The fishing methods of Singapore. { In Papers on Malayan fishing methods
T.W. Burdon, head of the Singapore Fisheries Department, published this systematic catalogue of all fishing methods operating in Singapore waters in 1954, as the lead contribution to the MBRAS monograph Papers on Malayan Fishing Methods. The article provides a comprehensive, taxonomic account of every gear type in use in the Colony, organized by the physical mechanism of capture, and draws on direct field observation combined with the Department’s licensing and landing statistics for 1952.
Summary
Burdon’s treatment is structured around a classification scheme he had previously proposed to the Indo-Pacific Fisheries Council (1951), dividing all methods into those that secure fish individually (foul-hooking and clean-hooking appliances) and those that operate on groups or associations of fish (entrapping, closing, entangling, and investing structures), with a final category for indiscriminate methods (poisons and explosives). Within each category, individual gears are described in considerable technical detail: construction materials, dimensions, method of operation, seasonal constraints, and typical catches. The article is not a narrative history but a synchronic survey, though it notes the origins of several methods (the pelontang introduced by immigrant payang fishermen in the late 1920s; the moro ami introduced by Japanese fishermen before 1920; the bubu design probably introduced from India by the Portuguese) and records the decline of others (the moro ami reduced from a near-monopoly to four active units after the closure of Indonesian reef fisheries to Singapore-licensed boats).
The dominant theme emerging from the data is the overwhelming importance of the kelong—the offshore palisade trap—as the single most productive method in Singapore waters. Burdon devotes the longest continuous passage to its construction, siting, and operation, describing in detail the role of the pawang (expert constructor), the driving of nibong poles by teams of ten to fifteen men, the geometry of the sayap and bunoh chambers, and the windlass-and-net system for harvesting. The kelong is contrasted with its smaller relatives (the belat, belat bubu, and kelong bilis) and with the portable traps (bubu, injap, lukah) that share the non-return principle. The article also documents the diversity of line-fishing, from the ubiquitous hand-line (panching) to the commercial off-shore troll-lines for tongkol and the Hainanese and Fukien long-line fleets operating in the South China Sea.
Primary sources informing the narrative include the Fisheries Department’s annual reports and licensing records for 1952, Burdon’s own field observations, and unpublished material from Tham Ah Kow on the beach seine. The article is heavily illustrated with line drawings of gear components and plates of fishing operations, and it concludes with a glossary of Malay and Chinese technical terms.
Key Findings
- The kelong (offshore palisade trap) provided approximately 68–70 per cent of domestic landings from local Singapore waters, equivalent to 15 per cent of total market supplies including imports; 310 licences were issued for kelong sites in 1952 (pp. 37–38).
- Off-shore troll-lines for tongkol landed a total of 334.02 tons in 1952 (243.75 tons from the South China Sea at an average of 0.14 tons per day absent from port; 90.27 tons from the Indian Ocean at 0.12 tons per day); vessels operated approximately 17 lines each at 6 knots and were absent from port for 8–15 days (p. 19).
- The tenggiri-parang drift gill-net fleet landed over 700 tons in 1952, representing 13 per cent of all fish caught by Singapore fishermen and consisting solely of high-grade fish (p. 53).
- Large beach seines (pukat tarek) provided nearly 500 tons of fish during 1952, equivalent to 9 per cent of total Singapore production, despite the scarcity of suitable beaches and the disruption caused by emergency measures in the Straits of Johore (p. 61).
- Construction costs for a kelong with a 32-depa net in 3 fathoms of water were estimated at over Strs. $16,000 in 1953; deep-water traps could cost up to Strs. $35,000 (p. 37).
- The moro ami (Japanese drive-in net) at its peak accounted for nearly 40 per cent of total market handlings, but by 1954 only four active units remained, restricted to the east coast of Malaya following the closure of Indonesian reef fisheries to Singapore-licensed boats (pp. 48–49).
Conclusion
Burdon’s definitive takeaway is that Singapore’s fishing industry was dominated by a small number of highly specialized, capital-intensive methods—above all the kelong—operating in a confined and intensively fished area. The low average catches from most inshore gears (hand-lines averaging about 5 lb. per day; belat traps 10–12 lb.) are presented as evidence of the intensity of fishing pressure in Singapore waters, while the productivity of the kelong and the off-shore troll and long-line fleets explains the Colony’s dependence on these methods for the bulk of its domestic supply. The article implicitly argues that the physical constraints of the Singapore Straits—strong currents, limited suitable beaches, heavy shipping traffic, and the proximity of competing jurisdictions—have shaped a distinctive assemblage of gear that differs markedly from that found elsewhere in Malaya.
Context
- The study is grounded in the records of the Fisheries Department, Singapore (licensing data, landing statistics for 1952), and in Burdon’s direct field observation of fishing operations; it also incorporates unpublished material from Tham Ah Kow on beach seine construction and catch composition.
- As the lead paper in a multi-author MBRAS monograph, it establishes the classificatory framework (based on Burdon’s 1951 Indo-Pacific Fisheries Council paper) within which the companion studies by Parry (Kelantan and Trengganu) and Gibson-Hill (boats) are organized, making it a foundational reference for the ethno-ichthyological and gear-taxonomic literature on Malayan fisheries.