we need the political will to champion heritage-significant buildings that are vulnerable? Such issues are worth talking about if we are to take heritage more seriously in Singapore.
《联合早报》 - 故宫专家王时伟来新演讲: 乾隆皇帝精心打造故宫倦勤斋修复后受瞩目 (2015-06-02)
新国志 - 新加坡的“紫禁城”
https://xinguozhi.wordpress.com/2015/06/24/%E6%96%B0%E5%8A%A0%E5%9D%A1%E7%9A%84%E7%B4%AB%E7%A6%81%E5%9F%8E/#more-16704
记得1973年，我与数位同道友好勘察了25处新加坡华人历史古迹，之后出版《石叻古迹》一书（1975年4月，由南洋学会出版）。13年后
（1986年），当我们再次回到古迹现场时，一切都变了：清元真君古庙、广福古庙、绿野亭公所、曹家馆、豆腐街(Upper Chin Chew
Street)消失了；“天福宫”的旧名匾不知所终；粤海清庙庭园变小，气派大不如前；双林寺虽在，寺内古老的法堂已被拆除重建。而如今：恒山亭毁于火、
社公庙中“反清复明义士”牌位下落不明、萃英书院改为餐馆、武吉布朗(Bukit
Brown)部分坟场受道路工程影响而“让路”……岁月不仅使人事翻新，连古迹也历尽沧桑！
过去50年，新加坡社会也起了翻天覆地的变化。在
经济挂帅，城市发展的大前题下，古建筑物首当其冲。成功的背后，有历史文化的代价，这是无法以金钱成本来衡量的。的确,
经济发展与文物保护是一对很难协调的矛盾，两者要取得平衡，很不容易。其中一个最大的原因，就是没有保护古迹的概念，更何况这种概念须要长时间培养，并非
一蹴而就。
古迹保存局（The Preservation of Monuments
Board，时称古迹保存委员会）在新加坡共和国建国五年后的1971年1月成立，虽然也挽回与援救了一些古建筑文物，但整体而言，国人对古迹保护的意识
并不强烈，于是有了古迹负责人与古迹保存局因修复问题而对簿公堂的案例。
目前已注册成为国家古迹的有69处。令人惋惜的是，建国初期几处地标
性建筑如：守护独立桥（Merdeka Bridge，即今Nicoll
Highway，1956年）的雄狮、旧国家剧场（1959年）、旧国家图书馆（1960年）、新加坡大会堂（Singapore Conference
Hall，1965年）、旧国家体育馆（1973年）等等，如今硕果仅存的只有新加坡大会堂了。
曾任建屋发展局局长的刘太格有句名言：“每
个城市都有他的紫禁城。”这与当年折除北京旧建筑及城墙时，古建筑学家梁思成（梁启超的儿子）抱着北京的牌楼痛哭，认为这是摧毁千年古董，实乃异曲同工。
这些形象的比喻，都在说明一个道理：古迹的价值所在。旅游者来新加坡，不是看现代高楼大厦，而是看具有本地特色的建筑。因此，保护与修复古迹，是尊重自身
的历史，是一种责任，更是智慧的表征。从这个意义上说，新加坡国家古迹研究中心的成立，适逢其时。
保护与修复古迹的概念，需要整体国民意识的
支持，当然更需要有关当局制定政策予以启导。近年来，人们对所处周遭环境的演变，兴趣越来越浓烈，掀起了一股缅怀本地历史风物的热潮。6月15日的《联合
早报》报道了本地文史爱好者，自发推出“步行导览”项目，寻找先人足迹，让人们了解社区文化遗产、认识本地历史建筑，值得一书。
培养国人认识、保护与修复古迹实具前瞻性，在官方与民间携手合作下，更有成事之可冀！
Straits Times - What makes a national monuments? (2015-06-17)
The Sunday Times - What makes a national monument?
http://www.straitstimes.com/news/opinion/more-opinion-stories/story/what-makes-national-monument-20150617
THE recent announcement that the Jurong Town Hall building will be accorded "national monument" status comes as a pleasant surprise.
Jurong Town Hall is a prime example of modern architecture in post-independence Singapore and was designed by Architects Team 3 in 1974. Buildings from this period are generally considered not "old" or "historic" enough to be deemed important by many and, as with much of modern architecture, you either hate it or love it.
In the light of this, the decision to grant Jurong Town Hall national monument status should be applauded as a sign of increased recognition of the importance of modern architecture. Nevertheless, this decision also raises a few questions as to how we decide what buildings to recognise and protect, and the rationale behind the decision-making processes. Discussing these questions will not only raise architectural awareness in Singapore, but also help inform ongoing debates over heritage-significant buildings.
First, can the National Heritage Board (NHB) share with the public its reasons for upgrading Jurong Town Hall to national monument status, bearing in mind that it is already a "conserved" building?
In November 2002, the need to protect modern architecture that captured Singapore's path towards independence, as well as our nation-building efforts, was raised in the Subject Group Report on Old World Charm as part of the Parks & Waterbodies Plan and Identity Plan.
In response, Jurong Town Hall was given conservation status in 2005 by the Urban Redevelopment Authority.
What significant information did the Preservation of Sites and Monuments of NHB and its advisory board uncover between 2005 and 2015 to warrant the upgrading of Jurong Town Hall from conserved to national monument status? Are there any developments or threats that require this status upgrade to better protect it?
This is not a pedantic question. It has implications for other conserved modern buildings.
Are conserved modern buildings such as the former Sembawang Fire Station, former Victoria School, Asia Insurance Building and Princess House, former Kallang Airport, former Subordinate Courts of Singapore (State Courts) or the Singapore Improvement Trust's Kampong Silat flats not worthy of national monument status? In other words, by sharing the selection rationale for awarding Jurong Town Hall national monument status, the Preservation of Sites and Monuments and its advisory board would educate the public on the difference between a conserved building and a national monument.
The second question is related to the first. Why upgrade Jurong Town Hall and leave the Singapore Science Centre vulnerable to demolition or major alteration?
Not many people know of the architectural relationship between the two buildings. The Singapore Science Centre was designed to be an inward leaning companion to the outward slanting cantilever of the Jurong Town Hall. The former was completed in 1977 by Mr Raymond Woo, a member of Architects Team 3 that designed the Jurong Town Hall. It is also a prime example of modern architecture in its own right.
Last year, plans were announced to redevelop the Singapore Science Centre. Why not protect the Singapore Science Centre instead of upgrading the already conserved Jurong Town Hall? The Singapore Science Centre also qualifies as a building of national importance because it symbolises a young nation's reliance on science and technology in its journey towards First World status. Many generations of Singaporeans have filed through its doors as students to be enthralled by the wonders of science. The last building of such social importance to our childhood memories that was demolished was the National Library.
The final question is what this change of status entails.
A set of preservation guidelines is issued for every national monument. Each set of guidelines comprises a historical record of the building in question and a set of technical guidelines to provide a framework for future restoration and/or renovation works that may be carried out on the building. The preservation guidelines are made onerous and stringent for good reason. National monument status comes with higher preservation standards than a conserved building.
Has such a set of guidelines been issued for Jurong Town Hall? Or will it suffer the fate of another national monument - the Cathay Building, which has been criticised as an example of facadism, that is, the preservation of a building's mere facade and the hollowing out of its interior and social meaning?
The recognition of Jurong Town Hall as a national monument is undoubtedly a positive decision. However, we have to go beyond plucking the low-hanging fruit when it comes to building conservation.
What's the point of endowing only buildings and sites that are in absolutely no danger of being demolished with legal protection? Do we need the political will to champion heritage-significant buildings that are vulnerable? Such issues are worth talking about if we are to take heritage more seriously in Singapore.
《联合早报》 - 故宫专家王时伟来新演讲: 乾隆皇帝精心打造故宫倦勤斋修复后受瞩目 (2015-06-02)
《联合早报》- 游览名胜——独立桥 (2021-05-27)
https://www.zaobao.com.sg/lifestyle/history-heritage/story20210527-1149702
最近翻看旧相簿时被一张超过半个世纪的旧照片吸引了。
照片中的小女孩是我，扶着我合照的是几年前病故的我的五叔，地点是新加坡独立桥。照片哪一年拍的已记不得了，估计是独立桥落成后不久。
在那个许多穷人家的孩子，必须提着一篮妈妈做的咖喱角或一锅咖喱杂菜，到组屋区沿家挨户叫卖补贴家用的年代，相机是奢侈品，游览名胜更是过年时才会特别安排的家庭活动。
五叔在登嘉楼工作
我小时候家境比一般小朋友幸福得多。父亲喜欢摄影，省吃俭用拥有一台相机，不必等新年，几乎每个星期天，爸爸都会背了相机，带着妈妈、我和弟弟到处游逛，更不会错过刚竣工的地标。
跨越加冷河的独立桥是尼诰大道的一部分，1956年建成后，成了往返东海岸和市区的交通要道。那年五叔回新探亲，我和他便有了这张难得的合照。
当年五叔在马来西亚登嘉楼的龙运（Dungun）工作。龙运因为铁矿业而发展起来。本地僧多粥少，不少人涌到那里谋生。龙运的铁矿业发迹于1916年，1960至70年代达到了高峰，随后走向没落，曾经辉煌的龙运便逐渐被人们所遗忘，也许只有5月到9月大海龟产卵的季节才有人想起它——距离龙运市区10公里的兰道阿邦（Rantau Abang）是观看海龟产卵的闻名海滩。
家喻户晓的Bata鞋
独立桥的石狮曾是该桥的重要标志，记得石狮后方竖着高高的石碑。小时候必须抬头仰望才能把石狮和石碑尽收眼底，感觉非常壮观。石狮是意大利艺术家鲁多夫·诺里（Rodolfo Nolli）的杰作，共有两头，分别竖立在独立桥的两端。1966年独立桥扩建，两头石狮被迁移到加冷的劳动公园，几经辗转如今落户新加坡武装部队军事训练学院操场。
小时候出门总是穿得漂漂亮亮的。妈妈爱缝纫，身上的裙子是妈妈精心缝制的，脚上穿的是一双Bata皮鞋。目前总部设在瑞士洛桑的Bata是捷克人Thomas Bata于1894年创办的国际品牌。小时候Bata是家喻户晓的鞋子品牌，但一双Bata皮革童鞋不是当时一个普通受薪阶级能轻松负担的。父亲对它情有独钟，选择新鞋款即将上架，旧鞋款举行大减价时购买，这样我们姐弟俩就有让邻家小孩羡慕，价廉物美的皮鞋穿了。
出门时，一身量身定做的小裙子，一双亮丽的皮鞋，头上还夹个小发夹或一个小蝴蝶结。现在回想，那时的我简直就是一个幸福快乐的小公主。
