Eisen Teo reviews Singapore: A 700-Year History and learns a few new things.
IF FOR you the story of Raffles and the Japanese occupation are the only things you easily remember about Singapore's history, then getting your hands on Singapore, A 700-Year History: From Early Emporium To World City could change the way you perceive this island's past.
Penned by Mr Kwa Chong Guan, Professor Tan Tai Yong and Assistant Professor Derek Heng, this book is a local history lesson with a difference, with tales far removed from the standard fare drilled into us at secondary school.
For one, it debunks the notion that Singapore's history truly began only when Sir Stamford Raffles docked at the banks of the Singapore River in 1819.
Another oft-downplayed narrative the book highlights is one that falls between the 1820s and the 1930s — how Singapore gradually evolved from a maritime emporium dependent on East-West trade routes to a port serving the rich Malayan hinterland.
Rewritten too is Singapore's military history — instead of just harping on the Japanese Occupation, the book documents 150 years of how Singapore figured in the British Empire’s broader strategic concerns of defending its vast sprawl of colonies.
But the main draw has to be the bold attempt by the authors to pull back another 500 years of Singapore's history.
Singapore did not merely take a back seat to history between its heyday as a trading emporium in the 14th century, and the time Raffles set up a trading post at the Singapore River, they argue.
In fact, Singapore's "founding" in 1819 is detailed in Chapter 7 – almost halfway through the book.
After the rise of Melaka and the decline of Singapura as a thriving port by the 15th century, Singapore still figured heavily in the strategic considerations of first the Melaka Sultanate and then the Johore Empire.
It was one possible point of contention for the sparring Portuguese and Acehnese on one side, and the Dutch and Johoreans on the other, in the 16th and 17th centuries.
At different times, the Dutch and the Portuguese considered setting up forts on the island called present-day Singapore, but didn’t due to different economic or strategic reasons.
Malay, Portuguese and Dutch sources, and archaeological evidence from local sites such as Empress Place and the Old Parliament House, were consulted for this bold thesis.
These arguments have profound repercussions for the way the layman perceives local history: Let's not always study Singapore from a Singapore-based point of view, as an entity shaped by powerful individuals from within, trying to adapt and change according to external circumstances.
Instead, let's look at Singapore from the outside, as part of a larger network – be it economic, military, strategic, or colonial.
Let's look at Singapore as an entity whose destiny was shaped by external circumstances more than powerful individuals.
This book may be styled as a textbook, but don't be overawed – it's still a good read for every Singaporean who wants to know his country better.
And its fresh ideas might just stoke students' interest in local history.
Singapore, A 700-Year History: From Early Emporium To World City by Mr Kwa Chong Guan, Professor Tan Tai Yong and Assistant Professor Derek Heng is available from Kinokuniya, Popular Bookstore, MPH, Select Books, Times Bookstores and Harris Book Company.
Tags:
book,
history,
review,
singapore
Who cares about origin?
I care about tomorrow.
Because tomorow will come.
I ke-sian for me ,my family and my children.
The Straits Times dont want talk about it.
Anyone ..hear my cry for help?
Who more out there?
My name is Salim. I am a electrician in my early forties, married with three school-going children. I tied the knot with my beloved Fariah at the age of 27. My wife used to work as a clerk in a statutory board but is now my minister for domestic affairs.
We live in a four-room flat which we bought some years ago in the south part of Singapore. I am servicing my flat installments through my CPF.
Two of our older children are in secondary school while the youngest is in primary four. I travel to my work place by motor bike to escape the hassle of travelling by feeder bus and the MRT.
I am often told, not too subtly by government and union leaders, that I should consider myself fortunate because I am still gainfully employed. Although my monthly income is about $2,000 my take home amount is less than $1,700.
Besides putting food on the table I also have to take care of other expenses, which include my children’s school expenses, utilities, transportation, etc. Occasionally we have to cope with the unexpected such as when the children fall sick.
At the end of each month we can barely make ends meet.
Life in Singapore is becoming more and more expensive. It is really tough to raise a family. My wife and I also make it a point to keep in touch with our elderly parents and chip in whatever we can to make their retirement less painful. We pray very hard that we never have to be hospitalized because we cannot afford the expenses.
I am nonetheless supposed to be "fortunate". The frightening thing is that there are other ordinary workers who earn even less but have financial obligations no less daunting than mine.
But are we not supposed to be living in the First World and enjoying the Swiss standard of living? Every now and then we are told that Singapore is number one in something or other. Our port is the world’s busiest, SIA is the number one airline, our so-called sovereign fund is among the biggest in the world etc, etc.
I used to feel proud of these achievements. But over the last couple of years I have begun to have second thoughts.
I ask myself what have these achievements got to do with me?
The fact that Changi is number one really has nothing to do with me. The fact that our reserves amount to a few hundred billions has done nothing for the average Singaporean like me. We are still ourselves and still toiling away day in and day out for an income that is not commensurate with the amount of work we put in.
On the other hand, our ministers are the most highly paid in the world as their salaries are pegged to the country’s top earners.
Worse, we now have to compete with foreign workers who threaten our livelihood. We also have the largest number of foreign immigrants percentage wise. No ordinary worker – at least the people I know – feels secure with his or her job. Any talk of increased wages will inevitably be countered by the threat of being retrenched.
The temptation for employers to hire cheaper foreign labour is too attractive to resist. There is absolutely no job security for us.
Should we lose our jobs we are expected to downgrade. This is what I don't understand, we are supposed to be No. 1 in this and that but we constantly face the propsect of having to downgrade.
Worse many have to resort to begging and queueing for free food. This is our country. We have served our country in many ways. Our parents too have done their share in making Singapore what it is today. Surely we deserve better. But alas this is the real situation that exists in Singapore today.
We see little hope for a better life in Singapore unless there is a drastic change in the way this country is being run. What good can our country’s multi-billion reserves do for ordinary people like us? We are beginning to feel that the Singapore of today is only meant for the rich and powerful – many of whom are not Singaporeans.Ordinary Singaporeans like myself exist only to serve their interests.
We truly long for change.
Ordinary Singaporeans deserve to be treated better in our own country.
Well...time to stop advertising for your lecturers
My wife thought Eisen Teo is too pretty to be a boy, then decided ..okay....he needs a proper haircut.
Wow, it is i nteresting. I thought Singapore was a greatest place in soth-east Asia, with banks where Burmese generals hide their loots, vibrant trade, clean streets etc., etc. Please post your thoughts on my blogsite joeblogg4u.wordpress.com.
Forget about wetting your pants over Singapore's bold origins.
Cry for Singapore's future, instead.
Shame , shame, shame, Singapore.
Of course ST will never talk or not be allowed to talk about it.
Sent to me from someone for a wider read:
The reason why the poor in Singapore are not more visible is that the Ministry of Community Development and Sports conduct frequent raids through its Destitute Persons Service, looking for and picking up vagrants. If Singapore seems to have less destitute, it is not because the numbers are not present.
The real reason is that the Government is just much more efficient in clearing the streets of homeless people.
For all the hype claiming that Singapore is a near-paradise, 20 percent of its citizens have indicated that they want to leave the country, predominantly because of the stressful lifestyle and high cost of living. These would-be émigrés are mainly from the strata of younger, higher-income professionals.
With the costs of living rising, or at least not decreasing, and wages continuing to be depressed, Singaporeans are going to facing increasingly dire economic times.
Without any rights, their problems will persist.
1 2 >