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.

The Past and Future of My Education and Yours

Harvard President Larry Summers announced that he will step down as Harvard President from July 1, 2006.

Official announcement in the Gazette
Letter from Larry Summers
Letter from the Corporation (pdf)
Harvard Crimson editorial
The Times editorial
The Economist article (Subscription required)

I'm really, really disappointed. Incredibly disappointed. Larry Summers was hired by the Corporation specifically to do a job, and he was doing it well. That job was to modernize Harvard and bring its system of education into the 21st century, and to ensure it remains the gold standard of higher education around the world. By the very definition of his job, Summers was going to challenge the faculty and make them face very uncomfortable truths- that the general education of America's undergraduates was not adequate to prepare them for the challenges of the modern world; that Harvard, and the other elite universities on the coasts of America, did not have enough intellectual diversity and freedom; that Harvard was out of touch with much of the modern social and political climate in which it finds itself. The sad fact is, Harvard, like all the other major universities of North America, is guilty of all these things. The Corporation was enlightened enough to see this, and to face up to the challenge, and the faculty have shied away from the challenge and battled ferociously to preserve their own self-interest and the status quo.

If you read most accounts, it will explain his departure as due to his infamous remarks about women and possible genetic differences with men, and also to his style of governance. It's hypocrisy that the faculty of an academic institution that is supposed to support intellectual freedom were willing to castigate him for his remarks. The fact is, many other professors say things which are routinely accepted because of that same intellectual freedom to experiment and hypothesise. What they were looking for is an excuse to take down a man who was threatening their own personal agendas.

Take two specific examples. When I was an undergraduate, it was quite clear to me, even as an ignorant teenager on campus, that Prof. Cornel West was more interested in being famous than in teaching his students. He was off posing with black stars and cutting rap albums. When Summers told him to shape up and concentrate on what he was being paid to do- teach students- West huffily decamped to Princeton. Of course, they were willing to take him in.

Secondly, Prof Kirby, who resigned a short while ago, led the much hyped undergraduate core curriculum review. His committee sat around for ages and produced nothing. Absolutely nothing. Their plan looks more like some utopian ideal than a concrete plan for tackling the needs of students to come.

As an alumni, I was highly supportive of Larry Summers, and I believe most alumni are too. A survey found that most students (3 out of 4, according to a Crimson survey) supported him as well. At the end of the day, the university is supposed to educate students, and relies very much on us alumni for donations. We expect Harvard to maintain its excellence because a fall in standards lowers the perceived values of our education as well. I think the alumni will see this and there will be repurcussions. I know I am deeply disappointed and ashamed of the Harvard faculty for putting their own narrow interests ahead of a desire to improve Harvard.

Two final thoughts-

1. It's very instructive of the nature of leadership that Summers, despite his intellect, credentials, and achievements, could still trip up. His failure has been primarily his deficiency in recognising the opposition to him that would develop. Perhaps it was due to over-optimism, over-confidence or idealism; but it's a reminder that leadership is not just about producing the right ideas, but also about inspiring people to believe in them.

2. What does this mean for Oxford's reforms? Again, I'm very supportive of Vice-Chancellor Hood and I think he's on the right track. I think Oxford should be on the path toward eventual independence, and I think we need to streamline our system of governance, especially in non-academic affairs. We need to be willing to challenge ourselves. Harvard's case is going to scare every university in America and make them shy away from confronting the problems which infect them all. This offers an opportunity for Oxford to learn from Harvard's mistakes and think deeply about where the university has to go in the future.

Imperial Metaphor

I attended a seminar by Bernard Porter ("The Lion's Share", "The Absent-Minded Imperialists") today and thoroughly enjoyed it. He's as entertaining as his writing. My favourite quote from the evening:

"The British approached empire like a young man who gets his girlfriend pregnant. They wanted that things which cause empire, but when empire came along as a result, they didn't want to take responsibility for it!"

Read his books, including the new one which comes out next month ("Empire and Superempire"). I guarantee that you will be entertained.

The Flip Side

Now that you've told me what you think my good points are, go here to tell me what my bad points are (i.e., here's a chance to tell me what you really think of me!):

http://kevan.org/nohari?name=pjthum

Self-Awareness

After seeing this on After seeing this on LatvianChick's LJ, I decided I had to try this myself:

Please visit http://kevan.org/johari?name=pjthum

The Prejudice Map

via Peter, I present the Prejudice Map.

Philipp Lenssen runs Google Blogoscoped, a blog covering Google, the search engine world, online research, and other related (and unrelated) topics. He had the idea to do a search of stereotypes throughout the world (or at least, the English-writing, online world) by doing a search on Google. He started out with "Germans are known for *" (the asterisk indicates a wildcard) and noted down the top three or four matches. He then did it for a number of major countries and the map is the result.

I tried it and learnt that Singaporeans are known for their kiasu mentality, for stereotyping, and for choosing eating as their favourite past-time. Pretty accurate! The fourth link is a repeat of the kiasu-ness, so I guess we are very renowned (notorious?) for it.

Meanwhile, Malaysians are known for friendliness, warmth and "dry" curry. Indonesians are known for suppressing emotions, massage technique and hospitality (especially due to their massage technique!). Thais are known for their hospitality and love of sanuk (fun). The last is definitely true. I think I'm becoming a bit Thai by association.

Singapore History I

In researching Singapore history during the period between World War II and independence, two people really stand out. The first is well known: Lee Kuan Yew. The second is famous in name, but not much is known about him: Lim Chin Siong. Singapore's story has become so inextricably tied to the former that the latter has been overlooked. Yet it is very much possible to depict the period as a battle of minds and wills between them. It became clear, early on, that Singapore was going to be led by one or the other. No one else had the ability that they did, no one else commanded the respect that they did, and no one else was in the position they were in. Their political rivalry was deep and intense, and their respect for each other quite profound.

As I read about both, my respect for both men has also grown. Lim Chin Siong was idealistic, scrupulously honest, extremely principled, a brilliant orator, and held deep beliefs in egalitarianism, equality, and democracy. Lee Kuan Yew was a brilliant tactician, extremely pragmatic, long-sighted and had great strength in character, and had an equally opposing deep belief in the enlightened leadership of the elites, the principles of market forces, and conservative progressivism.

Despite how their rivalry shaped Singapore, the imbalance on our understanding is a gaping chasm in our understanding of history. There are so many misconceptions of Lim Chin Siong and the Barisan Sosialis- misconceptions that I shared myself. So my work has held a lot of surprises for me.

So, as a preview of my upcoming seminar presentation in Oxford (and in the hope that others will read and comment on my work), I present some preliminary thoughts on what I've found so far in the course of my research. Everything here is on the basis of primary sources, mainly archival documents, that I've been reading. It is, of course, subject to revision as I continue to research (and definitely will be revised before I write up). I also make no value judgements on who is "right" and "wrong". I'm a historian- I just want to find out the facts.

1. Lim Chin Siong wasn't a communist. In fact, he was never linked with any communist organisation, nor was any evidence found to prove he had any link to the communists. In fact, once in government he so scrupulously adhered to constitutional, legal, democratic methods of government that it put him at a huge disadvantage. Evidence at the Colonial Archives shows the British officials admitting he wasn't a communist. To them, however, he was something worse: an extremely popular Singaporean patriot who was fiercly anti-colonial and would not ensure the protection of British interests and security after independence. BUT equally, there is no doubt that almost all leaders believed that he was a communist, which is just as important as whether he really was one or not. He certainly appeared to be one.

2. The PAP never convincingly demonstrated that the electorate favoured them over the top Barisan leaders. They won the 1959 election with the left-wing leaders as part of the PAP; The 1961 referendum had only one reasonable choice (the other two would have reduced Singaporeans to second-class citizens in Malaysia); the 1963 election was a snap election fought in the wake of Operation Cold Store, which arrested all the top Barisan leaders; and the 1968 election was boycotted by the Barisan.

3. There never has been a good understanding of the Barisan Sosialis, its platform, and its leaders. They are depicted in our textbooks as communists- but in actual fact, we have no idea about who they are or what they stood for. In other words, far from them being a left-wing communist front; they could actually be a moderate party led by a few left-wingers... we don't really know.

4. Singapore never had paternalistic government until the PAP came along. The colonial government ruled mainly through intermediaries and followed a mainly non-interventionist policy designed to reduce costs and increase British trade. The PAP depict themselves as part of a long tradition of enlightened government, but they run counter to prevous trends in Singapore history.

5. Singapore has always been an extremely global city, with constant traffic in and out. There is very little to our experience which is unique or specific. In fact, we were probably one of the most global cities on earth in the 1800s. We tend to think of Singapore as quite the opposite today- a very unique, insular city given special status due to geography. Quite the opposite. We've always drawn upon a huge variety of cultures and traditions. We've used ideas from everywhere else and just adapted them to our fertile soil. I think in recent years the National Education Policy has back-tracked and has started to emphasise our cultural heritage again.

6. There is a long tradition of multi-ethnic mobilisation and shared interests. Far from "divide-and-rule", the various ethnic groups had common interests and interactions, even if they never had a common platform for expressing them. Multi-ethnic cooperation has long precedent in Singapore, even if it was not daily practice.

7. Singapore has always been separate from Malaysia. There was little precedent for assuming we should join Malaya in 1963 for economic reasons. There were sound reasons, to be sure, but equally we oculd have likely made it on our own since we always had been. Joining Malaya in 1963 was for political reasons: the British wanted to protect trade and their base; the Malayans wanted to ensure a left-wing, socialist government which was possibly sympathetic to communist regimes, did not arise on their doorstep; and the PAP wanted to hold on to power since the Barisan was much more popular and would have easily defeated them in an election unless they were locked up.

Any thoughts, anyone?