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

Outward Bound Singapore (OBS) camps to be used as a quarantine facility

On Tuesday (28 Jan), the Ministry of National Development (MND) announced that…

Motorcycle COEs hit a record-breaking $4504

By COE Sgcharts Motorcycle COEs hit a record-breaking $4,504 on Wednesday, in…

Singapore's Terrex vehicles no longer seen at HK customs warehouse

The nine Terrex Infantry Carrier Vehicles (ICV) that were impounded by the…

罗拔申码头周末人群聚集 网民质问“双标准吗?”

有网民发现,周末下午的罗拔申码头处聚集多人,甚至有人不戴口罩、或近距离交流喝酒,不禁令网民问道,“这是政府的双标准吗?”。 网民Lectress Pat周末(5月16日)在脸书上分享了数张,据称是来自其友人,傍晚6时25分在罗拔申码头拍下的照片。 照片中只见不少人聚集在罗拔申码头一带,有的是一家大小在广场或走道上聊天或跑步,有些人并没运动,却也没戴口罩,甚至没有和他人保持安全社交距离。其中一张照片中,更见到三个人在一家酒吧外喝酒聊天,且都没有用口罩遮盖口鼻。 网友表示,友人当时打算尝试新的运动路线,却没想到会看到这惊人的一幕。 她指出,在亚历山大公园连道有两名执法人员和一名警员驻守,但是在五分钟路程外的罗拔申码头却没有执法人员驻守。更甚的是,该区的餐饮业者也没有劝阻在该处饮酒聊天的人们,也没有把摆放在外的站立式桌子收起。 她表示,这些照片不禁让人们质疑,执法当局对于本地的组屋居民等市民都密切监督,并采取快速的对付行动,却能让这些俗称“拥有自主权”地区的居民不戴口罩和聚集,“这不是双重标准吗?”。 她也批评这些不遵守阻断措施的任性行为,是毁掉本地社区和前线人员所做出的防疫努力。 Lectress Pat的帖文很快引起网民们的关注,议论纷纷。一名餐饮业者在脸书上澄清,指照片中显示的站立式桌子并非该店所有,也强调遵守阻断措施的重要性。 市区重建局发言人则告知媒体,当该局执法人员在相关地区进行巡逻时,发现除了有些餐厅向顾客出售外带酒精饮料之外,并没有发现有很多业者或人们不遵守安全距离措施。 基于出售外带酒精饮料会导致更多人聚集在相关商店周围,为了避免人们聚集,当局已经向业者发出书面指示,即日起禁止出售相关饮料,否则将遭到严厉对付。…