As we celebrate 50 years of Singapore’s independence this year, much attention has been given to what has been achieved since our separation from Malaysia in 1965.
While Singapore’s independence is a logical and relatable point in history, could SG50 inadvertently erase other histories that can help shape our national identit(ies) and public policy?
I’m not suggesting that SG50 is insignificant. In terms of national identity, the SG50 celebrations — alongside former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s passing and memorial — draw important attention to a group regarded to have made Singapore what it is today: The Pioneer Generation. This generation of Singaporeans is portrayed to have been tenacious, hardworking and resilient, and to have suffered the tumultuous early years to achieve the comforts we now enjoy. Leading them was Mr Lee, widely acknowledged as a man of vision, passion and extreme dedication and pragmatism.
These traits are undisputedly positive, and highlighting them implies present generations are encouraged to adopt these qualities in taking the country forward.
However, such a singular interpretation of history has its limitations.
The emphasis on the “50” in “SG50” serves as a pertinent reminder of how Singapore has reached its first golden jubilee against all odds. Various government-funded programmes have highlighted specific remembrance of events that occurred post-1965, inadvertently implying that Singapore has only 50 years of history.
Likewise, the recent passing of Mr Lee unleashed a slew of tributes bestowing on him accolades for being the “founding father” or “founder of modern Singapore”. This is problematic when one considers that he is not the sole proprietor of these titles.
What we risk losing sight of when focusing the spotlight on the last 50 years is our rich and colourful heritage that reaches back hundreds of years. It is important to be clear about when our history began. This is because the historical narrative that is accepted into common discourse determines the way in which we construe our national identity and craft public policy.
Richard Evan’s In Defense of History defines the purpose of history as “finding out about the past as something to cherish and preserve, and the only proper foundation for a true understanding and appreciation of institutions of state and society in present.” The future and the direction we see ourselves heading towards is forecasted from the present, which is in turn constructed upon the past.
Thus, the building blocks chosen to set this foundation are crucial to our national identity.
Forgotten histories
In constructing the current national identity that we will be commemorating this August, there has been a disproportionate emphasis on the past 50 years, which is only 7% of our entire historical timeline.
Sri Tri Buana of the Srivijayan Empire in 1299, popularly known as Sang Nila Utama can be said to be our island’s first founder. The Srivijayan Empire was based in what is now Indonesia. When the last King of Singapura, Iskandar Shah, fled in 1398 under duress, he founded the Melaka Sultanate (now Melaka) but kept Singapura under his dominion. As a result, early Singapore has deep roots in Malay history and is intertwined with the histories of Malaysia and Indonesia.
However, this Malay cultural heritage is hardly visible in modern Singapore. Barely any remnants from that bygone era exist in our landscape or memory, aside from in museums and textbooks. Our so-called “heritage sites” such as Kampong Glam, the erstwhile location of the Malay royal citadel, has lost much of its connection to the Malay population due to the area adopting a more cosmopolitan Middle Eastern representation of Muslim heritage.
It may be too late to save any more physical artefacts, but a more serious recognition of this aspect of Singapore’s history would no doubt be appreciated by at least a part of the population that values a more authentic rendering of our cultural roots. Can anyone then say that Singapore has no “culture”? Relations with our neighbours north and south might even be positively impacted considering the historical connections.
Our second founder, another “founder of modern Singapore”, is Sir Stamford Raffles. Arriving in Singapore in 1819, Raffles’ landing marked the start of colonial Singapore. He is often credited for transforming a “sleepy fishing village” into a thriving seaport, ignoring the fact that prior to his arrival, the Melaka Sultanate considered Singapura important enough to maintain a fiefdom there. According to John Miksic’s Singapore and the Silk Road of the Sea, Raffles’ goal in settling in Singapore was not to found a new port, but to “revive the glory that he believed Singapore had once possessed as the first great Malay trading centre”. Singapura had thrived as a kingdom until its invasion in 1398, and after the establishment of the Melaka Sultanate, the island was integral to the spread of the Sultanate’s influence.
Despite the colonial era lasting over a hundred years, we marginalise the contribution of the British and early Singaporean leaders in establishing the foundation and infrastructure on which independent Singapore came to be. The British invested in building Singapore’s port capabilities, putting us on the path to becoming an international centre for trade. Before Mr Lee, there was David Marshall and Lim Yew Hock who themselves contributed to the struggle for internal self-government (and eventual independence) in the 1950s.
Colonialism is still alive and pervasive in the guise of coloniality of power with its legacy of hieracrchical order and Eurocentricism; there is no use in denying the influence of Western dominance in our culture and society. Singapore’s Parliament is modelled after the Westminster parliamentary system. Our youth still spend many nights stressing over the Cambridge-run “O” and “A” Levels examinations. Even the foundations of our economic structure bear the hallmark of the Dutch economist Dr Albert Winsemius, who was a primary consultant to the Singapore Government in its early industrial expansion programme. There is a world of knowledge to be uncovered beyond dominant Western perspectives. By being upfront about the extent of Western influence on our everyday, we can truly broaden our perception of what we believe to be “good” and “true”.
Even within this half-century, the historical narrative is biased towards domestic political affairs. Events with an international bent such as the MacDonald House bombing in 1965 are not as prominent in public consciousness, as compared to local events. A recent Institute of Policy Studies survey drove home the point — the MacDonald House bombing was recalled by only 52.6% of respondents. The Laju hostage incident fared even worse at 22.1%. This was in stark contrast to memories of merger (73.1%), separation (88.7%), and the People’s Action Party’s formation (68.5%) and its first victory in the General Elections (61.7%).
The future of national identity
Fifty years is a long time; we have achieved much and developed a good sense of what we are in relation to the world. There is less risk that rediscovering our forgotten history would threaten the existing narrative and the identity it has created; in fact, the incorporation of this history is valuable in enriching Singapore’s heritage and culture.
The events that we select to make up our historical narrative warrant close scrutiny and consideration. The history that we omit matters just as much as the history we choose to immortalise. We as a people deserve and owe it to ourselves to know all sides of our past. Just as individuals have multiple facets to their self-identity, so should a citizenry.
It is perhaps timely then that the current archaelogical excavation at Empress Place is uncovering new revelations about our pre-colonial legacy. For instance, the discovery of Chinese imperial-grade ceramics implied that Singapore was recognised by the Emperors of the Song and Yuan dynasties then. The revision of the secondary school history syllabus to cover more of Singapore’s time before 1819 is also an important step. Awareness of the manifold aspects of Singapore’s history can only serve to better our understanding of our national identity and our place in the world.
Greater nuance and detail in the knowledge of our history provide us with sharper lenses with which to interpret policy, as well as local and world affairs. To repeat Evans, history provides “the only proper foundation for a true understanding and appreciation of institutions of state and society in present”. The national identity we build for ourselves must be one that takes into account all corners of Singapore’s past. Armed with this knowledge as guiding lights, the road to SG100 will be a bright one.
Eugene Teng is a third-year undergraduate enrolled in the University Scholars Programme at the National University of Singapore. He is currently interning at IPS.
Photo credit here