2002年，新传媒（Media Corp）以河水山为题材，制作了脍炙人口的电视剧《河水山》。《河水山》的主题曲由吴庆康作词，李伟菘作曲，邓妙华主唱，来势汹汹，连夺“红星大奖2002”最佳主题曲和“亚洲电视大奖2002”最佳原创歌曲。
星空如此璀璨/风儿好寂寞/河水渐渐流下了落寞/谁在陋巷说承诺深爱过/不过是刹那的火
有些事难以执着/有些情永远交错/若在你眼中灿烂过/无所谓花开花落
有些话留着不说/有些人擦肩而过/只要在你心绽放过/无所谓花开花落
星空如此璀璨/起落叹太多/回忆渐渐留下了落寞/谁也说不出谁错谁失落/不过是刹那心火
有些事难以执着/有些情永远交错/若在你眼中灿烂过/无所谓花开花落
有些话留着不说/有些人擦肩而过/只要在你心绽放过/无所谓花开花落
星空如此璀璨/风儿好寂寞…
《河水山》的诞生，跟20世纪末新加坡两大传媒集团各自雄踞一方不无关系。
（河水山，新传媒经典之一。2002）
2000年，新加坡政府决定让这两大集团进入对方的业务领域，同时进军互联网。为了让它们可以通过各种媒体平台进行有效的竞争，报业控股获得经营两个免费电视频道和两个电台频道的执照，新传媒则获得出版一份英文报纸的执照。2001年5月6日U频道启播，结束新传媒过去38年来的垄断局面，两大集团的业务也从过去互不干涉过渡到不断出现激烈的转折点。在市场竞争下可是好戏连场，《河水山》就是在竞争下新传媒亮眼的作品之一。
因电视市场的竞争剧烈，内阁资政李光耀继续发挥他的影响力，公开表明“新加坡地方太小，不宜拥有多于一间电视台”。2004年9月，两大传媒集团整合旗下的一些业务，成立了“新传媒电视控股有限公司” (MediaCorp TV Holdings)，新传媒与SPH各得80%与20％的股权。根据双方的论点，这是一个防止亏损和增加股东利益的理性措施，是双方在新加坡这个小市场上平衡博弈后的商业考量。2005年起，新公司开始运作。
对广大市民来说，最直接的冲击就是短短四年内两家电视台重新整合为一家，跳槽到SPH属下U频道的幕后工作者与前线演员纷纷回巢。新加坡两大媒体恍如经历过一场河水山大火的吞噬，期待着凤凰再生。对某些在整合过程中锻羽而归的失意者来说，或许正如《河水山》主题曲所形容的：星空如此璀璨，起落叹太多，回忆渐渐留下了落寞。风儿好寂寞…
虽然《河水山》主题曲借助“河水山”这个地方名，唱出“河水渐渐流下了落寞”，实际上，河水山Bukit Ho Swee没有河没有水，不过山倒是有的。新加坡“山区”处处，只要在平地多了一个高耸出地面的丘陵都称为“山”，早期的河水山附近可是山坟处处。
随着市区的发展，河水山成为“市区甘榜”，河水山上纵横交错没有规划的木屋建了一间又一间。1961年5月25日附近四脚亭Jalan Membina的火苗，借着风势蔓延到河水山，将木屋区夷为平地，烧毁了2800户家庭，16000人流离失所。当时总共出动了22辆消防车，356名救火员和1346名军警。
（河水山附近处处是坟山。http://blog.omy.sg/sgstory/archives/1383）
随着市区的发展，河水山成为“市区甘榜”，河水山上纵横交错没有规划的木屋建了一间又一间。1961年5月25日附近四脚亭Jalan Membina的火苗，借着风势蔓延到河水山，将木屋区夷为平地，烧毁了2800户家庭，16000人流离失所。当时总共出动了22辆消防车，356名救火员和1346名军警。
（The Straits Times, May 26, 1961）
（河水山大火，蔓延至Havelock Road。NAS 1961）
（在河水山火灾现场逃难。NAS 1961）
（河水山火灾现场，无语问苍天。NAS 1961）
当时的国家发展部长陈家彦（Tan Kia Gan）在立法议会检讨河水山大火事件，也带出殖民地政府遗留下来的严重的住屋问题：
“Let us not ignore the lessons of this catastrophe. The reasons for the existence of building by-laws, the need to enforce minimum building standards, and the basic requirements of proper planning should now be painfully clear. We must not be blind to such lessons. We should now understand why the Chief Building Surveyor's Department of my Ministry conducts its campaign against unauthorised structures, which are built in exactly similar conditions to the houses that went up so quickly in flames at Bukit Ho Swee on 25th May. Most of these unauthorised structures are put up by unscrupulous racketeers who live off the miseries of the poor. It is appreciated that the poor people are forced by circumstances to live in these huts because of the acute shortage of cheap housing in the State and that it will be some time before the building programmes of the Housing and Development Board can catch up with this shortage. But I should like to appeal to these people not to fall into the clutches of the racketeers who put up unauthorised buildings for rent or sale. They should never buy or rent any of these structures. They may not only be cheated, but may also become victims of fire.”
“It was indeed fortunate that the Bukit Ho Swee fire was brought under control and did not spread further. If circumstances had been adverse the fire could easily have gone out of control with much more disastrous consequences. A conflagration of this magnitude can easily engulf not only attap buildings, but also brick and concrete structures as well. Many brick and concrete buildings were, in fact, destroyed on 25th May, along Havelock Road. If attap and wooden structures were allowed to multiply in the city areas, the next fire might well destroy a considerable section of the city, with considerable loss of lives. I appeal to members of the public to report immediately to the Chief Building Surveyor's Department should they see any unauthorised attap and wooden structures being put up. At the moment, there is a large number of outstanding mandatory orders against unauthorised buildings. Many of these orders require alterations to the unauthorised structures before they can be regularised. Most of the houses, however, cannot be regularised, because they are likely to become dangerous fire traps. There has been a great deal of misunderstanding about the work of the Building Surveyor's Department, particularly when it takes action to demolish unauthorised buildings. But may I repeat that one of the main reasons for this unpleasant action is to save people from the dangers of fire traps, like those of Bukit Ho Swee?” --- Singapore Parliament Reports Volume No. 14, sitting date 1961-05-31
七年后，1968年11月23日，同样一阵怪风，将邻近 Havelock Road 的河水山木屋区完全烧毁，3000人失去家园。
（The Straitstimes, November 23, 1968）
河水山没河没水，那么“河水”从何而来？许云樵编写的《南洋华语俚俗辞典》(1961)提到：
和瑞山：原名Bukit Ho Swee，纪念闽侨钜富郑和瑞者，和瑞为汉隆之子，一八三四年生於新加坡，其父乃承包烟酒公卖之第一人，店号曰协隆发盛。和瑞尝与章芳林之父三潮合资承包，并曾运木材至中国销售，一九零三年殁，年七十。俗讹作河水山。
还有另一个传闻，说河水山取名自“戴河水”，此人也是生于1834-1903年，从事烟酒和木材买卖，1860年代还运木材到中国。所谓“烟”，指的应该是“鸦片”。
No comments:
Post a Comment