* Presented in a forum “Blind spots in History and Heritage: Intercultural Conversation” organised by Post-Museum on 18 September 2016 at The Substation.
“He who holds the past, holds the future. He who holds the present, holds the past.” – George Orwell, 1984
Revisiting a Polemic
Anyone remotely acquainted with history as a subject will know that history is always a contested field of knowledge. Yet, debates on history is rare in Singapore, let alone, an open polemic. But one such polemic occurred between January to March in 1997 when government-linked agencies – the Singapore Environment Council, the National Parks Board and the Singapore Philatelic Museum – launched a Natural Heritage Trail that included a popular keramat (venerated tomb) located in Fort Canning Hill. The polemic revolved around the identity of the person buried in the keramat, which the Singapore Philatelic Museum identified as that of the last Malay king of Singapore, Parameswara. [1]
After the announcement, a letter was published by The Straits Times, disputing that the tomb was that of Parameswara. The letter writer, Wilfred Hamilton-Shimmen, argued that it was probably the tomb of Singapore’s founder, Sri Tri Buana (otherwise known as Sang Nila Utama). The museum’s head of communications defended the agencies’ decision and said that it was based on oral history of the 19th century Malays. Hamilton-Shimmen then countered by citing historical records, including that of Sejarah Melayu (‘Malay Annals’, originally Sulalatus Salatin/Genealogy of the Kings), that narrated the death of Parameswara in Malacca upon exile from Singapore.
This was when the museum’s chairman and notable historian, Kwa Chong Guan entered the fray and disputed the records in Sejarah Melayu, alluding to it as unreliable myths which led historians to “thrown it out in preference for the Portuguese account”. Taking offence at Kwa Chong Guan’s dismissive attitude towards ancient Malay records, Hadijah Rahmat highlighted how historians like W. Lineham and Wang Gungwu had referred to records in Sejarah Melayu and compared it with the Portuguese and Chinese records.
Hence, to automatically accept Portuguese accounts as coherent and credible while dismissive of the Malay records was clearly to be naïve about the “political and colonial bias” found in the former’s records. Even though there were mythical elements in the Sejarah Melayu, “many scholars agree that it contains rich and invaluable historical information about local and regional history” and “can be regarded as a manifestation of history as perceived or interpreted by the indigenous society.” (Hadijah, 1999)
On the Historical Imagination
The above polemic provides an interesting snapshot of a problem known as the ‘poverty of the historical imagination’. This refers to the way we imagine (or fail to imagine) the past, which is blind to the ideological basis of all historical records and interpretations on history. In this context, the lack of a sound historical imagination can be seen in the way we persistently develop a colonialist bias that continues to downplay or dismiss indigenous sources and perspectives when reconstructing the local past. This has implications to the way we understand ourselves, as a people and as a nation. As noted by an American critical historian, “All historians, by their writing, have some effect on the present social situation, whether they choose to be presentists or not. Therefore, the real choice is not between shaping the world or not, but between doing it deliberately or unconsciously.” (Zinn, 1990: 30-32)
In other words, history will always be about the interpretation of the significance that the past has for us, as Dutch historian, Johan Huizinga (1960:48) once highlighted. Therefore, historical understanding may influence or dominate the evolution or a culture, state or individual. It is therefore not surprising to see the continuous depiction of this island as a swampy backwater that was almost uninhabited except for a few fishermen; otherwise known as the myth of the “sleepy fishing village” as taught in history textbooks and played out in National Day Parade celebrations. (cf. Nurhidayahti, 2011)
The prevalence of colonialist bias in Singapore’s historiography is an aspect that has yet to be remedied fully. Despite the acknowledgment of the presence of five successive Malay rulers in the pre-colonial period, and archaeological evidences for the existence of a Malay civilisation that were in contact with major civilisations of the past including China and India, historical education of this indigenous history is glossary and scarce. To date, no serious work on Singapore’s pre-modern past that goes beyond the colonialist perspectives has been written for general readership. One exception is perhaps, Buyong Adil’s Sejarah Singapura, published in 1972. It was, however, written in Malay and yet to be translated to English.
700 Years… But No Indigenous Records?
In the last few years, there were attempts to remedy this situation with an ambitious project to uncover Singapore’s pre-colonial history and extending it to 700 years back, instead of taking the arrival of Stamford Raffles in 1819 as the starting point of Singapore’s history. [2] Disputing then-Raffles Professor of History K.G. Tregonning’s assertion that “nothing that occurred on the island prior to this [1819] has particular relevance to an understanding of the contemporary scene”, historians Kwa Chong Guan, Derek Heng and Tan Tai Yong (2009) attempted to rewrite Singapore’s history that includes pre-1819 – stretching to 700 years before Raffles landed on this island of Singapura. Nonetheless, the cursory reference to Malay sources remain glaring.
It is clear that the rewriting of Singapore’s past is to serve yet again, the present need for a narrative of ‘exceptionalism’ and ‘vulnerability’ rather than to truly connect Singapore’s past to a regional history of an inter-connected Malay Archipelago (the ‘Nusantara’). This dilemma of wanting to acknowledge a deeply-rooted ‘Nusantara’ in Singapore’s past yet remaining reluctant to refer to Malay sources, can be seen in Derek Heng’s (2006) admission that “If the pre-1819 period of Singapore’s past is to become a relevant aspect of its social memory and historical narrative, justifications would have to be made for shifting the view of Singapore’s history…to one that is indigenous” (p.15); yet, regurgitating the colonialist bias in asserting “the paucity of textual data pertaining to Singapore’s past prior to the nineteenth century.” (p.16). Will taking Malay sources seriously be subversive to the nationalist myth that we have grown accustomed to?
There were, of course, several exceptions. But these were largely recent. Miksic’s seminal book, Singapore and the Silk Road of the Sea – a culmination of 25 years of archaeological research into Singapore’s ancient past and published in 2013 by the National Museum of Singapore – is one. [3] But somehow, indigenous perspectives to history is largely absent beyond the material aspects.
Classical Malay Texts as Records
The above situation is symptomatic of what I would call as a “blind spot in Singapore’s historiography”. To overcome this, we need to seriously consider Malay classical texts as part of our reservoir of historical readings. These texts can account for a deeper and richer understanding of our national history, adopting a Braudelian longue durée approach. This would mean that the island we know as Singapura (or previously known as Temasek and Pulau Ujong), was intricately linked to a greater maritime civilisation: of the Srivijaya, a successive rulership under five kings, subsumed under the Malaccan sultanate, becoming a part of the Johor-Riau sultanate, before being a colony of the British subsequently.
But this does not mean that classical Malay records do not have their own biases. Ultimately, all texts were written with an implicit bias. Hence, we can still argue for the inclusion of Malay records as an important and significant source in the reconstruction of national history, while being critical of these source-texts. As scholars of Malay Studies had argued, these texts do contain the ideological presumptions and interest of the ruling feudal class. (Sharifah Maznah, 1993; Shaharuddin Maaruf, 1984) We are aware that some of these texts – such as Hikayat Hang Tuah and Sulalatus Salatin – continue to form part of the ideological foundations of Malaysian state-building enterprise to bolster Malay romanticism of the glorious past. (Mohamed Imran, 2008)
Therefore, as much as we are critical of the ideological project of the Orientalist historians, we ought to also be critical of feudal historians. [4] What is needed is a critical historical literacy that uncovers how history has always and will always be an arena for contestations in our present nation-state era. History as a subject must be studied objectively, but the function of history in itself is never neutral.
In other words, it is an approach to learn from history and to correct the ideological abuses and distortions of history issued forth from the loci of power. The most basic assumption of critical historical literacy is that history does not speak for itself; it is spoken through agencies in society with certain interests to uphold and protect. Thus, critical historical literacy involves uncovering how history has been used, for what purpose and for whose benefit. (cf. Zinn, 1990)
Here, what E.H. Carr (2001: 8) noted once is of relevance: “Our picture has been pre-selected and predetermined for us, not so much by accident as by people who were consciously or unconsciously imbued with a particular view and thought the facts which supported that view worth preserving.” Hence, it is not about choosing one source over the other, as Kwa Chong Guan did in his intervention over the polemic over Keramat Iskandar Shah. It is to be aware of the blind spots and work for inclusion of source materials with a multiplicity of perspectives to arrive a closer rendition of the historical truth that also asks: by whom? and for whom?
History of the Present for the Future
In conclusion, it is important to be reminded of the contemporaneous nature of history. This is known as ‘history in the making’, otherwise perceived as the capturing of the historic moment of society. It forms the zeitgeist and serves as a record for future generation. It can be in many forms: from material objects to oral history. These are really documentations of the worldview, philosophy, aesthetics and emotions of the diffused and the ordinary. They often indicate the dominant force of the era.
Here, we may want to avoid another blind spot: ignoring literature. I would argue that literature is a conduit to the soul of the people. In fact, literature may be one important vehicle that carries the cultural moment of a society or a nation. For example, Malay literature has been an excellent source material that captures the ordinary shifting of thoughts and emotions beyond dry factual narrations written in academic sociological and anthropological works. Think of Mohamed Latiff Mohamed’s novel, Batas Langit (1996) that captures the anxiety of the Malays over the separation Singapore and Malaysia in 1965; or Keris Mas’s short story, “Memburu Tahun Baru” (1995) that highlighted the plight of transient workers amidst rapid industrialisation; or Shahnon Ahmad’s novel, Ummi dan Abang Syeikhul (1992) that satirised religious patriarchy; or even A. Samad Ismail’s short stories in Edisi Pagi (2005) that gave sharp critique of Malay nationalist leaders. These are valuable records of the people’s history – or how the social moment was captured and recorded for posterity. It is to the loss of future historians to ignore these records; just as how national historians today are dismissive of classical Malay texts as nothing but legends and unreliable myths and fantasies.
Last but not least, translation work is critical. Translation works allow for concepts, ideas, emotions and perspectives to traverse beyond one’s own cultural world into the intercultural dimension. It expands what we know as the semiotic logosphere, or the sphere of the thinkable. Given the deeply plural nature of Singapore society, any recording of the historic moment must be multi-lingual and multi-perspective. But one cannot expect a person to have the command and access to the many languages that forms part of the multi-cultural landscape of Singapore; hence, the importance of cultivating a vibrant translation industry. This will ensure that the representation of history for our future generation is much richer, deeper and multi-faceted that can go beyond our present separate and disparate silos as how we had been represented for the last century: i.e., through the colonial lens.
It is, thus, our responsibility to uncover the biases, realise the blind spots and work for inclusion in developing a new historical paradigm for the nation – a task that demands a new reconstruction of the past and setting the foundations for how the future will understand the present that we are in. And it is a task not just of critical historians, but of the cultural workers in various spheres of society.
END NOTES
[1] The polemic occurred through a series of correspondences in The Straits Times, which were reproduced in the appendixes of Hadijah Rahmat, Antara Dua Kota: Menjejaki Kesan-Kesan Peninggalan Sejarah Munsyi Abdullah di Melaka dan Singapura (Singapore: Regional Training and Publishing Centre, 1999), pp. 266-285.
[2] National Museum of Singapore’s Singapura: 700 Years Exhibition, 28 Oct 2014 – 10 Aug 2015. School curriculum.
[3] See, in particular, chapter 4.
[4] Critique of Malay feudalism can be traced to the works of 19th century Munshi Abdullah, Kisah Pelayaran Abdullah ke Kelantan (1838). On continuity of feudal psychology in contemporary Malay society, see Alatas, “Feudalism in Malaysian Society: A Study in Historical Continuity” in Alatas, Modernization and Social Change (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1972), pp. 100-111. Cf. Azhar Ibrahim, “Sejarah Rakyat: Pemberdayaan Melawan Cita Bencana.“ Seminar paper delivered at Festival Melayu Ada, in conjunction with Festival Seni Melayu held at the Malay Heritage Centre, 3 May, 2009.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abdullah, Munshi, 1960. Kisah Pelayaran Abdullah ka-Kelantan dan ka-Judah. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.
Alatas, Syed Hussein, 1972. “Feudalism in Malaysian Society: A Study in Historical Continuity” in Modernization and Social Change. Sydney: Angus and Robertson.
Azhar Ibrahim, 2009. “Sejarah Rakyat: Pemberdayaan Melawan Cita Bencana.“ Seminar paper delivered at Festival Melayu Ada, in conjunction with Festival Seni Melayu held at the Malay Heritage Centre, 3 May, 2009.
Buyong bin Adil, 1972. Sejarah Singapura: Rujukan Khas Mengenai Peristiwa2 Sebelum Tahun 1824. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
Carr, E.H., 2001. What Is History? Hampshire: Palgrave.
Guan, Kwa Chong; Heng, Derek; and Yong, Tan Tai, 2009. Singapore: A 700-Year History from Early Emporium to World City. Singapore: National Archives of Singapore.
Hadijah Rahmat, 1999. Antara Dua Kota: Menjejaki Kesan-Kesan Peninggalan Sejarah Munsyi Abdullah di Melaka dan Singapura. Singapore: Regional Training and Publishing Centre.
Heng, Thiam Soon Derek, 2006. “Indigenising Singapore’s Past: An Approach towards Internalising Singapore’s Settlement History from the Late Thirteenth to Twenty-First Centuries” in New Perspectives and Sources on the History of Singapore. Singapore: National Library Board.
Heng, Derek, 2009. “Tan Tai Yong: Singapore’s 700-year history.” The Straits Times, 6 July.
Huizinga, Johan, 1960. Men and Ideas. London: Eyre & Spottoswoode.
Miksic, John N., 2013. The Silk Road of the Sea: 1300-1800. Singapore: NUS Press & National Museum of Singapore.
Mohamed Imran Mohamed Taib, 2008. “Some Approaches to Malay Cultural History: A Brief Survey and Critique.” Unpublished essay.
Nurhidayahti binte Mohammad Miharja, 2011. Textbook Prescriptions: Malays in Singapore Historiography. MA thesis, Department of Malay Studies, National University of Singapore.
Peterson, Jane A., 2014. “In new textbook, the story of Singapore begins 500 years earlier.” The New York Times, 11 May.
Shaharuddin Maaruf, 1984. Concept of a Hero in Malay Society. Eastern Universities Press.
Sharifah Maznah Syed Omar, 1993. Myths and the Malay Ruling Class. Singapore: Times Academic Press.
Zinn, Howard, 1990. The Politics of History, 2nd Edition. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Dialogosphere 