Singapore Lit Essay.

Aaron Lim Si Ru
Miss Esther Wang
HL105 Singapore Literature
11 March 2010

Mere constructs: the Merlion and the Singaporean Identity.

In Alvin Pang’s “Merlign” and Grace Chia’s “Musing on the Merlion Myth”, themes of dislocation and the struggle to determine the origins and significance of one’s identity are being explored. The Merlion is the clear focal point of both poems as they attempt to dissect the artificial construct that is the Merlion. The symbolism behind the Merlion is not what it seems, exposing the paradox of the Singaporean identity – another construct, both poems have vastly differing attitudes on this issue which I shall attempt to highlight.

I will first be exploring “Musing on the Merlion Myth”. Singapore literally means “Lion City”, the symbol of the Merlion thus is a representation of the change that the “lion” has taken on the mantle of “fins and a fishtail” evolving to the Merlion it is today (Chia 35). Such evolution can be seen, as a response to the nation’s needs, the need to constantly change itself to fit into the rapidly changing state of the world, the struggle to maintain at the top. This reflects the mutability of our fledging nation. While the nation is certainly flexible, it certainly lacks a sense of permanence. We are too young a nation to have a proper sense of history to ground us as a cohesive people.
The sense of change, upheaval and uncertainty is clear. In Chia’s poem, “no more jungles left for you to prowl” portrays the dislocation felt by the immigrants when they first came to Singapore, removed and uprooted from their homelands and placed in an alien land (35). Chia also projects an image of turbulent change as the people and by extension the nation “evolve, adapt” and “become mutant” (35). The juxtaposition of imagery from stanzas 1 and 3 of prowling jungles to concrete forests, Chia condenses the dizzying pace of our progress from a land of immigrants into a thriving city. Chia also avoids a chronological recount of our history, preferring the use of evolution, mutation and morphing to describe the pace of Singapore’s growth. This reflects the unnatural and artificially boosted speed of our progress and also to our lack of history.

The frenetic pace of change taking place thus creates the need for a common identity to ground us amidst the winds of change. The dislocation of the populace from the nation’s identity is thus visualized, as there are “no more jungles left for you to prowl”, which can be seen in relation to the notion of home, as the lion would be in the jungle (Chia 35). Home, the place of warmth and comfort is instead portrayed as harsh and cold, “flat as paper”, an unfeeling and steely city with nary a trace of warmth (Chia 35). Chia’s ‘generous’ use of such imagery creates an almost mercenary image of Singapore heightening the sense of dislocation from the nation as a home.
Chia attempts to resolve the issue of dislocation by exploring the symbolism behind the Merlion myth. The Merlion is born of necessity, “a nation’s dreams made you a myth” (Chia 35). Being too young a nation to have any proper sort of myth however, the myth of the Merlion is thus a constructed one, to fulfill a nation’s need for stability. The “nation’s fears” of instability forced the Merlion into being, turning it to “stone” (Chia 35). Hence, the Merlion can be seen as a stabilizing force, albeit one that is constructed for the convenience of stability. In relation, the hybrid nature of the Merlion being half fish and half lion can be seen as a reflection of the multitudinous diversity of peoples coming together eventually becoming a hybrid people of a unique culture. By virtue of such a parallel, the Merlion thus becomes a binding force for the dislocated peoples, forging a common identity when it was once non-existent.

However, Chia herself seems to be in two minds about the creation of the Merlion myth. The dichotomy within the image of the Merlion, being a “frozen statue” stiff and unmoving yet bursting with dynamism that is the “water of life” creates a sense that the Merlion itself is a fractured entity, its statue unrepresentative to its symbolism, akin to how the populace is dislocated from the symbolism of the Merlion (Chia 35). This forced union of the natural ‘water’ and the artificial ‘statue’ parallels the constructed myth of the Merlion, an oxymoron in itself, because one cannot simply construct a myth into being. This sheds light to the oxymoronic nature of the Singaporean identity, artificially created by the foisting of a constructed identity upon a dislocated people. This so-called Singaporean identity is merely a name placed upon the amalgamation of different cultures, none of which uniquely Singaporean, reinforcing the fact that it is created, not cultivated over time.
Chia clearly recognizes the hollow representation that is the Merlion, yet despite the unnatural truth of the fabricated myth and identity, she states, “I wish to believe in you” (35). Chia seems to hint that should Singapore be without a rallying banner under the Merlion, all that we have built would be lost to dissension. The entreaty of “I wish…” hints at the above possibility, something that the poet wants to avoid. Truth would then be empty words without stability and Chia wishes to have the same kind of stability for her “daughter’s daughters”, not wanting them to be born into a divided nation as in Singapore’s younger days (35).

One would question if truth is preferable to stability. The Merlion being a creature of myth has evolved past the need for authenticity, a myth exists to instruct, whether it is a ‘real’ myth or a ‘constructed’ myth does not matter, what matters is that it has served it’s purpose as a unifier. What is important is that people “ a century from hence would listen to tales of the lionfish” even if it is one “that no one has ever seen” (Chia 35). The truth behind the Merlion myth becomes subjective when it’s constructed nature fades from memory, yet its symbolism remains “ferocious, strong, slipping into a collective’s unconsciousness” (Chia 35). The Singaporean identity thereby becomes an indelible part of our identity, our heritage.

In “Merlign”, Alvin Pang explores the themes of dislocation from a different perspective. Pang examines the dislocation of symbolism from the Merlion, it has become a mere physical statue; the symbolism behind the image of the Merlion has been lost. Pang compares “websites”, “cameras” and “postcards” to “verses”, “pride” and “praise”, stating that superficial representations of the Merlion have overshadowed the real symbolism behind it (40). Pang questions if the Merlion has lost its purpose of being, becoming merely a fount of tourist wealth, embellished beyond recognition. The statue of the Merlion, whose appearance was supposed to be a reflection of its significance, has now been dislocated. One is without the other, mere representations without meaning. While Pang arrives at a similar conclusion with Chia regarding the dislocation of the symbolism of the Merlion, he does so with representations to explore symbolism versus Chia’s use of concrete imagery.
“Merlign”, an intriguing twist of words between ‘Merlion’ and ‘malign’, as if saying that the Merlion itself is a malignant concept, an artificial taint, a construct of necessity, “a heap of fashioned stone” to fulfill a need (Pang 40). “Merlign” likewise is a constructed concept, merely a name created by the poet to expose the hollowness of the Merlion, an icon that has no roots. This is similar to Chia’s struggle to find a significance behind the national icon, yet failing to do so, succeeding only in exposing the faults and fractures of it’s creation. Its twisted progeny is described as the “titan child… terrorizing history”, an affront to history threatening to blur the lines between history and myth, a construct influencing the impressionable future generations (Pang 40). While Pang does not directly refer to the paradox of the Singaporean identity, the creation of the Merlion as an impressionable national icon certainly influences how the nation perceives itself. Thus the artificial nature of the Merlion is also reflected in the maturing of our Singaporean identity as a young nation. By extension, the Merlion could then be seen as tool to mould the ideals and culture of our nation.

While Chia is able to accept the necessity of the Merlion as a constructed national icon, Pang instead strips it bare of its constructed symbolism and exposes it’s emptiness, refusing to associate himself with the false symbol. Pang scorns the pathetic metaphor that is the Merlion. He ridicules the “need” for a stabilizing force, which by virtue of such a “rock” based metaphor; we can make its representations “bear weight” (Pang 40). By Pang’s use of such a blatant metaphor of “rock” and “weight” he exposes the superfluous origin of the Merlion, that by virtue of it being made of “rock”, it has weight and by extension “weight” in it’s symbolic value. Which he describes as “wallow[ing] in metaphors, an indication that the creation of the Merlion was an effort in futility and it’s influence on the Singapore identity, detrimental.
In Chia’s poem, she paints the Merlion as an outlandish object, alien to Singapore, a dislocated icon, despite that; she finally acknowledges its significance. Pang on the contrary, begins by creating a familiar yet enigmatic image of the Merlion through “postcards”, “praise” and “a face poets love to woo” (40). In highlighting the enigmatic nature of the Merlion, he evokes a spark of curiosity in the flow of the poem, binding the reader to his chain of thought. In stanza 7, Pang paints the idyllic picture of a child enthralled by the “giant too tall for a child’s mind to wrap around” and the child’s curiosity to understand the “giant” too is mirrored in the reader as “risking… a closer glance, a furtive stroke, reaching for scale and contact” (Pang 40). Eventually, the familiarity of the Merlion fades into oblivion, replaced by a child’s innocent ignorance mirroring the Pang’s own inability to “apostrophize” any “weight” with “what is rock”. Gripped almost by a sense of desperation, being unable to comprehend the significance of the statue, Pang turns to the physical, hoping to find meaning in the tangible when the intangible eludes him. This phase mirrors Chia’s struggle with the dichotomy and confusion regarding the fractured entity of the Merlion, yet unlike Chia’s gradual reconciliation between her insecurities and the Merlion, Pang moves in the opposite direction.
Pang dismisses Chia’s reconciliation as a form of “pretence”, maintaining the view that the constructed symbolism foisted upon the Merlion, are mere “riddles and voices” and that the “heap of fashioned stone” lacks true symbolism behind it’s statue to “carry souls” (40). Essentially claiming that, no amount of attaching meaning and symbolism to the icon would hide the fact that it is a mere construct. In the last stanza, Pang literally destroys any form of representation behind the Merlion, “rough beast, you are neither idol nor ideal”, he goes on to expunge the icon from our Singaporean identity, treating it as an outsider and addressing it as such “you”, almost a bitter reminder to the beginning of Chia’s poem. The figurative emptiness of the Merlion is accentuated by the physical hollowness of the “titan child” at Sentosa whose “heart is hollow, cold and open for admission” (Pang 40).

Pang plays upon the bitter irony of the Sentosa Merlion being hollow so as to admit visitors, yet to be unable to hold on to the representation of the Singaporean identity, very much like a basket that cannot hold water. In a sense referring to our identities as something intangible that cannot be forced into “fashioned stone, too light to carry souls” (Pang 40). Lacking the gravitas of history to lend “weight”, the Merlion functions like a basket unable to hold any water. Just as Pang expunges the icon from our Singaporean identity, the Merlion expunges itself of us as the water it cannot hold. “Keep what matters and what counts” which is nothing, “the rest you can spit as spray” which is our identity being expunged from the Merlion (Pang 40).
Both poets recognize that the Merlion is merely an artificial construct through their exploration of dislocation and highlighting the paradox that is the Singaporean identity. Yet, their methods of exploration are mirrored reflections of each other. Chia makes use of concrete imagery to construct the Merlion, breathing life to intangible myth. Pang instead illustrates the elusive symbolism of the Merlion through empty metaphors, failing which he resorts to attacking the it’s physical form. Mirror opposites of each other, it falls on us to decide which is merely a reflection and which is the real.
2114 Words














Works Cited
Pang, Alvin. City of Rain. Singapore: Ethos, 2003.
Chia, Grace. “Musing on the Merlion Myth” Reflecting on the Merlion: An Anthology of
Poems. Ed. Edwin Thumboo and Yeow Kai Chai. Singapore: National Arts Council,
2009. 35. Print.