By Narayana Narayana

The September 23 2012 (pg 46) Sunday Times 'Think' article 'Pulling Singapore out of the slums' mentions today Sept 28 as the launch-date for a 'coffee-table book to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the setting up of the Ministry of the Environment & Water Resource (MOEWR ?)
 
Without intending in any way to denigrate the Ministry's undoubted accomplishments in its appointed field, today seems appropriate to comment on the article a little critically.
 
However unintentional, the impression conveyed in your caption is that before 'MOEWR', Singapore in 1972 was 'a slum' from which it was pulled out by MOEWR to its present 'Eco-city' status.  As the cynical quip goes, 'self-praise is the best advertisement' and I suppose we could all go along with some chest-thumping, as long as there is no clash or distortion of historical facts.
 
Singapore was in fact accorded 'City' status as far back as 1951 (September) so when did the perception, and appellation/classification of it as a 'slum' end? Even in pre-WWII times, Singapore wore a look of, at least, comparative modernity. The term 'slum' inevitably tends to be associated with areas where the less-affluent (read 'wretched poor') stay bonded by their common poverty. The more highly visible slums may well have gone from Singapore today, but there is plenty of evidence around that, to paraphrase the Biblical saying, 'the poor will always remain with us".
 
The above (likely unwelcome/unpalatable) comments apart, the prominent photograph of the 'night soil worker' with his couple of buckets slund across his shoulders caught my attention. An aged friend reminded me that they were colloquially referred to as 'thohtties' which in a South Indian language, apparently means 'scavenger'. In fact, in Tamil, dust bins are referred to, literally, as 'kuppai-thotti' .
 
In those earlier times, there was a hilarious anecdote of a young Britisher who before coming out here, met up with a retired 'gent to be beefed up on the local scene. The latter told him of an exotic fruit, the durian, which was delicious to eat, but with a most horrible stink, which would be sold by itinerant hawkers who would be carrying them on poles across their shoulders. Lo and behold, on the morning after his arrival here, the young man did see someone going by that description, and tried to buy the 'goods' from the astonished carrier.
 
The reference to the general habit of 'smoking cigarettes' to disguise/disinfect the 'bad smell' was reflected in the Tamil phrase/description of 'jaamaan-koodu churuttu' literally 'toilet-room cheroot' ('jaaman' being the Tamil transliteration of 'jamban' – Malay for latrine) which had a particularly acrid pungent smell, that effectively camouflaged all other odours.
 
Although there were quite a number of two and even three-storeyed houses, the toilet/s were all on the gruund floor. It was fairly common to have some receptacles kept in smallish 'bedside cupboards' for those who were living in upper floors and urgently needed to 'evacuate' during the dark night hours. I do not think the Scottish/British/French practice of 'gardyloo' * was ever accepted here.
 
One must be pretty old, in the Singapore context, to be able to effectively relate to the night-soil workers, and in this connection, I wonder how many can remember the (happily few) days when they went on strike, and the buckets (cylindrically black and made of heavy cast-iron, with green covers, as in the picture) began to fill up in households. The gopvernment then sent convicts from the prison under armed guard to do the job. I think this would have been circa 1938/9.
 
Another story, also more likely anecdotal than apocryphal, was of of a poor Chinese immigrant who was able to rise out of his lowly job and became a big towkay. To keep himself always reminded of his humble beginnings, he commissioned a small figurine of a  'nightsoil worker' in solid gold and kept it prominently in his parlour.
 
 
You May Also Like

HDB – Leong Sze Hian responds to Mah Bow Tan

Leong Sze Hian   I refer to the article “WP’s housing proposal…

Electricity and gas tariffs to decrease for the period 1 January to 31 March

The electricity tariffs (before 7 percent GST) will decrease by an average…

Singapore Budget 2018: Does Singapore care about its caregivers?

by Nabilah Husna The word of the day was “innovation”, but this…

重度伤残可领医疗储蓄 医疗负担仍自行买单?

卫生部长颜金勇日前表示,对于那些不幸面对重度伤残、家境清寒的30岁以上公民,可从个人的中央公积金医疗储蓄(Medisave)提取至少50元,减轻生活和医疗负担。 重度伤残者可从医疗储蓄提至少50元,条件是个人或配偶的公积金户头需至少有5千新元存款。至于拥有2万新元以上的公积金储蓄,则可每月提取200元。 “公积金制度可以弹性些,协助国民减轻负担。”颜金勇表示,公民也不需为此提高医疗储蓄缴纳额。该政策在2020年实施,只要年满30岁,不幸遇上重度伤残,即可申请提取公积金。 根据卫生部数据,至少半数65岁以上的国人,医疗储蓄超过2千新元。四分之一则有5千新元储蓄或更少。 这将是1984年以来,国民得以在65岁前先行提取和使用公积金储蓄。 怡安:医疗通膨仍偏高 显而易见,每个月领取50元,等于一个月吃20顿2块半的鸡饭,要说应对各种医疗费用,实在杯水车薪,更何况是从自己的公积金医疗储蓄拿出来的,若持续领取大约8年,积蓄就用完了。 虽然政府为提取公积金积蓄设下此弹性政策,惟并没有实质地解决老百姓对于节节攀升的医疗成本忧虑。显然由民众自己领取公积金储蓄,为医疗费用买单,并不是长远而有效的社会安全保障。 怡安顾问公司推出的医疗保健趋势调查显示,尽管新加坡本国的医疗通膨已从2014年的20巴仙,在去年下降至9.6巴仙,然而新加坡对11个国家的怡安医疗通膨指数,仍达到95.1,比中国、南韩和菲律宾还高。 如何定义“重度伤残”? 至于政府对于“严重伤残”的定义和标准,也令网民充满疑问。 以现有乐龄健保为例,如残疾而无法在淋浴、更衣、进食、如厕、在室内走动和上下床和坐上椅子或轮椅等,只要其中或超过三项无法自理,即可向保险公司索偿。…