Historyspeaks by NTU History Club by ntuhistoryspeaks

historyspeaks

2021

Business Heritage NTU History sub club

This page is intentionally left blank

historyspeaks HistorySpeaks is published by the NTU History Club’s Publications Team. It is a peer-reviewed academic journal that contains scholarly writings by our students and interviews with our professors and graduates. Foreword by Dr Koh Keng We Research, critical thinking and engagement have been important tenets of our undergraduate training in the History Programme at NTU. Our courses, projects, and events have sought to get our students to engage with faculty, with primary materials in the libraries, archives, museums, and with different sites/ spaces, artifacts, individuals, and communities connected to history and heritage in Singapore, and beyond, in global Asia. This journal, HistorySpeaks, is the expression and manifestation of these ideals. It showcases the work of students in the programme as well as the perspectives and visions of different faculty in the programme (or visiting us), on different topics and issues in Asian, Singapore, and global history. I sincerely hope that this journal will also be a platform for our students and faculty to engage the wider interest of the public in these issues in years to come. Congratulations to the publications committee of the NTU History Club for the launch of the journal series, and looking forward to future issues! Dr Koh Keng We is an assistant professor at the Nanyang Technological University who, among other things, is a valuable adviser to the NTU History Club

Editorial foreword This issue is about heritage businesses. There is seldom a better time to rediscover the heritage of our businesses in a unique time when, with reduced tourism and crowds, with Singapore’s hawker culture recognised as an Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH), many opportunities arise for us to interact more with heritage businesses and to learn more about their histories. What this issue tries to do is to provide a historical snapshot of select local heritage businesses that resonated with our students during their undergraduate journey. A common theme across these essays, in our opinion, is the theme of “special occasions,” as many of these heritage businesses are significant to us because of their importance in fulfilling certain functions on special events. Money exchangers, for example, represent businesses that we interact with not only on special occasions when we are travelling overseas, but also, for some, on a daily basis in the course of their own businesses. Similarly, Tangs, the department store, is especially memorable to some of us, as a trip there is usually tied to getting a special gift for noteworthy events, underscoring how retail businesses are an important part of our leisure and everyday routines. However, the importance of heritage businesses goes beyond our brief interactions with them on these special occasions. We are also interested in their histories, the experiences and visions of the entrepreneurs, as well as other questions pertaining to these enterprises and industries, and their environments. What are their day-to-day operations like? How do they weather crises? How have business strategies changed over time? These are some of the questions we hope this issue would help to shed more light on. We learn from Pranav’s piece how money exchangers cope with international downturns in the past and in recent years. While Covid-19 may have affected them as international travel has reduced significantly, it’s noteworthy that they have also weathered through international crises like SARS and even 9/11. Surprisingly, another one of these heritage businesses is Tangs, the department store, for they have remained a recognisable icon through the decades, even as Orchard Road has gone through several transformations. Sylvia’s piece gives us a glimpse of how pioneer businessmen like C K Tang built a unique and successful department store in the 20th century. However, narratives about business history are not always about success stories or enduring legacies. The stories we tell about businesses also extend to those who may have ceased operations but whose heritage continues to be in business. Jeremy’s piece on Tan Yeok Seong’s Nanyang Book Company represents an important cultural heritage of Malaya, and his other entrepreneurial ventures reflect the adaptive business strategies employed by then businessmen to navigate the business cycles of pre and post-independence period. Taken together, we hope that this issue drives us to find out more about the heritage of living and non-living businesses and the diverse entrepreneurial ventures in the past. We hope that this special issue, ironically, helps us to understand businesses beyond “special occasions.”

Meet the team Kitson Yap year 2 history Publications Director

Ethan Koh year 2 history Editor and Layout Designer

Jegateesh year 2 history Editor

About historyspeaks This is the first issue of HistorySpeaks, but it is not the first student publication by NTU History. That honour goes to HIST:RE published in 2017. Instead, this is an inaugural issue that is built on the academic foundations of HISt:RE but redesigned to showcase a series of short essays and other engaging content. This HistorySpeaks issue is a labour of tough love by a small team of people who started from scratch. We had to learn many things from the beginning, from designing to peer-reviewing, to editing and publishing. This issue is by no means flawless or very professional (do let us know if there are errors), but we hope it captures the spirit of what we’re trying to do: engaging history, making history accessible and relevant to everyone, right from our undergraduate years. We have interspersed the content articles with engaging interviews with our professors and alumni in this issue, to make the NTU History program more readily accessible and personable too. We hope that this would give everyone a better understanding of our program, our work, and our people. This issue of HistorySpeaks would certainly not have been possible without our wonderful alumni and professors who served as key reviewers and advisers in this journey. In particular, we would like to thank Esmond Soh, our alumni from 2019, for always taking time out of his Master’s thesis to comment on our edits and to proof-read through countless number of drafts for this issue. We would also like to thank Professor Faizah Zakaria and Professor Koh Keng We, for being ever-supportive believers of student-initiatives like these, and for always providing us with invaluable comments to make this a better publication. Yours truly, NTU History club Publishing team

Content page The business history of C. K. Tang Catching up with our Alumni: Fidelithy Tan The Indian Muslim Money Changer community Governing Gender and Sexuality in colonial India An interview with Professor Jessica Hinchy Between culture and enterprise: The business history of Tan Yeok Seong Archaeology in Singapore An interview with Professor Goh Geok Yian

The Business history of C.K. Tang

Introduction Tang Choon Keng, widely known as CK Tang, was well known for his enterprise TANGS. Tang’s undertaking has evolved significantly from a modest door-to-door salesman new to Singapore in 1923 to establishing the successful retail giant TANGS, now an iconic landmark in the Singapore retail district of Orchard Road. Before the retailer moved from River Valley Road to Orchard Road, the latter was not yet known as the heart of local retail. Today, Singaporeans and tourists alike appreciate the stretch as a popular and diverse central shopping hub, adorned with several department stores. In the 1950s, Orchard was a quiet neighbourhood. The land upon which CK Tang had built his department store faced a Chinese cemetery, drawing much discouragement and disagreement vis-à-vis the relocation of the store. Having been the first to establish a retail presence on the street, Tang’s decision to go ahead with the construction would go on to make a great impact on Orchard. It was no surprise that Tang also faced many problems in the process of establishing and developing the business. He began humbly, having left his family in China and getting by on little food and money when he had arrived in Singapore. In his later years, at 60 years old, Tang was kidnapped in the garden of his home, which was not a rare occurrence at that time and shortly after, in 1961, following disputes with labour unions, hindering the operations of the retail player for a year. In the establishment and development of the department store, Tang was always sure to practise honesty which he valued very much. Tang’s mother constantly taught Tang the virtue of honesty, which he honed throughout his career as a businessman. She also reminded him not to cheat or lie.1 This influenced the way he served his customers and priced his wares at each juncture of his business while doing door-to-door sales, at River Valley Road, and at Orchard Road. He personally believed that honesty had a significant impact on the success of his business. Tang also constantly related this virtue to the people around him. In an interview, Tang’s eldest daughter revealed that Tang had taught her to always talk to customers about the goods honestly. For example, if there were stains on a tablecloth, she would have to be upfront with the customer about it and offer a discount.2 A senior sales staff who had been working at the store for thirty-three years also mentioned that Tang told them that defective goods could not simply be repaired and then put up for sale.3 Forty-four-year-old Penny Leong, who had been a chief cashier with Tangs for twenty-nine years as of 1991, also recalled in an article that Tang always reminded her of the importance of honesty. Tang’s driver, Sunan Bin Son, had the same to say about Tang who often recounted his arrival to Singapore with only $5 and about honesty and saving money. Similarly, supervisor Ang Wah Hock, who worked with Tang at River Valley, was also told by Tang to work hard and to be honest.4

Above: Marriot hotel and Tang plaza were built together in Orchard road in 1982

Methodology Since the enterprise TANGS is largely intertwined with the life of CK Tang, I will first write about the life of CK Tang and how he conducted business before his first retail outlet in 1932 up until his retirement in 1987. I will be writing the essay chronologically and in sections of Tang’s life, business decisions, and movements of the physical store. For the main narrative of the essay, I referred to Tang’s oral interview by the National Archives of Singapore. However, as I am not able to understand Teochew, I referred to the English and Mandarin transcripts. The Mandarin transcript was recorded verbatim, so I relied more on this. Subsequently, I corroborated Tang’s account with other primary sources such as the newspapers and a television feature of himself and his company.

While searching through primary sources, including newspaper articles and articles published by Singapore’s National Library Board about CK Tang, however, I found a few discrepancies regarding crucial details of Tang’s life. For example, according to the record of his interview conducted in Teochew by the Oral History Centre, Tang stated that he was born in 1902. This is also listed on the front page of the transcript. However, various other sources recorded the year of Tang’s birth to be 1901. I will presume that the year 1902 is in reference to Tang’s birth year according to the Gregorian calendar and 1901 vis-à-vis the lunar calendar. This is since Tang does mention in the interview that according to the Gregorian or the western (“红毛”) calendar, he would have been 80 years old on 1 December 1982. Also, Tang’s father is often described as a Chinese Presbyterian pastor although Tang recounted that his father was a missionary. In the interview, Tang introduced his father as a missionary who went from county to county. Additionally, Tang also mentioned that he was born in Jieyang (揭阳) and grew up in Shantou (汕头) or Swatow. Many articles have mistakenly noted that Tang was born in Swatow, perhaps because he sold Swatow lace when he arrived in Singapore. Ultimately, I decided to mainly follow Tang’s account recorded in the oral interview. All personal information and personal recounts recorded in this essay are from Tang’s interview and supplemented or opposed with other primary and secondary sources.

Early life In 1902, Tang Choon Keng, also known as Tang Un Tien in Teochew, was born to father Tang Gan Urn and mother Tang Sok Kiar in Jieyang (揭阳) in Guangdong Province, China. While Tang’s father earned most of the income, his mother also supported by doing drawn thread work. Although Tan Gan Urn worked as a missionary, he did not have to travel frequently. For three years, the family stayed in a church in Jieyang, where Tang was born, and later moved to Shantou (汕头) or Swatow in Teochew, where Tang spent his growing up years. He was the second oldest among six children.5 In 1910, when Tang was eight years old, he attended the kindergarten in the church his family went to. Around seventy to eighty years ago, there was no formal education system in Swatow, hence there were few schools and no universities. Some of these schools were also lacking facilities so students, including Tang, had to carry tables and chairs for themselves on the first day of each school year. Moreover, the teachers in the schools were not properly trained as educators and did not subscribe to any curriculum. In the kindergarten Tang attended, students were taught to memorise Chinese classics, which Tang and his peers did not understand.6 After six to seven years of schooling, Tang decided to sell Swatow drawn work.7 Also known as Chaozhou Chousha (潮州抽纱) or Teochew drawn work, these embroidery works featured a kind of drawn work on silk products. This business was not uncommon. Swatow was a commercial city and drawn work production was a cottage industry in the region.8 As with Tang’s mother, many other women in Swatow were crafting embroideries.9

Moreover, villagers in Swatow were also bringing these drawn works overseas to Southeast Asia such as to Rangoon, Bangkok, and Singapore, which were colonies then. During Tang’s time, Singapore, well known to the Chinese as “Shi-le” (石叻), was a popular destination for earning a livelihood. Likewise, Tang thought of travelling to Singapore to make a living by selling Swatow lace. His parents were supportive of this decision since many others had gone overseas to earn money.10

Journey to Singapore In 1923, twenty-one-year-old Tang prepared the drawn work products he would sell and boarded a ship called Hong Seng (丰盛) to Singapore.11 He brought with him two luggage bags – a leather suitcase and a tin trunk – which earned him the title of the “Tin Trunk Man”.12 Both bags stored about 2000 dollars’ worth of over a hundred types of drawn work, including various designs of bedsheets, tablecloths, handkerchiefs, and napkins. The fiveday journey to Singapore was lonely, and Tang had to endure poor living conditions on the ship. Tang travelled with two or three of his neighbours, but they eventually went their separate ways after reaching.13 When Tang reached Singapore, he took a rickshaw to the Prinsep Street Church at Tekka (竹脚), where Teochews from the separate Tekka Church worshipped, and lived there temporarily. However, the church only provided Tang housing and was not part of Tang’s business enterprise in any other way. Within a few days, Tang learnt enough of the Malay language to state the prices of his products to begin engaging customers.14 During the colonial period, the lingua franca of the multi-ethnic society in Singapore was the Malay language. And more specifically, the Chinese, including Tang, used the Romanised “Bazaar Malay” in their daily speech.15 Tang communicated with his mostly British clientele in the Malay language. A few days after his arrival, having hired a rickshaw to transport his drawn works, Tang went to the Amber Mansions for his first day of business.16 Located between Orchard Road and Penang Road, the uptown Amber Mansions were built in 1922 and housed expatriates and premium boutiques.17 It was frequently reported that residents of the Amber Mansions had been burgled of valuable items such as jewellery and were thus known to be wealthy.19 Tang marketed his Chinese-oriented ware to this group of European expatriates and subsequently went on to neighbourhoods such as Tanglin, Bukit Timah, and Katong, where many expatriates resided.19 Before Tang left for Singapore, he would arrange for stocks of drawn work to be posted from Swatow. Postage took around two to three weeks to arrive in Singapore. When his supply was running low, he wrote to a contact he had in Swatow, to whom he remitted payment. Tang did this mainly through remittance shops and banks if the amounts were more substantial, from $1,000 to $10,000.20

Above: A map depicting the distance between Swatow, China and Singapore Although the venture was off to a slow start, business began to pick up as Tang became familiar with his customers. In the beginning, Tang made trips to only one or two houses a day. Tang did not follow a fixed schedule or route; his customers made appointments with him, and he would travel there on his rickshaw to sell them his products. Despite the small number, these customers often bought large quantities of goods from him, and they subsequently recommended Tang to their friends. He eventually began to visit three or four houses daily and his customers would usually pay in cash or sign an IOU (I owe you) and make payment at the end of the month.21 Tang’s employment of the system of debt and payment in instalments earned the trust and loyalty of his customers. Despite doing business for profit, he did not resort to high mark-ups. His pricing strategy entailed calculating the costs and adding only a slight mark-up. Keeping prices low set Tang apart from his competitors and played a significant role in his business strategy. Tang was content with small profits and believed that this was the way to become successful. He also vowed to never cheat.22

Door-to-door sale was not unique to Tang. Many others, such as Teochews from Swatow and Jieyang, were also selling drawn works in the same manner. In the 1920s and 1930s, thousands of immigrants worked as itinerant hawkers in Singapore as hawking only required a modest capital outlay and no prior experience.23 Nevertheless, Tang considered his competition to be unable to endure hardship. While these salesmen returned to China within a year and a half, Tang stayed on for eight to nine years before returning home for four months to get married. Also, to save money, Tang ate only a few cents’ worth of meals a day.24 He frequently ate “rickshaw porridge” (手车粥) with sweet potatoes which cost him one cent. If one bowl was insufficient, he would have two bowls or add black beans and peanuts which altogether cost three to four cents. This daily practice was significant to his eventual success of saving up enough capital to rent a space for his first retail store. After his visit home, Tang returned to Singapore with his mother, wife, and siblings. His return coincided with the 1930s Great Depression which began in the United States. Between late 1929 and 1933, Singapore’s trade plummeted along with plunging rubber prices caused by the downsizing of America’s automobile industry.25 However, business was as usual for Tang. His customers consisted mainly of the British who were salaried employees and had fixed incomes.26

“House of Tang” at River Valley Road Within a few years of itinerant hawking, Tang’s business grew significantly. No longer able to travel to his many customers, he told his customers to visit him instead. The presence of a physical store allowed Tang’s business to reach out to more customers on top of his existing consumer base. His customers continued to be made up mainly of Europeans and a few locals. In 1932, with a capital of $3,000, Tang rented the first floor of a shophouse on 231 River Valley Road for $30 a month. He named his retail outlet the “House of Tang” and began with two employees. Tang’s five or six family members also worked at the shop. This included Tang’s nephews, Tang Wee Hee (董伟熙), who was the store’s Corporate Operations Director, and Tang Kwang Hock. Tang’s wife was also involved in sewing bathrobes.27 Business continued to boom, and Tang expanded into the building’s ground and second floors, costing more than $100. Thereafter, in 1938, Tang extended his store further along River Valley Road, taking over the store’s two neighbouring storefronts. Gradually, he hired more employees and ended up with six.28 In running his store, Tang was always sure to apply his guiding principle of honesty. This extended to the newly rented space at River Valley as well. He sought to continue earning money fairly with his marginal cost-plus pricing. Unlike other shop-owners who marked up the prices of their wares by $5 to 10, Tang kept his profit margins per product $1 to $2.29 One of these shops was situated beside Tang’s shop and according to Tang’s nephew Wee Hee, the owners often overcharged their expatriate customers.30

In 1940, Tang purchased a large plot of vacant land for $10,000 on 241 River Valley Road, located at the corner of Jalan Mohamed Sultan. Tang used the land spanning six adjacent shops to construct a three-storey building, larger than the previously rented shophouse. The edifice was initially the “C. K. Tang” building, but Tang later renamed it to “Gainurn Building” as a tribute to his father, Tang Gan Urn or Tang Yang Oon (董仰恩).31 After six years, Tang incorporated “C. K. Tang Ltd.”.32 By mid-1941, the construction and renovation of the building were completed, and Tang moved over in September. The cost totalled up to about $30,000 to $40,000.33

Industry Environment In the 1940s, as Tang’s enterprise was beginning to expand, he faced competition from well-known department stores – John Little and Robinsons. Both stores were established much earlier than Tang’s in the mid-1800s and served the same European consumer base that Tang did. Other than retail giants, High Street was also a popular shopping centre which sold textiles, embroideries, and silk.34 John Little was Singapore’s oldest department store. In 1842, John Martin Little began as a storekeeper at his relative’s establishment at Commercial Square, where Raffles Place is today. Three years later, in 1845, John Little and Cursetjee Frommurzee took over the company, calling it Little, Cursetjee &amp; Co. After the partnership between Little and Frommurzee dissolved in 1854, Little continued the business on the premises with his brother, Matthew, under the name of John Little and Co.35 Located in the European commercial centre, the store mostly served European consumers. Before the Second World War, John Little expanded its operations to Malaysia, opening branches in Kuala Lumpur in 1914, Penang (1926), and Ipoh (1929).36 In 1858, John Spicer and Philip Robinson founded Spicer and Robinson, later known as Robinsons.37 Situated on Nos. 9 and 10 Commercial Square, the new “Family Warehouse” also catered mainly to the European community in Singapore.38 Likewise, during the 1940s, business at Robinson’s department store was booming. Despite incurring a loss of $233,745 in 1932 during the Great Depression, the family warehouse gained sufficient profits by 1939 to stabilise its financial position and even expand.39 Due to the burgeoning enterprise, Robinsons had to move out of the premises it had occupied since 1891. In mid1941, Robinsons, then known as Robinson & Company, moved into new and larger premises at Raffles Chambers opposite Raffles Place.40 The new centre sold a wide range of products, separated by levels, from clothing to silverware and furniture. The store even had an air-conditioned café and hairdressing salons for both men and women.41 Despite the competition, Tang was able to retain his customers and grow his business. Tang understood that it was difficult for his store to include foreign goods because he had strong competition. John Little began by selling wines and spirits, and later diversified their products to include furniture, clothes, textiles, watches and clocks, stationery, and others.42 Its well-established contemporary Robinsons also had a wide range of goods. In 1941, the store featured numerous varieties of men’s, women’s, and children’s clothing and tailoring materials, confectionary, household linens, hardware, and furniture.43

Despite the competition, Tang was able to retain his customers and grow his business. Tang understood that it was difficult for his store to include foreign goods because he had strong competition. John Little began by selling wines and spirits, and later diversified their products to include furniture, clothes, textiles, watches and clocks, stationery, and others.42 Its well-established contemporary Robinsons also had a wide range of goods. In 1941, the store featured numerous varieties of men’s, women’s, and children’s clothing and tailoring materials, confectionary, household linens, hardware, and furniture.43 There were a few stark differences between Tang’s department store and retail giants John Little and Robinsons. After many years, Tang and his customers built up a good rapport rooted in Tang’s honest prices. By this point, Tang had also built up a network of customers who recommended his business to their friends. His relationships with his customers were so strong that they still wrote to one another at the point of the interview was conducted in 1982.44 In large-scale department stores, there was no opportunity to build such relationships. Relationships in these contexts were mostly transactional and not personal. Another principal difference between Tang’s store and the retail giants were was their products. After the move, Tang continued selling drawn works and other Chinese goods.45 He did not import European goods. Tang had almost a monopoly of the Swatow drawn work trade in Singapore. Although High Street was also known for selling textiles and embroidered goods, most of the stores there were set up by Sikhs and Sindhi merchants.46 These stores were famed for European textile imports and fine tailoring, which were distinct from Teochew designed lace. Furthermore, owning a large physical store gave Tang more visibility than itinerant hawkers who continued were selling Swatow lace.

Japanese Occupation Following the surrender of the British to the Japanese on 15 February 1942, Singapore was occupied by the Japanese during the Second World War.47 During the Occupation, one of the buildings the Japanese planned to requisition was Tang’s building. On the first day of the Occupation, Japanese engineers barged into Tang’s store to commandeer the building for their dormitories. However, Japanese military engineers later found an alternative location – the hostels of the United Engineers. Having found the hostels, the engineers remained at Tang’s store for a few days and subsequently abandoned the premises. Except for a few stolen face towels, Tang’s store was left largely untouched. The Japanese even allowed Tang to continue managing his store.48 Tang’s business suffered during the Occupation. This was chiefly because the bulk of his consumers were the British, and not many locals patronised his store. When the Japanese arrived in Singapore, they arrested and interned the British in concentration camps. Although Tang was able to continue running the store, very few people patronised his store. The only customers to Tang’s store were some locals who purchased face towels and towels.49 Additionally, Tang sold drawn works, which were non-essentials, especially, during the war.

After more than three years, Japan surrendered on 15 August 1945. Following the signing of the surrender documents, Singapore returned to British colonial rule on 12 September 1945. When the British were released, Tang found that his business was flourishing once again. Although the prices of goods at other stores at High Street were increasing, Tang continued to keep his prices reasonable. Also, despite the continuation of the Chinese Civil War between the Chinese Communist Party and the Kuomintang from 1945 to 1949, people in Swatow continued to produce drawn works to make a living. Tang’s source was not discontinued and therefore not affected.50

The Store at 310 Orchard Road After selling his existing stock, Tang decided to take advantage of the post-war property situation. After the war, the prices of properties and land fell. Tang surveyed the site of Orchard Road and foresaw that Orchard Road, being the central locale of Singapore, would be popular with the tourism industry in the future.51 After the war, in 1948, the State of Israel declared independence following their civil war and many Jewish families in Singapore returned to their homeland. Tang’s contact, Nassim, put Tang in touch with Jewish families who owned land in Orchard Road. Eager to sell their property, the Manasseh family sold their land for $1 per square metre. Tang took this opportunity to acquire a 1,351-square-metre plot of land at the corner of Orchard Road and Scotts Road, on Nos. 2 and 4 Scotts Road. Additionally, nobody else was interested in purchasing the plot of land because it was opposite the Tai San Ting cemetery. This, however, did not matter to Tang because he did not hold any superstitious beliefs.52 Inspired by the roofs of the Imperial Palace in the Forbidden City in Beijing, Tang and his contractor worked together to construct similar-looking roofs for his new building. On 20 October 1958, Tang’s department store moved to No. 310 Orchard Road. By this time, Tang’s range of products included handcrafted linen, furniture, and eastern handicrafts from China, Hong Kong, Japan, Indonesia, India, Siam, and Malaya.53 At Orchard Road, there was not much change in consumer demographics. The Europeans remained his main customers. However, the Chinese locals also subsequently patronised his department store as they began to earn more disposable income.54 During this time, Orchard Road was not yet Singapore’s shopping paradise and was a quiet neighbourhood. Before Tang moved to Orchard, there were only a few shops and three supermarkets. As Tang set up his trademark building, people who had automobiles travelled to Orchard Road to shop at his department store. However, it was only in the 1970s that Orchard Road gained more popularity than High Street, which was Singapore’s main shopping destination then. This was due to the introduction of local entertainment outlets, such as the Lido Cinema, Orchard Theatre, Raffles Village and Jackie’s Bowl in the 1960s and 1970s. More importantly with regards to shopping, in 1974, Plaza Singapura was established, and it was the largest shopping centre in Singapore then.55

Kidnapping in 1960 In the 1950s and 1960s, Singapore was a hotbed for kidnappings of famous and wealthy tycoons. Kidnap gangs abducted many local towkays (business owners) such as shipping tycoon Tay Kie Thay, Thye Hong business factory owner Lee Gee Chong, and movie tycoon Shaw Vee Ming. The kidnappers of Tay Kie Thay Tang and Lee Gee Chong eventually murdered their victims. Tang was one of the magnates who were kidnapped. At that time, the management did not yet include his children, and the business was just beginning at a new location. At 7.15am on 17 July 1960, Tang was abducted by a gang of four armed men just as he had left for a walk. This kidnapping was done in full view of his neighbours and many school children from the nearby public school. He was subsequently freed unharmed on 21 July, within 84 hours, after the family paid $150,000 in ransom.56 Being a wealthy businessman in Singapore, Tang became a target for kidnappers. Following this series of abductions, the Singapore government made changes to the laws concerning kidnapping by raising the maximum penalty from ten years imprisonment to life imprisonment or death.57 Tang was reported to have gone away for a short holiday to recuperate from the ordeal.58

Above: A map depicting the distance between Swatow, China and Singapore

Employee Strikes in 1960 On 22 August 1960, Tang received a strike threat from the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers’ Union.59 In the letter, the union delivered an ultimatum and also stated in a press statement that “unless the management reinstate [sic] the dismissed colleague, and settle all outstanding claims within 48 hours, all the employees will stage a protest strike.”60 The “dismissed colleague” referred to a worker who had been dismissed on 8 August for alleged underperformance. The “outstanding claims” referred to demands made by the union (vis-à-vis) issues such as wage increases, free food, annual leave, and severance pay.61 A month later, the union notified the company management that unless the claims were settled, the union would organise another strike for an indefinite period.62 During the 1950s and 1960s, the industrial scene in Singapore was fraught with turbulent labour relations, which led to frequent strikes. The number of trade unions saw a rise from 11 in 1946 to a peak of 281 in 1958 and grew in total union membership from 76,000 in 1948 to a peak of 194,904 in 1962.63 This increase in membership empowered the unions to use strikes as a means to fight for economic and political causes. In 1960, Tang’s employees were not the only ones who participated in a strike. There were 45 organised strikes throughout 1960, of which 62.2% were due to economic reasons.64 This was problematic for Tang and he decided to close the store and entered voluntary liquidation.65 This disallowed work for the employees who were willing to work but were unable to, due to the strike. It was only in the following year that Tang re-established his store. Tang considered the strikes to be a result of instigation undertaken with ulterior motives. He believed that the union general secretary T. V. Gomez and other organisers received pay rises and organised the strikes because that was their job. According to Tang, those who joined the union had to pay a few dollars monthly, yet the benefits were reaped only by the union officials.66 Tang’s sentiment coincided with a later claim by the Singapore Trades Union Congress (STUC) in December 1960. The STUC studied the dispute at Tang’s store and considered the union committee to have mismanaged the union and the strikes. The union had also been operating in a manner that was detrimental to the members. STUC secretary Sydney Woodhull urged employers not to work with the union, stating that, “the conduct of the union’s officials has created a situation of unnecessary hardship for the employees of C. K. Tang Ltd..” 67 In 1961, Tang opened a new firm under the name of “C. K. Tang (Singapore) Ltd.”. The firm recommenced business at Orchard Road on 15 March.68 Eventually, Tang decided to dismiss two of his employees who had physically damaged Tang’s store.69 Under the new agreement between the union and the company, the rest of the former employees were offered re-employment with terms such as a “higher pay and improved working conditions” and other employee benefits.70 As part of the new management, Tang’s eldest son, Tang Wee Cheng, was instated as a director and general manager.

Service at Tang’s store After the establishment of the new building at River Valley in 1940, Tang had hired about twenty employees. Despite this, Tang and his wife were involved in serving customers. Tang worked from 7 in the morning to 7 at night and stayed back after to work on the accounts. One of his employees, Ang Wah Hock, who was a supervisor with Tangs, commented in 1991 that Tang believed in “personalised service… [from] the moment they stepped into the shop, browsed around the three floors, until they left.”71 Tang’s store has had a consistent dedication to customer service over many years. In November 1986, Tang’s store won the prestigious Tourism Award for being the store of the year because of its good service. One month prior, in October 1986, one of the company’s salesgirls, Angeline Tan, had won the National Productivity Award for her “delightful service”.72 The store’s tradition of good service had developed over 54 years, from its establishment in 1932 to 1986. Tang’s second son, Tang Wee Sung, commented that the company believed in people, and in nurturing and training them. Hence, attention was given to developing high-quality service. With over 500 employees, it was difficult to ensure an acceptable standard of service consistent across the board. To do so, the store provided training not solely for its permanent staff, but also for its part-time and temporary promoters. The store also taught their staff about the products sold, believing that quality customer service goes beyond handing over goods in exchange for money. CK Tang also took the effort to walk around the store no less than once a day. This was so he could point out if anything went wrong or commend staff when they performed well. There was also no segregation between top management and frontline employees. All staff intermingled in the staff canteen and used the same toilets, as opposed to having executive toilets or special areas in the workspace.73

Conclusion In conclusion, the important components of Tang’s business were his philosophies of honesty and frugality which were weaved into his network and customer demographics as well as being able to offer product differentiation. Tang’s business was subject to the prevailing social, economic, and political circumstances of Singapore, but also had the agency to circumvent these issues. Tang was also spared from possible difficulties and inconveniences in numerous other ways. Firstly, Tang’s consumer base of the European community in Singapore was a significant factor in allowing his business to expand. When Tang came to Singapore, he picked up the Malay language and could communicate directly with his European customers. Unlike Tang’s competitors, he was honest with his customers which gained the trust of his customers. This word-of-mouth marketing contributed to Tang’s increase in customer base and his network of consumers. Additionally, since the Europeans had a fixed salary, economic events such as the Great Depression did not affect Tang’s business.

Furthermore, Tang developed a monopoly of the Swatow drawn work trade. Being one of the few Swatow drawn-work merchants in Singapore, he managed to gain many customers in just under nine years. This could be because of the constant flow of goods as Tang was able to stay in Singapore for longer than his competitors. In the absence of his competitors, when they had returned home to China, Tang was probably able to win their customers over. This also applied to the wider department store industry. While Robinsons and John Little were selling goods at high prices to capitalise on the store’s popularity, Tang could afford to sell his drawn work at reasonable prices. The goods sold by Robinsons and John Little and other stores at High Street were also different from the Chinese goods and hand-crafted works sold by Tang. Moreover, even though Tang was subject to the prevailing economic, social, and political circumstances faced by Singapore and China at that time, these events surprisingly did not have a strong impact on the company. During major events, such as the Great Depression, the Japanese Occupation, the Chinese Civil War, his kidnapping, and the strikes, Tang and his company remained safe and were able to operate on most occasions.

via

Syl

Lastly, Tang was a devout Christian and strongly held on to his philosophy of honesty. This was similar to the cultural values held by the founders of department stores Wing On and Sincere in Hong Kong. Honesty shaped their leadership and management styles, which subsequently influenced the developments of their networks. Similarly, Tang’s consistent practice of honesty was prevalent throughout his business decisions, especially towards his customers. This fortified the relationships he built with his customers because his customers knew that he was trustworthy and that the goods sold by Tang would be of value and quality. This was an important differentiator for Tang.

is a final year (yay!) student interested incultural history. She is also a squash-playing, Sherlock-binging, sashimi-eating human. She likes the occasional alliteration and when things rhyme, though it doesn’t happen all the time.

Endnotes 1 Tang, interview. 2 “A Tang Dynasty,” SBC. 3 “A Tang Dynasty,” SBC. 4 Teo, “Tin Trunk Man,” 2. 5 Choon Keng Tang, “Pioneers of Singapore 新加坡先驱人物 Interview with TANG Choon Keng,” interview by How Seng Lim, Oral History Centre, December 1, 1982, audio, 01:51:54, https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/oral_history_interviews/recorddetails/3da9abf8-115f-11e3-83d5-0050568939ad. 6 Tang, interview. 7 Tang, interview. 8 Helen Siu, Merchants’; Daughters: Women, Commerce, and Regional Culture in South China, (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2010), 117. 9 Gia Lim Tan, An Introduction To The Culture And History Of The Teochews In Singapore (Singapore: World Scientific, 2018), 145. 10 Tang, interview. 11 Lian Huay Teo, “The Tin Trunk Man,” The Straits Times, September 12, 1991, 2. 12 Tang, interview. 13 Tang, interview. 14 Mehmet Ozay, “A Brief Overview of Relations Between Malay Language and National Awareness,” 2011 International Conference on Social Science and Humanity 5, no.2 (2011): 473. 15 Tang, interview. 16 “Page 26 Advertisements Column 2,” Malayan Saturday Post, August 22, 1925, 26, http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/malayansatpost19250822-1.2.53.2, “The Fashionable Studio of the East”; “Page 7 Advertisements Column 5,” The Straits Times, September 8, 1925, 7, http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/ straitstimes19250908-1.2.24.5; “Crinoline Straw Hats, in white and colours… Feather and Flower Mounts”; “Page 7 Advertisements Column 3,” The Straits Times, July 8, 1925, 7, http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19250708-1.2.21.3; “New collection of hats and bags Paris July creations,” “Gowns, hats, etc. from London, Paris, Nice”. 17 “Flat burgled,” Malaya Tribune, March 28, 1934, 11, http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/maltribune19340328-1.2.75, “$17, in cash, and a pair of gold cuff links”; “Untitled,” The Straits Times, August 4, 1922, 8, http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19220804-1.2.42, “theft of a silver cigarette case, gold rings set with sapphires”; “Untitled,” The Straits Times, August 11, 1923, 8, http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19230811-1.2.30, “property… to the value of $525”; “Untitled,” The Straits Times, April 12, 1926, 8, http://eresources.nlb.gov. sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19260412-1.2.28, “Platinum ring, set with diamonds, valued at $430”. 18 Tang, interview. 19 Tang, interview. 20 Tang, interview. 21 Tang, interview. 22 Gregg Huff, “A Study of Lowest Levels of Living by Ethnic Group in Syonan Municipality: Price, Quantity and the Relative Importance of Daily Necessities, by Ethnic Group,” in World War II Singapore: The Chōsabu Reports on Syonan (Singapore: NUS Press, 2018), 489. 23 Tang, interview. 24 Kah Seng Loh, “Records and Voices of Social History: The Case of the Great Depression in Singapore,” Southeast Asian Studies 44, no. 1 (June 2006): 35. 25 Tang, interview. 26 Teo, “Tin Trunk Man,” 2. 27 Tang, interview. 28 Tang, interview. 29 Teo, “Tin Trunk Man,” 2. 30 Tang, interview. 31 Teo, “Tin Trunk Man,” 2. 32 Tang, interview. 33 Tan, Teochews In Singapore, 145. 34 “Little’s Building (sold for $28m) to be pulled down,” The Straits Times, April 22, 1973, 13, https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19730422-1.2.60. 35 Annabeth Leow, “John Little to close final outlet at Plaza Singapura: 174 years of history at a glance,” The Straits Times, November 7, 2016, https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/john-little-to-close-final-outlet-at- plaza-singapura-174-years-of-historyat-a-glance. 36 “Notice,” The Straits Times, February 20, 1858, 2, http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstim es18580220-1.2.3.4.1.2.84.1.2.3.4.

37 Mary Heathcott, “In The ‘New Family Warehouse’,” The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser, September 30, 1941, 7, https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/singfreepressb1941093038 “Rebirth of Robinson’s,” The Straits Times, June 3, 1983, 2, http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19830603-1.2.147.3.1. 39 “Robinsons To Occupy New Premises,” The Straits Times, May 20, 1940, 5, https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19400520-1.2.20.5. 40 Heathcott, “‘New Family Warehouse’,” 7. 41 Peter Rimmer and Howard Dick, The City in Southeast Asia: Patterns, Processes and Policy (Singapore: NUS Press, 2009), 165. 42 Heathcott, “‘New Family Warehouse’,” 7. 43 Tang, interview. 44 Tang, interview. 45 Ray Tyers, Ray Tyers’, Singapore: Then and now (Singapore: Landmark Books, 1993), 37. 46 Gregg Huff, “The Chōsabu Reports and the Occupation of Singapore,” in World War II Singapore: The Chōsabu Reports on Syonan (Singapore: NUS Press, 2018), 8. 47 Tang, interview. 48 Tang, interview. 49 Tang, interview. 50 Tang, interview. 51 Tang, interview. 52 Geoffrey Boland, “Enterprise with Name Famous the World Over,” The Singapore Free Press, October 20, 1958, 1, https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/freepress19581020-1.2.55.2. 53 Tang, interview. 54 Limin Hee, “Singapore’s Orchard Road as Conduit: Between Nostalgia and Authenticity,” Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review 17, no. 1 (Fall 2005): 53. 55 “C.K. Tang freed,” The Singapore Free Press, July 21, 1960, 3, https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/freepress19600721-1.2.46. 56 Maria Almenoar, “Sheng Siong kidnapping: Singapore was a hotbed of abductions in the 1950s and 1960s,” The Straits Times, January 10, 2014, https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/sheng-siong- kidnapping-singapore-was-a-hotbed-ofaductions-in-the-1950s-and. 57 “Holiday Now for Freed Mr. Tang,” The Straits Times, July 21, 1960, 16, https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/ Article/straitstimes19600721-1.2.132. 58 “A fresh threat by workers worsens row at curio shop,” The Straits Times, August 26, 1960, 5, https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19600826-1.2.61. 59 “‘Curio King’ Faces A Strike Threat at House of Tang,” The Straits Times, August 24, 1960, 5, https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/ newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19600824-1.2.54. 60 “How many DID strike at the House of Tang?” The Straits Times, August 25, 1960, 12, http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19600825-1.2.104. 61 “New strike threat to House of Tang,” The Straits Times, September 21, 1960, 7, https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers Digitised/Article/straitstimes19600921-1.2.45. 62 Michael Fernandez and Kah Seng Loh, “The Left-wing Trade Unions in Singapore, 1945-1970,” in Paths Not Taken Political Pluralism in Post-War Singapore, eds. Michael Barr and Carl Trocki (Singapore: NUS Press, 2008), 209. 63 Fernandez and Loh, “Trade Unions,” 213. 64 “Now ‘House of Tang’ decides to shut down,” The Straits Times, September 28, 1960, 1, https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19600928-1.2.6. 65 Tang, interview. 66 “C.K. Tang strike union acted to detriment of workers, says T.U.C.,” The Straits Times, December 7, 1960, 12, http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19601207-1.2.92. 67 “House of Tang to reopen again,” The Straits Times, March 7, 1961, 1, http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19610307-1.2.8. 68 Tang, interview. 69 “Tang to reopen,” 1. 70 Teo, “Tin Trunk Man,” 2. 71 Salma Khalik, “Good service helps Tangs’ win ‘store of year’ award,” The Straits Times, November 29, 1986, 19, https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19861129-1.2.25.38. 72 Khalik, “Good service,” 19; “A Tang Dynasty,” SBC. 73 Wellington Chan, “Personal Styles, Cultural Values and Management: The Sincere and Wing On Companies in Shanghai and Hong Kong, 1900-1941,” The Business History Review 70, no. 2 (Summer 1996): 159.

Bibliography “A fresh threat by workers worsens row at curio shop.” The Straits Times, August 26, 1960. https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19600826-1.2.61. Almenoar, Maria. “Sheng Siong kidnapping: Singapore was a hotbed of abductions in the 1950s and 1960s.” The Straits Times, January 10, 2014. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/sheng-siong-kidnapping- singapore-was-a-hotbed-of-abductions-in-the-1950s-and. Boland, Geoffrey. “Enterprise with Name Famous the World Over.” The Singapore Free Press, October 20, 1958. https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/freepress19581020-1.2.55.2. Chan, Wellington. “Personal Styles, Cultural Values and Management: The Sincere and Wing On Companies in Shanghai and Hong Kong, 1900-1941.” The Business History Review 70, no. 2 (Summer 1996): 141-166. “C.K. Tang freed.” The Singapore Free Press, July 21, 1960. https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/freepress19600721-1.2.46. “C.K. Tang strike union acted to detriment of workers, says T.U.C..” The Straits Times,December 7, 1960. http://eresources.nlb. gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19601207-1.2.92. “‘Curio King’; Faces A Strike Threat at House of Tang.” The Straits Times, August 24, 1960. https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19600824-1.2.54. Fernandez, Michael, and Kah Seng Loh. “The Left-wing Trade Unions in Singapore, 1945-1970.” In Paths Not Taken Political Pluralism in Post-War Singapore, edited by Michael Barr and Carl Trocki, 206-27. Singapore: NUS Press, 2008. “Flat burgled.” Malaya Tribune, March 28, 1934. http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/maltribune19340328-1.2.75. Heathcott, Mary. “In The ‘New Family Warehouse’.” The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser, September 30, 1941. https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/singfreepressb19410930-1.2.84. Hee, Limin. “Singapore’s Orchard Road as Conduit: Between Nostalgia and Authenticity.” Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review 17, no. 1 (Fall 2005): 51-63. “Holiday Now for Freed Mr. Tang.” The Straits Times, July 21, 1960. https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/ straitstimes19600721-1.2.132. “House of Tang to reopen again.” The Straits Times, March 7, 1961. http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/ straitstimes19610307-1.2.8. “How many DID strike at the House of Tang?” The Straits Times, August 25, 1960. http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19600825-1.2.104. Huff, Gregg. “A Study of Lowest Levels of Living by Ethnic Group in Syonan Municipality: Price, Quantity and the Relative Importance of Daily Necessities, by Ethnic Group.” In World War II Singapore: The Chōsabu Reports on Syonan. Singapore: NUS Press, 2018. Huff, Gregg. “The Chōsabu Reports and the Occupation of Singapore.” In World War II Singapore: The Chōsabu Reports on Syonan. Singapore: NUS Press, 2018. Khalik, Salma. “Good service helps Tangs’ win ‘store of year’ award.” The Straits Times, November 29, 1986. https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19861129- 1.2.25.38. Leow, Annabeth. “John Little to close final outlet at Plaza Singapura: 174 years of history at a glance.” The Straits Times, November 7, 2016. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/john-little-to-close-final-outlet-at-plaza- singapura-174-years-of-history-at-aglance. “Little’s Building (sold for $28m) to be pulled down.” The Straits Times, April 22, 1973. https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/ Digitised/Article/straitstimes19730422- 1.2.60. Loh, Kah Seng. “Records and Voices of Social History: The Case of the Great Depression in Singapore.” Southeast Asian Studies 44, no. 1 (June 2006): 31-54.

“New strike threat to House of Tang.” The Straits Times, September 21, 1960. https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/ Article/straitstimes19600921-1.2.45. “Notice.” The Straits Times, February 20, 1858. http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes18580220-1.2.3.4. “Now ‘House of Tang’; decides to shut down.” The Straits Times, September 28, 1960. https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/ Digitised/Article/straitstimes19600928-1.2.6. Ozay, Mehmet. “A Brief Overview of Relations Between Malay Language and National Awareness.” 2011 International Conference on Social Science and Humanity 5, no.2 (2011): 473-477. “Page 7 Advertisements Column 3.” The Straits Times, July 8, 1925. http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/ straitstimes19250708-1.2.21.3. “Page 7 Advertisements Column 5.” The Straits Times, September 8, 1925. http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised Article/straitstimes19250908-1.2.24.5. “Page 26 Advertisements Column 2.” Malayan Saturday Post, August 22, 1925. http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/malayansatpost19250822-1.2.53.2. “Rebirth of Robinson’s.” The Straits Times, June 3, 1983. http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/stratimes19830603-1.2.147.3.1. Rimmer, Peter, and Howard Dick. The City in Southeast Asia: Patterns, Processes and Policy. Singapore: NUS Press, 2009. “Robinsons To Occupy New Premises.” The Straits Times, May 20, 1940. https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Artcle/straitstimes19400520-1.2.20.5. Singapore Broadcasting Corporation. 星期二特写 Tuesday Report: Paris Rendezvous, “Singapore’s Business Legends: Part 1 - A Tang Dynasty.” Aired May 25, 1993, on Television Corporation of Singapore. https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/audiovisual_records/record-details/9a1a1a7c-964b-11e4-859c-0050568939ad. Siu, Helen. Merchants’ Daughters: Women, Commerce, and Regional Culture in South China. (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2010) Tang, Choon Keng. “Pioneers of Singapore 新加坡先驱人物 Interview with TANG Choon Keng.” Interview by How Seng Lim. Oral History Centre, December 1, 1982. Audio, 01:51:54. https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/oral_history_interviews/record-details/3da9abf8-115f-11e3-83d5-0050568939ad. Tan, Gia Lim. An Introduction To The Culture And History Of The Teochews In Singapore. (Singapore: World Scientific, 2018) Teo, Lian Huay. “The Tin Trunk Man.” The Straits Times, September 12, 1991. Tyers, Ray. Ray Tyers’ Singapore: Then and now. (Singapore: Landmark Books, 1993). “Untitled.” The Straits Times, August 4, 1922. http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19220804-1.2.42. “Untitled.” The Straits Times, August 11, 1923. http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19230811-1.2.30. “Untitled.” The Straits Times, April 12, 1926. http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19260412-1.2.28.

Catching Up With Our Alumni: Fidelithy Tan

Introduction Fidellithy Tan graduated in 2021 from our History program and also the brain behind the History of Colonisation podcast. We interviewed her on how she got started on the podcast, how she balances producing content and school life, and her aspirations for the podcast Fidellithy is the host of the History of Colonisation podcast, a podcast that focuses on a global history of colonisation in chronological order. Recently, she released the 17th episode of her podcast, all of which was produced within less than two years and it is still going strong. A few months back, it even topped the charts in the “History” category (Singapore) on Apple Podcasts. But she is also one of us: a history student who went for overseas exchange during pre-Covid times, fought the STARS Wars every semester and did her FYP on a topic she’s passionate about—child guardianship and sexuality in colonial India. So what persuaded her, of all things she could have done, to start a podcast on colonisation? Not least of all when she was an undergrad? This is her story.

THE PODCAST “When I went to the Netherlands for exchange, visiting the museums there made me interested in colonisation, but not so much the lives of European white men.”

Fidellithy shared with us that her exchange at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam, Netherlands, was a sobering experience. When she visited the museums there, she was interested in colonisation beyond the stories of already-famous individuals; she wanted to explore how colonisation transformed trade flows, different perspectives from colonized societies, and how one would go about presenting a narrative that defamiliarises the commonly repeated narratives of colonisation— the all too well-known Eurocentric view of colonisation. When she returned to NTU from her exchange, Fidellithy said that taking Professor Jessica Hinchy’s and Professor Tapsi Mathur’s courses on decolonisation were “influential” in broadening her interest and shaping her views on colonisation. So, with this breadth of knowledge and passion for the history of colonisation, guess what she did next? She picked up the microphone and started recording.

“Circuit Breaker really motivated me to get started.” When Covid-19 hit Singapore, the two-month Circuit Breaker was crucial in helping her to launch the History of Colonisation podcast. She buckled down to plan her episodes, write her scripts, and do her recordings—all without any experience in audio-editing, professional equipment or even a makeshift studio. For those interested in starting podcasts, she shared with us her “workflow”: she usually spends two afternoons writing her script and doing the recording for each episode. When she anticipates that the school term would be hectic, she records more episodes in advance during her summer break to ensure that her viewers get to enjoy new content regularly. If that sounds like hard work, you’re right. But why did she choose a podcast, of all mediums, to share her knowledge of colonisation? After all, history students are trained in writing essays and are exposed to creating websites, so wouldn’t those options appear more viable and familiar for content-sharing purposes? A podcast, Fidellithy said, is something which she has “wanted to do for a long time”, as it is, unlike essays, a different way of learning. Podcasts are audio content much akin to Audible in which viewers can readily and conveniently consume when they are commuting, running errands, or even taking a break from schoolwork, which usually involves reading more essays. One can certainly rest their eyes from staring at screens while still learning something new when listening to podcasts. In addition, Fidellithy shared that a podcast allows her to conduct interviews with like-minded scholars, to learn from people whom she may not have otherwise met on other platforms. Though, to invite people as guests on her podcast, she also needed a twitter account to promote it and connect with professors in the Twitter academic world. Talk about learning social media management for aspiring academics in the digital age!

“The podcast was never solely meant for Singaporeans; it was for a global audience.” On listenership, Fidellithy shared that the podcast is intended for everyone, for any time and place. A podcast is easy to listen to, and we mean this in two ways: First, the content is made more accessible for scholars and a general audience, and second, people can listen to it when they are clocking their step count or even when doing their laundry.

THE FUTURE It’s also incredible that in just one year, the HOC podcast has achieved a global reach— its listeners now come from the United States, Europe, and Singapore. With her podcast gaining traction, moving forward, we asked her what some of her goals for her podcast are. One of her goals is to “decolonise institutions” around the world, and she would do this by presenting the perspectives of those in previously colonised societies as opposed to those of Europe. However, she admits that up till today it is a challenge to distinguish the perspectives and ideas of the colonised and from the coloniser. Trying to do that, coupled with finding secondary literature on decolonisation studies, a relatively recent phenomenon, makes research challenging for undergrads who are interested in venturing into this field. Another goal that she has is to “reach out to different disciplines and integrate them into her podcast.” For example, in her recent episodes, she interviewed graphic novelist Paul Guinan on the portrayal of the Aztec-Spanish War and on a separate occasion, spoke to Singapore Literature Prize Winner Dr Pitchay who writes about Malay literature in postcolonial Malaya. Indeed, the interdisciplinary nature of her podcast is interesting, and as she is furthering her studies, we believe much is in store for her viewers in the future.

We thank Fidellithy for her time and we wish her the best for her future endeavours.

Dollar fo The India Money C commu Singa

or dollar: an Muslim Changer unity in apore

Early Money Changers in Singapore South Asian migrants in early Singapore history were commonly associated with menial and convict labour who built roads or worked on plantations. Lesser known were the Indian Muslim trading communities who were an essential part of the colony’s financial ecosystem. They can be broadly split into Northern and Southern communities. North Indian Muslims such as the Dawoodi Bohras hailed from states such as Gujarat and these traders were very active in the import and export of spices and other commodities.1 South Indian Muslims such as the Tamil Muslim Chulias were prominent players in textiles, tin and other commodities in the south Indian region. Many others also set up shops selling groceries, textiles, and food items.2 In finance, the Indian Muslim community cornered the market on currency exchange, setting up a complementary niche to the Hindu Chettiar community who dominated moneylending. The Chettiars were moneylenders by profession, a craft they mastered and perfected back home in India. Because moneylenders charged interest for their loans, which was prohibited by the Islamic faith, few Muslims embarked on the moneylending business. However, currency exchange did not flout the proscription on interest since money changers only profited off the difference in their quoted buy and sell prices. There were a couple of factors that prompted Indian Muslims to enter the money exchange business in the earlier days. One of the main factors was flexibility of time that the trade afforded. Money changing was not the only business with such an advantage; food and small-scale retail also allowed such autonomy. In these businesses, they had the flexibility to earn money as well as to follow their faith, as timings were largely in their control. This flexibility also meant that they could adhere to their five daily prayer timings more strictly. Moreover, operating as an independent small business afforded them the freedom to go on long visits to family back home in India, for three to six months at a time, during which someone else they trusted managed the business on their behalf.3 Early money changers were often seen in their iconic suits with jackets. These jackets had plenty of pockets, which money changers used to organise the various currencies that they carried. These money changers would typically conduct their business in and around Change Alley, the lane of shops connecting Raffles place to Clifford pier. Business from incoming ships at Clifford Pier and other locations was also crucial to their trade. Traders who came in with large quantities of goods sold them in Straits dollars but wanted to leave with the money in their home currency, or that of their next port of call. When dealing with ships with large numbers of passengers such as naval vessels, a group of money changers would often pool their resources and set a fixed rate at which passengers/seamen could obtain the local currency before disembarking the vessel.4 Through this, they could conduct transactions at scales which they were not able to achieve individually.

Another factor for the continued success of the Indian Muslims in this trade was their trustworthy reputation. The community had built up a business network of money changers that cemented this perception in the local consciousness.5 As the business expanded, money changers could be found in other parts of the city centre, such as Market Street, Chulia Street and Tanjong Pagar.6 However, being a mobile money changer did come with risks, as these men were prime targets for robbers due to the high amounts of cash that they were carrying.7 The era of the mobile money changer finally came to a close when the Singapore government began regulating the industry through legislation in 1979. The first legal act was promulgated in 1979, requiring money changers to pay an annual license fee to the government. This meant that money changers needed to have a fixed shopfront that they had to pay rent for. This measure led to higher overhead costs associated with accounting and compliance as money changer businesses were now directly regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) as financial institutions.

The rise of Asian economies The growth of the money changing industry in Singapore, after regulations were implemented ,was directly linked to the rise in inbound and outbound tourism, as well as greater business connections with ASEAN, India and China. Beginning in the 1980s and the 1990s, the per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, China, and India experienced accelerated growth (see charts below). The ASEAN countries, however, faced a major economic downturn for a few years in the late 1990s due to the Asian Financial crisis. This rise in GDP was spurred by the transfer of low-cost manufacturing facilities and outsourcing of services from developed countries, alongside the development of the domestic economy. The accelerated economic growth in these large Asian economies coincided with the slowing down of growth in Western economies. This resulted in the rise of an increasingly affluent middle class in Asia. With the rise in education and employment opportunities for women in these countries, dual income families became more common. These middle-class families were concentrated in and around major cities of China, India, and ASEAN where the manufacturing and services facilities were growing. As these cities prospered, rural-urban migration spiked, giving rise to a boom in urbanisation in these countries. The immediate impacts were increased consumption, and higher disposable income. After family necessities like food, clothing, shelter, education, and healthcare were met, the Asian families started spending their disposable incomes on vacation, among other things. This gave rise to an increase in travel and tourism in Asia.8

Above: China’s GDP per capita. Coinciding with this development was the rise of budget airlines from 2001 onwards in the region that catered to travellers with limited spending power on air travel. It should be noted here that prior to these developments, air travel and overseas vacations were almost exclusive to the rich and senior business executives. Cheaper tickets changed this status quo, and Singapore stood to benefit given its proximity to major cities in Southeast Asia (two to three hours by flight), as well as cities in India and China (four to seven hours by flight). These cities were home to Asia’s new middle class, and their travel budget and flight distance to Singapore matched the target segment budget air travel was designed for. The impact of this phenomenon was seen in the growth of visitor arrivals to Singapore from China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia and the rest of ASEAN. Visitors from these parts of Asia swelled from the 1990s onwards to hundreds of thousands per month. This sharply contrasts with those from the developed countries in the West. The United States and United Kingdom contributed only about 40,000 visitors per month each, and only in recent years have touched 50,000 visitors per month. Even over a 15-year period, visitor arrivals from Europe have only doubled from about 90,000 to nearly 180,000 per month. In the corresponding period, visitor arrivals from ASEAN have tripled from about 200,000 to about 600,000 per month. Over the same period visitor arrivals from China grew 6 to 7 times from 50,000 to 300,000-350,000 per month and those from India grew from 25,000 per month to 125,000150,000 per month, exceeding 175,000 at times. Between 1990 and 2010, Singapore’s per capita GDP also grew from around $10000 to around $50000 and stands at well over $60000 today. As a result, Singaporeans began travelling in greater numbers and at greater frequencies. According to Singapore government statistics, outward departure numbers of Singapore residents have grown from around 3.6 million in 1997 to over 10.3 million in 2018.9

This rise in travel and tourism meant more trips to the local money changer, both before and after vacations. Money changers in Singapore have been able to grow their business over the decades, both due to the growth in tourist numbers in Singapore, but most importantly, due to the rise in overseas travel by Singapore consumers. Mr Zahanguire highlighted the growth of medical tourism in Singapore and the arrival of gold buyers from India that contributed to growth high value money exchange transactions.10

90s, Asian Financial crisis and 9/11 This period of growth was punctuated by numerous challenges. The rise of cable television news channels and teletext meant that for the first time, customers were able to see latest currency exchange rates without depending on the money changer.11 Now that customers were increasingly aware of the market rates before arriving at the shops to perform their transaction, money changers were forced to offer more competitive rates. This democratisation of information meant that profit margins were much tighter than before. The Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998 was significant in its impact on the businesses. Regional currencies like the Thai baht, Malaysian ringgit and the Indonesian rupiah saw dramatic falls in their value as hedge fund investors bet heavily against these currencies in financial markets. The collapse of regional currencies that were frequently transacted in Singapore meant that the business of money exchange was much more uncertain at that time. Amongst those interviewed, opinion was divided on the impact of the crisis on money changers. Mr Rafi of Yakadir Money Exchange remarked that “it was indeed a very tough time for the business, there were definitely those who struggled and lost money in this period”.12 However, Mr Seyadou Zahanguire, the former President of the Money Changers Association said that most businesses were able to weather the storm by minimising their risk and holding onto more stable currencies. Some businessmen even managed to profit greatly by making the right trades.13 The fall of the Malaysian ringgit made travel to Malaysia much cheaper, which greatly boosted domestic tourism and one-day shopping trips to Malaysia. Money changers greatly benefited from this rise in Singaporeans travelling across the causeway, and till this day, the ringgit is still one of the largest currencies they deal with in terms of volume.14 A rise in the threat of terrorism around the world following the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States of America, coupled with terrorist threats from regional groups such as Jemaah Islamiyah sparked a new wave of regulatory and anti-money laundering measures that money changers had to comply with. These measures sought to deter transactions from militant groups, as well as criminals that were involved in the drugs and weapons trades.

Sars and the 2000s In the early 2000s, the world witnessed Singapore’s rise as one of the top hubs for Foreign exchange (Forex) trading and other financial activities. Currently, Singapore is ranked in 3rd place, right behind New York City and London for Forex trading.15 By virtue of emerging as the pre-eminent financial hub in the region, Singapore was able to offer the most competitive exchange rates for traders. Mr Zahanguire mentioned that Thai, Malaysian and Indonesian businessmen involved in money exchange and remittance made regular trips to Singapore with bags of cash on hand (which are declared at customs) for high-value transactions.16 Various immigrant hubs emerged on the island in older shopping complexes such as Lucky Plaza which came to be dominated by Filipino businesses, and Golden Mile shopping centre, which is dominated by stores serving the Thai community. Money changers located in and around these shopping malls were thus able to provide the best rates for specific currencies (like Thai baht at Golden Mile Complex in Beach Road) due to the volumes that they handled. These businesses would often be contacted by other money changers who were in short supply of currencies like the Thai baht or the Philippine peso to conduct bulk business-to-business transactions.17 The outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2003 was one of the toughest times for the local money exchange business. This outbreak saw sharp drops in inbound and outbound tourism in Singapore. There was also a considerable fall in business activity during this time, which led to a sharp drop in demand for currency exchange services.18 Most money changers I spoke to were rather reticent about events in this time period, briefly mentioning that the travel restrictions made it one of the toughest times for their business. The consensus was that this collapse in demand for their services proved more challenging than any financial crisis or stock market bubble burst they had ever witnessed. 2003 also saw a major milestone for the money exchange industry due to the formation of the Money Changers Association of Singapore.19 This association was founded to develop closer links between the industry and its regulatory authorities. The association also conducts frequent training programmes to help money changers keep up with the various regulatory and compliance standards set by the authorities.20 Some money changers have even gotten certified as compliance officers, due to a regulation that demands at least one member of staff be a qualified compliance officer. This requires them to undergo a yearlong course that grants them a diploma in anti-money laundering.21

Legal and regulatory changes The synergy between money-changers and their regulators signified by the formation of the Money Changers Association of Singapore promoted transparency and probity in the business. The money-changing and remittance business act originally enacted in 1979 has governed the industry over the last 40 years. This act determines that money changers are only to carry out their business with a valid license that must be renewed annually. Money changers are also not allowed to make transactions outside of their permanent address of business. To be a licensed money changer, one needs to have a company with minimum $100,000 in capital. Records of transactions, accounts and registers are to be kept in the English language. The company must have records dating back to minimum five years for the authorities to access. Auditors must be appointed at the company’s expense annually, with reports submitted at a timely manner. The post-9/11 tightening of regulations meant more compliance work for local businesses in order to prevent any form of money laundering or counterfeiting. Interviewees I spoke to were very much in support of these regulations in spite of the higher costs incurred. They have come to embrace their role as the first line of defence against organised crime, and as a result have maintained a clean reputation for their businesses and the wider industry as a whole. Money Changing firms must comply by chapter 65A of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Serious Crimes Act. There is now a greater emphasis on ‘know your customer’ procedures that have to be conducted to screen customers. Customer due diligence needs to be performed for transactions above $3000.22 Cross border wire transfers above SGD 1000 must have accurate originator and beneficiary information.23 If the money changer suspects that some transactions may be suspicious, they must file a report to the Singapore Police Force’s Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office (STRO). Counterfeiting is another operational risk the business must deal with in a vigilant manner. Money changers are legally obliged to purchase a machine to detect counterfeits, which alone costs a hefty $5000.24

Challenges for the future The money changing industry in Singapore has evolved from the early days of limited regulation to an established, well-regulated business in Singapore. The business has come a long way in recent decades, and with the industry’s growth, there are now over 400 licensed money changers in Singapore. This business has benefitted from the economic growth of Singapore, neighbouring ASEAN countries, as well as the economic rise of China and India. However, the future of the industry looks more challenging. The global shift towards digital transactions means that money exchange businesses could be rendered irrelevant by the very feature that makes their businesses iconic – currency notes. Various financial technology (fintech) firms such as Revolut and Thin Margin are proving to be direct competitors to the average shopping mall money changer.25 Banks are also offering multi-currency accounts that allow travellers to make payments on credit or other payment platforms. Previously, tourists would obtain local currencies from money changers by bringing in a combination of traveller’s cheques and cash. Nowadays, tourists are more likely to use digital payment platforms, including mobile ones. Incoming tourists from China are using apps like Alipay and WeChat, while Indian tourists have the privilege of using RuPay payment cards island wide.

n a a r P

is a Year 4 est in South history. He quizzes, dis and listenin

Every new technological development has pushed money changers more towards the status of price takers. To stay competitive, they have had to reduce their profit margins further and further. These businesses are also family-run operations that do not employ on a large scale, which means that they do not have the same collective lobbying power as large multinational firms in aerospace or manufacturing, for example. The government has also impacted higher operational complexity through its regulatory authority. Individual money changing firms have to take on the responsibility of being the first line of defence against money laundering and counterfeiting, which adds a significant compliance cost. Further regulatory changes are expected under the Payment Services Act, which are likely to take effect in January 2020, will replace the money-changing and remittance businesses act.26 The end result is that these companies are severely impacted by minor exchange rate volatility and regulatory changes. “External factors that were not seen as difficulties in the past are now seen as challenging circumstances because our profit margins are much lower”, said Mr Zahanguire of Regent money changers.27 Nevertheless, Mr Rafeeq, the former secretary of the Money Changers Association remains optimistic, emphasising the fact that previous generations have helped the money-exchanging business to adapt to technological challenges. “My father’s time, we had calculators. My time, we had computers, and for my son there will be something different. You could have more online trading, cryptocurrency trading or something else. …We are still learning to compete with others in terms of technology, and how to improve the service.”28

History student with a keen interh Asian history and business spends his free time doing trivia scovering new vegetarian eateries, ng to cricket matches on the radio.

Endnotes 1 Jayati Bhattacharya, Beyond the Myth: Indian Business Communities in Singapore (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2011), 44-45 2 Bhattacharya, 59-60. 3 Raj Mohamed and Kalai, Interview by the author, November 21, 2019 4 Mohamed Rafeeq, Inteview by the author, November 8, 2019; முஹம்மது ஃபைரோஸ், “நாணய மாற்றல் நாணயம்.” தமிழ் முரசு May 31, 2015 5 Mohamed Rafeeq, Inteview by the author, November 8, 2019 6 Bhattacharya, 60. 7 Mohamed Rafeeq, Inteview by the author, November 8, 2019 8 Viktor Shvets, Karim P. Salamation. APAC: Consumption S curve New York: Credit Suisse, 2012. Accessed November 11, 2019. https://research-doc.credit-suisse.com/docView?language=ENG&amp;source=emfromsendlink&amp;format=PDF&amp;document_id=992377261&amp;extdocid=992377261_1_eng_pdf&amp;serialid=zkS1LBxDC2CjyoPwzyJma33g%2bxcLBYfTaGxfcfnwJwo%3d 9 “Table: GDP Per Capita of Singapore,” Singapore Department Of Statistics. Accessed November 22, 2019. https://www.tablebuilder.singstat.gov.sg/publicfacing/pivotDataTable.action. 10 Seyadou Zahanguire, Interview by the author, November 26, 2019 11 Seyadou Zahanguire, Interview by the author, November 26, 2019 12 Mr Rafi, Interview by the author, November 22, 2019 13 Seyadou Zahanguire, Interview by the author, November 26, 2019 14 Seyadou Zahanguire, Interview by the author, November 26, 2019 15 Sue-Ann Tan, “Singapore is third-largest forex centre globally and tops in Asia: Survey,” The Straits Times 17 th September 2019. 16 Seyadou Zahanguire, Interview by the author, November 26, 2019 17 Seyadou Zahanguire, Interview by the author, November 26, 2019 18 Seyadou Zahanguire, Interview by the author, November 26, 2019 19 “நாணய மாற்று வணிகர் சங்கம்: ஜஹாங்கிர் தலைமையில் செயலவை”, தமிழ் முரசு 1 st September 2003 20 “About Us: MCA.” Money Exchangers Association (Singapore). Accessed November 14, 2019. https://www.mca.sg/association/. 21 Mohamed Rafeeq, Inteview by the author, November 8, 2019 22 ‘Anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing measures - Singapore. Fourth Round Mutual Evaluation Report’ Sydney: Financial Action Task Force and Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering , 2016. Page 149. 23 FATF and APG, 158. 24 Mr Rafi, Interview by the author, November 22, 2019 25 “Transfer Money Abroad with the Interbank Exchange Rate.” Revolut. Accessed November 23, 2019. www.revolut.com/en-SG/transfer-money-abroad-with-the-interbank-exchange-rate; “Frequently Asked Questions.” Frequently Asked Questions. Accessed November 24, 2019. www.thinmargin.com/faqs. 26 Frequently Asked Questions on the Payment Services Act. Singapore, Monetary Authority of Singapore, 2019. https://www.mas.gov.sg/-/media/MAS/FAQ/Payment-Services-Act-FAQ-4-October-2019.pdf 27 Seyadou Zahanguire, Interview by the author, November 26, 2019 28 Mohamed Rafeeq, Inteview by the author, November 8, 2019

Bibliography Bhattacharya, Jayati. Beyond the Myth : Indian Business Communities in Singapore (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2011) Frequently Asked Questions on the Payment Services Act. Singapore, Monetary Authority of Singapore, 2019. https://www.mas. gov.sg/-/media/MAS/FAQ/Payment-Services-Act-FAQ-4-October-2019.pdf “Frequently Asked Questions.” Frequently Asked Questions. Accessed November 24, 2019. www.thinmargin.com/faqs “Transfer Money Abroad with the Interbank Exchange Rate.” Revolut. Accessed November 23, 2019. www.revolut.com/en-SG/ transfer-money-abroad-with-the-interbank-exchange-rate. "Anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing measures - Singapore. Fourth Round Mutual Evaluation Report" Sydney: Financial Action Task Force and Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering , 2016. Viktor Shvets, Karim P. Salamation. APAC: Consumption S curve New York: Credit Suisse, 2012. Accessed November 11, 2019. https://research-doc.credit-suisse.com/docView?language=ENG&source=emfromsendlink&format=PDF&document_ id=992377261&extdocid=992377261_1_eng_pdf&serialid=zkS1LBxDC2CjyoPwzyJma33g%2bxcLBYfTaGxfcfnwJwo%3dSeyadou Zahanguire, Interview by the author, November 26, 2019. “About Us: MCA.” Money Exchangers Association (Singapore). Accessed November 14, 2019. https://www.mca.sg/association/. Sue-Ann Tan, “Singapore is third-largest forex centre globally and tops in Asia: Survey” The Straits Times 17th September 2019. “நாணய மாற்று வணிகர் சங்கம்: ஜஹாங்கிர் தலைமையில் செயலவை”, தமிழ் முரசு 1st September 2003 முஹம்மது ஃபைரோஸ், “நாணய மாற்றல் நாணயம்.” தமிழ் முரசு May 31, 2015.

RESEARCHING THE HIJRA COMMUNITY AN INTERVIEW WITH

JESSICA HINCHY

INTRODUCTION Professor Jessica Hinchy specialises in gender, sexuality and colonialism in Colonial South Asia. She has recently published a book “Governing Gender and Sexuality in Colonial India” which explores the history of the Hijra community in the 19th century South Asia. Here we have an interview about the research process when writing the book.

INTERVIEW How did you arrive at the topic of your book on governing gender and sexuality in colonial India? It started with me reading secondary sources, I was reading about the history of law and sexuality in modern India. At the time when I was starting my PhD research. In India there were a series of LGBT movements that were challenging the criminalization of homosexuality, under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 377 might sound familiar because of Section 377A here, but it is a bit different in India. Nonetheless, it still came out of a similar context of the colonial regulation of sexuality. So that is what I was reading about, on colonialism, sexuality, and the law. I kept reading in both the scholarly literature and activist discussions references to the 1871 Criminal Tribes Act. This was something I was vaguely aware of, but I did not realise that the second part of that law targeted people who were labelled by the British as “eunuchs” in particular the Hijra community, who are often termed “transgender” today. However, that is sort of an anachronistic term for the 19th century. Hijras were often assigned male at birth but had a feminine identity, a social role as performers and were collectors of donations at times of births and other festive occasions. They lived in discipleship-based households and were particularly targeted under colonial law and I was seeing references to that in the context of the legal challenge to Section 377. Though this law (the 1871 CTA) isn’t on the books anymore, activists were trying to demonstrate that it was part of this broader context of colonial regulation of sexuality and gender expression. So, this piqued my interest and I then read literature on the 1871 Criminal Tribes Act. Most of the literature focused on the criminal tribes which were socially marginalised groups who were labelled “hereditary criminals” by the British. However, nobody had looked at the criminalization of the Hijra community under the same law. Much of the literature on queer history in India had focused on same sex desire rather than gender expression or the Hijra community more specifically. So, there was a clear gap; there were people talking around this history, but there hadn’t been much research on it. Which led me to Delhi and its National Archives. I found a few files though not many, but that gave me a sense that there might be some sources in London and in other parts of India, which is how I arrived at the topic of my book.

Regarding your sources, did you face any difficulties such as understanding different languages? One of the challenges in researching, particularly British colonial law, is that most of the materials that survive are in English. Often, officials and archivists just wouldn’t keep the records in Hindi or other languages. So, for the book, all of the official documents in the state archives, were all in English. Other sources Hijra’s criminalisation and the Criminal Tribes Act were also all in English, though I did use non-English sources, especially Urdu and Hindi newspapers. However, for that period, one of the main sources for these newspapers came from the British colonial surveillance of them. (I was working on the 1860s and the 1870s.) Which raises the frustration, that it is mainly the English language stuff that survived. Nonetheless for historians of late 19th century South Asia we also look at other forms of print culture such as pamphlets, novels, short stories and even chapbooks, which were cheaply produced books. These print media provide another picture of society, albeit a largely elite Indian picture, particularly from people who were educated and increasingly identified as middle class, who were participating in these print media. So often, it is a matter of what kind of questions sources produce and reveal. Did you have an audience in mind when writing the book? Yes, I did. Although I wish I had thought about that more clearly, earlier in the process. It would obviously have an audience in South Asian history, but I also hoped that it would have a broader audience. This is a subject matter that is of interest to LGBT activists in India and also to some degree for activists who work in criminal law, prisons, spaces of detention and so on, because this is a history of colonial criminal law and the criminalization of people. I hoped that these activists would be able to make use of the book in a meaningful way, whether to make their arguments or be used as a form of evidence for the right to gender self-determination. I was also hoping that people beyond South Asia would find it interesting, particularly trans communities and LGBT activists, but also people who are interested in colonialism and gender history. However, there is difficulty in striking a balance between the need to demonstrate the wider conceptual, or historiographical significance of what you’re writing and writing for a general audience. Unfortunately, writing for a scholarly audience can sometimes make it less interesting to anybody else. I wrote this as a scholarly book so that already constrains its audience. However, I think for most books they have multiple audiences, and you can only ever speak to a few of those audiences.

Above: A group of Hijra entertainers circa 1865 Were there gaps that you identified when writing the book that you weren’t able to answer or get to? Yes, there were a lot of questions. There were many questions that I could not answer. My book looks at the period from 1850 to about 1910. This was a period for which there were many archival materials because of the intensified state surveillance of the Hijra community. However, the criminalisation of Hijras under the CTA only occurred in northern India between the 1850s and 1900s, and was somewhat unusual compared to other periods and even other parts of South Asia. So that raises a lot of questions. When I tried to look for secondary sources on the late 18th century and prior to the mid-19th century, I realised that our understanding of the history of the Hijra community is patchy. So, there is a lot of work to be done, but of course there may be challenges with researching other periods, such as fragmentary sources. Would you say that, in a way, the Hijra community was preserved because of British surveillance? In a way it did preserve information about this community, but I think a better question that then arises is, what is the history of that archive? Think of the archive as something that has its own history, rather than just the basis for telling history. You can historicise an archive, but also, think about the ways that hundreds of lives were narrated, and then archived. We also need to understand the history of colonial knowledge production that shapes the production of archives and its data. For me, the approach to archives about the Hijra community was to think about the archive itself, as the actual object of my historical analysis. So for example colonial archives are treated like cultural artefacts.

Above: A Hijra and companions in Eastern Bengal circa 1860s

Do you think that there are also other communities that deserves more representation as well? Yeah, but I also think it’s not just about representation because there are also questions about how we represent marginalised people. There are a whole set of factors such as national origin, race, gender, sexuality, class, and many others. For historians there is a certain amount of cultural power that comes in choosing how marginalised people are to be represented. That is an uncomfortable fact but we need to grapple with the power of the historian to represent. But to really answer your question, despite 40 to 50 years of South Asian subaltern studies and history from below there is still a lot to be written. So, it is a matter of what archival materials or resources you have and how you can make sense of them. Right now, there is a vibrant scholarship in history and in other disciplines, unpacking the history of caste and identity. It’s not just an issue of representation for marginalised groups, but of changing the power dynamics of history-writing.

Conclusion So, is there is still a future for historians? That depends on how you define historian. Yes of course people will always tell their histories or other people’s histories and there is always an interest in the past. But in talking about the discipline of history, I do not have the answer to that question. Becoming a historian, in a scholarly sense or within an academic setting is challenging, because you have to go through many years of study and then apply for a job in academia or a heritage institution or museum, but those jobs are hard to come and are hard to come by, because they are simply not many jobs. So that can make it seem like there is not a future for history, which is maybe where that question is coming from. However, history is told and analysed in many spaces. It is impossible to overstate the importance of history education. Being a part of making school history curriculum creative and critical is so important. School history teachers are certainly historians. Moreover, there is always a public interest in history which I think provides a rationale, for the discipline. It is not the only rationale or even the most important of all the rationales, but I think because of that, history is here to stay. If you are interested in knowing more about the history of Gender or South Asia. Professor Jessica Hinchy is teaching HH2002 “Gender in history” and HH3008 “Modern South Asia” in semester 1 AY2021-2022.

Between culture The business career 48

e and enterprise: r of Tan Yeok Seong 49

Introduction Research on Southeast Asian Chinese businesses and entrepreneurship has undergone major paradigmatic shifts in the last century. The period prior to the 1970s saw the publication of key statistical data, ethnographical information and analyses of business structures and strategies of key industries that the Chinese were operating in. Examples include economic reports published by the Taiwan Bank in preparation for the southward expansion of Japanese enterprises in the 1930s, and a survey published by history undergraduates of Nanyang University on selected Chinese economic sectors in the late 1960s when Singapore became a newly independent city-state.1 This period also witnessed the publication of the histories of key business enterprises, such as George Bogaars’ work on the Tanjong Pagar Dock Company and K. G. Tregonning’s monographs on the Straits Steamship Company and Straits Trading Company.2 Amid the spectacular growth of the Asian tiger economies since the late 1970s, the entrepreneurial histories of Asia received substantial attention within business and academic circles. In World Economic Development: 1979 and Beyond, Herman Kahn used the term “Chinese Capitalism” to highlight the presence of similar cultural characteristics as the main driver of this growth.3 Following Kahn, as well as Max Weber, sociologists and historians stress the centrality of the “Confucian ethic” — a unique mix of kinship, harmony and the interrelated concepts of relationships (guanxi) and credibility (xinyong) — in shaping the success of Asian economies.4 Expanding this “culturalist paradigm”, Wong Siu Lun argues that familism, including the preference of working with kinsmen, family ownership and paternalism, remains at the core of Chinese business organizations.5 Yong Ching Fatt’s thoroughly researched biography of Tan Kah Kee serves as a key case study showing the complex interplay between these concepts, dynamics, as well as patriotism in the making of an early Chinese big businesses in Asia.6 In the early 1990s, scholars on Chinese business questioned the “culturalist paradigm” on two fronts. First, the supposedly particularistic cultural characteristics of “Chinese capitalism” came into doubt as the “Confucian” concepts of guanxi and xinyong were also prominent in non-Chinese owned businesses. Networks, kinship and trust were also essential in what John McKay termed “ownership advantages” in the development of the House of Rothschild during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.7 Similarly, big British businesses relied on informal networks in expanding their interests in developing countries.8 Furthermore, with the onset of the Asian Financial Crisis, the cultural characteristics that were perceived to have accounted for the Asian economic miracle were regarded as liabilities to growth instead.9

Above: Drydock of the Tanjong Pagar Dock Company circa 1890 - 1905

Above: An interview with Herman Kahn

Second, the “culturalist paradigm” supports the assumption that Chinese companies operated within a static “Confucian” culture. With this assumption, insufficient attention was paid to the broader political, economic and business environments surrounding these businesses, as well as class, gender and geographical differences within and between Chinese diasporic communities.10 Bringing these broader environments into consideration, according to Peter Coclanis, was necessary to move beyond the hagiographies of Chinese business to studies that brought in new theoretical perspectives, such as structure, strategy,vertical and horizontal integration crucial to the rise of American big business, that would connect the historiography of Chinese enterprise to global business history.11 Following Coclanis, Lian Kwen Fee and Koh Keng We show how Eu Tong Sen, like his counterparts in America, were forming new forms of vertically integrated corporate enterprises to capitalize on expanding markets.12 In this “contextual turn”, remains important in the study of Chinese entrepreneurship and enterprise. Amid the ongoing rise of China and economic regionalization of Asia, Liu Hong proposes a “post-revisionist” approach that positions Chinese entrepreneurship and networks within multilayered interactions between state and society in a transnational setting.13 Recent works have explored the themes of culture, identity and their interaction with Chinese business and entrepreneurship in new ways beyond the “culturalist paradigm”. Sherman Cochran, Christopher Rea and Nicolai Volland examine how Chinese entrepreneurs attempted to create markets by shaping new consumer cultures and attitudes through the popular media in Southeast Asia and China in the first half of the twentieth century.14 In Rea and Volland’s edited volume, Sin Yee Theng shows how Aw Boon Haw created a new form of business empire that straddled the spheres of business and culture through publication and advertisements on print media.15 Using a variety of Chinese and Dutch primary sources, Peter Post illustrates how another important Chinese entrepreneur, Oei Tiong Ham forged transcultural business alliances in Asia, and sought to unite the peranakan and diasporic Chinese communities to better compete with European enterprise.16 Similar to these Chinese big businessmen in colonial Asia, Tan Yeok Seong, the subject of this paper, operated a business that was closely connected to culture and identity in Singapore during the first half of the twentieth century. However, Tan’s business was much smaller and narrower when compared to the scale and scope of big business empires belonging to entrepreneurs such as Tan Kah Kee, Aw Boon Haw and Oei Tiong Ham. Nonetheless, contrary to them, Tan Yeok Seong received a high level of education and was foremost an academic. He was publicly recognized as a historian of Southeast Asia and the overseas Chinese. Tan was also known a connoisseur of antique books and artefacts.17 Through the lens of Rea and Volland, Tan would possibly be regarded as both a “cultural personality” and “tycoon” who created cultural products for profit.18

This paper proposes that Tan Yeok Seong’s case study is useful to ongoing endeavors that reexamine the connections between the culture and Chinese entrepreneurship, by showing how education levels might have been an important variable in shaping how Chinese entrepreneurs straddle these themes in Asia. In detailing Tan’s business career, this paper uses primary information obtained from oral interviews with Lee Ching Seng, former Head Librarian of the Chinese Library, National University of Singapore and Alex Tan Tiong Hee, the son of Tan Yeok Seong, along with Alex Tan’s private collection, the Ya Yin Kwan collection housed in the National Library of Singapore, business directories and newspaper articles.19 It will first discuss Tan’s background before proceeding to elaborate on the vicissitudes of his business career.

Tan Yeok Seong’s background Tan Yeok Seong (陈育菘) was born in 1903 in Georgetown, Penang. His ancestral ties could be traced to Baishui Village, Haicheng County in Zhangzhou, Fujian.20 In 1920, he enrolled himself into Jimei Secondary School and subsequently, Xiamen University. Six years later, he graduated with a degree in education, economics and history. Upon graduation, he entered the Straits Settlements’ Civil Service as an Inspector of Chinese Schools.21 Having obtained expertise in the publishing trade of Chinese textbooks, Tan resigned from his position and ventured into business by establishing the Nanyang Book Company Limited in 1935.22 Offering a different perspective, Zheng Lai Fa notes that it was a reprimand from the Secretary of Chinese Affairs on Tan’s support for anti-Japanese activities which led to the latter’s resignation and entry into commerce.23

Above: Port of Georgetown, Penang circa 1910s

The Nanyang Book Company On 5 December 1935, Tan Yeok Seong registered the Nanyang Book Co. Ltd. in Singapore.24 It was a partnership with an initial share capital of SS$50,000 that involved himself, Ong Keng Seng, Lim Yong Siew and Lim Piak Chin.25 Ong Keng Seng and Lim Yong Siew were Penang businessmen who were based in Singapore.26 The involvement of these partners suggest that hometown connections were important in Tan’s foray into business. According to Alex Tan, Tan Yeok Seong initiated this partnership to meet the growing demand for Chinese textbooks by a burgeoning student population during the 1930s.27 The Nanyang Book Company published textbooks which focused on the Malayan context and adhered to the curriculum designed by the Advisory Committee of Malayan Chinese Schools. These publications catered to a local market in which textbooks from China were banned as they “oriented children towards their motherland”.28 Beyond colonial Singapore and the Malaya, they were sold throughout Southeast Asia and Mainland China cities such as Shanghai.29 Between December 1935 and December 1940, the company’s value increased nearly three times from SS$50,000 to SS$148,170, with new branches being set up in Kuala Lumpur and Malacca.30 Indeed, as recounted by Lee Ching Seng, the Nanyang Book Company was at its peak during the pre-war period.31

During the Japanese Occupation, the Nanyang Book Company, was badly affected.32 Nonetheless, it continued to operate by shifting its publishing and retail interests.33 Tan Yeok Seong halted the production of textbooks which promoted Western ideologies, such as American Republicanism, and published literature on Japanese culture and language. He also imported and sold stationery from Japan. Business documents covering this period suggest that these strategies were effective in maintaining the Nanyang Book Company’s profitability. Its balance sheet in 1944 indicates a net profit of SS$11,379.14.34 Besides maintaining his interests in this company, Tan also diversified his business portfolio by procuring land in Singapore and Malacca at cheap prices.35 Such developments indicate that the Occupation was not completely a bane to him, with Tan’s former business partner stating that Tan possibly made a fortune during the war.36 After the Second World War, the Chinese book and publishing industry witnessed intensified competition due to the entry of new players. By 1948, there were 38 companies in this industry.37 In response, Tan Yeok Seong sought to lower the production costs of Nanyang Book Company by incorporating Liang Khoo Printing Company Limited, a printing company, as its sister firm in 1947.38 However, this did not raise the profitability of Nanyang Book Company significantly during the 1950s. In 1955, it made a relatively small profit, as compared to pre-war and Occupation years, of SS$1181.46.39 According to Lee Ching Seng, it was very likely that the student and anti-colonial movements in this period led to the loss of appeal of the publications of the company as Tan might have been publicly associated with both the British and Japanese.40

Auctioning and Manufacturing With the fall in the profitability of the Nanyang Book Company, Tan Yeok Seong looked for other business opportunities beyond book publishing. In 1951, he entered into a partnership with Tan Hoan Kie, Syed Abdulrahman bin Abdullah Alsagoff, Syed Ahmad bin Abdulrahman Alsagoff, Chen Siauw Sen and Teo Yeok Soon to form the Aurora Auctioneers Limited, which operated as “valuers, receivers, real estate and commission agents”.41 This was a period favorable to the auctioning industry due to rampant land speculation in Singapore, when people preferred to invest their money in land rather than save them in banks.42 Another possible reason behind Tan’s decision to join this partnership was his passion in collecting treasures. Nonetheless, he left this company in 1959 for unknown reasons.43 In any case, Tan’s diversification into auctioning was possibly opportunistic in the short term, with little connections to his publishing business. In 1964, Tan Yeok Seong diversified into manufacturing by establishing the General Leather Company with his business partners in Singapore and Indonesia.44 His entrance into industry was facilitated by the Singapore Government, which encouraged industrial investment as a means towards economic development.45 The Economic Development Board acquired a stake of 20 percent of this company with the remainder going to Tan and his partners, which included Tan Thye Bee, Tan Tjong Kiat, Ong Kim Tong and Poh Tian Long.46 Located at Jurong, General Leather aimed “to bring about general improvement of hides and skins through the introduction of up-to-date techniques”.47 Products manufactured by this company included leather for shoes and industrial use.48 Despite encouragement and support from the government, the General Leather Company remained unprofitable. As a result, It was liquidated in 1971.49

Above: An information file about the General Leather company

According to Alex Tan, this liquidation could be attributed to the lack of necessary expertise on the part of Tan Yeok Seong and his fellow directors in operating this company. This industrial venture also violated the “Hokkien business creed of starting small” as Tan and his partners were used to operating in the trading and wholesaling business. 50 In the same period, Tan also liquidated his business interests in the book publishing and printing industries owing to a ill health.51

Conclusion In Alex Tan’s final analysis, his father was a “bad businessman who was neither here nor there … without (a) long-term business plan, mainly involving himself with short-term business ventures with an impulse”.52 This was indeed so, considering Tan Yeok Seong’s foray into auctioning and manufacturing despite having little expertise in these industries. Such behavior, as historian Rajeswary Brown writes, was not uncommon in colonial Southeast Asia, as Chinese businesses had a tendency to diversify their interests into unrelated industries in an attempt to capture short-term speculative gains at the expense of long-term sustainability.53 Tan Yeok Seong‘s business career suggests that this observation might be true, due however not only to speculation, capital outflow to China, the overlap between family ownership and management, but possibly also the educational level and cultural interests of the businessman himself. Contrary to most of his business contemporaries, Tan Yeok Seong received a university degree and started his career in the colonial Civil Service. This paper has shown how this background, along with Tan’s academic and cultural interests, led to his entry into the book publishing business and subsequently, auctioning. Importantly, such interests were key to understanding how Tan straddled between culture and enterprise, an endeavor fraught with difficulties.

J e r e my

is currently Research Associate at Nanyang Centre for Public Administration, Nanyang Technological University. He graduated with B. A. (Highest Honours) and M. A. degrees in history from Nanyang Technological University. Jeremy’s research interests lie broadly in business and financial history, Chinese overseas, Capitalism, and the modern history of Singapore and Southeast Asia.

Endnotes 1 Yang Jian Cheng (杨建成) ed., 三十年代南洋华商经营策略之剖析 Sanshi niandai Nanyang huashang jingying celüe zhi pouxi [Analysis of Chinese Business Strategies in Nanyang during the 1930s] (Taipei: Nanyang Research Centre, The China Academy, 1984); Huang Zhi Lian (黄枝连) ed., 南洋大学新加坡华族行业史调查研究报告Nanyang daxue xinjiapo huazu hangye shi diaocha yanjiu baogao [Nanyang University’s Research Report on Chinese Industries in Singapore] (Singapore: Global Publishing, 2014); Koh Keng We, “Chinese Business in Singapore: A Historical and Historiographical Survey”, in Kwa Chong Guan and Kua Bak Lim eds., A General History of the Chinese in Singapore (Singapore: World Scientific, 2019), pp. 321-325. 2 George Bogaars, The Tanjong Pagar Dock Company 1864-1905 (Singapore: G.P.O., 1956); K. G. Tregonning, Home Port Singapore: A History of Straits Steamship Company Limited, 1980-1865 (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1967). 3 Herman Kahn, World Economic Development: 1979 and Beyond (New York: Morrow Quill Paperbacks, 1979); Arif Dirlik, “Critical Reflections on ‘Chinese Capitalism’ as a Paradigm”, in Rajeswary Brown ed., Chinese Business Enterprise: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management Vol. 1 (London: Routledge, 1996), pp. 18-19 4 Yen Ching Hwang, Ethnic Chinese Business in Asia: History, Culture and Business Enterprise (Singapore: World Scientific, 2013), pp. 173–204; Gary Hamilton, Commerce and Capitalism in Chinese Societies (Oxon: Routledge, 2006); Gordon Redding, “Weak Organizations and Strong Linkages: Managerial Ideology and Chinese Family Business Networks,” in Gary Hamilton ed., Business Networks and Economic Development in East and Southeast Asia (Hong Kong: Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong, 1991), 27-33; Wong Siu Lun, “Chinese Entrepreneurs and Business Trust,” in Gary Hamilton ed., Asian Business Networks (New York: de Gruyter, 1996), pp. 13-26; Ambrose King, “Kuan-hsi and Network Building: A Sociological Interpretation,” Daedalus, 120, 2 (1991), pp. 63-84. 5 Wong Siu Lun, “The Chinese family firm: a model,” in Rajeswary Brown ed., Chinese Business Enterprise: Critical Perspectives of Business and Management Volume I (London: Routledge, 1996), pp. 107–108. 6 Yong Ching Fatt, Tan Kah Kee: The Making of an Overseas Chinese Legend (Singapore: World Scientific, 2013); A. H. C. Ward, Raymond Chu and Janet Salaff eds. and trans., The Memoirs of Tan Kah Kee (Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1994). 7 John McKay, “The Rothschilds: Ownership Advantages in Multinational Banking,” in Geoffrey Jones ed., Banks as Multinationals (London: Routledge, 1990), pp. 120-141. 8 Geoffrey Jones, “Great Britain,” in Alfred Chandler et. al. eds., Big Business and the Wealth of Nations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 108. 9 Rajeswary Ampalavanar Brown, Chinese Big Business and the Wealth of Asian Nations (Hampshire, New York: Palgrave, 2000). 10 Thomas Menkhoff and Solvay Gerke, “Asia’s Transformation and the role of the ethnic Chinese,” in Thomas Menkhoff and Solvay Gerke eds., Chinese Entrepreneurship and Asian Business Networks (London: Routledge, 2002), pp. 3-19. 11 Peter Coclanis, “Aw Boon Haw, Tan Kah Kee, and the rise of Big Business in Southeast Asia,” Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science 23, 1 (1995), pp. 88-98; Alfred Chandler, The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977). 12 Lian Kwen Fee and Koh Keng We, “Chinese Enterprise in Colonial Malaya: The Case of Eu Tong Sen,” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 35, 3 (2004), pp. 415-432. 13 Liu Hong, “Beyond a Revisionist Turn: Networks, State and the Changing Dynamics of Diasporic Chinese Entrepreneurship”, China: An International Journal 10, 3 (2012), pp. 20-41. 14 Sherman Cochran, Chinese Medicine Men: Consumer Culture in China and Southeast Asia (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 2006); Christopher Rea and Nicolai Volland eds., The Business of Culture: Cultural Entrepreneurs in China and Southeast Asia, 1900-65 (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2015). 15 Sin Yee Theng and Nicolai Volland, “Aw Boon Haw, the Tiger from Nanyang: Social Entrepreneurship, Transregional Journalism, and Public Culture”. In The Business of Culture, pp. 132-137. For more information on Aw, see Sin Yee Theng, 谱写虎标传奇胡文虎及其创业文化史 Puxie hubiao chuanqi: Hu wenhu jiqi chuangye wenhuashi [A Study of Aw Boon Haw and his Entrepreneurship: A Perspective of Cultural History] (Singapore: NUS Chinese Department, 2013). 16 Peter Post, “Founding an Ethnic Chinese Business Empire in Colonial Asia: The Strategic Alliances of Major Oei Tiong Ham”, Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 92, 2 (2019), pp. 29-56; Peter Post, “Bringing China to Java: The Oei Tiong Ham Concern and Cheng Kung-po during the Nanjing Decade”, Journal of Chinese Overseas 15 (2019), pp. 33-61. 17 Alex Tan, “The Life of Tan Yeok Seong”, in Catalogue of the Ya Yin Kwan Collection (Singapore: National Library Board, 2006), pp. 13-16. 18 Rea and Volland eds., The Business of Culture. 19 Catalogue of the Ya Yin Kwan Collection in the Lee Kong Chain Reference Library (Singapore: National Library Board, 2006). 20 Zheng Lai Fa, 龙溪华侨人物与印迹 Longxi Huaqiao renwu yu yinji [Overseas Chinese Personalities and Footprints from Longxi] (Zhangzhou: The Literature and History Committee of the CPPCC, Xiangcheng, 2014), p. 73. 21 Zheng, Longxi Huaqiao, p. 73. 22 Tan, “The Life of Tan Yeok Seong”, pp. 13-16. 23 Zheng, Longxi Huaqiao, p. 73. 24 “Articles of Association of Nanyang Book Company”, Alex Tan Private Collection. 25 Ibid. SS$ refers to the Straits Settlements Dollar. 26 For more information on Ong Keng Seng and Lim Yong Siew’s contributions to Penang, see Tan Kim Hong, The Chinese in Penang: A Pictorial History (Penang: Areca Books, 2007), p. 89. 27 Interview with Alex Tan Tiong Hee.

28 C. M. Turnbull, A History of Modern Singapore, 1819 –2005 (Singapore: NUS Press, 2009), p. 153; Lee Ching Seng, “The Chinese Publishing Industry since Singapore’s Founding,” in Kua Bak Lim et al., A General History of the Chinese in Singapore (Singapore: SFCCA, 2015), p. 362; Sing Song Chin, “Gazing Upon History: The Editorial Imperative of Singapore’s Early Chinese Textbooks,” in Lee Meiyu et. al., Pages that opened our minds: a pictorial catalogue of Chinese textbooks in Singapore (1902– 2015) (Singapore: National Library Board, 2017), p. 62. 29 “Nanyang Book Company: Tan Yeok Seong and the awakening of local culture”, in Passage of Time: Singapore Bookstore Stories 1881-2016 (Singapore: Chou Sing Chu Foundation, 2016), pp. 72-79 30 “Balance Sheet of Nanyang Book Company, 31 December 1940,”, Alex Tan Private Collection. 31 Interview with Lee Ching Seng. 32 Interview with Alex Tan Tiong Hee. 33 Ibid. 34 “Balance Sheet of Nanyang Book Company, 31 December 2604,” Alex Tan Private Collection. 35 See documents in “Tan Yeok Seong Personal Collection (Occupation Documents)”, Alex Tan Private Collection. 36 “Koh Soh Goh”, Accession Number 000497, Oral History Interviews, Oral History Centre, National Archives of Singapore. 37 Xu Zhi and Xu Yun Qiao [许直, 许云櫵], 新加坡工业全貌 Xinjiapo gongye quanmao [A Complete Picture of Singapore’s Industries] (Singapore: Overseas Chinese Publishing, 1948), p. 114. 38 “Liang Khoo Press,” Liang Khoo Printing Co. Ltd., ROC 397 (132/47)”; “Balance Sheet of Nanyang Book Company, 31 December 1949”, Alex Tan Private Collection. 39 “Balance Sheet of Nanyang Book Company, 31 December 1955”, Alex Tan Private Collection. 40 Interview with Lee Ching Seng. For more information on the Chinese student movements during the 1950s, see Liu Hong and Wong Sin Kiong, Singapore Chinese Society in Transition: Business, Politics and Socio-economic Change, 1945–1965 (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2004), pp. 141–163. On Tan Yeok Seong’s role in the Overseas Chinese Association, see Tan Yeok Seong, History of the formation of the Oversea Chinese Association and the extortion by J.M.A. of $50,000,000 military contribution from the Chinese in Malaya (Singapore: Nanyang Book Co., 1947). 41 Singapore and Straits Directory (1952), NL 3325, National Library of Singapore. 42 “50 percent jump in property values,” Singapore Free Press, 19 October 1951, p. 5. At that point, the auctioning industry was dominated by Nassier & Company and Cheong Koon Seng & Company. For more information, see “Chua Chye Chua,” Accession Number 002140 and “Narayanan N. I.”. Accession Number 002184, Oral History Interviews, Oral History Centre, National Archives of Singapore. 43 Singapore and Straits Directory (1959-1960), NL 5078, NL 5079, National Library of Singapore. 44 “Pilot Plant of Tannery Opens,” The Straits Times, 26 August 1964, p. 12; Alex, “The Odd Story of General Leather: A Marriage of Inconvenience in Singapore’s Early Industrialization”, Imaginaries of Jurong & The Odd Story of General Leather, Public Talk, 7 April 2018, Jurong Town Hall, Singapore. 45 See The People’s Plan (Singapore: Government Printing Office, 1961). 46 Tan, “The Odd Story”. 47 Story of Leather, General Leather Ltd. (Singapore. Singapore: South Seas Press, n. d). 48 Directories of Singapore Manufacturers (Singapore: Singapore Manufacturers’ Association, 1968), p. 57. 49 “General Leather Company”, Alex Tan Private Collection. 50 Tan, “The Odd Story”. 51 Interview with Alex Tan. 52 Interview with Alex Tan. 53 Rajeswary Brown, Capital and Entrepreneurship in Southeast Asia (London: Macmillan Press, 1994), pp. 231–236.

Bibliography Primary sources Alex Tan Tiong Hee Private Collection. ———. A1: Nanyang Book Company (Accounts). ———. A2: Nanyang Book Company (Shares). ———. A3: Nanyang Book Company (Correspondences). ———. A4: Nanyang Book Company (KL Branch). ———. A5: Nanyang Book Company (Malacca Branch). ———. A6: Nanyang Book Company (Hoover Institution and Library). ———. A7: Nanyang Book Company (NBC v The Culture Book Company). ———. B: General Leather Company. ———. C1: Liang Khoo Printing Company (Correspondences). ———. C2: Liang Khoo Printing Company (Accounts). ———. C3: Liang Khoo Printing Company (Others and Unclassified). ———. D1: Tan Yeok Seong Personal Collection. ———. D2: Tan Yeok Seong Personal Collection (Industry). ———. D3: Tan Yeok Seong Personal Collection (Occupation Documents). Liang Khoo Printing Co. Ltd., National Archives of Singapore, ROC 397 (132/47).

Newspaper Articles. ———. Malaya Tribune (1928–1938) ———. Nanyang Siang Pau (1941) ———. The Straits Times (1935–1984) ———. The Singapore Free Press (1936–1951) Oral History Interviews, Oral History Centre, National Archives of Singapore. ———. “Chua Chye Chua”. Accession Number 002140. ———. “Koh Soh Goh”. Accession Number 000497. ———. “Narayanan N. I.”. Accession Number 002184. Oral Interview with Alex Tan Tiong Hee. Photos of General Leather Company, National Archives of Singapore. Singapore and Straits Directory (1949–1970), National Library of Singapore. Ya Yin Kwan Collection, National Library of Singapore. ———. Directories of Singapore Manufacturers. Singapore: Singapore Manufacturers’ Association, 1968. ———. EDB Industrial Research Unit. Singapore: EDB, 1963. ———. Su, Xiaoxian ed., 漳州十属旅星同乡录 Zhangzhou shishu luxing tongxiang lu [A Record of the Ten Dependencies of Zhangzhou]. Singapore: Qiaoguang Publishing, 1948. ———. Story of Leather: General Leather Ltd. Singapore: South Seas Press, n. d. ———. Tan, Tiong Hee Alex. “The Life of Tan Yeok Seong,” in Catalogue of the Ya Yin Kwan Collection. Singapore: NLB, 2006. ———. The People’s Plan. Singapore: Government Printing Office, 1961. ———. 马来亚商业年刊 Malaiya shangye niankan [Trade Periodical of Malaya]. 马来亚公司 Malaiya gongsi [The Malaya Company], n. d. ———. 许直, 许云櫵 [Xu, Zhi and Xu, Yun Qiao]. 新加坡工业全貌 Xinjiapo gongye quanmao [A Complete Picture of Singapore’s Industries]. Singapore: Overseas Chinese Publishing, 1948. ———. 南洋书局十五周年纪念特刊 Nanyang shuju shiwunian jinian tekan [Anniversary Publication of Nanyang Book Co., Ltd. 1935-1950]. Singapore: Nanyang Book Co., 1950. Monographs and Edited Volumes Brown, Rajeswary ed. Chinese Business Enterprise: Critical Perspectives of Business and Management (Four Volumes). London: Routledge, 1996. ———. Wong, Siu Lun. Volume I. “The Chinese Family Firm: A Model”. Chandler, Alfred D. The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977. ———. Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1990. Kua, Bak Lim. Who’s Who in the Chinese Community of Singapore. (Singapore: EPB, 1995) ———. 世界福建名人录: 新加坡篇Shijie Fujian mingren lu: Xinjiapo pian [Prominent Figures of Fujian Communities in the World: Singapore Edition]. Singapore: Hokkien Huay Kuan, 2012. Kua, Bak Lim et al. A General History of the Chinese in Singapore. (Singapore: SFCCA, 2015). ———. Lee, Ching Seng. “The Chinese Publishing Industry since Singapore’s Founding”. Lee, Meiyu et. al. Pages that opened our minds: a pictorial catalogue of Chinese textbooks in Singapore (1902--2015). Singapore: National Library Board, 2017. ———. Sing, Song Chin. “Gazing Upon History: The Editorial Imperative of Singapore’s Early Chinese Textbooks”. Liu, Hong and Wong, Sin Kiong. Singapore Chinese Society in Transition: Business, Politics and Socio-economic Change, 1945–1965. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2004. Scranton, Philip and Fridenson. Patrick Reimaging Business History. (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2013) Tan, Kim Hong. The Chinese in Penang: A Pictorial History. (Penang: Areca Books, 2007). Tan, Yeok Seong. History of the formation of the Oversea Chinese Association and the extortion by J.M.A. of $50,000,000 military contribution from the Chinese in Malaya. Singapore: Nanyang Book Co., 1947. Turnbull, C. M. A History of Modern Singapore 1819–2005. Singapore: NUS Press, 2009. Zheng, Lai Fa. 龙溪华侨人物与印迹 Longxi Huaqiao renwu yu yinji [Overseas Chinese Personalities and Footprints from Longxi]. Zhangzhou: The Literature and History Committee of the CPPCC, Xiangcheng, 2014. Journal Articles Gras., N. S. B “Business History”. The Economic History Review 4, 4 (1934): pp. 385–398. Websites Tan, Andrew. “Tan Yeok Seong”. Infopedia. Accessed 22 April 2018 from http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/ SIP_1662_2010-04-15.html “Ya Yin Kwan Collection”. National Library of Singapore. Accessed 22 April 2018 from http://www.nlb.gov.sg/donors/ya-yin-kwan/

ARCHAEOLOGY IN SINGAPORE

AN INTERVIEW WITH

GOH GEOK YIAN 62

INTRODUCTION Professor Goh Geok Yian has been involved in archaeology for 25 years. Her focus is on the early history of Burma and Southeast Asia, pre-modern communication, cultural religious and trade networks, and study of early urbanization. Here we discuss the field of archaeology in Singapore, the public’s participation, interest and processes involved in an archaeological dig. In light of the new archaeology course, the first of its kind in Singapore in 30 years, we spoke to Prof Goh to find out more about the discipline and her experience as an archaeologist.

INTERVIEW Is the public interested in archaeology in Singapore? In Singapore, it is not at all difficult to get the public interested and involved in archaeological digs, history, and heritage in Southeast Asia, although kids often equate it to palaeontology which is a different field altogether. Nevertheless the point is to get people interested and involved. So having volunteers come and dig was not difficult. There is interest, however it is about sustaining that interest. Whether it is growing or not is hard to gauge as it could be a passing interest.

Above: The Fort Canning Park archaeological dig site

Why would you describe it as a passing interest? We can only observe how much the public participates in archaeological digs, so we have observed that volunteers usually only engage in little spurts of activities rather than engaging throughout the archaeological process. So, for example, members of the public would come for two or three sessions of digging before deciding not to do any more. They are generally also not as interested in the lab analysis work, which involves washing and labelling. We have a rule that when we ask for volunteers, they must come for three sessions minimally as we have to train them on how to do archaeological ceramics analysis and if they leave, we have to retrain a whole new batch of people. What are the processes involved with archaeology? Archaeology is a multistage process. The dig is the first stage and is a small part of the whole process. Before calling for volunteers we would have to do site safety inspection. When it is safe volunteers will be given tools like trowels to scrape away layers. When they find an artifact, we would take a photograph before removing it but if we are working under strict time constraints then volunteers can just pick up the artifacts, and bag and tag them. Information such as where and what level the artefact was found in will be recorded on the tag. We usually have supervisors, who are student research assistants, who would oversee what is going on so that nobody would be digging a hole for instance, which is something people like to do when they find an artifact and just start digging around it. After the artifact has been bagged and tagged, the soil or sand is collected in buckets, and volunteers would do sieving to screen for small artifacts such as small fragments of ceramics and glass beads, some of which can be smaller than one’s thumb. Once that is done, we would take all the artifacts for lab analysis which involves washing, labelling, classification of the artefacts and data entry of the information. How would archaeologists or organisations designate a site for digging? The digs in Singapore are dependent on development projects. So, most of our Singapore digs were carried out because builders were developing something. We usually managed to negotiate for a period of time when we could recover artifacts and gather as much information about the site before the contractors carried on with their construction work. In earlier days, there were much more informal discussions and negotiations going on because there was no government body overseeing impact assessment of development in Singapore. This has now changed as there is a more conscious effort by agencies to involve National Heritage Board in the potential impact of development work. A problem in the 1990s and early 2000s was that we were only able to schedule a dig during the time when construction was difficult, so we found ourselves carrying out archaeological work during the rainy season. We often had to deal with the weather, and we became quite good at channelling drainage without the use of a pump. There were also times where digging became problematic as the dig site itself has become unsafe such as one of our excavations on the bank of the Singapore river where the ground comprises mostly sand. The side of our trenches eroded and collapsed when it rained but we never really had a choice, if we do not do it then artifacts together with sand and soil would be dumped somewhere. We would have then lost valuable information about Singapore’s past.

Above: Dig site plotting

What happens when an artifact is broken? It is rare for artifacts to be broken by volunteers, I am sure they have, but it is very rare. It depends on which site we are excavating. At sites near the Singapore river it is quite hard for you to break artifacts unless you step on them, because the 14th-1600 stratigraphic layers comprise sand. However, on Fort Canning Hill we have to reduce the amount of people working there and post supervisors because on Fort Canning Hill the soil itself is clay. So, you can easily break earthenware which are usually fragile and soft due to their low firing temperature. Thus, we adopt different strategies according to the site and the soil. There are instances when people break artifacts, but we will still bag them and since they are fresh breaks, we can glue them back together as long as all pieces are accounted for. Breaking an artifact cannot be helped. As long as we need help with the dig, we must accept the risk.

Above:Student volunteers and Profesor Goh Geok Yian

Conclusion What is it like for one to enter the field of archaeology? Students are concerned about job opportunities and explaining your studies to your parents and family so there is hesitation, but that has not stopped many people from studying it. Although Singapore does not have many opportunities for students to directly apply what they had learnt from an archaeological degree, they can enter the tourism and heritage sectors. In western countries, such as USA, UK and Australia there are contract archaeology firms that conduct impact assessment on a site before it is developed. In Singapore such a model does not exist considering the high amount of development in the country. Nonetheless in the past five years NHB has been looking into it and although it is a slow process, they are making some headway in that direction. Professor Goh Geok Yian is not only involved in the conduct of archaeology but also teaching it. You can find out more by joining her classes. HH1125 History and Archaeology: An Introduction and HH2125 The World in 12 Objects.

Above: Paddle marked tempered earthenware

Like this issue? Give us your feedback! Want to be one of our writers? Email or drop us a DM Want to be part of the publishing team? Join the publications committee

Connect with us! NTU History Society

@NTU.history

@ntuhistorysc

HistorySpeaks

NTU History sub club

historyspeaks