A Singapore History Proposal: Diverse Perspectives
by Shiela Carelnina Winata
When Singaporeans talk about Singapore history, too often what comes to mind is the Singapore Story taught in the education system through Social Studies lessons: the amazing development of a sleepy colonial outpost into a thriving nation, which has triumphed over many hardships. We start with Rafflesâ€™ landing in Singapore and learn the various hardships â€“ e.g. Singaporeâ€™s separation from Malaysia, the racial riots, and the fight against communism. In this version of history, the focus is on economics, the spotlight is on the â€œOld Guardâ€ and the moral of the story is that Singapore has become what it is today thanks to good governance and policies, and constant vigilance against racial conflicts.
Perhaps this narrative is unavoidable in the formative years of Singapore, since there was a need for a common history for everyone and this problem is compounded by the demographic realities of its population which was largely made up of migrant societies. However, it makes for a history that is rather dreary and impersonal, not to mention one-sided, because more often than not it only presents the dominant ruling partyâ€™s point of view.
The point here is not whether this dominant version of history is â€œrightâ€ or â€œwrongâ€. Instead, it is a pity that people mostly mistake this popular version of Singapore history to be the only version, when there is so much more to the history of Singapore besides its rise to economic might.
Singaporeâ€™s history is also embedded in the memories of its people, in their ways of life, in their life stories and struggles. As such, I propose a documentary on Singapore history that incorporates many points-of-view instead of one dominant perspective. It will focus on aspects other than economics â€“ i.e. political, demographics, even architectural.
Hence, people can explore the rich layers of history that made Singapore. The sources for telling this history will be interviews of people from all walks of life â€“ of differing genders, ethnicities, ages and backgrounds. I believe Singaporeâ€™s history is intertwined with the daily lives of people, and the voices of these people should be heard to access their version of the history of Singapore.
Granted, the history that comes out of peopleâ€™s memories, tales and oral traditions can be viewed as more subjective, since it will be imbued with peopleâ€™s personal biases, paradigms and preferences. Then again, history is arguably always subjective and by presenting multiple thoughts and perspectives, viewers can enjoy a more balanced narrative of events.
In doing such a documentary, the shortness of Singaporeâ€™s history will actually be an advantage since it will be easier to find living witnesses to events, which will most probably be the aged in todayâ€™s society. This can be seen as a good thing since learning history is often synonymous with learning from and cherishing our past, and as such, learning history from the elderly in our society, seeking their opinions and views, we can better appreciate the people who paved the way for the present.
Admittedly, this approach to making a documentary of Singapore comes with a few limitations. One, of course, is that in seeking diverse opinions about events not conforming to one point of view, some of the opinions are bound to clash with the popular authorized version of Singapore history. Some may argue that this makes for a history that is biased, even misleading and provocative.
Once again, the objective of tracing the history of Singapore in this way is not to find one right version of history, but to discover the many layers and viewpoints that surround people, places and events that make up Singaporeâ€™s history, and to understand that these people, though they may be laymen, contributed to making Singapore the nation we know now, and their versions of history can be just as valid.
Regarding the concern that some points-of-view may be provocative, it can be addressed by presenting such views in a manner that allows viewers to assess it for themselves â€“ for example, by following up with a contrasting observation. Often, whether an opinion raises controversy or not has to do with the way it is framed and presented.
A famous and tragic example of how the media is abused to arouse public sentiments is the Maria Hertogh riots in the 1950s. The English newspapers portrayed Maria Hertogh as having happily re-embraced her European Catholic roots, while the newspaper Jawi Dawn, owned by an Indian Muslim, portrayed Maria as an emotionally tortured girl forced to separate from her beloved stepmother.[i] Hence, in the documentary, care has to be taken to present unconventional points of view to preserve respect for all communities in Singapore.
One interesting aspect of Singapore history that can be traced in this multiple viewpoint approach is the demographics perspective, specifically how Singapore evolved from various migrant societies into â€œone nation, one people, one Singapore.â€ The roles these migrant societies played in building Singapore is usually less emphasized if not erased in the popular version of history, even though it is undeniable that migrant societies formed the backbone of social and economic life in early Singapore. Their contributions are part of the Singapore success story.
A flourishing trade center in the nineteenth century, Singapore was made up of diverse migrant societies, such as the Malacca-born Chinese, Hokkiens, Teochews, Hakka, Cantonese, Hainanese, Sindhi, Gujarati, Sikh, Baweanese.[ii] These migrant societies, though contributing to the vibrant trade scene, were still loyal to their clans and home countries, as illustrated by the Supai Rebellion in 1915 by the infantry soldiers loyal to India,[iii] and clashes between Chinese clans, for example the clash between the Hokkiens and the Teochews in 1854.[iv] Tracing how these societies and groups gradually get assimilated into Singapore, and discovering why they decided to call Singapore home, will make for interesting points-of-view especially concerning the question of national identity.
Moreover, people from different ethnicities and nationalities will provide a broad spectrum of perspectives of Singapore throughout its beginnings and development, until now. The history of how the racial and migrant communities came together is a fundamental part of Singaporeâ€™s history since it has widespread implications in politics, economics and social conditions, as well as influencing the way Singapore society functions today.
Some possible events and themes for the documentary could be the British colonial town planning of early Singapore which segregated the inhabitants into distinct districts for easier administration â€“ i.e. the European town, Malay, Indian, Arab and Chinese settlements, which reinforced the ethnic and cultural divide between the groups. [v] Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew also admitted that this systematic racial divide in colonial times greatly influenced the policies made during Singaporeâ€™s formative years that continue until today â€“ i.e. â€œmaking Singaporeans of all races live togetherâ€ and the choice of â€œEnglish as the lingua franca in a bilingual policy.”[vi]
This colonial policy is further compounded by the differential treatment of the ethnic groups during the Japanese Occupation, further worsening the racial divide.[vii] What resulted was a sensitive racial climate, especially between the Chinese and the Malays, which escalated into communal violence in 1964.[viii] From such a disadvantageous background, Singapore evolved into the relatively harmonious, multi-racial society it is today. Plotting how these events affect the lives of different communities could form the backbone of the documentary.
Such events are actually featured in popular history. However, the aspects that are emphasized are not so much peopleâ€™s feelings and their life stories, but rather the sense of danger and fear of racial conflicts. Furthermore, popular history does not trace how various migrant societies came to be assimilated into Singapore and call Singapore home.
Discerning what people from various backgrounds think about these events may shed new light on how they shaped Singapore into the society today. While there are potential interviewees from the time period of the above-mentioned events, youngsters who have heard about these events from their parents or grandparents cannot be ignored as well.
In conclusion, the proposal of making a documentary of
The author is a second-year Architecture student in the National University of Singapore.
[i] Lee Geok Boi, Perjalanan Menuju Kenegaraan (Singapore: National Heritage Board; Landmark Books, c1998), pp. 45-6 (Translated by Noorjan Bee Bee from the book Singapore : Journey Into Nationhood. Singapore: National University of Singapore; Landmark Books, c1998).
[ii] Edwin Lee, â€œCommunity, Family and Householdâ€ in A History of Singapore. (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1991), pp. 243-47.
[iii] Lee Geok Boi, Perjalanan Menuju Kenegaraan, p. 24.
[iv] Ibid. , p. 21.
[v] Johannes Widodo, The Boat and The City: Chinese diaspora and the architecture of Southeast Asian coastal cities. (Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic, 2004), pp. 126-7.
[vi] Loh Chee Kong, â€œWhat Price, This Success?â€ in Today ( October 15, 2007), p. 1
[vii] â€œThe Syonan Years, 1942 â€“ 1945â€ in A History of Singapore, pp. 97-102.
[viii] C. M. Turnbull, A History of Singapore 1819 â€“ 1988. 2nd Ed. (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1989), pp. 282-3.