Singapore History II

It's a sad time... this entry is dedicated to two men who, probably more than anyone else, shaped how we understand Singapore history and how the world perceives Singapore, both of whom passed away recently:

Chengara Veetil Devan Nair: August 5, 1923 – December 6, 2005
Sinnathamby Rajaratnam: February 25, 1915 – February 22, 2006

Amazing how two foreign born Indians, one a Malayalee and the other Sinhalese, became two of the most staunchly Singaporean Singaporeans we've ever had to lead our country.

They effectively co-authored Singapore history, but one of them later repudiated it, and the other defended it so rigourously that he protested when a latter day government tried to change how it was taught. In effect they became two opposing poles of thought.

In that light, I present an article reproduced from the Straits Times (I hope they don't mind) about new perspectives on Singapore history:

Feb 18, 2006
Telling the Singapore storyies

From film-makers to students, more Singaporeans are showing a greater interest in Singapore's recent history. What accounts for this trend? What do they hope to add to the Singapore Story? ZAKIR HUSSAIN and SIM CHI YIN report

WHEN Mr Loh Kah Seng first began teaching history in 1998, he had to grapple with a 'national' account of Singapore's past.

It was the year after National Education was launched.

There was room for discussion, but some points of view were lacking, recalls Mr Loh, 34, a doctoral student at Murdoch University in Western Australia.

'It encouraged me to think more critically about the Singapore Story and what other stories there could be,' said the former junior college teacher.

Mr Loh is not alone. In recent years, academics and researchers have taken greater interest in studying Singapore's recent past. Part of this, they say, is an attempt to challenge the dominant version of the nation's past promoted through efforts like the introduction of National Education in schools.

But they also aim to look at aspects of that past not previously written about.

At present, 10 graduate students at the National University of Singapore (NUS) are researching various aspects of Singapore's history, twice the number five years ago. Several others are pursuing doctorates in the subject abroad.

NUS historian Albert Lau says enrolment in undergraduate history classes, for instance, has gone up by 12 times within the last seven years.

A roundtable on rethinking Singapore history at NUS last week drew an audience of 160. Various seminars held throughout the year attracted packed rooms.

For two days last July, 130 researchers, students and former political detainees gathered in NUS to discuss 'paths not taken' in post-World War II Singapore - a project 'to recast Singapore's postwar history to challenge the hegemonic paradigm'. A book is in the works.p> A three-part documentary by Discovery Channel, The History of Singapore, shown in December, was the highest-rated programme in the cable TV channel's history here. It had an estimated 135,000 viewers, although several criticised it for being overly conventional.

In 2003, civil society group The Tangent devoted an issue of its English and Chinese journal to the subject of local history, selling all 800 copies printed.

Online discussions and various public forums have generated a buzz of late, said Associate Professor Lee Guan Kin, director of Nanyang Technological University's Centre of Chinese Language and Culture and head of the Nantah History Project.

Opening a World War II gallery at the Old Ford Factory on Thursday, Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean also stressed the need to learn from the past.

Why the interest

WHY is there this 'renaissance of Singapore history', as Singapore Heritage Society president Kevin Tan puts it?

Researchers say one factor is the launch of National Education in schools in 1997 and the National Education exhibition titled The Singapore Story the year after. Then the first volume of then-Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew's memoirs - also titled The Singapore Story - was published in 1998.

Mr Lee said in the preface of his memoirs that 'this is not an official history'. While researchers acknowledge this, they say the widely read and influential book has set the tone for telling the Singapore Story.

National Education gave Singapore history a visibility it had not enjoyed for some time, said Associate Professor Lau of the NUS History Department.

Some scholars say another factor for the revival of interest is that some historical documents from the postwar period have become available recently.

Mr Zhou Zhao Cheng, 33, recently wrote a thesis on Nantah's relations with the government from 1953 to 1968, using materials from the Public Record Office in the United Kingdom, to supplement oral histories and what he could find in the archives here.

Also, more participants in key historical events are now more willing to speak out, notes Mr Loh. 'Lim Chin Siong's death in 1996 was perhaps a reminder that if they don't say something, their voices are not going to be heard.'

Missing voices

WHAT is it, exactly, that this new crop of historians and researchers aim to do?

One issue which researchers grapple with is that the 'official' version of the Singapore Story has already been told persuasively, via school textbooks.

In this account, Singapore, a small island state with no natural resources, first became a thriving British entrepot port, suffered under the Japanese occupation, gained independence under the People's Action Party and overcame the odds to transform itself into a First World country.

Mr Liew Kai Khiun, 33, a Singaporean historian who is doing his PhD in London, says: 'The main grievance is the rather uncritical imposition of the Singapore Story on Singaporeans, many of whom feel it is the story of the PAP rather than their stories.'

The preoccupation with political and constitutional events in Singapore's history has left social and cultural histories to be 'still regarded as accidental to the main political plot', said Dr Sai Siew Min of NUS' History Department.

There is growing interest in histories 'from below' which tell the stories of individuals, and an urgency to get oral histories of people who were personally involved in the tumultuous 1950s and 1960s, for instance, whether as opposition or trade union mobilisers.

Other researchers want to see more space given to alternative voices such as Lim Chin Siong, the ex-PAP leader who broke away to form the Barisan Sosialis in 1961.

Mr Thum Ping Tjin, 26, who is doing a doctorate at Oxford University on trade unions and industrial action in Singapore in the 1950s and 1960s, says understanding what motivated leaders like Lim Chin Siong are 'important to our own understanding of Singapore'.

Ongoing research seeks to rediscover these 'political losers' in mainstream Singapore history.

Mr Liew, who has written about local trade unionists and naval dockyard workers, sees his role as that of a 'tang kee' (Hokkien for spirit medium), 'bringing back forgotten voices of the past in order for the present to remember'.

Challenges

BUT researchers say they face obstacles that can be crippling.

Top of the list is difficult access to official documents.

Mr Joey Long, a doctoral student at Cambridge University researching the US involvement in Singapore in the 1950s and 1960s, notes that many local government documents, particularly from the security agencies, remain restricted.

He notes that as foreign archives increasingly open their collections to public scrutiny, 'there will be a need for the local perspective to be brought into the analysis so that more nuanced and judicious assessments can be made, especially of controversial issues'.

Mr Kwa Chong Guan of the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies argues that if the Government does not open its archives for the researcher to check against these other perspectives available, then 'it's to the loss of the credibility of that official Singapore story'.

The National Heritage Board Act says public records over 25 years old, and which have been transferred to the Board, are considered public archives. But there is no law mandating government agencies to make their records publicly available after a number of years, says Dr Kevin Tan.

Self-censorship is also viewed, at least in Associate Professor Quah Sy Ren's eyes, as 'perhaps the biggest enemy in representing an alternative narrative' because of political sensitivities that remain.

Moving forward

RESEARCHERS say they hope to add other voices to the Singapore Story, so that this weaving of disparate voices and multiple versions will knit together a more colourful tapestry of many Singapore stories.

As Singapore becomes more open and inclusive, cherishing diversity rather than embracing conformity, Singaporeans' understanding of the past has to include more points of view.

But as many of the researchers interviewed would ask: whose past, and which past?

zakirh@sph.com.sg

simcy@sph.com.sg

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT A MARTIAN WOULD SAY

'A Martian with only the official script would think that there is only one political movement - the PAP; two important personalities in Singapore - Stamford Raffles and Lee Kuan Yew; and three dates - 1819, 1942 and 1965 - that are worth remembering.

Like all national histories, the Singapore Story seems to be concerned with what takes place at the political helm, rendering the rest of society mere passive spectators or victims of grand events.'

MR LIEW KAI KHIUN, 33, doctoral student at University College London

TELL ALTERNATIVE VIEWS

'History cannot and should not be seen from one angle. To make it meaningful, especially for the younger generation, it has to be seen from different perspectives. The Singapore Story has many players. So far, most of us have heard the views of a select group of players. Now that most of the players are entering their sunset years, it is imperative that as many as possible of the views are recorded and told. That's the least we can do for the growing generation who has been fed a diet of one official view.'

MR MICHAEL FERNANDEZ, 71, former trade unionist and political detainee, who presented a paper on the left-wing trade unions (1945 to 1970) at the Paths Not Taken symposium at NUS in July

PAST NOW LESS CONTENTIOUS

'The increased interest is inevitable as controversies of the past recede and become less contentious.

People are more prepared to look at things objectively.

(The Singapore Story) is not necessarily a battle between good and evil. It's just different sides...one side won and one side lost, obviously. But that's not important in the scheme of things. I hope we'll have the maturity to see that some time.'

MR TAN JING QUEE, 66, lawyer and former political detainee who will be speaking at an arts forum, 'Detention - Writing - Healing', on Feb 26

****************************

I got a one sentence quote, but it's swell to share an article with so many illustrious figures in the world of Singapore history. Zakir actually sent me a list of questions plus called me and interviewed me for about 25 minutes. The quote above came out of the phone interview, but I thought I'd reproduce the email interview here for the benefit of my readers:

1. What have you observed that supports this trend (of more people relooking/rewriting Singapore history)?

Well, I don't have a long perspective since I'm still just a student, but I can tell you that most of the work I read was written in the 70s and 80s, and very little was written for a long time. However, since the end of the 1990s, there's been a resurgence of new material, and that's been because of a burst of memoirs and other work. MM Lee's memoirs and Chin Peng's "My Side of History", or "Comet in our Sky" on Lim Chin Siong gave a real impetus to our work, not just in and of themselves but also because they encouraged other people to come forward to present their own perspectives on events. So there's been lots of excitement and we've got a lot more to work with.

2. How does recent/ongoing work differ from previous alternative histories?

One major different is new source material: the National Archives in the UK, for one, has been opening up a lot of documents under the 30 year rule, and so many documents about merger and independence have become available. It's made a massive impact. Also, many of the participants are more willing to speak about events now as they approach the end of their lives. I think new historical techniques and methodology are also playing a part. Finally, I think we're really beginning to appreciate the influence of so many different cultures and heritages in Singapore and we're looking at Singapore in a very different light from the past: not as a colony, but as one of the most globalised, most cosmopolitan, least insular communities on earth, which existed long before Raffles arrived and was already a sophisticated place, plugged into the region and into the wider world. We're re-evaluating Singapore not just as a state or a nation, but as a concept.

3. Why, in your view, is there this interest? What drives you in your own work?

To return to a theme I drew upon in my swim in the Channel- I think one major reason is that Singapore has reached 40 years old, which is not just significant in experience but also that a new generation of Singaporeans, who have no living memory of Singapore being anything but an independent city-state, want to know who we are and where we came from. We're not shaped by colonialism, nor by the Cold War and battles against communism; We want to shake free of our postcolonial legacy and assert our right to our own history and our own future and to explore our own past as a people.

Like I also said in my swim: anyone, anywhere, can do great things. But because of our colonial past, we've come to believe that we're somehow not as capable as our former colonial masters. But we've got a longer, richer history and much more cultural heritage than most countries in Europe. We were a trading port before Columbus reached America; we were part of a wealthy regional Empire when England was still a minor European country; we've been a single polity longer than France or Germany or Italy. We have so much to be proud of, and we've achieved so much, so we mustn't get caught up in thinking that because of recent history we're inferior. We are as good, and as capable, as anyone, anywhere. Our history shows that.

I personally want to know about my past. I want to know who I am, and how I have so many different influences that have made up who I am. I want to know what it means to be Singaporean. I am trying to understand what my country is and where we came from. I'm proud to be Singaporean, and I want to explore what that means.

4. What challenges do historians and students attempting to explore these other historical narratives face?

The biggest challenge is always sources. For example, we have a woefully underfunded National Archive! The poor archivists in there work so hard on a shoestring budget, but there's only so much they can do. So much of our nation's documented history is sitting in there waiting for someone to get around to cataloguing everything. Also, people are dying; I wish I could sit around all day and just talk to old folks and just hear about what it was like to have struggled for freedom against the Japanese and British. Sometimes people just don't want to bring up bad memories.
Another challenge, I think, is relevance. I'm all for knowing something for the sake of knowing it, but I want my work to have a direct influence on Singaporeans' lives. I want Singaporeans to be proud of their past. I want them to understand that history is subjective, that the British colonial history we all know about is just one perspective, that there are so many other perspectives to look at. It's not encouraging when people don't see why it's so important.

(Follow-up to questions 2 and 4)Are there specific findings from newly opened files, that you wish there was more information on from the Singapore side?

You might already know the answer to this one. (Cambridge Professor) Tim Harper found in 2001 that the British not only had no proof that Lim Chin Siong was a communist, but believed that he was not. So the question is- is there any evidence in the Singapore side? And if he wasn't a communist, what was he, then? What did he want for Singapore? What were his policies? He's such a towering but mysterious figure- and as a historian, I hate that! I'm so curious! The same for many other people. The British records basically end with Singapore's independence, so whatever there is after that would be in Singapore.

5. Where will all this interest and study lead to?

The future rests with people like my generation, those of us who were born in independent Singapore, who have a lot to live up to and a lot of responsibility. We need to know and understand our past in order to be able to make informed decisions about our future. We can't know where we're going unless we know where we came from. So it's vitally important that our history is understood, and communicated. This trend is important because we need to have a firm grounding in order to take Singapore forward. Regarding myself, I love to teach. I worked as a teacher before starting my doctorate, I teach here in Oxford now and I find it extremely fulfilling. So I'd like to keep researching and teaching. My teachers inspired me a lot and I'd like to inspire the next generation of Singaporeans in the same way.