Forum: Place names should follow principles of clarity and uniqueness
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox
Follow topic:
I was bemused at the recent announcement of the renaming of the Singapore Sports Hub to The Kallang (“ Singapore Sports Hub is now known as The Kallang
It has been barely 10 years since then Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong inaugurated the Singapore Sports Hub in 2015. Countless Singaporeans and visitors to our country have become familiar with the name and the world-class facilities it represents.
The name “Singapore Sports Hub” is great for a number of reasons. Each word in that trio is pulling its own weight – “Singapore” to signify this area is of national importance, “Sports” to describe the majority of the activities/events that take place there, and “Hub” proclaiming that its impact will be felt far beyond its boundaries.
The name is easily read and understood. Anyone new to Singapore will immediately know what the area is designed and used for. The same cannot be said about “The Kallang”.
Another plus point of the previous name was its uniqueness, which the new one possesses very little of. We can imagine taxi passengers asking to go to “The Kallang”, only to be met with confused drivers asking: “Where exactly? Kallang is so big!”
Even URA’s Handbook on Guidelines for Naming of Buildings and Estates warns against a single development monopolising locality names, listing hypothetical examples of “My Katong” and “The Scotts”, which would not be allowed. “The Kallang” belongs in the same category.
Now that the announcement is out, I’m not sure anything can be rolled back for “The Kallang”. But whenever there are suggested name changes in the future, especially for important national landmarks and facilities, hopefully we can keep to the principles of clarity and uniqueness that have served us so well in the past.
Aaron Ong Beng Shen
