View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE

provided by ScholarBank@NUS

TEXTBOOK PRESCRIPTIONS:

MALAYS IN SINGAPORE HISTORIOGRAPHY

NURHIDAYAHTI BINTE MOHAMMAD MIHARJA (B. SOC. SC. (HONS), NUS)

A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF THE ARTS DEPARTMENT OF MALAY STUDIES NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE 2011

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To my supervisor, Assoc. Prof Syed Farid Alatas, thank you for your mentorship.

It has been an inspiring journey completing the thesis.

To Assoc. Prof Jan van der Putten, whose constant support has been tremendous.

To Assoc. Prof Noor Aisha Abdul Rahman, whose guidance has been invaluable.

To Dr. Suriani Suratman, Mr Kwa Chong Guan, Prof Cheah Boon Kheng for their constructive comments.

To family and friends for their tireless encouragement.

To Uncle Lokman, who keeps me grounded.

And to my parents, Fadilah Jaafar and Mohammad Miharja Ismail, who have always been there for me. To them, I dedicate this thesis.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ...... ii

Table of Contents ...... iii

Summary...... vi

CHAPTER 1: Research Aims and Methodology ...... 1

1.1 Wither National Historiography? ...... 2

1.2 Research Aims ...... 4

1.3 Research Methodology ...... 6

1.4 Thesis Structure ...... 7

CHAPTER 2: Theoretical Lens: Orientalism ...... 9

2.1 Coming to (Orientalist) Terms ...... 9

2.2 Through the Looking Glass: Orientalism ...... 10

2.3 Falling into Fallacies ...... 12

2.3.1 Stereotyping ...... 12

2.3.2 Asociological and Ahistorical ...... 13

2.3.3 Reductionist ...... 15

2.4 In Collusion: Orientalist Traits...... 17

2.4.1 Neglect of the Non-European ...... 17

2.4.2 Binary Stereotypes ...... 21

2.4.3 Master-servant Relationship and Silencing ...... 23

2.5 Conclusion ...... 25

CHAPTER 3: Orientalism in Nationalism ...... 26

3.1 Nation-incarcerated History ...... 26

3.2 Dis-orient: National History ...... 28

3.3 Historical Mise-én-scene: Malays in Focus ...... 32

3.3.1 The Pre-1819 Period – Neglect of the Non-European ...... 33

iii

3.3.2 Colonial Handover of Singapore – Binary Stereotypes ...... 35

3.3.3 Stamford Raffles – Master-servant Relationship and Silencing ...... 36

3.4 Conclusion ...... 37

CHAPTER 4: Pre-1819 Narration of Absence ...... 39

4.1 Remembering Entails Forgetting ...... 39

4.2 Pre-separation: Beginnings in Antiquity ...... 42

4.3 Post-separation: Beginnings in Uncertainty ...... 47

4.4 Post-National Education: Fixation on Starting Points ...... 53

4.5 The History of Malays: On Tethers ...... 57

4.6 Conclusion ...... 60

CHAPTER 5: Bridging Divides: 1819 Treaty...... 62

5.1 Development-encased Narratives: ...... 62

5.2 In the Beginning: Savior | Scourge ...... 66

5.3 Pushing On: Passive | Aggressive ...... 69

5.4 Passing Shot: Aggressive | Passive ...... 74

5.5 Regressive Development ...... 77

5.6 Conclusion ...... 81

CHAPTER 6: Transcending the Historical Raffles ...... 82

6.1 Inflated: The Story of Raffles ...... 82

6.2 Gratitude | Servitude ...... 85

6.3 Colonial Master | Despot ...... 88

6.4 Sinocentric | Westcentric ...... 95

6.5 Conclusion ...... 97

CHAPTER 7: Comparative Analysis: In History We Trust ...... 98

7.1 Textbook Prescriptions ...... 99

7.2 History Thieving ...... 103

7.3 Historical Alterity Unbeknownst ...... 104

iv

Bibliography ...... 106

Appendix A: List of Singapore History Textbooks ...... 141

v

SUMMARY

The relationship between history and nation-building is intricate in the context of nation- states. Those in control of history writing are seen to have the full ability to fix the past, present as well as future of any nation. Therefore, “officially sanctioned” national historiography is perceived as a singular history. This effectively marginalises the history of minority groups such as the Malays. Singapore national historiography composes of success stories of migrants from the region contributing to Singapore’s development. This is narrated as an initiative by Thomas Stamford Raffles in mainstream historiography.

Henceforth, the dominant Singapore history writing starts in 1819 during the colonial period. This has resulted in assertions that Singapore history writing is neo-colonial in nature.

Since colonial history relies on Orientalism as its mode of discourse (Chatterjee 1993:38;

Behdad 1994:135), Singapore postcolonial national historiography needs to be evaluated to what degree it moves away from or adopts the same Orientalist orientation. The study explores the relationship between Orientalism and Singapore historiography in textbook narratives. It also locates the Malays within Singapore historiography through the evaluation of Singapore history textbooks. My research suggests that there are Orientalist portrayals of

Malays in Singapore textbooks. The question remains as to whether there are historical alternatives that can reveal myths in the dominant Singapore historiography. This study seeks to address this by documenting and evaluating responses to Singapore historiography that refutes three discursive points of contention, particularly important to the historical

vi imagination of the Malays. These points are (1) pre-1819 Singapore as a sleepy Malay fishing village; (2) Raffles as the “hero-founder” of modern Singapore; and (3) the Malay rulers who

“sold” Singapore in their interest.

vii

CHAPTER 1 Research Aims and Methodology

National historiography of postcolonial states is a relatively new phenomenon. In

Singapore, the writing of national history remains a dominant form of history writing.

National textbook writing has since validated if not naturalised the presence of the nation-state, as Khondker puts it “history makes nations and nations make history”

(2003:3).

Previously a British dependency, Singapore historiography continues to be influenced by its colonial legacy (Wee 2007:65; Pieris 2009:33). The term postcolonial itself has been rendered as “prematurely celebratory” (McClintock 1992:87). The reason being, the idea of ‘post’ in the postcolonial era has not been a total departure from its former colonial orientation (JanMohamed 1985:61; Spivak 1987:245; Hall 1996:242; Talib

1998:59). Orientalism perpetuates colonial hegemony into the postcolonial era

(Breckenridge and Veer 1993:12; Appadurai 1996:134; Ashcroft 2001:48).

The present study aims to examine the influence of Orientalism within Singapore historiography vis-à-vis textbook narratives. This is because the Singapore education system has been dominated by expatriates and English-educated locals, which in turn relied on the British curriculum framework (Wong and Apple 2003:97; Goh and

1 of 144

Gopinathan 2005:208; Hussin 2008:457). The writing of Malay history similarly has been preoccupied with the colonial perspective (Milner 1987:774; Soda 2001:228). The focus thus will be on the Orientalist representation of Malays in Singapore’s national narratives and its implications for the wider historical imagination.

1.1 Wither National Historiography?

Historiography has long been recognised as a narrative construction (White 1973:ix).

Other than that, it is ideological. The power of discourse, heralded by the state, lies in its ability to control representations within history. Historiography thus remains a key site for nation-building (Hill 2002:164). Many have pointed to the rise of nation-states in

Europe in the nineteenth century in tandem with the use of history textbooks in justifying particular forms of social and political systems (Jacobmeyer 1990:4; Schissler

[2004] 2005:233). This shows the power of discourse through the use of history textbooks. However, as no history page is written without interpretation, the select interpretation of the past remains the one relevant to the nation-state (Whitehead

1933:15; Huizinga [1959] 1960:78). This excludes histories of minority groups.

To achieve an inclusive process of which citizens imagine a community through a shared history, national historiography must demonstrate the multifarious voices of the ‘nation’

(Anderson 1983:6; Benjamin 1988:4; Smith 1991:40). While history texts need to reflect shared ownership, sharing of history itself necessitates exclusion of certain areas of

2 of 144

history and hides conflicts of interest (Zinn 1997:510). If nations are imagined, not all are imagined equally. National unity is said to be “effected by means of brutality”

(Renan 1990:11). For instance, indigenous collective associations that predate colonialism have been displaced by such ‘nation’ imaginings (Andersen 2008:349).

Plurality of representation clearly did not translate into inclusive representation. This is because sharing of history does not involve any suffrage of sharing especially among the minorities. When their history is represented, the citizens do not determine what of and how their history is to be articulated.

The issue of national historiography is even more critical for Singapore. This is because

Singapore became independent in August 1965 as a “nationless state” (Fitzgerald

1995:77). Despite efforts to include everyone in the national history, the question remains as to how they are represented (Barr and Skrbiš 2008:26). This is where the dominant historiographical orientation becomes a primary concern. Not only does the nation-state presuppose a past, implications of continued Orientalist historiography threaten to distort national representation of its citizens. Hence, it is important to have alternative historical works. Alterity exposes the ‘construction’ of history including the national past that is never a given but designed and designated to be historical in nature, subject to reinterpretation and revisions.

3 of 144

1.2 Research Aims

The study explores the relationship between Orientalism and Singapore historiography through Singapore history textbooks. Since colonial and postcolonial history relies on

Orientalism as its mode of discourse (Chatterjee 1993:38; Behdad 1994:135), Singapore historiography needs to be evaluated to what degree it moves away from or adopts the same orientation. In other words, the study is posited to uncover whether the post- colonial nationalist narrative has indeed built on the Orientalist historical knowledge created in the colonial period.

Textbooks play a significant role in shaping the historical imagination of generations.

Changes in textbooks “reflect and embody the state’s commitment” toward constructing a past that is different from its colonial tradition (Cole 2007:15).

Orientalism perpetuates its ideas through a closed system of citation where scholars cite from their peers of similar thought and orientation (Yeğenoğlu 1998:38). In contrast, alternative perspectives provide a critique of the dominant scholarship as well as ascertain these dominant Orientalist traits in Singapore historiography. Hence, this study documents and evaluates these alternative responses to Singapore historiography that refute prevailing historical facts.

4 of 144

Hence, this attempt to address the following concerns:

 What are the current Orientalist aspects found in the representation of Malays in

Singapore historiography?

The following sub-questions will assist to provide the leads and substantiate any findings leading to the main thesis question:

 What are the alternative perspectives on the portrayal of Malays in Singapore

historiography?

 What do these perspectives reveal about the Orientalist myths in Singapore

historiography?

 To what extent, have such alternative perspectives been included in the

Singapore textbook narratives?

It is not in the purpose of this research to determine the true history of the nation-state and its citizens. Rather, a comparative analysis will be employed to discern how much of the representation of Malays in the textbook narratives is influenced by Orientalism.

5 of 144

1.3 Research Methodology

A total of 29 Singapore history textbooks published from 1956 to 2007, will serve as primary sources of data (Appendix A). They represent a sample of primary and secondary textbooks used in schools from three different phases: the pre-separation phase, the post-separation phase and contemporary textbooks starting from the

National Education era. The criteria for this textbook selection is based on those which include more textbook narration concerning the Malays. Combined with the literature review of Singapore historiography, these will provide a wider understanding of the research topic. In analysing these textbooks, various methodological approaches such as deconstruction, content and discourse analysis will be employed to assess the pattern to which the information is conveyed.

In the first stage of the research study, an exploratory approach (Alasuutari 1993:22) will be adopted based on the nature of the study. This first approach allows the study to explore numerous avenues in a bid to gain an in-depth comprehension of the issue at hand. This is the first study that analyzes Singapore history textbooks within an

Orientalist framework.

Secondly, the study employs content analysis (Fiske and Hartley 1978:21), which is concerned with establishing ‘what is there’ in the text. Thirdly, critical discourse analysis moves the focus from manifest content to latent content. This shifts the focus from

6 of 144

what is explicit in terms of ideas and images of a particular text to what is implicit in terms of its meanings and perceptions (Del Balso and Lewis 2001:186). Together, content analysis and discourse analysis will be used to deconstruct the discourse in terms of its latent content. It will uncover the content and form of Malay representations within Singapore textbook historiography. Herein, problematization in analysis considers not only ‘differences’ but what is meant by ‘sameness’ as well.

The study will carry out a content analysis of textbook discourse across three time periods: the pre-separation phase, the post-separation phase and contemporary textbooks starting from the National Education era in addressing the reliability and generalizability aspects of the qualitative research for purposes of this study within the word limit. The analysis will involve historical representations of a period (the pre-1819), an event (the 1819 treaty signing) and a personality (Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles). This will result in a systematic comparative study of the influence of Orientalism on these issues across time and space.

1.4 Thesis Structure

Chapter 1 presents a brief overview of the thesis together with its research aims and methodology.

7 of 144

Chapter 2 discusses in detail the theoretical framework employed in this study. The interplay between Orientalism and postcolonial nationalism in constructing representations of the Malays in Singapore historiography provides a background to inform the research direction.

Chapter 3 analyzes the development of national historiography in Singapore. The chapter highlights state efforts in creating the recent, strictly Singaporean historiography. Specifically, textbook writing in Singapore is discussed in relation to the state’s educational policies, various curriculum approach and changes since independence in 1965.

Chapters 4, 5 and 6 set out to examine the evolution of Singapore history textbook representations of Malays in the context of the pre-1819 period, the 1819 treaty signing event and Stamford Raffles respectively across three time periods: the pre-separation phase, the post-separation phase and the ‘National Education’ phase; a phase when contemporary history textbooks are published. Alternative perspectives on the official historiography are included to provide a more balanced discussion. They will establish the degree to which each historical narrative is Orientalist.

Finally, Chapter 7 summarises the conclusions of the study. Implications of the findings are briefly discussed for further research.

8 of 144

CHAPTER 2 Theoretical Lens: Orientalism

Chapter 2 discusses in detail the theoretical framework employed in this study.

Orientalism as the main theoretical lens is the provocation for deconstruction, content and discourse analysis in this study. Starting with the definition of Orientalism, the salient features of Orientalist discourse will be outlined. Specifically, the national historiography in Singapore will be examined with reference to these Orientalist traits identified.

2.1 Coming to (Orientalist) Terms

Orientalism is referred to as a discourse that is produced by the West - politically, sociologically, militarily, ideologically, scientifically, and imaginatively (Said [1978]

1979:3). It is the Western hegemony of production and perpetuation of knowledge that needs to be pursued. Basic to Orientalism is the created ineradicable distinction between the Orient (East) and the Occident (West).

Whilst many have discussed the gaps and merits of Edward Said’s work in Orientalism

(1978) (Al-Azm [1981] 2000; Lewis [1982] 2000; Clifford 1988; Young 1990; Mills 1991;

Ahmad 1992; Halliday 1993; Porter 1994), his work forms a significant part of the

9 of 144

discourse on Orientalism. The purpose of the discussion here is neither to critique nor exonerate Orientalism but to understand its importance in this study.

Central to this entire system of thought is the image of the Orient. The Oriental refers to the individual or person subjected to Orientalist discourse. This occurs when the

Orientalist representations are successfully fabricated and framed by political forces

(Spanos 2009:79). Since the Oriental is ‘inferior’, only the West can objectively define the Oriental and explain its inherent nature. The Orient exists for the West as its mirror image of inferiority (Strath 2002:396). This underlines both the Orient and Occident as crafts of human effort.

2.2 Through the Looking Glass: Orientalism

Simply put, Orientalism is the notion of the West on the Orient. Originating from

Western scholarship on non-Western cultures, an Orientalist-determined understanding of the Orient has been effectively institutionalized in Western academia and state policies (Prakash 1992:384). It initially functioned to provide the basis for the West self- appointed imperialist rule. Such Orientalist knowledge created in the colonial period has continued to dominate in postcolonial societies with identical motives (Shamsul 1999:5;

Dabashi 2009:104).

10 of 144

Although the systematic bias originated from the West, the influential Orientalist body of knowledge can be adopted by any groups in power to their advantage. In context of the study that centres on national historiography with economic and political imperatives; Orientalism cannot but be given a significant role in such analysis. In a bid to locate neo-colonial tendencies in today’s postcolonial context, Singapore textbook historiography will be analysed in light of Orientalism. Herein, Orientalism is taken as a critical point of departure, as an enabling tool in highlighting the discursive dimensions of colonialism as well as its pervasiveness into the postcolonial era (Alatas 2006:42).

Secondly, findings of the study will not merely show the extent of Orientalism in

Singapore historiography but is interested to assess its impact on the Malays. After all,

Orientalist representations are not mere misrepresentations but functional ones (Said

[1978] 1979:273). Historiographical discourse, seen as the “laminated text”, is couched in the perception of the ‘other’ (Certeau 1988:94). The study seeks to review whose dominant knowledge of the ‘other’ in history and to what effect. Clearly, representations of the past are critical in shaping present historical imagination and more so, for the type of historical imagination that drives the direction of a particular society.

11 of 144

2.3 Falling into Fallacies

In order to look at how Orientalism manifests in Singapore historiography, the study turns to the specific traits of Orientalism. These include:

2.3.1 Stereotyping

Stereotyping occurs when a set of assumptions about the subject-matter is accepted uncritically when or even prior to studying a society. Usually, these assumptions are essentialist in nature, involving broad generalisations. Allport defines stereotype as “an exaggerated belief associated with a category” whose function is to justify or rationalise conduct (1979:191). For instance, a stereotypical view of the Orient is its static, unchanging character. This allows the Orientalist to habitually divide, subdivide and re- divide the Orient. Yet, the Orient remains the same and therefore, a radically peculiar object (Said [1978] 1979:98).

The power of such stereotypes has been highlighted as “both cause and effect of the

European appropriation of the East” (Said cited by Heffernan 2007:21). For instance, J. S.

Furnivall’s (1948) concept of plural society is taken to apply to colonised societies only.

Plural society is defined as a community of groups with differing culture, religion and language living side by side but separately, within the same political unit. Even within the economic sphere, there is a division of labour along racial lines (Furnivall 1948:304).

12 of 144

It is thus assumed that the plural society can never be anything but conflict-bound and has to be held together by an external force, albeit colonial.

In spite of the theory’s many criticisms (Kuper 1964:160; Adas 1974:104; Hefner

2001:19), the narrative in Singapore history textbooks continues to be presented in such light (Kratoska 2005:8). The textbook A Picture History of Singapore states “early migrants lived and worked separately. There was no social interaction with other races or dialect groups” (Chua [1992] 1997:13). Kwa argues that “there was a lot more interaction at the local level than the British would like us to believe” in colonial

Singapore (1998:51). This was evident through the interculturalism in colonial Singapore in the form of costume, food and intermarriage (Chew 2011:14). Nevertheless, it was in the colonial government’s interest to perpetuate the plural society concept.

2.3.2 Asociological and Ahistorical

The concept of plural society disregards the changes in socio-historical conditions that had and will continue to shape societies. The Orient is forever steeped in its inability to evolve. Asociological analysis that adopts such views uncritically is only possible through context-free generalisations. This is where concepts are appraised in the abstract without attributing a point of view from the society itself and/or does not acknowledge consciously or otherwise that ideas cannot exist in a vacuum. More often than not, one’s point of view is tied to one’s position in a society.

13 of 144

For instance, lack of progress in the Malay race is often explained away with its concomitant culture in popular, political and academic discourse in Singapore (Li

1989:168; Rahim 1998:58; Suratman 2005:2). This is often symptomatic of culturalist explanations. Such oversimplification of cause and effect in a separate phenomenon is a gross generalisation about the inherent nature of a race. The bias lies not just in the lack of empirical reality but in the presentation of facts.

Labelling of the lazy Malay native is problematic. Firstly, it conveniently omits the socio- historical context of such a label. Secondly, such labelling presents an “epistemological obstacle” (Bachelard cited in Jones 1991:82). In other words, the rational understanding concerning the historical causes of the present social situation relating to the Malays become clouded.

The theme of laziness is an important part of the colonial ideology as it is not treated as

“a significant phenomenon requiring conceptualisation and systematic study” in the

European context (Alatas 2010:56). Alatas, however, provides a socio-historical account illustrating how the Malays were first defined as lazy by the colonials due to their refusal to partake in the capitalist system (1977:215).

Such biased conclusions are drawn when there is a lack of concern either with historically accurate interpretation of events or when it is assumed that the society is monolithic and therefore has a non-existent historical development. Socio-historical

14 of 144

factors shaping societies does not even come into purview. Following such ahistorical ontological traits of the Orient, the nature, function and meaning of the texts used to study a particular society in history is not addressed. The changing social processes in society have to be engaged to acquire an understanding of the texts in context. The historical value or local significance of the Malay historical texts however has yet to be appreciated in the national narrative.

For instance, Sejarah Melayu, an important source of Malay history, to date is still presented in Singapore history textbooks as ‘legendary’. “Clearly reflected by its content dealing mainly with beliefs, ethics and morals”, Maaruf argues that “Sejarah Melayu was never meant to be a history book in the modern sense” (2002:2). Low categories it as mythicized history, not entirely legend, where some accounts have been verified by other sources of evidence (2004:15). Historical literary texts such as Sejarah Melayu function as social history documenting cultural forms. It needs to be read with the function and meaning of these texts in the local context. In this case, the Sejarah

Melayu, a political myth, seeks to sanctify the ruling class ideology by projecting ideal images of the Malay rulers (Wolters 1970:82; Omar 1993:90; Chambert-Loir 2005:139).

2.3.3 Reductionist

At the same time, critical socio-historical literacy is important such that one does not reduce allegorical texts such as Sejarah Melayu to simply reflect material interests and

15 of 144

petty aims of elite rule. This typifies a reductionist reading of texts, said to represent the society. Reductionism is identified as a method, rather than a dogma where it “tries to explain as much of a phenomenon by making the fewest and the simplest assumptions possible, at the lowest possible level of organisation” (Van den Berghe 1990:179).

A study becomes reductionist when a social phenomenon is explained by a few narrowly defined factors to the exclusion of others. The assumption is that the social phenomenon is reducible to individual factors, neglecting the interaction of these factors. Such epistemological error emerges from the inability to appreciate the complexities of a social phenomenon whereby,

it is general because it is collective (that is, more or less obligatory), and certainly

not collective because general. It is a group condition repeated in the individual

because imposed on him. It is to be found in each part because it exists in the

whole, rather than in the whole because it exists in the parts.

(Durkheim 1982:9)

Such myopic understanding is applied to the history of colonialism in Singapore, which constitutes a whole range of political, economic, cultural, legal and social phenomena.

Therefore, to narrate colonial history in Singapore involves a consideration of all constituting the colonial historical experience. Early Singapore history is centred on its colonial history and its positive contributions; there is scant attention paid to the

16 of 144

colonial social, cultural or political impact on the local society (Yeoh 2003:36;

Velayutham 2007:21; Pieris 2009:33). The understanding of a complex process of colonialism in Singapore’s history becomes diminished.

2.4 In Collusion: Orientalist Traits

Whilst such traits contribute to skewed understandings of the Orient, they are not exclusive to the Orientalist style of thought. These traits can be found in other thought fallacies. Fallacies refer to plausible arguments that often use false or invalid inference and this opens up, invites and allow spaces for the sustenance of prejudice (Phelan and

Reynolds 1996:76). For the purposes of this research, the concern is with the systematic bias that is particularly Orientalist in nature. Therefore, the study is concerned when the fallacies earlier discussed result in these three Orientalist traits in particular:

2.4.1 Neglect of the Non-European

The first Orientalist trait, neglect of the non-European, refers to the neglect of non-

European histories by overlooking its historical sources as well as perspectives. Far from neglecting non-Europeans as a subject, when the necessary local perspectives are omitted, negated, questioned, insinuated or made absent, the centralisation of non-

Europeans as subject is effectively ensured. Even with the use of local sources, the reading is directed toward the supposed Orientalist image. Such non-European presence

17 of 144

is allowed, only on negative terms or as an Oriental; both interchangeable. As a result, individuals or groups who become objects of such history are condemned to immobility and silence (Young 1990:159). The issue is less to do with the inability to understand but the non-concern to be accurate.

Local perspectives are displaced by internalisation of Western concepts and subsequently applied to non-European societies. This can be seen through the hierarchical categorisation of knowledge in the selection of sources. For instance, Malay sources are seen to be least authoritative on their own history compared to official colonial records, Chinese documents or even archaeological findings. It is the Orientalist that knows, speaks for, and regulates the Orient better than the Orient itself (Lewis

1995:16).

Furthermore, such a trait is not specific or limited to Western agencies, especially after having been entrenched in historiography for an extended period of time. Colonial sources on Malay history that neglect local perspectives have been consumed uncritically as canons of Malay history, including local historians themselves (Harper

2010:245). Historical interpretations from such colonial works are not subjected to further analysis in determining whether the accounts are socio-historically sound.

Thus, the call for a more Asia-centric history started with Jacob Cornelis van Leur (1955), and D. G. E. Hall (1955), followed by John Smail (1961) and Harry Benda (1962). Van Leur

18 of 144

criticised Eurocentric perspectives from “the deck of the ship, the ramparts of the fortress, the high gallery of the trading house” (1955:261), whereas Smail argued for an autonomous history that placed “indigenous developments at the centre of historical stage by consciously using indigenous written and oral sources” (1961:72). In efforts to retain indigenous perspectives, however, the anti-colonial and nationalist bias present in such Asia-centric history made them less ‘autonomous’ than Smail had argued for

(Houben 2006:144). Further, Bastin stated the impossibility of an Asian-centric history due to pervasive Western thought patterns and cultural influences (1959:10). According to Alatas, Bastin ignored the use of Weber’s verstehen or emphatic understanding to enable a Southeast Asian reading of history (1964b:250).

At the same time, in compensating for the lack of non-European perspective, it is important not to be misled by an Asian-centric perspective, which is potentially

Occidentalist. Occidentalism refers to the inverse of Orientalism where non-Western cultures produce their own stereotypes of the Occident (Carrier 1995:3). As long as one adopts a reactionary tone to West-centricity, there will be no paradigm shift from neo- colonialism, remaining enclosed within the colonial imaginary. As Boahen explains

“myths are myths, be they white or black” (1975:16).

As such, perspective is important. It influences how one views, perceives and construes history, determined by a particular historical setting. Mannheim notes how the understanding of historical problems reflects the social thought of a group or individual

19 of 144

and its corresponding social position (1976:246). Whilst one might argue for more ready access to historical documents, fresh perspectives on present documents are not contingent on source materials. Regardless of sources of history or socio-historical concepts, the type of analysis or interpretation employed has to suit the nature of historical source. Secondary sources that are sensitive to the neglect of non-Europeans perspectives may use the age-old primary source and yet produce an altogether different reading of the period. The issue therefore ultimately hinges on a perspective that mobilizes non-Western history.

This is where alternative discourse plays an important role in countering the Orientalist trait, neglect of the non-European. This involves:

the works of various authors from a wide variety of disciplines in the social

sciences, most of which are concerned with the task of liberation from academic

colonialism, with the problem of the irrelevance of Euro-American social sciences

and have expressed the need to create conditions under which alternative social

sciences in non-Western societies may emerge. (Alatas 2006:17)

The assumption here is not that Orientalism can simply be spoken or written away with an alternative.

20 of 144

Rather, alternative perspectives on history accord the inclusion of non-European perspectives without seeking to neither displace nor replace the current. In taking the position that “any history it offers is only a simulacrum of one, an historical pastiche”

(Young 1990:xii), alternative perspectives do not claim official accounts as untrue or less significant. Rather, it provides counterbalance to the current overemphasis and affords marginalised historical actors more room. In short, alternative narratives present what is lacking, in highlighting the West position of centrality.

At the same time, the study does not hold on to the naïve belief that the various narratives can come together without having any conflictual interpretations. Granted that various narratives cannot exist in harmony, this does not mean that alternatives should be ignored. The presence of alternatives brings about possibilities and questions the commitment of a singular, dominant historical truth.

2.4.2 Binary Stereotypes

Binary stereotypes reassert Orientalism as a discourse that makes a constant distinction between Western superiority and Oriental inferiority. They result from a tendency to look for a reality in another society in terms of one’s worldview. These ‘differences’ usually stem from a conceptual value-laden dichotomy. For instance, development and progress are concepts that are never natural or universal. However, non-European societies who do not appreciate such values are deemed as ‘not like us’. Declared by

21 of 144

such standards, non-European societies are framed in a reality opposite of the West in the “dualistic Weltanschauung of Orientalism” (Boroujerdi 1992:30). These ‘uncivilised’ societies are marked with negative values such as inequality and backwardness.

These “western tropes for representing the other” (Healy 1997:44) are problematic due to determinism. Determinism emerges when pre-existing conceptual categories pre- dictate forms of analysis and findings. The function of determinism “force[s] the events, the persons, or the acts considered into pre-fabricated moulds” (Sartre 1991:37). The data is made to fit the dichotomous stereotypes involving the Orient.

These Orientalist juxtapositions also take on a paternalistic tone. It promotes the idea of an Orient in constant need of guidance from the West, according to their binaries.

Ingrained in such binaries is the inescapable reality that the Orient can never live up to the Western standards of the Occident. It is through these seemingly humane

‘sympathy’ comparisons between the Orient and Occident that the Orient loses its identity (Haldar 2007:46).

Effectively legitimising the colonial conquest and the right to govern, the dichotomous reality is echoed by the postcolonial elites in power. This is reflected through their use of binary approaches in issues of identity politics including class and racial dimensions in governing the other (Omi and Winant 1993:7). For instance, there is an overall state consensus in Singapore on the advent of progress initiated by colonialism. Nevertheless,

22 of 144

it is an economic development where freedom of markets are “backed by the rule of law that progresses” at the expense of individual freedom (Wee 2003:156). There is a need to rethink the history of colonisation in Singapore and its lasting impact on the local community.

Despite the simplistic divide, there is a singular historical trajectory, one which is West- centric. This underscores Orientalism as essentially a limiting form of thought. For a dialogue to take place, there needs to be space for the multiplicity of historical trajectories. This will then allow the inclusion of other perspectives in addressing the

Orientalist neglect of the non-European. Beyond such labels of binary stereotypes, it obviously implicates power relationships. This brings us to the third Orientalist trait, master-servant relationship.

2.4.3 Master-servant Relationship and Silencing

In producing binary stereotypes, the West (master) is seen to occupy a moral position, in order to justify being serviced by a silent ‘other’. For instance, Raffles’ highly acclaimed town map has been said to develop Singapore in an orderly way. The textbook A Portrait of Malaysia and Singapore Textbooks narrate that “even the indigenous ruler of the island had to make way for progress that was so rapidly changing

Singapore from a jungle into a bustling settlement” ([1975] 1983:55). ‘Orderly’ on colonial terms meant that the Temenggong and Sultan had to be relocated and enclosed

23 of 144

in their respective land reserves. Such a move proceeded to isolate the Malay rulers from the Singapore River, the centre of native trade (Suppiah 2006:43).

Not only were the details of their relocation omitted, responses from the Malay community relocated from their homes, were absent in history textbooks. These constitute the “bundle of silences” (Trouillot 1995:27) imposed on the Orient.

Therefore, the issue of dispossession of Malays from land becomes glossed over as

‘development’. Their silence is then sealed with the physical compartmentalization of races and containment, justified in the name of progress. This is where the subject- object relationship undergrids not only the pedagogy of discourse but translates itself into visible manifestations - the spatial layout of the city.

Such master-servant relationship mutates into a postcolonial relationship of patronage.

The elites, with the same concentration of power, disallow the people to determine their history. History is thus distorted amidst such “partisanship that lacks objectivity”

(Maaruf 1988:24). This is in turn enabled by hegemonism and “europocentrism” in the social sciences, largely a Western phenomenon (Abdel-Malek 1963:103; Alatas

2006:22). Shamsul argues that “to have an academic discourse beyond orientalism and occidentalism is rather a tall order as long as we cannot break away from and become totally independent of colonial knowledge” (1998:2).

24 of 144

Despite many works that touch on the problematic between colonial and colonized

(Fanon [1952] 1967; Memmi [1957] 1991; Lamming 1960; Nandy 1983; Thiongo 1986), the anti-intellectual Orientalist scholarship continues to be rehashed and is heavily relied upon. The aversion of applying insights or methodology of the social sciences into their study means that the Orient will never be able to grow out of certain problems nor achieve the Western standards of modernity and progress. This forms the very basis for the master to devoice or silence the non-European servants.

2.5 Conclusion

In summary, the chapter has outlined the conceptualisation of Orientalism. In explaining the relevance of Orientalism as the theoretical lens for analysis of Singapore historiography, it has provided accordingly Orientalist traits and its significance in context of the study. In the next chapter, specifically how the three Orientalist traits apply to the narration of the three different historical representations within Singapore textbook historiography will be discussed. Following which, the interplay between

Orientalism and postcolonial nationalism in constructing national historiography presented, will clarify the research direction as well as provide the context for analysis.

25 of 144

CHAPTER 3 Orientalism in Nationalism

This chapter seeks to address national history in postcolonial Singapore and its important link with Orientalism. Establishing history textbooks as its unit of analysis, the chapter presents textbook narrations as hegemonic and masking the artificiality of official knowledge, truth and power. This highlights the significance of deconstructing textbook discourse on the pre-1819 period, 1819 treaty-signing event and Stamford

Raffles in relation to the Malays.

3.1 Nation-incarcerated History

The obvious relationship between history and nation-building has been highlighted since the eighteenth century (Hobsbawm 1990:191; Geary 2002:17). Historical memory which

“increasingly became politicised and nationalised” seeks to explain how a nation-state came to be, justifying the rule of the present government (Davis 2005:20). Those who gain control of history writing are thus automatically sanctioned the authority to fix the past, present as well as future of any nation.

In the same manner, history can be made a most incisive critic of the nation-building process itself (Winichakul 2003:11; Reynolds 2006:32). Right from the start, the nation-

26 of 144

state’s insistent search for continuities with its past is already an impossible feat without being myopic. The idea of a singular national history contradicts its very nature.

Consisting of disparate communities, “the nation is always a contingent result of many contesting narratives” (Duara 1995:4; Chakrabarty 1998:15). Such narration effectively buries the nation’s historical complexities with it. National history as a series of alternatives, on the other hand, is non-existent. Following such condition, any nation- state’s history is necessarily inadequate.

Yet, national history is often seen as providing an unquestionable ground for knowledge and historicity for its citizens. It claims an a priori privilege as the fundamental mode of being. This sustains the terrain of national history as most discursive, where many have analyzed national history in light of nationalism, including those specific to Singapore

(Gopinathan 1991:268; Loh 1998:7; Lau 2005:221, Velayutham 2007:20; Yao 2007:172;

Afandi and Baildon 2010:223). Analysis confined to the national framework however falls short in addressing the unique nature of postcolonial historiography. Postcolonial theorists who criticize Western national narrations of imperialism have stopped short in revising the terms of debate and bases in the West for differential forms of oppressions

(Roman 1993:75).

If imperialism could not function without nationalism (Hobson [1902] 1948:6), it is in nationalism that the vitality of Orientalism remains entrenched in postcolonial nation- states (Nandy 1983:xii; Van der Veer 1994:x; Ludden 1993:271). Chatterjee argues that

27 of 144

nationalism has “embedded in its thematic the most fundamental assumptions of a

Euro-American Orientalism” (Chatterjee cited in Dirlik 2000:9). This means that the advent of postcolonial nationalism did not necessarily remove, subvert nor change

Orientalism as the nation-state’s dominant mode of thought. It was possible for national history to be characterised and perpetuated by Orientalism. Hence, the notion that postcolonialism is not beyond but an extension of Orientalism, shaping the rise and contours of the nation-state history, is central to the present study of Singapore historiography.

3.2 Dis-orient: National History

In order to explain the ideal in terms of the material context of Orientalism, it is important to assess the institutional support that has sustained such Orientalist mode of thought (Said [1978] 1979:307). Instead of referring to the nation-state as an abstract entity, there is a need to study the state practices or “micro-powers” in terms of its discourse, found at different sites of knowledge systems (Foucault 1977:27). It is through the different nation-state institutions and practices that the system of ideas is produced and distributed (Foucault 1977:194). This is where the discursive history becomes part of a “vicious circle of colonisation, decolonisation and re-colonisation” that is continually articulated (Chen 1998:2).

28 of 144

Power-knowledge wielded by the state establishes facts in terms of its official narrative.

Different institutions such as schools in turn become the vehicles or sites of dissemination. The effectiveness and efficiency of the state’s new technology of producing power can then be seen in classroom teaching that revolve around history in textbooks.

Granted, not all taught is received without disapproval (Apple 1993:61). Textbooks however carry the authority of print, which relay a supposedly neutral legitimate body of knowledge and are regarded as “above criticism” (Olson 1980:194; Brophy and

VanSledright 1997:20). They remain the first if not only reference point for the younger generation, notwithstanding the increasing historical apathy. Yet, Podeh notes the lacking research in textbooks that contextualise content with the current political and social environment (2000:65). In Singapore’s context, there is a further lack of public debate on history education, where “any concerns raised regarding aspects of history instruction in schools have largely been muted” (Afandi and Baildon 2010:223).

Ong argues that the didactic Singapore history education is “more than just a propaganda-pumping exercise”, whereby the historical apathy amongst young

Singaporeans is self-imposed rather than state-sanctioned (2010:2). He explains that:

29 of 144

the nation-building narrative of Singapore as taught in state schools goes beyond

the omnipresence of just one man. It includes a host of other actors, both

winners and losers in Singapore’s recent history. (Ong 2010:2)

To not be able to discern the subjectivity of ‘victor’ and the ‘vanquished’ in history as determined by the group in power is historical myopia in itself. Historical indifference festers in an environment that encourages truncated historical consciousness. For instance, A Select Bibliography on the History of Singapore (Tim et al. 1998) compiled by the National University of Singapore Library allocates less than two pages to historical works discussing “Temasek and pre-modern Singapore” without any mention of pre-

1819 archaeological works and three pages for the “Founding of Modern Singapore,

1819-1826”. In the same year, another bibliography The Singapore Story: A learning nation (Tan 1998) emphasises Singapore’s “Colonial Heritage” with no mention of pre- colonial issues. Existing scholarship on pre-1819 history is excluded. Both illustrate the type of historical awareness prescribed by the state and the corresponding highly contained historical imagination.

A textbook analysis is certainly due of Singapore history education that has been largely under the purview of the Ministry of Education. In the early years of nation-building, history as a teaching subject was constantly relegated to the periphery as having ‘no immediate practical use’ and abolished completely in 1972. It was taught under a non- examinable subject named Education for Living in 1975 and combined with Geography

30 of 144

under the subject Social Studies in 1979 (Lau 1992:51). Although the more recent history textbooks under National Education make a clear push for students to be more analytical, the Ministry of Education still determines “the important lessons and values from the past that students should arrive at” (Hong and Huang 2008:15). Commercially produced textbooks were only allowed in 1996, on the condition that they follow closely the Ministry-approved syllabus (Fredriksen and Tan 2008:28). Such is the disciplinary power, which imposes its own standard of normalisation as the only acceptable one.

It is thus critical to address “the contingent and partial locations in which [educational values] are produced, while remaining attentive to the significance of political alliances in the general struggle against the neo-colonial regimes of truth” produced both in the

East and West (Behdad 1993:45). Herein, Orientalism serves to highlight who gets labelled and how what is known is caught up with specific histories and relations of power. At the same time, historical alterity functions to uncover some of the fundamental premises of national history as myths. By showcasing the diverse voices of the past, it is hoped that the study exposes the monolithic nature of state narrative on

Malays as Orientalist. The idea is to go beyond the nationalist paradigm in tracing the dominant historiographical lineage and its impact on the Malays.

31 of 144

3.3 Historical Mise-en-scène: Malays in Focus

Despite references to appearingly extra-historic sources, national historiography is nonetheless historically and socially determined. Interests of certain groups essentially are reflected while others are marginalized (Apple and Christian-Smith 1991:10; Ram

2000:69). Such reductionist characterisation of societies written in history has real implications on the local population. In examining the influence of Orientalism on the writing of Singapore history textbooks, the study examines how Malays are imagined or viewed in history. It looks at how the Malay self is taken up as a subject of production by focusing on the education system, namely in the discipline of history.

There is the fear of the state of “nativist claims” by Malays in Singapore i.e. that Malays are indigenous to the region (Hong and Huang 2008:5; Rahim 2009:14). I would suggest that the state responds by according Malays “minority history” in the official state narrative. Minority history involves narratives of the past that are assigned an inferior or marginal position vis-à-vis the dominant historical narrative (Chakrabarty 1998:18).

Minority history however does not necessarily entail groups that are numerically few.

For instance, the influence of colonialist writings on the Malays illustrates the ability of a small group to dominate historical writings on a larger group (Shamsul 2001:357).

More importantly, minority history most liable to distortions “develops a degree of intractability with respect to the very aims of professional history” when brought “into a

32 of 144

relationship with a larger narrative” (Chakrabarty 1998:18). Hong and Huang (2008:25) note how the Malays “who have indigenous claims to the land have come to be the most vulnerable to being identified with a ‘foreign’ motherland post 1965”. It is possible that the integration of the Malay history into the national narrative disintegrates their very history. The Malays as historical subject will always be in the state’s interest, their

(mis)representation in history stabilising the collective historical imagination of the state. Analyses of Singapore history textbooks will thus reveal if Malays in their portrayal within the national narrative have been robbed of their historical agency since colonial times and sustained through the skewed national interpretation.

Three issues involving a historical period, event and personality, central to how Malays are positioned in Singapore national history, will thus be examined in relation to the three Orientalist traits discussed in chapter 2. They include:

3.3.1 The Pre-1819 Period – Neglect of the Non-European

Modern Singapore history is said to begin with colonial Singapore in 1819 (Tregonning

1969:14). Textbook narratives similarly situate Singapore history within the “framework of British colonialism and empire, decolonisation and the struggle for independence”, centering on the nation-state (Kwa 1998:17; Koh 2009:65). Local histories however produce alternative beginnings for Singapore history. Rahmat presents more varied population figures for Singapore on Raffles’ first arrival, ranging from 500 to 1000

33 of 144

(2008:2). This includes approximately 100 Malay houses, 30 families of Orang Laut and

30 Chinese who were then planting gambier on the island (Haughton 1982:74; Murfett et al. 1999:43).

Starting national history in 1819 meant relegating Singapore’s precolonial history, specifically history of the Malays to the margins of history (Rahim 1998:163, Ramcharan

2002:8). And it is the grounds to which pre-1819 Singapore is dismissed, where a colonial-oriented history is born, that remain problematic. Malay historical sources are rendered mythical (Velayutham 2007:21). Without a ‘credible’ written history, it is therefore implied that prior to the coming of Raffles, Singapore was at best a sleepy

Malay fishing village (Barr and Skrbiš 2008:21; Hong and Huang 2008:25). All these factors listed contributed to the erasure of the history of the Malays.

Recent textbooks do invite student to re-evaluate “was [Singapore] a sleepy, isolated and insignificant island?”, only to be followed up with historical facts establishing,

“when Raffles landed on its shores, he found that the only settlers were a small group of farmers and fishermen. There was also an uninhabited hill known as Bukit Larangan”

(Singapore: From Settlement to Nation, Pre-1819 to 1971 2007:5). Sober narration aside, the arrangement, proportion and selection of historical facts already insinuate certain conclusions.

34 of 144

The epistemological conventions that govern the start of Singapore history require a careful re-examination. Comparing alternative accounts of pre-1819 Singapore serves to highlight to what extent the current textbook account reflect the Orientalist lens rather than take into account the non-European perspective.

3.3.2 Colonial Handover of Singapore – Binary Stereotypes

The narration of Singapore’s handover to the colonial government has always been a straightforward account. The language of history attributes the British with agency, responsible for the founding of ‘modern’ Singapore. It is narrated that the 1819 treaty constituted the first step to the colonial set up in Singapore, with the 1824 Anglo-Dutch treaty giving the colonials legal acquisition of Singapore. Such an account of the colonial development in Singapore however hinges largely on the colonial account of Singapore’s handover.

Kwa observes that such narrative framing stems from having a more well documented and known account of Raffles’ move to sign the treaty in comparison to Tengku Hussain

(2006:2). It is argued however that the problem is not having too many colonial tales but more to do with “the habits of thinking about relationships between past and present”

(Healy 1997:46). Specifically, there is a binary relationship that characterises the narrating of Singapore’s colonial takeover. It results in the narrative nexus of West

(enlightened colonial rulers) and the Orient (passive Malay society). The founding of

35 of 144

modern Singapore vis-à-vis the colonial takeover of Singapore is never characterised as colonial expropriation or dispossession of the Malays.

While the Malay rulers’ decision to cede Singapore could not be denied despite the absence of information on their perspectives, the concern is with the naïve conception of colonialism in Singapore. There is a need to widen the narration of Singapore’s handover in 1819 with alternative accounts that account for its effects on the local community and the means with which Singapore was acquired by the colonials. The foregrounding of alternative historical accounts and explanations with regards to

Singapore’s handover will demonstrate the binary stereotypes between the Europeans and locals.

3.3.3 Stamford Raffles – Master-servant Relationship and Silencing

Textbooks describe Raffles for his famous worldwide role in founding Singapore, a result of great determination and persistence (Discovering History 1 1999:6). The rare decision to name a colonial master as the founding father of a postcolonial nation in itself is not indicative of a master servant relationship. The concern is with the portrayal of the colonial master and his concomitant attributes said to have found modern Singapore.

He is lauded as not only a strategist through the 1822 town plan but also a humanitarian who “put an end to slavery and piracy” (History in the Malayan Primary School [1960]

1961:79).

36 of 144

In contrast, the Malays view Raffles as the harbinger of dispossession, the reason their history was ‘whited’ out. Alatas notes the simultaneous silencing of Raffles’ political actions and philosophy where progress on Raffles’ terms required “Asians to accept subordinate status to colonial personnel, mainly provide the labour force for British and

Western capitalism” (1971:5). Nevertheless, textbooks hardly discuss colonialism effects or present critiques of colonialism. Raffles becomes the face of enlightenment rather than imperialism. To insist that positive historical change started with a colonial master portrayed as a hero-founder, without discussing the context or implications of such change, is symptomatic of a master-servant relationship.

Clearly, the differential exercise of power is key to enabling the positive narratives on

Raffles whereas events that portray Raffles to be less than heroic have been either minimised or have no place in state history. The analysis will focus on the textbook portrayal of hero-founder Raffles in colonial Singapore, in discussing the third Orientalist trait, master-servant relationship and silencing.

3.4 Conclusion

In summary, the chapter has explained the relevance of Orientalism in analyzing

Singapore historiography. By outlining the unit of analysis (textbooks) employed by the study and the axes of comparison between the specific historical period, event and

37 of 144

personality; it clarifies how and why national historiography in Singapore are to be examined for the Orientalist traits identified in the previous chapter. The next chapter will evaluate the influence of the first Orientalist trait, neglect of the non-European with regards to the pre-1819 historical period in national textbooks.

38 of 144

CHAPTER 4 Pre-1819 Narration of Absence

This chapter attempts to outline the historiographical orientation of the pre-1819 period narrated in history textbooks. Starting with the significance of the period in relation to the Orientalist trait, neglect of the non-European, the discussion will proceed to trait manifestations and its functions, as obstacles to a more dynamic historiography. Central to analyzing such influence is a critical reflection on the periodisation as well as changes in the portrayal of the specific period from pre-separation to post-National Education textbook narratives.

4.1 Remembering Entails Forgetting

Forgetting and remembering are events that are never accidental. Nations depend on collective amnesia for its continued existence (Billig 1995:38). In Singapore history, forgetting has been characterised as both a condition and structural necessity (Devan

1999:22). The very act of remembering itself necessitates forgetting. In order to glorify the one-time colonial founding of Singapore in the nineteenth century, earlier significant foundings are downplayed, “irretrievably lost in the mists of time” (Chan and ul Haq

1987:149).

39 of 144

Such forgetting that manifests in the periodisation employed, stems from a “perceptual gap”, existing only in minds (Alatas 1998:7). Periodisation refers to the dissection of the past into divisions of time (Gerhard 1973:476). Although Croce argues that periods represent fabrications which exist in the minds of historians ([1919] 1960:110), periodisation remains important for analytical and narrative purposes. The concern is with the form that it takes. The gaps in Singapore history periodisation are a result of overdependence on history writing from British sources (Alatas 1998:5).

Crawfurd claims that, “for a period of about five centuries and a half, there is no record of Singapore having been occupied, and it was only the occasional resort of pirates”

(1971:402). Historians echo such sentiment either by identifying the period as

“antiquarian” (Tregonning 1969:14), denying the existence of the earlier “great trading city” (Wong 1991:18) or declaring pre-1819 as “a non-existent glorious indigenous

Golden Age” (Lau 1992:56). More than just mythical, Tay (1996:762) concludes that

Singapore has no “mythic, pre-colonial civilisation on which to base a unique Asian identity”. This is due to:

[t]he absence of a large corpus of [pre-colonial] sources, and the unreliability of

those that survived, have already been noted. The colonial period, however, has

yielded a much richer store of records. (Lau 1992:57)

40 of 144

Firstly, the richer source of colonial records does not necessarily give rise to a diversity of perspectives. The irony lies in the cause-effect argument where claims of an absence of narration lead to a narration of absence. The pre-1819 historical gap is installed with the writing of such absence by a specific group, whose narration only gains currency.

Rahim notes the hierarchical use of primary sources, favoring Chinese and European sources when examining the origins of Singapore (2009:23). Even then, peripheral usage of local historical work did not guarantee a reading appropriate to it but one which supports the ‘absent’ picture of pre-1819.

Nevertheless, archaeological findings in 1984 have since resulted in many revisionist works on the pre-1819 period (Miksic 1985). The first archaeological exacavation in

Singapore that unearthed thirteenth to fourteenth-century pale green fragments and fourteenth-century Majapahit gold jewellery had already stirred discussions in the newspapers as early as 1984 (Pow-Chong, January 28, 1984, 1). Such works have used various archaeological, local and colonial sources from Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish archives (Miksic and Low 2004; Heng 2006; Kwa, Heng, and Tan 2009; Borschberg 2010;

Hack, Margolin, and Delaye 2010). The chapter will look at the extent and nature of their inclusion in history textbooks. Clearly, filling the gaps is insufficient but the degree of revision effected by the added narratives. While the study is interested to see if the history of Malays has been included in the national narrative as a result of such revised works, how they are represented remain a bigger concern. For instance, Hong and

Huang note the critical lack of discussion concerning pre-1819 narratives in Singapore

41 of 144

history (2008:25), which Barr and Skrbiš attribute to sinocentric nature of Singapore’s national history (2008:26). Yet, the second part of the book moves in to focus only on the ‘forgotten’ narration of the Chinese community (Heng 2009:184), repeating the very criticism of a sinocentric Singapore history.

The beginning of any national historiography is important because it involves the issue of the founding nation, with implications on citizenship privileges and rights. Historical beginnings always have the end in mind. History never remains as history but “history- for” and written in anticipation of a preferred outcome (Levi-Strauss 1966:257). In the context of a community whose history predates modern Singapore history, this study is interested in exploring how Malays are configured in the founding narration of

Singapore.

4.2 Pre-separation: Beginnings in Antiquity

The earliest starting date for Singapore’s existence in pre-separation textbooks can be traced to its name change in 1160. Early Singapore is framed within the various kingdoms in the Malay Peninsula including Langkasuka, Funan and Champa. On

Singapura’s founding, students are told that it was Sang Nila Utama, a ruler from these empires, who decided to settle in Temasek and rename it Singapura. Textbooks narrate how the story of the nation began in antiquity as part of the historical early empires,

42 of 144

from the ancient Indianised to the more recent Malay empires. The founding narrative is substantiated by the ‘Malay legends’ in most textbooks.

In narrating the founding of Singapore, Singapore’s strategic location, as part of a popular trade sea route, is highlighted as an asset to the empires. As a result, textbooks note the cosmopolitan nature of Singapore due to the influx of traders from India,

China, Indo-China, Sumatra, Java, Borneo and the Malay Peninsula. This is important because in 1984, S. Rajaratnam justified the downplaying of early Singapore history for the good of the plural society, albeit in Furnivall’s (1948) interpretation. It was to prevent “a bloody battleground for endless racial and communal conflicts and interventionist politics by the more powerful and bigger nations from which

Singaporeans had emigrated” (Chan and ul Haq 1987:149).

Pre-separation textbook narrations on early Singapore had offered a different form of plural society which aided early Singapore’s “regional role in world trade” (Reid

2010a:37). Cosmopolitanism was evident not only through the intermingling of Chinese,

Indian, Southeast Asian and European cultures and creeds in Temasek who helped in networking Singapore to other regional markets, but also by the type of “mixing tending toward hybridity” amongst the local population (Reid 2010a:40). The textbook, The

Pioneering Years, notes that the Chinese had lived together with the Malays in the pre-

1819 period ([1970] 1971:15). This can be corroborated by Wang Dayuan's Records of

Overseas Countries and Peoples (1349) which has been translated in the various ways:

43 of 144

“Men and women lived mixed up among the Chinese” (Rockhill 1915:131), “The natives and the Chinese dwell side by side” (Wheatley 1961:82) and “The Prime Minister instructs both men and women to live in harmony with the Chinese people (Wade cited in Miksic 2010:112).

The reasons for downplaying pre-1819 due to its status as a “past without effect on the present” (Hong and Huang 2008:25) or a “mythical past [that] did not suit the purposes of a Singapore leadership ruling over an immigrant, plural society” (Hong and Huang

2008:47) can then be seen as inapt especially in an increasingly globalised world. Miksic concludes that “modern Singapore’s cosmopolitanism thus has much in common with the character of Singapore’s multiethnic population which Wang Dayuan described in

1349” (2010:129). The underlying reason is more to do with the possibility of success or even the coherence of a viable worldview without the nation-state, the colonial defined plural society and its composite races, in the pre-1819 period.

Casting Singapore’s history in the longue durée, Heng presents an alternative periodisation based on the type of governance and political autonomy in Singapore

(2010:58). It comprises late thirteenth to fourteenth-century Temasek, fifteenth to seventeenth-century Singapore under Melaka and Johor, 1819 to 1858 Singapore under the East India Company Factory, late nineteenth to twentieth-century Singapore as the centre of British Malaya, 1963 to 1965 Singapore as a part of Malaysia and post-1965 independent Singapore. He then compares Singapore’s success in these time periods. As

44 of 144

with colonial and independent Singapore, autonomous Temasek was able to function as a major transhipment hub between larger regional markets; as a gateway to a larger economic entity; and make unique products available for export (Heng 2010:69).

Secondly, the idea of a pre-1819 Melayu empire was divorced from today’s notion of

Malay as a race. The colonial construction of Malay had produced “a narrower definition” by “injecting the new concept of race into the kerajaan communities”

(Milner 2008:127). It was Raffles that significantly projected the idea of a Malay race

(Reid 2001:302), as “one people, speaking one language, though spread over so wide a space, and preserving their character and customs” (Raffles 1830:15). He also renamed the Sulalatu’l-Salatin (Genealogy of the Rajas) The Malay Annals, and thereby

“appropriated a kerajaan composition on behalf of a race” (Milner 2008:120). In short, the meaning of Malay in the pre-colonial era was more heterogeneous and diverse, free from the nation-state imaginings.

Whilst pre-separation textbooks note the cosmopolitan nature of its population, they are at the same time specific on the groups that are indigenous to Malaya. The textbook

The Malayan Story ([1956] 1959:10) outrightly denies the presence of permanent

Chinese settlers in the Malay Archipelago until 1403 with Malacca’s founding. After which, the author felt it necessary to establish a historical link between the Malay population and the ancient empire of Melayu.

45 of 144

The Malays first got their name Orang Melayu at the end of the twelfth century.

The capital of the Sri Vijaya kingdom was moved from Palembang to Melayu and

the people of the kingdom began to be known as Orang Melayu or people of

Melayu. ([1956] 1959:11)

According to Kwa et al., Singapore had serviced the Malay and Chinese markets in the late thirteenth-fourteenth centuries (2009:63), later on as a secondary port servicing

Melaka in the fifteenth till early sixteenth century and finally Johor in the sixteenth till early seventeenth century (2009:52). Yet, a consistently bleak picture of early Singapore with short-lived success is maintained. Instead of looking at Singapore’s value coveting a stake in the early empire tussle, the end of early Singapore is attributed to ineffective rule by the early rulers of Singapore in textbook narrations. Singapore’s maritime activities however did not end with the decline of Temasek.

The end of its port functions in 1368 is attributed to the emergence of Chinese laws which no longer permitted Chinese traders to operate privately and made maritime trade the prerogative of the Chinese government. This was also when Melaka became the “key port of call in the Melaka Straits for the Chinese imperial army”, in which

“Temasek was eventually ceded to” (Kwa et al. 2009:32). Singapore continued to be the home base for the naval arm of Melaka and Johor rulers and a trade harbor.

Shahbandars or portmasters were established by the Johor sultans to control the trade that passed through the Kallang River estuary. This was evident through two Portuguese

46 of 144

maps by Manuel Godinho d’Eredia and Andre Pereira Reis, as well as accounts by Dutch

Admiral Cornelius Materlief de Jong in 1606 which reported meeting a representative of the Sultan of Johor, Sabandar of Singapura (Kwa et al. 2009:59). In comparison, the core of information on early Singapore in textbooks deals with a specific period in early civilization history that situates it in the context of territorial expansion of early kingdoms per se. It is in this context marked by tumultuous instability, that students are informed about the nature or lack of governance in early Singapore.

4.3 Post-separation: Beginnings in Uncertainty

Post separation marked a turning point in the depiction of early Singapore’s founding.

No longer is it emphasized as the beginnings of the nation-state in antiquity but highlighted in uncertainty. If during pre-separation, the beginning of Singapore’s history was identified by references to ancient empires of the Malay Peninsula, whose empire relations are represented to have dominated the region; post-separation knowledge on early Singapore history is constructed as a combination of Malay legends, tales and old stories that make a concerted effort to link the name Singapura to its founding rulers.

Earlier narrations continue to be included, alongside newly issued value statements and conclusive remarks in verifying the historicity of sources.

This is not to say that earlier textbooks did not label Sang Nila Utama’s story as legendary. However, one could almost trace its declining importance in post-separation

47 of 144

textbooks, Sang Nila Utama’s narrative is reduced to explaining Singapura’s name change. In 1960, the textbook History in the Malayan Primary School, under the chapter

“Tumasek becomes Singapura” had “Founding of Singapura” as its subheading ([1960]

1961:35). It added that Tumasek was the original name of Singapore. A year later, the same author K. R. Menon, wrote another textbook reducing the same account as mere

‘story’ (History in Singapore Schools [1961] 1963:92). Subsequently in 1964, the story of

Sang Nila Utama is promoted internationally as a Malay legend (The Story of Malaysia

1964:15). The emphasis shifts from the Malay origins of Singapore’s founding to the legendary origins of such Malay founding narratives.

While the legendary aspect of Malay historical texts is not to be denied, to then ascribe them devoid of any historical value is negligent. These historical texts have to be accorded with an appropriate reading, in view of their function. Sejarah Melayu, for instance explained the origins of various place names, laws and customs to justify the

Malaccan sultanate legitimacy (Iskandar 1986:145, Jong 1964:241, Omar 1993:xi).

Authors of Malay historical texts however had never obfuscated between the historical and non-historical (Othman 2008:103).

What was claimed to be ‘non-historical’ aspects represented by the mythological

and legendary stories are indeed embedded within them historical values. To

prove this contention one must understand the process of the Indianisation and

Islamisation of the Malay world. (Othman 2008:104)

48 of 144

The Sang Nila Utama story in Sejarah Melayu, where he was bestowed the title ‘Sri Tri

Buana’, is not all supernatural but historically functional (Hsu 1986:51). In the Sejarah

Melayu, the title was given to Sang Nila Utama by Bath, the ancestor of court scribes borne out of the sacred white cow’s spewed foam (Othman 2008:100). Sri Tri Buana, which means Lord of the Three Worlds in Sanskrit, was a title commonly used by early

Southeast Asian kings (Kwa 1998:45). The name Bath is equally significant as it is “the usual name in India for a bard or encomiast and in Gujarat a distinct tribe bearing the name of Bhat, and claiming a semi-divine origin” (Maxwell 1881:90).

Written during the decline of Malaccan court, such political myths far from being superfluous and legendary were functional (Chambert-Loir 2005:139). Rulers were portrayed as benefactors of magic and power to compensate for the lost glory (Omar

1993:26). Thereby, it was written how the lion, an animal of might, was chosen as the reason for the founding of Singapore and Bath emerged magically to bestow Sang Nila

Utama as the ruler (Omar 1993:94). This is in line with Sejarah Melayu’s objective, whose original name was Sulalatu’l-Salatin, which means Story of the Origin and

Descent of the Malay Rajas (Maaruf 2002:2). It was Abdullah Abdul Kadir who gave the name Sejarah Melayu in 1841 and John Leyden’s translated rescension that carried the name Malay Annals in 1821; both of which are potentially misleading (Chambert-Loir

2005:133).

49 of 144

Discrediting Sejarah Melayu nevertheless enables the legendary portrayal of early

Singapore. It is effectively turned into a premise with which the entire period becomes identified as problematic. If earlier textbooks had referred to the Temasek period as obscure, post separation textbooks now extend the period of uncertainty beyond the fourteenth century. From just declaring having minimal knowledge on early Singapore

(History in Singapore Schools [1961] 1963:92), post separation textbooks pinpoint

Sejarah Melayu as the source of such uncertainty.

The only permanence in early Singapore maintained by both pre-separation and post separation textbooks is piracy. Despite the differing starting points, the historical fact of piracy rife in early Singapore remains a constant. Post-separation textbooks even narrate the start of piracy to be earlier than Sang Nila Utama’s arrival (War and Peace

Part 1 1972b:2). The most recent textbook includes an academic journal article that cites Wang Dayuan’s works, to verify piracy in early Singapore (Singapore: From

Settlement to Nation, Pre-1819 to 1971 2007:5).

The Orang Laut specifically is identified with piracy, whose notoriety reportedly reached ports of China (New Secondary Histories 1972:136). Some quarters take exception to

Orang Laut being described as pirates, in view of the pivotal role they played since the days of the Srivijaya empire. Not only were they politically dominant in the kingdoms of

Malay archipelago as noted by Portuguese sources, “their maritime skills and prowess made them a formidable force and a desirable ally for any lord aspiring to political

50 of 144

hegemony in the area” (Abdullah 2006:83). Singapura, in particular, had functioned as their home base (Kwa et al. 2009:57). It is not surprising that the colonials whose territorial conquests would be hindered by these Orang Laut would label them as pirates.

Such narration easily fits into the European-Malay dichotomy of civilised-savage stereotypes.

European desires to suppress attacks on their shipping in the treacherous waters

of Southeast Asia made ‘Malay’ and ‘pirate’ seem almost synonymous. But in

these early periods, only the European gaze could make the Asian phenomena

resemble ‘piracy’. (Reid 2010b:16)

The ‘power’ of European gaze however is derived from the Orientalist trait, neglect of the non-European. From a non-European viewpoint, such ‘piracy’ was to defend their

Southeast Asian territorial waters and safeguard local interests. Lest it might appear as a justification of piracy, this is different from viewing piracy as “Malay resistance to western intrusion” (Lim 1991:6). Such romanticisation only serves to characterise piracy as reactionary and leads to moral claims on the identity of resistor and oppressor.

Instead, the very concept of ‘piracy’ needs to be unpacked. Many have observed the fluid use of ‘piracy’ in the early days, depending on the various historical and cultural contexts (Tarling 1963:10; Trocki 1979:68).

51 of 144

The earliest historical works that mention the presence of piracy in Singapore waters are the Yingya Shenglan and Xingcha Shenglan. They were written respectively by a translator and junior official in Admiral Zheng He’s fifteenth-century maritime voyages.

It is to be noted that the entry in Yingya Shenglan itself had been adapted from the

Xingcha Shenglan (Koh et. al 2006:163). Assuming such historical accounts were founded on reliable primary sources, it is the European translations of Chinese texts that prove problematic (Reid 2010b:16). Such translations made it appear that piracy was rampant during the Ming and Qing era. These European translators did not qualify nor elucidate the maximalist definition of piracy in the period, which included all international commercial activity as piracy. Trade and overseas travel were banned for all except the emperor during the Ming era.

Without a credible early Singapore history, later textbooks thus install a historical fact of uninhabited nature of pre-1819 Singapore attributed to piracy (War and Peace Part 1

1972b:2). Instead of the earlier emphasis on Temasek’s name as seaport, the name

Singapura is now presented as stopover city, derived from the words singgah (stop over) and pura (city) (A Portrait of Malaysia and Singapore [1975] 1983:43). The historical role played by Sang Nila Utama as well as the entire pre-1819 period merit little or no mention beyond “a line or two”. The first ever textbook on Singapore’s history, Social and Economic History of Modern Singapore (1985) conveniently starts from Raffles’ landing in 1819, with pre-1819 Singapore mentioned in passing.

52 of 144

4.4 Post-National Education: Fixation on Starting Points

Textbooks after National Education only recognize the one-time founding of Singapore by Raffles. This spelled a most important conflation where modern Singapore (no longer with its early Singapore and later Singapore) is now altogether founded by Raffles. Pre- separation textbooks try to make Singapore’s foundings congruent by distinguishing

Raffles as founder of modern Singapore from Sang Nila Utama as founder of ancient

Singapore. Post-separation textbook History of Modern Singapore simply narrates Sang

Nila Utama believed to have found a town on the island ([1984] 1996:14), whereas

Raffles founded Singapore, “to which life on the small, quiet island would never be the same again” ([1984] 1996:18).

The narration enables blanket periodisation of early Singapore history rather than

“what made each era function as it did” (Hack and Margolin 2010:6). Instead of a specific period with specific characteristics being conceptualised, a residual name of pre-

1819 is utilised. The current textbook is the first to apply such periodisation with its first chapter titled, “was there Singapore before 1819?” (Singapore from Settlement to

Nation, pre-1819 to 1971 2007:2).

In the textbook Understanding Our Past, accounts of early Singapore are relegated to supplementary notes after the chapter “The founding of modern Singapore” ([1999]

2004:13). Instead, the textbook opens on February 6, 1819 with the subheading “The

53 of 144

signing of the 1819 treaty” ([1999] 2004:4). In spite of having the benefit of pre-1819 archaeological findings datable to the fourteenth century (Miksic 1985:89), the narrative concludes a familiar line, “apart from the sources and artefacts mentioned, not much is known about the early history of Singapore” (Understanding Our Past [1999] 2004:16),

“until the Europeans came to the East” (History of Modern Singapore [1984] 1996:15).

This is further reinforced by questioning the identity of the Malay kings before Raffles.

The identity of the person buried at keramat on Fort Canning, “believed to be Iskandar

Shah, a ruler of Temasek” (Singapore: From Settlement to Nation, Pre-1819 to 1971

2007:19) was doubted. In closing the chapter, a public response from The Straits Times denies the identity of the keramat as Parameswara. Regardless of the keramat’s identity, the chronology of the Singapore kings in Sejarah Melayu has been confirmed by various Portuguese (by Joao de Barros, Diogo de Couto and, Manoel Godinho de

Eredia), Javanese (Nagarakrtagama, Pararaton) and Chinese (History of Ming Dynasty) sources (Linehan 1982:57).

Deemed as the “only reminder of Singapore’s precolonial tradition” (Miksic 2000:57), archaeological material had indicated the site as a centre of ceremonial activity or monastery for an elite person or group during the fourteenth century (Miksic 1985:90).

However, Temasek was more than a major ceremonial centre, Miksic further observes that:

54 of 144

It was also an importer of raw materials and exporter or at least producer and

consumer of finished artifacts. In this respect, Singapore resembles the growing

commercial cities of Europe of the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance… Its

existence and character were determined by a range of economic pursuits.

(2000:60)

Temasek was not just trade-dependent but involved in the cycle of commodity production as well. Based on the different materials found from three fourteenth- century cites, which are Fort Canning, Parliament House and Empress Place, it is concluded that Fort Canning was a craftsmen quarter where recycled glass were made into bangles whereas Parliament House functioned as a site of commerce and metal working. These differing economic stratas were indicative of a highly developed society

(Kwa et al. 2009:51). Excavations also revealed that the trading community in Singapore then was able to afford imports of China’s finer products. This was evident through the stemcup fragments recovered, similar to those of Jingdechen kilns in Yuan dynasty (Kwa et al. 2009:51). Whilst the interpretation of archaeological data in historical reconstruction needs to be informed by the social sciences (Alatas 1964a:62), archaeology generally has been selectively disregarded.

More than just being shrouded in uncertainty, post National Education textbooks thus launch into fixed starting points, Singapore’s colonial history. The assumption is that

“until [Raffles] arrived there was ‘not much there’, but he saw its potential” (Barr and

55 of 144

Skrbiš 2008:23). It is only with National Education that there is a shift in Singapore’s status before Raffles. One of the chapter headings in the textbook, Understanding Our

Past, was named as “Singapore: From a Fishing Village to a British possession” ([1999]

2004:7). This implied absence of ownership prior to the British arrival, rendering pre-

Raffles Singapore a no man’s land, tabula rasa void of history. Interestingly, Miksic notes that compared to the other settlements in pre-1819 period, “the small village which

Raffles found on the Singapore River in 1819 seems to have been established only a few years previously” (2000:58).

Despite pioneer efforts to cover pre-1819 Singapore by the most recent textbook,

Singapore: From Settlement to Nation, Pre-1819 to 1971 (2007), it still draws the very same conclusions as previous textbooks. The strength of such discourse is made possible through conflating centuries of history before 1819 into one chapter, “Was there

Singapore before 1819?”. At best, the historicity of Sejarah Melayu a pre-1819 historical source is treated at best as an anecdote, “a short entertaining account of something that has happened” (2007:4).

Underlying such narration is the non-present aspect of these lessons. There is an anachronistic Orientalist application of today’s notions of identity on the past in the process of constructing a national identity (Vaziri 1993:93). Comparisons are made with the assumption that the name ‘Singapore’, denoting a nation-state in modernity, is used to refer to the same geopolitical boundary so many years ago, as though the same rules

56 of 144

apply. It assumes an a priori existence of the location/subject Singapore and more importantly, as a nation-state. As Hack and Margolin (2010:7) put it, “the Singapore state, whether as a positive or a negative, is always a referent, a framing device, even when not explicitly discussed”.

4.5 The History of Malays: On Tethers

It is this continued silencing of early Singapore that was needed to fuel the next phase of national narration, the migrant nation-state. Singapore’s history then becomes amenable to be contextualised for students, in terms of migration to Singapore which was initiated by the colonial masters. Firstly, textbooks imply that no community is indigenous to Singapore including the Malays, who previously were categorised as ‘the

Aboriginal Malays’ (The Malayan Story [1956] 1959:5). If post separation textbooks begin to narrate that after 1819, “the Malay population eventually came to include the

Archipelago immigrants” who is of “the same racial stock as the local Malays and were easily assimilated” (A Portrait of Malaysia and Singapore [1975] 1983:52); post National

Education textbooks effectively categorises all races as immigrants. Immigrants thus are identified by their respective races, be it Europeans, Chinese, Indians and Malays

(History of Modern Singapore [1984] 1996:24; Understanding Our Past [1999] 2004:19;

Singapore: From Settlement to Nation, Pre-1819 to 1971 2007:47). The past is remembered through the invocation of migration to Singapore but in light of the

57 of 144

colonialist intervention discourse that is also informed by racialised conception of the citizens.

The racialising discourse represents further attempts in normalising Malays as migrants in their homeland. In the textbook History of Modern Singapore, it explains that “the

Malays were pushed to leave their homeland because of several reasons. Some Malays from the Malay Archipelago came because they could not find work in their homeland”

([1984] 1996:24). Assuming that the homeland of Malays refers to the Malay

Archipelago, this would prove confusing as Singapore was introduced as being part of the Malay Archipelago at the start of the chapter (History of Modern Singapore [1984]

1996:13).

It is then a given that textbooks are silent on the historical race of the land. This means that Malays previously associated with the founding narratives of Singapore is to be no more. The Malay entitlement to the land becomes textually lost. Kratoska (2005:8) notes two very different national narratives between Malaysia and Singapore despite their shared history. Whilst Malaysia opted to promote the narrative of Malays as original inhabitants of the land, Singapore chose to give a migrant narrative. With the absence of a coherent early Singapore history, Singapore’s success is constructed as only objective and real after the coming of colonialism. The founding group thus becomes defined as the migrant group that contributed to post-1819 Singapore’s economic success.

58 of 144

Nevertheless, remnants of this era continue to haunt discourses of the founding population, in terms of identity that sometimes blindly eradicate the multiplicity of history in search of a pure Singaporean founding point. For instance, in 1970 Malay organisations disagreed with the translated textbook title Nenek Moyang Kita sa-bagai

Peneroka (1973) from the original title of “Our Forefathers as Immigrants” (Tan

1982:36). This was because “since no reference is made to Malay presence”, it implied that “rightly or wrongly is that Malays have no place in Singapore’s history” (“Ministry agrees to changes in school history book”, September 16, 1970, 6). Other criticisms included the neglect of Malay contribution to the early development of Singapore

(Kassim 1974:52). Clearly, the difficulty of composing a history made of migrants is including or accounting for its nonmigrant history. This belies the exclusion of pre-1819 history, mostly non-European history.

The Malays, previously indigenous to the region, is narrated in Singapore’s national history as passengers of history, without any contributing factor to the development of the country. It was only with the help of the colonial powers and migrant community that Singapore flourished. Rahim (2009:41) argues that it “serves to obfuscate the indigenous status of Malays even though it is clearly recognised in Section 152 of the

Singapore Constitution”. The indigenous status of the Malays has already been legally recognised in the constitution of Singapore; it is argued that the issue has more to do with entitlement of such status. The bringing of success to the indigenous population is

59 of 144

basis enough for entitlement of the migrant status as well as legitimacy to rule an indigenous population.

Raffles descended onto the shores of Singapore, there were supposedly only a

handful of local inhabitants living on a land without a verifiable history. (Rahim

2009:23).

The discrediting of a land’s history can only mean people without a history. This is where people without a history are more liable to be ruled, compared to a community with a history of successive rulers and bustling trade.

4.6 Conclusion

In summary, the discourse analysis of pre-1819 has uncovered ongoing manifestation of the first Orientalist trait, neglect of non-European sources, perspectives and histories.

Despite its many revisions, pre-1819 narration remains unblemished by historical alterity. At the same time, the commonalities across these historiographies involve shifting representations of the ‘founding group’.

This is where textbook authors of contemporary textbooks situate the ideal citizen in light of migration from other parts of South East Asia to Singapore. Notwithstanding the race or ethnicity identified as the founding group, representations of the ideal citizen

60 of 144

are discussed through an analysis of the migration discourse on both homogenising and hegemonic terms.

61 of 144

CHAPTER 5 Bridging Divides: 1819 Treaty

From examining the historiographical orientation of a period, the study will turn to analyse a historical event, signing of the 1819 treaty. A closer reading of the event’s textbook narration will be employed in assessing the second Orientalist trait, binary stereotypes. This choice of event in 1819 is important as it marks the beginning of colonial rule and development of Singapore. Narration effects will be examined on the discourse of development and its corresponding relation to two groups: the Malays and

British. Using alternative narratives, the idea of development as a culturally neutral concept will be deconstructed.

5.1 Development-encased Narratives:

Development is a topic that permeates Singapore history. In particular, it is a linear pattern of development that links the past and present “within an evolutionary hierarchy of ‘advanced’ versus ‘backward’ nations” (Han 2003:271). Such a framework offers dichotomous portrayals of history where historical events and individuals are given specific perceptions (Grossberg 1993:92). If in chapter 4, the narration of pre-1819 period as undeveloped has been discussed, economic development in Singapore history is constructed as the outcome of migrant efforts, initiated by the colonials in 1819. The

62 of 144

coming of colonials thus is depicted as a positive historical fact. As a result, the binary periodisation of pre-1819 as undeveloped and post-1819 Singapore as developed, frames Singapore’s narrated origins. The focus is presently on the event with which modern Singapore history commences, the 1819 treaty signing marked as liberating due to the aftermath of economic success. The textbook Social and Economic History of

Modern Singapore narrates the 1819 treaty-signing event as “the first public ceremony at the Padang” ([1984] 1985:10), which “marked the official date of the founding of modern Singapore” (History of Modern Singapore [1984] 1996:21).

Subsequently, the historical presence of colonials as important political and economic actors in Singapore is emphasised. In the textbook A Portrait of Malaysia and Singapore, under the chapter “The Political and Economic Development of Singapore”, students read that colonialism introduced many reforms in order to address “haphazard growth” of Singapore such as town planning and administration of justice ([1975] 1983:53). As a result, Singapore benefited from the growth of port and trade increase (History of

Modern Singapore [1984] 1996:65).

History of colonialism in Singapore is however narrated without the implications and context of such change. The words “colonialism” and “colonial capitalism” are absent from these narrations as well. There is no denying the role of colonialism in establishing

Singapore as a trading centre. The concern is with the naïve narration of colonialism in

Singapore as a “romantic story of this muddy island being changed into a lovely State”

63 of 144

(History in Singapore Schools [1961] 1963:94). This reflects the position of textbooks in situating the colonial leadership (1819) in relation to non-European leadership (pre-

1819) seen in chapter 4.

Located at the intersection of Singapore’s leadership change, the 1819 treaty signing becomes a defining element of Singapore history. The treaty formalises the division in

Singapore history in terms of its rulers, the Malay and British rulers. It provides the narrative nexus of West and Orient interactions, cumulating in textbook narrations that

‘blame’ the Malay rulers for the fall of Singapore into colonialist hands. As a result of their self interests and lack of foresight, they sold Singapore to the British (War and

Peace Part 2 1972c:75). In return, the Sultan and Temenggong attained “large sums of money as allowances every year” as a result of the 1819 and 1824 treaties (The

Pioneering Years [1970] 1971:39). It is summarily concluded these rulers chose to accept the colonial proposal for power and monetary rewards.

Alternative accounts explain that the selling of Singapore was not of the Malay rulers’ accord. Based on the Crawfurd’s August 3, 1824 memorandum to the government of

Calcutta, Kwa argues that it is the lack of funds that led both the Sultan and

Temenggong to sign the 1824 treaty ceding Singapore to the British (2006:25). Crawfurd had highlighted to the Malay rulers that the past payments were unlawful because the

“engagement was never ratified” by the government of Calcutta (Buckley [1902]

1984:171). Not only did he stop the payments from June 1, 1824 onwards, he “proposed

64 of 144

that they cede Singapore to the British in return for the cancellation of their debts”. The very payouts thought to have benefited the rulers ironically led to their loss of their negeri (Kwa 2006:25).

While it can be argued that Sultan Hussein and Temenggong might represent

“anachronisms attempting to make a last stand for Asian autonomy against western colonialism and imperialism” (Kwa 2006:31), the Malay rulers’ failure and image either as puppets or victims of colonialism were established. It took only five years for the

British to remove the political powers of Malay royalty by pulling them into an arrangement that was on colonial terms (Suppiah 2006:41). It is with the other positive end of the binary stereotypes, the means with which the colonials ‘occupied’ Singapore, which needs to be relooked at. There is a need to rethink historical narratives that imply colonialism brought only progress to Singapore, which benefited all.

The study thus seeks to analyse not only the construction of binaries in Singapore textbook historiography but how these categories of difference are positioned, with regards to the setting up of colonial Singapore. Alternative accounts would highlight how binary stereotypes, the second Orientalist trait are made, remade or reconstituted in the textbooks.

65 of 144

5.2 In the Beginning: Savior | Scourge

In all textbook accounts following the brief mention of pre-1819 period, students are briefly introduced to the Malay rulers’ involvement in Singapore’s political affairs. Such representation is one of the few instances in Singapore history where Malays are represented in leadership roles. It is either referred to as temporary, in the past and necessarily negative. Students read about the Malay leadership conflict arising after the death of Sultan Mahmud Syah in 1812. The Bugis had put the Tengku Abdul Rahman

Mahmud Shah on the throne whilst his elder brother Tengku Hussein Mahmud Shah was away in Pahang. Post-separation textbooks distinguish the complex factions within the local leadership, which led to installation of Tengku Abdul Rahman as Sultan.

Under the Bugis, the mainland part of the Johor Empire had been largely

neglected. The Bugis had been behind the appointment of the Johor Sultans,

often without the approval of the Malay princes. After the death of Sultan

Mahmud in 1813, the Bugis appointed their ward, Abdul Rahman, as the next

Sultan. The elder son, Tengku Long, however, had the support of the Malay

princes, namely the Bendahara of Pahang and the Temenggong of Singapore. (A

Portrait of Malaysia and Singapore [1975] 1983:46)

Such power relations however do not find expression in post National Education textbooks. Comic strips reproduce stereotypical snapshot representations of the Malay

66 of 144

chiefs “who were unhappy but could not do anything” with Tengku Hussein responding

“if only I had been around, I’d be the new Sultan” (Understanding Our Past [1999]

2004:10). Whilst textbooks are meant for easy understanding of historical events, simplification of event narration must not be reduced to simplistic portrayals, where the context and pertinent details are omitted. It also runs the risk of historical distortion.

As a result, the impression of a non-European leadership without a fair system of rule is given. This was to set the stage for British intervention, in an attempt to install the real

Sultan. Textbooks indicate the colonialist motivation behind the Sultan’s installation, which was to establish Singapore as a new trading settlement and to counter Dutch monopoly on trade. However, it is argued that the imperialistic slant of the move is justified in terms of saving the rightful Sultan and Singapore from underdevelopment.

In 1960, the textbook History in the Malayan Primary School, narrates Hussein who

“claimed to be the real ruler of Johore” (p. 79). A year later, History in Singapore Schools

([1961] 1963), it was changed to “Raffles brought from Rhio, Tengku Long, the real claimant to the throne” (p. 158). The claim arbitrarily becomes installed as a historical fact. The colonials are portrayed as having restored the rightful Sultan Tengku Long who previously was “very angry at this wrongful treatment” (Singapore in World History

1967:68) of not being installed as Sultan. He then had to “live a poor man” (War and

Peace Part 2 1972c:74), “leading a miserable life in Rhio” (History in Singapore Schools

[1961] 1963:157).

67 of 144

On the contrary, pre-separation textbooks show that the identity of the ‘rightful’ ruler did not concern the British as long as a Sultan under the British was installed. The colonial creation of the Sultanate in 1819 was basically a means to secure Singapore.

Raffles only “sent for Tengku Hussain” after “having received no for answer from the

Sultan in Rhio” when asking permission to start a settlement in Singapore (The Story of

Malaysia 1964:64; The Story of Malaya and Her Neighbours [1962] 1968:65). This more comprehensive account is to be no longer found in later textbooks.

Begbie details how Sultan Mahmud Shah prior to his death had already informed both his sons that Tengku Hussein was to be king “according to the law and constitution of the empire of Johor” (1834:72). More importantly, he notes how British ceased to be interested in resolving the leadership dispute once they successfully obtained

Singapore. The island thus being ceded by both the brothers, “became a matter of indifference to the British government which of them succeeded to the throne of

Johore”. (Begbie 1834:81)

Less to do with installing the rightful Sultan, any Sultan would suffice for the British.

Sultan Hussein was “treated by the British as a legal necessity and with the passing of time faded into the background” (Andaya [1982] 2001:111). Only the Sultan could

“transfer a clear title to the rights which were sought in European international law”

(Suppiah 2006:37). The Hikayat Johor Serta Pahang narrates how prior to asking Tengku

68 of 144

Hussein, Raffles repeatedly offered to make Temenggong “King of Singapore” even after

Temenggong declined as he had two other elder brothers in Pahang and Riau (Linehan

[1936] 1973:56). Raffles had persisted saying that he had heard that Temenggong could also be made Sultan or “Raja baka” (Basri 1983:53).

5.3 Pushing On: Passive | Aggressive

Nevertheless, textbooks downplay the importance of the Malay rulers in the colonial setting up of Singapore. The role of Sultan Hussein and Temenggong in the 1819 treaty signing is treated as largely ceremonial. The textbook War and Peace Part 2 dismissed

Tengku Husein as a “Sultan in name only” (1972c:109), whose ‘token’ inclusion was to simply formalise the treaty. This is seen especially in post National Education textbooks where Tengku Hussein’s recognition despite being the “rightful” Sultan is seen as illicit even, having “left secretly for Singapore” (Understanding Our Past [1999] 2004:11;

Singapore: From Settlement to Nation, Pre-1819 to 1971 2007:27) “telling others that he was going fishing” (History of Modern Singapore [1984] 1996:20). Whereas Raffles recognition of Tengku Hussein clearly illegal, is narrated as:

“Of course, Raffles had no right to do so, as there was already a Sultan who had

been recognised by the Dutch. However, the British were as strong as the Dutch,

and their position was made stronger when the two Malay leaders (Tengku

69 of 144

Hussein and the Temenggong) in Singapore agreed to Raffles’ action” (History of

Modern Singapore [1984] 1996:20)

Textbooks then proceed to narrate the significance of the treaty signing event:

After the signing of the treaty, a flag raising ceremony was held at the beach. As

the British flag was hoisted on a tall flagpole, volleys (shots) of gunfire thundered

from all the guns on the ships in the harbour and all the guns on shore. This short

ceremony marked the founding of modern Singapore on 6 February 1819.

(History of Modern Singapore [1984] 1996:21)

This allowed the development of modern Singapore in 1819 to be attributed solely to the British. Textbooks are ambivalent about the status of ‘modern Singapore’ in 1819, with the tendency to imply modern Singapore for colonial Singapore. In Singapore: From

Settlement to Nation, Pre-1819 to 1971, the chapter “Who was the founder of

Singapore” cites Raffles declaring Singapore “a child of my own” and “my new colony” in a letter on February 19, 1819. Colony is defined as “a country which is controlled by a more powerful country” (2007:28). This is then followed by a brief clarification that

“Singapore only officially became a British colony in August 1824” (2007:30). Modern

Singapore in 1819 was clearly not tantamount to colonial Singapore.

70 of 144

Modern Singapore could be presented as the start of Singapore as a free port administered by the colonials, with whom one could infer marked the start of colonial development in Singapore. This would not be possible without Tengku Hussein, as the

Sultan of Singapore who ensured legality of the treaty. In other words, Sultan Hussein had allowed or enabled colonial development to take place in Singapore. Safe to say, it took Raffles, Tengku Hussein and Temenggong to create the beginnings of modern

Singapore. This has yet to be included in textbooks:

The role of Temenggong in welcoming Raffles to Singapore and Tengku Hussein

granting full permission to the Honourable English East India Company to

establish a factory of factories at Singapore is noted but not considered

significant in most textbook accounts. (Kwa 2006:1)

Such views can be traced to Crawfurd who felt that Singapore only developed during the colonial governance:

In the formation of the settlement an opinion seems to have been prevalent that

the support of the native chiefs was indispensable to its success, although

considering their character, their indigence, and their general destitution of

useful influence, it is not easy to trace it to any substantial foundation. (Buckley

[1902] 1984:162)

71 of 144

In a memorandum to George Swinton, Secretary to Government at Fort William in

Bengal, Crawfurd felt that monetary payouts including port duties, tributes, gifts and profits on monopolies and revenue farms exceeded their contribution to the settlement’s development (Kwa 2006:26). He added that although the Sultan and

Temenggong were the de facto proprietor of the soil “the whole ceded territory when it came into our occupation was unreclaimed, in a state of nature and strictly destitute of permanent inhabitants” (Buckley [1902] 1984:170).

Aside from the Malay rulers’ lack of contribution to Singapore, Crawfurd “demeaned the character and capabilities of Sultan Hussein and his Temenggong, depreciated their contributions to the administration of the port and recommended they be paid off”

(Kwa 2006:26). He tied the incapacity for development to the character of Malay rulers with “strong propensity” toward the “pernicious practice . . . of establishing petty monopolies” (Buckley [1902] 1984:1972). Prior to the British arrival, the Temenggong had already monopolies over lime for exportation, collecting taxes on “all the Chinese returning to their native country” (Buckley [1902] 1984:163), a ferry service across the

Singapore River and the collection of timber on the island (Miller 1985:21). Since the

Malay rulers did not conform to Crawfurd’s perspective that comes “from a world of an expanding British mercantile empire seeking to maximize its wealth and power” (Kwa

2006:29), they were portrayed negatively.

72 of 144

Kwa provides an alternative explanation on the Sultan’s reluctance to trade. To trade was akin to actively and overtly seeking wealth, which would reduce his status similar to a merchant. This is supported by Abdullah’s narration of Sultan’s reply when Raffles suggested for him to trade. The Sultan declined explaining that “it is not the custom of rulers to engage in trade for they would lose dignity before other rulers” (Abdul Kadir

[1955] 1985:163). It is significant to note that monopolies are seen as petty and not productive whereas the refusal to trade is seen as laziness. Nevertheless, Reith dismisses Abdullah’s Hikayat as an “interesting, though not wholly reliable history of the acquisition of Singapore” (1907:7).

At the same time, despite criticizing the lack of involvement in the colonial development of Singapore, the colonials seem reluctant to involve the local rulers in its administration. According to Crawfurd:

It is further necessary to mention that the chiefs themselves have been

unaccountably led to entertain unfounded hopes of aggrandisement and support

through our means. They are at the same time not without some desire to

participate in our authority, although the singular indolence and incapacity both

of themselves and of their followers render them utterly unfit for any useful

employment. (Buckley [1902] 1984:162)

73 of 144

He felt that the governance provided by the “men born and educated with such habits and prejudices . . . ought in no respect to be associated with us in the Government of a settlement” (Buckley [1902] 1984:161).

Suppiah highlights that Temenggong’s constant ‘interference’ in the commerce of the growing port made him an “irritant” to the British (2006:42). The colonials therefore ensured that their powers were reduced with each treaty. As of Convention of June 7,

1823, the Malay rulers’ monopoly of Kranjee and Baloo wood within Singapore and claims to presents and customs on the Chinese and Chinese vessels were removed. In short, they were confined to the land reserves allocated.

With the exception of the land appropriated to their Highness for their

respective establishments, all land within the island of Singapore, and islands

immediately adjacent to be at the disposal of the British government. (Allen,

Stockwell and Wright 1981:35).

5.4 Passing Shot: Aggressive | Passive

Regardless of the incompetent Malay rulers, Singapore was not owned by the colonial government until 1824. However as mentioned earlier, there is a consistent ambivalence on the status of Singapore between 1819 and 1824 as reflected in most

74 of 144

textbooks. Under the chapter “Growth of the Settlement” in the History of Modern

Singapore:

Under the earlier treaty signed on 6 February 1819, the British were allowed to

occupy only a strip of land on the southern part of the island. In 1824, when the

second treaty was signed with the Sultan and the Temenggong, the whole island

was handed over to the company in return for the payment of larger sums of

money than what they had received earlier. ([1984] 1996:46)

Textbooks choose to mention only the treaty of 1819 and 1824 so as not to overcomplicate the narrative. Yet, it results in a contradictory account. Despite the

“tripartite rule” that Trocki describes as a shared authority between the East India

Company, the Temenggong and Sultan Hussein from 1819 to 1823 ([1979] 2007:61),

Singapore still existed as a negeri, with Tengku Hussein as Sultan until 1824. It becomes unclear when textbooks earlier narrate the “founding of Singapore” in 1819 with Raffles as the founder.

Further, the historical foregrounding of compensation amounts given to the Malay rulers based on February 6, 1819 treaty is misleading. While textbooks never fail to indicate the amount, what the compensation purports to be is inaccurate. Some of them include, “in return for this recognition by Raffles, Hussein sold the island of

Singapore to the British” (The Expansion of Europe [1961] 1963:149), or as “pensions

75 of 144

from the Company to allow setting up of trading settlements” (Malaya and the Modern

World 1959:254).

Contrary to such accounts, the payouts were not pension but an “annual rent for the ground occupied for the establishment of a factory” (Suppiah 2006:39). While

“Singapore of course was no longer a Malay kingdom” (Singapore in World History

1967:68), from the point of view of the Malay rulers, “Singapore was their negeri from which they were fully entitled to a share of its wealth because their presence created and defined the settlement” (Kwa 2006:22). British however, had no basis to claim that it was their colony until 1824.

This is important because after the Sultan’s installation, there is no textbook reference to the Malay rulers’ role in the development of modern Singapore except for their reallocation in Raffles’ town plan. Colonial leadership is seen as developing Singapore.

Students read that the 1822 Raffles town plan was executed to transform the government, commercial and residential areas to become an “orderly and beautiful city” (History of Modern Singapore [1984] 1996:47). The question remains, was such a development legal in negeri Singapore under the sovereign of Sultan Hussein?

Based on the treaties between 1819 and 1823, Singapore could not be regarded as a

British possession (Wake 1975:60; Suppiah 2006:39). This is because the treaty of 1819 only allowed the British to “maintain a factory or factories on any part of His Highness’

76 of 144

hereditary dominions” (Allen et al. 1981:30). It was followed up by another treaty in

June 1819 which defined “the boundaries of the lands under the control of the English . .

. as far as the range of cannon shot, all around from the factory” (Allen et al. 1981:33).

Crawfurd describes the 1819 treaty as:

[a]mounted to little more than a permission for the formation of a British factory

and establishment, along two miles of the northern shore, and inland to the

extent of the point-blank range of a cannon shot. There was in reality no

territorial cession giving a legal right of legislation. The only law which could

have existed was the Malay code. The native chief was considered to be the

proprietor of the land, even within the bounds of the British factory, and he was

to be entitled, in perpetuity, to one-half of such duties of customs as might

hereafter be levied at the port. (Buckley [1902] 1984:40)

Even then, “the British were merely granted the right of extra-territoriality within the boundaries agreed to in the agreement of 26 June 1819” (Suppiah 2006:39).

5.5 Regressive Development

The most important change with the signing of treaties was the transfer of power – political, economic and social, which was said to result in economic development.

Economic development is defined as economic independence, absence of inequality,

77 of 144

poverty and improvement to standards of living for all. An indication of such development shown by the textbooks was the Raffles Town Plan in 1822. With the town plan:

the days of putting up buildings in an unplanned and disorderly manner ended.

Singapore began to grow and develop as a planned city, and this idea of a

planned city has remained important to this day. (History of Modern Singapore

[1984] 1996:51)

While textbooks gaze on non-European groups for their ideological and political justifications, it remains silent on European imperialism. Not only was such innocent

“development” illegal based on the earlier analysis of treaties, such development was attained at the expense of the Malay rulers. Suppiah (2006) provides a much silenced historical account on how Raffles began fixing and declaring separate residential location of Temenggong and Sultan as early as 1822. The denigration of the previous

Malay rule involved placement and construction of the minority group outside the power structures. The interest in territorial colonisation Raffles had in moving the local population especially the Malay royalty were ignored in the narrations. Instead, it is narrated that the town plan was implemented with “due consideration given to the needs of the various races. But being a European, Raffles reserved the best and biggest area for the Europeans!” (A Portrait of Malaysia and Singapore [1975] 1983:54).

78 of 144

In the textbook Understanding Our Past, it shows a picture of the Temenggong’s house with the caption “The Temenggong’s village was later moved to the Telok Blangah area”

([1999] 2004:23). The picture neither shows nor mentions the 200 acre of

Temenggong’s village in Telok Blangah composed of mangrove swamps and cut off from the centre of native trade in Singapore (Gibson-Hill 1954:198). In addition, the

Temenggong was never given the title to his land reserve at Telok Blangah (Suppiah

2006:42). The Sultan was similarly placed in a 56 acre land reserves in Kampong Glam.

The territorial powers of the Malay rulers’ were reduced and this meant that save for the land reserves, the British now had control over the whole island. The progressive town plan was obviously cast in the interests of British territorial colonization.

The date November 1822 was important because that was when Raffles received the support from the British government. It encouraged Raffles to reinterpret the treaties, albeit in the form of the town plan (Suppiah 2006:40). He then pushed for a second treaty that “curtailed and reduce the power and influence of the Sultan and

Temenggong granted by the 6th February treaty” (Kwa 2006:24). Other than the intent to develop Singapore, the reforms were driven as much by Raffles disregard for the

Malay chieftains as his dislike for Farquhar (Wake 1975:62).

When it comes to the Malay experience in pre-1819 Singapore, it reflects some of the old imperial didacticism toward historical facts of the colonial handover. The emphasis is not on how the Malay rulers had “lost out” or were “dispossessed” or were

79 of 144

“subjugated” by foreign races but to examine how the story of colonial development is positively packaged. In emphasizing the binary schema, the selectivity of information involves negative actions of the select group being silenced to further sanitize the history of colonialism. This process of exclusion here is beyond physical, where the possibility of accounting certain events in terms of other worldviews is denied. This is in light of metanarratives of the nation-state that highlight the right of leadership, albeit colonial. The Sultan’s standpoints become the necessary absent; thereby functioning as a historical monologue.

Common to narration on treaties tied to the founding of ‘modern’ Singapore is the absence of historical and contemporary discussions of indigenous resistance against colonial encroachment and structural inequalities. The non-Europeans’ experiences of being colonised are not written. The narration of colonialism is told solely through the voices of colonials. Malay rulers are only referred to in light of how the colonial takeover of Singapore, even then as passive actors in history.

An important feature of such dichotomous distinctions between the West and Orient is the perceived boundaries and inability to cross over the threshold of power for the

Orient. It is no coincidence then that such accounts do not narrate the impact, response nor opinion on the ground. The lacking diversity of viewpoints in the jaundiced narration of Singapore’s colonial setting up is symptomatic of the mulish Orientalist imaginary.

80 of 144

5.6 Conclusion

While the previous chapter expounded on how Singapore history promotes the impossibility of success without the nation-state framework; this chapter argues that its narration goes further to disassociate success with non-Europeans. Congruent with another Orientalist trait, the binary stereotypes emphasizes the non-European incapacities for development as compared to the Europeans. This is evident from the textbook narratives of the sale of Singapore by the Malay elites, and later on the presentation of the colonial initiated progressive Singapore. The next chapter analyzes portrayals of Raffles in light of the final Orientalist traits, master-servant relationship in tandem with silencing.

81 of 144

CHAPTER 6 Transcending the Historical Raffles

In the previous chapters, analysis has centred on how two Orientalist traits inform local textbook narrations on a historical period and event respectively. The following discussion will examine whether textbook portrayals of a historical personality,

Stamford Raffles reflect the third Orientalist trait, master-servant relationship. By looking at the various historical issues, it is with the hope that a more measured assessment of Orientalist influence in Singapore textbook historiography will be presented. It will first establish the significance of the issue in relation to the trait; its manifestations as well as the functions of such discourse. A discourse shaped by the

Orientalist trait, master-servant relationship is characteristically hegemonic, dictating what can or cannot be said about the figure. It is therefore in the study’s interest to compare how it is differentiated from alternative accounts.

6.1 Inflated: The Story of Raffles

Modern Singapore history is narrated to begin with Raffles as he initiates the successful migrant history. This has been echoed by historians such as Edwin Lee who attributes much of Singapore’s postcolonial economic success to Raffles’ vision of free trade

(1989:4). Elevating Raffles as Singapore’s founding father has distinguished it from other

82 of 144

post colonial states that generally reject colonial historiography (Wee 2003:146; Rahim

2009:17). Some have commented on the symbolic significance of Raffles in history as transcending historical reality (Wake 1975:47), where Singapore’s founding becomes

“embodied in imperial manhood” (Han 2003:261) seen in the “exaggeration of [Raffles] so-called good qualities rather than their opposites” (Alatas 1971:39).

The decision to name a white man as founder in itself is not indicative of a master- servant relationship. There is no denying the significant contributions of Raffles to

Singapore’s founding; the concern is with portrayal of the chosen founder. To install such a historical fact on colonialism as the key to a nation’s success is one but to laud the entire history and personalities that comes with it. This is symptomatic of the third

Orientalist trait, master-servant relationship. It is important to distinguish between accounts that accept colonialism as part of one’s history and those that extol it. Lauding occurs when there is selective remembering of only Raffles ‘noble’ deeds, independent of accusation from any sociological or historical order that makes such remembering suspect. This is important in light of observations on Singapore which “rarely engage in a historical critique of imperialism or of the history of the West” (Hong and Huang

2008:8).

For instance, apart from Raffles, alternative choices for Singapore’s founder have remained within the league of colonisers. In the present textbook used in schools, contributions of Raffles, William Farquhar and John Crawfurd are discussed in detail in

83 of 144

discussing “who really ‘founded’ Singapore?” (Singapore: From Settlement to Nation,

Pre-1819 to 1971 2007:32). The textbook adds that “most still think that the only founder is Raffles. It is hard to change this perception as there are many biographies and writings which painted a favourable picture of Raffles” (Singapore: From Settlement to

Nation, Pre-1819 to 1971 2007:38). True to such sentiments, the chapter closes with an epitaph for Raffles:

He founded an emporium in Singapore, where in establishing freedom of person

as the right of the sol, and freedom of trade as the right of the port… he

laboured successfully to add to the knowledge and enrich the museums of his

native land. In promoting the welfare of the people committed to his charge, he

sought the good of his country and the glory of God. (Singapore: From

Settlement to Nation, Pre-1819 to 1971 2007:34)

With the emphasis on Raffles, there is the tendency to forget that Singapore’s success was not novel, similar to the Malay entrepots of Srivijaya and Melaka due to its strategic location as part of the Asian maritime economy (Trocki [1979] 2007:6). Further, Trocki notes that Raffles sought to control commerce as the source of political power similar to the rule of Malay maritime empires ([1979] 2007:65). Narration of Singapore’s founding nevertheless centres on the “vivid portrayal of the personality and achievements of

Raffles” (Hussin 2008:458) despite the possibility that Singapore’s success can be read as more geographical.

84 of 144

6.2 Gratitude | Servitude

The decision to start Singapore history with Raffles was decided after separation from the Federation of Malaya. While Rajaratnam claims that the selection of Raffles then was not without controversy or political pressures and manipulations (Chan and ul-Haq

1987:150), criticisms of Raffles have never been tolerated. Alatas’ (1971:31) re- evaluation of Raffles philosophy as an “empire builder, the nineteenth-century chauvinist, the Machiavellian imperialist” based on English, Dutch and Malay sources was regarded as part of the Dutch “hostile historiographical tradition” and therefore partisan (Chew 1972a:49). It is seen as not presenting Raffles “actual achievements in

Java and Singapore” and instead focused on two events, massacre of Palembang and the Banjarmasin affair (Chew 1972a:50).

Subsequently in 1991, when Ernest Chew re-assessed the significant role of Raffles in the 1819 Singapore founding as “factually inaccurate” (1991:38), he was in turn

“labelled by the London Times, along with BG George Yeo, as a revisionist, seeking to reduce Raffles reputation” (Chew 2002:3). In his account, other colonial personalities were considered in Singapore’s founding. They include William Farquhar who monitored the growth of the British settlement in early Singapore and John Crawfurd who made

Singapore a British possession in 1824 (Turnbull 1977:31; Chew 1991:39). For

Rajaratnam, to forget Raffles contribution is deemed similar to “pretending that

Singapore did not have a colonial past, and thus dishonest, despite his reservations that

85 of 144

the more balanced assessment of imperialism was a heresy and an idiosyncratic aberration that could cast doubt on PAP’s anti-imperialism” (Hong and Huang 2008:17).

The superficiality of the reasoning is obvious. The issue is less to do with forgetting

Raffles nor denying his place or contributions to Singapore but instead a more nuanced account of the colonialist account and its personalities.

Selecting a colonial founder might demonstrate the continuous capitalist and economic prioritisation that Singapore emulated from its colonial masters. Nevertheless, Raffles’ important role as a modernizing element in Singapore justified as an “aberrant imperialist” needs to be examined (Rajaratnam cited in Hong and Huang 2008:16).

Although there is appreciation for colonial contributions to the economy, there is no need for uncritical acceptance of its leadership. Often, servitude mistaken for gratitude typifies a master-servant relationship.

. . . [H]e did not loot the country he was in charge of. His rule was not marked by

terror and savagery. He did not farm out the colony he founded for unbridled

exploitation by friends and relatives . . . What lives on is his vision of Singapore

as a great trading centre, open to all who are enterprising and willing to take

their chances on basis of merit and hard work. (Rajaratnam, May 25, 1984, 18)

The rhetoric of meritocracy and multiracialism thus starts with Raffles. Portrayal of colonialism as not only economically but socially beneficial is blanket lauding, should its

86 of 144

policies and effects of its implementation fail to measure up. For instance, Rahim notes

“Malay impressions of him as a conniving British imperialist who cheated Malays of

Singapore” (1998:164). Nevertheless, such aspects of Raffles are silenced and the master-servant relationship is further strengthened when the ‘slaves’ themselves espouse such relationship, where it is never the spoils of the servant but the master.

Strategies or success of the present government are publicly announced as benefits of colonial development and modernization. This is illustrated in Lee Kuan Yew’s speech in

1967, at a dinner by the United Kingdom Manufacturers Association and the

Confederation of British Industries:

I inherited what you have left me. In a way, it was not all created by you because

my great grandfather did play a subsidiary role and so did my father and so did I

myself. So we have left (the statue of) Stamford Raffles standing on his pinnacle

outside the Victoria Memorial Hall. But for him, Singapore would still be a

mudflat. Let us not pretend it was anything else. (Josey 1968:538)

Such tribute to British colonialism is mirrored in the textbook cover for the textbook

History of Modern Singapore ([1984] 1996) where “a larger-than-life image of Raffles gazes beneficently over Lee Kuan Yew and his Cabinet colleagues” (Barr and Skrbiš

2008:23). As Kojeve aptly puts, the master-servant relationship is enabled by “the

Master’s certainty is therefore not purely subjective and immediate, but objectivised and mediated by an other’s, the Slave’s recognition” (1980:16).

87 of 144

Therefore in order to justify such patronage, it is thus necessary to have a positive portrayal of a master, worthy of such loyalty. The legitimization of the colonial leadership is achieved by situating the roots of colonialism in the events leading to the economic success in Singapore history. The portrayal of Raffles, “a far-sighted

Englishman who came here over one hundred and fifty years ago and founded our city

[Singapore]” was to be the face of colonialism (War and Peace Part 2 1972c:80).

6.3 Colonial Master | Despot

The element of power in the master-servant relationship ensures a constantly modern and charismatic depiction of Raffles beginning from the pre-separation textbooks. The genius of Raffles policy is reflected through his governance of Singapore, as “the foundation for a prosperous and happy Singapore” (History in the Malayan Primary

School [1960] 1961:79). He is regarded as a strategist particularly for his 1822 town plan. Rather than expounding on the illegal nature of such acts as previously discussed in chapter 5, the emphasis is on how such a plan meld with Raffles’ ideas of racial segregation, in line with “the particular needs of the different communities” (A Portrait of Malaysia and Singapore [1975] 1983:53). Segregation which defined Raffles’ town plan is seen in a positive light, defined as keeping groups of people physically apart to ensure peace (Singapore: From Settlement to Nation, Pre-1819 to 1971 2007:43).

88 of 144

Singapore in essence is constructed as descending from the likes of Raffles, who allowed for the coexistence of various local cultures through such divisive policy. Kwa writes of the British legacy of a plural society becoming the basis of Singapore nation-state, as a burden (1999:51). A close reading of the textbooks reveal that segregation was not simply based on race but wealth as well. Since “most Europeans held important jobs and could afford to build large and comfortable houses” (Understanding Our Past [1999]

2004:22), “the Europeans and rich Asians were moved to the opposite bank” (Social and

Economic History of Modern Singapore [1984] 1985:32). In comparison, the poor needed to be clustered and subsequently, monitored as “the poorer Chinese and

Indians were moved to new areas south of the river” (Social and Economic History of

Modern Singapore [1984] 1985:32). In short, “all Malays, Indians and Chinese who were not rich merchants had to live in their own kampongs under their own leader or headman” (History of Modern Singapore [1984] 1996:49).

Textbooks do not account how such colonial arrangements perpetuated unequal wealth stratification. Separation of Singaporeans into modern colonial categories of races is presented as a historical given, reinforcing the legitimacy of these terms. It denies a critical reflection of the original reason for installation of races, the purpose of labour, largely associated with development of trade in Singapore rather than development of

Singapore itself. This can be interpreted to reflect the most important function of the races as labourers, awaiting instructions from their colonial masters. From a colonial labour point of view “by nature, the Malay is an idler, the Chinaman is a thief, and the

89 of 144

Kling is a drunkard, yet each in his own class of work is both cheap and efficient, when properly supervised” (Hirschman 1986:356). Yet, the occupational segregation of racialised labour is seen as leading the modernisation process during the colonial era.

Such endorsement for colonial ethos can be seen from Tan who notes that textbook writers experience a problem finding extraordinary figures for non-Chinese figures, where most of the Malay leaders portrayed “not purely Malays but were part-Indian”

(1982:53). Here, it is implied that the Malays are incapable of being exemplary figures of influence because the impression is that colonial policies benefited anyone hardworking. Malays are seen to be incapable of and therefore excluded from development and the nation-state’s definition of the ‘ideal citizen’. Nevertheless, Alatas argues that Malays were indolent only in the colonial capitalist sense (1977:95). Whilst it was rational for the Malays to plant rice due to the exploitative capitalist conditions of work, the colonials found it unproductive as government revenue from rice is insignificant compared to opium, rubber and tin (Alatas 1977:95). Far from contextualising colonial development as one of the causes of structural inequalities; inequalities are explained by cultural differences. Students thus read that their agencies are in their races, which in turn are measured by their contributions to Singapore.

The positive description of Raffles evidently grows stronger in the later textbooks especially after post separation. It is argued such concerted efforts are in line with the state’s decision to appoint him as Singapore’s founder.

90 of 144

Raffles was the son of a poor sea captain. When he was fourteen years old, he

had to leave school to work as a clerk in the East India Company’s office in

London. At the end of the long day’s work at the office, the boy was not idle. He

studied later into the night reading books to improve himself . . . He believed it

was important to know the language of the people among whom he was to

work. (War and Peace Part 2 1972c:67)

Narrated to be interested in the problems of the Malay society, textbooks describe him as having a keen interest in Malay people as well as their language, history and customs.

Students are informed that the imperialist powers have not undermined the interests of the local people and instead promote their political and economic wellbeing. What appear to be a prelude to modernising the local community is portrayed in his education plan for Singapore. Textbooks commonly narrate how Raffles laid the foundation stone of Raffles Institution before he left Singapore in June 1823 (The Malayan Story [1956]

1959:41; The Story of Malaysia 1964:65).

Raffles was very interested in education. He wanted to set up a college. He

persuaded the Malay chiefs, merchants and other leading people of the town to

give money to help build it. This college was later called Raffles Institution in

memory of him. (War and Peace Part 2 1972c:78)

91 of 144

On the contrary, based on Raffles’ notes on the establishment of a Malay college in

1819 Singapore, “that the eventual extent of our commerce with them must consequently depend on the growth of intellectual improvement and the extension of moral principles” (Raffles 1830:31). His progressive policy on education despite appearingly humanitarian was “educational orientation aimed at improving the work proficiency” (Pennycook 1994:96).

Textbooks highlight other development policies by Raffles as socially and morally beneficial. Raffles is narrated to scorn and abolish slavery and piracy, specifically that of

Malay (History in the Malayan Primary School [1960] 1961:79). In textbook narrations, more than just a conscious reformer, Raffles stood for justice and seen as genuinely concerned about the population. He “was shocked Farquhar had made gambling legal and was lenient toward slavery” (Singapore: From Settlement to Nation, Pre-1819 to

1971 2007:36).

He based his code on the principles of English law but gave due consideration to

Asian customs and traditions. Everyone was to be equal before the law and was

to enjoy all individual rights such as personal liberty and security, right of

property and the right of a fair trial (A Portrait of Malaysia and Singapore [1975]

1983:55)

92 of 144

The non-present aspect in textbooks is that Raffles opposition to slavery, piracy and gambling was not altruistic but guided by the “ideology of imperialism par excellence”

(Alatas 1971:47). Trocki has highlighted the higher economic sense from abolishing these ‘vices’ (2006:181).

Further, it has been suggested that Raffles held imperialistic low down views on the community. Raffles had ranked his views on differing religions according to his imperialist schema at differing times (Aljunied 2005:65). For instance, Raffles did not always take Islam to be a source of corruption where it was viewed comparable to

Christianity (Aljunied 2005:18). It was only after 1810, when Islam was seen as a source of corruption that Raffles regarded the Malays as “nowhere equal to the British who were superior and destined to be their rulers” even after conversion (Aljunied 2005:66).

On the other hand, events that portrayed Raffles to be less than heroic are either minimised or absent in Singapore history. For instance, the Syed Yasin incident is carried only in A Picture History of Singapore (1992), which is not a textbook.

It was not easy to be the Resident. Colonel Farquhar once put a trader named

Syed Yassin in jail. This was because Syed Yassin would not pay another

merchant for some goods. Syed Yassin was very angry and wanted revenge. One

night, he asked for permission to visit the merchant to pay his debt. The

merchant realised that Syed Yassin had come to kill him, so he ran to Farquhar

93 of 144

for help. Farquhar took a stick and rushed to the merchant’s house. Syed Yassin

stabbed him and tried to escape, but was killed by Farquhar’s son and some

Indian soldiers. (p. 10)

The picture accompanying the above mentioned text shows an appropriately dressed colonial officer and Syed Yassin in a headband and short garb. He is seen as the provoker, trying to stab the colonial officer. Falsehood of the account comes from the important details that have been omitted. The death of Syed Yasin implied here minimises risk to the society, arguably for the greater good but the gory circumstances of Syed Yasin’s death when Farquhar’s son struck him, causing his jaw to split from mouth to ear was excluded (Abdullah [1955] 1970:171). Although Abdullah’s Hikayat

“can hardly be called a work of dissent towards the English rajas”, it is critical of some colonial actions (Putten 2006:412).

Later, Raffles gave orders for the “mutilated corpse strung up in an iron cage, carried in a bullock cart around the town and then hung up on a pole at Telok Ayer. The deteriorated, dehydrated and mutilated corpose was displayed for 15 days. After this, on the Sultan’s request, Raffles ceded the body” (Alatas 1971:33). The absolutist myth that shrouds the portrayal of Raffles can be deconstructed by highlighting certain omissions in the textbooks about the social and cultural context in which Raffles’ reforms took shape. More importantly, the historical fact that he is one of the most

94 of 144

important imperialist of all time is not questioned. Rather the emphasis on Raffles involvement in Singapore is presented to be as important as his modernising stance.

6.4 Sinocentric | Westcentric

Clearly, unveiled lauding and silencing of his imperialist deeds contextualises accounts for the asociological and ahistorical representation of its master. The biases expressed in the textbook omissions discussed earlier are clearly dominant within textbook portrayals of Raffles. Raffles whose colonial leadership guided the nation in its struggles against underdevelopment in the form of specifically Malay piracy and slavery has been put on the moral pedestal. The fact that Raffles is remembered most for his negative views of the Malays and less so of the Chinese “as deceitful pests and a scourge plaguing

Malay society” (Rahim 2009:19) is not surprising but telling of why Raffles is the perfect choice for Singapore’s founding father. This is because it allowed the start of sinocentric construction of Singapore history.

There is, of course, no doubt that Raffles founding of a trading colony is a

significant marker in the city’s history, but if it is the beginning of the story, then

the Singapore Story starts to look like a Chinese story because after the first few

years, most of the immigrants who flocked to the free port were the Chinese.

(Barr and Skrbiš 2008:24)

95 of 144

Attributing the success to migrants particularly Chinese or Raffles, the Malays either remain sidelined or absorbed as migrants, which they do not identify with. This is evident in textbooks that identify the Chinese as “a very industrious race. They have brought much prosperity to Singapore . . . the Chinese have become the backbone of modern Singapore” (History in the Malayan Primary School [1960] 1961:82).

Despite efforts to downplay Raffles contribution to Singapore’s success, highlighting instead the hard work of migrant nation (Barr and Skrbiš 2008:24), the Malays have been left out of the picture. For instance, during the 150th anniversary celebrations of the founding of Singapore, the Malay newspaper Utusan Melayu reported that the

150th anniversary celebrations to commemorate the anniversary of the founding of

Singapore “do not portray the existence of Malays in the Republic” (“Ministry agrees to changes in school history book”, August 28, 1969, 15).

Essentially, Raffles is a convenient role player in state legitimacy. Not only does he serve his role as founder of the nation, his wealth of writings on the Malays despite its distortions is seen as credible. Especially with the myth of the lazy native assumption embedded in his writings, the state is able to reduce Malays as mere passengers and non-contributors to the development of modern Singapore. Hence, drawing on Raffles’ writings would necessarily support the historical picture of Singapore, especially concerning the Malays. Claims by Raffles in effect support claims in Singapore history.

96 of 144

It did not take long for the people to discover that all that had been changed was

the color of their masters… independence brought little change and they

remained chained to the same British-style institutions which the ruling elites

manipulated and controlled to perpetuate their own advantages. (Kreisky and

Gauhar 1987:4)

6.5 Conclusion

The Orientalist trait master-servant relationship evidently informs the textbook construction of Raffles in light of the qualities of the leader that are prescribedly hegemonic as well as manufactured representation. The analysis has shown how relations of power and the discourses dictate textbook narration on Raffles. The chapter has interrogated how Raffles is incorporated in light of problematic textbook narrations of the Malays who are discursively reproduced and textually practiced to indulge in slavery, piracy and underdevelopment. The next chapter will summarize the findings as well as discuss briefly impact of the present Singapore textbook historiographical orientation.

97 of 144

CHAPTER 7 Comparative Analysis: In History We Trust

Lastly, a final cause for satisfaction:

Gobineau said: “The only history is white.”

M. Cillois in turn, observes: “The only ethnography is white.”

(Cesaire 1972:54)

How are we to write history if the only history is white? One of thesis aim is to demythologize and recover episodes of the past that have been systematically silenced, erased or distorted. Several alternative histories have been presented, necessarily deconstructing Singapore textbook historiography. A comparative analysis with three different historical period (pre-1819), event (1819 treaty signing) and personality

(Thomas Stamford Raffles) has been employed to examine the present trend in historiography. The concern of the thesis has been to examine how Orientalist portrayals of Malays have been shaped in history writing. Despite the conflicting national story, manifestation of the Orientalist traits within the narration contributes to a coherent and seemingly universal representation of the minority group in the nation- state. In this concluding chapter, the findings will be analyzed in light of several themes drawn and its implications briefly discussed. It will also explore the potential dimensions for further research in this area.

98 of 144

7.1 Textbook Prescriptions

The analysis presented has followed a series of Orientalist traits present in Singapore history that are particularly important to the (distorted) historical imagination about the

Malays in Singapore. They include (1) neglect of the non-European, (2) binary stereotypes, and (3) master-servant relationship. With each trait, the analysis includes the definition and manifestation of the trait present and emphasised in state history.

Interrelated, each of these traits is mutually reinforcing. The power of Orientalism, as a limitation in history making, proves especially potent when used by ruling powers to justify and extend their ideology through myth making. At the same time, it functions to delineate and restrain the historical imagination of and about the Malays.

The second Orientalist trait, binary stereotypes, supports the act of removing agency from the Malays in history through the pre-1819 Malay fishing village myth. This is in turn buttressed by the first Orientalist trait, neglect of non-European, required to install

Raffles as:

[The] heroic and visionary founding father, responsible for engineering the rise

of a commercially dynamic trading port from an insignificant barren and

underpopulated fishing village devoid of a history and civilisation worth

mentioning. (Rahim 1998:164)

99 of 144

Such mythologized accounts are then perpetuated by the third Orientalist trait, master- servant relationship, that is present in the postcolonial leadership.

The story of modern Singapore would have remained a sleepy Malay fishing village had it not been for Raffles who is narrated to champion meritocracy. The discourse of meritocracy disempowers race, whereby no racial groups can argue for racial discrimination since meritocracy supposedly ensures ‘equal opportunities’. Therefore, failures can only result from race. For this policy to remain plausible, two other myths – myth of the lazy native (Alatas 1977) and myth of British supremacy – had to be established in Singapore history. The origins of these myths nonetheless can be traced to colonial times. The colonial history has been appropriated to make up history of modern Singapore.

The settler makes history and is conscious of making it. And because he

constantly refers to the history of his mother country, he clearly indicates that he

himself is the extension of that mother country. Thus the history which he writes

is not the history of his own nation in regard to all that she skims off, all that she

violates and starves. (Fanon 1961 [1967]:40)

At the same time, the myth of lazy native is coherent only within the bigger myth of the plural society and its flawed constituent groups. Such inferiority complex can be

100 of 144

ascribed to the ‘other’ as only when the ‘other’ is named, there is the ‘other’. Fanon argues:

neither the dependency complex nor the inferiority complex describes the

essence of the colonial relation; both symptoms were imposed on the body of

the colonized as a result of economic control and exploitation. (Fanon cited in

Chen 1998:9)

Subject identification of race is clear in Singapore’s history. Simply put, it is the classification of plural society that serves as the premise of colonial racism. It constructs essentialized racial differences which cannot be overcome, justifying uneven plural economies.

Until the post/colonial/subject stops being constituted as the homogeneous other by any ruling powers (Spivak 1995:25), it is argued that the postcolonial nation is not yet free from Orientalist paradigm. The label ‘postcolonial nation’ does not mean freedom from Orientalism. Neo-Orientalism occurs when the current political, economic, psychic and historical structures in the postcolonial nation-state continues to operate within the limits of colonialism. If in history, the colonial powers were portrayed to have contributed to the establishment of Singapore, in that sense the British has pre-figured work for the present elite in Singapore’s history.

101 of 144

Modern Singapore history is narrated to be fundamentally constructed on a multicultural, multiracial framework. The argument for a straightforward yet one- dimensional narrative is seen to promote and sustain racial synchronisation.

Nevertheless, underlying it all, the study highlights in whose interest. The logic goes: if proven in history, migrants helped build the country successfully, albeit with the colonial crutch implied, these migrants, now diligent Singaporeans can no doubt sustain its economic success. Yet, it is argued that there is a need to have a subject (the Malays) that is backward where the government can claim their part in making the subject

Malays successful. There is a concerted effort to construct autonomous Singapore before becoming a nation-state as colored by laziness and underdevelopment. This is juxtaposed to the presentation of immigrant plural society as contributing positively to the making of global Singapore.

Although myth entails a radical simplification of the subject matter, the sophistication in reconstruction of myths in modern Singapore history should not be underestimated.

Nevertheless, deconstruction of history must also not lead to sheer ambivalence. This was depicted in Ho Tzu Nyuen’s short clip on the mythical founder of Sang Nila Utama,

Utama: Every name in history is 1 (2007). The end result is the implied message that the origins of Singapore history are similar to the cut and paste fragments of his PowerPoint slides.

102 of 144

7.2 History Thieving

It is evident minority history continues to be one of the blind spots in the nation-state’s history. By foregrounding elements of the past with alternative revisionist accounts, the myths surrounding the history of Malays in state history are deconstructed and more importantly, the ideological stance of historical narratives necessarily reflected. The discussion has highlighted the problematic approach to Singapore textbook historiography which has shaped a certain historical imagination that distorts the representation of Malays.

The hyper-reality of invention of the past can then be seen from the historical realism these myths have taken on in the portrayals of Malay in Singapore textbook accounts.

Present construction of history, along with its emphases and silences, establishes a tension in the construction of Malays as a subject. For Singapore history makers, the essentializing occurs as propagation of colonial myths on Malays is continued to sustain a historical account, unblemished by neither historical alterity nor contingency.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to highlight that the finding of this study is limited to the textbooks, without examining the textbook production, evaluation and its market distribution. It also has not looked into the stages of pre-textbook writing that involves defining the history curriculum and formulation of curricular guidelines. Whilst it might

103 of 144

show the interrelationship and dynamics among these processes, it highlights various approaches to be adopted in such a study.

7.3 Historical Alterity Unbeknownst

It is only apt to end with Memmi who argues:

[C]olonization removes the colonised from history in the sense that he is no

longer the subject of history but more its object. Memories of freedom become

faints, the interest and feeling for control fade away, and the possibilities of

being agents of change in history do not even occur to the colonised. ([1957]

1991:91)

Therefore, there is a need for alternative or revisionist histories to deconstruct and reconstruct the sanctioned state history, not to subvert the latter but to attest to the multifarious voices of the past. The rise of alternative history is the key to break the pattern of Singapore Malay history as minority history. Rather than dispose textbooks which Devan argues damage the imagination and are “worse than useless” (August 28,

2007, S9), textbooks might just be an apt starting point. Filling in the historical gaps might be time-consuming but are definitely not efforts made in vain.

104 of 144

The postcolonial moment will only come when the nation-state comes to terms with the

‘myth’ of plural society as race-d ways in which interconnections and interdependencies have been played out. History is essential to the process and it has to start with unpacking state histories and starting alternative histories where fantasised constructions of plural society have grown atop an inclusive one. The phrase ‘history liberates’ then possibly might not be only a cliché. There is a need to move beyond the national elite’s identification with, and reproduction of, the cultural and economic logic of the former colonial state, starting with its discursive space, history and its supposed will-to-truth nature.

105 of 144

Bibliography

Abdel-Malek, Anouar. 1963. “Orientalism in Crisis.” Diogenes 44:103-40.

Abdul Kadir, Abdullah. [1955] 1985. The Hikayat Abdullah. Translated by A. H. Hill.

Reprint, Singapore: Oxford University Press.

Abdullah, Elinah. 2006. “Malay/Muslim Patterns of Settlement and Trade in the First 50 years.” Pp. 79-112 in Malay/Muslims in Singapore: Selected Readings in History 1819-

1965, edited by K. K. Kim, E. Abdullah, and W. M. Hao. Subang Jaya, Selangor: Pelanduk

Publications.

Adas, Michael. 1974. The Burma Delta: Economic Development and Social Change on an

Asian Rice Frontier, 1852-1941. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Afandi, Suhaimi and Mark Baildon. 2010. “History Education in Singapore.” Pp. 223-42 in

Contemporary Public Debates over History Education, edited by I. Nakou and I. Barca.

Charlotte, N.C.: Information Age.

Ahmad, A. Samad. 1983. Sulalatus Salatin (Sejarah Melayu). 3rd ed. Kuala Lumpur:

Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

106 of 144

Ahmad, Aijaz. 1992. In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures. London: Verso.

Al-Azm, Sadik Jalal. 2000. “Orientalism and Orientalism in Reverse.” Pp. 217-38 in

Orientalism: A Reader, edited by A. L. Macfie. New York: New York University Press.

Alasuutari, Pertti. 1993. Qualitative Research. Tampere, Finland: Vastapaino.

Alatas, Syed Farid. 2006. Alternative Discourses in Asian Social Science: Responses to

Eurocentrism. London: Sage Publications.

------. 2010. “Little Love for Work or Lack of Activity: The Concept of Laziness.” Pp. 53-57 in On the Subject of Labour: Essays in Memory of Frans Husken, edited by H. De Jonge and T. van Meijl. Nijmegen: In de Walvis.

Alatas, Syed Hussein. 1964a. “Archaeology, History and the Social Sciences in Southeast

Asia.” Federation Museum Journal 9:55-62.

------. 1964b. “Theoretical Aspects of Southeast Asian History.” Asian Studies 11(2):247-

60.

------. 1971. Thomas Stamford Raffles, 1781-1826, Schemer or Reformer. Singapore:

Angus and Robertson.

107 of 144

------. 1977. The Myth of the Lazy Native: A Study of the Image of the Malays, Filipinos and Javanese from the 16th to the 20th Century and its Function in the Ideology of

Colonial Capitalism. London: Frank Cass.

------. 1998. “Some Problems in the Writing of Singapore’s History.” Pp. 4-7 in

Malay/Muslims and the History of Singapore, edited by S. H. Alatas, K. K. Kim, and K. C.

Guan, Singapore: Centre of Research on Islamic and Muslim Affairs.

Aljunied, Syed Muhd Khairudin. 2005. Rethinking Raffles: A Study of Stamford Raffles'

Discourse on Religions amongst Malays. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic.

Allen, J. de V., A. J. Stockwell, and L. R. Wright, 1981. A Collection of Treaties and Other

Documents Affecting the States of Malaysia, 1761-1963. Vol. 1. London, New York:

Oceana Publications.

Allport, Gordon. [1954] 1979. The Nature of Prejudice. Rev. ed. Cambridge, MA:

Addison-Wesley.

Andaya, B. Watson. [1982] 2001. A History of Malaysia. 2nd ed. Honolulu: University of

Hawai'i Press.

108 of 144

Andersen, Chris. 2008. “From Nation to Population: The Racialisation of ‘Metis’ in the

Canadian Census.” Nations and Nationalism 14(2):347-68.

Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.

Appadurai, Arjun. 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Apple, Michael W. 1993. Official Knowledge: Democratic Education in a Conservative

Age. New York: Routledge.

Apple, Michael W. and Linda K. Christian-Smith. 1991. “The Politics of the Textbook.” Pp.

1-22 in The Politics of the Textbook, edited by M. W. Apple and L. K. Christian-Smith.

New York: Routledge.

Ashcroft, Bill. 2001. On Post-colonial Futures: Transformations of Colonial Culture.

London, New York: Continuum.

Barr, Michael D. and Zlatko Skrbiš. 2008. Constructing Singapore: Elitism, Ethnicity and the Nation-building Project. Copenhagen: NIAS Press.

109 of 144

Basri, M. A. Fawzi. 1983. Warisan Sejarah Johor. Kuala Lumpur: Persatuan Sejarah

Malaysia.

Bastin, John Sturgus. 1959. The Study of Modern Southeast Asian History: An Inaugural

Lecture Delivered at the University of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur on 14 December, 1959.

Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya.

Behdad, Ali. 1993. “Travelling to Teach: Postcolonial Critics in the American Academy.”

Pp. 40-9 in Race, Identity and Representation in Education, edited by C. McCarthy and

W. Crichlow. New York: Routledge.

------. 1994. Belated Travelers: Orientalism in the Age of Colonial Dissolution. Durham:

Duke University Press.

Begbie, Peter James. 1834. The Malayan Peninsula. Madras: Vepery Mission Press.

Benda, Harry J. 1962. “The Structure of Southeast Asian History: Some Preliminary

Observations.” Journal of Southeast Asian History 3(1):106-38.

Benjamin, Geoffrey. 1988. The Unseen Presence: A Theory of the Nation-state and its

Mystifications. Singapore: National University of Singapore.

110 of 144

Billig, Michael. 1995. Banal Nationalism. London: Sage.

Boahen, A. Adu. 1975. Clio and Nation-building in Africa: Inaugural Lecture Delivered at the University of Ghana in Legon on 28 November, 1974. Accra: Ghana Universities

Press.

Boroujerdi, Mehrzad. 1992. “Gharbzadegi: The Dominant Intellectual Discourse of Pre and Post-Revolutionary Iran.” Pp. 30-56 in Iran: Political Culture in the Islamic Republic, edited by S. K. Farsoun and M. Mashayekhi. London: Routledge.

Borschberg, Peter. 2010. The Singapore and Melaka Straits: Violence, Security and

Diplomacy in the 17th Century. Singapore: NUS Press.

Breckenridge, Carol A. and Peter van der Veer. 1993. “Orientalism and the Postcolonial

Predicament.” Pp. 1-19 in Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament: Perspectives on

South Asia, edited by C. A. Breckenridge and P. Van der Veer. Philadelphia: University of

Pennsylvania Press.

Brophy, Jere E. and Bruce VanSledright. 1997. Teaching and Learning History in

Elementary Schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

111 of 144

Buckley, Charles B. [1902] 1984. An Anecdotal History of Old Times in Singapore 1819-

1867. Reprint, Singapore: Oxford University Press.

Carrier, James G. 1995. “Introduction.” Pp. 1-32 in Occidentalism: Images of the West, edited by J. G. Carrier. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Certeau, Michael de. 1988. The Writing of History. Translated by T. Conley. New York:

Columbia University Press.

Cesaire, Aime. 1972. Discourse of Colonialism. Translated by J. Pinkham. New York:

Monthly Review Press.

Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 1998. “Minority Histories, Subaltern Pasts.” Postcolonial Studies

1(1):15-29.

Chambert-Loir, Henri. 2005. “The Sulalat al-Salatin as a Political Myth.” Indonesia

79:131-60.

Chan, H. Chee and Obaid ul Haq, eds. 1987. The Prophetic and the Political: Selected

Speeches and Writings of S. Rajaratnam. Singapore: Graham Brash.

112 of 144

Chatterjee, Partha. [1986] 1993. Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A

Derivative Discourse. Reprint, Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.

Chen, Kuan-Hsing. 1998. “The Decolonization Question.” Pp. 1-46 in Trajectories: Inter-

Asia Cultural Studies, edited by C. Kuan-Hsing. London, New York: Routledge.

Chew, Ernest. 1972a. “A Controversy on Raffles: The Review.” Suara Universiti 3(1):49-

51.

------. 1991. “The Foundation of a British Settlement.” Pp. 36-40 in A History of

Singapore, edited by E. C. T. Chew and E. Lee. Singapore: Oxford University Press.

------. 2002. “Raffles Revisited: A Review and Reassessment of Sir Thomas Stamford

Raffles (1781-1826).” Raffles Town Club, January-March. Retrieved July 19, 2011

(http://www.postcolonialweb.org/singapore/history/chew/chew1.html).

Chew, P. Ghim-Lian. 2011. “Multiculturalism: A Study of Plurality and Solidarity in

Colonial Singapore.” Bibiloasia 6(4):14-8.

Chua, Amy. [1992] 1997. A Picture History of Singapore: A Resource Book for National

Education Programme. 3rd ed. Singapore: Federal Publications.

113 of 144

Clifford, James. 1988. The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-century Ethnography,

Literature, and Art. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cole, Elizabeth A. 2007. “Introduction: Reconciliation and History Education.” Pp. 1-31 in

Teaching the Violent Past: History Education and Reconciliation, edited by E. A. Cole.

Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

Crawfurd, John. 1856. Descriptive Dictionary of the Indian Islands and Adjacent

Countries. London: Bradbury and Evans.

Croce, Benedetto. [1919] 1960. History: Its Theory and Practice. Reprint, New York:

Russell and Russell.

Dabashi, Hamid. 2009. Post-Orientalism: Knowledge and Power in Time of Terror. New

Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

Davis, Eric. 2005. Memories of State: Politics, History, and Collective Identity in Modern

Iraq. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Del Balso, Michael and Alan D. Lewis. [1997] 2001. First Steps: A Guide to Social

Research. 2nd ed. Toronto: Nelson Thomson Learning.

114 of 144

Devan, Janadas. 1999. “My Country and My People: Forgetting to Remember.” Pp. 21-

33 in Our Place in Time: Exploring Heritage and Memory in Singapore, edited by K. K.

Woon, L. Hong, and B. Yeoh. Singapore: Singapore Heritage Society.

------. 2007. “Let Other Voices Add to Singapore Story.” The Straits Times, July 28, S9.

Dirlik, Arif. 1999. “Is There History After Eurocentrism? Globalism, Postcolonialism, and the Disavowal of History.” Cultural Critique 42:1-34.

Duara, Prasenjit. 1995. Rescuing History from the Nation: Questioning Narratives of

Modern China. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Durkheim, Emile. [1938] 1982. The Rules of Sociological Method. Translated by W. D.

Halls. Reprint, New York: Free Press.

Fanon, Frantz. [1952] 1967. Black Skin, White Masks. Translated by C. L. Markmann.

Reprint, New York: Grove Press.

------. [1961] 1967. Wretched of the Earth. Translated by C. Farrington. Reprint,

Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Fiske, John and John Hartley. 1978. Reading Television. London: Methuen.

115 of 144

Fitzgerald, John. 1995. “The Nationless State: The Search for a Nation in Modern

Chinese Nationalism.” The Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs 33:75-104.

Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated by A.

Sheridan. New York: Pantheon.

Fredriksen, Birger and Tan Jee-Peng. 2008. “East Asia Education Study Tour: An

Overview of Key Insights.” Pp. 1-60 in An African Exploration of the East Asian Education

Experience, edited by B. Fredriksen and Jee-Peng Tan. Washington D.C.: World Bank.

Furnivall, John Sydenham. 1948. Colonial Policy and Practice: A Comparative Study of

Burma and Netherlands India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Geary, Patrick J. 2002. The Myth of Nations: The Medieval Origins of Europe. Princeton,

N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Gerhard, Dietrich. 1973. “Periodization in History.” Pp. 476-81 in Dictionary of the

History of Ideas: Studies of Selected Pivotal Ideas. Vol. 3, edited by P. P. Weiner. New

York: Scribner.

Gibson-Hill, C. A. 1954. “Singapore: Notes on the History of the Old Strait 1580-1850.”

British Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 27(1):163-214.

116 of 144

Goh, C. Boon and Saravanan Gopinathan. 2005. “History Education and the Construction of National Identity in Singapore, 1945-2000.” Pp. 203-25 in History Education and

National Identity in East Asia, edited by E. Vickers and A. Jones. New York: Routledge.

Gopinathan, S. 1991. “Education.” Pp. 268-87 in A History of Singapore, edited by E. C. T.

Chew and E. Lee. Singapore: Oxford University Press.

Grossberg, Lawrence. 1993. “Cultural Studies and/in New Worlds.” Pp. 89-105 in Race,

Identity and Representation in Education, edited by C. McCarthy and W. Crichlow. New

York: Routledge.

Hack, Karl and Jean-Louis Margolin. 2010. “Singapore: Reinventing the Global City.” Pp.

3-36 in Singapore from Temasek to the 21st century, edited by K. Hack, Jean-Louis

Margolin, and K. Delaye. Singapore: NUS Press.

Hack, Karl, Jean-Louis Margolin and Karine Delaye, eds. 2010. Singapore from Temasek to the 21st century. Singapore: NUS Press.

Haldar, Piyel. 2007. Law, Orientalism and Postcolonialism: The Jurisdiction of the Lotus

Eaters. Abingdon: Routledge-Cavendish.

117 of 144

Hall, D. G. E. [1955] 1964. A History of South-East Asia. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan.

Hall, Stuart. 1996. “When was 'The Post-colonial'? Thinking at the Limit.” Pp. 242-60 in

The Post-colonial Question: Common Skies, Divided Horizons, edited by I. Chambers and

L. Curti. London: Routledge.

Halliday, Fred. 1993. “Orientalism and its Critics.” British Journal of Middle Eastern

Studies 20(2):145-63.

Haraway, Donna. 1988. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 14(3):575-99.

Harper, Tim. 2010. “The British Malayans.” Pp. 233-68 in Settlers and Expatriates:

Britons over the Seas, edited by R. Bickers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Haughton, H. T. 1982. “The Landing of Raffles in Singapore.” Pp. 74-5 in Singapore 150

Years, edited by M. Sheppard. Singapore: Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society,

Times Book International.

Healy, Chris. 1997. From the Ruins of Colonialism: History as Social Memory. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

118 of 144

Heffernan, Valerie, 2007. Provocation from the Periphery: Robert Walser Re-examined.

Wurzburg: Konigshausen and Neumann.

Hefner, Robert W. 2001. “Introduction: Multiculturalism and Citizenship in Malaysia,

Singapore and Indonesia.” Pp. 1-58 in The Politics of Multiculturalism: Pluralism and

Citizenship in Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia, edited by R. W. Hefner. Honolulu:

University of Hawaii Press.

Heng, Thiam Soon Derek, ed. 2006. New Perspectives and Sources on the History of

Singapore: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach. Singapore: National Library Board.

------. 2009. “Review: The Scripting of a National History: Singapore and its Pasts by Hong

Lysa and Huang Jianli.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 41(1):183-5.

------. 2010. “Casting Singapore’s History in the Longue Duree.” Pp. 55-75 in Singapore from Temasek to the 21st century, edited by K. Hack, Jean-Louis Margolin, and K. Delaye.

Singapore: NUS Press.

Hill, Christopher L. 2002. “National Histories and World Systems: Writing Japan, France and the United States.” Pp. 163-84 in Turning Points in Historiography: A Cross Cultural

Perspective, edited by Q. E. Wang and G. G. Iggers. New York: The University of

Rochester Press.

119 of 144

Hirschman, Charles. 1986. “The Making of Race in Colonial Malaya: Political Economy and Racial Ideology.” Sociological Forum 1(2):330–61.

Hobson, John Atkinson. [1902] 1948. Imperialism: A Study. Reprint, London: George

Allen and Unwin.

Hong, Lysa and Huang Jianli. 2008. The Scripting of a National History: Singapore and its

Past. Singapore: NUS Press.

Houben, Vincent. 2006. “Southeast Asian History: New Perspectives.” Pp. 140-61 in

Southeast Asian Studies: Debates and New Directions, edited by C. Chou and V. Houben.

Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Hsu, Y. Tsiao. 1986. “Meninjau Sejarah Melayu dari Segi Nilaian Sejarah.” Pp. 37-55 in

Sastera Sejarah: Interpretasi dan Penilaian, edited by Z. Ibrahim. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan

Bahasa dan Pustaka.

Huizinga, Johan. [1959] 1960. Men and Ideas: History, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance.

Translated by J. S. Holmes and H. van Marle. Reprint, London: Eyre and Spottiswoode.

120 of 144

Hussin, Nordin. 2008. “A Critical Review of the Early History Textbooks in Malaysian

Secondary Schools.” Indonesia and the Malay World 36(106): 451-61.

Iskandar, Yusoff. 1986. “Mitos dan Lagenda sebagai Unsur Penulisan Sejarah Melayu.”

Pp. 140-64 in Sastera Sejarah: Interpretasi dan Penilaian, edited by Z. Ibrahim. Kuala

Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

Jacobmeyer, Wolfgang. 1990. International Textbook Research. Goteborg: Göteborgs

University.

JanMohamed, Abdul R. 1985. “The Economy of Manichean Allegory: The Function of

Racial Difference in Colonialist Literature.” Critical Inquiry 12(1):59-87.

Jones, M. McAllester. 1991. Gaston Bachelard, Subversive Humanist: Texts and

Readings. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Jong, P. E. de Josselin. 1964. “The Character of the Malay Annals.” Pp. 235-41 in

Malayan and Indonesian Studies, edited by J. Bastin and R. Roolvink. Oxford: The

Clarendon Press.

Josey, Alex. 1968. Lee Kuan Yew. Singapore: Donald Moore Press.

121 of 144

Kassim, Ismail. 1974. Problems of Elite Cohesion: A Perspective from a Minority

Community. Singapore: Singapore University Press.

Kennedy, Valerie. 2000. Edward Said: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Khondker, Habibul H. 2003. “A Pendular Theory of Nationalism.” Working Paper No. 15,

Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore.

Koh, K. We. 2009. “Gateway and Panopticon: Singapore and Surviving Regime Change in the Nineteenth-century Malay World.” Pp. 39-68 in Reframing Singapore: Memory –

Identity – Trans-Regionalism, edited by D. Heng and S. M. K. Aljunied. Amsterdam:

Amsterdam University Press.

Koh, Tommy, Timothy Auger, Jimmy Yap, and Ng Wei Chian, eds. 2006. Singapore: The

Encyclopedia. Singapore: Didier Millet and National Heritage Board.

Kojeve, Alexandre. 1980. “In Place of an Introduction.” Pp. 3-30 in Introduction to the

Reading of Hegel, edited by A. Bloom. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Kratoska, Paul H. 2005. “Textbook History in Malaysia and Singapore: Divergent

Accounts of a Common Past.” Presented at the conference of Teaching the Nation: The

Power of Schoolbooks, May 31 – June 3.

122 of 144

Kreisky, Bruno and Humayun Gauhar. 1987. “Introduction.” Pp. 1-7 in Decolonization and After: The Future of the Third World, edited by B. Kreisky and H. Gauhar. London:

Southern Publications.

Kuper, Hilda. 1964. “The Colonial Situation in Southern Africa.” Journal of Modern

African Studies 2(2):149-64.

Kwa, C. Guan. 1999. “Remembering Ourselves.” Pp. 47-58 in Our Place in Time:

Exploring Heritage and Memory in Singapore, edited by K. K. Woon et al. Singapore:

Singapore Heritage Society.

------. 1998. “Studying Singapore before Raffles.” Pp. 12-37 in Malay/Muslims and the

History of Singapore, edited by S. H. Alatas, K. K. Kim, and K. C. Guan. Singapore: Centre of Research on Islamic and Muslim Affairs.

------. 2006. “Why did Tengku Hussein Sign the 1819 Treaty with Stamford Raffles?” Pp.

1-35 in Malay/Muslims in Singapore: Selected Readings in History 1819-1965, edited by

K. K. Kim, E. Abdullah, and W. M. Hao. Subang Jaya, Selangor: Pelanduk Publications.

123 of 144

------. 1998. “Questions, Answers and Comments.” Pp. 39-61 in Malay/Muslims and the

History of Singapore, edited by S. H. Alatas, K. K. Kim, and K. C. Guan. Singapore: Centre of Research on Islamic and Muslim Affairs.

Kwa, C. Guan, Derek Heng, and Tan T. Yong. 2009. A 700-year History: From Early

Emporium to World City. Singapore: National Archives of Singapore.

Lamming, George. 1960. The Pleasures of Exile. London: Michael Joseph.

Lau, Albert. 1992. “The National Past and the Writing of History of Singapore.” Pp. 46-68 in Imagining Singapore, edited by B. K. Choon, A. Pakir, and T. C. Kiong. Singapore:

Times Academic Press.

------. 2005. “Nation-Building and the Singapore Story: Some Issues in the Study of

Contemporary Singapore History.” Pp. 221-50 in Nation-building: Five Southeast Asian

Histories, edited by W. Gungwu. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Lee, Edwin. 1989. “The Colonial Legacy.” Pp. 3-50 in Management of Success: The

Moulding of Modern Singapore, edited by K. S. Sandhu and P. Wheatley. Singapore:

Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

124 of 144

Leur, Jacob Cornelis van. 1955. Indonesian Trade and Society: Essays in Asian Social and

Economic History. Translated by J. S. Holmes and A. van Marle. The Hague: Van Hoeve.

Levi-Strauss, Claude. 1966. The Savage Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lewis, Bernard. 2000. “The Question of Orientalism.” Pp. 249-73 in Orientalism: A

Reader, edited by A. L. Macfie. New York: New York University Press.

Lewis, Reina. 1995. Gendering Orientalism: Race, Femininity and Representation.

London: Routledge.

Li, Tania. 1989. Malays in Singapore: Culture, Economy and Ideology. Singapore: Oxford

University Press.

Lim, A. Joo-Jock. 1991. “Geographical Setting.” Pp. 3-14 in A History of Singapore, edited by E. C. T. Chew and E. Lee. Singapore: Oxford University Press.

Linehan, W. 1982. “Kings of 14th Century Singapore.” Pp. 57-66 in Singapore 150 Years, edited by M. Sheppard. Singapore: Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Times

Book International.

------. [1936] 1973. A History of Pahang. Reprint, Singapore: Printers Ltd.

125 of 144

Han, Mui Ling. 2003. “From Travelogues to Guidebooks: Imagining Colonial Singapore,

1819-1940.” SOJOURN: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia 18(2):257-78.

Loh, Kah Seng. 1998. “Within the Singapore Story: The Use and Narrative of History in

Singapore.” Crossroads: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 12(2):1-

21.

Low, Cheryl-Ann M. G. 2004. “Singapore from the 14th to 19th Century.” Pp. 14-40 in

Early Singapore 1300s-1819: Evidence in Maps, Text and Artefacts, edited J. N. Miksic and Cheryl-Ann L. M. Gek. Singapore: Singapore History Museum.

Ludden, David. 1993. “Orientalist Empiricism: Transformations of Colonial Knowledge.”

Pp. 250-78 in Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament: Perspectives on South Asia, edited by C. A. Breckenridge and P. van der Veer. Philadelphia: University of

Pennsylvania Press.

Maaruf, Shaharuddin. 1988. Malay Ideas on Development: From Feudal Lord to

Capitalist. Singapore: Times Books International.

------. 2002. To Err is Human and to Punish Divine: A Study on the Religious Orientation of the Malays. Singapore: National University of Singapore.

126 of 144

Mannheim, Karl. [1936] 1976. Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of

Knowledge. Reprint, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Mauthner, Natasha S. and Andrea Doucet. 2003. “Reflexive Accounts and Accounts of

Reflexivity in Qualitative Data Analysis.” Sociology 37(3):413-31.

Maxwell, W. E. 1881. “An Account of the Malay Chiri: A Sanskrit Formula.” The Journal of Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 13(1):80-101.

McClintock, A. 1992. “The Angel of Progress: Pitfalls of the Term ‘Postcolonialism’.”

Social Text 31/2:84-98.

Memmi, Albert. [1957] 1991. The Colonizer and the Colonized. Translated by H.

Greenfeld. Reprint, Boston: Beacon Press.

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1964. Signs. Translated by Richard C. McCleary. Evanston, IL:

Northwestern University Press.

Miksic, John N. 1985. Archaeological Research on the ‘Forbidden Hill’ of Singapore:

Excavations at Fort Canning, 1984. Singapore: National Museum.

127 of 144

------. 2000. “Recent Archaeological Excavations in Singapore: A Comparison of Three

Fourteenth-century Sites.” Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 20:56-61.

------. 2010. “Temasik to Singapura: Singapore in the 14th and 15th Centuries.” Pp. 103-

32 in Singapore from Temasek to the 21th Century, edited by K. Hack, Jean-Louis

Margolin, and K. Delaye. Singapore: NUS Press.

Miksic, John N. and Cheryl-Ann Low M. G., eds. 2004. Early Singapore 1300s-1819:

Evidence in Maps, Text and Artefacts. Singapore: Singapore History Museum.

Miller, H. E. 1985. “Extracts from the letters of Col. Nahuijs.” Pp. 19-22 in Travellers’

Tales of Old Singapore, edited by M. Wise and M. H. Wise. Singapore: Times Books

International.

Mills, Sara. 1991. Discourses of Difference: An Analysis of Women's Travel Writing and

Colonialism. London: Routledge

Milner, Anthony. 1987. “Colonial Records History: British Malaya.” Modern Asian Studies

21(4):773-92.

------. 2008. The Malays. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

128 of 144

Murfett, Malcolm H., John N. Miksic, Brian P. Farrell, and Chiang M. Shun. 1999.

Between Two Oceans: A Military History of Singapore from First Settlement to Final

British Withdrawal. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nandy, Ashis. 1983. The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self under Colonialism.

Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Olson, David R. 1980. “On the Language and Authority of Textbooks.” Journal of

Communication 30(1):186-96.

Omar, Sharifah M. Syed. 1993. Myths and the Malay Ruling Class. Singapore: Times

Academic Press.

Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. 1993. “On the Theoretical Status of the Concept of

Race.” Pp. 3-10 in Race, Identity and Representation in Education, edited by C. McCarthy and W. Crichlow. New York: Routledge.

Othman, Hussain. 2008. “Conceptual Understanding of Myths and Legends in Malay

History.” SARI: Journal of the Malay World and Civilisation 26:91-110.

Pennycook, Alastair. 1994. The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language.

London: Longman.

129 of 144

Phelan, Peter and Peter Reynolds. 1996. Argument and Evidence: Critical Analysis for the

Social Sciences. London: Routledge.

Pieris, Anoma. 2009. Hidden Hands and Divided Landscapes: A Penal History of

Singapore's Plural Society. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Podeh, Elie. 2000. “History and Memory in the Israeli Educational System: The Portrayal of the Arab-Israeli Conflict in History Textbooks (1948-2000).” History and Memory

12(1):65-100.

Porter, Dennis. 1994. “Orientalism and its Problems.” Pp. 150-61 in Colonial Discourse and Post-colonial Theory: A Reader, edited by P. Williams and L. Chrisman. Hamel

Hempstead, Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Pow-Chong, Gillian. 1984. “14th Century Artifacts Found on Fort Canning.” The Straits

Times, January 28, 1.

------. 1984. “Life Before Raffles.” The Straits Times, March 7, 1.

Prakash, Gyan. 1990. “Writing Post-Orientalist Histories of the Third World: Perspectives from Indian Historiography.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 32(2):383-408.

130 of 144

Putten, Jan van der. 2006. “Abdullah Munsyi and the Missionaries.” Bijdragen tot de

Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 162(4):407-40.

Raffles, Sophia. 1830. Memoir of the Life and Public Services of Sir Thomas Stamford

Raffles. London: John Murray.

Rahim, L. Zubaidah. 1998. The Singapore Dilemma: The Political and Educational

Marginality of the Malay Community. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.

------. 2009. Singapore in the Malay world: Building and Breaching Regional Bridges.

London: Routledge.

Rahmat, Hadijah. 2007. “Portraits of a Nation.” Indonesia and the Malay World

36(106):359-74.

Rajaratnam, S. 1990. “Raja Tells Why We Still Honour Raffles’ Name.” The Straits Times,

May 25, 18.

Ram, Haggay. 2000. “The Immemorial Iranian Nation? School Textbooks and Historical

Memory in Post-revolutionary Iran.” Nations and Nationalism 6(1):67-90.

131 of 144

Ramcharan, Robin. 2002. Forging a Singaporean Statehood, 1965-1995: The

Contribution of Japan. The Hague, London: Kluwer Law International.

Reid, Anthony. 2001. “Understanding Melayu (Malay) as a Source of Diverse Modern

Identities.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 32(3):295-313.

------. 2010a. “Singapore Between Cosmopolis and Nation.” Pp. 37-54 in Singapore from

Temasek to the 21st Century, edited by K. Hack, Jean-Louis Margolin, and K. Delaye.

Singapore: NUS Press.

------. 2010b. “Violence at Sea: Unpacking ‘Piracy’ in the Claims of States over Asian

Seas.” Pp. 15-26 in Elusive Pirates, Pervasive Smugglers: Violence and Clandestine Trade in the Greater China Seas, edited by R. J. Anthony. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University

Press.

Reith, G. M. 1907. Handbook to Singapore. Singapore: Fraser and Neave.

Renan, Ernest. 1990. “What is a Nation?” Pp. 8-22 in Nation and Narration, edited by H.

K. Bhabha. London, New York: Routledge.

Reynolds, Craig J. 2006. Seditious Histories: Contesting Thai and Southeast Asian Pasts.

Seattle: University of Washington Press.

132 of 144

Rockhill, W. W. 1915. “Notes on the Relations and Trade of China with the Eastern

Archipelago and the Coast of the Indian Ocean during the Fourteenth Century. Part 2.”

T'oung Pao 16(1):61-159.

Roman, Leslie G. 1993. “White is a Color! White Defensiveness, Postmodernism, and

Anti-Racist Pedagogy.” Pp. 71-88 in Race, Identity and Representation in Education, edited by C. McCarthy and W. Crichlow. New York: Routledge.

Said, Edward. [1978] 1979. Orientalism. Reprint, London: Routledge & K. Paul.

Sartre, Jean-Paul. [1976] 1991. Critique of Dialectical Reason. Translated by A. Sheridan-

Smith. Reprint, London: Verso.

Schissler, Hanna. [2004] 2005. “World History: Making Sense of the Present.” Pp. 228-46 in The Nation, Europe and the World: Textbooks and Curricula in Transition, edited by H.

Schissler and Y. N. Soysal. Reprint, New York: Berghahn Press.

Shamsul, A. Baharuddin. 1998. “Arguments and Discourses in Malaysian Studies: In

Search of Alternatives.” Presented at the conference of International Workshop on

Alternative Discourses in the Social Sciences and Humanities: Beyond Orientalism and

Occidentalism, May 30 – June 1. National University of Singapore.

133 of 144

------. 1999. “Colonial Knowledge and the Construction of Malay and Malayness:

Exploring the Literary Component.” SARI: Journal of the Malay World and Civilisation

17:3-17.

------. 2001. “A History of an Identity, an Identity of a History: The Idea and Practice of

‘Malayness’ in Malaysia Reconsidered.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 32(3):355-66.

Smail, John R. W. 1961. “On the Possibility of an Autonomous History of Modern

Southeast Asia.” Journal of Southeast Asian History 2(1):72-102.

Smith, Anthony D. 1991. National Identity. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Soda, Naoki. 2001. “The Malay World in Textbooks: The Transmission of Colonial

Knowledge in British Malaya.” Southeast Asian Studies 39(2):188-234.

Spanos, William V. 2009. The Legacy of Edward W. Said. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 1987. In Other Worlds: Essays in Cultural Politics. New York:

Methuen.

134 of 144

------. [1995] 2003. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” Pp. 24-28 in The Post-colonial Studies

Reader, edited by B. Ashcroft, G. Griffiths, and H. Tiffin. Reprint, London: Routledge.

Strath, Bo. 2002. “A European Identity: To the Historical Limits of a Concept.” European

Journal of Social Theory 5(4):387-401.

Suppiah, Manogaran. 2006. “The Temenggongs of Telok Blangah: The Progenitor of

Modern Johor.” Pp. 37-77 in Malay/Muslims in Singapore: Selected Readings in History

1819-1965, edited by K. K. Kim, E. Abdullah, and W. M. Hao. Subang Jaya, Selangor:

Pelanduk Publications.

Suratman, Suriani. 2005. Problematic Singapore Malays: The Making of a Portrayal.

Singapore: National University of Singapore.

Talib, Ismail. 1998. "After the (Unwritten) ‘Postcolonial’ in Southeast Asia: What

Happens Next?" Pp. 59-70 in The Silent Word: Textual Meaning and the Unwritten, edited by R. J. C. Young, B. K. Choon, and R. B. H. Goh. Singapore: Singapore University

Press.

Tan, Eugene H. C., comp. 1998. The Singapore Story: A Learning Nation. A Select

Bibliography. Singapore: National Reference Library, National Library Board.

135 of 144

Tan, J. Poh-joo. 1982. “Teaching of History in Singapore Schools (1959-1980).” BA(Hons)

Thesis, Department of History, National University of Singapore, Singapore.

Tarling, Nicholas. 1963. Piracy and Politics in the Malay World: A Study of British

Imperialism in Nineteenth-century South-East Asia. Singapore: Donald Moore.

Tay, Simon S. C. 1996. “Human Rights, Culture, and the Singapore Example.” McGill Law

Journal 41:743-80.

Thiongo, Ngugi wa. 1986. Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language in African

Literature. London: James Currey.

Tim, Yap F. et al, comp. 1998. A Sense of History: A Select Bibliography on the History of

Singapore. Singapore: National University of Singapore Library.

Tregonning, K. Gordon. 1969. "The Historical Background." Pp. 14-9 in Modern

Singapore, edited by O. Jin-Bee and C. H. Ding. Singapore: University of Singapore.

Trocki, Carl A. [1979] 2007. Prince of the Pirates. The Temenggongs and the

Development of Johor and Singapore 1784-1885. 2nd ed. Singapore: NUS Press.

------. 2006. Singapore: Wealth, Power and the Culture of Control. London: Routledge.

136 of 144

Trouillot, Michel-Rolph. 1995. Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History.

Boston, Mass: Beacon Press.

Turnbull, Constance M. 1977. A History of Singapore, 1819-1975. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford

University Press.

Van den Berghe, Peter L. 1990. “Why Most Sociologists Don't (and Won't) Think

Evolutionarily.” Sociological Forum 5(2):173-85.

Van der Veer, Peter. 1994. Religious Nationalism: Hindus and Muslims in India. Berkeley,

CA: University of California Press.

Vaziri, Mostafa. 1993. Iran as Imagined Nation: The Construction of National Identity.

New York: Paragon House.

Velayutham, Selvaraj. 2007. Responding to Globalization: Nation, Culture and Identity in

Singapore. Singapore: ISEAS.

Wake, Christopher H. 1975. “Raffles and the Rajas: The Founding of Singapore in

Malayan and British Colonial History.” Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal

Asiatic Society 48(1):47-73.

137 of 144

Watson-Gegeo, Karen A. 2004. “Mind, Language, and Epistemology: Toward a Language

Socialization Paradigm for SLA.” The Modern Language Journal 88(3):331-50.

Wee, C. J. Wan-ling. 2003. “Our Island Story: Economic Development and the National

Narrative in Singapore.” Pp. 141-67 in New Terrains in Southeast Asian History, edited by

A. T. Ahmad and T. L. Ee. Athens: Ohio University Press.

------. 2007. The Asian Modern: Culture, Capitalist Development, Singapore. Singapore:

NUS Press.

Ong, Weichong. 2010. “The Singapore Story: More than a State-Imposed Narrative.”

RSIS Commentaries (118). Retrieved March 1, 2011

(http://www.rsis.edu.sg/publications/Perspective/RSIS0442010.pdf).

Wheatley, Paul. 1961. The Golden Khersonese: Studies in the Historical Geography of the

Malay Peninsula before A. D. 1500. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press.

White, Hayden. 1973. Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century

Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Whitehead, Alfred N. 1933. Adventures of Ideas. New York: The Macmillan Company.

138 of 144

Winichakul, Thongchai. 2003. “Writing at the Interstices: Southeast Asian Historians and

Postnational Histories in Southeast Asia.” Pp. 3-29 in New Terrains in Southeast Asian

History, edited by A. T. Ahmad and T. L. Ee. Athens. Athens: Ohio University Press.

Wolters, O. W. 1970. The Fall of Srivijaya in Malay History. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford

University Press.

Wong, Lin K. 1991. “The Strategic Importance of Singapore in Modern History.” Pp. 17-

35 in A History of Singapore, edited by E. C. T. Chew and E. Lee. Singapore: Oxford

University Press.

Wong, Ting-Hong and Michael W. Apple. 2003. “Rethinking the Education-State

Formation Connection: The State, Cultural Struggles, and Changing the School.” Pp. 81-

107 in The State and the Politics of Knowledge, edited by M. W. Apple and P. Aasen.

London, New York: Routledge.

Yao, Souchou. 2007. Singapore: The State and the Culture of Excess. London: Routledge.

Yeğenoğlu, Meyda. 1998. Colonial Fantasies: Towards a Feminist Reading of Orientalism.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

139 of 144

Yeoh, Brenda S. A. 2003. “Changing Conceptions of Space in History Writing: A Selective

Mapping of Writings on Singapore.” Pp. 30-55 in New Terrains in Southeast Asian

History, edited by A. T. Ahmad and T. L. Ee. Athens: Ohio University Press.

Young, Robert. 1990. White Mythologies: Writing History and the West. London:

Routledge.

Zinn, Howard. 1997. The Zinn Reader: Writings on Disobedience and Democracy. New

York: Seven Stories Press.

“Ministry Agrees to Changes in School History Book.” The Straits Times, September 16,

1970, 6.

“Perayaan Terasasnya 150 tahun Singapura Moden Dikecam: Tidak Melambangkan

Wujudnya Melayu.” Utusan Melayu, August 28, 1969, 3.

Ho, Tzu N. 2003. Utama: Every name in history is 1. [DVD] Singapore: Objectifs Films.

140 of 144

Appendix A List of Singapore History Textbooks

Curriculum Development Institute of Singapore, Ministry of Education Singapore. [1984]

1985. Social and Economic History of Modern Singapore. Reprint, Singapore: Longman.

------. [1984] 1996. History of Modern Singapore. Reprint, Singapore: Longman.

Curriculum Planning and Development Division, Ministry of Education Singapore. [1999]

2004. Understanding Our Past: Singapore from Colony to Nation. Reprint, Singapore:

Federal Publications.

------. 2007. Singapore: From Settlement to Nation, Pre-1819 to 1971. Singapore: EPB Pan

Pacific.

Dance, E. H. and G. P. Dartford. 1960. Malayan and World History. Book 3 - Malaya and the Modern World. London: Longmans.

Hilton, Philip B. and D. J. Tate. [1961] 1963. South-east Asia in World History. Book 2 -

The Expansion of Europe. Reprint, London: Oxford University Press.

141 of 144

Lim, Chin T. and D. J. Tate. [1969] 1972. Oxford Progressive History for Singapore. Book 1

- The Ancient World. 2nd ed. Singapore: Oxford University Press.

Mallal, Munir A and S. B. Lan. [1962] 1963. Primary History for Malayans. Book 3 - Part

1. Reprint, Singapore: Far Eastern Publishers.

----. [1962] 1968. Primary History for Malayans. Book 3 - Part 2. Reprint, Singapore: Far

Eastern Publishers.

Menon, Kanichat R. [1960] 1961. History in the Malayan Primary School. Book 1.

Reprint, Singapore: India Publishing House.

------. [1961] 1963. History in Singapore Schools. Primary 6. Rev. ed. Singapore: India

Publishing House.

Nazareth, Philip N. 1956. Riwayat Tanah Melayu. Singapore: Peter Chong and Co.

------. [1956] 1959. The Malayan Story. Reprint, London: Macmillan.

------. [1962] 1968. The Story of Malaya and Her Neighbours. Rev. ed. Singapore: La Salle

Publications.

142 of 144

------. 1964. The Story of Malaysia. Singapore: La Salle Publications.

------. 1965. Kesah Malaysia. Singapore: La Salle Publications.

Nigel, Kelly and Goh Phay Y. 1999. Discovering History 1. Singapore: Pearson Education

Asia.

Rajendra N. and V. Rajendra V. [1966] 1968. World History for Secondary Schools. Book

1. Reprint, Kuala Lumpur: Longman.

------. 1972. New Secondary Histories. Book 2. Kuala Lumpur: Longman.

Sutton, H. T. 1967. Singapore in World History. Singapore: Federal Publications.

Tan, Ding E. [1975] 1983. A Portrait of Malaysia and Singapore. 2nd ed. Singapore:

Oxford University Press.

Tan, Keng K. 1965. A Primary History Course for Singapore Schools. Book 3. Kuala

Lumpur: Macmillan.

Tan, Suan I. [1970] 1971. The Pioneering Years. Reprint, Singapore: Educational

Publications Bureau, Ministry of Education.

143 of 144

------. 1971a. Tahun-tahun Penerokaan: Tawarikh bagi Darjah 3. Singapura: EPB untuk

Biro Penerbitan Pendidekan.

------. 1971b. Banyak Bangsa, Banyak Ugama. Singapura: Biro Penerbitan Pendidekan.

------. [1971] 1972a. Many Races, Many Religions. Reprint, Singapore: Educational

Publications Bureau.

------. 1972b. War and Peace. Part 1. Singapore: Educational Publications Bureau.

------. 1972c. War and Peace. Part 2. Singapore: Educational Publications Bureau.

------. 1973. Nenek Moyang Kita Sa-bagai Peneroka: Tawarikh bagi Darjah Tiga.

Singapore: Biro Penerbitan Pendidekan, Kementerian Pelajaran dan Jabatan Sejarah

Universiti Singapura.

144 of 144