The Silent Death of a Heritage
The closure of Kelong E63 on August 31, 2025, signals a significant loss for Singapore’s maritime heritage. Once a common sight along the nation’s coastline, kelongs — traditional offshore wooden fishing platforms — have dwindled to just four licensed operations, according to the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore.
Kelong E63, located off Pulau Ubin, was one of the last remnants of a centuries-old fishing tradition. Its owner, Timothy Ng, aged 77, decided to shut down after incurring losses estimated at $2 million over twenty years. Rising operational costs, stricter regulations, and declining fish stocks contributed to his decision, reflecting broader challenges faced by small-scale fisheries in Singapore (Straits Times, 2024).
Singapore’s rapid urbanization has transformed it from a fishing village into a modern metropolis. According to the National Heritage Board, only a fraction of the country’s population now relies on traditional maritime livelihoods. The shift towards high-density urban living and technological advancement has marginalized these cultural practices.
The closing of E63 is more than an isolated business decision; it highlights the ongoing tension between economic progress and cultural preservation. As commercial interests take precedence, intangible heritage such as kelong fishing faces extinction.
In conclusion, the end of Kelong E63 marks not only the loss of a historic enterprise but also serves as a poignant reminder of Singapore’s changing identity. Preserving what remains of its maritime past will require conscious efforts from both policymakers and the community.
From 310 to Four: A Heritage in Free Fall
The statistics tell a story of precipitous decline. In 1952, Singapore’s waters bustled with 310 licensed kelongs—traditional offshore palisade fish traps that represented centuries of maritime wisdom passed down through generations of fishermen. These bamboo and timber structures, jutting from the sea like ancient sentinels, were once as characteristic of Singapore’s seascape as the shophouses are of its urban landscape.
By the 1960s, this number had begun its relentless descent. Declining fish stocks, the result of overfishing and coastal development, made traditional kelong fishing increasingly unviable. The advent of modern sea-based aquaculture farms in the 1980s delivered what many considered the final blow to an already struggling industry. The Singapore Food Agency stopped issuing new kelong licenses in 1965, effectively sealing the fate of this ancient practice.
Today, only three kelongs remain operational in Singapore waters, located off Seletar and Lim Chu Kang—areas that exist outside the government’s designated aquaculture zones. Each operates on temporary occupation licenses that require annual renewal, a bureaucratic reality that makes long-term planning nearly impossible and discourages the kind of investment needed to modernize or preserve these structures.
The Anatomy of a Failed Rescue
The attempt to save Kelong E63 reads like a case study in the challenges facing heritage preservation in modern Singapore. In March 2024, the Singapore Heritage Society (SHS) proposed retaining the kelong for educational and research purposes—a noble vision that would have transformed a working fishery into a living classroom where future generations could understand their maritime roots.
The society was given until the end of 2024 to demonstrate the feasibility of this conversion, but the obstacles proved insurmountable. The projected cost of the feasibility study alone—up to $500,000—was enough to deter potential investors. Even more daunting was the regulatory uncertainty surrounding such an unprecedented conversion. As SHS executive director Fauzy Ismail noted, there was no precedent for transforming a maritime food production facility into a community and educational space.
The short-term nature of the licensing system created additional hurdles. Yearly lease renewals, mandated by the Foreshores Act 1920, made it nearly impossible for investors to commit to the long-term vision necessary for educational or heritage use. One family office expressed interest but ultimately balked at the substantial upfront costs with no guarantee of long-term operational rights.
The Economics of Heritage
Timothy Ng’s journey with Kelong E63 illuminates the harsh economic realities that have driven Singapore’s kelongs to extinction. When he purchased the kelong in 2004, along with its connected floating fish farm, he likely harbored hopes of continuing a tradition that stretched back generations. Instead, he found himself fighting an uphill battle against forces far beyond his control.
Over two decades, Ng invested heavily in maintaining and operating the kelong, only to watch his losses mount to approximately $2 million. The floating fish farm, once a vital component of his operation, was eventually towed to Malaysia in October 2024—a poignant symbol of how Singapore’s maritime industries have been exported to more cost-effective locations.
The economics that doomed Ng’s operation reflect broader trends in Singapore’s development. Rising costs, limited fishing grounds, environmental regulations, and competition from modern aquaculture methods have made traditional kelong fishing economically unviable. Unlike heritage buildings that can be repurposed for commercial use, kelongs require specialized knowledge and significant ongoing maintenance costs that few are willing or able to bear.
Cultural Amnesia and the Maritime Disconnect
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of E63’s closure is what it reveals about Singapore’s relationship with its maritime heritage. During the heritage society’s advocacy campaign, Fauzy Ismail observed a striking lack of public interest in contributing time or resources toward the kelong’s preservation. This indifference, he argued, reflects how quickly Singaporeans have forgotten their maritime roots.
This cultural amnesia is particularly striking for a nation that is, quite literally, surrounded by water. Singapore’s transformation from a fishing village to a global financial hub has been so rapid and comprehensive that many residents seem to have lost touch with the sea that shapes their geography. The kelongs, once integral to daily life and livelihood, have become curiosities rather than cherished symbols of heritage.
The disconnect extends beyond mere nostalgia. Maritime heritage represents practical knowledge systems developed over centuries—understanding of tidal patterns, fish behavior, sustainable harvesting practices, and the intricate relationship between human communities and marine ecosystems. As the kelongs disappear, so too does this accumulated wisdom.
Digital Preservation in an Analog World
Recognizing the inevitability of E63’s closure, the National Heritage Board (NHB) embarked on an ambitious documentation project designed to preserve the kelong for posterity, even if the physical structure could not be saved. The effort employed cutting-edge technology including observational fieldwork, oral history interviews, 360-degree videography, photogrammetry, and 3D modeling.
The resulting digital archive captures not just the physical structure of the kelong but also the intangible heritage associated with its operation. Oral history interviews with Ng and his workers preserved personal stories and traditional knowledge that might otherwise have been lost. The documentation was detailed enough that, according to NHB, a kelong could theoretically be recreated from the data if desired.
This digital preservation effort represents both an achievement and a compromise. While the virtual kelong will allow future generations to understand how these structures functioned, it cannot replicate the sensory experience of standing on weathered planks, feeling the sea breeze, and watching the intricate dance of nets and stakes that defined traditional fishing practices.
The documentation has been made available through NHB’s resource portal, Roots.gov.sg, ensuring that researchers and the public can access this information. Plans for sea-based tours around the former kelong site, developed in collaboration with the Singapore Heritage Society and arts organization OH! Open House, offer some hope for maintaining public connection to this heritage.
The Broader Context: Heritage in a Developing Nation
Singapore’s struggle with kelong preservation reflects broader challenges facing rapidly developing nations as they balance heritage conservation with modernization. The city-state’s remarkable economic transformation has come at the cost of much of its traditional landscape and lifestyle. Historic neighborhoods have been redeveloped, traditional industries have been displaced, and cultural practices have been abandoned in favor of more profitable or efficient alternatives.
The government’s approach to heritage has traditionally focused on buildings and monuments—tangible structures that can be preserved, restored, and repurposed. Maritime heritage presents different challenges. Kelongs require ongoing operation to maintain their authenticity, but this operation must be economically viable. Unlike a historic building that can house modern businesses, a heritage kelong must function as a fishery to retain its cultural significance.
This operational requirement makes maritime heritage particularly vulnerable to economic pressures. As traditional fishing becomes less profitable, the structures that support it naturally fall into disrepair and abandonment. The choice between authentic operation and heritage preservation becomes a false dichotomy when the economic fundamentals no longer support the traditional use.
Lessons from Global Maritime Heritage
Singapore is not alone in facing the loss of maritime heritage. Coastal communities worldwide have watched traditional fishing practices disappear as industrialization, environmental degradation, and economic change reshape their relationship with the sea. However, some nations have found ways to preserve maritime traditions while adapting to modern realities.
In Japan, traditional fishing methods are maintained through government subsidies and cultural preservation programs that recognize their value beyond mere economic productivity. Norway has successfully integrated heritage fishing practices with tourism, creating economically sustainable models for preservation. The Netherlands has preserved traditional fishing vessels and techniques through museum programs and cultural festivals that maintain public engagement with maritime heritage.
These examples suggest that Singapore’s approach to kelong preservation may have been too narrowly focused on immediate economic viability rather than broader cultural and educational value. A more comprehensive approach might have included government subsidies, integration with tourism initiatives, or partnerships with educational institutions that could provide ongoing support for heritage operations.
The Environmental Dimension
The loss of kelongs also represents the disappearance of a relatively sustainable fishing practice. Traditional kelong fishing, with its passive trapping methods and reliance on natural tidal patterns, had a smaller environmental footprint than modern industrial fishing or intensive aquaculture operations. The kelongs worked with natural systems rather than against them, representing a form of ecological knowledge that could be valuable as Singapore grapples with sustainability challenges.
The structures themselves provided habitat for marine life, creating artificial reefs that supported biodiversity. The guiding stakes that directed fish into the traps also served as resting places for seabirds and attachment points for marine vegetation. The removal of these structures eliminates not just fishing grounds but entire micro-ecosystems that had developed around them.
As Singapore pursues ambitious environmental goals, including carbon neutrality and marine conservation, the loss of traditional practices that embodied sustainable resource use seems counterproductive. The kelongs represented a model of human-environment interaction that prioritized long-term sustainability over short-term profits—a lesson that remains relevant in contemporary environmental discussions.
The Human Cost
Behind the statistics and policy discussions are real people whose lives have been shaped by the kelongs. Timothy Ng’s story is emblematic of many traditional industry practitioners who have found themselves caught between heritage and economics. His decision to hold onto the kelong for an extra year, despite mounting losses, demonstrated a commitment to preservation that went beyond personal financial interest.
The workers who operated the kelongs possessed specialized knowledge accumulated over decades of practice. They understood the subtle signs that indicated good fishing conditions, the techniques for maintaining the complex net and stake systems, and the rhythms of tidal and seasonal change that governed their work. As the kelongs close, this human capital is lost, often without any systematic effort to record or transfer the knowledge to future generations.
The closure of E63 also affects the broader fishing community. The kelong served as a meeting point where fishermen shared information, equipment, and expertise. It was a node in a social network that supported traditional maritime livelihoods. As these nodes disappear, the entire network becomes more fragile and isolated.
Looking Forward: The Last Three
With E63’s closure, attention now turns to the three remaining kelongs off Seletar and Lim Chu Kang. These structures operate under the same pressures that doomed E63—annual licensing renewals, economic uncertainty, and limited public support. The Singapore Food Agency has indicated that licenses may be renewed if operators meet requirements, but this provides little security for long-term planning or investment.
The fate of these remaining kelongs will likely determine whether Singapore retains any authentic maritime heritage or whether future generations will know kelongs only through digital reconstructions and museum displays. Each closure reduces the pool of operational knowledge and makes the remaining structures more isolated and vulnerable.
Timothy Ng’s hope that “there should be at least one retained” reflects a minimal but pragmatic vision for heritage preservation. Even a single operational kelong could serve educational and cultural functions while maintaining the living tradition of kelong fishing. However, achieving this goal will require a more comprehensive approach than the market-driven forces that have governed kelong operations to date.
The Path Not Taken
The failure to preserve Kelong E63 highlights missed opportunities in Singapore’s heritage policy. A more proactive approach might have recognized the kelongs’ cultural value before they became economically unsustainable. Early intervention could have supported traditional operators while gradually transitioning kelongs to educational or tourism uses.
Integration with Singapore’s tourism sector could have provided economic justification for preservation. Kelongs could have offered unique experiences for visitors interested in Singapore’s history and traditional practices. Educational partnerships with schools and universities could have created ongoing demand for kelong visits while supporting research into traditional ecological knowledge.
Government recognition of kelongs as cultural assets worthy of preservation support could have changed the economic equation. Subsidies, tax incentives, or heritage grants might have enabled operators like Timothy Ng to maintain their structures while transitioning to educational or cultural functions.
Conclusion: What We Lose When the Sea Grows Silent
The closure of Kelong E63 represents more than the end of one fishing operation—it marks another step in Singapore’s gradual disconnection from the maritime heritage that shaped its identity. As the kelongs disappear, Singapore loses not just physical structures but entire knowledge systems, cultural practices, and ways of life that connected human communities to the sea.
The challenge facing Singapore is not unique, but the response will define the nation’s relationship with its heritage. Will the remaining three kelongs follow E63 into demolition, or will Singapore find ways to preserve at least some of its maritime traditions for future generations?
The story of E63 suggests that preservation requires more than good intentions and digital documentation. It demands recognition that heritage has value beyond immediate economic productivity, and that some things—once lost—cannot be recovered. As Singapore continues its remarkable development journey, the question remains: what aspects of its past are worth preserving, and what price is the nation willing to pay to maintain connections to its maritime soul?
The waters off Pulau Ubin are quieter now, but they need not fall completely silent. The future of Singapore’s maritime heritage depends on choices made today, while there is still time to act. The alternative—a Singapore surrounded by water but disconnected from the sea—may prove to be a prosperity too expensive to afford.
Singapore Food Agency (SFA) plans to significantly expand aquaculture operations in the East Johor Strait, aiming to increase local seafood production to a maximum of 6,700 tonnes annually. This expansion represents a substantial increase from Singapore’s 2023 seafood production of 4,100 tonnes. The farming spaces will be progressively released for tender starting in 2026, covering waters off Pasir Ris, Pulau Ubin, and Pulau Tekong, with a total area of 117 hectares.
Impact on Singapore’s Food Supply
Significant Boost to Local Production
- The planned production capacity (6,700 tonnes) exceeds Singapore’s entire 2023 seafood production (4,100 tonnes)
- In 2023, local production accounted for only 7.3% of total seafood consumed in Singapore.
- This expansion could potentially double the self-sufficiency ratio for seafood, strengthening food security.
Addressing Declining Industry Trends
- The plan comes amid concerning industry decline – approximately 25% of aquaculture farms closed operations in 2024 alone.
- Part of a broader November 2024 initiative to overhaul Singapore’s aquaculture sector
- Creates opportunities for new farmers to enter the industry
Implementation Challenges
Technical and Operational Hurdles
- Current farming spaces use primarily open-cage farming systems vulnerable to environmental threats.
- Historical problems with harmful algal blooms in East Johor Strait have decimated fish stocks.
- Closed containment systems, while less pollutive, incur significantly higher energy costs.
- Professor Matthew Tan suggests government-run submarine cables to provide cheaper energy from land.
Human Capital Concerning Ageing
- An ageing farmer population with unclear succession planning
- Uncertainty about attracting a new generation of fish farmers
- Need for specialised training and knowledge transfer
Environmental Considerations
- The expansion area overlaps with a known hotspot for critically endangered dugongs
- 42 of 60 dugong observations in Singapore occurred around this region
- SFA recommends preventative measures, including the strategic siting of farms in areas with good waste flushing capabilities
- Environmental experts note that current recommendations lack regulatory enforcement mechanisms
Economic and Research Implications
Need for Continued Innovation
- Professor William Chen identifies the expansion as part of a systematic integration still experiencing “teething issues”
- Additional R&D required to:
- Reduce operating costs
- Improve farming technology
- Enhance sustainability practices
Long-term Monitoring
- SFA has committed to ongoing monitoring of:
- Water quality
- Sediment quality
- Seagrass habitat health
- General environmental impacts
Conclusion
Singapore’s planned aquaculture expansion represents an ambitious attempt to significantly increase local seafood production and strengthen food security. While the potential impact on Singapore’s food supply is substantial, success will depend on addressing persistent industry challenges, including environmental vulnerabilities, high operational costs, workforce development, and ecological protection. The initiative reflects Singapore’s broader strategy of reducing import dependence but requires careful implementation and ongoing refinement to achieve its ambitious targets.
Maxthon
Maxthon has set out on an ambitious journey aimed at significantly bolstering the security of web applications, fueled by a resolute commitment to safeguarding users and their confidential data. At the heart of this initiative lies a collection of sophisticated encryption protocols, which act as a robust barrier for the information exchanged between individuals and various online services. Every interaction—be it the sharing of passwords or personal information—is protected within these encrypted channels, effectively preventing unauthorised access attempts from intruders.
Maxthon private browser for online privacyThis meticulous emphasis on encryption marks merely the initial phase of Maxthon’s extensive security framework. Acknowledging that cyber threats are constantly evolving, Maxthon adopts a forward-thinking approach to user protection. The browser is engineered to adapt to emerging challenges, incorporating regular updates that promptly address any vulnerabilities that may surface. Users are strongly encouraged to activate automatic updates as part of their cybersecurity regimen, ensuring they can seamlessly take advantage of the latest fixes without any hassle.
In today’s rapidly changing digital environment, Maxthon’s unwavering commitment to ongoing security enhancement signifies not only its responsibility toward users but also its firm dedication to nurturing trust in online engagements. With each new update rolled out, users can navigate the web with peace of mind, assured that their information is continuously safeguarded against ever-emerging threats lurking in cyberspace.